Education at a Glance 2015
OECD INDICATORS

2015

Education at a Glance
2015
OECD INDICATORS

This work is published under 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 OECD member countries.
This document and any map included herein are without prejudice to the status of or
sovereignty over any territory, to the delimitation of international frontiers and boundaries
and to the name of any territory, city or area.
Please cite this publication as:
OECD (2015), Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators, OECD Publishing.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/eag-2015-en

ISBN 978-92-64-24208-1 (print)
ISBN 978-92-64-24209-8 (PDF)

The statistical data for Israel are supplied by and under the responsibility of the relevant Israeli authorities. The use
of such data by the OECD is without prejudice to the status of the Golan Heights, East Jerusalem and Israeli settlements
in the West Bank under the terms of international law.
Photo credits:
Stocklib Image Bank © Cathy Yeulet
Fotolia.com © Feng Yu
Getty Images © blue jean images

Corrigenda to OECD publications may be found on line at: www.oecd.org/publishing/corrigenda.
© OECD 2015
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
acknowledgement 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 increasingly looking to international comparisons of education opportunities and outcomes as
they develop policies to enhance individuals’ social and economic prospects, provide incentives for greater efficiency
in schooling, and help to mobilise resources to meet rising demands. The OECD Directorate for Education and Skills
contributes to these efforts by developing and analysing the quantitative, internationally comparable indicators
that it publishes annually in Education at a Glance. Together with OECD country policy reviews, these indicators can
be used to assist governments in building more effective and equitable education systems.
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 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 Indicators of Education Systems (INES)
programme and the OECD Secretariat. The publication was prepared by the staff of the Innovation and Measuring
Progress Division of the OECD Directorate for Education and Skills, under the responsibility of Dirk Van Damme
and Corinne Heckmann and in co-operation with Étienne Albiser, Diogo Amaro de Paula, Esther Carvalhaes,
Rodrigo Castañeda Valle, Éric Charbonnier, Karinne Logez, Soumaya Maghnouj, Gabriele Marconi, Ignacio Marín,
Camila de Moraes, Simon Normandeau, David Potrel, Joris Ranchin, Cuauhtémoc Rebolledo Gómez, Wida Rogh,
Gara Rojas González, Markus Schwabe, David Valenciano and Jean Yip. Administrative support was provided by
Laetitia Dehelle, and additional advice as well as analytical support were provided by Francesco Avvisati, João Collet,
Youna Lanos, William Herrera Penagos, Giannina Rech, Aurélie Rigaud and Antje Thiemann. Marilyn Achiron,
Louise Binns, Marika Boiron, Célia Braga-Schich, Jennifer Cannon, Cassandra Davis, Lynda Hawe, Sophie Limoges,
Camilla Lorentzen and Eric Magnusson provided valuable support in the editorial and production process. 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. This presents
various challenges and trade-offs. First, the indicators need to respond to education issues that are high on
national policy agendas, and where the international comparative perspective can offer added value to what can
be accomplished through national analysis and evaluation. Second, while the indicators should 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 presented in as straightforward a manner as possible,
while remaining sufficiently complex to reflect multi-faceted realities. Fourth, there is a general desire to keep the
indicator set as small as possible, but large enough to be useful to policy makers across countries that face different
challenges in education.
The OECD will continue not only to address these challenges vigorously and develop 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 OECD Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) and its extension
through the Survey of Adult Skills, a product of the Programme for the International Assessment of Adult Competencies
(PIAAC), and the OECD Teaching and Learning International Survey (TALIS), are major efforts to this end.

Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

3

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Number of
the indicator
in the
2014 edition

Editorial ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 13
Introduction............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 15
Reader’s Guide ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 19
About the new ISCED 2011 classification ...................................................................................................................................................................... 23
Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 27
CHAPTER A
Indicator A1
Table A1.1a
Table A1.2a
Table A1.3a
Table A1.4a
Table A1.5a
Table A1.6a

THE OUTPUT OF EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS AND THE IMPACT
OF LEARNING..................................................................................................................................................................................................... 29
To what level have adults studied? .........................................................................................................................................30
Educational attainment of 25-64 year-olds (2014)................................................................................................ 39
Percentage of adults who have attained at least upper secondary education,
by age group (2014) ......................................................................................................................................................................................... 40
Percentage of adults who have attained tertiary education, by type of programme
and age group (2014).................................................................................................................................................................................... 41
Trends in educational attainment, by age group (2000, 2005, 2010 and 2014)............... 42
Adults whose highest level of education is upper secondary or post-secondary
non-tertiary education, by programme orientation and gender (2014) ..................................... 45
Skills and readiness to use information and communication technologies
for problem solving among 25-64 year-olds, by educational attainment (2012)............. 46

Indicator A2
Table A2.1
Table A2.2
Table A2.3
Table A2.4

How many students are expected to complete upper secondary education? ..............48
Upper secondary and post-secondary non-tertiary graduation rates (2013) ...................... 55
Profile of upper secondary graduates, from general and vocational programmes (2013) .... 56
Profile of post-secondary non-tertiary graduates from vocational programmes (2013)..... 57
Upper secondary and post-secondary non-tertiary graduation rates
(2005 and 2013)................................................................................................................................................................................................... 58

Indicator A3

How many young people are expected to complete tertiary education
and what is their profile? ...................................................................................................................................................................60
First-time graduation rates, by tertiary ISCED level (2013) ...................................................................... 72
Profile of a first-time tertiary graduate (2013) ........................................................................................................... 73
Distribution of all tertiary graduates, by field of education (2013) ................................................. 74
Percentage of female and international first-time graduates,
by tertiary ISCED level (2013).......................................................................................................................................................... 75
Percentage of all students and international students who graduate
from sciences and engineering programmes, by tertiary ISCED level (2013) ..................... 76

Table A3.1
Table A3.2
Table A3.3
Table A3.4
Table A3.5
Indicator A4
Table A4.1a
Table A4.2d

To what extent does parents’ education influence their children’s
educational attainment?.......................................................................................................................................................................78
Intergenerational mobility in education, by age group (2012)................................................................ 86
First generation/not first generation tertiary-educated adults, by labour force status,
gender and age group (2012)................................................................................................................................................................ 87
Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

A1

A2

A3

A4

5

Table of Contents

Number of
the indicator
in the
2014 edition

Table A4.2e
Table A4.3a
Indicator A5
Table A5.1a
Table A5.2a
Table A5.3a
Table A5.4a
Table A5.5a
Table A5.6a
Indicator A6
Table A6.1a
Table A6.2a
Table A6.3
Table A6.5a
Table A6.5b
Indicator A7
Table A7.1a
Table A7.1b
Table A7.2a
Table A7.2b
Table A7.3a
Table A7.3b
Table A7.4a
Table A7.4b
Indicator A8
Table A8.1
Table A8.2
Table A8.3a
Table A8.4

6

First generation tertiary-educated adults, by part-time/full-time status,
gender and age group (2012) .............................................................................................................................................................. 88
Likelihood of being among the top 25% in earnings, by parents’ and
own educational attainment, gender and age group (2012)....................................................................... 89
How does educational attainment affect participation in the labour market?.............92
Employment rates, by educational attainment (2014) ................................................................................. 105
Unemployment rates, by educational attainment (2014) ......................................................................... 106
Trends in employment rates, by educational attainment and age group
(2000, 2005, 2010 and 2014) ........................................................................................................................................................ 107
Trends in unemployment rates, by educational attainment and age group
(2000, 2005, 2010 and 2014) ........................................................................................................................................................ 110
Employment, unemployment and inactivity rates of adults with upper secondary
or post-secondary non-tertiary, by programme orientation (2014) ............................................ 113
Skills and readiness to use information and communication technologies
for problem solving among 25-64 year-olds, by ICT skills required at work (2012) ...... 114

A5

What are the earnings advantages from education? .................................................................................116
Relative earnings of workers, by educational attainment, age group
and gender (2013).......................................................................................................................................................................................... 125
Differences in earnings between female and male workers,
by educational attainment and age group (2013) ................................................................................................ 126
Percentage of full-time, full-year earners, part-time earners and people
without earnings, by educational attainment, age group and gender (2013) .................. 127
Relative earnings of 15-24 year-old students with income from employment,
by educational attainment and gender (2013)............................................................................................................ 130
Percentage of 15-29 year-olds with income from employment among
all 15-29 year-olds, by age group, gender and student status (2013) ......................................... 131

A6

What are the financial incentives to invest in education? ................................................................132
Private costs and benefits for a man attaining upper secondary
or post-secondary non-tertiary education (2011) .............................................................................................. 143
Private costs and benefits for a woman attaining upper secondary or post-secondary
non-tertiary education (2011)........................................................................................................................................................ 144
Public costs and benefits for a man attaining upper secondary or post-secondary
non-tertiary education (2011) ..................................................................................................................................................... 145
Public costs and benefits for a woman attaining upper secondary or post-secondary
non-tertiary education (2011) ..................................................................................................................................................... 146
Private costs and benefits for a man attaining tertiary education (2011) ................................ 147
Private costs and benefits for a woman attaining tertiary education (2011) ........................ 148
Public costs and benefits for a man attaining tertiary education (2011) .............................. 149
Public costs and benefits for a woman attaining tertiary education (2011)...................... 150

A7

How are social outcomes related to education?................................................................................................152
Likelihood of reporting to be in good health, by educational attainment (2012)....... 161
Likelihood of reporting to volunteer at least once a month,
by educational attainment (2012) ........................................................................................................................................... 162
Likelihood of reporting to trust others, by educational attainment (2012) ...................... 163
Likelihood of reporting to believe they have a say in government,
by educational attainment (2012) ........................................................................................................................................... 164

A8

Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

Table of Contents

Number of
the indicator
in the
2014 edition

Indicator A9

What is the impact of skills on employment and earnings? ...........................................................166

Table A9.1 (L)

Likelihood of being employed, by educational attainment and literacy proficiency
(2012) ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 175

Table A9.1 (N)

Likelihood of being employed, by educational attainment and numeracy proficiency
(2012) ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 177

Table A9.1 (P)

Likelihood of being employed, by educational attainment and skills and readiness
to use information and communication technologies for problem solving (2012) ........ 179
Difference in hourly earnings, by educational attainment and literacy proficiency
(2012) ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 181

Table A9.2 (L)

Table A9.2 (P)

Difference in hourly earnings, by educational attainment and numeracy proficiency
(2012) ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 183
Difference in hourly earnings, by educational attainment and skills and readiness
to use information and communication technologies for problem solving
(2012) ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 185

Indicator A10

Where are the gender gaps in education and employment? ...........................................................188

Table A10.1

Percentage of low achievers in mathematics, reading and science,
by gender (PISA 2012) .............................................................................................................................................................................. 199

Table A10.2

Gender disparities at age 15 in participation in general, vocational
and modular programmes.................................................................................................................................................................... 202

Table A10.3

Percentage of adults, by field of study of the highest level of education attained
and gender .............................................................................................................................................................................................................. 203

CHAPTER B

FINANCIAL AND HUMAN RESOURCES INVESTED IN EDUCATION ......................... 205

Indicator B1
Table B1.1a
Table B1.2

How much is spent per student? ...........................................................................................................................................208
Annual expenditure per student by educational institutions for all services (2012) ...... 219
Annual expenditure per student by educational institutions for core services,
ancillary services and R&D (2012) .......................................................................................................................................... 220
Annual expenditure per student by educational institutions for all services,
relative to per capita GDP (2012) ............................................................................................................................................. 221
Change in expenditure per student by educational institutions for all services,
relative to different factors, at the primary, secondary and post-secondary
non-tertiary levels of education (2000, 2005, 2008, 2010, 2011, 2012) ............................... 222
Change in expenditure per student by tertiary education institutions for all services,
relative to different factors (2000, 2005, 2008, 2010, 2011, 2012) ............................................. 223

Table A9.2 (N)

Table B1.4
Table B1.5a

Table B1.5b
Table B1.6

Annual expenditure per student by secondary educational institutions
for all services, by type of programme (2012) .......................................................................................................... 224

Indicator B2

What proportion of national wealth is spent on education? .........................................................226

Table B2.1

Expenditure on educational institutions as a percentage of GDP,
by level of education (2012)............................................................................................................................................................. 233

Table B2.2

Trends in expenditure on educational institutions as a percentage of GDP,
by level of education (2000, 2005, 2008, 2010, 2011, 2012) ................................................................ 234

Table B2.3

Expenditure on educational institutions as a percentage of GDP,
by source of funding and level of education (2012) .......................................................................................... 235

Table B2.4

Change in public expenditure on educational institutions, as a percentage
of GDP (2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012).......................................................................................................................... 236
Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

B1

B2

7

Table of Contents

Number of
the indicator
in the
2014 edition

Indicator B3

How much public and private investment in education is there? ...........................................238

Table B3.1

Relative proportions of public and private expenditure on educational institutions,
by level of education (2012)............................................................................................................................................................. 248

Table B3.2a

Trends in the proportion of public expenditure on educational institutions
and index of change in public and private expenditure, at primary, secondary,
post-secondary non-tertiary level (2000, 2005, 2008, 2010 to 2012) ...................................... 249

Table B3.2b

Trends in the proportion of public expenditure on tertiary education institutions
and index of change in public and private expenditure
(2000, 2005, 2008, 2010 to 2012)........................................................................................................................................... 250

Table B3.3

Annual public expenditure on educational institutions per student,
by type of institution (2012) .......................................................................................................................................................... 251

Indicator B4

What is the total public spending on education? ...........................................................................................252

Table B4.1

Total public expenditure on education (2012) ......................................................................................................... 259

Table B4.2

Trends in total public expenditure on primary to tertiary education
(2000, 2005, 2008, 2010, 2011, and 2012) ................................................................................................................. 260

Table B4.3

Sources of public funds for education, for primary, secondary and post-secondary
non-tertiary education (2012) ..................................................................................................................................................... 261

Indicator B5

How much do tertiary students pay and what public support do they receive? ......262

Table B5.1a

Estimated annual average tuition fees charged by educational institutions
(bachelor’s, master’s, doctoral or equivalent level) (2013-14) ............................................................. 275

Table B5.3

Financial support to students and tuition fees charged by educational institutions
(2013-14) ................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 277

Table B5.4

Public loans to students in bachelor’s, master’s, doctoral or equivalent programmes
(2013-14) ................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 278

Table B5.5

Repayment and remission of public loans to students in bachelor’s, master’s,
doctoral or equivalent programmes (academic year 2013/14) ............................................................ 280

Indicator B6
Table B6.1

On what resources and services is education funding spent? ......................................................282
Expenditure by primary and secondary educational institutions,
by resource category (2012)............................................................................................................................................................. 287

Table B6.2

Expenditure by educational institutions, by resource category
and level of education (2012)......................................................................................................................................................... 288

Indicator B7

Which factors influence the level of expenditure on education?.............................................290

Table B7.1

Salary cost of teachers per student, by level of education (2013) .......................................................... 299

Table B7.2a

Factors used to compute the salary cost of teachers per student,
in primary education (2005, 2010 and 2013) ........................................................................................................... 300

Table B7.2b

Factors used to compute the salary cost of teachers per student,
in lower secondary education (2005, 2010 and 2013)................................................................................... 302

Table B7.3

Contribution of various factors to salary cost of teachers per student
in primary education (2005, 2010 and 2013) ........................................................................................................... 304

Table B7.4

Contribution of various factors to salary cost of teachers per student
in lower secondary education (2005, 2010 and 2013)................................................................................... 305

Table B7.5

Contribution of various factors to salary cost of teachers per student
in upper secondary education (2013).................................................................................................................................. 306

8

Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

B3

B4

B5

B6

B7

Table of Contents

Number of
the indicator
in the
2014 edition

CHAPTER C

ACCESS TO EDUCATION, PARTICIPATION AND PROGRESSION.................................. 307

Indicator C1

Who participates in education? ..............................................................................................................................................308

Table C1.1a

Enrolment rates, by age group (2013) ................................................................................................................................ 316

Table C1.2

Percentage of students in upper secondary and post-secondary
non-tertiary education, by programme orientation and age group (2013)......................... 317

Table C1.3

Percentage of students in tertiary ISCED levels and total tertiary, by intensity
of study and gender (2013) ................................................................................................................................................................. 318

Table C1.4a

Percentage of students in primary and secondary education, by type of institution
(2013) ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 319

Table C1.4b

Percentage of students in tertiary ISCED level and total tertiary,
by type of institution (2013) .......................................................................................................................................................... 320

Table C1.5

Expected years in education from age 5 through 39, by level of education,
intensity of study and gender (2013) .................................................................................................................................. 321

Indicator C2

How do early childhood education systems differ around the world?..............................322

Table C2.1

Enrolment rates in early childhood education and primary education,
by age (2005, 2013)...................................................................................................................................................................................... 333

Table C2.2

Profile of early childhood educational development programmes
and pre-primary education (2013) .......................................................................................................................................... 334

Table C2.3

Expenditure on early childhood educational institutions (2012).................................................... 335

Table C2.4

Profile of education-only and integrated pre-primary programmes (2013) ...................... 336

Table C2.5

Coverage of early childhood education programmes in OECD
and partner countries .............................................................................................................................................................................. 337

Indicator C3

How many students are expected to enter tertiary education?.................................................340

Table C3.1

First-time entry rates, by tertiary ISCED level (2013) .......................................................................................... 348

Table C3.2

Profile of first-time new entrants into tertiary education (2013) .................................................. 349

Table C3.3

Profile of first-time new entrants into bachelor’s programmes (2013) ................................... 350

Table C3.4

Profile of first-time new entrants, by level of education (2013) ....................................................... 351

Indicator C4

Who studies abroad and where? ............................................................................................................................................352

Table C4.1

International student mobility and foreign students in tertiary education (2013)....... 363

Table C4.2

Distribution of international and foreign students enrolled in tertiary programmes,
by field of education (2013) ............................................................................................................................................................. 364

Table C4.3

Distribution of international and foreign students in tertiary education,
by country of origin (2013) ................................................................................................................................................................. 365

Table C4.4

Students abroad in tertiary education, by country of destination (2013)........................................ 367

Table C4.5

Mobility patterns of foreign and international students (2013)...................................................... 369

Indicator C5

Transition from school to work: Where are the 15-29 year-olds? ..........................................370

Table C5.2a

Percentage of 15-29 year-olds in education/not in education, by work status,
age group and gender (2014)............................................................................................................................................................ 378

Table C5.3a

Percentage of 15-29 year-olds in education/not in education,
by educational attainment, work status and gender (2014)................................................................... 380

Table C5.4a

Percentage of 15-29 year-olds in education/not in education, by number
of hours worked and age group (2014) .............................................................................................................................. 381

Table C5.4b

Percentage of 15-29 year-olds in education/not in education, by number
of hours worked and gender (2014) ...................................................................................................................................... 382
Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

C1

C2

C3

C4

C5

9

Table of Contents

Number of
the indicator
in the
2014 edition

Indicator C6

How many adults participate in education and learning? .................................................................384

Table C6.1 (P)

Participation in employer-sponsored formal and/or non-formal education,
by skills and readiness to use information and communication technologies
for problem solving (2012) ............................................................................................................................................................... 395

Table C6.2a

Participation in employer-sponsored education, by educational attainment
(2011, 2012) ........................................................................................................................................................................................................ 396

Table C6.2c

Participation in employer-sponsored education, by occupation (2011, 2012) ............... 397

Table C6.2d

Participation in employer-sponsored formal and/or non-formal education,
by working hours and contract type (2012) ................................................................................................................ 398

Table C6.3a

Participation in employer-sponsored formal and/or non-formal education,
by use of learning at work (2012) ............................................................................................................................................. 399

CHAPTER D

THE LEARNING ENVIRONMENT AND ORGANISATION OF SCHOOLS.................... 401

Indicator D1
Table D1.1
Table D1.2
Table D1.3a
Table D1.3b

How much time do students spend in the classroom? ............................................................................402
Instruction time in compulsory general education (2015) ...................................................................... 411
Organisation of compulsory general education (2015) ................................................................................ 413
Instruction time per subject in primary education (2015) ...................................................................... 414
Instruction time per subject in general lower secondary education (2015) ....................... 415

D1

Indicator D2
Table D2.1
Table D2.2
Table D2.3

What is the student-teacher ratio and how big are classes? ...........................................................416
Average class size, by type of institution and level of education (2013)................................. 423
Ratio of students to teaching staff in educational institutions (2013) .................................... 424
Ratio of students to teaching staff, by type of institution (2013) .................................................. 425

D2

Indicator D3
Table D3.1a

How much are teachers paid? ....................................................................................................................................................426
Teachers’ statutory salaries, based on typical qualifications, at different points
in teachers’ careers (2013) ................................................................................................................................................................. 440
Teachers’ actual salaries relative to wages of similarly educated workers (2013) ....... 442
Comparison of teachers’ statutory salaries, based on typical qualifications (2013) ..... 443
Average actual teachers’ salaries (2013) ........................................................................................................................... 444
Trends in teachers’ salaries, based on typical qualifications,
between 2000 and 2013........................................................................................................................................................................ 445
Teachers’ tasks and other criteria related to teachers’ base salaries
and additional payments, lower secondary level (2013) ............................................................................. 446

D3

Indicator D4
Table D4.1
Table D4.2

How much time do teachers spend teaching? .....................................................................................................450
Organisation of teachers’ working time (2013)...................................................................................................... 458
Number of teaching hours per year (2000, 2005, 2010 and 2013)................................................ 459

D4

Indicator D5
Table D5.1
Table D5.2
Table D5.3
Table D5.4a

Who are the teachers? ..........................................................................................................................................................................460
Age distribution of teachers (2013) ....................................................................................................................................... 468
Age distribution of teachers (2005, 2013) .................................................................................................................... 469
Gender distribution of teachers (2013) ............................................................................................................................ 470
Teachers’ skills and readiness to use information and communication
technologies for problem solving (2012) ........................................................................................................................ 471
Teachers’ use of information and communication technologies at work, ICT skills
required at work, and teachers’ confidence in their computer skills (2012) ...................... 472

D5

Table D3.2a
Table D3.3a
Table D3.4
Table D3.5a
Table D3.7c

Table D5.4b

10

Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

C6

Table of Contents

Number of
the indicator
in the
2014 edition

Indicator D6
Table D6.1c
Table D6.5b
Table D6.9
Table D6.13

What evaluation and assessment mechanisms are in place? .........................................................474
National/central examinations at the upper secondary level (2015).......................................... 486
National/central assessments at the lower secondary level (2015) .............................................. 487
School inspection and school self-evaluation at the lower secondary level (2015)......... 488
Public school compliance-oriented reports, by domains and receiving groups (2015).... 490

Indicator D7
Table D7.1
Table D7.3b

What teacher and school leader appraisal systems are in place? .............................................492
Teacher appraisal and school leader appraisal at the lower secondary level (2015)....... 504
Teacher appraisal at the lower secondary level: Eligibility, governance
and responsibilities (2015) ............................................................................................................................................................... 505
Features of teacher appraisal at the lower secondary level (2015)................................................. 509
School leader appraisal at the lower secondary level: Eligibility, governance
and responsibilities (2015) ............................................................................................................................................................... 511
Features of school leader appraisal at the lower secondary level (2015) ................................ 512

Table D7.4b
Table D7.8b
Table D7.9b

Table D8.4

To what extent is information and communication technology used
in teaching and learning? ................................................................................................................................................................514
Computer availability, first access to Internet and intensity of Internet use
at school (PISA 2012) ............................................................................................................................................................................... 523
Change between 2003 and 2012 in the quality of schools’ educational resources .......... 525
PISA score in reading for 15-year-olds and mean score-point difference
between paper-and-pencil and computer-delivered reading test, by gender
(PISA 2012) ........................................................................................................................................................................................................... 527
Teachers and information and communication technology ................................................................... 528

ANNEX 1

CHARACTERISTICS OF EDUCATION SYSTEMS ........................................................................................ 529

Indicator D8
Table D8.1
Table D8.2
Table D8.3

Table X1.1a

Typical graduation ages, by level of education (2013).................................................................................... 530

Table X1.1b

Typical age of entry by level of education (2013) ................................................................................................. 532

Table X1.2a

School year and financial year used for the calculation of indicators,
OECD countries ............................................................................................................................................................................................... 533

Table X1.2b

School year and financial year used for the calculation of indicators,
partner countries ........................................................................................................................................................................................... 534

Table X1.3

Starting and ending age for students in compulsory education (2013) .................................. 535

ANNEX 2

REFERENCE STATISTICS.............................................................................................................................................................. 537

Table X2.1

Overview of the economic context using basic variables
(reference period: calendar year 2012, 2012 current prices) ................................................................. 538
Basic reference statistics
(reference period: calendar year 2012, 2012 current prices) ................................................................. 539
Basic reference statistics
(reference period: calendar year 2000, 2005, 2008, 2010 and 2011) ......................................... 540
Teachers’ statutory salaries at different points in their careers, for teachers
with typical qualification (2013)................................................................................................................................................ 542
Teachers’ statutory salaries at different points in their careers, for teachers
with minimum qualification (2013) ...................................................................................................................................... 544
Trends in teachers’ salaries between 2000 and 2013, for teachers
with typical qualification (2013)................................................................................................................................................ 546

Table X2.2
Table X2.3
Table X2.4a
Table X2.4b
Table X2.4c

Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

11

Table of Contents

Number of
the indicator
in the
2014 edition

Table X2.4d
Table X2.4e
Table X2.4f

Trends in teachers’ salaries between 2000 and 2013, for teachers
with minimum qualification (2013) ...................................................................................................................................... 548
Reference statistics used in calculating teachers’ salaries (2000, 2005-13) ....................... 550
Average actual teachers’ salaries in national currency (2013) ............................................................. 551

ANNEX 3

SOURCES, METHODS AND TECHNICAL NOTES ..................................................................................... 553

Contributors to this publication ............................................................................................................................................................................................. 555
Education Indicators in Focus..................................................................................................................................................................................................... 561

Follow OECD Publications on:
http://twitter.com/OECD_Pubs
http://www.facebook.com/OECDPublications
http://www.linkedin.com/groups/OECD-Publications-4645871
http://www.youtube.com/oecdilibrary
OECD

Alerts

http://www.oecd.org/oecddirect/

This book has...

StatLinks2
A service that delivers Excel® files from the printed page!

Look for the StatLinks2at the bottom of the tables or graphs in this book.
To download the matching Excel® spreadsheet, just type the link into your
Internet browser, starting with the http://dx.doi.org prefix, or click on the link from
the e-book edition.

12

Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

http://gpseducation.oecd.org/

EDITORIAL
Education, learning and
the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development

The world of education has changed enormously over the past two decades. Around the globe, more children than
ever can go to school and have the opportunity to acquire the skills needed for the workplace, for their community
and for life. Since 1992, the first year that Education at a Glance was published, this publication has rigorously
documented such transformation as the world moves closer to achieving the goal of providing education for all.
These changes have been accompanied by an expansion of internationally comparable data on education. Only
25 years ago, many people considered education to be too local, too tied to its specific context to be measured
against comparative statistical metrics. But enormous progress in statistical techniques, data collection and
processing procedures have enabled policy makers, researchers and the public at large to see how education has
expanded around the world, and to benchmark performance and draw lessons from other countries. The OECD
has been at the forefront of this movement by pushing the measurement agenda forward. Building on the progress
in ensuring universal access to, participation in and completion of education, the OECD has developed reliable
metrics on student learning outcomes and equity in education, including those used in the OECD Programme
for International Student Assessment (PISA) and the OECD Programme for the International Assessment of
Adult Competencies (PIAAC).
This new edition of Education at a Glance is published only a few weeks after world leaders defined the global
ambitions for the next 15 years by adopting 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) at the United Nations
Summit in New York. Education is a cornerstone of the sustainable development agenda, and the education-related
goal aims to “ensure inclusive and equitable quality education and promote lifelong learning opportunities for all”
by 2030. The goal is composed of ten targets that, together, represent an ambitious commitment to develop better
skills for better lives. What is new about this Education 2030 agenda is its focus on expanded access, inclusion and
equity, quality and learning outcomes at all levels of education – and for people of all ages. Five of the ten targets are
concerned with improving the quality of education for individual children, young people and adults, to ensure that
they acquire better and more relevant knowledge and skills.
To achieve all of these targets, it is essential that every child has access to and completes a quality education of
at least 12 years. Efforts to achieve universal access to education must go hand-in-hand with a renewed focus on
education quality and equity. Data from PISA, the global metric used to measure the quality of learning outcomes,
show why: many countries can boast that all of their children are enrolled in school, but not all of these children
achieve even minimum levels of proficiency in the core subjects of reading, mathematics and science by the
end of their lower secondary education. That is why the aim of achieving universal basic skills is at the heart of
the SDG education agenda. This shift in focus towards quality in education for all means that the 17 SDGs and
the 169 targets are universally relevant: no country, no region in the world can claim in 2015 that all of its youth
have attained at least a minimum proficiency in foundation skills.
Now that the global community has defined its goal and targets for education, it needs to develop indicators on
access, equity and quality that can be measured and tracked over time. These indicators will provide the basis for
international accountability and for targeting policies and resources on where they can make the greatest difference.
Together with other international organisations, such as UNESCO and its Institute for Statistics (UIS), UNICEF and
the World Bank, the OECD stands ready to move this agenda forward. The proposed global indicators for measuring
progress towards the education SDG include adaptations of existing international large-scale assessments of
Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

13

Editorial

learning outcomes and skills, such as PISA and PIAAC. The indicators reported in Education at a Glance will continue
to provide a strong evidence base for international comparisons of education systems. Indeed, more than two-thirds
of the indicators proposed by the UN system for tracking the education SDG are already covered by existing
OECD policy and data-collection instruments.
In the years to come, the education SDG targets and indicators will be fully integrated into OECD data-collection
mechanisms, reporting and analyses, including Education at a Glance. By doing so, we will ensure that this flagship
publication, used as a reference by many people all over the world, will continue to set the standard for measuring
and monitoring global progress in education.

Angel Gurría
OECD Secretary-General

14

Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

INTRODUCTION:
THE INDICATORS AND THEIR FRAMEWORK
The organising framework
Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators offers a rich, comparable and up-to-date array of indicators that reflects
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, how education and learning systems
operate and evolve, and the returns to investments in education. The indicators are organised thematically, and each
is accompanied by information on the policy context and an 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, education service providers, and the education system as a whole;
• groups the indicators according to whether they address learning outcomes for individuals or countries, policy
levers or circumstances that shape these outcomes, or to antecedents or constraints that put policy choices into
context; and
• identifies the policy issues to which the indicators relate, with three major categories distinguishing between
the quality of education outcomes and education opportunities, issues of equity in education outcomes and
opportunities, and the adequacy and effectiveness of resource management.
The following matrix describes the first two dimensions:
1.

I.

Education and
learning outputs
and outcomes

2.

Policy levers and
3.
contexts shaping
education outcomes

Antecedents or
constraints that
contextualise policy

Individual
participants
in education
and learning

1.I. The quality
and distribution
of individual
education
outcomes

2.I. Individual
attitudes towards,
engagement in,
and behaviour
in teaching and
learning

3.I. Background
characteristics
of the individual
learners and
teachers

II. Instructional
settings

1.II. The quality
of instructional
delivery

2.II. Pedagogy, learning
practices and
classroom climate

3.II. Student learning
conditions and
teacher working
conditions

III. Providers of
educational services

1.III. The output of
educational
institutions
and institutional
performance

2.III. School environment
and organisation

3.III. Characteristics
of the service
providers and
their communities

IV. The education
system as a whole

1.IV. The overall
performance of
the education
system

2.IV. System-wide
institutional
settings,
resource allocations,
and policies

3.IV. The national
educational,
social, economic,
and demographic
contexts

Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

15

Introduction

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. Therefore, past analyses that have relied on macro-level data alone
have 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 sub-heading output and outcomes of education
and learning;
• the sub-heading policy levers and contexts groups activities seeking information on the policy levers or circumstances
that 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. The antecedents or constraints are usually specific for a
given level of the education system; 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.

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 education outcomes and education opportunities;
• equality of education outcomes and equity in education opportunities; and
• adequacy, effectiveness and efficiency of resource management.
In addition to the dimensions mentioned above, the time perspective in the framework allows for dynamic aspects of
the development of education systems to be modelled as well.
The indicators that are published in Education at a Glance 2015 fit within this framework, though often they speak to
more than one cell.

16

Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

Introduction

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
education system, but also provide context for current education 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 that most
directly affects the individual learner, as it acts as a constraint on the learning environment in schools and 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, outcome measures to the extent that they indicate the results of policies and practices at the classroom,
school and system levels. But they can also provide contexts for establishing policy by identifying areas where policy
intervention is necessary to address issues of inequity, for example.
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 that can be manipulated but also provide
contexts for the quality of instruction in instructional settings and for the outcomes of individual learners. It also
presents data on the profile of teachers, the levels of government at which decisions about education are taken, and
pathways and gateways to gain access to secondary and tertiary education.
The reader should note that this edition of Education at a Glance covers a significant amount of data from partner
countries as well (please refer to the Reader’s Guide for details).

Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

17

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 who owns
or sponsors the institutions concerned and regardless of how education is delivered. With one exception
(described below), all types of students and all age groups are included: children (including students with
special needs), adults, nationals, foreigners, and students in open-distance learning, in special education
programmes or in education programmes organised by ministries other than the ministry of education,
provided that the main aim of the programme is to broaden or deepen an individual’s knowledge. Vocational
and technical training in the workplace, with the exception of combined school- and work-based programmes
that are explicitly deemed to be part 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
the same or similar content as “regular” education studies, or that the programmes of which they are a part
lead to qualifications similar to those awarded in regular education programmes.
Courses for adults that are primarily for general interest, personal enrichment, leisure or recreation are
excluded.
Country coverage
This publication features data on education from the 34 OECD countries, two partner countries that participate
in the OECD Indicators of Education Systems programme (INES), namely Brazil and the Russian Federation,
and other partner countries that do not participate in INES (Argentina, China, Colombia, Costa Rica, India,
Indonesia, Latvia, Lithuania, Saudi Arabia and South Africa). Data sources for these latter ten countries are
specified below the tables.
The statistical data for Israel are supplied by and under the responsibility of the relevant Israeli authorities.
The use of such data by the OECD is without prejudice to the status of the Golan Heights, East Jerusalem and
Israeli settlements in the West Bank under the terms of international law.
Calculation of international means
The main purpose of Education at a Glance is to provide an authoritative compilation of key international
comparisons of education statistics. While countries attain specific values in these comparisons, readers
should not assume that countries themselves are homogeneous. The country averages include significant
variations among sub-national jurisdictions, much as the OECD average encompasses a variety of national
experiences (see Box A1.1 in Education at a Glance 2014).
For many indicators, an OECD average is presented; for some, an OECD total is shown. 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 the 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.

…

Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

19

Reader’s Guide

Both the OECD average and the OECD total can be significantly affected by missing data. Given the relatively
small number of countries surveyed, no statistical methods are used to compensate for this. In the case
of some countries, data may not be available for specific indicators, or specific categories may not apply.
Therefore, readers should keep in mind that the term “OECD average” refers to the OECD countries included
in the respective comparisons. Averages are sometimes not calculated if too many countries have missing
information or have information included in other columns.
For financial tables using trend series over 1995-2012, the OECD average is also calculated for countries
providing data for all reference years used. This allows for a comparison of the OECD average over time with
no distortion due to the exclusion of certain countries in the different years.
For many indicators, an EU21 average is also presented. It is calculated as the unweighted mean of the
data values of the 21 countries that are members of both the European Union and the OECD for which data
are available or can be estimated. These 21 countries are Austria, Belgium, the Czech Republic, Denmark,
Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Poland,
Portugal, Slovenia, the Slovak Republic, Spain, Sweden and the United Kingdom.
For some indicators, a G20 average is presented. The G20 average is calculated as the unweighted mean of the
data values of all G20 countries for which data are available or can be estimated (Argentina, Australia, Brazil,
Canada, China, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, Korea, Mexico, the Russian Federation,
Saudi Arabia, South Africa, Turkey, the United Kingdom and the United States; the European Union is the
20th member of the G20 but is not included in the calculation). The G20 average is not computed if data for
China or India are not available.
For some indicators, an average is presented. This average is included in tables with data from the 2012 Survey
of Adult Skills, a product of the OECD Programme for the International Assessment of Adult Competencies
(PIAAC). The average corresponds to the arithmetic mean of the estimates included in the table or chart from
both the national and the sub-national entities (which include Flanders [Belgium] and England/Northern
Ireland [UK]). Partner countries are not included in the average presented in any of the tables or charts.
Standard error (S.E.)
The statistical estimates presented in this report are based on samples of adults, rather than values that
could be calculated if every person in the target population in every country had answered every question.
Therefore, each estimate has a degree of uncertainty associated with sampling and measurement error, which
can be expressed as a standard error. The use of confidence intervals provides a way to make inferences
about the population means and proportions in a manner that reflects the uncertainty associated with the
sample estimates. In this report, confidence intervals are stated at a 95% level. In other words, the result for
the corresponding population would lie within the confidence interval in 95 out of 100 replications of the
measurement on different samples drawn from the same population.
In tables showing standard errors, there is one column with the heading “%”, which indicates the average
percentage, and a column with the heading “S.E.”, which indicates the standard error. Given the survey
method, there is a sampling uncertainty in the percentages (%) of twice the standard error (S.E.). For example,
for the values: % = 10 and S.E. = 2.6, 10% has an uncertainty zone of twice (1.96) the standard error of 2.6,
assuming an error risk of 5%. Thus, the true percentage would probably (error risk of 5%) be somewhere
between 5% and 15% (“confidence interval”). The confidence interval is calculated as: % +/– 1.96 * S.E.,
i.e. for the previous example, 5% = 10% – 1.96 * 2.6 and 15% = 10% + 1.96 * 2.6.
Classification of levels of education
The classification of levels of education is based on the International Standard Classification of Education
(ISCED). ISCED is an instrument for compiling statistics on education internationally. ISCED-97 was
recently revised, and the new International Standard Classification of Education (ISCED 2011) was formally
adopted in November 2011. This new classification is used for the first time in this edition of Education at
a Glance. The major changes between ISCED 2011 and ISCED-97 are described in the section “About the new
ISCED 2011 classification”.

…

20

Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

Reader’s Guide

Symbols for missing data and abbreviations
These symbols and abbreviations are used in the tables and charts:
a
Data are not applicable because the category does not apply.
b There is a break in the series when data for the latest year refer to ISCED 2011 and data for previous
years refer to ISCED-97.
c
There are too few observations to provide reliable estimates (e.g. in PISA, there are fewer than
30 students or fewer than five schools with valid data; in the Survey of Adult Skills, there are fewer
than 30 individuals).
d Includes data from another category.
m Data are not available.
0 Magnitude is either negligible or zero.
r
Values are below a certain reliability threshold and should be interpreted with caution.
q Data have 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/education/education-at-a-glance-19991487.htm provides information on the
methods used to calculate the indicators, on the interpretation of the indicators in the respective national
contexts, and on the data sources involved. The website also provides access to the data underlying the
indicators and to a comprehensive glossary for technical terms used in this publication.
All post-production changes to this publication are listed at www.oecd.org/publishing/corrigenda (corrections)
and http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/eag-data-en (updates).
Education at a Glance uses the OECD’s StatLinks service. Below each table and chart in Education at Glance 2015
is a URL that leads to a corresponding Excel file 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.
Layout of tables
In all tables, the numbers in parentheses at the top of the columns are simply used for reference. When a
consecutive number does not appear, that column is available on line only.
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.
ARG Argentina
AUS Australia
AUT Austria
BEL Belgium
BFL Belgium (Flemish Community)
BFR Belgium (French Community)
BRA Brazil
CAN Canada
CHE Switzerland
CHL Chile
CHN China
COL Colombia
CRI Costa Rica

CZE Czech Republic
DEU Germany
DNK Denmark
ENG England
ESP Spain
EST Estonia
FIN Finland
FRA France
GRC Greece
HUN Hungary
IDN Indonesia
IND India
IRL Ireland

ISL Iceland
ISR Israel
ITA Italy
JPN Japan
KOR Korea
LUX Luxembourg
LVA Latvia
LTU Lithuania
NZL New Zealand
MEX Mexico
NLD Netherlands
NOR Norway
POL Poland

PRT Portugal
RUS Russian Federation
SAU Saudi Arabia
SCO Scotland
SVK Slovak Republic
SVN Slovenia
SWE Sweden
TUR Turkey
UKM United Kingdom
USA United States
ZAF South Africa

Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

21

ABOUT THE NEW
ISCED 2011 CLASSIFICATION
More details can be found in the publication ISCED 2011 Operational Manual: Guidelines for Classifying National
Education Programmes and Related Qualifications (OECD/Eurostat/UNESCO Institute for Statistics, 2015),
http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264228368-en.

The need to revise ISCED
The structure of education systems varies widely between countries. In order to produce internationally comparable
education statistics and indicators, it is necessary to have a framework to collect and report data on education
programmes with a similar level of educational content. UNESCO’s International Standard Classification of
Education (ISCED) is the reference classification for organising education programmes and related qualifications by
education levels and fields. The basic concepts and definitions of ISCED are intended to be internationally valid and
comprehensive of the full range of education systems.
The ISCED classification was initially developed by UNESCO in the mid-1970s, and was first revised in 1997. Due
to subsequent changes in education and learning systems throughout the start of the 21st century, a further review
of ISCED was undertaken between 2009 and 2011 involving extensive global consultation with countries, regional
experts and international organisations. The revision took into account important shifts in the structure of higher
education, such as the Bologna process in Europe, expansion of education programmes for very young children, and
increasing interest in statistics on the outcomes of education, such as educational attainment. The revised ISCED
2011 classification was adopted by the UNESCO General Conference at its 36th session in November 2011.
Major changes between ISCED 2011 and ISCED-97
The ISCED 2011 classification is an important step forward in a long-term consultative process designed to improve
the comparability of international statistics on education. The classification is used for the first time in this edition
of Education at a Glance. The major changes between ISCED 2011 and ISCED-97 are the following:

• ISCED 2011 classification presents a revision of the ISCED-97 levels of education programmes (ISCED-P)
and introduces for the first time a related classification of educational attainment levels (ISCED-A) based on
recognised education qualifications (see Indicator A1).

• ISCED 2011 classification includes improved definitions of formal and non-formal education, educational
activities and programmes.

• Compared to ISCED-97 which had seven levels of education, ISCED 2011 now has nine levels of education. In fact,
higher education has been restructured taking into account changes in tertiary education, such as the Bologna
structure, and now comprises four levels of education compared with two levels in ISCED-97. Programmes
previously classified in level 5 of ISCED-97 will now be allocated to level 5, 6 or 7 in ISCED 2011. Moreover, while
the position in the national degree structure of tertiary programmes was mentioned in ISCED-97, specific coding
for this dimension has been introduced in ISCED 2011 for levels 6 and 7 (bachelor’s or equivalent and master’s or
equivalent levels, respectively).

• ISCED level 0 has been expanded to include a new category covering early childhood educational development
programmes designed for children under the age of 3 (see Indicator C2).

• Each education level within ISCED has also been more clearly delineated, which may result in some changes of
classification for programmes that previously sat on the border between ISCED levels (for example, between
ISCED levels 3 and 4).
Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

23

About the new ISCED 2011 classification

• The complementary dimensions within ISCED levels have also been revised. There are now only two categories
of orientation: general and vocational. Programmes previously classified as pre-vocational (in ISCED-97) do not
provide labour-market relevant qualifications and are now mainly classified as general education.

• ISCED-97 differentiated access to education at higher ISCED levels in two categories depending on the type of
subsequent education, while ISCED 2011 identifies only one group of programmes that provide access to higher
education levels. The ISCED 2011 sub-category “level completion with access to higher ISCED levels” corresponds
to the combined destination categories A and B in ISCED-97. ISCED 2011 further sub-classifies programmes
that do not provide access to higher ISCED levels into the sub-categories “no level completion”, “partial level
completion” and “level completion”. These three sub-categories in ISCED 2011 correspond to destination
category C in ISCED-97.
Fields of education and training
Within ISCED, programmes and related qualifications can be classified by fields of education and training as well as
by levels. The ISCED 2011 revision focused on the ISCED levels and complementary dimensions related to ISCED
levels. Following the adoption of ISCED 2011, a separate review and global consultation process took place on
the ISCED fields of education. The ISCED fields were revised, and the UNESCO General Conference adopted the
ISCED 2013 Fields of Education and Training classification (ISCED-F 2013) in November 2013 at its 37th session. The
ISCED 2013 Fields of Education and Training classification (UNESCO-UIS, 2014) is available at www.uis.unesco.org/
Education/Documents/isced-fields-of-education-training-2013.pdf and will be used for the first time in Education
at a Glance 2017.
Correspondence tables between ISCED versions
The correspondence between the levels in ISCED 2011 and ISCED-97 is shown in Table 1. For more details on the
correspondence between ISCED 2011 and ISCED-97 levels, see Part I of the “Isced 2011 Operational Manual: Guidelines
for Classifying National Education Programmes and Related Qualifications”.

Table 1. Comparison of levels of education between ISCED 2011 and ISCED-97
ISCED 2011
01
02
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

Early childhood educational development
Pre-primary education
Primary education
Lower secondary education
Upper secondary education
Post-secondary non-tertiary education
Short-cycle tertiary education
Bachelor’s or equivalent level
Master’s or equivalent level
Doctoral or equivalent level

ISCED-97
0
1
2
3
4
5
6

Pre-primary education
Primary education or first stage of basic education
Lower secondary education or second stage of basic education
(Upper) secondary education
Post-secondary non-tertiary education
First stage of tertiary education (not leading directly to
an advanced research qualification) (5A, 5B)
Second stage of tertiary education (leading to an advanced research
qualification)

Definition of ISCED levels
Early childhood education (ISCED level 0)
ISCED level 0 refers to early childhood programmes that have an intentional education component. ISCED level 0
programmes target children below the age of entry into primary education (ISCED level 1). These programmes aim
to develop cognitive, physical and socio-emotional skills necessary for participation in school and society.
Programmes offered at ISCED level 0 are often differentiated by age. There are two categories of ISCED level 0
programmes: ISCED 010 – early childhood educational development, and ISCED 020 – pre-primary education.
ISCED 010 has intentional educational content designed for younger children (typically in the age range of 0 to
2 years), while ISCED 020 is typically designed for children from the age of 3 years to the start of primary education
(ISCED level 1). For international comparability purposes, the term “early childhood education” is used to label
ISCED level 0 (for more details, see Indicator C2 in Education at a Glance 2015).
Programmes classified at ISCED level 0 may be referred to in many ways, for example: early childhood education
and development, play school, reception, pre-primary, pre-school or educación inicial. For programmes provided

24

Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

About the new ISCED 2011 classification

in crèches, daycare centres, nurseries or guarderías, it is important to ensure that they meet the ISCED level 0
classification criteria specified.
Primary education (ISCED level 1)
Primary education usually begins at age 5, 6 or 7, and has a typical duration of six years. Programmes at ISCED level 1
are normally designed to give pupils a sound basic education in reading, writing and mathematics, along with an
elementary understanding of other subjects, such as history, geography, natural science, social sciences, art and
music. The beginning of reading activities alone is not a sufficient criterion to classify an education programme at
ISCED level 1.
Programmes classified at ISCED level 1 may be referred to in many ways, for example: primary education,
elementary education or basic education (stage 1 or lower grades if an education system has one programme that
spans ISCED levels 1 and 2). For international comparability purposes, the term “primary education” is used to label
ISCED level 1.
Lower secondary education (ISCED level 2)
Programmes at the lower secondary education level are designed to lay the foundation across a wide range of
subjects and to prepare children and young people for more specialised study at upper secondary and higher levels
of education. The beginning – or the end – of lower secondary education often involves a change of school for young
students and also a change in the style of instruction.
In some education systems, programmes may be differentiated by orientation, although this is more common at
upper secondary level. Vocational programmes, where they exist at this level, generally offer options for young people
wishing to prepare for direct entry into the labour market in low- or semi-skilled jobs. They may also be the first step in
vocational education, giving access to more advanced vocational programmes at the upper secondary level.
Programmes classified at ISCED level 2 may be referred to in many ways, for example: secondary school (stage one/
lower grades), junior secondary school, middle school or junior high school. If a programme spans ISCED levels 1
and 2, the terms elementary education or basic school (second stage/upper grades) are often used. For international
comparability purposes, the term “lower secondary education” is used to label ISCED level 2.
Upper secondary education (ISCED level 3)
Programmes at the upper secondary education level are more specialised than those at the lower secondary level and
offer students more choices and diverse pathways for completing their secondary education. The range of subjects
studied by a single student tends to be narrower than at lower levels of education, but the content is more complex
and the study more in-depth.
Programmes offered are differentiated by orientation and often by broad subject groups. General programmes are
usually designed for students planning to continue to academic or professional studies at the tertiary level. Students
will often begin to specialise in specific fields, such as the sciences, humanities or social sciences, even if they are
expected to continue to take some courses in basic subjects like the national language, mathematics and, perhaps,
a foreign language. There can also be general programmes at ISCED level 3 that do not provide access to tertiary
education, but these are comparatively rare. Vocational programmes exist both to offer options to young people who
might otherwise leave school without any qualifications from an upper secondary programme and for those wishing
to prepare for skilled worker and/or technician jobs.
Second chance or re-integration programmes that either review material already covered in upper secondary
programmes or provide opportunities for young people to change streams or enter an occupation requiring an
upper secondary qualification that they did not earn during their previous studies, are also classified at this level.
Programmes classified at ISCED level 3 may be referred to in many ways, for example: secondary school (stage two/
upper grades), senior secondary school or (senior) high school. For international comparability purposes, the term
“upper secondary education” is used to label ISCED level 3.
Post-secondary non-tertiary education (ISCED level 4)
Programmes at the post-secondary non-tertiary education level are not significantly more complex than those at the
upper secondary level. They generally serve to broaden rather than deepen the knowledge, skills and competencies
already gained through successful (full) level completion of upper secondary education. They may be designed to
increase options for participants in the labour market, for further studies at the tertiary level, or both.
Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

25

About the new ISCED 2011 classification

Usually, programmes at ISCED level 4 are vocationally oriented. They may be referred to in many ways, for example:
technician diploma, primary professional education or préparation aux carrières administratives. For international
comparability purposes, the term “post-secondary non-tertiary education” is used to label ISCED level 4.
ISCED 2011 tertiary education levels (ISCED levels 5-8)
Tertiary education builds on secondary education, providing learning activities at a high level of complexity in
specialised fields of study. Tertiary education includes what is commonly understood as academic education but also
includes advanced vocational or professional education.
There is usually a clear hierarchy between qualifications granted by tertiary education programmes. It comprises
ISCED levels 5 (short-cycle tertiary education), 6 (bachelor’s or equivalent level), 7 (master’s or equivalent level)
and 8 (doctoral or equivalent level). The content of programmes at the tertiary level is more complex and advanced
than in lower ISCED levels.

• Short-cycle tertiary education (ISCED level 5)
The content of ISCED level 5 programmes is noticeably more complex than in upper secondary programmes giving
access to this level. ISCED level 5 programmes serve to deepen knowledge by imparting new techniques, concepts
and ideas not generally covered in upper secondary education. By comparison, ISCED level 4 programmes serve to
broaden knowledge and are typically not significantly more advanced than programmes at ISCED level 3.
Programmes classified at ISCED level 5 may be referred to in many ways, for example: higher technical education,
community college education, technician or advanced/higher vocational training, associate degree, bac+2. For
international comparability purposes, the term “short-cycle tertiary education” is used to label ISCED level 5.

• Bachelor’s or equivalent level (ISCED level 6)
Programmes at ISCED level 6, or bachelor’s or equivalent level, are longer and usually more theoretically oriented
than ISCED level 5 programmes. They are often designed to provide participants with intermediate academic
and/or professional knowledge, skills and competencies, leading to a first degree or equivalent qualification.
They typically have a duration of three to four years of full-time study at the tertiary level. They may include
practical components and/or involve periods of work experience as well as theoretically based studies. They are
traditionally offered by universities and equivalent tertiary educational institutions.
Programmes classified at ISCED level 6 may be referred to in many ways, for example: bachelor’s programme,
licence or first university cycle. For international comparability purposes, the term “bachelor’s or equivalent level”
is used to label ISCED level 6.

• Master’s or equivalent level (ISCED level 7)
Programmes at ISCED level 7, or master’s or equivalent level, have a significantly more complex content than
programmes at ISCED level 6 and are usually more specialised. The content of ISCED level 7 programmes is often
designed to provide participants with advanced academic and/or professional knowledge, skills and competencies,
leading to a second degree or equivalent qualification. Programmes at this level may have a substantial research
component but do not yet lead to the award of a doctoral qualification. The cumulative duration of studies at the
tertiary level is usually five to eight years or even longer.
Programmes classified at ISCED level 7 may be referred to in many ways, for example: master’s programmes or
magister studies. For international comparability purposes, the term “master’s or equivalent level” is used to label
ISCED level 7.

• Doctoral or equivalent level (ISCED level 8)
Programmes at ISCED level 8, or doctoral or equivalent level, are designed primarily to lead to an advanced
research qualification. Programmes at this ISCED level are devoted to advanced study and original research and
are typically offered only by research-oriented tertiary educational institutions, such as universities. Doctoral
programmes exist in both academic and professional fields.
The theoretical duration of these programmes is three years full-time in most countries, although the actual time
that students take to complete the programmes is typically longer.
Programmes classified at ISCED level 8 may be referred to in many ways, for example: PhD, DPhil, D.Lit, D.Sc,
LL.D, Doctorate or similar terms. For international comparability purposes the term, “doctoral or equivalent
level” is used to label ISCED level 8.

26

Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

In the labour market and in life, education is worth the effort…
On average, over 80% of tertiary-educated adults are employed, compared with over 70% of people with upper
secondary or post-secondary non-tertiary education, and less than 60% of adults without upper secondary
education. Tertiary-educated adults also earn about 60% more, on average, than adults with upper secondary as
their highest level of educational attainment. In general, employment rates and earnings increase as an adult’s level
of education and skills increases; but the labour market still regards a diploma or degree as the primary indication
of a worker’s skills.
No doubt with these advantages in mind, increasing numbers of young adults in OECD countries are pursuing
tertiary education. On average across the OECD countries and sub-national entities that participated in the Survey
of Adult Skills, a product of the OECD Programme for the International Assessment of Adult Competencies (PIAAC),
in 2012, 22% of 25-34 year-old non-students – and in Korea, 47% of this group – have attained tertiary education
even though their parents had not. These “first generation tertiary-educated adults” and the tertiary-educated
adults whose parents had also completed tertiary education share similar employment rates and pursue similar
fields of study. This suggests that being the first in a family to attain tertiary education is in no way a disadvantage.
Data also show that although the entry rate into bachelor’s degree programmes is much higher than the entry rate
into master’s or doctoral programmes, there are more opportunities in the labour market – and higher earnings –
for adults with a master’s degree than for those with only a bachelor’s degree. Employed adults with a bachelor’s or
equivalent degree earn about 60% more than employed adults with upper secondary education, but those with a
master’s, doctoral or equivalent degree earn more than twice as much.
But the benefits of education are not only financial. Adults with higher educational attainment are more likely to
report that they are in good health, that they participate in volunteer activities, that they trust others, and that
they feel they have a say in government. In other words, more highly educated adults tend to be more engaged in
the world around them.

…although inequities persist
Despite narrowing – or even inverted – gender gaps in educational attainment, women are still under-represented
in certain fields of education, such as science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM). Young women are
also less likely than young men to be employed, although the gender gap in employment is much narrower among
tertiary-educated young adults than among those with lower educational attainment.
The data also show that the strongest influence on earnings is an adult’s own educational attainment. Adults with
tertiary education are 23 percentage points more likely to be among the 25% highest paid adults (in monthly
earnings) compared with adults whose highest level of attainment is upper secondary or post-secondary nontertiary education.

Between 2010 and 2012, public spending on education fell in many OECD countries
The education sector felt a delayed reaction to the global economic crisis of 2008. Between 2010 and 2012, as GDP
began to rise following the slowdown, public expenditure on educational institutions fell in more than one in three
OECD countries.
The economic downturn of 2008 also had a direct impact on primary and secondary teachers’ salaries. In the years
immediately following the crisis, even though some countries had already begun a slow recovery, teachers’ salaries
were frozen or cut, such that the number of countries showing an increase in salaries, in real terms, between
2008 and 2013 shrank to about one in two OECD countries. These trends did nothing to narrow the considerable
pay gap between teachers and other similarly educated workers. On average across OECD countries, pre-primary
Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

27

Executive Summary

and primary teachers earn 78% of the salary of a similarly educated, full-time, full-year worker, lower secondary
teachers are paid 80% and upper secondary teachers are paid 82% of that benchmark salary. These uncompetitive
salaries will make it that much harder to attract the best candidates to the teaching profession.
Cuts in funding could also threaten professional development activities for teachers. PISA data reveal that, despite
increasing investment in information and communication technologies (ICT) for schools, teachers are not using
these tools systematically. Indeed, teachers who participated in the 2013 OECD Teaching and Learning International
Survey (TALIS) reported that one of the areas in which they most need professional development is developing
ICT skills for teaching.

Other findings

• In 2012, OECD countries spent an average of 5.3% of their GDP on educational institutions from primary to
tertiary education; 11 countries with available data spent more than 6% of their GDP.

• Education is mostly publicly funded, but tertiary institutions obtain the largest proportion of funds from private
sources. Between 2000 and 2012, the average share of public funding for tertiary institutions decreased from
69% in 2000, to 64% in 2012.

• Early childhood education is particularly beneficial for students with an immigrant background.
• In all countries and economies that participated in the OECD Programme for International Student Assessment
(PISA) in 2012, the gender gap in reading performance is narrower in digital reading than in print reading. Girls
outperform boys in digital reading by an average of 26 score points, compared to an average of 38 score points –
the equivalent of nearly one year of schooling – in print reading.

• Some 77% of adults with a vocational upper secondary or post-secondary non-tertiary qualification are employed –
a rate that is 7 percentage points higher than that among adults with a general upper secondary education as their
highest qualification.

• One in five 20-24 year-olds is neither employed nor in education or training.
• About 57% of employed adults with good skills in information and communication technology and in problem
solving participate in employer-sponsored formal and/or non-formal education; only 9% of adults who cannot
use a computer and lack problem-solving skills participate in such programmes.

• Larger classes are correlated with less time spent on teaching and learning, and more time spent on keeping order
in the classroom. One additional student added to an average-size class is associated with a 0.5 percentage-point
decrease in time spent on teaching and learning activities.

• The teaching force across OECD countries is ageing: in 2013, 36% of secondary school teachers were at least
50 years old. This proportion rose by 3 percentage points between 2005 and 2013, on average among countries
with comparable data.

28

Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators   © OECD 2015

Chapter

A

THE OUTPUT OF
EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS
AND THE IMPACT OF LEARNING

Indicator A1 To what level have adults studied?
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933284728

Indicator A2 How many students are expected to complete upper secondary education?
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933284796

Indicator A3 How many young people are expected to complete tertiary education
and what is their profile?
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933284841

Indicator A4 To what extent does parents’ education influence
their children’s educational attainment?
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933284922

Indicator A5 How does educational attainment affect participation in the labour market?
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933284979

Indicator A6 What are the earnings advantages from education?
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933285049

Indicator A7 What are the financial incentives to invest in education?
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933285095

Indicator A8 How are social outcomes related to education?
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933285189

Indicator A9 What is the impact of skills on employment and earnings?
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933285230

Indicator A10 Where are the gender gaps in education and employment?
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933285306

Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

29

INDICATOR A1

TO WHAT LEVEL HAVE ADULTS STUDIED?
• On average across OECD countries, about one in five younger adults (17%) has not finished
upper secondary education. Between 30% and 40% of younger adults (25-34 year-olds) in Brazil,
Colombia, Portugal, Saudi Arabia and Spain, and over 50% of younger adults in China, Costa Rica,
Indonesia, Mexico and Turkey do not have an upper secondary education.

• Upper secondary education is the most commonly attained level of education in most OECD countries.
On average, 43% of 25-64 year-olds have attained upper secondary or post-secondary non-tertiary
education as their highest level of education.

• In two out of five OECD countries, and Latvia, Lithuania and the Russian Federation, at least one
in two younger women (25-34 year-olds) has a tertiary education, while only in Canada, Korea,
Luxembourg, the Russian Federation and the United Kingdom is one in two men similarly educated.

Chart A1.1. Percentage of 25-34 year-olds with attainment
below upper secondary education (2014)
%

70
60
50
40
30
20

0

China1
Indonesia2
Mexico
Turkey
Costa Rica
Brazil3
Portugal
Saudi Arabia3
Spain
Colombia
Iceland
Italy
South Africa4
Chile3
New Zealand
Norway
Greece
Sweden
Denmark
Belgium
OECD average
Netherlands
France3
Latvia
United Kingdom5
Australia
Luxembourg
Hungary
Germany
Lithuania
Estonia
United States
Austria
Ireland
Finland
Israel
Switzerland
Slovak Republic
Canada
Slovenia
Poland
Czech Republic
Russian Federation3
Korea

10

1. China: Year of reference 2010.
2. Indonesia: Year of reference 2011.
3. Brazil, Chile, France, Korea, the Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia: Year of reference 2013.
4. South Africa: Year of reference 2012.
5. The United Kingdom: Data for upper secondary attainment includes completion of a sufficient volume and standard of
programmes that would be classified individually as completion of intermediate upper secondary programmes (18% of the adults
are under this group).
Countries are ranked in descending order of the percentage of 25-34 year-olds with attainment below upper secondary education.
Source: OECD. Table A1.4a. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/education/education-at-a-glance-19991487.htm).
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933283386

Context
The level of educational attainment shows the percentage of a population that has reached a certain
level of education and holds a qualification at that level. Educational attainment is frequently used as
a proxy measure of human capital and the level of an individual’s skills – in other words, a measure of
the skills associated with a given level of education and available in the population, and to the labour
force. In this sense, qualifications certify and offer information on the type of knowledge and skills
that graduates have acquired in formal schooling.
Higher levels of educational attainment are associated with several positive individual and social
outcomes. Data in previous editions of Education at a Glance have shown that individuals with
high educational attainment generally have better health, are more socially engaged, have higher
employment rates and have higher relative earnings. Higher proficiency in skills, such as literacy and
numeracy, is also strongly associated with higher levels of formal education.

30

Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

Individuals thus have incentives to pursue more education, and governments have incentives to provide
appropriate infrastructure and organisation to support the expansion of higher educational attainment
across the population. Over the past decades, almost all OECD countries have seen significant increases
in the educational attainment of their populations, especially among the younger generations.

INDICATOR A1

This indicator includes information on both educational attainment and on individuals’ skills and
readiness to use information and communication technologies (ICT) for problem solving.
Other findings

• Across OECD countries, 37% of 55-64 year-old women have below upper secondary education as
their highest level of attainment, but only 15% of 25-34 year-olds do.

• In China, the percentage of 25-34 year-olds with below upper secondary education as their highest
level of attainment decreased by 30 percentage points in just one decade – from 94% in 2000 to
64% in 2010.

• In most OECD countries, most adults with upper secondary or post-secondary non-tertiary
education as their highest level of attainment have vocational qualifications. In Canada, Chile,
Costa Rica, Greece, Israel, Portugal and Spain, general qualifications are more common: more than
60% at this level of attainment of adults hold such qualifications. In Australia, Turkey and the
United Kingdom, both programme orientations are equally represented.

• Skills and readiness to use ICT for problem solving increase as the level of education increases, but
decrease with age. On average, 34% of men and 29% of women have good ICT and problem-solving
skills.
Note
Several indicators in this publication show the level of education among individuals. Indicator A1
shows the level of attainment, i.e. the percentage of a population that has successfully completed a
given level of education, and the relationship between level of attainment and the acquisition of basic
skills. Graduation rates in Indicators A2 and A3 measure the estimated percentage of younger adults
who are expected to graduate from a particular level of education during their lifetimes. Completion
rates from upper secondary programmes in Indicator A2 estimate the proportion of students who
enter a programme and complete it successfully within a certain period of time.

Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

31

chapter A THE OUTPUT OF EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS AND THE IMPACT OF LEARNING

A1

Analysis
Attainment levels
Levels of educational attainment vary greatly not only among countries, but also among generations within
countries. This section examines the distribution of adults across the different aggregated levels of educational
attainment: those without upper secondary education, those with upper secondary or post-secondary non-tertiary
education as their highest level of attainment, and for those with a tertiary degree.

Below upper secondary
Chart A1.1 shows that there are still many young adults (25-34 year-olds) who are not benefiting from the expansion
of education. Between 30% and 40% of younger adults (25-34 year-olds) in Brazil, Colombia, Portugal, Saudi Arabia
and Spain, and over 50% of younger adults in China, Costa Rica, Indonesia, Mexico and Turkey do not have an upper
secondary education. On average across OECD countries, about one in six younger adults (17%) has not finished
upper secondary education (Table A1.4a).
The difference in attainment rates between generations is remarkable: across OECD countries, 34% of 55-64 year-olds
have not attained upper secondary education, while only 17% of 25-34 year-olds have not attained that level of
education. In Brazil, China, Indonesia, Mexico, Portugal, Saudi Arabia and Turkey, more than 70% of 55-64 year-olds
have below upper secondary as their highest level of attainment, but far smaller proportions of younger adults have
only this level of education (Table A1.4a).
More than one in two younger adults in China, Costa Rica, Indonesia, Mexico and Turkey have not attained upper
secondary education. China is the only country where education is only just beginning to expand: in 2000, 94% of
25-34 year-olds in China had not attained upper secondary education; by 2010, that proportion had shrunk
30 percentage points to 64% (Table A1.4a).
On average, the percentage of younger men without an upper secondary qualification (18%) is higher than that of
younger women (15%). In Latvia, Portugal and Spain, this difference is about 10 or more percentage points, while in
Austria, Indonesia, Mexico and Turkey, the difference is reversed (Table A1.4b, available on line).

Tertiary
As shown in Chart A1.2, the expansion in tertiary attainment over the generations has been significant. In all OECD and
partner countries except Israel and South Africa, the share of younger adults with tertiary qualifications is larger than
that of older adults with that level of qualification. On average, the difference between the generations (55-64 year-olds
compared with 25-34 year-olds) in tertiary attainment is about 16 percentage points. The speed of the expansion varies
considerably. In Brazil, Costa Rica, Estonia, Finland, Indonesia, Israel, Germany, the Russian Federation, South Africa
and the United States, the difference in tertiary attainment between the two age groups is less than 10 percentage
points, while in France, Ireland, Korea, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Poland, Slovenia and Spain, the difference ranges
from 20% to 50%. In most of the latter countries, the proportions of 55-64 year-olds with tertiary education is below
the OECD average. Among the countries with the highest tertiary attainment rates, small differences between the
generations, such as those observed in Israel, the Russian Federation and the United States, could reflect the fact that
these countries also have the highest tertiary attainment rates among 55-64 year-olds (Table A1.4a).
On average, a larger proportion of 25-34 year-old women has attained tertiary education than men of the same
age (46% and 35%, respectively), while the opposite is true for 55-64 year-old women and men (24% and 26%,
respectively) (Table A1.4b, available on line).
In two out of five OECD countries as well as in Latvia, Lithuania and the Russian Federation, at least one in
two younger women (25-34 year-olds) has a tertiary education. Two in three younger women in Canada and the
Russian Federation have a tertiary degree. In most countries, fewer than one in two men hold a tertiary degree; in
Canada, Korea, Lithuania, Luxembourg, the United Kingdom and the Russian Federation roughly one in two men
have attained tertiary education (Table A1.4b, available on line).
Behind the expansion of tertiary education there are large differences in the levels of tertiary education most of people
have attained. For instance, in Austria and Canada, about half of all tertiary-educated adults have a qualification from
a short-cycle tertiary programme, while less than 1% of tertiary-educated adults in the Czech Republic and Poland hold
such a qualification. Across OECD countries, 27% of 25-64 year-olds have at least a bachelor’s degree or equivalent. In
Belgium and Luxembourg, over 35% of adults hold this degree, but in Austria, Chile, France, Italy, Mexico and Turkey,
less than 20% of adults do. On average across OECD countries, 16% of 25-64 year-olds have earned a bachelor’s degree
or equivalent, 11% have earned a master’s degree, and about 1% have earned a doctoral degree or equivalent.

32

Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

To what level have adults studied? – INDICATOR A1

chapter A

Chart A1.2. Percentage of younger and older tertiary-educated adults (2014)

A1

25-34 and 55-64 year-olds, and percentage-point difference between these two groups
Difference between the 25-34 and 55-64 year-old population with tertiary education (right axis)
Proportion of the 25-34 year-old population with tertiary education (left axis)
%

Proportion of the 55-64 year-old population with tertiary education (left axis)

70

Percentage
points

70

60

60

50

50

40

40

30

30

20

20

10

10
0
-10

South Africa1
Israel
Germany
Costa Rica
Brazil2
United States
Estonia
Indonesia3
Finland
Russian Federation2
Mexico
New Zealand
Saudi Arabia2
Colombia
Iceland
Italy
Canada
Chile2
Denmark
China4
United Kingdom5
Australia
Czech Republic
Turkey
Switzerland
Hungary
OECD average
Slovak Republic
Sweden
Latvia
Austria
Norway
Netherlands
Greece
Belgium
Portugal
Slovenia
Spain
Luxembourg
France2
Lithuania
Ireland
Poland
Korea

0
-10

1. South Africa: Year of reference 2012.
2. Brazil, Chile, France, Korea, the Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia: Year of reference 2013.
3. Indonesia: Year of reference 2011.
4. China: Year of reference 2010.
5. The United Kingdom: Data for upper secondary attainment includes completion of a sufficient volume and standard of programmes that would be
classified individually as completion of intermediate upper secondary programmes (18% of the adults are under this group).
Countries are ranked in ascending order of the percentage-point difference between the 25-34 and 55-64 year-old population with tertiary education.
Source: OECD. Table A1.4a. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/education/education-at-a-glance-19991487.htm).
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933283393

Excluding tertiary-educated adults who have completed a short-cycle programme, the majority of tertiary-educated
adults in OECD countries have a bachelor’s degree or equivalent as their highest level of tertiary education. But in
Austria, the Czech Republic, Italy, Poland, Portugal and the Slovak Republic, about 75% or more of tertiary-educated
adults have a master’s or equivalent degree as their highest tertiary qualification (Table A1.1a).
Tertiary systems have expanded at different rates across countries. For example, the proportion of people with at
least a bachelor’s degree is at least 20 percentages points higher among 25-34 year-olds than among 55-64 year-olds
in Finland, Ireland, Korea, Lithuania, Poland and Slovenia, but is nearly the same (5 percentage points or less
difference) in Brazil, Costa Rica, Germany, Israel, South Africa and the United States (Table A1.3a).

Upper secondary or post-secondary non-tertiary
Despite the expansion of tertiary education, upper secondary education is still the most commonly attained
level of education in most OECD countries. More adults (25-64 year-olds) have attained upper secondary or
post-secondary non-tertiary education as their highest level of education than have attained any other level
of education (on average, about 43%). Among 25-34 year-olds across OECD countries, 42% have attained
upper secondary or post-secondary non-tertiary education. In the Czech Republic, the Slovak Republic and
South Africa, more than 60% of younger adults have attained this level of education as their highest level of
attainment (Table A1.4a).
Countries with relatively low upper secondary attainment rates can fall into one of two categories: either most
individuals leave education before earning an upper secondary qualification (i.e. they have below upper secondary
education), or they continue in education beyond this level until they earn a higher degree (i.e. they have attained
tertiary education). The latter path is followed by most young adults in Canada, Iceland, Korea, Luxembourg and
Spain, where tertiary attainment rates are higher than below upper secondary attainment rates. In China, Costa Rica,
Indonesia, Mexico and Turkey, 50% and younger adults do not reach upper secondary education, thus fewer of them
attain higher levels of education (Table A1.4a).
Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

33

chapter A THE OUTPUT OF EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS AND THE IMPACT OF LEARNING

Upper secondary or post-secondary non-tertiary vocational education and training (VET)
Upper secondary education across OECD countries is mainly divided into two types of programmes: those defined as
“general”, which are often designed to prepare students for further education, and those geared towards vocational
education and training (VET).
There are substantial differences across OECD countries in the attainment of vocational qualifications. While at least
one in two adults in the Czech Republic, Germany, Hungary, Poland and the Slovak Republic have vocational upper
secondary or post-secondary non-tertiary qualifications as their highest level of attainment, in Chile, Costa Rica,
Israel, Portugal, Spain and Turkey fewer than one in ten does (Table A1.5a).
Chart A1.3 shows how the shares of adults with vocational qualifications and those with general qualifications among
adults with upper secondary or post-secondary non-tertiary education vary across countries. In most OECD countries,
most adults with upper secondary or post-secondary non-tertiary education as their highest level of education have
vocational qualifications. By contrast, in Canada, Chile, Greece, Israel, Portugal and Spain, more than 60% of adults at
this level of attainment have general qualifications. In Australia, Turkey and the United Kingdom, both programme
orientations are equally represented (Table A1.5a).

Chart A1.3. Percentage of 25-64 year-olds whose highest level of education
is upper secondary or post-secondary non-tertiary, by programme orientation (2014)
General orientation

%

Vocational orientation

No distinction by orientation

80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0

Czech Republic
Slovak Republic
Poland
Germany
Hungary
Latvia
South Africa1
Slovenia
Lithuania
Austria
Estonia
Switzerland
United States
Finland
Denmark
Sweden
France2
OECD average
Italy
Netherlands
Korea
Russian Federation2
Chile2
Norway
Greece
New Zealand
Ireland
United Kingdom3
Israel
Belgium
Canada
Iceland
Luxembourg
Australia
Brazil2
Colombia
Saudi Arabia2
Indonesia4
Spain
Costa Rica
Portugal
Turkey
Mexico
China5

A1

Note: Denmark, Finland, Ireland, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Slovenia: Data for the breakdown by programme orientation are only available
for 15-34 year-olds and 35-64 year-olds if those individuals had completed their highest level of education 15 years, at most, before the date of the
interview.
1. South Africa: Year of reference 2012.
2. Brazil, Chile, France, the Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia: Year of reference 2013.
3. The United Kingdom: Data for upper secondary attainment includes completion of a sufficient volume and standard of programmes that would be
classified individually as completion of intermediate upper secondary programmes (18% of the adults are under this group).
4. Indonesia: Year of reference 2011.
5. China: Year of reference 2010.
Countries are ranked in descending order of the percentage of 25-64 year-olds with upper secondary or post-secondary non-tertiary education as highest level of
attainment, regardless of the orientation of the programmes.
Source: OECD. Table A5.1a. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/education/education-at-a-glance-19991487.htm).
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933283406

Skills and readiness to use information and communication technologies
for problem solving
The 2012 Survey of Adult Skills, a product of the OECD Programme for the International Assessment of Adult
Competencies (PIAAC), measured problem-solving skills in technology-rich environments and estimated the
frequency with which adults use those skills at work and at home. Greater proficiency in problem solving in
technology-rich environments reflects both better problem-solving skills and better skills in using digital technology,
communication tools and networks to acquire and evaluate information, communicate with others and perform
practical tasks (PIAAC Expert Group in Problem Solving in Technology-Rich Environments, 2009).

34

Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

To what level have adults studied? – INDICATOR A1

chapter A

The information gathered through the Survey of Adult Skills allows for the creation of an indicator that measures
skills and readiness to use ICT for problem solving. This indicator combines data about performance in the problemsolving assessment and information about why some adults did not participate in the computer-based assessment
and thus do not have a score in problem solving (see the Definitions section at the end of this chapter).
By educational attainment
Chart A1.4 shows that skills and readiness to use ICT for problem solving in technology-rich environments are
greatly related to educational attainment. In all countries with relevant data, the results show that the proportion of
the population with good ICT and problem solving-skills increases with educational attainment. On average, 7% of
adults who have not attained upper secondary education have good ICT and problem solving-skills. This proportion
increases to 25% among those who have attained upper secondary or post-secondary non-tertiary education, and
to 52% among adults with tertiary education. The highest rates of good ICT and problem-solving skills among
tertiary-educated adults are observed in the Netherlands (64%), Sweden (62%) and the Czech Republic (60%);
the lowest rates are observed in Poland (37%), Estonia (35%) and the Russian Federation (27%). In all countries,
education seems to play a central role in developing the skills that are now considered essential in modern societies
(Table A1.6a).

Chart A1.4. Percentage of adults with good information and communication technologies
and problem-solving skills, by educational attainment (2012)
Survey of Adult Skills, 25-64 year-olds
Tertiary education
Upper secondary or post-secondary non-tertiary education
Below upper secondary education

%

70
60
50
40
30
20

Russian Federation*

Estonia

Poland

Korea

Ireland

Canada

Slovak Republic

Japan

Austria

United States

Average

England/
N. Ireland (UK)

Germany

Flanders (Belgium)

Denmark

Australia

Finland

Norway

Czech Republic

Sweden

0

Netherlands

10

Note: Data on educational attainment are based on ISCED-97.
* See note on data for the Russian Federation in the Methodology section.
Countries are ranked in descending order of the percentage of adults with tertiary education and with good ICT and problem-solving skills (Group 4).
Source: OECD. Table 1.6a. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/education/education-at-a-glance-19991487.htm).
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933283415

By age group
In all countries and sub-national entities that participated in the Survey of Adult Skills, the younger generation
(25-34 year-olds) shows higher levels of skills and readiness to use ICT for problem solving in technologyrich environments than older generations. On average, 50% of 25-34 year-olds, 39% of 35-44 year-olds, 24% of
45-54 year-olds and 12% of 55-64 year-olds demonstrate good ICT and problem-solving skills. Finland has the largest
proportion (67%) of 25-34 year-olds with good ICT and problem-solving skills – much larger than the proportion
of 55-64 year-olds (9%) who demonstrate good ICT and problem-solving skills. In fact, Finland shows the widest
gap between the older and the younger generations – 58 percentage points – in this area. The United States has the
smallest generation gap: 20 percentage points. In the United States, more than 20% of 55-64 year-olds have good
ICT and problem-solving skills (the highest percentage among participating countries and sub-national entities)
while 40% of 25-34 year-olds do (a below-average percentage for this age group). Poland has the smallest proportion
of adults, in all age groups, with good ICT and problem solving-skills (Table A1.6b, available on line).
Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

35

A1

chapter A THE OUTPUT OF EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS AND THE IMPACT OF LEARNING

A1

By gender
Among 25-64 year-olds in all countries and sub-national entities, a larger proportion of men than women have
good ICT and problem-solving skills. On average, 34% of men and 29% of women have good ICT and problemsolving skills. The largest proportions of men with these skills are found in the Netherlands, Norway (both 44%)
and Sweden (43%); the largest proportions of women with these skills are found in Sweden (39%), Finland (38%)
and Australia (36%). The gender gap is at least 10 percentage points wide only in Japan (40% for men and 27% for
women) (Table A1.6c, available on line).

Definitions
Age groups: adults refers to 25-64 year-olds; younger adults refers to 25-34 year-olds; older adults refers to
55-64 year-olds.
Completion of intermediate programmes for educational attainment (ISCED 2011) corresponds to recognised
qualification from an ISCED 2011 level programme which is not considered as sufficient for ISCED 2011 level
completion and is classified at a lower ISCED 2011 level. In addition, this recognised qualification does not give
direct access to an upper ISCED 2011 level programme.
Levels of education: In this Indicator two ISCED (International Standard Classification of Education) classifications
are used: ISCED 2011 and ISCED-97.

• When it is specified that ISCED 2011 is used, the levels of education are defined as: below upper secondary
corresponds to ISCED 2011 Levels 0, 1 and 2, and includes recognised qualifications from ISCED 2011 Level
3 programmes, which are not considered as sufficient for ISCED 2011 Level 3 completion, and without direct
access to post-secondary non-tertiary education or tertiary education; upper secondary or post-secondary
non-tertiary corresponds to ISCED 2011 Levels 3 and 4; and tertiary corresponds to ISCED 2011 Levels 5, 6, 7
and 8 (UNESCO Institute for Statistics, 2012).

• When it is specified that ISCED-97 is used, the levels of education are defined as: below upper secondary
corresponds to ISCED-97 Levels 0, 1, 2 and 3C short programmes; upper secondary or post-secondary
non-tertiary corresponds to ISCED-97 Levels 3A, 3B, 3C long programmes, and Level 4; and tertiary corresponds
to ISCED-97 Levels 5A, 5B and 6.
See the section About the new ISCED 2011 classification, at the beginning of this publication, for a presentation of all
ISCED 2011 levels and Annex 3 for a presentation of all ISCED-97 levels.
Skill groups refer to skills and readiness to use information and communication technologies (ICT) for problem
solving in technology-rich environments. Each group is described in terms of the characteristics of the types of
tasks that can be successfully completed by adults, and the related scores in the assessment of problem solving in
technology-rich environments in the Survey of Adult Skills.

• Group 0 (no computer experience)
• Group 1 (refused the computer-based assessment)
• Group 2 (failed ICT core stage 1 or minimal problem-solving skills – scored below Level 1 in the problem solving
in technology-rich environments assessment)

• Group 3 (moderate ICT and problem-solving skills – scored at Level 1 in the problem solving in technology-rich
environments assessment)

• Group 4 (good ICT and problem-solving skills – scored at Level 2 or Level 3 in the problem solving in technology-rich
environments assessment)
VET: The International Standard Classification of Education (ISCED 2011) defines VET as “education programmes
that are designed for learners to acquire the knowledge, skills and competencies specific to a particular occupation,
trade, or class of occupations or trades. Such programmes may have work-based components (e.g. apprenticeships,
dual-system education programmes). Successful completion of such programmes leads to labour market-relevant,
vocational qualifications acknowledged as occupationally-oriented by the relevant national authorities and/or the
labour market” (UNESCO Institute for Statistics, 2012).

36

Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

To what level have adults studied? – INDICATOR A1

chapter A

Methodology
Data on population and educational attainment for most countries are taken from OECD and Eurostat databases,
which are compiled from National Labour Force Surveys by the OECD LSO (Labour Market and Social Outcomes of
Learning) Network. Data on educational attainment for China, Colombia, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia and South Africa
are taken from the UNESCO Institute of Statistics (UIS) database on educational attainment of the population
aged 25 and older. Data on proficiency levels and mean scores are based on the Survey of Adult Skills (PIAAC)
(2012). PIAAC is the OECD Programme for the International Assessment of Adult Competencies. See Annex 3 for
additional information (www.oecd.org/education/education-at-a-glance-19991487.htm).
Attainment profiles are based on the percentage of the population aged 25-64 that has successfully completed a
specified level of education.
In OECD statistics, recognised qualifications from ISCED 2011 Level 3 programmes that are not of sufficient
duration for ISCED 2011 Level 3 completion are classified at ISCED 2011 Level 2. Where countries have been
able to demonstrate equivalencies in the labour market value of attainment formally classified as “completion of
intermediate upper secondary programmes” (e.g. achieving 5 good GCSEs or equivalent in the United Kingdom) and
“full upper secondary attainment”, attainment of these programmes are reported as ISCED 2011 Level 3 completion
in the tables showing three aggregate levels of educational attainment (UNESCO Institute for Statistics, 2012).
Most OECD countries include people without education (i.e. illiterate adults or people whose educational attainment
does not fit national classifications) under the international classification ISCED 0; therefore averages for the
category “less than primary educational attainment” are likely to be influenced.
Note regarding data from Israel
The statistical data for Israel are supplied by and are under the responsibility of the relevant Israeli authorities. The use of
such data by the OECD is without prejudice to the status of the Golan Heights, East Jerusalem and Israeli settlements in the
West Bank under the terms of international law.

Note regarding data from the Russian Federation in the Survey of Adult Skills (PIAAC)
Readers should note that the sample for the Russian Federation does not include the population of the Moscow municipal
area. The data published, therefore, do not represent the entire resident population aged 16-65 in Russia but rather the
population of Russia excluding the population residing in the Moscow municipal area. More detailed information regarding
the data from the Russian Federation as well as that of other countries can be found in the Technical Report of the Survey
of Adult Skills (OECD, 2014).

References
OECD (2014), Technical Report of the Survey of Adult Skills, www.oecd.org/site/piaac/_Technical%20Report_17OCT13.pdf,
pre-publication copy.
OECD (2013), OECD Skills Outlook 2013: First Results from the Survey of Adult Skills, OECD Publishing, Paris, http://dx.doi.
org/10.1787/9789264204256-en.
PIAAC Expert Group in Problem Solving in Technology-Rich Environments (2009), “PIAAC Problem Solving in TechnologyRich Environments: A Conceptual Framework”, OECD Education Working Papers, No. 36, OECD Publishing, Paris, http://dx.doi.
org/10.1787/220262483674.
UNESCO Institute for Statistics (2012), International Standard Classification of Education: ISCED 2011, UNESCO-UIS, Montreal,
Canada, www.uis.unesco.org/Education/Documents/isced-2011-en.pdf.

Indicator A1 Tables
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933284728

Table A1.1a
WEB Table A1.1b
Table A1.2a

Educational attainment of 25-64 year-olds (2014)
Educational attainment of 25-64 year-olds, by gender (2014)
Percentage of adults who have attained at least upper secondary education, by age group (2014)

…
Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

37

A1

chapter A THE OUTPUT OF EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS AND THE IMPACT OF LEARNING

A1

WEB Table A1.2b
Table A1.3a
WEB Table A1.3b
Table A1.4a
WEB Table A1.4b
Table A1.5a
WEB Table A1.5b
Table A1.6a
WEB Table A1.6b
WEB Table A1.6c

38

Percentage of adults who have attained at least upper secondary education, by age group
and gender (2014)
Percentage of adults who have attained tertiary education, by type of programme
and age group (2014)
Percentage of adults who have attained tertiary education, by type of programme, age group
and gender (2014)
Trends in educational attainment, by age group (2000, 2005, 2010 and 2014)
Trends in educational attainment, by age group and gender (2000, 2005, 2010 and 2014)
Adults whose highest level of education is upper secondary or post-secondary non-tertiary
education, by programme orientation and gender (2014)
Adults whose highest level of education is upper secondary or post-secondary non-tertiary
education, by programme orientation, age group and gender (2014)
Skills and readiness to use information and communication technologies
for problem solving among 25-64 year-olds, by educational attainment (2012)
Skills and readiness to use information and communication technologies
for problem solving among 25-64 year-olds, by age group (2012)
Skills and readiness to use information and communication technologies
for problem solving among 25-64 year-olds, by gender (2012)

Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

To what level have adults studied? – INDICATOR A1

chapter A

Table A1.1a. Educational attainment of 25-64 year-olds (2014)
Percentage of adults with a given level of education as the highest level attained
Upper secondary
or post-secondary
non-tertiary

Partners

Primary

Completion of
intermediate
lower secondary
programmes

Lower secondary

Completion of
intermediate
upper secondary
programmes

Upper secondary

Post-secondary
non-tertiary

Short cycle
tertiary

Bachelor’s or
equivalent

Master’s or
equivalent

Doctoral or
equivalent

Australia
Austria
Belgium
Canada
Chile1
Czech Republic
Denmark
Estonia
Finland
France1
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Iceland
Ireland
Israel
Italy
Japan
Korea
Luxembourg
Mexico
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Slovak Republic
Slovenia
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Turkey
United Kingdom
United States

Tertiary

Less than
primary
OECD

Below upper secondary

A1

All levels
of
education

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7)

(8)

(9)

(10)

(11)

(12)

x(2)

6d

a

17

a

30

5

11

24

6

1

100

x(2)
4
x(2)
9
0
x(2)
0
x(2)
1
x(2)
1
0
x(2)
0
2
1
x(6)
x(2)
c
15
1
x(2)
0
0
3
0
0
3
x(2)
0
5
0
1

1d
7
3d
6
c
4d
0
4
8
3d
17
1
1d
8
5
7
x(6)
6d
7
19
6
x(4)
0
9
33
0
1
10
3d
2
46
1
3

a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
0
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
3
a
a
a
a
a
1
a
a
a
a
a
a
a

15
16
7
23
7
16
8
9
16
10
13
16
26
13
7
33
x(6)
9
11
25
16
26d
17
0
21
7
13
30
13
10
13
20
7

a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
0
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
5
a
a
a
a
a
0
a
a
2
a
a
18
a

52
35
25
40
72d
43
45
44
43
49
32
51
33
24
37
42
52d
40
34
15
41
22
38
60
21
69
57
22
36
48d
19
19
45d

2
1
11
a
x(6)
0
8
1
0
11
9
8
4
14
a
1
x(6)
m
2
a
0
16
2
3
1
1
a
0
7
x(6)
a
a
x(6)

15
0
25
7
0
4
7
12
14
1
2
1
4
12
14
c
21d
13
9
1
2
5
12
0
x(9)
0
7
11
10
x(9, 10, 11)
5
11
11

2
20
19
13
5
19
10
15
9
14
23
13
20
21
22
3
28d
31d
15
18d
20
26
19
6
5d
3
6
9
15
20d
10
22
22

11
16
9d
1d
16
11
20
13
8
11
2
9
12
8
11
13
x(9)
x(9)
20
x(9)
12
4
10
21
17
16
13
14
12
17d
1
8
10

1
1
x(10)
x(10)
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
x(9)
x(9)
1
x(9)
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
3d
0
1
2

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

OECD average

2

7

m

15

m

39

5

8

16

11

1

100

EU21 average

1

6

m

14

m

42

4

6

12

13

1

100

m
x(4)
3
x(4)
2
m
22
c
c
x(4)
16
16

m
x(4)
25
x(4)
37
m
31
0
c
x(4)
15
6

m
a
a
a
8
m
a
a
a
a
a
a

m
54d
47
48d
7
m
17
10
6
5d
18
14

m
a
a
a
2
m
a
a
2
a
a
a

m
33d
15d
30d
16
m
23
51
34
40d
24
51

m
x(6)
x(6)
x(6)
5
m
a
8
21
x(6)
5
7

m
x(9)
6
x(9)
1
m
x(9)
2
x(9)
x(9)
x(9)
x(9)

m
14d
3
22d
15
m
8d
17
22d
54d
22d
7d

m
x(9)
0d
x(9)
2d
m
x(9)
10
14
x(9)
x(9)
x(9)

m
x(9)
x(10)
x(9)
x(10)
m
x(9)
0
c
x(9)
x(9)
x(9)

m
100
100
100
100
m
100
100
100
100
100
100

8

13

m

19

11

33

m

10

18

7

m

100

Argentina
Brazil1
China2
Colombia
Costa Rica
India
Indonesia3
Latvia
Lithuania
Russian Federation1
Saudi Arabia1
South Africa4
G20 average

Note: In most countries, the data refer to ISCED 2011. The countries with data that refer to ISCED-97 are: Brazil, Indonesia, the Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia
and South Africa. See the description of the levels of education in the Definitions section.
1. Brazil, Chile, France, the Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia: Year of reference 2013.
2. China: Year of reference 2010.
3. Indonesia: Year of reference 2011.
4. South Africa: Year of reference 2012.
Source: OECD. China, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia, South Africa: UNESCO Institute for Statistics. Colombia, Costa Rica: OECD Education Database. Latvia, Lithuania:
Eurostat. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/education/education-at-a-glance-19991487.htm).
Please refer to the Reader’s Guide for information concerning symbols for missing data and abbreviations.
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933284736

Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

39

chapter A THE OUTPUT OF EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS AND THE IMPACT OF LEARNING

Table A1.2a. Percentage of adults who have attained at least upper secondary education,

A1

Partners

OECD

by age group (2014)

25-64 year-olds

30-34 year-olds

25-34 year-olds

35-44 year-olds

45-54 year-olds

55-64 year-olds

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

Australia
Austria
Belgium
Canada
Chile1
Czech Republic
Denmark
Estonia
Finland
France1
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Iceland
Ireland
Israel
Italy
Japan
Korea
Luxembourg
Mexico
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Slovak Republic
Slovenia
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Turkey
United Kingdom2
United States

77
84
74
90
61
93
80
91
87
75
87
68
83
73
79
85
59
m
85
82
34
76
74
82
91
43
91
86
57
82
88
36
79
90

86
90
82
93
77
95
84
89
91
85
87
80
88
75
90
90
71
m
98
85
41
85
80
82
94
63
93
94
67
81
91
46
86
89

87
90
82
93
80
95
82
89
90
85
87
82
87
74
90
91
74
m
98
87
46
85
81
81
94
65
92
94
66
82
91
50
86
90

82
86
80
93
66
96
84
89
90
81
87
75
86
78
86
87
65
m
97
86
33
80
78
86
93
52
94
91
65
86
89
35
82
89

71
83
72
89
53
94
80
94
89
72
87
65
83
73
74
82
54
m
84
79
28
74
71
80
91
34
92
84
53
84
87
25
77
89

65
75
59
85
42
88
72
92
77
61
86
50
77
68
59
78
46
m
54
73
20
65
66
80
84
23
84
75
39
74
84
21
71
90

OECD average
EU21 average

76
78

83
85

83
85

80
83

74
77

66
68

Argentina
Brazil1
China 3
Colombia
Costa Rica
India
Indonesia 4
Latvia
Lithuania
Russian Federation1
Saudi Arabia1
South Africa5

m
46
24
52
40
m
31
90
91
95
51
65

m
59
33
65
46
m
38
85
87
94
60
78

m
61
36
67
47
m
40
86
88
95
65
77

m
48
23
53
37
m
34
88
88
95
49
69

m
40
24
42
36
m
22
95
96
96
40
52

m
28
12
33
35
m
15
90
91
92
28
38

G20 average

64

72

73

66

60

51

Note: In most countries, the data refer to ISCED 2011. The countries with data that refer to ISCED-97 are: Brazil, Indonesia, the Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia
and South Africa. See the description of the levels of education in the Definitions section.
1. Brazil, Chile, France, the Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia: Year of reference 2013.
2. The United Kingdom: Data for upper secondary attainment includes completion of a sufficient volume and standard of programmes that would be classified
individually as completion of intermediate upper secondary programmes (18% of the adults are under this group).
3. China: Year of reference 2010.
4. Indonesia: Year of reference 2011.
5. South Africa: Year of reference 2012.
Source: OECD. China, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia, South Africa: UNESCO Institute for Statistics. Colombia, Costa Rica: OECD Education Database. Latvia, Lithuania:
Eurostat. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/education/education-at-a-glance-19991487.htm).
Please refer to the Reader’s Guide for information concerning symbols for missing data and abbreviations.
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933284742

40

Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

To what level have adults studied? – INDICATOR A1

chapter A

Table A1.3a. Percentage of adults who have attained tertiary education,

A1

by type of programme and age group (2014)
Bachelor’s
or equivalent

OECD

Australia
Austria
Belgium
Canada
Chile1
Czech Republic
Denmark
Estonia
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Iceland
Ireland
Israel
Italy
Japan
Korea
Luxembourg
Mexico
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Slovak Republic
Slovenia
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Turkey
United Kingdom
United States

Partners

OECD average
EU21 average

Doctoral
or equivalent

55-64
year-olds

25-64
year-olds

25-34
year-olds

55-64
year-olds

25-64
year-olds

25-34
year-olds

55-64
year-olds

25-64
year-olds

25-34
year-olds

55-64
year-olds

25-64
year-olds

25-34
year-olds

55-64
year-olds

Total tertiary

25-34
year-olds

Master’s
or equivalent

25-64
year-olds

Short cycle tertiary

25-64
year-olds
(in
thousands)

(1)

(3)

(6)

(7)

(9)

(12)

(13)

(15)

(18)

(19)

(21)

(24)

(25)

(27)

(30)

(31)

11
15
0
25
7
0
4
7
12
14
1
2
1
4
12
14
c
m
13
9
1
2
5
12
0
a
0
7
11
10
x(7, 13, 19)
5
11
11

10
11
17
13
0
c
24
23
9
4
0
c
4
4
1
12
0
17
18
9
0
1
1
2
3
c
3
4
12
8
11
16
c
c
m
m
23
3
10
8
1
0
2
2
4
7
14
9
0
0
a
a
0r
c
6
7
13
5
10
11
x(9, 15, 21) x(12, 18, 24)
7
4
8
11
10
11

24
2
20
19
13
5
19
10
15
9
14
23
13
20
21
22
3
x(25)
31d
15
18d
20
26
19
6
5
3
6
9
15
20d
10
22
22

30
5
23
24
18
11
22
23
26
12
14
34
16
26
29
27
9
x(27)
45d
17
24d
26
32
22
11
10
6
12
11
22
24d
15
31
25

18
0
15
14
9
2
18
1
7
6
14
17
10
15
11
16
1
x(30)
14d
11
13d
16
18
16
2
3
1
2
7
9
15d
5
16
18

6
11
16
9d
1d
16
11
20
13
8
11
2
9
12
8
11
13
x(25)
x(7)
20
x(7)
12
4
10
21
17
16
13
14
12
17d
1
8
10

7
15
20
9d
1d
19
15
16
14
14
13
3
13
12
9
7
15
x(27)
x(9)
25
x(9)
16
4
12
31
21
23
18
17
13
19d
2
10
9

4
7
10
8d
1d
13
7
22
9
5
10
1
6
9
4
13
11
x(30)
x(12)
10
x(12)
8
3
6
11
9
12
8
8
9
13d
1
7
11

1
1
1
x(13)
x(13)
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
x(25)
x(7)
1
x(7)
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
3d
0
1
2

1
1
1
x(15)
x(15)
0
1
c
0
1
1
0
1
c
1
0
0
x(27)
x(9)
1
x(9)
0
0
0
0
c
1
2
0
1
2d
0
1
1

1
1
0
x(18)
x(18)
1
0r
c
1
1
1
1
1
2
0
2
0
x(30)
x(12)
2
x(12)
1
1
1
0
0
0
1
1
1
3d
0
1
2

42
30
37
54
21
22
36
38
42
32
27
28
23
37
41
49
17
28
45
46
19
34
36
42
27
22
20
29
35
39
40
17
42
44

48
38
44
58
27
30
42
40
40
44
28
39
32
41
51
46
24
37
68
53
25
44
40
49
43
31
30
38
41
46
46
25
49
46

33
21
26
45
14
15
29
36
34
20
25
21
17
29
24
47
12
21
17
32
13
27
29
32
14
13
14
18
21
30
31
10
35
41

5 012
1 405
2 191
10 293
1 815
1 285
987
270
1 186
10 432
11 956
1 672
1 276
122
982
1 830
5 612
17 720
13320
138
10 435
3 034
808
1 129
5665
1 236
646
340
9 111
1 905
1 820
5 984
14 090
72 873

8

7

8

15

21

10

11

14

8

1

1

1

33

41

25

6 429

6

6

7

12

18

8

13

16

9

1

1

1

32

39

23

3 591

Argentina
Brazil2
China3
Colombia
Costa Rica
India
Indonesia4
Latvia
Lithuania
Russian Federation1
Saudi Arabia1
South Africa5

m
x(7)
6
x(7)
1
m
x(7)
2
x(7)
x(7)
x(7)
x(7)

m
x(9)
x(27)
x(9)
1
m
x(9)
5
x(9)
x(9)
x(9)
x(9)

m
x(12)
x(30)
x(12)
1
m
x(12)
1r
x(12)
x(12)
x(12)
x(12)

m
14d
3
22d
15
m
8d
17
22d
54d
22d
7d

m
15d
x(27)
28d
18
m
10d
23
38d
58d
26d
5d

m
11d
x(30)
16d
12
m
4d
12
12d
50d
14d
7d

m
x(7)
0d
x(7)
2d
m
x(7)
10
14
x(7)
x(7)
x(7)

m
x(9)
x(27)
x(9)
1d
m
x(9)
11
14
x(9)
x(9)
x(9)

m
x(12)
x(30)
x(12)
3d
m
x(12)
10
15
x(12)
x(12)
x(12)

m
x(7)
x(13)
x(7)
x(13)
m
x(7)
0
c
x(7)
x(7)
x(7)

m
x(9)
x(27)
x(9)
x(15)
m
x(9)
c
c
x(9)
x(9)
x(9)

m
x(12)
x(30)
x(12)
x(18)
m
x(12)
c
c
x(12)
x(12)
x(12)

m
14
10
22
18
m
8
30
37
54
22
7

m
15
18
28
20
m
10
39
53
58
26
5

m
11
4
16
16
m
4
23
28
50
14
7

m
14 422
74 086
4 683
441
m
10 067
327
578
45 262
3 291
1 572

G20 average

10

m

m

18

m

m

7

m

m

m

m

m

28

34

21

19 202

Notes: In most countries, the data refer to ISCED 2011. The countries with data that refer to ISCED-97 are: Brazil, Indonesia, the Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia
and South Africa. See the description of the levels of education in the Definitions section. Columns showing data for other age groups are available for consultation
on line (see StatLink below).
1. Brazil, Chile, France, the Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia: Year of reference 2013.
2. Japan: Data for tertiary education exclude short-cycle tertiary education.
3. China: Year of reference 2010.
4. Indonesia: Year of reference 2011.
5. South Africa: Year of reference 2012.
Source: OECD. China, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia, South Africa: UNESCO Institute for Statistics. Colombia, Costa Rica: OECD Education Database. Latvia, Lithuania:
Eurostat. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/education/education-at-a-glance-19991487.htm).
Please refer to the Reader’s Guide for information concerning symbols for missing data and abbreviations.
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933284758

Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

41

chapter A THE OUTPUT OF EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS AND THE IMPACT OF LEARNING

Table A1.4a. [1/3] Trends in educational attainment, by age group (2000, 2005, 2010 and 2014)

A1

Below upper secondary

Partners

OECD

25-64 year-olds

25-34 year-olds

55-64 year-olds

2000

2005

2010

2014

2000

2005

2010

2014

2000

2005

2010

2014

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7)

(8)

(9)

(10)

(11)

(12)

Australia
Austria
Belgium
Canada
Chile1
Czech Republic
Denmark
Estonia
Finland
France1
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Iceland
Ireland
Israel
Italy
Japan
Korea
Luxembourg
Mexico
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Slovak Republic
Slovenia
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Turkey
United Kingdom2
United States

41b
m
41b
19
m
14b
20b
15
27b
38b
18b
51b
31b
m
43b
m
58b
m
32
39b
71b
35b
37b
15
20b
81b
16b
25b
62b
22b
16b
77
37b
13

35b
23
34b
15
m
10b
19b
11
21b
33b
17b
43b
24b
32
35b
21b
50b
m
24
34b
68b
28b
32b
23
15b
74b
12b
20b
51b
16b
15b
72
33b
12

27b
18
30b
12
29b
8b
24b
11
17b
29b
14b
35b
19b
29
27b
18b
45b
m
20
22b
65b
27b
27b
19
11b
68b
9b
17b
47b
14b
14b
69
25b
11

23
16
26
10
39
7
20
9
13
25
13
32
17
27
21
15
41
m
15
18
66
24
26
18
9
57
9
14
43
18
12
64
21
10

32b
m
25b
12
m
8b
13b
9
14b
24b
15b
31b
19b
m
27b
m
44b
m
7
32b
63b
26b
31b
7
11b
68b
6b
15b
45b
13b
10b
72
33b
12

21b
14b
19b
9
m
6b
13b
13
11b
19b
16b
26b
15b
29b
19b
15b
34b
m
3
23b
62b
19b
24b
17
8b
57b
7b
9b
35b
9b
10b
63
27b
13

15b
12
18b
8
13b
6b
20b
13
9b
16b
14b
21b
14b
26
14b
12b
29b
m
2
16b
57b
17b
21b
17
6b
48b
6b
7b
34b
9b
11b
58
17b
12

13
10
18
7
20
5
18
11
10
15
13
18
13
26
10
9
26
m
2
13
54
15
19
19
6
35
8
6
34
18
9
50
14
10

54b
m
62b
36
m
24b
31b
33
50b
56b
26b
75b
60b
m
64b
m
79b
m
71b
51b
87b
49b
49b
30
43b
92b
38b
39b
85b
37b
26b
87
45b
18

50b
36
52b
25
m
17b
25b
20
39b
49b
21b
68b
39b
42
60b
32b
70b
m
65
45b
84b
41b
44b
27
30b
87b
23b
31b
74b
28b
21b
84
40b
14

42b
27
46b
18
47b
14b
32b
15
30b
44b
17b
56b
26b
38
50b
26b
62b
m
57
31b
78b
39b
38b
21
21b
84b
17b
28b
68b
23b
19b
81
35b
10

35
25
41
15
58
12
28
8
23
39
14
50
23
32
41
22
54
m
46
27
80
35
34
20
16
77
16
25
61
26
16
79
29
10

OECD average
EU21 average

35b
35b

30b
29b

26b
25b

24
22

25b
24b

21b
19b

18b
17b

17
15

52b
52b

43b
43b

38b
36b

34
32

Argentina
Brazil1, 3
China
Colombia
Costa Rica
India
Indonesia4
Latvia
Lithuania
Russian Federation1
Saudi Arabia1, 5
South Africa6

m
m
95
m
m
m
m
17
16b
m
c
m

m
m
m
m
m
m
m
15
12b
m
64
42

m
59
76
m
61
m
74
12
8b
m
m
m

m
54
m
48
58
m
69
10
9
5
49
35

m
m
94
m
m
m
m
11
8b
m
c
m

m
m
m
m
m
m
m
19
13b
m
56
28

m
47
64
m
53
m
63
17
12b
m
m
m

m
39
m
33
50
m
60
14
12
5
35
23

m
m
97
m
m
m
m
34
45b
m
c
m

m
m
m
m
m
m
m
26
29b
m
85
66

m
75
88
m
69
m
92
15
13b
m
m
m

m
72
m
67
63
m
85
10
9
8
72
62

G20 average

45b

m

40b

m

37b

m

31b

m

60b

m

54b

m

Note: In most countries, there is a break in the series, represented by the code “b”, as data for the latest year refer to ISCED 2011 while data for previous years refer
to ISCED-97. For China and Korea data refer to ISCED-97 for all years. See the description of the levels of education in the Definitions section.
1. Brazil, Chile, France, the Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia: Data for year 2014 refer to year 2013.
2. The United Kingdom: Data for upper secondary attainment includes completion of a sufficient volume and standard of programmes that would be classified
individually as completion of intermediate upper secondary programmes (18% of the adults are under this group).
3. Brazil: Data for year 2010 refer to year 2009.
4. Indonesia: Data for year 2014 refer to year 2011, data for 2010 refer to year 2006.
5. Saudi Arabia: Data for year 2005 refer to year 2004.
6. South Africa: Data for year 2014 refer to year 2012.
Source: OECD. China, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia, South Africa: UNESCO Institute for Statistics. Colombia, Costa Rica: OECD Education Database. Latvia, Lithuania:
Eurostat. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/education/education-at-a-glance-19991487.htm).
Please refer to the Reader’s Guide for information concerning symbols for missing data and abbreviations.
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933284763

42

Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

To what level have adults studied? – INDICATOR A1

chapter A

Table A1.4a. [2/3] Trends in educational attainment, by age group (2000, 2005, 2010 and 2014)

A1

Upper secondary or post-secondary non-tertiary

Partners

OECD

25-64 year-olds

25-34 year-olds

55-64 year-olds

2000

2005

2010

2014

2000

2005

2010

2014

2000

2005

2010

2014

(13)

(14)

(15)

(16)

(17)

(18)

(19)

(20)

(21)

(22)

(23)

(24)

Australia
Austria
Belgium
Canada
Chile1
Czech Republic
Denmark
Estonia
Finland
France1
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Iceland
Ireland
Israel
Italy
Japan
Korea
Luxembourg
Mexico
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Slovak Republic
Slovenia
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Turkey
United Kingdom2
United States

31b
m
31b
41
m
75b
54b
56
41b
41b
58b
32b
55b
m
36b
m
33b
m
44
43b
14b
41b
m
57
69b
11b
73b
59b
16b
47b
60b
15
37b
51

33b
52
35b
39
m
77b
47b
56
44b
41b
59b
36b
59b
39
35b
36b
38b
m
44
39b
17b
42
m
45
68b
14b
74b
60b
21b
54b
56b
18
37b
49

36b
55
36b
38
45b
75b
42b
54
45b
42b
59b
41b
61b
38
35b
37b
40b
m
41
42b
18b
41b
m
43
66b
16b
74b
60b
22b
52b
51b
18
37b
47

35
54
37
36
40
72
44
54
45
43
60
40
60
36
38
37
42
m
40
36
15
41
38
40
64
22
70
57
22
43
48
19
37
45

37b
m
39b
40
m
81b
58b
60
48b
45b
63b
45b
67b
m
43b
m
46b
m
56
45b
20b
48b
m
59
75b
19b
82b
66b
21b
54b
64b
19
38b
50

41b
55
40b
37
m
80b
48b
55
52b
42b
62b
49b
65b
36
40b
43b
50b
m
46
40b
20b
46b
m
43
66b
24b
77b
67b
24b
53b
59b
24
38b
47

40b
54
38b
36
48b
72b
42b
49
52b
41b
60b
48b
60b
37
37b
44b
50b
m
33
40b
21b
42b
m
36
57b
27b
70b
62b
25b
49b
49b
25
37b
46

39
52
38
35
53
65
40
49
50
41
59
43
55
33
39
45
50
m
31
34
21
41
41
32
52
33
63
56
24
36
45
25
37
44

27b
m
22b
36
m
67b
51b
39
27b
31b
54b
17b
28b
m
22b
m
15b
m
20
36b
6b
34b
m
50
47b
3b
54b
49b
6b
40b
55b
7
37b
52

26b
47
26b
39
m
73b
48b
51
34b
35b
56b
20b
46b
38
23b
26b
22b
m
25
37b
8b
35
m
49
58b
5b
65b
53b
11b
47b
57b
8
36b
49

29b
52
29b
40
34b
75b
41b
54
40b
37b
58b
27b
58b
40
29b
29b
28b
m
30
44b
10b
35b
m
51
66b
7b
71b
56b
14b
50b
53b
9
35b
49

32
54
32
40
27
72
43
57
43
41
60
29
60
39
35
31
34
m
37
41
7
38
37
49
70
10
71
57
17
44
53
11
36
49

OECD average
EU21 average

44b
45b

44b
47b

44b
47b

43
47

50b
52b

47b
51b

45b
48b

42
45

33b
34b

37b
39b

40b
43b

41
45

Argentina
Brazil1, 3
China
Colombia
Costa Rica
India
Indonesia4
Latvia
Lithuania
Russian Federation1
Saudi Arabia1, 5
South Africa6

m
m
5
m
m
m
m
65
42b
m
c
m

m
m
m
m
m
m
m
64
61b
m
20
52

m
30
15
m
21
m
19
62
59b
m
m
m

m
33
m
30
22
m
23
59
55
40
29
58

m
m
6
m
m
m
m
72
52b
m
c
m

m
m
m
m
m
m
m
59
50b
m
26
67

m
41
18
m
27
m
29
49
42b
m
m
m

m
45
m
40
27
m
30
47
36
37
39
72

m
m
3
m
m
m
m
51
21b
m
c
m

m
m
m
m
m
m
m
54
52b
m
8
28

m
16
8
m
15
m
6
63
64b
m
m
m

m
18
m
17
19
m
10
67
64
43
14
31

G20 average

34b

m

34b

m

38b

m

37b

m

26b

m

27b

m

Note: In most countries, there is a break in the series, represented by the code “b”, as data for the latest year refer to ISCED 2011 while data for previous years refer
to ISCED-97. For China and Korea data refer to ISCED-97 for all years. See the description of the levels of education in the Definitions section.
1. Brazil, Chile, France, the Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia: Data for year 2014 refer to year 2013.
2. The United Kingdom: Data for upper secondary attainment includes completion of a sufficient volume and standard of programmes that would be classified
individually as completion of intermediate upper secondary programmes (18% of the adults are under this group).
3. Brazil: Data for year 2010 refer to year 2009.
4. Indonesia: Data for year 2014 refer to year 2011, data for 2010 refer to year 2006.
5. Saudi Arabia: Data for year 2005 refer to year 2004.
6. South Africa: Data for year 2014 refer to year 2012.
Source: OECD. China, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia, South Africa: UNESCO Institute for Statistics. Colombia, Costa Rica: OECD Education Database. Latvia, Lithuania:
Eurostat. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/education/education-at-a-glance-19991487.htm).
Please refer to the Reader’s Guide for information concerning symbols for missing data and abbreviations.
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933284763

Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

43

chapter A THE OUTPUT OF EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS AND THE IMPACT OF LEARNING

Table A1.4a. [3/3] Trends in educational attainment, by age group (2000, 2005, 2010 and 2014)

A1

Tertiary

Partners

OECD

25-64 year-olds

25-34 year-olds

55-64 year-olds

2000

2005

2010

2014

2000

2005

2010

2014

2000

2005

2010

(25)

(26)

(27)

(28)

(29)

(30)

(31)

(32)

(33)

(34)

(35)

Australia
Austria
Belgium
Canada
Chile1
Czech Republic
Denmark
Estonia
Finland
France1
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Iceland
Ireland
Israel
Italy
Japan
Korea
Luxembourg
Mexico
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Slovak Republic
Slovenia
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Turkey
United Kingdom2
United States

27b
m
27b
40
m
11b
26b
29
33b
22b
23b
18b
14b
m
22b
m
9b
m
24
18b
15b
23b
m
28
11b
9b
10b
16b
23b
30b
24b
8
26b
36

32b
25
31b
46
m
13b
34b
33
35b
25b
25b
21b
17b
29
29b
43b
12b
m
32
27b
15b
30b
m
33
17b
13b
14b
20b
29b
30b
29b
10
30b
39

38b
28
35b
50
27b
17b
33b
35
38b
29b
27b
25b
20b
33
38b
46b
15b
m
40
35b
17b
32b
m
37
22b
15b
17b
24b
31b
34b
35b
13
38b
42

42
30
37
54
21
22
36
38
42
32
27
28
23
37
41
49
17
m
45
46
19
34
36
42
27
22
20
29
35
39
40
17
42
44

31b
m
36b
48
m
11b
29b
31
39b
31b
22b
24b
15b
m
30b
m
10b
m
37
23b
17b
27b
m
35
14b
13b
11b
19b
34b
34b
26b
9
29b
38

38b
31
41b
54
m
14b
40b
33
38b
40b
22b
26b
20b
35
41b
43b
16b
m
51
37b
18b
35b
m
41
26b
19b
16b
25b
41b
37b
31b
13
35b
39

44b
34
44b
56
38b
23b
38b
38
39b
43b
26b
31b
26b
36
48b
44b
21b
m
65
44b
21b
41b
m
47
37b
25b
24b
31b
40b
42b
40b
17
46b
42

48
38
44
58
27
30
42
40
40
44
28
39
32
41
51
46
24
m
68
53
25
44
40
49
43
31
30
38
41
46
46
25
49
46

19b
m
17b
28
m
9b
18b
27
23b
13b
20b
8b
12b
m
13b
m
6b
m
9
13b
7b
18b
m
20
10b
5b
8b
12b
10b
23b
18b
6
19b
30

24b
18
22b
36
m
11b
27b
29
27b
16b
23b
12b
15b
20
17b
42b
8b
m
10
19b
8b
24b
m
24
13b
7b
12b
16b
14b
25b
22b
8
24b
37

30b
20
26b
42
19b
12b
28b
31
30b
18b
25b
17b
16b
23
22b
45b
11b
m
13
25b
12b
26b
m
27
13b
9b
13b
16b
18b
27b
28b
9
30b
41

33
21
26
45
14
15
29
36
34
20
25w
21
17
29
24
47
12
m
17
32
13
27
29
32
14
13
14
18
21
30
31
10
35
41

OECD average
EU21 average

22b
20b

26b
24b

30b
28b

34
32

26b
24b

32b
30b

37b
35b

41
39

15b
14b

20b
18b

22b
21b

25
23

Argentina
Brazil1, 3
China
Colombia
Costa Rica
India
Indonesia4
Latvia
Lithuania
Russian Federation1
Saudi Arabia1, 5
South Africa6

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

11

14

m

m

12

15

m

m

9

11

x(13)

m

10

m

x(17)

m

18

m

x(21)

m

4

m

m

m

m

22

m

m

m

28

m

m

m

16

m

m

15

18

m

m

17

20

m

m

14

16

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

7

8

m

m

9

10

m

m

2

4

18

21

27

30

17

22

34

39

15

19

22

23

42b

27b

32b

37

40b

37b

46b

53

34b

19b

23b

28

m

m

m

54

m

m

m

58

m

m

m

50

c

16

m

22

c

19

m

26

c

7

m

14

m

5

m

7

m

4

m

5

m

6

m

7

m

26b

m

32b

m

19b

m

G20 average

m

m

m

m

m

2014
(36)

Note: In most countries, there is a break in the series, represented by the code “b”, as data for the latest year refer to ISCED 2011 while data for previous years refer
to ISCED-97. For China and Korea data refer to ISCED-97 for all years. See the description of the levels of education in the Definitions section.
1. Brazil, Chile, France, the Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia: Data for year 2014 refer to year 2013.
2. The United Kingdom: Data for upper secondary attainment includes completion of a sufficient volume and standard of programmes that would be classified
individually as completion of intermediate upper secondary programmes (18% of the adults are under this group).
3. Brazil: Data for year 2010 refer to year 2009.
4. Indonesia: Data for year 2014 refer to year 2011, data for 2010 refer to year 2006.
5. Saudi Arabia: Data for year 2005 refer to year 2004.
6. South Africa: Data for year 2014 refer to year 2012.
Source: OECD. China, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia, South Africa: UNESCO Institute for Statistics. Colombia, Costa Rica: OECD Education Database. Latvia, Lithuania:
Eurostat. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/education/education-at-a-glance-19991487.htm).
Please refer to the Reader’s Guide for information concerning symbols for missing data and abbreviations.
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933284763

44

Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

To what level have adults studied? – INDICATOR A1

chapter A

Table A1.5a. Adults whose highest level of education is upper secondary or post-secondary

A1

non-tertiary education, by programme orientation and gender (2014)
25-64 year-olds
Upper secondary or post-secondary non-tertiary

Partners

OECD

Vocational

General

Vocational and general

M+W

Men

Women

M+W

Men

Women

M+W

Men

Women

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7)

(8)

(9)

Australia
Austria
Belgium
Canada
Chile1
Czech Republic
Denmark
Estonia
Finland
France1
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Iceland
Ireland
Israel
Italy
Japan
Korea
Luxembourg
Mexico
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Slovak Republic
Slovenia
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Turkey
United Kingdom2
United States

20
48
26
11
9
37
14
33
16
32
57
13
51
25
7
8
32
m
x(7)
8
x(7)
35
26
29
55
6
67
13
9
26
39
9
21
x(7)

26
51
29
15
9
43
14
x(1)
16
36
55
14
56
34
6
10
37
m
x(8)
9
x(8)
36
31
33
62
6
71
16
8
32
37
10
24
x(8)

15
45
24
7
8
30
14
x(1)
17
27
59
12
47
15
7
6
28
m
x(9)
8
x(9)
34
21
25
49
5
62
10
9
21
41
6
19
x(9)

15
6
10
25
32
35
1
21
3
11
3
27
8
12
7
28
10
m
x(7)
1
x(7)
6
13
11
8
16
4
0r
13
16
8
10
16
x(7)

14
6
9
26
32
31
1
x(4)
4
10
3
25
9
9
8
30
6
m
x(8)
1
x(8)
6
12
11
6
16
3
c
14
16
6
11
16
x(8)

16
6
11
25
32
39
1
x(4)
3
13
3
29
8
14
7
27
13
m
x(9)
1r
x(9)
6
14
11
10
16
5
0r
13
16
10
9
16
x(9)

35
54
37
36
40
72
44
54
45
43
60
40
60
36
38
37
42
m
40
36
15
41
38
40
64
22
70
57
22
43
48
19
37
45

40
57
39
41
41
74
47
60
49
46
58
39
65
43
38
41
43
m
40
36
17
42
43
44
68
22
74
64
22
48
44
22
39
47

30
51
35
32
40
69
40
47
41
40
61
41
55
29
37
33
42
m
41
36
14
41
35
36
59
22
67
50
22
37
52
16
35
44

OECD average
EU21 average

26
29

28
31

23
26

13
11

12
10

13
11

43
47

45
49

40
44

Argentina
Brazil1
China3
Colombia
Costa Rica
India
Indonesia4
Latvia
Lithuania
Russian Federation1
Saudi Arabia1
South Africa5
G20 average

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

x(7)

x(8)

x(9)

x(7)

x(8)

x(9)

33

32

34

x(7)

x(8)

x(9)

x(7)

x(8)

x(9)

15

17

13

x(7)

x(8)

x(9)

x(7)

x(8)

x(9)

30

30

29

3

2

3

19

19

19

22

21

22

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

x(7)

x(8)

x(9)

x(7)

x(8)

x(9)

23

26

19

6

7

5

7

8

6

59

64

55

4

5

3

4

4

3

55

58

51

x(7)

x(8)

x(9)

x(7)

x(8)

x(9)

40

47

35

x(7)

x(8)

x(9)

x(7)

x(8)

x(9)

29

31

26

x(7)

x(8)

x(9)

x(7)

x(8)

x(9)

58

59

58

m

m

m

m

m

m

36

38

34

Notes: In most countries, data refer to ISCED 2011. The countries with data that refer to ISCED-97 are: Brazil, Indonesia, the Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia,
South Africa. See the description of the levels of education in the Definitions section. Denmark, Finland, Ireland, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Slovenia: Data for
the breakdown by programme orientation cover only 15-34 year-olds and 35-64 year-olds if those individuals have completed their highest level of education 15 years,
at most, before the data of the interview; the category “Vocational and General” covers all adults.
1. Brazil, Chile, France, the Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia: Year of reference 2013.
2. The United Kingdom: Data for upper secondary attainment includes completion of a sufficient volume and standard of programmes that would be classified
individually as completion of intermediate upper secondary programmes (18% of the adults are under this group).
3. China: Year of reference 2010.
4. Indonesia: Year of reference 2011.
5. South Africa: Year of reference 2012.
Sources: OECD. China, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia, South Africa: UNESCO Institute for Statistics. Colombia, Costa Rica: OECD Education Database. Latvia, Lithuania:
Eurostat. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/education/education-at-a-glance-19991487.htm).
Please refer to the Reader’s Guide for information concerning symbols for missing data and abbreviations.
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933284773

Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

45

chapter A THE OUTPUT OF EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS AND THE IMPACT OF LEARNING

Table A1.6a. [1/2] Skills and readiness to use information and communication technologies

A1

for problem solving among 25-64 year-olds, by educational attainment (2012)
Below upper secondary

Upper secondary or post-secondary non-tertiary

OECD

Group 3
Group 2
Group 1 (Failed ICT (Moderate
ICT
core test
(Refused
and
or minimal
the
Group 0
problemcomputer- problem(No
solving
solving
based
computer
skills)
skills)
experience) assessment)

Group 3
Group 2
Group 1 (Failed ICT (Moderate
Group 4
ICT
core test
(Refused
(Good ICT
and
or minimal
the
Group 0
and
problemcomputer- problem(No
problemsolving
solving
based
computer
solving
skills)
skills)
experience) assessment)
skills)

Group 4
(Good ICT
and
problemsolving
skills)

%

S.E.

%

S.E.

%

S.E.

%

S.E.

%

S.E.

%

S.E.

%

S.E.

%

S.E.

%

S.E.

%

S.E.

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7)

(8)

(9)

(10)

(11)

(12)

(13)

(14)

(15)

(16)

(17)

(18)

(19)

(20)

National entities

Australia

12

(1.1)

25

(1.6)

21

(1.5)

28

(1.7)

15

(1.3)

4

(0.5)

16

(1.1)

14

(1.2)

34

(1.5)

33

(1.6)

Austria

33

(1.9)

20

(1.7)

22

(1.8)

17

(1.9)

7

(1.3)

8

(0.5)

12

(0.7)

15

(0.9)

35

(1.4)

30

(1.1)

Canada

25

(1.2)

16

(1.3)

37

(1.6)

18

(1.7)

5

(0.9)

5

(0.4)

9

(0.6)

26

(1.0)

33

(1.2)

26

(1.0)

Czech Republic

39

(4.0)

22

(2.9)

15

(2.5)

16

(3.3)

8

(2.1)

10

(0.7)

15

(1.2)

19

(1.4)

31

(1.6)

24

(1.4)

Denmark

10

(1.0)

17

(1.3)

35

(1.9)

26

(1.9)

13

(1.6)

2

(0.3)

7

(0.5)

24

(1.2)

37

(1.3)

30

(1.3)

Estonia

32

(1.5)

19

(1.3)

25

(1.8)

19

(1.8)

6

(1.0)

14

(0.7)

22

(0.7)

21

(0.9)

27

(0.9)

16

(0.9)

Finland

18

(1.8)

23

(1.8)

29

(2.0)

22

(2.3)

9

(1.5)

3

(0.4)

15

(0.8)

22

(1.2)

31

(1.2)

29

(1.2)

France

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

Germany

29

(2.8)

13

(2.0)

31

(3.3)

20

(2.7)

7

(1.7)

10

(0.8)

8

(0.7)

23

(1.2)

34

(1.3)

26

(1.0)

Ireland

34

(1.5)

29

(1.5)

24

(1.7)

11

(1.2)

1

(0.5)

6

(0.5)

22

(1.3)

20

(1.6)

34

(1.5)

18

(1.3)

Italy

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

Japan

44

(2.6)

20

(2.0)

18

(2.1)

10

(2.0)

8

(1.6)

12

(0.8)

21

(1.4)

23

(1.4)

20

(1.3)

24

(1.2)

Korea

62

(1.7)

11

(1.0)

20

(1.5)

6

(1.1)

1

(0.5)

14

(0.8)

8

(0.7)

29

(1.4)

34

(1.5)

15

(1.2)

Netherlands

11

(0.9)

10

(0.9)

33

(1.7)

34

(1.8)

13

(1.2)

1

(0.3)

4

(0.6)

17

(1.1)

40

(1.6)

38

(1.6)

Norway

6

(0.9)

17

(1.4)

30

(2.0)

32

(2.0)

15

(1.7)

1

(0.3)

8

(0.7)

21

(1.4)

38

(1.7)

32

(1.2)

Poland

65

(2.4)

17

(1.9)

11

(1.7)

5

(1.4)

2

(1.0)

26

(0.9)

31

(1.0)

21

(1.1)

14

(0.9)

7

(0.8)

Slovak Republic

72

(1.9)

10

(1.3)

8

(1.4)

8

(1.4)

2

(0.7)

22

(0.8)

16

(0.7)

13

(0.8)

30

(1.2)

19

(1.2)

Spain

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

Sweden

6

(1.1)

15

(1.7)

42

(2.6)

27

(2.6)

10

(1.7)

1

(0.3)

6

(0.6)

18

(1.1)

37

(1.3)

38

(1.4)

United States

36

(2.7)

17

(2.1)

32

(2.4)

13

(2.1)

3

(0.9)

5

(0.4)

9

(1.1)

29

(1.6)

36

(1.7)

21

(1.5)

Flanders (Belgium)

29

(1.6)

10

(1.1)

35

(1.9)

20

(1.9)

5

(1.2)

8

(0.6)

6

(0.5)

26

(1.1)

36

(1.2)

23

(1.3)

England (UK)

13

(1.2)

9

(1.1)

38

(2.0)

30

(2.0)

10

(1.2)

3

(0.5)

5

(0.8)

24

(1.7)

37

(2.0)

30

(1.7)

Northern Ireland (UK)

28

(1.8)

6

(0.8)

36

(2.7)

25

(2.5)

6

(1.1)

7

(0.9)

2

(0.5)

27

(2.2)

40

(2.3)

24

(2.1)

England/N. Ireland (UK)

13

(1.1)

9

(1.0)

38

(1.9)

30

(1.9)

10

(1.1)

3

(0.5)

5

(0.7)

24

(1.6)

37

(1.9)

30

(1.6)

OECD average

30

(0.4)

17

(0.4)

27

(0.5)

19

(0.5)

7

(0.3)

8

(0.1)

13

(0.2)

21

(0.3)

32

(0.3)

25

(0.3)

Russian Federation*

45

(7.5)

c

c

22

(5.5)

18

(4.8)

13

(3.3)

39

(3.2)

13

(1.8)

15

(2.6)

17

(1.9)

16

(3.1)

Partners

Sub-national entities

Notes: Data on educational attainment are based on ISCED-97. Columns showing data for total population not broken down by level of education are available for
consultation on line (see StatLink below).
* See note on data for the Russian Federation in the Methodology section.
Source: OECD. Survey of Adult Skills (PIAAC) (2012). See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/education/education-at-a-glance-19991487.htm).
Please refer to the Reader’s Guide for information concerning symbols for missing data and abbreviations.
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933284780

46

Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

To what level have adults studied? – INDICATOR A1

chapter A

Table A1.6a. [2/2] Skills and readiness to use information and communication technologies

A1

for problem solving among 25-64 year-olds, by educational attainment (2012)
Tertiary
Group 1
(Refused the
computer-based
assessment)

OECD

Group 0
(No computer
experience)

Group 2
(Failed ICT core test
or minimal
problem-solving skills)

Group 3
(Moderate ICT and
problem-solving skills)

Group 4
(Good ICT and
problem-solving skills)

%

S.E.

%

S.E.

%

S.E.

%

S.E.

%

S.E.

(21)

(22)

(23)

(24)

(25)

(26)

(27)

(28)

(29)

(30)

Australia

1

(0.2)

7

(0.7)

10

(0.9)

26

(1.2)

56

(1.4)

Austria

1

(0.4)

7

(0.8)

9

(1.2)

33

(2.0)

50

(2.2)

Canada

1

(0.1)

4

(0.3)

17

(0.7)

31

(1.0)

47

(1.0)

Czech Republic

0

(0.2)

6

(1.4)

7

(1.4)

27

(3.5)

60

(3.2)

Denmark

c

c

3

(0.3)

11

(0.6)

31

(1.1)

55

(1.2)

Estonia

3

(0.3)

14

(0.8)

15

(0.9)

33

(1.0)

35

(1.3)

Finland

c

c

4

(0.4)

10

(0.7)

29

(1.1)

57

(1.1)

France

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

Germany

2

(0.5)

4

(0.5)

11

(1.1)

29

(1.5)

53

(1.6)

Ireland

1

(0.2)

9

(0.6)

11

(1.0)

35

(1.6)

45

(1.5)

Italy

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

Japan

3

(0.4)

12

(0.9)

15

(1.1)

22

(1.2)

49

(1.3)

Korea

1

(0.2)

2

(0.3)

14

(1.0)

39

(1.6)

44

(1.6)

Netherlands

0

(0.2)

2

(0.4)

7

(0.9)

27

(1.4)

64

(1.6)

Norway

c

c

2

(0.4)

10

(0.8)

28

(1.5)

59

(1.6)

Poland

1

(0.3)

19

(1.2)

16

(1.2)

27

(1.8)

37

(1.9)

Slovak Republic

1

(0.3)

9

(1.1)

9

(1.2)

33

(2.2)

48

(2.4)

Spain

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

Sweden

c

c

3

(0.4)

9

(0.8)

26

(1.5)

62

(1.3)

United States

1

(0.2)

2

(0.3)

11

(1.2)

35

(1.6)

51

(1.8)

Flanders (Belgium)

1

(0.2)

3

(0.4)

10

(0.9)

32

(1.3)

55

(1.4)

England (UK)

1

(0.3)

3

(0.5)

11

(1.1)

32

(1.6)

53

(1.7)

Northern Ireland (UK)

1

(0.4)

1

(0.2)

12

(1.8)

38

(1.9)

48

(2.4)

England/N. Ireland (UK)

1

(0.3)

3

(0.5)

12

(1.0)

32

(1.6)

53

(1.6)

OECD average

1

(0.1)

6

(0.2)

11

(0.2)

30

(0.4)

52

(0.4)

Russian Federation*

12

(1.5)

15

(2.4)

18

(2.4)

27

(1.7)

27

(2.5)

National entities

Partners

Sub-national entities

Notes: Data on educational attainment are based on ISCED-97. Columns showing data for total population not broken down by level of education are available for
consultation on line (see StatLink below).
* See note on data for the Russian Federation in the Methodology section.
Source: OECD. Survey of Adult Skills (PIAAC) (2012). See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/education/education-at-a-glance-19991487.htm).
Please refer to the Reader’s Guide for information concerning symbols for missing data and abbreviations.
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933284780

Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

47

INDICATOR A2

HOW MANY STUDENTS ARE EXPECTED TO COMPLETE
UPPER SECONDARY EDUCATION?
• Based on current patterns, it is estimated that an average of 85% of today’s young people in OECD
countries will complete upper secondary education over their lifetimes.

• Some 47% of men and 44% of women are expected to graduate from an upper secondary vocational
programme during their lifetime, on average across OECD countries.

• Of those who graduated from an upper secondary general programme, 97% did so before they were
25 years old.

Chart A2.1. Upper secondary graduation rates (2013)

Mexico

Turkey

Indonesia

Spain

Luxembourg

Colombia

Czech Republic

Italy

Sweden

Norway

United States

Hungary

OECD average

Below 25 years old

Latvia

Slovak Republic

Slovenia

EU21 average

Chile

Poland

Austria

Israel

Denmark

Finland

Switzerland

Ireland

Portugal

New Zealand

Canada1

Over 25 years old

%

100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0

1. Year of reference 2012.
Countries are ranked in descending order of first time upper secondary graduation rates.
Source: OECD. Tables A2.1 and A2.2. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/education/education-at-a-glance-19991487.htm).
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933283420

Context
Upper secondary education, which consolidates students’ basic skills and knowledge through either an
academic or a vocational pathway, aims to prepare students for entry into further levels of education
or the labour market, and to become engaged citizens. In many countries, this level of education is
not compulsory and can last from two to five years. What is crucial, however, is providing education
of good quality that meets the needs of the society and the economy.
Graduating from upper secondary education has become increasingly important in all countries,
as the skills needed in the labour market are becoming more knowledge-based and workers are
progressively required to adapt to the uncertainties of a rapidly changing global economy. However,
while graduation rates give an indication of the extent to which education systems are succeeding
in preparing students to meet the labour market’s minimum requirements, they do not capture the
quality of education outcomes.
One of the challenges facing education systems in many OECD countries is students’ disengagement
and consequent dropout from the education system, meaning that they leave school without an upper
secondary qualification. These young people tend to face severe difficulties entering – and remaining
in – the labour market. Leaving school early is a problem, both for individuals and society. Policy
makers are examining ways to reduce the number of early school-leavers, defined as those students
who do not complete their upper secondary education. Internationally comparable measures of how
many students successfully complete upper secondary programmes – which also imply how many
students do not complete those programmes – can assist efforts to this end.

48

Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

Other findings

• In 21 of 25 OECD countries with available data, more than 75% of young people have graduated

INDICATOR A2

from upper secondary education. In nine countries the first-time graduation rate exceeds 90%.

• On average across OECD countries, 83% of those graduating from an upper secondary vocational
programme are younger than 25 and 46% are women.

• Most young men in upper secondary vocational programmes study engineering, manufacturing

and construction, while young women form the majority in all other fields of study in vocational
programmes.

• Some 13% of young people are expected to graduate from a post-secondary non-tertiary vocational
programme; 54% of them are women.
Trends
Analysing countries for which comparable trends data are available for 2005 and 2013, the first-time
graduation rate at the upper secondary level increased from 80% to 85%. This increase was striking
in several European countries, namely Poland (from 41% to 86%) and Portugal (from 54% to 100%).
By contrast, in some countries graduation rates declined during the period, including in Norway,
where these rates dropped from 90% in 2005 to 83% in 2013.
Graduation rates from general upper secondary programmes increased slightly, on average, from 49%
in 2005 to 52% in 2013, while graduation rates from vocational programmes more than compensated
by increasing from 43% to 46%. A few countries developed vocational education systems that grew
quickly during the period. Graduation rates from vocational programmes in New Zealand and Portugal,
for example, increased by more than forty percentage points.
The prevalence of post-secondary non-tertiary vocational education remained constant over the same
period, with graduation rates around 10-12%. In Australia, graduation rates from post-secondary nontertiary vocational education increased by 23 percentage points, so that 41% of students in Australia
are now expected to graduate from one of these programmes.
Note
Graduation rates represent the estimated percentage of people from a given age cohort that is expected
to graduate at some point during their lifetime. This estimate is based on the number of graduates in
2013 and the age distribution of this group. Graduation rates are based on both the population and
the current pattern of graduation, and are thus sensitive to any changes in the education system, such
as the introduction of new programmes, and changes in the duration of programmes. Graduation
rates can be very high – even above 100% – during a period when an unexpected number of people
goes back to school.
When the age breakdown is not available, the gross graduation rate is calculated instead. This refers
to the total number of graduates divided by the average cohort of the population at the typical age
provided by the country.
In this indicator, age refers generally to the age of students at the beginning of the calendar year.
Students could be one year older than the age indicated when they graduate at the end of the school
year. Twenty-five is regarded as the upper age limit for completing secondary education. Across
OECD countries, more than 90% of first-time graduates from upper secondary programmes in 2013
were younger than 25. People who graduate from this level at age 25 or older are usually enrolled in
second-chance programmes.

Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

49

chapter A THE OUTPUT OF EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS AND THE IMPACT OF LEARNING

Analysis
Graduation from upper secondary programmes

A snapshot of upper secondary graduation rates
Current estimates indicate that, on average, 85% of people across OECD countries will complete upper secondary
education over their lifetime (Table A2.1). Attaining an upper secondary education is often considered to be the
minimum credential for successful entry into the labour market and necessary for continuing to further education.
The costs, to both individuals and society, of not completing this level of education on time can be considerable (see
Indicators A6 and A7).
Graduation rates offer an indication of whether government initiatives have been successful in increasing the
number of people who graduate from upper secondary education. The great differences in graduation rates among
countries reflect the variety of systems and programmes available.
In nine countries among those with data available, more than 90% of people are expected to graduate from
upper secondary school during their lifetime, but just over 50% of young people in Mexico are expected to do so
(Table A2.1). In all countries, women are more likely than men to complete upper secondary education. The largest
gender gap is observed in Slovenia, where 95% of young women are expected to graduate at least once from upper
secondary education, while only 76% of young men will do so.
Women are more likely than men to graduate from general programmes in all countries, while men are more likely
to graduate from vocational programmes in 26 of the 35 countries with available data. Vocational education and
training (VET) is an important part of upper secondary education in many OECD countries, and it can play a
central role in preparing young people for work, developing adults’ skills and responding to labour market needs
(see Indicator A1). But in some countries, VET has been neglected and marginalised in policy discussions, often
overshadowed by the increasing emphasis on general academic education. Nevertheless, an increasing number of
countries are recognising that good initial vocational education and training have a major contribution to make to
economic competitiveness. This is one of the explanations for the increase in graduation rates from upper secondary
vocational programmes between 2005 and 2013.

Chart A2.2. Trends in vocational upper secondary graduation rates (2005 and 2013)
2013

%

100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0

2005

Finland
Austria
Netherlands
France
Switzerland
Slovenia
Australia
New Zealand
Czech Republic
Slovak Republic
Portugal
Belgium
EU21 average
Denmark
OECD average
Luxembourg
Italy
Germany
Poland
China
Israel
Sweden
Norway
Greece
Chile
Turkey
Spain
Indonesia
Russian Federation
Latvia
Japan
Hungary
Korea
Estonia
Mexico
Colombia
Brazil
Canada1

A2

1. Year of reference 2012 intead of 2013.
Countries are ranked in descending order of vocational upper secondary graduation rates in 2013.
Source: OECD. Table A2.4. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/education/education-at-a-glance-19991487.htm).
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933283430

On average across OECD countries, 46% of young people will graduate from an upper secondary vocational
programme. In Finland, many graduates enter the labour market immediately after completing upper secondary
vocational training. Some 93% of young people in Finland are expected to be awarded a vocational degree during
their lifetime. By contrast, only 5% or fewer young people in Brazil and Canada will graduate from upper secondary
vocational education.

50

Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

How many students are expected to complete upper secondary education? – INDICATOR A2

chapter A

Although many countries developed extensive vocational programmes at the secondary level, in other countries,
most students prefer general programmes. As shown in Chart A2.3, large proportions of students in Austria,
Finland and the Netherlands are expected to graduate from an upper secondary vocational programme. But in
Canada, the proportion of young people expected to graduate from a vocational programme is considerably smaller.
Vocational programmes in Canada are often offered within the post-secondary system, and vocational training at
the secondary level is largely a second-chance programme for older students. In fact, 65% of graduates from upper
secondary vocational programmes in Canada are older than 25 (Table A2.2).
Graduation rates, however, do not imply that all graduates will pursue a tertiary degree or enter the labour force
immediately. Indeed, the number of graduates who wind up neither employed nor in education or training (NEET)
has been growing throughout OECD countries (see Indicator C5). For this reason, it is important to have high-quality
upper secondary programmes that provide individuals with the right mix of guidance and education opportunities
to ensure there are no dead ends once students have graduated.

Chart A2.3. Upper secondary graduation rates,
by programme orientation and gender (2013)

Brazil

Canada1

Mexico

Colombia

Korea

Estonia

Japan

Hungary

Latvia

Indonesia

Chile

Spain

Greece

G20 average

Norway

Israel

Sweden

China

Poland

Italy

Germany

Luxembourg

Denmark

OECD average

Belgium

Portugal

Slovak Republic

New Zealand

Czech Republic

Slovenia

Australia

France

Switzerland

Austria

Netherlands

Finland

%

100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0

EU21 average

Graduation rates, vocational programmes, men
Graduation rates, vocational programmes, women
Graduation rates, general programmes

1. Year of reference 2012.
Countries are ranked in descending order of the upper secondary graduation rates in vocational programmes.
Source: OECD. Table A2.1. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/education/education-at-a-glance-19991487.htm).
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933283443

Profile of an upper secondary graduate
Graduation rates also vary according to the age of the students. Students’ age at graduation can be related to changes
in the education system, such as when opportunities become available to complete upper secondary education later
on in life or when the duration of general and vocational programmes are altered. On average, 97% of students
graduating from general upper secondary programmes are younger than 25, although in Portugal, 80% of such
students are younger than 25.
The share of older students in vocational programmes is considerably larger. On average, only 83% of graduates are
younger than 25. In Australia, Canada and New Zealand, more than one in two graduates are 25 or older.
Most graduates in vocational programmes earned a degree in sciences and engineering (37%) and education, humanities
and social sciences (30%). In two countries, Denmark (29%) and the Netherlands (27%), the largest proportions of
graduates studied health and welfare. Gender differences are also apparent in young people’s choice of field of study
when pursuing vocational education. These differences can be attributed to traditional perceptions of gender roles and
identities as well as the cultural values sometimes associated with particular fields of education. On average across
OECD countries, 88% of the graduates from sciences and engineering programmes are men. The countries with the
largest proportions of women in science and engineering at this level of education are Brazil (38%) and Colombia
(39%). Women are, however, over-represented in all other fields of education (Table A2.2).
Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

51

A2

chapter A THE OUTPUT OF EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS AND THE IMPACT OF LEARNING

A2

As Chart A2.4 shows, across most countries, the percentage of women pursuing sciences and engineering
programmes is low, averaging only 11% of all women graduating from an upper secondary vocational programme.
In the fields of services, health and agriculture, there is greater gender diversity. In one-quarter of the countries,
58% or more of female graduates from upper secondary vocational training programmes choose these fields, while
in another one-quarter of the countries, only 36% of women graduate from these fields of study. Conversely, across
most countries, women are under-represented in sciences and engineering. In three-quarters of the countries, less
than 13% of all female graduates are in these fields.

Chart A2.4. Percentage of graduates from upper secondary vocational programmes
in OECD countries, by field of education and gender (2013)
3rd quartile (upper)
Average
1st quartile (lower)
%

70

Education, arts and social sciences

Sciences and engineering

Services, health and agriculture

60
50
40
30
20
10
0

Men

Women

Men

Women

Men

Women

Source: OECD Database. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/education/education-at-a-glance-19991487.htm).
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933283458

Vocational and educational training
Vocational education and training (VET) is mainly designed to help participants acquire the practical skills, knowhow and understanding necessary for employment in a particular occupation or trade. Across OECD countries,
46% of students are expected to graduate from a vocational programme at the upper secondary level. However, the
importance of VET systems varies widely across countries. In some, VET plays a central role in the initial education
of young people, whereas in other systems, most students go into general education.
Vocational programmes can be offered in combined school- and work-based programmes, where only up to 75% of
the curriculum is presented in the school environment or through distance education. These programmes 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. This
type of “dual system” can be found in Austria, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Germany, Hungary, the Netherlands,
the Slovak Republic and Switzerland (OECD, 2015). Through work-based learning, students acquire the skills that are
valued in the workplace. Work-based learning is also a way to develop public-private partnerships and to allow social
partners and employers to get involved in developing VET programmes, often by defining curricular frameworks.
Moreover, high-quality VET programmes tend to be effective in developing skills among those who would otherwise
lack the qualifications to ensure a smooth and successful transition into the labour market. Employment rates are
higher and inactivity rates are lower among people who graduated from vocational training than among those who
pursued an upper secondary general programme as their highest level of educational attainment (see Indicator A5).
However, it is important to ensure that graduates of upper secondary VET programmes have good employment
opportunities since VET can be more expensive than other education programmes (see Indicator B1).

A snapshot of post-secondary non-tertiary graduation rates
Various kinds of post-secondary non-tertiary programmes are offered in OECD countries. These programmes
straddle upper secondary and post-secondary education and may be considered either as upper secondary or postsecondary programmes, depending on the country concerned. Although the content of these programmes may not
be significantly more advanced than upper secondary programmes, they broaden the knowledge of individuals who
have already attained an upper secondary qualification.

52

Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

How many students are expected to complete upper secondary education? – INDICATOR A2

chapter A

First-time graduation rates from post-secondary non-tertiary education are low compared with those from upper
secondary programmes. On average, it is estimated that 13% of today’s young people in OECD countries will
complete vocational post-secondary non-tertiary programmes over their lifetime. The first-time graduation rate
among women (15%) is higher than that among men (10%). In almost all countries, except Hungary, Luxembourg,
Portugal and the Slovak Republic, women’s first-time graduation rates at the post-secondary non-tertiary level are
higher than those of men. The highest first-time graduation rates for these programmes are observed in Australia
(37%) and New Zealand (29%) (Table A2.1). Six countries do not offer this level of education (Chile, Indonesia,
Mexico, Slovenia, Turkey and the United Kingdom).
These programmes, which usually offer trade and vocational certificates, include nursery-teacher training in Austria
and vocational training in dual systems for those who have attained upper secondary general qualifications in
Germany. Apprenticeships designed for students who have already graduated from an upper secondary programme
are also included.

Profile of a post-secondary non-tertiary graduate from vocational programmes
Post-secondary non-tertiary education vocational programmes is offered by 27 of the 34 OECD countries and by
eight of the ten partner countries. Some countries that do not offer programmes at this level (ISCED 4) have high
graduation rates from vocational programmes at a lower level of education (ISCED 3), such as 67% in Slovenia and
71% in Switzerland (Table A2.1).
In comparison to upper secondary education, post-secondary non-tertiary education is fairly common among older
students. On average, 41% of all graduates are older than 30, meaning that many of them took time off education
after they graduated from the previous education level. In many countries, these programmes are second-chance
programmes designed to encourage adults to re-enter education. In other countries, most graduates from a postsecondary non-tertiary programme are young; for example more than 90% of all graduates are younger than 30 in
Belgium (97%) and Hungary (92%).
The share of female graduates from post-secondary non-tertiary vocational programmes varies widely, from 73%
in Austria to 24% in Luxembourg. This is partially explained by the fields of study offered at this level of education.
In Austria, for instance, 62% of graduates pursued a degree in health and welfare, whereas in Luxembourg, 64% of
graduates studied engineering, manufacturing and construction.
On average, most students graduate from post-secondary non-tertiary vocational programmes with degrees in
social sciences, business and law (23%) or engineering, manufacturing and construction (21%). The least popular
fields are education (5%), sciences (4%) and agriculture (3%). For some countries, one single field dominates
post-secondary non-tertiary education. For instance, in Denmark, 97% of students graduate with a degree in
social sciences, business and law, while in the Netherlands, 66% of graduates earn a degree in engineering,
manufacturing and construction.

Definitions
Graduates in the reference period can be either first-time graduates or repeat graduates. A first-time graduate is a
student who has graduated for the first time at a given level of education in the reference period. Thus, if a student
has graduated multiple times over the years, he or she is counted as a graduate each year, but as a first-time graduate
only once.
Gross graduation rates refer to the total number of graduates (the graduates themselves may be of any age) at the
specified level of education divided by the population at the typical graduation age from the specified level.
Net graduation rates represent the estimated percentage of an age group that will complete upper secondary
education, based on current patterns of graduation.
Typical age is the age at the beginning of the last school/academic year of the corresponding education level and
programme when the degree is obtained.

Methodology
Data refer to the academic year 2012/13 and are based on the UOE data collection on education statistics administered
by the OECD in 2014 (for details, see Annex 3 at www.oecd.org/education/education-at-a-glance-19991487.htm).
Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

53

A2

chapter A THE OUTPUT OF EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS AND THE IMPACT OF LEARNING

A2

Unless otherwise indicated, graduation rates are calculated as net graduation rates (i.e. as the sum of age-specific
graduation rates). 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.
Graduates by programme orientation at ISCED 3 and ISCED 4 are not counted as first-time graduates given that many
students graduate from more than one upper secondary or post-secondary non-tertiary programme. Therefore,
graduation rates cannot be added, as some individuals would be counted twice. In addition, the typical graduation
ages are not necessarily the same for the different types of programmes (see Annex 1). Vocational programmes
include both school-based programmes and combined school- and work-based programmes that are recognised as
part of the education system. Entirely work-based education and training programmes that are not overseen by a
formal education authority are not included.
Note regarding data from Israel
The statistical data for Israel are supplied by and are under the responsibility of the relevant Israeli authorities. The use of
such data by the OECD is without prejudice to the status of the Golan Heights, East Jerusalem and Israeli settlements in the
West Bank under the terms of international law.

References
Falch et al. (2010), “Completion and Dropout in Upper Secondary Education in Norway: Causes and Consequences”, Centre for
Economic Research at NTNU, Trondheim, October 2010.
OECD (2015), “Focus on Vocational Education and Training (VET) programmes”, Education Indicators in Focus, No. 33, OECD,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/5jrxtk4cg7wg-en.
OECD (2014), PISA 2012 Results: What Students Know and Can Do (Volume I, Revised edition, February 2014): Student Performance
in Mathematics, Reading and Science, PISA, OECD Publishing, Paris, http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264208780-en.
OECD (2012a), Equity and Quality in Education: Supporting Disadvantaged Students and Schools, OECD Publishing, Paris,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264130852-en.
OECD (2012b), Closing the Gender Gap: Act Now, OECD Publishing, Paris, http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264179370-en.
OECD (2010), Learning for Jobs, OECD Reviews of Vocational Education and Training, OECD Publishing, Paris, http://dx.doi.
org/10.1787/9789264087460-en.

Indicator A2 Tables
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933284796

Table A2.1

Upper secondary and post-secondary non-tertiary graduation rates (2013)

Table A2.2

Profile of upper secondary graduates from general and vocational programmes (2013)

Table A2.3

Profile of post-secondary non-tertiary graduates from vocational programmes (2013)

Table A2.4
WEB Table A2.5

Upper secondary and post-secondary non-tertiary graduation rates (2005 and 2013)
Share of upper secondary graduates from vocational programmes by field of education
and gender (2013)

Cut-off date for the data: 23 October 2015. Updates can be found on line at http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/eag-data-en.

54

Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

How many students are expected to complete upper secondary education? – INDICATOR A2

chapter A

Table A2.1. Upper secondary and post-secondary non-tertiary graduation rates (2013)
Sum of age-specific graduation rates, by gender and programme orientation
Upper secondary
First-time
graduation rates

OECD
Partners

Post-secondary non-tertiary

Graduation rates

All programmes

General programmes

Women M + W

Men

A2

First-time
graduation rates

Graduation rates

All programmes

Vocational programmes

Vocational programmes

M+W

Men

Men

Women

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

Women M + W
(6)

(7)

Men
(8)

Women M + W
(9)

(10)

Men
(11)

Women M + W
(12)

(13)

(14)

(15)

Australia
Austria
Belgium
Canada1
Chile
Czech Republic
Denmark
Estonia
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Iceland
Ireland
Israel
Italy
Japan
Korea
Luxembourg
Mexico
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Slovak Republic
Slovenia
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Turkey
United Kingdom
United States

m
87
m
86
86
78
95
m
96
m
m
m
83
m
98
91
78
97
92
73
51
m
100
83
86
100
85
86
71
79
95
64
m
80

m
87
m
83
83
77
90
m
93
m
m
m
82
m
97
86
74
96
93
69
49
m
96
78
82
98
83
76
65
77
94
61
m
77

m
88
m
89
90
79
100
m
100
m
m
m
85
m
99
96
82
98
92
77
54
m
100
89
91
100
88
95
78
82
97
66
m
83

75
19
37
82
57
23
66
68
46
55
51
69
63
m
m
54
37
75
72
31
33
42
78
63
53
46
28
38
52
44
40
35
m
80d

71
16
32
79
54
18
60
56
38
48
46
63
58
m
m
49
27
71
71
28
30
39
74
52
41
40
22
29
46
40
34
32
m
77d

80
24
43
86
60
28
73
79
53
62
57
75
68
m
m
59
47
78
72
35
35
46
82
75
66
52
34
47
59
50
47
38
m
83d

67
79
53
4
29
61
48
20
93
73
40
32
22
m
a
37
41
22
21
43
19
77
65
35
40
55
59
67
27
36
71
29
m
x(4)

64
82
54
4
29
65
47
26
86
75
46
37
25
m
a
38
48
25
21
44
18
77
52
42
48
58
62
72
25
39
76
29
m
x(5)

69
75
53
3
30
56
49
14
99
71
34
28
18
m
a
37
35
20
20
43
19
78
78
27
31
52
55
61
29
33
66
28
m
x(6)

37
9
m
m
a
25
1
m
7
m
24
m
18
m
m
m
3
m
m
2
a
m
29
3
16
5
10
a
m
3
1
a
a
21

32
5
m
m
a
19
1
m
6
m
19
m
18
m
m
m
3
m
m
3
a
m
23
2
9
6
10
a
m
3
1
a
a
16

42
13
m
m
a
32
1
m
8
m
29
m
17
m
m
m
4
m
m
1
a
m
34
4
24
4
9
a
m
4
1
a
a
27

41
10
7
m
a
9
1
23
8
0
21
4
21
m
15
a
3
m
m
2
a
0
33
3
16
5
10
a
m
3
a
a
a
21

36
5
6
m
a
8
1
16
6
0
16
3
21
m
21
a
3
m
m
3
a
0
26
2
9
6
10
a
m
3
a
a
a
16

46
14
7
m
a
10
1
29
9
0
26
5
21
m
8
a
4
m
m
1
a
0
40
5
24
4
9
a
m
4
a
a
a
27

OECD average
EU21 average

85
85

82
82

88
89

52
46

46
39

58
53

46
51

47
53

44
48

13
10

10
9

15
12

12
9

10
8

13
10

Argentina
Brazil
China
Colombia
India
Indonesia
Latvia
Russian Federation2
Saudi Arabia
South Africa

m
m
m
75
m
63
85
m
m
m

m
m
m
67
m
62
81
m
m
m

m
m
m
83
m
64
89
m
m
m

m
61
44
57
m
36
67
51
m
m

m
51
42
51
m
32
59
44
m
m

m
71
46
64
m
41
75
58
m
m

m
5
37
17
m
27
23
27
m
m

m
4
38
15
m
30
28
39
m
m

m
7
36
20
m
23
18
14
m
m

m
m
6
1
m
a
6
6
m
m

m
m
6
0
m
a
5
6
m
m

m
m
6
1
m
a
7
6
m
m

m
7
3
a
m
a
6
6
m
m

m
6
4
a
m
a
5
6
m
m

m
8
2
a
m
a
7
6
m
m

G20 average

m

m

m

56

52

61

32

34

29

16

14

19

m

m

m

1. Year of reference 2012.
2. Post-secondary non-tertiary includes some upper secondary graduates.
Source: OECD. Argentina, China, Colombia, India, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia, South Africa: UNESCO Institute for Statistics. Latvia: Eurostat. See Annex 3 for notes
(www.oecd.org/education/education-at-a-glance-19991487.htm).
Please refer to the Reader’s Guide for information concerning symbols for missing data and abbreviations.
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933284806

Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

55

chapter A THE OUTPUT OF EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS AND THE IMPACT OF LEARNING

Table A2.2. Profile of upper secondary graduates from general and vocational programmes (2013)

A2

Percentage of female graduates
in upper secondary programmes
by field of education
Sciences and
engineering

Health and
welfare

Other

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7)

(8)

(9)

(10)

(11)

(12)

43
89
100
35
99
92
55
97
55
89
m
89
90
m
a
100
100
m
m
94
98
77
45
63
99
86
96
92
61
100
90
98
m
x(1)

51
46
48
42
50
45
51
34
53
48
41
43
41
m
a
48
41
44
45
48
51
50
60
38
38
47
46
45
54
45
46
47
m
x(2)

27
33
26
m
42
30
26
14
22
24
38
16
17
m
a
m
m
32
42
49
m
26
54
8
18
30
29
31
47
23
37
21
40
m

33
37
30
m
36
40
25
60
33
35
37
50
46
m
a
m
m
41
50
28
m
22
15
48
51
31
36
36
21
39
37
54
20
m

22
3
27
m
5
6
29
1
18
16
9
19
9
m
a
m
m
6
1
13
m
27
7
21
0
17
7
12
19
16
13
17
14
m

19
28
17
m
17
24
19
25
27
25
17
16
28
m
a
m
m
21
6
10
m
25
24
24
31
22
28
20
13
22
14
8
27
m

70
69
55
m
71
68
61
93
67
66
63
75
76
m
a
m
m
64
66
62
m
54
72
79
71
56
69
73
65
70
62
59
61
m

10
11
8
m
16
10
10
33
16
10
9
11
8
m
a
m
m
11
26
11
m
6
16
7
10
15
9
7
7
9
12
22
14
m

88
82
82
m
84
91
86
94
86
90
78
78
94
m
a
m
m
85
87
79
m
89
64
88
85
89
82
77
80
75
90
90
73
m

53
61
61
m
58
64
37
56
63
58
44
69
54
m
a
m
m
58
49
43
m
41
56
43
66
48
60
52
50
62
50
56
55
m

OECD average
EU21 average

97
97

55
57

83
87

46
45

30
28

37
36

13
14

21
22

68
67

12
11

84
84

54
55

Argentina
Brazil
China
Colombia
India
Indonesia
Latvia
Russian Federation
Saudi Arabia
South Africa

m
90
m
91
m
100
100
m
m
m

m
57
49
54
m
55
54
56
m
m

m
83
m
100
m
100
93
m
m
m

m
62
46
55
m
42
38
26
m
m

m
41
m
52
m
m
19
m
m
m

m
32
m
24
m
m
53
m
m
m

m
9
m
0
m
m
2
m
m
m

m
17
m
24
m
m
26
m
m
m

m
81
m
63
m
m
76
m
m
m

m
38
m
39
m
m
10
m
m
m

m
82
m
a
m
m
94
m
m
m

m
53
m
51
m
m
63
m
m
m

m

53

m

45

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

Other

(3)

51
59
56
51
52
60
54
58
57
55
54
53
53
m
m
53
62
51
47
55
54
53
51
58
60
55
60
61
55
54
57
53
m
51d

Health and
welfare

(2)

100
99
100
97
94
100
96
95
99
100
100
99
94
m
m
100
100
m
m
100
98
100
100
97
90
80
99
100
98
100
97
94
m
100d

Sciences and
engineering

(1)

Australia
Austria
Belgium
Canada1
Chile
Czech Republic
Denmark
Estonia
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Iceland
Ireland
Israel
Italy
Japan
Korea
Luxembourg
Mexico
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Slovak Republic
Slovenia
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Turkey
United Kingdom
United States

G20 average

Education,
humanities and
social sciences

Percentage of females
graduates

Percentage of graduates
younger than 25 years

Percentage of females
graduates

Vocational programmes
Percentage of graduates
in upper secondary programmes
by field of education

Education,
humanities and
social sciences

Partners

OECD

Percentage of graduates
younger than 25 years

General programmes

Note: The field category other includes: agriculture, services and other.
1. Year of reference 2012.
Source: OECD. Argentina, China, Colombia, India, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia, South Africa: UNESCO Institute for Statistics. Latvia: Eurostat. See Annex 3 for notes
(www.oecd.org/education/education-at-a-glance-19991487.htm).
Please refer to the Reader’s Guide for information concerning symbols for missing data and abbreviations.
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933284810

56

Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

How many students are expected to complete upper secondary education? – INDICATOR A2

chapter A

Table A2.3. Profile of post-secondary non-tertiary graduates from vocational programmes (2013)

A2

Partners

OECD

Percentage of graduates by field of education
Engineering,
manufacturing
and
Health
construction Agriculture and welfare

Humanities
and arts

Social
sciences,
business
and law

Sciences

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7)

(8)

(9)

(10)

37
48
97
m
a
m
31
68
10
m
m
86
92
m
57
a
m
m
m
65
a
44
58
41
73
82
69
a
m
51
a
a
a
m

19
18
0
m
a
m
0
0
2
0
0
14
1
m
0
a
m
m
m
4
a
27
2
0
0
0
6
a
m
7
a
a
a
1

4
2
7
m
a
m
0
18
2
55
3
4
8
m
9
a
m
m
m
8
a
0
27
14
6
5
1
a
m
3
a
a
a
6

37
13
12
m
a
m
97
12
51
13
27
13
19
m
13
a
m
m
m
0
a
5
24
37
21
13
15
a
m
24
a
a
a
9

3
1
1
m
a
m
1
20
0
11
3
7
8
m
5
a
m
m
m
0
a
0
6
0
5
8
0
a
m
7
a
a
a
3

10
1
22
m
a
m
0
18
25
1
18
22
24
m
34
a
m
m
m
64
a
66
10
1
6
33
20
a
m
20
a
a
a
18

2
2
2
m
a
m
0
5
2
0
2
1
3
m
18
a
m
m
m
2
a
0
3
2
5
5
2
a
m
4
a
a
a
1

17
62
34
m
a
m
3
5
5
0
39
19
15
m
11
a
m
m
m
5
a
0
13
34
28
5
14
a
m
23
a
a
a
40

8
1
22
m
a
m
0
22
13
20
10
20
22
m
10
a
m
m
m
18
a
2
14
11
29
30
42
a
m
12
a
a
a
23

54
52

59
62

5
5

9
8

23
22

4
5

21
23

3
3

19
17

17
17

Argentina
Brazil
China
Colombia
India
Indonesia
Latvia
Russian Federation1
Saudi Arabia
South Africa

m
57
27
a
m
a
59
50
m
m

m
70
m
a
m
a
78
m
m
m

m
0
m
a
m
a
0
0d
m
m

m
2
m
a
m
a
2
1d
m
m

m
20
m
a
m
a
11
6d
m
m

m
10
m
a
m
a
1
3d
m
m

m
21
m
a
m
a
18
47d
m
m

m
3
m
a
m
a
6
9d
m
m

m
29
m
a
m
a
24
0d
m
m

m
15
m
a
m
a
38
33d
m
m

G20 average

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

Percentage
of females
graduates

Percentage
of graduates
younger
than 30 years

Education

(1)

(2)

Australia
Austria
Belgium
Canada
Chile
Czech Republic
Denmark
Estonia
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Iceland
Ireland
Israel
Italy
Japan
Korea
Luxembourg
Mexico
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Slovak Republic
Slovenia
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Turkey
United Kingdom
United States

56
73
53
m
a
52
61
63
58
68
61
58
49
m
28
a
52
m
m
24
a
26
60
70
71
36
45
a
m
58
a
a
a
61

OECD average
EU21 average

Services

1. Data for post-secondary non-tertiary includes some upper secondary graduates.
Source: OECD. Argentina, China, Colombia, India, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia, South Africa: UNESCO Institute for Statistics. Latvia: Eurostat. See Annex 3 for notes
(www.oecd.org/education/education-at-a-glance-19991487.htm).
Please refer to the Reader’s Guide for information concerning symbols for missing data and abbreviations.
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933284828

Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

57

chapter A THE OUTPUT OF EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS AND THE IMPACT OF LEARNING

Table A2.4. Upper secondary and post-secondary non-tertiary graduation rates (2005 and 2013)
Sum of age-specific graduation rates, by gender and programme orientation

A2

Upper secondary
First-time
graduation rates

Partners

OECD

All programmes

Post-secondary non-tertiary

Graduation rates
General
programmes

Vocational
programmes

First-time
graduation rates

Graduation rates

All programmes

Vocational
programmes

2005

2013

2005

2013

2005

2013

2005

2013

2005

2013

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7)

(8)

(9)

(10)

Australia
Austria
Belgium
Canada1
Chile
Czech Republic
Denmark
Estonia
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Iceland
Ireland
Israel
Italy
Japan
Korea
Luxembourg
Mexico
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Slovak Republic
Slovenia
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Turkey
United Kingdom
United States

m
m
m
m
81
100
83
m
94
m
m
95
m
79
92
m
85
95
92
74
40
m
88
90
41
54
86
85
69
m
m
m
m
74

m
87
m
86
86
78
95
m
96
m
m
m
83
m
98
91
78
97
92
73
51
m
100
83
86
100
85
86
71
79
95
64
m
80

m
16
m
78
48
28
59
60
52
50
m
59
68
56
m
58
31
71
65
27
36
34
m
62
55
41
23
34
m
m
35
m
m
74d

75
19
37
82
57
23
66
68
46
55
51
69
63
m
m
54
37
75
72
31
33
42
78
63
53
46
28
38
52
44
40
35
m
80d

35
m
m
3
33
88
50
19
79
62
m
37
19
53
a
32
69
24
28
47
4
66
20
40
44
13
63
81
m
m
65
m
m
x(3)

67
79
53
4
29
61
48
20
93
73
40
32
22
m
a
37
41
22
21
43
19
77
65
35
40
55
59
67
27
36
71
29
m
x(4)

m
m
m
m
a
m
1
m
6
m
m
9
20
8
14
m
6
m
a
m
a
m
12
5
9
m
12
a
a
m
m
a
a
17

37
9
5
m
a
25
1
m
7
m
24
m
18
m
m
m
3
m
m
2
a
m
29
3
16
5
10
a
m
3
1
a
a
21

18
28
m
m
a
m
1
19
6
0
m
9
26
8
14
m
6
m
a
2
a
1
13
2
13
m
12
a
a
m
1
a
a
17

41
10
7
m
a
9
1
23
8
0
21
4
21
m
15
a
3
m
m
2
a
0
33
3
16
5
10
a
m
3
a
a
a
21

OECD average
EU21 average

80
80

85
85

49
42

52
46

43
52

46
51

10
10

12
10

10
11

12
9

Argentina
Brazil
China
Colombia
India
Indonesia
Latvia
Russian Federation2
Saudi Arabia
South Africa

m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m

m
m
m
75
m
63
85
m
m
m

m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m

m
61
44
57
m
36
67
51
m
m

m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m

m
5
37
17
m
27
23
27
m
m

m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m

m
m
6
1
m
a
6
6
m
m

m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m

m
7
3
a
m
a
6
6
m
m

G20 average

m

m

m

56

m

32

m

16

m

m

Note: Graduation rates for 2005 were calculated using typical ages of 2013 if necessary.
1. Year of reference 2012 instead of 2013.
2. Post-secondary non-tertiary graduates includes some upper secondary graduates.
Source: OECD. Argentina, China, Colombia, India, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia, South Africa: UNESCO Institute for Statistics. Latvia: Eurostat. See Annex 3 for notes
(www.oecd.org/education/education-at-a-glance-19991487.htm).
Please refer to the Reader’s Guide for information concerning symbols for missing data and abbreviations.
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933284839

58

Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

INDICATOR A3

HOW MANY YOUNG PEOPLE ARE EXPECTED TO COMPLETE
TERTIARY EDUCATION AND WHAT IS THEIR PROFILE?
• Based on current patterns of graduation, an average of 35% of today’s young people across
OECD countries are expected to graduate from tertiary education at least once before the age of 30.

• Women represented over half of all tertiary graduates in 2013 but are still under-represented in the
fields of science and engineering.

• Graduates in fields of science and engineering combined represent less than a quarter of total
tertiary graduates, but they represent 44% of graduates at the doctoral level.

Chart A3.1. First-time tertiary graduation rates (2013)
First-time tertiary graduation rates
Excluding international students
Younger than 30 (excluding international students)

%

80
70
60
50
40
30
20

Luxembourg

Italy

Germany

Sweden

Portugal

Norway

EU21 average

Netherlands

Slovak Republic

Czech Republic

Turkey1

United Kingdom

Switzerland

Finland

OECD average

Chile

Spain

Austria

United States

Latvia

Slovenia

Denmark

Japan

New Zealand

0

Australia

10

Note: Mismatches between the coverage of the population data and first-time graduates 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 first-time tertiary graduation rate excluding international students accounts for this.
1. Year of reference 2012.
Countries are ranked in descending order of the first time tertiary graduation rates.
Source: OECD. Table A3.1. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/education/education-at-a-glance-19991487.htm).
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933283460

Context
Tertiary graduation rates illustrate a country’s capacity to provide future workers with advanced and
specialised knowledge and skills. Incentives to earn a tertiary degree, including higher salaries and
better employment prospects, remain strong across OECD countries (see Indicators A5, A6 and A7 for
further reading on these themes). Tertiary education varies in structure and scope among countries,
and graduation rates seem to be influenced by the ease of access to and flexibility in programmes, and
labour market demand for higher skills.
In recent decades, access to tertiary education has expanded remarkably, involving new types of
institutions that offer more choice and new modes of delivery (OECD, 2014a). In parallel, the student
population is becoming increasingly diverse in gender and in study pathways chosen. Students are
also becoming more likely to seek a tertiary degree outside their country of origin.
Policy makers are exploring ways to help ease the transition from tertiary education into the labour
market (OECD, 2015a). Understanding current graduation patterns would help to address the needs
of recent graduates and anticipate the flow of new tertiary-educated workers into the labour force.

60

Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

Other findings

• In 2013, a majority of first-time tertiary graduates (69%) earned a bachelor’s degree, 14% earned a

INDICATOR A3

master’s degree and 18% earned a short-cycle tertiary diploma, on average across OECD countries.

• Advanced tertiary degrees attract more international students than bachelor’s or equivalent
degrees. Some 27% of students in OECD countries who graduated for the first time from a doctoral
programme in 2013 were international students as were 18% of students who were awarded a
master’s degree or the equivalent, and 7% of graduates who earned a bachelor’s degree for the first
time.

• One in three tertiary graduates in 2013 graduated with a degree in social sciences, business and
law. In almost all OECD countries, the largest share of graduates pursued this field of study.
Note
Graduation rates represent the estimated percentage of an age cohort that is expected to graduate
over their lifetime. This estimate is based on the total number of graduates in 2013 and the agespecific distribution of graduates. Therefore, graduation rates are based on the current pattern of
graduation and thus are sensitive to any changes in education systems, such as the introduction of
new programmes or any variations in a programme’s duration, like those seen in many EU countries
as a result of the implementation of the Bologna Process.

Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

61

chapter A THE OUTPUT OF EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS AND THE IMPACT OF LEARNING

A3

Analysis
Graduation rates from tertiary education
Thanks to the new ISCED 2011 classification, statistical information on first-time graduates from tertiary education
is used for the first time in this edition of Education at a Glance. First-time graduates from tertiary education are
defined as students who receive a tertiary degree for the first time in their life in a given country. Based on current
patterns of graduation, 50% of today’s young people can be expected to graduate from tertiary education at least
once during their lifetime, on average among the 22 OECD countries with comparable data for 2013. The proportion
ranges from 16% in Luxembourg, where many citizens choose to study abroad, to 70% or more in Australia, Japan
and New Zealand (Chart A3.1).

Graduation rates, by levels of education
More young people are expected to graduate from a bachelor’s-degree programme over their lifetime than from
any other level of tertiary education. Based on patterns of graduation prevailing in 2013, on average across
OECD countries, 36% of young people in a given country are expected to graduate with a bachelor’s degree over
their lifetime, 17% are expected to earn a master’s degree, 11% are expected to graduate from a short-cycle tertiary
programme, and 2% are expected to graduate from a doctoral programme over their lifetime.
Although bachelor’s degrees remain the most common tertiary diploma to be held by graduates in OECD countries,
countries are promoting other levels of tertiary education too. In an effort to improve employability and the transition
into the labour market, some countries are promoting short-cycle tertiary programmes. The probability of a person in
Australia, Austria, Japan, New Zealand and the Russian Federation graduating from a short-cycle tertiary programme
over his or her lifetime is 25% or more. Other ways of boosting employability and easing the transition into the labour
market include promoting professional programmes at the bachelor’s and master’s levels of education.
Graduation rates from doctoral programmes have also increased over the past decade. In every country for which
comparable data are available, the graduation rate from doctoral programmes increased between 2005 and
2013, except Austria, Finland and Slovenia, where the graduation rate decreased. Slovenia, Switzerland and the
United Kingdom have the highest graduation rates at this level among all OECD countries, with 3% or more of young
people – including international students – in these countries expected to graduate from doctoral programmes if
2013 patterns are maintained (Table A3.1, and Table A3.6, available on line).

Graduation rates, excluding international students
In some countries, a large proportion of graduates from tertiary education are international students. The term
“international students” refers to students who have crossed borders expressly with the intent to study. For
various reasons, international students have a marked impact on estimated graduation rates. By definition, they
are considered first-time graduates, regardless of their previous education in other countries (i.e. an international
student who graduates from a second-degree programme will be considered a first-time graduate in the country of
destination). In some countries with a high proportion of international students, such as Australia and New Zealand,
graduation rates are thus inflated. When international students are excluded, first-time tertiary graduation rates
for Australia and New Zealand drop by 30 and 16 percentage points, respectively (Table A3.1).

Graduation rates among people under the age of 30 or 35
The first-time graduation rate from tertiary education among people under the age of 30 is an indicator of how many
young people are expected to enter the labour force for the first time with a tertiary qualification. On average across
the 16 countries with available data, 35% of young people (excluding international students) are expected to obtain a
tertiary diploma for the first time before the age of 30. This rate varies between 49% in Slovenia and 9% in Luxembourg.
In addition, some education systems accommodate a wider range of ages among their students than others. In
Finland, Israel, New Zealand, the Slovak Republic and Switzerland, graduation rates at the bachelor’s or equivalent
level drops by 10 percentage points or more when restricted to young people under 30 (excluding international
students). This may suggest that these education systems are more flexible in terms of access to and duration of
programmes, and are more suitable for students outside the typical age of study. Finland, Israel and Switzerland also
have mandatory military or civilian service that increases the length of tertiary studies (Table A3.1).
Profile of graduates from tertiary education
Over the past two decades, tertiary education in OECD countries has changed significantly: the student body is
more international, more women are graduating from this level of education and, in some countries, more students
are pursuing studies in science and engineering. These changes might reflect concerns about competitiveness in the
global economy and the labour market.

62

Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

How many young people are expected to complete tertiary education and what is their profile? – INDICATOR A3

chapter A

A majority of graduates holds a bachelor’s degree or the equivalent
The new data on first-time graduates at the tertiary level allows for a more precise description of the young graduates
who are entering the labour market with a tertiary diploma. They also make it easier to compare among countries by
disregarding system-specific tertiary pathways.
In 2013, most first-time tertiary graduates were awarded a bachelor’s degree. In fact, on average across OECD
countries, 69% of first-time tertiary graduates earned a bachelor’s degree, 14% earned a master’s degree and 18%
earned a short-cycle tertiary diploma (Table A3.2).
However, there are considerable differences across countries. In Austria, the largest share of first-time graduates
(47%) graduated from short-cycle tertiary programmes, while in Spain, the shares of first-time graduates are similar
across three levels of tertiary education: short-cycle, bachelor’s or the equivalent and master’s or the equivalent.
These differences may result from the structure of the tertiary system or because certain programmes, such as
short-cycle programmes, are more vigorously promoted in some countries (Chart A3.2).
In addition, the great majority (82% on average across OECD countries) of first-time graduates in 2013 were 30 years
old or younger, with large differences among countries. In Chile, Latvia, New Zealand, Sweden and Switzerland, at
least 25% of graduates were older than 30, whereas only 8% of first-time tertiary graduates in the Netherlands were
that age (Table A3.2).

Chart A3.2. Distribution of first-time graduates by level of education (2013)

1. Year of reference 2012.
Countries are ranked in descending order of the percentage of first time graduates at bachelor’s level or equivalent.
Source: OECD. Table A3.2. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/education/education-at-a-glance-19991487.htm).
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933283475

Russian Federation

Austria

Spain

Luxembourg

Chile

Turkey1

United States

Slovenia

Sweden

Japan

New Zealand

OECD average

EU21 average

Latvia

Germany

Australia

United Kingdom

Italy

Norway

Portugal

Czech Republic

Finland

Netherlands

Slovak Republic

Switzerland

%

100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0

Denmark

Short tertiary (2-3 years)
Master’s or equivalent
Bachelor’s or equivalent

More than half of all first-time graduates are women
Recognising the impact that education has on participation in the labour market, occupational mobility and
quality of life, policy makers and educators are emphasising the importance of reducing differences in education
opportunities and outcomes between men and women. In 2013, an average of 57% of first-time graduates from
tertiary education in OECD countries were women, ranging from 47% in Turkey to 69% in Latvia (Table A3.2). In
addition, more than one in two first-time graduates from all levels of tertiary education – except the doctoral level
– were women. On average, 58% of first-time graduates from bachelor’s programmes or the equivalent were women
while 47% of doctoral-level graduates were. The largest difference between the shares of women who graduated with
a bachelor’s degree or the equivalent and those who graduated with a doctorate (20 percentage points or more) were
observed in the Czech Republic, Saudi Arabia and Sweden (Chart A3.3).
Although most tertiary graduates in 2013 were women, men still have better labour market outcomes. Earnings for
tertiary-educated men are higher, on average, than those for tertiary-educated women, and tertiary-educated men
tend to have higher employment rates than women with the same level of education (Indicators A5 and A6).
Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

63

A3

chapter A THE OUTPUT OF EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS AND THE IMPACT OF LEARNING

In addition, even though women are over-represented among tertiary graduates, they remain under-represented in
certain fields of study, such as science and engineering (see Education at a Glance online database). These results are
partially explained by gender differences in young people’s attitudes and aspirations. The OECD Programme for
International Student Assessment (PISA) has consistently found that 15-year-old girls have higher expectations for
their careers than boys, but that, on average across OECD countries, less than 5% of girls that age contemplate a
career in engineering or computing (OECD, 2015b).

Chart A3.3. Percentage of female graduates in tertiary levels of education (2013)

Japan

Turkey1

Switzerland

China

Germany

Indonesia

Chile

Mexico

Luxembourg

United Kingdom

Netherlands

United States

OECD average

Spain

Colombia

Australia

Italy

Israel

Finland

Austria

EU21 average

Belgium

Canada1

Denmark

Portugal

Saudi Arabia

Hungary

South Africa1

New Zealand

Slovenia

Czech Republic

Slovak Republic

Latvia

Norway

Russian Federation

Doctoral or equivalent

Bachelor’s or equivalent

%

80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0

Sweden

A3

Note: The black line shows the 50% mark.
1. Year of reference 2012.
Countries are ranked in descending order of the percentage of women graduating with bachelor’s or equivalent.
Source: OECD. Table A3.4. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/education/education-at-a-glance-19991487.htm).
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933283486

Students choose to enrol abroad, mainly for advanced degrees
The internationalisation of tertiary education has been more pronounced in advanced degrees, such as master’s
and doctoral programmes. In 2013, 27% of doctoral graduates in OECD countries were international students as
were 18% of graduates from master’s programmes or the equivalent, and 7% of graduates at the bachelor’s level.
In Belgium, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Switzerland and the United Kingdom, 40% or more of graduates
from doctoral programmes were international students. In Luxembourg, eight out of ten doctoral graduates were
international students. In Australia, master’s programmes attract more international students (57%) than doctoral
programmes (36%).
For more details on the internationalisation of tertiary education, please refer to Chapter C (Indicator C4) of this
publication.

Science and engineering are more popular fields of study in advanced tertiary degrees
The distribution of graduates by field of study is related to the relative popularity of these fields among students,
the relative number of positions offered in universities and equivalent institutions, and the degree structure of the
various disciplines in a particular country.
One in three tertiary graduates in 2013 earned a degree from the field of social sciences, business and law. In all
OECD countries but Korea, the largest share of graduates pursued this field of study. More than 45% of tertiary
graduates in Colombia, Luxembourg, Turkey, Russian Federation and South Africa earned a degree in this field. The
fields of science and engineering lag behind, with 14% of graduates in engineering, manufacturing and construction,
and 9% of graduates in science (Table A3.3).
Many countries are pushing for a better balance in the distribution of graduates across fields of education. For
instance, the United States recently took measures to increase the number of graduates with tertiary science and
engineering qualifications by one million by 2022. Similarly, the European Union recently launched the Science
with and for Society programme to build co-operation between science and society, recruit new talent for science,
and pair scientific excellence with social awareness and responsibility. The programme aims to make science more
attractive, particularly to young people, and to open further research and innovation activities across Europe.

64

Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

How many young people are expected to complete tertiary education and what is their profile? – INDICATOR A3

chapter A

But the small share of graduates in science and engineering at the tertiary level hides large differences by level of
tertiary education. In science, the higher the degree, the larger the share of students graduating from this field.
While 5% of graduates from short-cycle tertiary programmes, 8% of graduates from bachelor’s or the equivalent
programmes, and 9% of graduates from master’s or the equivalent programmes earned a degree in science in 2013,
more than 27% of graduates from doctoral programmes did, on average across OECD countries. In Canada, Chile and
France, 55% or more of doctoral students graduated from the field of sciences or engineering in 2013 (Table A3.5).
This pattern is even clearer among international students. More than one in two international students who
graduated with a doctorate earned a degree in either sciences or engineering (32% earned a doctorate in sciences
and 23% earned a doctorate in engineering), compared with one in five international students who graduated at the
bachelor’s level or from a short-cycle tertiary programme (Chart A3.4).
The popularity of science and engineering in doctoral programmes may be the result of policies that encourage
academic research in these fields. Recent OECD work highlighted that while innovation draws on a wide set of skills,
excellence in scientific research is the basis of science-based innovation, and research competence is essential for
building co-operation among the scientific community, business and society. Thus, developing scientific research
skills through doctoral training has become an important aim of education policy in many countries (OECD, 2014b).

Chart A3.4. Percentage of students (all students and international students) who graduate
from sciences and engineering at doctoral level (2013)

France
Chile
Canada1
Luxembourg
Israel
Sweden
Estonia
Czech Republic
Colombia
Austria
Belgium
United Kingdom
New Zealand
Italy
EU21 average
Spain
Ireland
OECD average
Germany
Denmark
Portugal
Switzerland
Norway
Finland
United States
Slovak Republic
Russian Federation
Slovenia
Latvia
Greece
Australia
Korea
Japan
South Africa1
Hungary
Netherlands
Mexico
Turkey1
Saudi Arabia

%

80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0

Engineering, manufacturing and construction (all students)
Sciences (all students)
Sciences and engineering, manufacturing and construction (international students)

1. Year of reference 2012.
Countries are ranked in descending order of the percentage of sciences and engineering graduates at doctoral level.
Source: OECD. Table A3.5. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/education/education-at-a-glance-19991487.htm).
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933283490

Box A3.1. Do tertiary graduates perceive their workplace as innovative?
Figuring out how to capture the value added from innovation is neither a simple nor a new problem. The
OECD Innovation Strategy called for new perspectives on the measurement of innovation (OECD, 2010a,
2010b). In particular, it called for measures of innovation in the public sector, including in the education
sector. The following charts are derived from Measuring Innovation in Education (OECD, 2014), responding
to this call, offering new perspectives, based on REFLEX (2005) and HEGESCO (2008) surveys covering
19 European countries. In those surveys, innovation is defined as the introduction of “new or significantly
improved products, processes, organisation or marketing methods”. The surveys asked tertiary graduates,
five years after they graduated: “How would you characterise the extent of innovation in your organisation
or your workplace?” in reference to three types of innovation identified in the Oslo Manual (OECD and
Eurostat, 2005): “products or services”, e.g. new syllabi, textbooks or educational resources; “technology,

…
Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

65

A3

chapter A THE OUTPUT OF EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS AND THE IMPACT OF LEARNING

tools or instruments”, new processes for delivering their services, e.g. use of ICT in e-learning services, new
learning-management system, new online courses, new pedagogic tools, such as maps, anatomy models,
e-labs, etc.; and “knowledge or methods”, e.g. new pedagogies, new administrative management systems
regarding admissions or other formalities, ICT to communicate with students and parents, etc.. “High
innovation” corresponds to values 4 and 5 in the scale from 1 (very low) to 5 (very high). The indicators
presented below capture innovation as a significant change in key practices.

Chart A3.a. Professionals in highly innovative workplaces, by sector and innovation type
Percentage of graduates who perceive their workplace as highly innovative, 2005 or 2008
At least one type of innovation

Product or service
Technology, tools or instruments
Knowledge or methods

Across three types of innovation

%

74
69

67

79

76

73

69

66

63

65

75

70

64

53

34

32

29

12
51

51

Finance

50

Agriculture and mining

49

Electricity

48

Average

46

Communication

45

Other services

43

Construction

38

Wholesale

38

19

17
51

52

58

60

Education

22

Business activities

23

19

26

Manufacturing

16

21

26

Health

22

Public administration

90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0

Hotel and restaurants

A3

Data are ranked in ascending order of the percentage of graduates who perceive their workplace as highly innovative for knowledge or methods innovation.
Source: Figures 1.4, 1.6 and 1.8 from OECD (2014), Measuring Innovation in Education: A New Perspective, Educational Research and Innovation,
OECD Publishing, http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264215696-en.
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933283508

On average, more than two out of three tertiary graduates (69%) across all sectors perceived their workplace
as highly innovative for at least one type of innovation. Interestingly, about the same proportion (70%) of
tertiary graduates employed in the education sector, both public and private, considered their workplace
as highly innovative for at least one type of innovation. Contrary to common belief, there is a fair level
of innovation in the education sector, both relative to other sectors and in absolute terms. Some 60%
of tertiary graduates employed in the education sector considered their workplace as highly innovative
regarding knowledge or methods (compared to 49%, on average, across all sectors); 38% considered their
workplace as highly innovative regarding products or services (compared with 47%, on average); and 36%
considered their workplace as highly innovative regarding technology, tools or instruments (compared with
41%, on average). Given these results, it appears that most innovation in the education sector focuses on
teaching methods and knowledge (Chart A3.a).
Finland, Italy, the Netherlands, Slovenia and the United Kingdom have the largest share of graduates
who considered their workplace in the education sector as highly innovative regarding at least one type of
innovation. But graduates in these countries differ in how they perceive innovation in education as compared
with innovation in other sectors. In Finland, graduates consider the education sector as innovative as the
average across other sectors. Graduates in the Netherlands, Slovenia and the United Kingdom consider the
education sector more innovative than the average across all sectors of the economy, while the opposite
is observed in Italy. Interestingly, the standard deviation varies considerably across countries. Italy, the
Netherlands and Slovenia show the smallest deviation across sectors.

…

66

Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

How many young people are expected to complete tertiary education and what is their profile? – INDICATOR A3

chapter A

In contrast, the share of graduates who consider the education sector as highly innovative regarding at least
one type of innovation is the smallest in the Czech Republic, France, Hungary and Portugal. Graduates working
in the education sector in these four countries consider their own sector as less innovative than graduates
working in other sectors of the economy. In the Czech Republic and Portugal, the shares of graduates who
perceived the education sector as being highly innovative are far smaller than those who perceived other
sectors of the economy as being innovative (Chart A3.b).
Interestingly, some of the countries covered by the survey reformed their education systems significantly since
the release of this survey.

Chart A3.b. Professionals in innovative workplaces
regarding at least one type of innovation, by sector and country

Health

Manufacturing

Belgium (Fl.)

Education

%

Average

Percentage of graduates who perceive their workplace as highly innovative
in at least one type of innovation, 2005 or 2008
Business activities

All economy

90
85
80
75
70
65
60
55
50
45
United Kingdom

Slovenia

Netherlands

Finland

Italy

Switzerland

Austria

Turkey

Lithuania

Estonia

Norway

Poland

Germany

Spain

Czech Republic

Portugal

Hungary

France

40

Note: Hungary, Lithuania, Poland, Slovenia and Turkey refer to HEGESCO (2008). Austria, the Belgium Flemish Community, the Czech Republic,
Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom refer to REFLEX (2005).
Data are ranked in ascending order of the percentage of graduates who perceive their workplace in education sector to be highly innovative regarding at
least one type of innovation.
Source: Figure 1.5 from OECD (2014), Measuring Innovation in Education: A New Perspective, Educational Research and Innovation, OECD Publishing,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264215696-en.
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933283515

In education sector more specifically, graduates in all countries reported innovations in “knowledge and
methods” as the most common in 2008. On average across countries, 59% of the graduates working in the
education sector considered that their workplace is highly innovative in this respect. By contrast, 38% of
graduates working in the education sector considered their workplace as highly innovative for “products or
services”; and 36% consider their workplace highly innovative for “technology, tools or instruments”.
The Netherlands, Slovenia and the United Kingdom have the largest share of graduates who considered
their workplace to be highly innovative regarding knowledge and methods. It is worth noting that the
Netherlands and the United Kingdom are also among the countries that reported the highest level of
school autonomy, as measured by the OECD Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA).
Although there is no evidence of a strong correlation between school autonomy and degree of innovation in
knowledge and methods across all countries, it is an interesting coincidence in some countries, suggesting
that autonomous schools with control over staffing, budget, curriculum and assessments may be better
equipped to introduce innovations in education.

…

Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

67

A3

chapter A THE OUTPUT OF EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS AND THE IMPACT OF LEARNING

Turkey and the United Kingdom reported the largest share of graduates (more than 50%) who considered
their workplace in the education sector to be highly innovative considering the two other types of innovation:
“products and services” and in “technology, tools or instruments”. By contrast, in 2008, French and Hungarian
graduates perceived the education sector as less innovative than other sectors. The share of graduates who were
employed in the educator sector in highly innovative workplaces regarding “at least one type of innovation”
and “all three types of innovation” was below the European average in these two countries, and each country
ranked below average for all three types of innovation.

Chart A3.c. Education professionals in highly innovative workplaces,
by innovation type and country
Percentage of graduates working in the education sector who perceive their workplace
as highly innovative, 2005 or 2008
At least one type of innovation

Product or service
Technology, tools or instruments
Knowledge or methods

Across three types of innovation

%

73

70
65

64

70

66

73

70

72

69

79

75

73

33

32

61

62

16

63

64

65

66

67

68

71

72

Slovenia

60

Belgium (Fl.)

59

Germany

59

Turkey

55

Average

53

Spain

51

Estonia

Portugal

50

Italy

10
50

Czech Republic

44

23

21

19

13

Finland

10
38

11

Netherlands

21

19

22

Austria

17

23

Lithuania

23

Poland

23

Switzerland

22

Norway

18
9

78

77

United Kingdom

51

72

69

60

55

Hungary

90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0

France

A3

Note: Hungary, Lithuania, Poland, Slovenia and Turkey refer to HEGESCO (2008). Austria, the Belgium Flemish Community, the Czech Republic,
Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom refer to REFLEX
(2005).
Data are ranked in ascending order of the percentage of graduates who perceive their workplace in education sector to be highly innovative for knowledge
or methods innovation.
Source: Figures 1.3, 1.5 and 1.7 from OECD (2014), Measuring Innovation in Education: A New Perspective, Educational Research and Innovation,
OECD Publishing, http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264215696-en.
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933283520

How can perceived innovation, or lack thereof, be explained? Education science is relatively new so there is a
comparatively small number of teaching practices that have been evaluated through research. One explanation
may come from sociologists, particularly Max Weber, who have sought, since the 19th century, to explain
the efforts of bureaucracies, both government and private, to rationalise and make more efficient the work
and accountability of large organisations. Among the practices of public service organisations, including
educational institutions that make innovation difficult are professional associations that control entry and
advancement, labour agreements, expectations for transparency, and consultation outside the organisation.
This may explain why France ranks low in innovation in its education and health sectors, both of which are large
public service organisations with strong professional associations. In education, the traditional “decoupling”
or “loose coupling” of the technical core (i.e. classroom teaching) from the formal organisation and from the
policy environment hampers innovation (Dumont, Istance and Benavides [2010]).
The survey also analyses the education sector by level of education. Although no country-by-country analysis
is possible, the survey found that 80% of graduates employed in tertiary education consider their workplace
as highly innovative, compared to 65% of graduates employed in primary education, and 63% employed in
secondary education.

…

68

Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

How many young people are expected to complete tertiary education and what is their profile? – INDICATOR A3

chapter A

A3

Chart A3.d. Education professionals working in innovative workplace,
by type of education taught
Percentage of graduates who perceive their workplace as highly innovative regarding
at least one type of innovation, 2005 or 2008
%

100
80
60

80
65

63

Primary education

Secondary education

40
20
0

Higher education

Data are ranked by level of education.
Source: Figure 1.12 from OECD (2014), Measuring Innovation in Education: A New Perspective, Educational Research and Innovation,
OECD Publishing, http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264215696-en.
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933283539

Among European countries, the increase in educational attainment over the past decades, particularly in
tertiary education, may explain why that segment is considered more innovative than other segments. Despite
some funding problems, tertiary education remains a hugely successful enterprise, facing rising demand
worldwide as students and parents know (or believe) that life chances, and economic and social returns will
be enhanced with a tertiary education. Shifting the cost of tertiary education to students/parents through
rising tuition fees and, consequently, greater indebtedness among students, is unsustainable. While the more
selective institutions may not be threatened, these conditions may increase the competitive advantage of
for-profit providers, creating incentives to develop low-cost faculty, standardised curricula, distance-learning
methods, such as MOOCs, and minimal overhead costs, etc. (Kaufmann, 2012).
Methodology
Measuring innovation and its effectiveness in the public sector, and in education in particular, is in its infancy.
Measuring innovation in education is a pioneering attempt to present indicators based on existing international
datasets. It aims to provide education policy makers with an estimated order of magnitude of innovation and
change in education.
Measuring innovation in education presents two broad approaches to measuring innovation in education:
adapting innovation surveys to the public sector (including education), and analysing organisational changes
through teacher-student surveys. This indicator is based on the first approach. While such an approach –
asking graduates to assess the “level” of innovation – is subjective, it provides information regarding the
perceived level of innovation by sector.
The REFLEX (2005) and HEGESCO (2008) surveys asked graduates of higher education five years after they
graduated: “How would you characterise the extent of innovation in your organisation or your work?” regarding
“products or services”, “technology, tools or instruments” and “knowledge or methods”. “High innovation”
corresponds to values 4 and 5 in the scale from 1 (very low) to 5 (very high). The education sector includes
primary, secondary and higher education as well as other non-specified education activities.
This approach is complementary to other measurement approaches. In fact, measuring innovation through
several approaches would enrich the stock of knowledge, and improve the understanding of the benefits of
innovation in the education sector. Measuring Innovation in Education suggests that developing an international
survey on innovation in education would have several advantages, including larger country coverage (on a
comparable basis) and a wider array of respondent stakeholders, targeting three levels of stakeholders: school
principal/president, teachers/faculty, and students (in primary, secondary and tertiary education). Such a
survey would help to identify the main areas of innovation – and even specific innovations – in the education
sector and avoid the ambiguities of the “innovation” concept.

…

Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

69

chapter A THE OUTPUT OF EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS AND THE IMPACT OF LEARNING

A3

Bibliography
Dumont, H., D. Istance and F. Benavides (eds.) (2010), The Nature of Learning: Using Research to Inspire Practice,
Educational Research and Innovation, OECD Publishing, Paris, http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264086487-en.
Kauffman Foundation (ed.) (2012), College 2.0: An Entrepreneurial Approach to Reforming Higher Education: Overcoming
Barriers and Fostering Innovation, Papers from the Entrepreneurship in Higher Education Retreat, Ewing Marion Kauffman
Foundation, www.careercollegecentral.com/pdf/entrepreneurial_approach_to_higher_ed_reform.pdf.
Looney, J. W. (2009), “Assessment and Innovation in Education”, OECD Education Working Papers, No. 24, OECD Publishing,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/222814543073.
OECD (2014), Measuring Innovation in Education: A New Perspective, Educational Research and Innovation, OECD Publishing,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264215696-en.
OECD (2012), PISA 2012 Results: What Makes Schools Successful? (Volume IV) Resources, Policies and Practices, PISA,
OECD Publishing, Paris, www.oecd.org/pisa/keyfindings/Vol4Ch4.pdf.
OECD (2010a), Measuring Innovation: A New Perspective, OECD Publishing, Paris, http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/
9789264059474-en.
OECD (2010b), The OECD Innovation Strategy: Getting a Head Start on Tomorrow, OECD Publishing, Paris, http://dx.doi.
org/10.1787/9789264083479-en.
OECD (2009), Creating Effective Teaching and Learning Environments: First Results From TALIS, OECD Publishing, Paris,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264068780-en.
OECD/Eurostat (2005), Oslo Manual: Guidelines for Collecting and Interpreting Innovation Data, 3rd Edition, The Measurement
of Scientific and Technological Activities, OECD Publishing, Paris, http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264013100-en.
Woessmann, L. et al. (2007), “School Accountability, Autonomy, Choice, and the Level of Student Achievement: International
Evidence from PISA 2003”, OECD Education Working Papers, No. 13, OECD Publishing, Paris, http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/
246402531617.

Definitions
First-time graduate is a student who has graduated for the first time at a given level of education during the reference
period. Therefore, if a student has graduated multiple times over the years, he or she is counted as a graduate each
year, but as a first-time graduate only once.
First-time tertiary graduate is a student who graduates for the first time with a tertiary diploma, regardless of the
education programme in which he or she is enrolled. This definition is applied in Table A3.1 (columns 13 to 15) and
Table A3.2.
First-time graduate from a given programme or level of tertiary education is a first-time graduate from the given
programme, but may have a diploma from another programme. For example, a first-time graduate at the master’s
level has earned a master’s degree for the first time, but may have graduated with a bachelor’s degree previously.
This definition is applied in Table A3.1 (columns 1 to 12), Table A3.4 and Table A3.5.
International students are those students who left their country of origin and moved to another country for the
purpose of study. In the majority of countries, international students are considered first-time graduates, regardless
of their previous education in other countries. In the calculations described here, when countries could not report
the number of international students, foreign students have been used as an approximation. Foreign students are
students who do not have the citizenship of the country in which they studied (for more details, please refer to
Annex 3, www.oecd.org/education/education-at-a-glance-19991487.htm).
Net graduation rates represent the estimated percentage of people from a specific age cohort who will complete
tertiary education over their lifetime, based on current patterns of graduation.

Methodology
Data refer to the academic year 2012/13 and are based on the UOE data collection on education statistics administered
by the OECD in 2014 (for details, see Annex 3 at www.oecd.org/education/education-at-a-glance-19991487.htm).
Unless otherwise indicated, graduation rates are calculated as net graduation rates (i.e. as the sum of age-specific
graduation rates). Net tertiary graduation rates represent the expected probability of graduating from tertiary
education over a lifetime if current patterns are maintained. The current cohort of graduates by ages (cross-section
data) is used in the calculation.

70

Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

How many young people are expected to complete tertiary education and what is their profile? – INDICATOR A3

chapter A

Gross graduation rates are used when data by age are missing. In order to calculate gross graduation rates, countries
identify the age at which graduation typically occurs (see Annex 1). The typical age of graduation for a given education
level is defined in Education at a Glance as the age range comprising at least half of the graduate population. The
number of graduates of which the age is unknown is divided by the population at the typical graduation age. In
many countries, defining a typical age at graduation is difficult, however, because graduates are dispersed over a
wide range of ages.
Note regarding data from Israel
The statistical data for Israel are supplied by and are under the responsibility of the relevant Israeli authorities. The use of
such data by the OECD is without prejudice to the status of the Golan Heights, East Jerusalem and Israeli settlements in the
West Bank under the terms of international law.

References
OECD (2015a), Education Policy Outlook 2015: Making Reforms Happen, OECD Publishing, Paris, http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/
9789264225442-en.
OECD (2015b), The ABC of Gender Equality in Education: Aptitude, Behaviour, Confidence, PISA, OECD Publishing, Paris, http://
dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264229945-en.
OECD (2014a), OECD Science, Technology and Industry Outlook 2014, OECD Publishing, Paris, http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/sti_
outlook-2014-en.
OECD (2014b), The State of Higher Education 2014, the OECD Higher Education Programme IMHE, OECD Publishing, Paris,
www.oecd.org/edu/imhe.

Indicator A3 Tables
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933284841

Table A3.1

First-time graduation rates, by tertiary ISCED level (2013)

Table A3.2

Profile of a first-time tertiary graduate (2013)

Table A3.3

Distribution of all tertiary graduates, by field of education (2013)

Table A3.4

Percentage of female and international first-time graduates, by tertiary ISCED level (2013)

Table A3.5

Percentage of all students and international students who graduate from sciences and engineering
programmes, by tertiary ISCED level (2013)

WEB Table A3.6

Trends in first time graduation rates, by tertiary ISCED level (2005-13)

WEB Table A3.7

Share of tertiary gradutates by field of education and gender (2013)

Cut-off date for the data: 23 October 2015. Updates can be found on line at http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/eag-data-en.

Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

71

A3

chapter A THE OUTPUT OF EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS AND THE IMPACT OF LEARNING

Table A3.1. First-time graduation rates, by tertiary ISCED level (2013)
Sum of age-specific graduation rates, by demographic group

A3

Short tertiary (2-3 years)
ISCED 5

Bachelor’s or equivalent
ISCED 6

Master’s or equivalent
ISCED 7

Doctorate or equivalent
ISCED 8

Excluding
international
students

Excluding
international
students

Excluding
international
students

Excluding
international
students

Partners

OECD

Total

Total

Younger
than 30

Total

Total

Younger
than 30

First-time tertiary
Excluding
international
students

Total

Total

Younger
than 35

Total

Total

Younger
than 35

Total

Total

Younger
than 30

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7)

(8)

(9)

(10)

(11)

(12)

(13)

(14)

(15)

Australia
Austria
Belgium
Canada1
Chile
Czech Republic
Denmark
Estonia
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Iceland
Ireland
Israel
Italy
Japan
Korea
Luxembourg
Mexico
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Slovak Republic
Slovenia
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Turkey1
United Kingdom
United States

28
26
m
22
20
0
12
a
a
m
0
a
7
m
m
m
0
25
m
2
2
1
25
4
1
a
1
8
20
7
2
19
8
22

26
26
m
19
m
0
10
a
a
m
0
a
7
m
m
m
m
24
m
1
m
1
19
4
m
a
1
8
m
7
2
19
8
22

12
25
m
15
m
0
8
a
a
m
0
a
7
m
m
m
m
m
m
1
m
0
11
3
m
a
1
5
m
5
2
16
5
m

61
25
42
33
31
41
52
m
46
m
27
m
22
m
m
42
28
45
m
9
22
41
54
37
m
36
42
37
18
26
46
27
45
38

43
21
39
30
m
38
48
m
44
m
27
m
21
m
m
40
m
44
m
7
m
37
44
36
m
36
41
36
18
25
43
27
38
37

34
18
m
28
m
31
40
m
34
m
19
m
15
m
m
30
m
m
m
7
m
35
32
30
m
30
22
31
15
18
33
23
33
m

18
22
11
11
9
27
26
m
23
m
16
m
15
m
m
19
20
8
m
5
4
m
7
17
m
20
40
21
22
20
17
3
27
20

8
18
8
9
m
24
21
m
21
m
15
m
14
m
m
18
m
8
m
1
m
m
5
15
m
19
38
20
21
15
13
3
15
18

5
15
m
7
m
21
19
m
16
m
14
m
12
m
m
11
m
m
m
1
m
m
3
12
m
16
31
18
19
12
11
3
10
m

2.5
1.9
0.5
1.3
0.2
1.6
2.8
1.3
2.5
1.7
2.7
0.9
0.7
m
2.2
1.5
1.4
1.2
1.6
0.8
0.3
2.1
2.2
1.9
0.6
1.7
2.5
3.6
1.5
2.7
3.2
0.7
3.0
1.5

1.6
1.4
0.3
1.1
m
1.4
1.9
m
2.0
m
2.3
m
0.7
m
m
1.4
m
1.0
m
0.1
m
1.3
1.1
1.3
m
1.5
2.3
3.5
m
1.9
1.6
0.7
1.7
1.1

0.8
1.0
m
0.7
m
1.0
1.3
m
0.9
m
1.9
m
0.5
m
m
0.6
m
m
m
0.1
m
1.1
0.6
0.6
m
0.7
1.8
2.4
m
1.0
1.2
0.5
1.1
m

74
53
m
m
52
46
62
m
49
m
36
m
m
m
m
m
34
71
m
16
m
45
72
45
m
43
45
58
52
41
48
47
47
54

44
45
m
m
m
42
54
m
45
m
35
m
m
m
m
m
m
68
m
10
m
38
56
44
m
42
43
58
m
35
45
47
43
52

36
40
m
m
m
34
45
m
37
m
26
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
9
m
35
40
36
m
36
m
49
m
26
34
40
37
m

OECD average
EU21 average

11
7

11
6

7
5

36
34

34
32

27
26

17
21

15
18

13
15

1.7
1.8

1.4
1.6

1.0
1.1

50
45

45
41

35
34

Argentina
Brazil
China
Colombia
India
Indonesia
Latvia
Russian Federation
Saudi Arabia
South Africa1

m
m
19
13
m
m
15
29
6
6

m
m
19
m
m
m
m
m
m
m

m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m

m
m
17
19
m
23
42
6
22
11

m
m
17
m
m
m
m
m
m
m

m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m

m
m
2
9
m
1
14
52
1
1

m
m
2
m
m
m
m
m
m
m

m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m

m
m
0.2
0.0
m
0.1
1.1
1.4
0.1
0.2

m
m
0.2
m
m
m
m
m
m
m

m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m

m
m
m
m
m
m
58
m
m
m

m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m

m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m

G20 average

14

17

m

29

33

m

13

10

m

1.2

1.2

m

m

m

m

1. Year of reference 2012.
Source: OECD. Argentina, China, Colombia, India, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia, South Africa: UNESCO Institute for Statistics. Latvia: Eurostat. See Annex 3 for notes
(www.oecd.org/education/education-at-a-glance-19991487.htm).
Please refer to the Reader’s Guide for information concerning symbols for missing data and abbreviations.
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933284850

72

Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

How many young people are expected to complete tertiary education and what is their profile? – INDICATOR A3

chapter A

Table A3.2. Profile of a first-time tertiary graduate (2013)

Partners

OECD

Share
of female graduates

Share of graduates
below the typical
age of 30

A3

Share of first-time graduates by level of education

Share
of International
graduates

Short tertiary
(2-3 years)

Bachelor’s
or equivalent

Master’s
or equivalent

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

Australia
Austria
Belgium
Canada
Chile
Czech Republic
Denmark
Estonia
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Iceland
Ireland
Israel
Italy
Japan
Korea
Luxembourg
Mexico
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Slovak Republic
Slovenia
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Turkey1
United Kingdom
United States

57
57
m
m
58
63
58
m
57
m
51
m
m
m
m
m
59
51
m
55
m
57
58
60
m
59
64
61
55
62
49
47
56
58

84
85
m
m
74
81
84
m
81
m
87
m
m
m
m
m
86
m
m
86
m
92
75
81
m
82
82
81
82
75
75
87
87
m

42
14
m
m
m
9
14
m
8
m
4
m
m
m
m
m
m
4
m
40
m
15
22
2
m
2
5
1
m
13
7
0
9
3

6
47
m
m
39
1
18
m
a
m
0
m
m
m
m
m
2
34
m
11
m
1
31
9
m
a
2
15
35
4
4
41
18
42

77
29
m
m
56
88
75
m
89
m
76
m
m
m
m
m
80
63
m
55
m
91
67
81
m
85
93
58
31
61
95
57
80
58

17
24
m
m
5
11
7
m
11
m
24
m
m
m
m
a
18
2
m
34
m
8
3
10
m
15
5
27
34
35
1
2
2
a

OECD average
EU21 average

57
58

82
84

11
11

18
13

69
70

14
18

Argentina
Brazil
China
Colombia
India
Indonesia
Latvia
Russian Federation
Saudi Arabia
South Africa

m
m
m
m
m
m
69
59
m
m

m
m
m
m
m
m
74
m
m
m

m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m

m
m
m
m
m
m
25
27
m
m

m
m
m
m
m
m
73
7
m
m

m
m
m
a
m
m
2
66
m
a

G20 average

m

m

m

m

m

m

1. Year of reference 2012.
Source: OECD. Argentina, China, Colombia, India, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia, South Africa: UNESCO Institute for Statistics. Latvia: Eurostat. See Annex 3 for notes
(www.oecd.org/education/education-at-a-glance-19991487.htm).
Please refer to the Reader’s Guide for information concerning symbols for missing data and abbreviations.
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933284866

Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

73

chapter A THE OUTPUT OF EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS AND THE IMPACT OF LEARNING

Table A3.3. Distribution of all tertiary graduates, by field of education (2013)

Partners

OECD

A3

Sciences

Engineering,
manufacturing
and
construction

Agriculture

Health
and welfare

Services

Education

Humanities
and arts

Social sciences,
business
and law

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7)

(8)

Australia
Austria
Belgium
Canada1
Chile
Czech Republic
Denmark
Estonia
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Iceland
Ireland
Israel
Italy
Japan
Korea
Luxembourg
Mexico
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Slovak Republic
Slovenia
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Turkey1
United Kingdom
United States

8
11
10
8
16
12
7
8
6
3
11
10
14
m
9
m
5
8
7
24
12
12
12
17
m
9
13
10
14
13
10
10
10
8

10
11
11
11
4
8
12
13
13
9
13
12
9
m
13
m
17
15
18
8
4
9
14
10
m
9
7
10
9
6
9
8
16
21

44
33
32
39
28
36
35
31
25
43
29
31
43
m
31
m
33
29
22
48
44
40
33
25
m
31
32
36
28
29
37
47
30
32

8
9
5
10
5
11
8
11
7
9
14
12
6
m
11
m
8
3
7
10
5
6
12
7
m
8
7
10
9
8
8
9
16
8

8
19
12
10
14
13
12
13
21
15
20
18
11
m
12
m
16
18
24
6
22
8
7
13
m
18
13
16
16
18
14
12
9
6

1
2
2
1
2
4
1
2
2
1
2
5
2
m
1
m
2
3
1
0
2
1
1
1
m
1
2
3
1
1
2
3
1
1

18
7
25
15
22
10
21
12
20
16
8
8
8
m
16
m
16
15
14
4
9
19
15
21
m
17
19
8
15
23
13
6
16
16

3
9
2
5
9
5
3
8
6
4
4
3
8
m
6
m
3
9
7
0
1
5
5
6
m
6
7
8
8
3
8
5
2
7

OECD average
EU21 average

10
10

11
11

34
34

9
9

14
14

2
2

15
14

5
5

Argentina
Brazil
China
Colombia
India
Indonesia
Latvia
Russian Federation
Saudi Arabia
South Africa1

m
m
m
8
m
m
7
8
8
20

m
m
m
3
m
m
8
4
28
5

m
m
m
53
m
m
40
50
26
47

m
m
m
4
m
m
6
6
18
11

m
m
m
17
m
m
12
21
9
8

m
m
m
2
m
m
1
1
0
2

m
m
m
7
m
m
18
5
7
7

m
m
m
4
m
m
7
5
2
0

G20 average

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

Note: Tertiary graduates include short-cycle tertiary, bachelor’s or equivalent, master’s or equivalent and doctorate.
1. Year of reference 2012.
Source: OECD. Argentina, China, Colombia, India, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia, South Africa: UNESCO Institute for Statistics. Latvia: Eurostat. See Annex 3 for notes
(www.oecd.org/education/education-at-a-glance-19991487.htm).
Please refer to the Reader’s Guide for information concerning symbols for missing data and abbreviations.
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933284873

74

Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

How many young people are expected to complete tertiary education and what is their profile? – INDICATOR A3

chapter A

Table A3.4. Percentage of female and international first-time graduates, by tertiary ISCED level (2013)

Partners

OECD

Percentage of female graduates

Percentage of international graduates

Short tertiary
(2-3 years)

Bachelor’s
or equivalent

Master’s
or equivalent

Doctoral
or equivalent

Short tertiary
(2-3 years)

Bachelor’s
or equivalent

Master’s
or equivalent

Doctoral
or equivalent

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7)

(8)

Australia
Austria
Belgium
Canada1
Chile
Czech Republic
Denmark
Estonia
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Iceland
Ireland
Israel
Italy
Japan
Korea
Luxembourg
Mexico
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Slovak Republic
Slovenia
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Turkey1
United Kingdom
United States

58
54
m
56
61
66
48
a
a
m
75
a
69
m
m
m
24
62
m
59
42
51
54
24
84
a
70
48
52
55
59
45
57
61

58
60
60
60
54
63
60
m
59
m
49
m
61
m
m
59
59
45
m
56
53
57
61
64
m
60
63
63
58
69
49
49
56
57

54
55
56
56
55
61
56
m
60
m
53
m
61
m
m
60
60
33
m
51
55
m
55
58
m
61
64
65
56
55
49
48
58
58

50
44
42
46
45
43
45
60
51
44
44
45
46
m
49
52
52
30
34
39
48
46
50
48
55
55
51
55
50
46
44
45
46
49

9
1
m
13
m
3
16
a
a
m
0
a
0
m
m
m
m
4
m
46
m
a
23
0
m
a
1
0
m
0
a
0
6
2

30
14
6
9
m
7
8
m
5
m
3
m
3
m
m
3
m
2
m
21
m
10
18
2
m
2
4
1
1
3
7
1
15
3

57
18
26
17
m
10
18
m
9
m
10
m
4
m
m
3
m
9
m
71
m
m
29
11
m
5
4
2
5
25
23
2
45
11

36
29
46
16
m
13
31
m
21
m
15
m
7
m
m
3
m
19
m
81
m
40
46
30
m
11
6
4
m
32
51
3
44
27

OECD average
EU21 average

56
58

58
60

56
58

47
48

m
m

7
7

18
18

27
27

Argentina
Brazil
China
Colombia
India
Indonesia
Latvia
Russian Federation
Saudi Arabia
South Africa1

m
m
52
51
m
m
71
53
23
62

m
m
50
58
m
51
68
59
60
60

m
m
49
57
m
48
69
61
40
47

m
m
37
40
m
41
57
44
24
42

m
m
0
m
m
m
m
m
m
m

m
m
0
m
m
m
m
m
m
m

m
m
1
m
m
m
m
m
m
m

m
m
2
m
m
m
m
m
m
m

G20 average

52

55

51

42

4

8

19

20

1. Year of reference 2012.
Source: OECD. Argentina, China, Colombia, India, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia, South Africa: UNESCO Institute for Statistics. Latvia: Eurostat. See Annex 3 for notes
(www.oecd.org/education/education-at-a-glance-19991487.htm).
Please refer to the Reader’s Guide for information concerning symbols for missing data and abbreviations.
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933284886

Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

75

A3

chapter A THE OUTPUT OF EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS AND THE IMPACT OF LEARNING

Table A3.5. Percentage of all students and international students who graduate from sciences

A3

and engineering programmes, by tertiary ISCED level (2013)

Percentage of students who graduate from sciences
and engineering programmes
Engineering, manufacturing
and construction

Engineering, manufacturing
and construction

Bachelor’s
or equivalent

Master’s
or equivalent

Doctoral
or equivalent

Short tertiary
(2-3 years)

Bachelor’s
or equivalent

Master’s
or equivalent

Doctoral
or equivalent

Short tertiary
(2-3 years)

Bachelor’s
or equivalent

Master’s
or equivalent

Doctoral
or equivalent

Short tertiary
(2-3 years)

Bachelor’s
or equivalent

Master’s
or equivalent

Doctoral
or equivalent

Sciences

Short tertiary
(2-3 years)
OECD

Sciences

Partners

Percentage of international students who graduate from sciences
and engineering programmes

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7)

(8)

(9)

(10)

(11)

(12)

(13)

(14)

(15)

(16)

Australia
Austria
Belgium
Canada1
Chile
Czech Republic
Denmark
Estonia
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Iceland
Ireland
Israel
Italy
Japan
Korea
Luxembourg
Mexico
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Slovak Republic
Slovenia
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Turkey1
United Kingdom
United States

5
4
0
5
4
0
6
a
a
3
0
a
9
m
12
m
10
0
2
1
1
2
12
3
0
a
2
6
7
9
1
7
12
5

9
12
4
13
5
10
6
10
5
12
11
11
5
m
11
8
8
4
10
6
6
6
12
5
7
6
8
10
7
6
6
9
20
11

7
10
7
10
3
10
13
12
9
10
17
17
6
m
9
7
7
10
6
12
4
6
13
10
6
8
7
8
10
8
10
10
11
6

24
28
21
37
40
29
18
35
18
48
33
21
28
m
31
43
26
15
13
39
15
15
33
32
m
22
16
22
36
24
30
13
33
26

9
31
0
13
15
0
23
a
a
22
31
a
3
m
20
m
69
15
28
10
52
6
6
55
0
a
3
24
19
28
2
19
8
7

7
14
11
8
17
12
10
11
22
8
24
19
12
m
12
13
15
17
23
7
22
8
6
8
11
18
13
15
20
10
16
8
9
6

9
12
14
9
3
15
10
18
18
17
15
15
12
m
4
5
18
33
17
4
7
8
15
14
12
18
13
15
12
24
12
9
10
6

15
20
26
19
19
19
26
16
24
13
11
18
9
m
13
9
20
23
26
14
13
19
14
10
m
21
25
18
9
27
13
7
14
15

7
0
m
6
3
0
7
a
a
m
a
a
3
m
m
m
m
m
1
0
m
a
15
0
a
a
0
0
m
14
a
2
9
6

9
11
2
13
6
15
8
1
4
m
12
m
6
m
m
8
m
m
4
5
m
3
16
6
4d
6
2
10
5
12
10
10
14
13

10
8
10
10
7
13
13
14
15
m
13
m
3
m
m
8
m
m
5
15
m
9
16
18
x(10)
8
2
8
7
20
12
12
11
18

27
34
22
37
42
37
19
25
23
m
46
m
35
m
m
41
m
m
25
44
m
m
37
52
m
26
7
41
m
32
37
16
29
35

11
30
m
16
16
0
19
a
a
m
a
a
13
m
m
m
m
m
37
0
m
a
6
50
a
a
0
17
m
21
a
9
10
4

9
11
8
9
18
10
24
0
29
m
28
m
9
m
m
11
m
m
12
2
m
5
7
5
6d
21
9
16
9
15
17
16
15
12

10
10
13
11
8
11
15
17
33
m
25
m
4
m
m
4
m
m
16
4
m
11
19
19
x(14)
16
3
14
9
37
14
17
13
21

22
20
30
21
33
20
42
33
34
m
15
m
8
m
m
18
m
m
30
13
m
m
17
20
m
20
15
18
m
38
18
5
19
31

OECD average
EU21 average

5
5

8
9

9
10

27
27

19
19

13
13

13
13

17
18

4
4

8
7

11
10

32
30

15
12

12
13

14
15

23
23

Argentina
Brazil
China
Colombia
India
Indonesia
Latvia
Russian Federation
Saudi Arabia
South Africa1

m
2
m
8
m
m
4
6
21
10

m
6
m
2
m
m
5
10
18
11

m
m
m
2
m
m
9
5
6
13

m
m
m
24
m
m
22
25
6
30

m
0
m
18
m
m
9
32
26
9

m
8
m
22
m
m
12
14
5
7

m
m
m
6
m
m
14
17
2
11

m
m
m
23
m
m
18
16
4
8

m
0
m
m
m
m
0
m
m
m

m
6
m
m
m
m
2
m
m
m

m
m
m
m
m
m
2
m
m
m

m
m
m
m
m
m
0
m
m
m

m
0
m
m
m
m
14
m
m
m

m
14
m
m
m
m
3
m
m
m

m
m
m
m
m
m
4
m
m
m

m
m
m
m
m
m
0
m
m
m

G20 average

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

1. Year of reference 2012.
Source: OECD. Argentina, China, Colombia, India, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia, South Africa: UNESCO Institute for Statistics. Latvia: Eurostat. See Annex 3 for notes
(www.oecd.org/education/education-at-a-glance-19991487.htm).
Please refer to the Reader’s Guide for information concerning symbols for missing data and abbreviations.
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933284899

76

Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

INDICATOR A4

TO WHAT EXTENT DOES PARENTS’ EDUCATION INFLUENCE
THEIR CHILDREN’S EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT?
• On average across OECD countries and sub-national entities that participated in the Survey of
Adult Skills (PIAAC) in 2012, 22% of 25-34 year-old non-students – and in Korea, 47% of this
group – have attained tertiary education even though their parents have not (upward mobility).

• First generation tertiary-educated adults and tertiary-educated adults whose parents also hold a
tertiary degree share similar employment rates and pursue similar fields of study.

• When parents’ education is taken into account, adults with tertiary education are 23 percentage
points more likely than those with upper secondary or post-secondary non-tertiary education as
their highest level of education to be among the top 25% in monthly earnings, on average.

Chart A4.1. Intergenerational mobility in education (2012)
Survey of Adult Skills, educational attainment of 25-34 year-old non-students
compared with their parents
Status quo (same educational attainment as the highest level reached by parents)
Downward mobility (lower educational attainment than the highest level reached by parents)
Upward mobility to upper secondary or post-secondary non-tertiary education
Upward mobility to tertiary education

%

52

16
10

Austria

Germany

Czech Republic

United States

Sweden

Italy

Slovak Republic

Norway

Australia

Estonia

Denmark

Flanders (Belgium)

Average

Netherlands

Japan

Canada

France

England/N. Ireland (UK)

Spain

Ireland

Finland

Poland

Russian Federation*

22

Korea

100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0

* See note on data for the Russian Federation in the Methodology section.
Countries are ranked in descending order of upward mobility to tertiary education among tertiary-educated 25-34 year-old non-students.
Source: OECD. Table A4.1a. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/education/education-at-a-glance- 19991487.htm).
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933283540

Context
Because of its strong links to employment, earnings, overall wealth and the well-being of individuals,
education can reduce inequalities in societies – but it can also perpetuate them. Giving all young people
a fair chance to obtain a quality education is a fundamental part of the social contract. It is critically
important to address inequalities in education opportunities in order to maintain social mobility and
broaden the pool of candidates for higher education and high-skilled jobs. This indicator draws from
the Survey of Adult Skills, a product of the OECD Programme for the International Assessment of
Adult Competencies (PIAAC) (2012), to analyse the incidence of tertiary education among adults
whose parents had not attained that level of education (first generation tertiary-educated adults) and
intergenerational social mobility.
In today’s fast-changing labour markets, the gap in returns to low- and high-qualified workers is
growing. On average, less-educated adults have the highest unemployment and inactivity rates and
have the lowest wages over their working lives (see Indicators A5 and A6). Having a large population
of low-qualified workers may thus lead to a heavier social burden and deepening inequalities that are
both difficult and costly to address once people have left initial education.

78

Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

PISA 2012 results show that in several countries that have designed and implemented policies with a
stronger focus on equity, students from disadvantaged backgrounds have improved their performance
at school. A significant number of countries that underperformed in 2003 improved their PISA
scores markedly by 2012. In several of these countries, the improvement was mainly due to giving
more students higher-quality education (OECD, 2013). Various policy options, such as maintaining
reasonable costs for higher education and funding student support systems can help disadvantaged
students. Ensuring access to and success in tertiary education for all is important, but so is addressing
inequalities at the earliest stages of schooling.

INDICATOR A4

Other findings

• The opportunity for individuals to attain tertiary education and surpass their parents’ education has
stayed the same or increased over time in most countries. Among individuals whose parents’ highest
level of education was upper secondary or post-secondary non-tertiary, 38% of 25-34 year-olds
attained tertiary education, on average, as did 37% of 35-44 year-olds, 36% of 45-54 year-olds, and
34% of 55-64 year-olds.

• In some countries, it is natural that a large proportion of younger adults appears unlikely to surpass
their parents in educational attainment because many of those parents have already attained
tertiary education, leaving no room for upward mobility for their children. This kind of status quo
in educational attainment is a positive outcome.

• On average, 88% of first generation tertiary-educated 25-34 year-old non-students are employed.
In Flanders (Belgium), 98% of this group are employed.

Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

79

chapter A THE OUTPUT OF EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS AND THE IMPACT OF LEARNING

A4

Analysis
First generation tertiary-educated adults
Intergenerational mobility in education, as measured by the OECD Programme for the International Assessment of
Adult Competencies (PIAAC) (2012), refers to the proportion of individuals whose highest level of qualification is
different from that of their parents: higher in the case of upward mobility, and lower in the case of downward mobility
across generations. Status quo in education is when children attain the same level of education as their parents.
Chart A4.1. summarises the findings of educational mobility among 25-34 year-old non-students presented in
Indicator A4 in Education at a Glance 2014, with an additional breakdown by level of upward mobility (Table A4.4 in
OECD, 2014a). It shows that, across the countries and sub-national entities that participated in the Survey of Adult
Skills, the majority of younger adults attained the same level of education as their parents (52%). Some 16% of
younger adults attained a lower level of education than their parents (downward mobility) while the remaining 32%
were upwardly mobile compared to their parents, either attaining upper secondary or post-secondary non-tertiary
education (10%) or tertiary education (22%). The latter group is referred to as first generation tertiary-educated
adults (Table A4.1a).
In Korea, 47% of young adults surpassed their parents’ educational attainment when they themselves attained
tertiary education. This contrasts with Austria, the Czech Republic, Germany, Sweden and the United States, where
15% or less of younger adults are first generation tertiary-educated. In Austria, the Czech Republic and Germany, a
large share of students choose vocational education, which may explain the low percentage of young adults who are
first generation tertiary educated. In the United States, the proportion of tertiary-educated older adults is one of
the highest among OECD countries, which leaves less room for upward mobility to tertiary education (Table A4.1a
and see Table A1.3a).
As Indicator A1 shows, the level of education rose significantly in recent years, especially among younger adults.
Over the past 30 years, almost all OECD countries have seen significant increases in the educational attainment
of their populations, this can be observed by comparing the educational attainment of younger and older adults.
By 2014, about one in three adults in OECD countries held a tertiary qualification, including qualifications from
more technical tertiary programmes as well as from universities (see Table A1.4a).
As the share of adults whose parents have a tertiary education increases, fewer younger adults show upward
educational mobility. This is why, on average across the countries and sub-national entities that participated in
the Survey of Adult Skills, the proportion of younger adults with a higher level of education than their parents is
shrinking. At the same time, when looking at the data in light of parents’ educational attainment, opportunities to
attain higher levels of education are growing (see Table A4.2 in OECD, 2014a).
As Chart A4.2 shows, there is a clear progression of educational attainment and a continuous increase in opportunities
to attain tertiary education. The proportion of younger adults who completed tertiary education is larger than the
proportion of older adults who did so, regardless of their parents’ level of education (Table A4.2 in OECD, 2014a).
The results also show an increasing proportion of children of tertiary-educated parents who also attained tertiary
education. On average, 60% of older adults attained tertiary education as their parents did, as did 65% of younger
adults (see Table A4.2 in OECD, 2014a).
Chart A4.2 not only shows an increase in tertiary attainment across younger age groups, it also confirms the impact
of parents’ education on children’s own attainment. The share of younger adults who complete tertiary education
and whose parents completed below upper secondary as their highest level of education is increasing among younger
adults, but remains small – 23% among younger adults – compared to the proportion of younger adults of the same
age who complete tertiary education and whose parents also completed that level of education (65%) (see Table A4.2
in OECD, 2014a).
The differences, related to parents’ educational attainment, in the proportions of individuals who completed
tertiary education is stable across the generations. Some 23% of younger adults whose parents did not attain
upper secondary education attained tertiary education themselves, compared with 65% of adults of the same age
whose parents also attained tertiary education (a difference of 42 percentage points). Among 35-44 year-olds, this
difference is 44 percentage points (24% and 68%, respectively), it is 43 percentage points among 45-54 year-olds
(19% and 63%, respectively) and 43 percentage points among older adults (17% and 60%, respectively). These
trends show that there is room for reducing inequities to allow a greater proportion of individuals whose parents
have low educational attainment to complete tertiary education (see Table A4.2 in OECD, 2014a).

80

Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

To what extent does parents’ education influence their children’s educational attainment? – INDICATOR A4

chapter A

Chart A4.2. Percentage of non-students who completed tertiary education,
by age group and parents’ educational attainment (2012)

A4

Survey of Adult Skills, average
25-34 year-olds

%

35-44 year-olds

45-54 year-olds

55-64 year-olds

80
70

68

65

06

63

60

50
38

40
30

23

20

24

19

37

36

34

17

10
0

Below upper
secondary

Upper secondary
or post-secondary non-tertiary

Tertiary

Source: OECD. Education at a Glance 2014: OECD Indicators. Table A4.2. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/education/education-at-a-glance19991487.htm).
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933283558

Gender
Chart A4.3 shows that in most countries and sub-national entities that participated in the Survey of Adult Skills in
2012, a larger proportion of women than men are first generation tertiary-educated, both among younger adults and
among 35-44 year-olds. But the gap in favour of women is larger among 25-34 year-olds than among 35-44 year-olds –
confirming conclusions drawn from Indicator A1 on educational attainment that find a larger proportion of adult
women than men complete tertiary education, with a particularly wide gender gap among younger adults. The
Czech Republic is the only country with a difference of more than 15 percentage points in the proportion of first
generation tertiary-educated women among younger adults (68%) compared to that among 35-44 year-olds (37%).
The largest proportion of first generation tertiary-educated 25-34 year-old women is also found in the Czech Republic:
a proportion that is 10 percentage points larger than the average (Table A4.2b, available on line).

Chart A4.3. First generation tertiary-educated women, by age group (2012)
Survey of Adult Skills, 25-34 and 35-44 year-old first generation tertiary-educated non-student women
25-34 year-olds

%

35-44 year-olds

More women than men

Germany

Austria

Japan

Russian Federation*

Korea

Ireland

England/N. Ireland (UK)

Netherlands

Canada

Norway

Average

France

United States

Slovak Republic

Poland

Denmark

Flanders (Belgium)

Estonia

Australia

Italy

Sweden

Finland

Spain

Fewer women than men

Czech Republic

100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0

* See note on data for the Russian Federation in the Methodology section.
Countries are ranked in descending order of the proportion of first generation tertiary-educated 25-34 year-old non-student women.
Source: OECD. Table A4.2b, available on line. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/education/education-at-a-glance- 19991487.htm).
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933283569

Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

81

chapter A THE OUTPUT OF EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS AND THE IMPACT OF LEARNING

Field of education
Chart A4.4 shows that in most countries, first generation tertiary-educated individuals pursued fields of education
similar to those chosen by individuals who were not first generation tertiary-educated. On average, the largest
proportion of all tertiary-educated younger adults holds a degree in social sciences, business and law (28%, on
average). The second most popular field of education is engineering, manufacturing and construction (17%).
In the Czech Republic, 41% of first generation tertiary-educated younger adults completed their degree in social
sciences, business and law, the largest proportion among participating countries and sub-national entities. By
contrast, in the Russian Federation, 18% of first generation tertiary-educated younger adults completed their
degree in social sciences, business and law, and 34% completed their degree in engineering, manufacturing and
construction. In England/Northern Ireland (UK), the Netherlands and the United States, among both first generation
tertiary-educated adults and tertiary-educated adults whose parents also hold a tertiary degree, there is a difference
of more than 20 percentage points between the proportions of adults who studied social sciences, business and law
and those who studied engineering, manufacturing and construction (Table A4.2c, available on line).

Chart A4.4. First generation/not first generation tertiary-educated adults,
by selected field of education (2012)
Survey of Adult Skills, 25-34 year-old non-students

Russian Federation*

Japan

Korea

Denmark

Slovak Republic

Flanders (Belgium)

Canada

Finland

France

Spain

Italy

Average

Norway

Ireland

Sweden

United States

Poland

Austria

England/N. Ireland (UK)

Australia

Estonia

Netherlands

%

50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0

Germany

First generation tertiary-educated from social sciences, business and law
Not first generation tertiary-educated from social sciences, business and law
First generation tertiary-educated from engineering, manufacturing and construction
Not first generation tertiary-educated from engineering, manufacturing and construction

Czech Republic

A4

* See note on data for the Russian Federation in the Methodology section.
Countries are ranked in descending order of first generation tertiary-educated 25-34 year-old non-student from social sciences, business and law.
Source: OECD. Table A4.2c, available on line. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/education/education-at-a-glance- 19991487.htm).
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933283575

Labour status of first generation tertiary-educated adults
Indicator A5 shows that employment rates are the highest among tertiary-educated adults. Similar conclusions can
be drawn from Chart A4.5, which shows that, on average, 88% of first generation tertiary-educated 25-34 year-old
non-students are employed, as are 90% of those who attained tertiary education and whose parents hold a tertiary
degree. The difference in employment rates between those who are first generation tertiary-educated and those
who are not is not statistically significant in most countries. Thus, in general, first generation tertiary-educated
adults do not have a better or worse chance of being employed compared to tertiary-educated adults whose parents
had also attained that level of education (Table A4.2d and see Table A5.3a).
When comparing age groups among first generation tertiary-educated adults, the difference in the proportion of
employed first generation tertiary-educated adults is less than 3 percentage points between 25-34 year-olds and
35-44 year-olds in 16 of the 24 countries and sub-national entities that participated in the Survey of Adult Skills.

82

Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

To what extent does parents’ education influence their children’s educational attainment? – INDICATOR A4

chapter A

In Austria, Flanders (Belgium), Ireland, Japan, Northern Ireland (UK) and the Russian Federation, the proportion of
first generation tertiary-educated 25-34 year-olds who are employed is greater than that among 35-44 year-olds. In
these countries and sub-national entities, younger cohorts of first generation tertiary-educated adults have better
employment prospects than older groups (Table A4.2d).

Chart A4.5. Employment rates among first generation/not first generation
tertiary-educated adults (2012)
Survey of Adult Skills, 25-34 year-old non-students
First generation tertiary-educated 25-34 year-olds
Not first generation tertiary-educated 25-34 year-olds

%

100
80
60
40

Spain

Korea

Italy

Russian Federation*

Slovak Republic

Czech Republic

United States

France

Australia

England/N. Ireland (UK)

Japan

Poland

Average

Canada

Ireland

Denmark

Germany

Estonia

Finland

Norway

Netherlands

Austria

Sweden

0

Flanders (Belgium)

20

* See note on data for the Russian Federation in the Methodology section.
Countries are ranked in descending order of the employment rate of first generation tertiary-educated 25-34 year-olds.
Source: OECD. Table A4.2d. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/education/education-at-a-glance- 19991487.htm).
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933283588

Part-time/full-time work
On average across the countries and sub-national entities that participated in the survey, 88% of employed first
generation tertiary-educated 25-34 year-old non-students work 30 hours per week or more (paid or unpaid). This
means that a large majority of first generation tertiary-educated adults work full time after they finish tertiary
education. However, there are significant variations among countries. For example, in the Netherlands, 72% of first
generation tertiary-educated 25-34 year-olds work full time, but only 57% of Dutch women who are of the same age
and are first generation tertiary-educated do. By contrast, in Denmark, 96% of first generation tertiary-educated
25-34 year-olds – 98% of men and 94% of women – work full time (Table A4.2e).
Intergenerational social mobility
The findings shown in Chart A4.6 confirm the general conclusions of Indicator A6: higher educational attainment is
positively associated with earnings. But they also show that parents’ education has less impact on individuals’ earnings
compared to the effect of one’s own level of education. In fact, when controlling for adults’ own education, parents’
education is significant in only 8 of the 22 countries and sub-national entities shown in the chart (Table A4.3a).
On average, there is a 4 percentage-point increase in the probability of having among the highest 25% in monthly
earnings when parents’ highest level of education is tertiary compared with those whose parents’ highest level
of education is upper secondary or post-secondary non-tertiary. This means that, after accounting for an adult’s
own educational attainment, having tertiary-educated parents is a positive influence on children’s earnings –
meaning also that it still has a somewhat enduring (additional) effect on children’s economic situation, even if the
strongest influence on earnings is through an adult’s own educational attainment. Adults with tertiary education
are 23 percentage points more likely to have among the highest 25% in monthly earnings compared with adults
whose highest level of attainment is upper secondary or post-secondary non-tertiary education (Table A4.3a).
A similar situation, with a significant role of parents’ tertiary education, is present in eight countries, highest in the
Czech Republic and the Slovak Republic, then in Estonia and England/Northern Ireland (UK). This emphasises the
importance of bringing up the relationship between parents’ education and own education in an examination of
intergenerational social mobility (Table A4.3a).
Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

83

A4

chapter A THE OUTPUT OF EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS AND THE IMPACT OF LEARNING

Other analyses on the likelihood of being in a skilled occupation or being a top performer in literacy and numeracy
based on educational attainment of parents and own educational attainment are available on line (Tables A4.3b, c
and d, available on line).

Chart A4.6. Likelihood of being among the top 25% in earnings,
by parents’ and own educational attainment (2012)
Survey of Adult Skills, 25-64 year-olds, upper secondary or post-secondary non-tertiary education
as reference category

Estonia

Japan

Korea

Czech Republic

Sweden

England/N. Ireland (UK)

Canada

Italy

Norway

Average

Australia

Denmark

Slovak Republic

Finland

Spain

United States

Flanders (Belgium)

Austria

Ireland

Parents’ highest level of education is tertiary
Own highest level of education is tertiary

Netherlands

Germany

35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0

Poland

Percentage-point difference
with upper secondary
or post-secondary
non-tertiary education

France

A4

How to read this chart
On average, the percentage of individuals with monthly earnings in the highest 25% of the monthly earnings distribution and whose parents
reached tertiary education increases by 4 percentage points compared with those whose parents have upper secondary or post-secondary nontertiary education. However, when the individual’s own highest level of education is tertiary, the increase is 23 percentage points compared
with one who attained upper secondary or post-secondary non-tertiary education.
Note: Differences between the groups that are not statistically significant at 95% are not presented.
Countries are ranked in descending order of the percentage-point difference in likelihood of being in the highest 25% of earnings distribution when own highest
level of education is tertiary (upper secondary or post-secondary non-tertiary education is the reference category).
Source: OECD. Table A4.3a. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/education/education-at-a-glance-19991487.htm).
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933283590

Definitions
Age groups: Adults refers to 25-64 year-olds; younger adults refers to 25-34 year-olds.
Earnings refer to monthly wages, including bonuses for wage and salary earners and self-employed adults.
First generation tertiary-educated adults are indivuals who have attained tertiary education but whose parents
level of education is lower. The comparison is made only with the adult’s parents, not with earlier generations.
Levels of education: Below upper secondary corresponds to ISCED-97 Levels 0, 1, 2 and 3C short programmes;
upper secondary or post-secondary non-tertiary corresponds to ISCED-97 Levels 3A, 3B, 3C long programmes,
and Level 4; and tertiary corresponds to ISCED-97 Levels 5A, 5B and 6.
Non-student refers to an individual who was not enrolled as a student at the time of the survey. For example, “nonstudents who completed tertiary education” refers to individuals who had completed tertiary education and were
not students when the survey was conducted.
Parents’ educational attainment: Below upper secondary means that both parents have attained ISCED-97
Levels 0, 1, 2 or 3C short programmes; upper secondary or post-secondary non-tertiary means that at least one
parent (whether mother or father) has attained ISCED-97 Levels 3A, 3B, 3C long programmes, or Level 4; and
tertiary means that at least one parent (whether mother or father) has attained ISCED-97 Levels 5A, 5B or 6.
Working hours: Full time refers to individuals who work 30 hours per week or more (paid or unpaid); part time
refers to individuals who work less than 30 hours per week (paid or unpaid).

84

Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

To what extent does parents’ education influence their children’s educational attainment? – INDICATOR A4

chapter A

Methodology
All data are based on the Survey of Adult Skills (PIAAC) (2012). PIAAC is the OECD Programme for the International
Assessment of Adult Competencies. See Annex 3 (www.oecd.org/education/education-at-a-glance-19991487.htm)
for additional information.
Data on first generation tertiary-educated adults are also based on data from the Survey of Adult Skills, which was
not specifically designed for this population. The sample is smaller than in other indicators that use the whole
population, explaining why standard errors are slightly higher than usual. Data should, therefore, be interpreted
with caution.
Note regarding data from the Russian Federation in the Survey of Adult Skills (PIAAC)
Readers should note that the sample for the Russian Federation does not include the population of the Moscow municipal
area. The data published, therefore, do not represent the entire resident population aged 16-65 in Russia but rather the
population of Russia excluding the population residing in the Moscow municipal area. More detailed information regarding
the data from the Russian Federation as well as that of other countries can be found in the Technical Report of the Survey
of Adult Skills (OECD, 2014b).

References
OECD (2014a), Education at a Glance 2014: OECD Indicators, OECD Publishing, Paris, http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/eag-2014-en.
OECD (2014b), Technical Report of the Survey of Adult Skills, www.oecd.org/site/piaac/_Technical%20Report_17OCT13.pdf,
pre-publication copy.
OECD (2013), PISA 2012 Results: Excellence through Equity (Volume II): Giving Every Student the Chance to Succeed, PISA,
OECD Publishing, Paris, http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264201132-en.

Indicator A4 Tables
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933284922

Table A4.1a
WEB Table A4.1b
WEB Table A4.1c

Intergenerational mobility in education, by age group (2012)
Men’s intergenerational mobility in education, by age group (2012)
Women’s intergenerational mobility in education, by age group (2012)

WEB Table A4.2a

First generation tertiary-educated adults, by parents’ education level,
gender and age group (2012)

WEB Table A4.2b

First generation tertiary-educated adults, by gender and age group (2012)

WEB Table A4.2c

First generation/not first generation tertiary-educated adults, by field of education,
gender and age group (2012)

Table A4.2d

First generation/not first generation tertiary-educated adults, by labour force status,
gender and age group (2012)

Table A4.2e

First generation tertiary-educated adults, by part-time/full-time status,
gender and age group (2012)

WEB Table A4.2f

First generation tertiary-educated adults, by monthly earnings, gender and age group (2012)

WEB Table A4.2g

First generation tertiary-educated adults, by time off/no time off from education,
gender and age group (2012)

Table A4.3a

Likelihood of being among the top 25% in earnings, by parents’ and own educational attainment,
gender and age group (2012)

WEB Table A4.3b

Likelihood of being in a skilled occupation, by parents’ and own educational attainment,
gender and age group (2012)

WEB Table A4.3c

Likelihood of being a top performer in literacy, by parents’ and own educational attainment,
gender and age group (2012)

WEB Table A4.3d

Likelihood of being a top performer in numeracy, by parents’ and own educational attainment,
gender and age group (2012)

Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

85

A4

chapter A THE OUTPUT OF EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS AND THE IMPACT OF LEARNING

Table A4.1a. Intergenerational mobility in education, by age group (2012)
25-34 and 35-44 year-old non-students whose educational attainment is lower than (downward mobility),
higher than (upward mobility), or the same as (status quo) that of their parents

A4

How to read this table: In Australia, among 25-34 year-olds, 6% completed below upper secondary (a level lower than that attained by their parents), 10% completed
upper secondary or post-secondary education (a level lower than that attained by their parents), 16% completed upper secondary or post-secondary education
(a level higher than that attained by their parents), 20% completed tertiary education (a level higher than that attained by their parents), 8% completed
below upper secondary (a level equivalent to that attained by their parents), 13% completed upper secondary or post-secondary education (a level equivalent to
that attained by their parents) and 27% completed tertiary education (a level equivalent to that attained by their parents).
25-34 year-olds
Downward mobility

Upward mobility

OECD

Own
Own
education:
education:
upper
upper
secondary
secondary
Own
Own
or postOwn
or posteducation:
below upper secondary education: secondary education:
secondary non-tertiary all levels non-tertiary tertiary

Status quo

Own
education:
upper
secondary
Own
Own
Own
or posteducation:
Own
education: below upper secondary education: education:
all levels
secondary non-tertiary tertiary
all levels

%

S.E.

%

S.E.

%

S.E.

%

S.E.

%

S.E.

%

S.E.

%

S.E.

%

S.E.

%

S.E.

%

S.E.

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7)

(8)

(9)

(10)

(11)

(12)

(13)

(14)

(15)

(16)

(17)

(18)

(19)

(20)

National entities

Australia

6 (1.0)

10 (1.0)

16 (1.4)

16 (1.5)

20 (1.5)

36 (1.9)

8 (1.0)

13 (1.2)

27 (1.5)

48 (2.0)

Austria

7 (0.9)

14 (1.2)

21 (1.4)

10 (1.2)

11 (0.9)

21 (1.4)

6 (0.6)

44 (1.6)

8 (0.7)

57 (1.8)

Canada

5 (0.6)

14 (1.1)

18 (1.1)

5 (0.5)

23 (1.2)

27 (1.4)

3 (0.5)

16 (1.1)

35 (1.3)

54 (1.5)

Czech Republic

6 (1.0)

6 (1.1)

12 (1.5)

2 (0.5)

15 (1.1)

17 (1.2)

1 (0.3)

57 (2.0)

13 (1.3)

71 (1.8)
54 (1.8)

Denmark

8 (1.3)

9 (1.2)

18 (1.6)

7 (1.1)

21 (1.3)

28 (1.5)

6 (1.0)

19 (1.6)

29 (1.5)

Estonia

11 (0.9)

16 (1.2)

27 (1.4)

4 (0.6)

20 (1.1)

23 (1.3)

3 (0.6)

22 (1.3)

25 (1.3)

50 (1.5)

Finland

6 (1.0)

9 (1.0)

15 (1.4)

9 (1.2)

30 (1.7)

39 (1.9)

1 (0.5)

26 (1.3)

18 (1.2)

46 (1.7)

France

5 (0.7)

5 (0.7)

10 (1.0)

14 (1.1)

26 (1.3)

40 (1.4)

8 (0.8)

23 (1.4)

19 (1.1)

50 (1.5)

Germany

8 (1.2)

17 (1.5)

24 (1.9)

4 (0.9)

14 (1.5)

19 (1.7)

2 (0.7)

34 (2.1)

21 (1.5)

57 (2.0)

Ireland

4 (0.6)

8 (0.9)

12 (1.0)

17 (1.1)

28 (1.2)

45 (1.5)

9 (0.8)

16 (1.3)

19 (1.1)

44 (1.6)

Italy

3 (0.9)

2 (0.7)

5 (1.2)

29 (1.6)

17 (1.2)

45 (1.9)

28 (2.1)

16 (1.4)

5 (1.0)

49 (2.0)

Japan

6 (0.9)

11 (1.3)

18 (1.2)

2 (0.6)

22 (1.5)

24 (1.6)

2 (0.6)

21 (1.4)

35 (1.7)

58 (1.7)

Korea

1 (0.2)

3 (0.6)

3 (0.6)

14 (1.0)

47 (1.2)

61 (1.5)

2 (0.4)

16 (1.1)

17 (1.2)

35 (1.5)

Netherlands

8 (1.0)

9 (1.2)

17 (1.4)

16 (1.5)

22 (1.6)

38 (2.2)

10 (1.3)

15 (1.5)

20 (1.5)

45 (2.1)

Norway

13 (1.4)

14 (1.6)

27 (1.9)

5 (0.7)

18 (1.2)

22 (1.3)

4 (0.9)

18 (1.5)

28 (1.5)

51 (2.3)

Poland

4 (0.7)

3 (0.7)

7 (1.0)

6 (0.8)

30 (1.6)

36 (1.7)

2 (0.4)

41 (1.6)

14 (1.2)

57 (1.8)

Slovak Republic

4 (0.5)

6 (0.7)

10 (0.8)

6 (0.8)

17 (1.5)

23 (1.6)

9 (1.0)

49 (1.5)

10 (1.0)

67 (1.8)

Spain

7 (0.9)

3 (0.6)

10 (1.0)

15 (1.2)

26 (1.3)

41 (1.6)

31 (1.5)

8 (1.1)

10 (0.9)

49 (1.6)

Sweden

9 (1.2)

20 (1.6)

28 (1.7)

9 (1.1)

15 (1.3)

24 (1.8)

5 (1.0)

18 (1.6)

25 (1.5)

47 (2.1)

United States

5 (0.9)

18 (1.7)

23 (1.9)

8 (0.9)

15 (1.4)

24 (1.7)

5 (0.8)

22 (1.4)

27 (1.6)

54 (2.1)

Flanders (Belgium)

4 (0.7)

9 (1.1)

13 (1.3)

13 (1.2)

22 (1.5)

35 (1.6)

3 (0.7)

23 (1.3)

26 (1.5)

52 (1.6)

England (UK)

8 (0.9)

7 (1.0)

16 (1.2)

7 (0.9)

26 (1.8)

32 (1.9)

6 (0.9)

19 (1.7)

27 (1.9)

51 (2.2)

Northern Ireland (UK)

8 (1.5)

5 (1.3)

13 (1.7)

9 (1.3)

27 (1.8)

36 (1.9)

11 (1.4)

23 (1.7)

17 (1.8)

51 (2.2)

England/N. Ireland (UK)

8 (0.9)

7 (0.9)

16 (1.1)

7 (0.9)

26 (1.7)

33 (1.9)

6 (0.9)

19 (1.6)

26 (1.8)

51 (2.1)

Average

6 (0.2)

10 (0.2)

16 (0.3)

10 (0.2)

22 (0.3)

32 (0.3)

7 (0.2)

24 (0.3)

21 (0.3)

52 (0.4)

Russian Federation*

5 (0.7)

6 (1.6)

11 (2.2)

6 (1.5)

38 (3.0)

44 (4.3)

2 (0.6)

13 (1.3)

31 (3.0)

46 (4.0)

Partners

Sub-national entities

Note: Columns showing data for 35-44 year-olds are available for consultation on line (see StatLink below).
* See note on data for the Russian Federation in the Methodology section.
Source: OECD. Survey of Adult Skills (PIAAC) (2012). See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/education/education-at-a-glance-19991487.htm).
Please refer to the Reader’s Guide for information concerning symbols for missing data and abbreviations.
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933284933

86

Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

chapter A

To what extent does parents’ education influence their children’s educational attainment? – INDICATOR A4

Table A4.2d. First generation/not first generation tertiary-educated adults, by labour force status,

A4

gender and age group (2012)

25-34 and 35-44 year-old first generation/not first generation tertiary-educated non-students
How to read this table: In Australia, among 25-34 year-old first generation tertiary-educated men and women, 86% are employed, 4% are unemployed and
10% are inactive.
First generation tertiary-educated 25-34 year-olds
Employed

OECD

Men

Unemployed

Women

M+W

Men

Inactive

Women

M+W

Men

Women

M+W

%

S.E.

%

S.E.

%

S.E.

%

S.E.

%

S.E.

%

S.E.

%

S.E.

%

S.E.

%

S.E.

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7)

(8)

(9)

(10)

(11)

(12)

(13)

(14)

(15)

(16)

(17)

(18)

Australia

93

(4.2)

82

(4.1)

86

(3.0)

5

(3.0)

4

(2.1)

4

(1.6)

c

c

14

(3.9)

10

(2.5)

Austria

98

(1.8)

91

(4.9)

95

(2.5)

c

c

c

c

c

c

c

c

6

(3.8)

3

(1.9)

Canada

94

(2.5)

84

(3.1)

88

(2.2)

5

(2.3)

4

(1.7)

5

(1.4)

2

(0.9)

11

(2.3)

7

(1.4)

Czech Republic

98

(1.5)

76

(5.1)

83

(3.9)

c

c

3

(3.3)

3

(2.1)

c

c

21

(4.5)

14

(3.2)

Denmark

94

(2.9)

90

(3.1)

92

(2.1)

5

(2.8)

5

(2.2)

5

(1.7)

c

c

4

(2.1)

3

(1.3)

Estonia

96

(2.4)

92

(2.2)

93

(1.6)

c

c

c

c

2

(1.0)

c

c

7

(2.3)

5

(1.4)

Finland

93

(2.8)

94

(2.0)

93

(1.7)

c

c

2

(1.1)

2

(1.0)

4

(2.3)

4

(1.6)

4

(1.4)

France

86

(2.9)

85

(2.6)

86

(1.9)

9

(2.5)

7

(2.3)

8

(1.7)

5

(2.2)

8

(1.5)

7

(1.4)

Germany

98

(2.5)

87

(5.1)

93

(2.5)

c

c

c

c

c

c

c

c

11

(4.8)

5

(2.1)

Ireland

91

(2.9)

91

(2.3)

91

(1.7)

7

(2.4)

4

(1.6)

5

(1.5)

2

(1.7)

5

(1.5)

4

(1.1)

Italy

87

(6.0)

72

(7.4)

78

(5.7)

c

c

21

(7.2)

15

(5.2)

8

(4.8)

7

(3.1)

7

(2.6)

Japan

96

(2.1)

78

(3.7)

87

(2.3)

c

c

c

c

c

c

3

(1.8)

22

(3.7)

13

(2.2)

Korea

89

(2.1)

65

(2.8)

77

(1.7)

3

(1.1)

4

(1.2)

4

(0.8)

8

(2.0)

31

(2.7)

20

(1.6)

Netherlands

98

(2.3)

92

(3.6)

94

(2.4)

c

c

c

c

3

(1.9)

c

c

4

(2.4)

2

(1.4)

Norway

97

(2.2)

91

(3.0)

93

(2.0)

c

c

4

(2.1)

3

(1.3)

c

c

5

(2.2)

4

(1.5)

Poland

95

(1.6)

81

(3.0)

87

(1.8)

4

(1.6)

7

(1.5)

6

(1.0)

0

(0.3)

12

(2.6)

7

(1.5)

Slovak Republic

89

(3.5)

73

(4.3)

80

(2.9)

6

(2.6)

4

(1.6)

5

(1.5)

5

(3.0)

23

(4.1)

16

(2.8)

Spain

76

(5.1)

75

(4.2)

75

(3.2)

16

(4.5)

15

(3.2)

16

(2.7)

8

(3.3)

10

(2.7)

9

(2.3)

Sweden

98

(1.8)

96

(1.8)

97

(1.3)

c

c

3

(1.6)

2

(1.2)

c

c

c

c

c

c

United States

90

(5.2)

83

(4.2)

86

(3.3)

c

c

8

(3.1)

6

(2.2)

c

c

10

(2.9)

9

(2.6)

Flanders (Belgium)

98

(1.6)

98

(1.2)

98

(1.0)

c

c

c

c

c

c

c

c

c

c

c

c

England (UK)

92

(3.5)

82

(3.5)

87

(2.4)

8

(3.5)

3

(1.6)

6

(2.0)

c

c

15

(3.2)

8

(1.7)

Northern Ireland (UK)

89

(7.1)

92

(2.9)

91

(3.5)

9

(7.0)

c

c

6

(3.3)

c

c

6

(2.3)

4

(1.4)

England/N. Ireland (UK)

92

(3.4)

82

(3.4)

87

(2.3)

8

(3.4)

3

(1.5)

6

(1.9)

c

c

14

(3.0)

7

(1.6)

Average

93

(0.7)

84

(0.8)

88

(0.6)

7

(0.9)

6

(0.7)

6

(0.5)

5

(0.8)

11

(0.7)

8

(0.4)

Russian Federation*

90

(2.4)

67

(3.9)

79

(2.4)

2

(0.9)

c

c

1

(0.5)

8

(2.2)

32

(3.9)

20

(2.3)

National entities

Partners

Sub-national entities

Notes: First generation refers to the comparison with an adult’s parents only, not with earlier generations. Columns showing data for 35-44 year-olds and data for
not first generation tertiary-educated adults are available for consultation on line (see StatLink below).
* See note on data for the Russian Federation in the Methodology section.
Source: OECD. Survey of Adult Skills (PIAAC) (2012). See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/education/education-at-a-glance-19991487.htm).
Please refer to the Reader’s Guide for information concerning symbols for missing data and abbreviations.
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933284941

Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

87

chapter A THE OUTPUT OF EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS AND THE IMPACT OF LEARNING

Table A4.2e. First generation tertiary-educated adults, by part-time/full-time

A4

status, gender and age group (2012)

25-34 and 35-44 year-old first generation tertiary-educated non-students
How to read this table: In Australia, among 25-34 year-old first generation tertiary-educated employed men, 93% work full time and 7% work part time.
Part-time/full-time status among tertiary-educated
25-34 year-olds

Part-time/full-time status among tertiary-educated
35-44 year-olds

Full time (30 hours or more)

Full time (30 hours or more)

OECD

Men

Women

M+W

Men

Women

M+W

%

S.E.

%

S.E.

%

S.E.

%

S.E.

%

S.E.

%

S.E.

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(13)

(14)

(15)

(16)

(17)

(18)

Australia1

93

(4.1)

79

(4.2)

85

(3.3)

92

(3.0)

63

(4.3)

79

(2.6)

Austria

100

(0.0)

78

(5.8)

90

(2.9)

98

(1.6)

55

(5.7)

79

(3.0)

Canada

96

(2.0)

85

(3.4)

90

(2.2)

98

(0.7)

81

(2.5)

90

(1.3)

Czech Republic

97

(1.9)

93

(4.7)

94

(3.1)

98

(1.3)

89

(4.6)

95

(1.8)

Denmark

98

(1.9)

94

(2.3)

96

(1.5)

96

(1.9)

91

(2.7)

93

(1.7)

Estonia

94

(2.7)

86

(2.9)

90

(1.9)

99

(1.2)

87

(2.7)

91

(1.9)

Finland

95

(2.3)

89

(2.8)

91

(2.0)

98

(1.4)

94

(1.7)

96

(1.2)

France

96

(2.0)

81

(3.3)

87

(1.9)

95

(1.7)

82

(2.6)

88

(1.8)

Germany

93

(3.2)

72

(8.2)

84

(4.3)

99

(1.0)

65

(6.4)

86

(2.6)

Ireland

92

(2.7)

84

(2.7)

88

(1.9)

93

(3.2)

70

(3.2)

81

(2.1)

Italy

97

(2.8)

86

(4.6)

91

(2.9)

91

(3.7)

70

(4.4)

79

(3.3)

Japan

96

(2.0)

92

(2.6)

94

(1.5)

99

(0.8)

70

(4.2)

86

(2.1)

Korea

94

(1.5)

85

(2.6)

90

(1.5)

95

(1.4)

74

(3.4)

88

(1.6)

Netherlands

89

(4.6)

57

(5.4)

72

(3.7)

96

(2.2)

45

(4.7)

73

(3.0)

Norway

95

(3.5)

79

(4.8)

86

(3.1)

97

(1.8)

86

(2.9)

91

(1.6)

Poland

97

(1.4)

84

(3.2)

89

(2.1)

93

(3.3)

86

(3.5)

89

(2.5)

Slovak Republic

93

(4.6)

85

(4.6)

89

(3.3)

96

(3.2)

97

(1.9)

96

(1.8)

Spain

97

(1.8)

74

(4.5)

83

(2.9)

92

(2.2)

81

(3.1)

86

(1.9)

Sweden

98

(1.8)

89

(3.9)

93

(2.4)

99

(1.0)

94

(2.5)

96

(1.6)

United States

92

(4.4)

92

(4.0)

92

(3.0)

98

(1.6)

83

(4.8)

90

(2.7)

National entities

Partners

Sub-national entities

Flanders (Belgium)

100

(0.0)

87

(3.3)

92

(2.0)

96

(1.9)

84

(3.8)

90

(2.1)

England (UK)

81

(6.3)

80

(4.1)

81

(3.6)

95

(2.3)

53

(4.7)

74

(3.1)

Northern Ireland (UK)

99

(1.4)

83

(4.3)

90

(2.5)

95

(3.0)

68

(4.3)

80

(2.9)

England/N. Ireland (UK)

82

(6.1)

80

(3.9)

81

(3.5)

95

(2.3)

54

(4.5)

74

(3.0)

Average

95

(0.6)

83

(0.9)

88

(0.6)

96

(0.5)

77

(0.8)

87

(0.5)

Russian Federation*

96

(1.6)

89

(4.3)

93

(2.2)

92

(5.8)

84

(4.8)

88

(3.4)

Notes: First generation refers to the comparison with an adult’s parents only, not with earlier generations. Columns showing data for people working part time are
available for consultation on line (see StatLink below).
1. For Australia, data based on full-time/part-time status use a variable that is capped at 60 hours per week; there is no upper limit for other countries.
* See note on data for the Russian Federation in the Methodology section.
Source: OECD. Survey of Adult Skills (PIAAC) (2012). See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/education/education-at-a-glance-19991487.htm).
Please refer to the Reader’s Guide for information concerning symbols for missing data and abbreviations.
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933284955

88

Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

To what extent does parents’ education influence their children’s educational attainment? – INDICATOR A4

chapter A

Table A4.3a. [1/3] Likelihood of being among the top 25% in earnings,
by parents’ and own educational attainment, gender and age group (2012)

A4

25-64 year-olds, percentage-point difference
The percentages presented in the first eight columns are not related to the regression. They should be used as a reference to better understand the percentagepoint differences presented in the other columns.
How to read this table: In Model 1, the independent variables used are: parents’ educational attainment, gender and age group. In Model 2, the individual’s own
educational attainment is included. This approach allows for a comparison of the effect of the individual’s own educational attainment on the percentage-point
differences for the variables included in the first model. For example, in Australia, the percentage of individuals with monthly earnings in the highest 25% of
the monthly earnings distribution, and whose parents reached below upper secondary education, decreases by 4 percentage points compared with those whose
parents have upper secondary or post-secondary non-tertiary education. However, when controlling for own educational attainment, the difference between
an individual whose parents reached below upper secondary education and one whose parents have upper secondary or post-secondary non-tertiary education
becomes nul and not significant.

OECD

Percentage of 25-64 year-olds in the highest 25% of the earnings distribution
(reference groups used in the regressions)
Parents’ educational attainment

Own educational attainment

Upper secondary or postsecondary non-tertiary

Upper secondary or postsecondary non-tertiary

Gender

Age

Women

45-54 year-olds

%

S.E.

%

S.E.

%

S.E.

%

S.E.

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7)

(8)

Australia

29

(2.0)

23

(1.3)

19

(1.2)

34

(1.7)

Austria

32

(1.2)

27

(1.2)

17

(0.9)

33

(1.6)

Canada

28

(0.8)

17

(0.9)

18

(0.7)

33

(1.2)

Czech Republic

26

(1.5)

22

(1.4)

15

(1.7)

22

(2.4)

Denmark

27

(1.1)

21

(1.1)

18

(1.0)

31

(1.6)

Estonia

26

(1.2)

22

(1.1)

15

(0.8)

21

(1.3)

Finland

28

(1.1)

18

(0.9)

17

(0.9)

34

(1.8)

France

28

(1.2)

18

(0.7)

20

(0.9)

32

(1.1)

Germany

27

(1.1)

17

(1.0)

15

(0.9)

32

(1.7)

Ireland

30

(1.7)

18

(1.6)

21

(1.0)

34

(2.1)

Italy

33

(2.1)

26

(1.6)

17

(1.4)

32

(2.3)

Japan

26

(1.4)

21

(1.4)

9

(0.8)

39

(2.0)

Korea

29

(1.7)

21

(1.0)

14

(0.9)

29

(1.6)

Netherlands

31

(1.5)

19

(1.1)

12

(0.8)

33

(1.4)

Norway

30

(1.3)

23

(1.3)

17

(0.9)

34

(1.4)

Poland

29

(1.3)

17

(1.2)

21

(1.5)

27

(2.2)

Slovak Republic

27

(1.1)

21

(1.1)

16

(1.2)

23

(1.5)

Spain

32

(2.4)

20

(1.8)

19

(1.2)

32

(1.8)

Sweden

31

(1.9)

24

(0.9)

18

(1.1)

32

(1.5)

United States

30

(1.4)

19

(1.3)

21

(1.4)

34

(1.7)

Flanders (Belgium)

29

(1.4)

18

(1.1)

16

(1.1)

34

(1.7)

England (UK)

30

(1.6)

21

(1.3)

18

(0.9)

29

(1.5)

Northern Ireland (UK)

32

(1.9)

22

(2.1)

21

(1.2)

33

(2.3)

England/N. Ireland (UK)

29

(1.6)

21

(1.2)

18

(0.9)

29

(1.4)

Average

29

(0.3)

21

(0.3)

17

(0.2)

31

(0.4)

Russian Federation*

27

(2.8)

23

(2.7)

17

(2.4)

24

(3.0)

National entities

Partners

Sub-national entities

1. Model 1 is a linear regression where the dependent variable is “monthly earnings in the highest 25% of monthly earnings distribution” and where the independent variables are
parents’ educational attainment, gender and age group. The difference with Model 2 is that it doesn’t include “own educational attainment”.
2. Model 2 is a linear regression where the dependent variable is “monthly earnings in the highest 25% of monthly earnings distribution” and where the independent variables are
parents’ educational attainment, own educational attainment, gender and age group.
3. The reference category is upper secondary or post-secondary non-tertiary education.
4. The reference category is women.
5. The reference category is 45-54 year-olds.
* See note on data for the Russian Federation in the Methodology section.
Source: OECD. Survey of Adult Skills (PIAAC) (2012). See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/education/education-at-a-glance-19991487.htm).
Please refer to the Reader’s Guide for information concerning symbols for missing data and abbreviations.
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933284966

Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

89

chapter A THE OUTPUT OF EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS AND THE IMPACT OF LEARNING

Table A4.3a. [2/3] Likelihood of being among the top 25% in earnings,
by parents’ and own educational attainment, gender and age group (2012)

A4

25-64 year-olds, percentage-point difference
The percentages presented in the first eight columns are not related to the regression. They should be used as a reference to better understand the percentagepoint differences presented in the other columns.
How to read this table: In Model 1, the independent variables used are: parents’ educational attainment, gender and age group. In Model 2, the individual’s own
educational attainment is included. This approach allows for a comparison of the effect of the individual’s own educational attainment on the percentage-point
differences for the variables included in the first model. For example, in Australia, the percentage of individuals with monthly earnings in the highest 25% of
the monthly earnings distribution, and whose parents reached below upper secondary education, decreases by 4 percentage points compared with those whose
parents have upper secondary or post-secondary non-tertiary education. However, when controlling for own educational attainment, the difference between
an individual whose parents reached below upper secondary education and one whose parents have upper secondary or post-secondary non-tertiary education
becomes nul and not significant.
Monthly earnings in the highest 25% of monthly earnings distribution, dependent on:
Model 11

OECD

Parents’ educational attainment3

Gender4

Below upper
secondary
pp
S.E.

pp

S.E.

pp

(9)

(10)

(11)

(12)

(13)

Australia

-4

(0.02)

13

(0.03)

Austria

-14

(0.02)

3

(0.02)

Canada

-6

(0.01)

8

Czech Republic

-13

(0.03)

Denmark

-4

Estonia

Age group5

S.E.

25-34
year-olds
pp
S.E.

35-44
year-olds
pp
S.E.

55-64
year-olds
pp
S.E.

(14)

(15)

(16)

(17)

(18)

(19)

(20)

20

(0.02)

-14

(0.02)

-2

(0.02)

-9

(0.03)

25

(0.02)

-14

(0.02)

-4

(0.02)

2

(0.04)

(0.01)

21

(0.01)

-17

(0.02)

-1

(0.02)

-4

(0.02)

20

(0.04)

21

(0.03)

4

(0.04)

6

(0.04)

-3

(0.04)

(0.02)

10

(0.02)

21

(0.01)

-15

(0.02)

0

(0.02)

-4

(0.02)

-7

(0.02)

12

(0.02)

24

(0.01)

5

(0.02)

5

(0.02)

-5

(0.02)

Finland

-6

(0.02)

7

(0.02)

22

(0.02)

-21

(0.02)

-4

(0.03)

-9

(0.02)

France

-8

(0.02)

17

(0.02)

14

(0.01)

-20

(0.02)

-6

(0.02)

-4

(0.02)

Germany

-12

(0.03)

11

(0.02)

25

(0.01)

-15

(0.02)

-4

(0.02)

-4

(0.03)

Ireland

-10

(0.02)

8

(0.03)

13

(0.02)

-20

(0.03)

-2

(0.02)

-10

(0.03)

Italy

-16

(0.02)

10

(0.05)

17

(0.02)

-22

(0.03)

-8

(0.03)

6

(0.05)

Japan

-6

(0.02)

11

(0.02)

33

(0.01)

-31

(0.02)

-11

(0.02)

-12

(0.03)

Korea

-10

(0.02)

7

(0.03)

23

(0.01)

-17

(0.02)

4

(0.02)

-9

(0.02)

Netherlands

-8

(0.02)

8

(0.02)

32

(0.01)

-20

(0.02)

0

(0.02)

-2

(0.02)

Norway

-9

(0.02)

7

(0.02)

25

(0.02)

-18

(0.02)

-1

(0.02)

-5

(0.02)

Poland

-15

(0.02)

12

(0.03)

12

(0.02)

-5

(0.03)

-2

(0.03)

-2

(0.04)

Slovak Republic

-16

(0.02)

23

(0.04)

19

(0.02)

-3

(0.02)

0

(0.02)

-1

(0.03)

Spain

-15

(0.03)

3

(0.04)

14

(0.02)

-20

(0.02)

-6

(0.02)

2

(0.04)

Sweden

-11

(0.02)

3

(0.03)

19

(0.02)

-18

(0.02)

-3

(0.02)

-3

(0.03)

United States

-19

(0.02)

11

(0.02)

16

(0.02)

-20

(0.02)

-3

(0.03)

0

(0.02)

Flanders (Belgium)

-12

(0.02)

7

(0.02)

19

(0.02)

-24

(0.02)

-10

(0.02)

-2

(0.03)

England (UK)

-9

(0.03)

15

(0.03)

22

(0.02)

-16

(0.03)

2

(0.03)

-9

(0.02)

Northern Ireland (UK)

-12

(0.03)

15

(0.04)

18

(0.02)

-15

(0.03)

-3

(0.03)

-6

(0.05)

England/N. Ireland (UK)

-9

(0.02)

15

(0.03)

21

(0.02)

-16

(0.03)

1

(0.03)

-9

(0.02)

Average

-10

(0.00)

10

(0.01)

21

(0.00)

-15

(0.01)

-2

(0.01)

-4

(0.01)

Russian Federation*

-13

(0.03)

5

(0.04)

14

(0.04)

0

(0.04)

-5

(0.06)

-9

(0.04)

Tertiary

Men

National entities

Partners

Sub-national entities

1. Model 1 is a linear regression where the dependent variable is “monthly earnings in the highest 25% of monthly earnings distribution” and where the independent variables are
parents’ educational attainment, gender and age group. The difference with Model 2 is that it doesn’t include “own educational attainment”.
2. Model 2 is a linear regression where the dependent variable is “monthly earnings in the highest 25% of monthly earnings distribution” and where the independent variables are
parents’ educational attainment, own educational attainment, gender and age group.
3. The reference category is upper secondary or post-secondary non-tertiary education.
4. The reference category is women.
5. The reference category is 45-54 year-olds.
* See note on data for the Russian Federation in the Methodology section.
Source: OECD. Survey of Adult Skills (PIAAC) (2012). See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/education/education-at-a-glance-19991487.htm).
Please refer to the Reader’s Guide for information concerning symbols for missing data and abbreviations.
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933284966

90

Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

To what extent does parents’ education influence their children’s educational attainment? – INDICATOR A4

chapter A

Table A4.3a. [3/3] Likelihood of being among the top 25% in earnings,
by parents’ and own educational attainment, gender and age group (2012)

A4

25-64 year-olds, percentage-point difference
The percentages presented in the first eight columns are not related to the regression. They should be used as a reference to better understand the percentagepoint differences presented in the other columns.
How to read this table: In Model 1, the independent variables used are: parents’ educational attainment, gender and age group. In Model 2, the individual’s own
educational attainment is included. This approach allows for a comparison of the effect of the individual’s own educational attainment on the percentage-point
differences for the variables included in the first model. For example, in Australia, the percentage of individuals with monthly earnings in the highest 25% of
the monthly earnings distribution, and whose parents reached below upper secondary education, decreases by 4 percentage points compared with those whose
parents have upper secondary or post-secondary non-tertiary education. However, when controlling for own educational attainment, the difference between
an individual whose parents reached below upper secondary education and one whose parents have upper secondary or post-secondary non-tertiary education
becomes nul and not significant.
Monthly earnings in the highest 25% of monthly earnings distribution, dependent on:
Model 22

OECD

Parents’ educational
attainment3

Own educational attainment3

Gender4

Age group5

Below upper
secondary
pp
S.E.

Tertiary
pp
S.E.

Below upper
secondary
pp
S.E.

Tertiary
pp
S.E.

S.E.

25-34
year-olds
pp
S.E.

35-44
year-olds
pp
S.E.

55-64
year-olds
pp
S.E.

pp

(21)

(22)

(23)

(24)

(25)

(26)

(27)

(28)

(29)

(30)

(31)

(32)

(33)

(34)

(35)

(36)

Australia

0

(0.02)

7

(0.03)

-6

(0.02)

23

(0.02)

Austria

-9

(0.02)

-4

(0.02)

-18

(0.02)

26

(0.02)

23

(0.02)

-16

(0.02)

-4

(0.02)

-9

(0.02)

23

(0.02)

-14

(0.02)

-4

(0.02)

2

Canada

-3

(0.01)

4

(0.01)

-6

(0.02)

20

(0.01)

(0.03)

22

(0.01)

-17

(0.02)

-2

(0.02)

-3

(0.02)

Czech Republic

-9

(0.03)

12

(0.04)

-6

(0.03)

19

(0.04)

21

(0.03)

2

(0.04)

5

(0.04)

-4

(0.04)

Denmark

-2

(0.02)

3

(0.02)

-6

(0.02)

23

(0.01)

24

(0.01)

-17

(0.02)

-2

(0.02)

-4

(0.02)

Estonia

-4

(0.02)

10

(0.02)

-6

(0.02)

13

(0.02)

27

(0.01)

7

(0.02)

6

(0.02)

-5

(0.02)

Finland

-3

(0.02)

3

(0.02)

-5

(0.03)

24

(0.01)

27

(0.02)

-20

(0.02)

-5

(0.02)

-7

(0.02)

France

-2

(0.02)

6

(0.02)

-10

(0.02)

31

(0.01)

18

(0.01)

-25

(0.02)

-10

(0.02)

-2

(0.02)

Germany

-6

(0.02)

2

(0.02)

-11

(0.02)

30

(0.02)

24

(0.01)

-15

(0.02)

-4

(0.02)

-7

(0.03)

Ireland

-2

(0.02)

1

(0.03)

-11

(0.02)

27

(0.02)

17

(0.02)

-24

(0.03)

-6

(0.02)

-5

(0.03)

Italy

-8

(0.02)

2

(0.05)

-10

(0.02)

21

(0.03)

21

(0.02)

-24

(0.03)

-9

(0.03)

5

(0.05)

Japan

-3

(0.02)

7

(0.02)

-5

(0.03)

14

(0.02)

33

(0.01)

-31

(0.02)

-10

(0.02)

-9

(0.03)

Korea

-5

(0.02)

3

(0.03)

-10

(0.02)

19

(0.02)

21

(0.01)

-23

(0.03)

0

(0.02)

-4

(0.02)

Netherlands

-3

(0.02)

1

(0.02)

-7

(0.02)

28

(0.02)

32

(0.01)

-20

(0.02)

-1

(0.02)

-1

(0.02)

Norway

-5

(0.02)

2

(0.02)

-8

(0.02)

21

(0.02)

28

(0.01)

-17

(0.02)

-3

(0.02)

-6

(0.02)

Poland

-9

(0.02)

0

(0.03)

-8

(0.03)

31

(0.02)

17

(0.02)

-9

(0.03)

-3

(0.03)

-1

(0.03)

Slovak Republic

-11

(0.02)

13

(0.04)

-9

(0.02)

23

(0.03)

21

(0.02)

-3

(0.02)

0

(0.02)

-1

(0.03)

Spain

-8

(0.03)

-3

(0.03)

-12

(0.02)

24

(0.02)

17

(0.02)

-20

(0.02)

-8

(0.02)

5

(0.03)

Sweden

-8

(0.02)

-1

(0.03)

-13

(0.03)

20

(0.02)

23

(0.02)

-19

(0.02)

-5

(0.02)

-2

(0.02)

United States

-10

(0.02)

4

(0.02)

-13

(0.02)

25

(0.02)

18

(0.02)

-19

(0.02)

-3

(0.03)

-1

(0.02)

Flanders (Belgium)

-6

(0.02)

1

(0.02)

-8

(0.02)

25

(0.02)

22

(0.02)

-23

(0.02)

-9

(0.02)

0

(0.03)

England (UK)

-5

(0.02)

10

(0.03)

-4

(0.03)

20

(0.02)

23

(0.02)

-17

(0.03)

1

(0.03)

-7

(0.02)

Northern Ireland (UK)

-4

(0.03)

6

(0.04)

-15

(0.03)

27

(0.03)

20

(0.02)

-18

(0.03)

-4

(0.03)

-2

(0.04)

England/N. Ireland (UK)

-5

(0.02)

10

(0.03)

-5

(0.03)

20

(0.02)

22

(0.02)

-17

(0.03)

1

(0.03)

-7

(0.02)

Average

-5

(0.00)

4

(0.01)

-9

(0.01)

23

(0.00)

23

(0.00)

-17

(0.01)

-3

(0.01)

-3

(0.01)

Russian Federation*

-13

(0.03)

5

(0.04)

-2

(0.08)

0

(0.03)

14

(0.04)

0

(0.04)

-5

(0.06)

-9

(0.04)

Men

National entities

Partners

Sub-national entities

1. Model 1 is a linear regression where the dependent variable is “monthly earnings in the highest 25% of monthly earnings distribution” and where the independent variables are
parents’ educational attainment, gender and age group. The difference with Model 2 is that it doesn’t include “own educational attainment”.
2. Model 2 is a linear regression where the dependent variable is “monthly earnings in the highest 25% of monthly earnings distribution” and where the independent variables are
parents’ educational attainment, own educational attainment, gender and age group.
3. The reference category is upper secondary or post-secondary non-tertiary education.
4. The reference category is women.
5. The reference category is 45-54 year-olds.
* See note on data for the Russian Federation in the Methodology section.
Source: OECD. Survey of Adult Skills (PIAAC) (2012). See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/education/education-at-a-glance-19991487.htm).
Please refer to the Reader’s Guide for information concerning symbols for missing data and abbreviations.
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933284966

Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

91

INDICATOR A5

HOW DOES EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT AFFECT
PARTICIPATION IN THE LABOUR MARKET?
• On average, over 80% of tertiary-educated people are employed compared with over 70% of people
with an upper secondary or post-secondary non-tertiary education and less than 60% of people
with below upper secondary education.

• Unemployment rates are higher among younger adults (25-34 year-olds) than among older adults
(55-64 year-olds), for all levels of education.

• Despite their higher educational attainment, young women still have lower employment rates than
young men, although the gender gap is much narrower among tertiary-educated young adults than
among those with lower educational attainment.

Chart A5.1. Unemployment rates, by educational attainment (2014)
25-64 year-olds

Slovak Republic
Spain
Greece
Lithuania
Latvia
Czech Republic
Ireland
Poland
Hungary
Slovenia
Italy
Portugal
Belgium
France1
Sweden
OECD average
Finland
Russian Federation1
Germany
Estonia
Austria
Canada
United States
Netherlands
Switzerland
Turkey
Denmark
Australia
United Kingdom2
Luxembourg
Israel
Costa Rica
Norway
Colombia
New Zealand
Chile1
Iceland
Brazil1
Mexico
Korea

%

45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0

Below upper secondary
Upper secondary or post-secondary non-tertiary
Tertiary

1. Brazil, Chile, France, the Russian Federation: Data for year 2014 refer to year 2013.
2. The United Kingdom: Data for upper secondary attainment includes completion of a sufficient volume and standard of
programmes that would be classified individually as completion of intermediate upper secondary programmes (18% of the adults
are under this group).
Countries are ranked in descending order of the unemployment rate of adults with below upper secondary education.
Source: OECD. Table A5.4a. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/education/education-at-a-glance- 19991487.htm).
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933283600

Context
Educational qualifications are frequently used as a proxy measure of the skills available in the
population and the labour force. The economies of OECD countries depend upon a sufficient supply
of high-skilled workers. In most OECD countries, people with high qualifications are most likely
to be employed. At the same time, people with the lowest educational qualifications are at greater
risk of being unemployed. Given the technological advances that have been transforming the needs
of the global labour market, people with higher or specific skills are in strong demand. Favourable
employment prospects confirm the value of attaining high levels of education: on average, 12.8% of
adults with low qualifications are unemployed, while among those with tertiary qualifications only
5.1% are unemployed.

92

Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

Other findings

• Unemployment rates are slightly lower among individuals with vocational upper secondary or post-

INDICATOR A5

secondary non-tertiary education (8.5%), on average, than among individuals with a general upper
secondary education (8.9%).

• In Colombia and Mexico, unemployment rates are higher among tertiary-educated adults (7.4%
and 5.0%, respectively) than among those with below upper secondary education (6.2% and 3.5%,
respectively).

• Employment rates among adults without an upper secondary qualification are below 40% in the
Slovak Republic (33%) and Poland (39%).

Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

93

chapter A THE OUTPUT OF EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS AND THE IMPACT OF LEARNING

Analysis
Labour market outcomes
Chart A5.1 shows that, across all countries for which data are available, having a tertiary education reduces the risks
of being unemployed. Across OECD countries, 5.1% of adults with tertiary education are unemployed compared
with 7.7% of adults with upper secondary or post-secondary non-tertiary education, and 12.8% of adults with below
upper secondary education (Table A5.4a).
The difference in the unemployment rates between high- and low-qualified adults is largest in the Slovak Republic:
5.8% of tertiary-educated adults are unemployed compared with 39.2% of adults with below upper secondary
education. More than 20% of adults with below upper secondary education in the Czech Republic and Latvia are
unemployed, as are 31.4% of adults with that level of education in Spain. In all three countries unemployment rates
among tertiary-educated adults are around 18 percentage points lower than unemployment rates among adults with
below upper secondary education. Some other countries show relatively low unemployment rates across all levels of
education. For instance, in Chile, the unemployment rate for adults with tertiary education (4.9%) is similar to that
of adults with upper secondary or post-secondary non-tertiary education (5.6%) or with below upper secondary
education (5.2%) (Table A5.4a).
On average across OECD countries, over 80% of tertiary-educated adults are employed compared with over 70% of
adults with upper secondary or post-secondary non-tertiary education as their highest level of attainment, and less
than 60% of people with below upper secondary as their highest level of attainment. In some countries, the difference
in employment rates between people who hold a tertiary qualification and those whose highest qualification is below
upper secondary education is large. In Austria, Belgium, the Czech Republic, Finland, France, Germany, Hungary,
Ireland, Israel, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, the Russian Federation, the Slovak Republic and Slovenia, for example, the
difference in employment rates between these two groups is at least 30 percentage points (Table A5.3a).

Chart A5.2. Employment rates for younger and older tertiary-educated adults (2014)
25-34 and 55-64 year-olds, and percentage-point difference between these two groups
Difference in the employment rates of tertiary educated 25-34 and 55-64 year-olds (right axis)
Employment rate for tertiary educated 25-34 year-olds (left axis)
Employment rate for tertiary educated 55-64 year-olds (left axis)

%

Percentage
points

100

100

80

80

60

60

40

40

20

20

0

0

-20

-20

Italy
Iceland
Czech Republic
New Zealand
Norway
Sweden
Estonia
Switzerland
Korea
Slovak Republic
Spain
Denmark
Germany
Chile1
Finland
Israel
Latvia
Mexico
OECD average
United States
Australia
Lithuania
Netherlands
Greece
Colombia
Portugal
Austria
Canada
Ireland
Poland
United Kingdom2
Hungary
Costa Rica
Luxembourg
France1
Brazil1
Belgium
Slovenia
Turkey
Russian Federation1

A5

1. Brazil, Chile, France, the Russian Federation: Data for year 2014 refer to year 2013.
2. The United Kingdom: Data for upper secondary attainment includes completion of a sufficient volume and standard of programmes that would be
classified individually as completion of intermediate upper secondary programmes (18% of the adults are under this group).
Countries are ranked in ascending order of the percentage-point difference between the employment rate of the tertiary-educated 25-34 and 55-64 year-olds.
Source: OECD. Table A5.3a. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/education/education-at-a-glance- 19991487.htm).
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933283613

By age group
A larger proportion of older adults (55-64 year-olds) than younger adults (25-34 year-olds) are out of the labour
force, largely because of retirement. Chart A5.2 shows that employment rates are consistently higher for younger
tertiary-educated adults. The proportion of 25-34 year-olds with tertiary education who are employed is,

94

Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

How does educational attainment affect participation in the labour market? – INDICATOR A5

chapter A

on average, about 13 percentage points larger than that of 55-64 year-olds who have attained the same level
of education (82% and 69%, respectively). The Russian Federation and Turkey show the largest difference in
employment rates between younger and older adults (34 percentage points). In some countries, such as the
Russian Federation, the large difference in employment rates is due to lower retirement ages (60 years or
younger). In both countries, employment rates 0f tertiary-educated older adults (54% and 42%, respectively) are
below the OECD average (69%), but are close to or above the OECD average among younger adults (88% and 76%,
respectively) (Table A5.3a).
The largest gaps in employment rates between age groups and educational attainment are seen in Austria, Belgium,
Mexico, the Russian Federation, Slovenia and Turkey among adults with upper secondary or post-secondary
non-tertiary education. In those countries, the employment rates between younger and older adults with this level
of attainment differ by more than 35 percentages points (Table A5.3a).
Unemployment hits younger people the hardest, and unemployment rates are higher among younger adults
(25-34 year-olds) than among older adults (55-64 year-olds), for all levels of education. On average across
OECD countries, about 9% of older adults who have not attained upper secondary education are unemployed
compared with about 19% of younger adults with the same level of education. Similarly, 10.2% of younger adults
with an upper secondary or post-secondary non-tertiary education are unemployed, compared to 6.5% of older
adults with the same level of education. The gap between the two age groups is the smallest among tertiaryeducated adults: about 7% of younger adults in this group are unemployed compared to about 4% of older adults
(Table A5.4a).

By gender
Across all OECD countries and education levels, only 66% of women are employed compared with 80% of men –
despite women’s higher educational attainment, in general. On average, employment rates for those with the lowest
qualifications (below upper secondary education) are significantly higher among younger men than among younger
women. The gender gap in employment rates is the largest among adults with the least education (Tables A5.1b,
A5.3b and c, available on line).
On average across OECD countries, the gender difference in employment rates among 25-64 year-olds with below
upper secondary education as their highest level of attainment is 20 percentage points (66% for men and 46% for
women). This difference shrinks to 15 percentage points among individuals with upper secondary or post-secondary
non-tertiary education (81% for men and 66% for women), and to just 9 percentage points among tertiary-educated
men and women (88% for men and 79% for women) (Tables A5.3b and c, available on line).
Although the gap between men’s and women’s employment rates narrows as educational attainment increases,
the employment rate among tertiary-educated women across OECD countries is still considerably lower than that
of men – despite the fact that a larger proportion of women (36%) than men (31%) in OECD countries now has a
tertiary education (Tables A1.4b, A5.3b and c, available on line).
In all OECD countries except the Slovak Republic, the gender gap in employment is smaller among 25-64 year-olds
with tertiary education than among those who have not attained upper secondary education. The difference is
particularly large in Chile, Mexico and Turkey, where it exceeds 25 percentage points (Tables A5.3b and c, available
on line).
Gender differences in unemployment rates are, on average, less pronounced than they are in employment rates.
Among adults with below upper secondary education, unemployment rates are similar for women and men (12.6%
and 12.9%, respectively). Among adults who have an upper secondary or post-secondary non-tertiary education,
unemployment rates are higher among women (8.6%) than among men (7.1%). This also observed among tertiaryeducated adults, where the unemployment rate is about 6% for women and 5% for men (Tables A5.4b and c, available
on line).
Gender differences in unemployment rates are particularly large in Greece and Turkey. In Turkey, 12.0% of tertiaryeducated women were unemployed in 2014 compared to only 5.9% of tertiary-educated men; in Greece, 21.4%
of tertiary-educated women and 16.8% of tertiary-educated men were unemployed that year. These differences
were even more pronounced among adults with upper secondary education as their highest level of attainment:
in Turkey, 16.7% of women were unemployed compared with 7.0% of men; while in Greece, 33.7% of women and
22.8% of men with this level of education were unemployed in 2014 (Tables A5.4b and c, available on line).
Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

95

A5

chapter A THE OUTPUT OF EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS AND THE IMPACT OF LEARNING

Among those with below upper secondary education
While there is still work for adults with low levels of education across OECD labour markets, unemployment among
these individuals increased in many countries and unemployment rates are higher compared to those seen among
better better-qualified people. Some 13% of adults with below upper secondary education are unemployed, on
average. Among this group of adults, unemployment rates exceed the OECD average, and are around 20% or more,
in the Czech Republic, Greece, Latvia, Lithuania, the Slovak Republic and Spain. By contrast, less than 5% of people
with below upper secondary education in Brazil, Iceland, Korea and Mexico are unemployed (Table A5.4a).
Across OECD countries, only about one in two adults with below upper secondary education is employed (56%)
compared with 74% of adults with upper secondary or post-secondary non-tertiary and 83% of adults with tertiary
qualifications. The employment rates among adults without an upper secondary qualification drop below 40% in
the Slovak Republic (33%) and Poland (39%). But in some countries, the employment rates for adults without an
upper secondary qualification are high: in Brazil, Colombia, Iceland, Korea, New Zealand, Sweden and Switzerland
at least two in three adults with low educational attainment are employed (Table 5.3a).

Among those with upper secondary education (vocational or general)
Higher levels of attainment come with a change in labour market outcomes. People with upper secondary education
have lower unemployment rates (7.5%) and higher employment rates (74%) than people with a lower level of
education (12.8% and 56%, respectively). In some countries that were hit hard by the economic crisis, like Greece,
Lithuania and Spain, unemployment rates even among adults with upper secondary or post-secondary non-tertiary
education were 20% or higher in 2014, and unemployment rates among those with below upper secondary education
were even higher (Tables A5.3a and A5.4a).

Chart A5.3. Employment rates among adults whose highest level of education
is upper secondary or post-secondary non-tertiary, by programme orientation (2014)
25-64 year-olds
Vocational and general orientation

%

Vocational orientation

General orientation

90
85
80
75
70
65
60
55
50

Iceland
Sweden
Switzerland
Norway
New Zealand
United Kingdom1
Germany
Denmark
Netherlands
Portugal
Czech Republic
Australia
Colombia
Brazil2
Austria
Estonia
Canada
OECD average
Costa Rica
Finland
Mexico
France2
Belgium
Russian Federation2
Israel
Luxembourg
Korea
Hungary
Chile2
Slovak Republic
Latvia
Italy
Lithuania
Slovenia
Ireland
United States
Poland
Spain
Turkey
Greece

A5

Note: Denmark, Finland, Ireland, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Slovenia: Data for the breakdown by programme orientation are only available
for 15-34 year-olds and 35-64 year-olds if those individuals had completed their highest level of education 15 years, at most, before the date of the
interview; the category “Vocational and general” covers all adults.
1. The United Kingdom: Data for upper secondary attainment includes completion of a sufficient volume and standard of programmes that would be
classified individually as completion of intermediate upper secondary programmes (18% of the adults are under this group).
2. Brazil, Chile, France, the Russian Federation: Year of reference 2013.
Countries are ranked in descending order of the employment rate of 25-64 year-olds with upper secondary or post-secondary non-tertiary education as highest
level of attainment, regardless of the orientation of the programmes.
Source: OECD. Table A5.5a. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/education/education-at-a-glance- 19991487.htm).
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933283620

The labour market outcomes of the population with upper secondary or post-secondary non-tertiary education
vary according to the type of programme pursued. Across OECD countries, three out of five adults with an upper
secondary or post-secondary non-tertiary education have a vocational qualification, while one in three has a general
qualification. As shown in Chart A5.3, across OECD countries, 77% of individuals with a vocational upper secondary

96

Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

How does educational attainment affect participation in the labour market? – INDICATOR A5

chapter A

or post-secondary non-tertiary qualification are employed – a rate that is 7 percentage points higher than that among
individuals with a general upper secondary education as their highest qualification. In Denmark, Germany and
Slovenia, employment rates are 18 or more percentage points higher among adults with a vocational qualification
than among those with a general qualification, whereas in the Czech Republic and France the employment rates
among adults with a vocational qualification are slightly lower than among those with a general qualification
(Table A5.5a and see Table A1.1a).
The difference may be explained by the high-quality vocational education and training (VET) programmes available
in many countries. In some systems, school-based learning is widely combined with workplace learning. Examples of
this type of “dual system” can be found in Austria, Germany, the Netherlands and Switzerland. One of the strengths
of this practice is that it forms a series of public-private partnerships, allowing social partners and employers to get
involved in the development of VET programmes, often including the definition of curricular frameworks. In many
of these systems, employers invest significantly in VET programmes by financing apprenticeships, assuming the
costs of instructors, materials and/or equipment (CEDEFOP, 2011).
Among other positive effects, combining school-based and workplace learning in an integrated formal education
supports the incorporation of VET students into the labour market. Research has shown that VET can yield good
economic returns on public investment, and some countries with strong VET systems, like Germany, have been
relatively successful in tackling the problem of youth unemployment (CEDEFOP, 2011).
Unemployment rates are generally slightly lower among individuals with vocational upper secondary or postsecondary non-tertiary education (8.5%, on average) compared with adults with a general upper secondary education
(8.9%, on average). In Denmark the unemployment rate among individuals with vocational upper secondary or
post-secondary non-tertiary education is about 5 percentage points lower than the unemployment rate among
individuals with a general upper secondary or post-secondary non-tertiary education. The opposite pattern is
observed in the Czech Republic, Greece and Portugal (Table A5.5a).
The lower employment rates and higher unemployment rates for people with an upper secondary or postsecondary non-tertiary general qualification may be also be explained by the fact that adults with a diploma
in general programmes are more likely to continue education after they graduate from secondary school, while
those who do not pursue further education seem to lack qualifications to ensure a successful integration into the
labour market.

Among those with tertiary qualifications
Across OECD countries, tertiary-educated adults have the best outcomes in the labour market. On average, 83% of
all tertiary-educated adults were employed in 2014 and 5% were unemployed. Employment rates among tertiaryeducated adults are also higher than among adults with upper secondary vocational qualifications in all countries for
which information is available. Some 77% of adults with a vocational upper secondary qualification were employed
in 2014 compared with 83% of adults with a tertiary qualification. Only in a couple of countries are the differences
in rates between the two levels of qualifications small and comparable. Employment rates among adults with upper
secondary VET qualifications are similar to those among adults with tertiary education by less than three percentage
points in Australia, Canada and Iceland (Tables A5.3a and A5.5a).
Unemployment rates are generally lower for adults with tertiary education than for adults with less education.
Some 13% of adults without upper secondary education were unemployed in 2014 compared with 5.1% of adults
with tertiary education. However, unemployment rates are still high among younger adults (25-34 year-olds)
with a tertiary qualification in some countries, namely Greece (32.5%), Italy (17.7%), Portugal (14.0%), Slovenia
(11.9%), Spain (19.4%) and Turkey (11.4%). In addition, in general, younger adults with tertiary education have
higher unemployment rates than older adults with comparable qualifications: the OECD average is 7.5% among
25-34 year-olds and 3.8% among 55-64 year-olds (Table A5.4a).
In Colombia and Mexico, unemployment rates are higher among tertiary-educated adults than among those with
below upper secondary as their highest level of attainment. For example, in Mexico, unemployment rates increase
as education levels increase. The unemployment rate is higher among tertiary-educated adults than among those
who have not attained upper secondary education. This is the case among all adults (5.0% and 3.5%, respectively) as
among older (3.5% and 2.5%, respectively) and younger (7.3% and 4.7%, respectively) adults. In Mexico, the highest
unemployment rates across all levels of education are those for the tertiary-educated, 25-34 year-old men (7.9%)
(Table A5.4a).
Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

97

A5

chapter A THE OUTPUT OF EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS AND THE IMPACT OF LEARNING

Chart A5.4. Unemployment rates for 25-34 year-olds with tertiary education,
by gender (2014)

A5

Men

%

Women

35
30
25
20
15
10

Greece

Italy

Spain

Turkey

Portugal

Mexico

Slovenia

France2

Ireland

Colombia

Denmark

OECD average

Chile2

Finland

Canada

Slovak Republic

Korea

Belgium

Austria

Israel

Sweden

Poland

Switzerland

Luxembourg

Estonia

United States

Costa Rica

Netherlands

Czech Republic

Russian Federation2

Brazil2

Germany

Norway

Australia

New Zealand

0

United Kingdom1

5

1. The United Kingdom: Data for upper secondary attainment includes completion of a sufficient volume and standard of programmes that would be
classified individually as completion of intermediate upper secondary programmes (18% of the adults are under this group).
2. Brazil, Chile, France, the Russian Federation: Data for year 2014 refer to year 2013.
Countries are ranked in ascending order of the unemployment rate of tertiary-educated 25-34 year-old men.
Source: OECD. Tables A5.4b and c, available on line. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/education/education-at-a-glance- 19991487.htm).
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933283632

In general, the higher the level of educational attainment, the higher the employment rate and the lower the
unemployment rate. This holds true for the various levels within tertiary education, as well. In OECD countries, the
employment rate among adults with a short-cycle tertiary qualification or bachelor’s or equivalent degree is about
10 percentage points lower than the employment rate among adults with a doctoral or equivalent degree (79%, 82%
and 91%, respectively), while the respective unemployment rates are about two percentage points higher (5.1%,
5.6% and 3.4%, respectively) (Tables A5.1a and A5.2a).
In most OECD and partner countries, labour market opportunities are better for adults with a master’s degree or
equivalent than for adults with a bachelor’s degree. For instance, in Austria, Chile, Costa Rica, Portugal and Turkey,
the unemployment rates among adults with a master’s degree are half or less of those among adults with a bachelor’s
degree. In these countries, except for Costa Rica, the employment rates are about 10 percentage points higher for
those with a master’s degree (Table A5.1a).

Skills and readiness to use information and communication technologies
for problem solving
The 2012 Survey of Adult Skills, a product of the OECD Programme for the International Assessment of Adult
Competencies (PIAAC), measured problem-solving skills in technology-rich environments and estimated the
frequency with which adults use those skills at work and at home. Greater proficiency in problem solving in
technology-rich environments reflects both better problem-solving skills and better skills in using digital technology,
communication tools and networks to acquire and evaluate information, communicate with others and perform
practical tasks (PIAAC Expert Group in Problem Solving in Technology-Rich Environments, 2009).
The information gathered through the Survey of Adult Skills allows for the creation of an indicator that measures
skills and readiness to use ICT for problem solving. This indicator combines data about performance in the problemsolving assessment and information about why some adults did not participate in the computer-based assessment
and thus do not have a score in problem solving (see the Definitions section at the end of this chapter).
For most of today’s workers, ICT skills are key to getting a job and/or a better salary. For economies, they are crucial
for remaining competitive in the global market. OECD countries anticipate that technology will continue to be a
key driver of job creation, and have placed the development of ICT skills as the most important policy strategy for
economic recovery (Chinien and Boutin, 2011; OECD, 2010).

98

Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

How does educational attainment affect participation in the labour market? – INDICATOR A5

chapter A

Across all countries, skills and readiness to use ICT for problem solving increase with the complexity of ICT skills
required at work. On average, 66% of adults who reported they are required to complete complex ICT tasks at work
have good ICT and problem-solving skills. This proportion is the largest in Sweden (77%) and Germany (75%) and
the smallest in Ireland (60%), Poland (53%) and the Russian Federation (42%). On average, a smaller proportion
of people who are required to complete moderate-level ICT tasks at work has good ICT and problem-solving skills
compared to those who are required to complete complex ICT tasks at work. For example, in Estonia 66% of the
people who reported that they are required to complete complex ICT tasks at work have good ICT and problemsolving skills, but this proportion decreases to 39% among workers who are required to complete moderate-level ICT
tasks at work. Across all participating countries and sub-national entities, there is a positive relationship between
the complexity of ICT skills required at work and the skills and readiness to use ICT for problem solving (Table A5.6a).

Chart A5.5. Percentage of adults with good information and communication technologies
and problem-solving skills, by selected industry (2012)
Survey of Adult Skills, 25-64 year-olds
Education
Manufacturing
Wholesale and retail trade; repair of motor vehicles and motorcycles
Human health and social work activities

%

60
50
40
30
20

Estonia

Poland

Slovak Republic

Russian Federation*

Ireland

Czech Republic

Korea

Sweden

Average

Flanders (Belgium)

United States

Austria

Denmark

Norway

Germany

Canada

Japan

England/N. Ireland (UK)

Finland

Netherlands

0

Australia

10

* See note on data for the Russian Federation in the Methodology section.
Countries are ranked in descending order of the percentage of adults working in education with good ICT and problem-solving skills.
Source: OECD. Table A5.6d, available on line. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/education/education-at-a-glance- 19991487.htm).
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933283646

Chart A5.5 shows the proportion of the survey respondents with the highest skills and readiness to use ICT for
problem solving among workers in education, manufacturing, wholesale and retail trade, and human health and
social work activities. Across these industries, the largest proportion of respondents with good ICT and problemsolving skills was composed of people who work in education. This is especially true in Australia, Canada, England/
Northern Ireland (UK), Finland, Japan and the Netherlands, where at least one in two respondents who work
in education have good ICT and problem-solving skills. On average, 45% of workers in education have good ICT
and problem-solving skills, as do 34% of workers in manufacturing, 32% of workers in wholesale and retail trade,
and 30% of workers in human health and social work activities (Table A5.6d, available on line).

Box A5.1. Labour market outcomes for recent graduates
The difficulties young adults face in entering the labour force are apparent from both international and national
indicators. For example, unemployment rates among tertiary-educated 25-34 year-olds increased 2.0 percentage
points between 2005 and 2012 to an average of 7.4% across OECD countries. During the same period,
unemployment rates among similarly educated 55-64 year-olds rose by 0.4 percentage points to 3.9% (Table A5.4a
in OECD, 2014a). However, the unemployment rates among graduates who had completed their degrees in the
previous year were appreciably higher than these rates, and graduates in some countries could not find work.

…

Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

99

A5

chapter A THE OUTPUT OF EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS AND THE IMPACT OF LEARNING

In 2013, 31% of 15-34 year-olds who had completed an upper secondary or post-secondary non-tertiary
programme in the previous year, and who were not enrolled in further education, were unemployed. This
unemployment rate ranged from 9% in Germany and 10% in Austria and the Netherlands, to 59% in Italy, 62%
in Spain, and 76% in Greece. The majority of 15-34 year-old-non-students with an upper secondary or postsecondary non-tertiary education were able to find employment in the year following their graduation. Some
61% of these non-students across the 26 OECD countries with available data were employed in 2013. There
was a wide range in employment rates among recent graduates from this level of education, ranging from 16%
in Greece, 26% in Italy and 31% in Spain to 84% in Austria and Iceland, and 85% in Germany.

Chart A5.a. Employment rates of 15-34 year-olds with upper secondary or post-secondary
non-tertiary education not in education or training, by years since graduation (2013)

Greece

Italy

Spain

Turkey

Portugal

Slovak Republic

Ireland

United States

Poland

Czech Republic

France

Hungary

Belgium

OECD average

Two years

United Kingdom

Slovenia

Sweden

Switzerland

Australia

Luxembourg

Denmark

Finland

Netherlands

Austria

Iceland

Germany

Estonia

One year

%

100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0

Countries are ranked in descending order of the employment rate after one year since graduation.
Source: OECD. Table A5.a, available on line. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/education/education-at-a-glance-19991487.htm).
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933283658

Chart A5.b. Employment rates among 20-34 year-olds with tertiary education
and not in education or training, by years since graduation (2013)

Greece

Italy

Turkey

Spain

Slovak Republic

Portugal

Slovenia

Luxembourg

Poland

United States

Czech Republic

OECD average

Denmark

Two years

France

Belgium

Estonia

Hungary

Austria

Sweden

Finland

United Kingdom

Australia

Iceland

Switzerland

Netherlands

Ireland

One year

%

100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0

Germany

A5

Countries are ranked in descending order of the employment rate after one year since graduation.
Source: OECD. Table A5.b, available on line. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/education/education-at-a-glance-19991487.htm).
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933283660

…

100 Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

How does educational attainment affect participation in the labour market? – INDICATOR A5

chapter A

Most countries show higher employment rates among adults with tertiary education compared to adults
with upper secondary or post-secondary non-tertiary education. For example, the average employment
rate one year after completing education among tertiary-educated 20-34 year-olds who were no longer in
education or training was 74% in 2013, compared to 61% among 15-34 year-olds who had completed only
upper secondary or post-secondary non-tertiary education. Some countries, such as Austria and Denmark,
showed similar employment rates for these two groups of graduates. However, many countries showed
wide differences, including Spain (64% among those with tertiary education compared to 31% among those
with an upper secondary or post-secondary non-tertiary education) and the United States (73% and 50%,
respectively). Employment rates among 20-34 year-old non-students with a tertiary education ranged
from 27% in Greece, 43% in Italy and 51% in Turkey to 91% in the Netherlands and Switzerland, and 93%
in Germany.
In 2013, 19% of 20-34 year-old non-students who had completed a tertiary programme in the past year were
unemployed compared to 31% of 15-34 year-old non-students who had completed an upper secondary or postsecondary non-tertiary programme. Consistent with other findings, unemployment rates among young adults
with tertiary education fell in the years following their graduation. Some 19% of tertiary-educated young
adults were unemployed in the year following graduation, compared to 14% two years after graduation and
13% three years after graduation. As observed in the unemployment rates among young non-students with
an upper secondary or post-secondary non-tertiary education, there was also a wide range in unemployment
rates among young tertiary-educated non-students. Unemployment rates among those who had completed a
tertiary programme in the previous year ranged from 4% in Germany, 7% in Australia, 8% in the Netherlands
and 9% in Sweden, to 34% in Spain, 37% in Italy and 62% in Greece. While the unemployment rates were
typically lower two or three years after graduation, the high rates for young non-students in some countries
underscore the challenges in securing stable employment.
Box A5.1 Tables
WEB Table A5.a. Employment and unemployment rates among 15-34 year-olds with upper secondary or post-secondary
non-tertiary education and not in education or training, by years since graduation (2011, 2012, 2013)
WEB Table A5.b. Employment and unemployment rates among 20-34 year-olds with tertiary education and not in
education or training, by years since graduation (2011, 2012, 2013)

Definitions
Active population (labour force) is the total number of employed and unemployed persons, in accordance with the
definition in the Labour Force Survey.
Age groups: Adults refers to 25-64 year-olds; younger adults refers to 25-34 year-olds; and older adults refers to
55-64 year-olds. The working-age population is the total population aged 25-64.
Employed individuals are 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.).
The employment rate refers to the number of persons in employment as a percentage of the working-age population
(the number of employed people is divided by the number of all working-age people). Employment rates by gender,
age, educational attainment, programme orientation and age groups are calculated within each of these categories;
for example the employment rate among women is calculated by dividing the number of employed women by the
total number of working-age women.
Inactive individuals are those who are, during the survey reference week, neither employed nor unemployed,
i.e. individuals who are not looking for a job. The number of inactive individuals is calculated by subtracting the
number of active people (labour force) from the number of all working-age people.
The inactive rate refers to inactive persons as a percentage of the population (i.e. the number of inactive people is
divided by the number of all working-age people). Inactive rates by gender, age, educational attainment, programme
Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

101

A5

chapter A THE OUTPUT OF EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS AND THE IMPACT OF LEARNING

A5

orientation and age groups are calculated within each of these categories; for example, the inactive rate among
individuals with a tertiary education degree is calculated by dividing the number of inactive individuals with tertiary
education by the total number of working-age people with tertiary education.
Completion of intermediate programmes for educational attainment (ISCED 2011) corresponds to recognised
qualification from an ISCED 2011 level programme which is not considered as sufficient for ISCED 2011 level
completion and is classified at a lower ISCED 2011 level. In addition, this recognised qualification does not give
direct access to an upper ISCED 2011 level programme.
Levels of education: In this Indicator two ISCED (International Standard Classification of Education) classifications
are used: ISCED 2011 and ISCED-97.
• When it is specified that ISCED 2011 is used, the levels of education are defined as: below upper secondary
corresponds to ISCED 2011 Levels 0, 1 and 2, and includes recognised qualifications from ISCED 2011 Level 3
programmes, which are not considered as sufficient for ISCED 2011 Level 3 completion, and without direct
access to post-secondary non-tertiary education or tertiary education; upper secondary or post-secondary nontertiary corresponds to ISCED 2011 Levels 3 and 4; and tertiary corresponds to ISCED 2011 Levels 5, 6, 7 and 8
(UNESCO Institute for Statistics, 2012).

• When it is specified that ISCED-97 is used, the levels of education are defined as: below upper secondary

corresponds to ISCED-97 Levels 0, 1, 2 and 3C short programmes; upper secondary or post-secondary nontertiary corresponds to ISCED-97 Levels 3A, 3B, 3C long programmes, and Level 4; and tertiary corresponds to
ISCED-97 Levels 5A, 5B and 6.

See the section About the new ISCED 2011 classification, at the beginning of this publication, for a presentation of all
ISCED 2011 levels, and Annex 3 for a presentation of all ISCED-97 levels.
Skill groups refer to skills and readiness to use information and communication technologies (ICT) for problem
solving in technology-rich environments. Each group is described in terms of the characteristics of the types of
tasks that can be successfully completed by adults and the related scores in the assessment of problem solving in
technology-rich environments in the Survey of Adult Skills.

• Group 0 (no computer experience)
• Group 1 (refused the computer-based assessment )
• Group 2 (failed ICT core stage 1 or minimal problem-solving skills – scored below Level 1 in the problem solving
in technology-rich environments assessment)

• Group 3 (moderate ICT and problem-solving skills – scored at Level 1 in the problem solving in technology-rich
environments assessment)

• Group 4 (good ICT and problem-solving skills – scored at Level 2 or Level 3 in the problem solving in technologyrich environments assessment)
Skills required at work refers to the use of computers needed at work. Four levels of use are identified: “ICT
skills not required at work” corresponds to individuals who reported they do not use a computer in their job;
“Straightforward” indicates using a computer for routine tasks, such as data entry or sending and receiving e-mails;
“Moderate” indicates using a computer for word-processing, spreadsheets or database management; and “Complex”
indicates developing software or modifying computer games, programming using languages like java, sql, php or
perl, or maintaining a computer network.
The unemployment rate refers to unemployed persons as a percentage of the labour force (i.e. the number of
unemployed people is divided by the sum of employed and unemployed people). Unemployment rates by gender,
age, educational attainment, programme orientation and age groups are calculated within each of these categories;
for example, the unemployment rate among women is calculated by dividing the number of unemployed women by
the total number of women who are active in the labour force.
Unemployed individuals are those who are, during the survey reference week, without work (i.e. neither had a
job nor were at work for one hour or more in paid employment or self-employment), actively seeking employment
(i.e. had taken specific steps during the four weeks prior to the reference week to seek paid employment or selfemployment), and currently available to start work (i.e. were available for paid employment or self-employment
before the end of the two weeks following the reference week).

102 Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

How does educational attainment affect participation in the labour market? – INDICATOR A5

chapter A

Methodology
Data on population and educational attainment for most countries are taken from OECD and Eurostat databases,
which are compiled from National Labour Force Surveys by the OECD LSO (Labour Market and Social Outcomes of
Learning) Network. Data on educational attainment for China, Colombia, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia and South Africa are
taken from the UNESCO Institute of Statistics (UIS) database on educational attainment of the population aged 25 and
older. Data on proficiency levels and mean scores are based on the Survey of Adult Skills (PIAAC) (2012). PIAAC is the
OECD Programme for the International Assessment of Adult Competencies. See Annex 3 for additional information
(www.oecd.org/education/education-at-a-glance-19991487.htm).
Note regarding data from Israel
The statistical data for Israel are supplied by and are under the responsibility of the relevant Israeli authorities. The use of
such data by the OECD is without prejudice to the status of the Golan Heights, East Jerusalem and Israeli settlements in the
West Bank under the terms of international law.
Note regarding data from the Russian Federation in the Survey of Adult Skills (PIAAC)
Readers should note that the sample for the Russian Federation does not include the population of the Moscow municipal
area. The data published, therefore, do not represent the entire resident population aged 16-65 in Russia but rather the
population of Russia excluding the population residing in the Moscow municipal area. More detailed information regarding
the data from the Russian Federation as well as that of other countries can be found in the Technical Report of the Survey
of Adult Skills (OECD, 2014b).

References
Chinien, C. and F. Boutin (2011), “Defining Essential Digital Skills in the Canadian Workplace: Final Report”, WDM-Consultants.
European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training (CEDEFOP) (2011), The Benefits of Vocational Education and
Training, Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg.
OECD (2014a), Education at a Glance 2014: OECD Indicators, OECD Publishing, Paris, http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/eag-2014-en.
OECD (2014b), Technical Report of the Survey of Adult Skills, www.oecd.org/site/piaac/_Technical%20Report_17OCT13.pdf,
pre-publication copy.
OECD (2013), OECD Skills Outlook 2013: First Results from the Survey of Adult Skills, OECD Publishing, Paris, http://dx.doi.
org/10.1787/9789264204256-en.
OECD (2010), “Highlights”, in OECD Information Technology Outlook 2010, OECD Publishing, Paris, http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/
it_outlook-2010-2-en.
PIAAC Expert Group in Problem Solving in Technology-Rich Environments (2009), “PIAAC Problem Solving in TechnologyRich Environments: A Conceptual Framework”, OECD Education Working Papers, No. 36, OECD Publishing, Paris, http://dx.doi.
org/10.1787/220262483674.

UNESCO Institute for Statistics (2012), International Standard Classification of Education: ISCED 2011, UNESCO-UIS,
Montreal, Canada, www.uis.unesco.org/Education/Documents/isced-2011-en.pdf.

Indicator A5 Tables
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933284979

Table A5.1a
WEB Table A5.1b
Table A5.2a
WEB Table A5.2b
Table A5.3a

Employment rates, by educational attainment (2014)
Employment rates, by educational attainment and gender (2014)
Unemployment rates, by educational attainment (2014)
Unemployment rates, by educational attainment and gender (2014)
Trends in employment rates, by educational attainment and age group (2000, 2005, 2010 and 2014)

WEB Table A5.3b

Trends in employment rates among men, by educational attainment and age group
(2000, 2005, 2010 and 2014)

WEB Table A5.3c

Trends in employment rates among women, by educational attainment and age group
(2000, 2005, 2010 and 2014)

…
Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

103

A5

chapter A THE OUTPUT OF EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS AND THE IMPACT OF LEARNING

A5

Table A5.4a

Trends in unemployment rates, by educational attainment and age group
(2000, 2005, 2010 and 2014)

WEB Table A5.4b

Trends in unemployment rates among men, by educational attainment and age group
(2000, 2005, 2010 and 2014)

WEB Table A5.4c

Trends in unemployment rates among women, by educational attainment and age group
(2000, 2005, 2010 and 2014)

Table A5.5a

Employment, unemployment and inactivity rates of adults with upper secondary
or post-secondary non-tertiary, by programme orientation (2014)

WEB Table A5.5b

Employment, unemployment and inactivity rates of adults with upper secondary
or post-secondary non-tertiary, by programme orientation and gender (2014)

WEB Table A5.5c

Employment, unemployment and inactivity rates of adults with upper secondary
or post-secondary non-tertiary, by programme orientation and age group (2014)

Table A5.6a

Skills and readiness to use information and communication technologies for problem solving
among 25-64 year-olds, by ICT skills required at work (2012)

WEB Table A5.6b

Skills and readiness to use information and communication technologies for problem solving
among 25-64 year-olds, by confidence in using computers at work (2012)

WEB Table A5.6c

Skills and readiness to use information and communication technologies for problem solving
among 25-64 year-olds, by impact of ICT skills on career opportunities (2012)

WEB Table A5.6d

Skills and readiness to use information and communication technologies for problem solving
among 25-64 year-olds, by selected industry (2012)

104 Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

chapter A

How does educational attainment affect participation in the labour market? – INDICATOR A5

Table A5.1a. Employment rates, by educational attainment (2014)
Percentage of employed 25-64 year-olds among all 25-64 year-olds
Upper secondary
or post-secondary
non-tertiary

Primary

Completion of
intermediate
lower secondary
programmes

Lower secondary

Completion of
intermediate
upper secondary
programmes

Upper secondary

Post-secondary
non-tertiary

Short cycle
tertiary

Bachelor's or
equivalent

Master's or
equivalent

Doctoral or
equivalent

Tertiary

Less than
primary
Partners

OECD

Below upper secondary

A5

All levels
of
education

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7)

(8)

(9)

(10)

(11)

(12)

x(2)
x(2)
29
x(2)
53
m
m
x(2)
40
x(2)
27
c
x(2)
c
34
31
x(6)
x(2)
c
58
35
x(4)
35
6
32
c
c
25
x(2)
53
35
41
57

42d
30d
41
45d
55
c
42
40
38d
43
47d
43
25
66d
35
42
28
x(6)
63
59
62
51
x(4)
50
40
60
c
33
39
44d
67
50
61
58

a
a
a
a
a
a
a
m
a
a
a
48
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
68
a
a
a
a
a
53
a
a
a
a
a
a
a

66
55
55
60
66
44
67
63
60
61
61
53
47
77
55
58
55
x(6)
69
62
67
64
71d
62
44
72
31
50
55
68
70
60
60
53

a
a
a
a
a
a
a
m
a
a
a
53r
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
64
a
a
a
a
a
c
a
a
82
a
a
77
a

77
76
72
72
72
78d
79
74
73
73
78
54
71
86
67
72
70
76d
72
72
73
78
77
82
66
78
71
69
66
85
82
62
83
68d

81
80
82
79
a
x(6)
93
75
92
68
85
57
78
95
69
a
73
x(8)
m
75
a
87
85
79
70
77
75
a
64
84
a
a
a
x(6)

80
84
76
81
81
89
85
78
81
84
90
64
82
88
77
82
c
76d
76
79
71
84
86
84
50
x(9)
73
76
74
84
x(9, 10, 11)
68
83
76

83
77
84
82
85
79
84
83
82
82
88
67
80
89
81
86
69
86d
78d
82
79d
87
87
91
82
72d
74
81
77
89
89d
78
85
80

85
89
86
83d
94d
86
90
86
86
87
87
79
85
94
86
90
80
x(9)
x(9)
89
x(9)
89
87
93
87
85
81
86
79
92
88d
87
86
84

92
88
90
x(10)
x(10)
94
96
95
91
87
93
87
88
99
92
92
90
x(9)
x(9)
85
x(9)
94
91
97
93
91
81
94
87
94
93d
95
91
86

76
75
71
76
70
77
78
77
75
72
79
56
70
86
69
76
63
79
74
76
68
77
80
81
69
70
69
70
63
83
83
57
78
72

OECD average
EU21 average

37
30

47
42

m
m

59
56

m
m

74
73

79
77

79
79

82
80

87
86

91
90

73
72

Argentina
Brazil1
China
Colombia
Costa Rica
India
Indonesia
Latvia
Lithuania
Russian Federation1
Saudi Arabia
South Africa

m
x(4)
m
x(4)
51
m
m
c

m
x(4)
m
x(4)
64
m
m
c

m
x(4)
m
a
70
m
m
a

m
67d
m
72d
71
m
m
53

m
a
m
a
69
m
m
a

m
76d
m
76
73
m
m
70

m
x(6)
m
a
74
m
m
74

m
x(9)
m
x(9)
75
m
m
84

m
85d
m
84d
84
m
m
83

m
x(9)
m
x(9)
91d
m
m
86

m
x(9)
m
x(9)
x(10)
m
m
97

m
72
m
76
71
m
m
73

c

c

a

46

64

67

73

x(9)

89

90

c

75

x(4)
m
m

x(4)
m
m

a
m
m

49d
m
m

a
m
m

72d
m
m

x(6)
m
m

x(9)
m
m

83d
m
m

x(9)
m
m

x(9)
m
m

77
m
m

G20 average

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

Australia
Austria
Belgium
Canada
Chile1
Czech Republic
Denmark
Estonia
Finland
France1
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Iceland
Ireland
Israel
Italy
Japan
Korea
Luxembourg
Mexico
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Slovak Republic
Slovenia
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Turkey
United Kingdom
United States

c

Note: In most countries data refer to ISCED 2011. The countries with data that refer to ISCED-97 are: Brazil, Indonesia, the Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia
and South Africa. See the description of the levels of education in the Definitions section.
1. Brazil, Chile, France, the Russian Federation: Year of reference 2013.
Source: OECD. Colombia, Costa Rica: OECD Education Database. Latvia, Lithuania: Eurostat. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/education/education-at-aglance-19991487.htm).
Please refer to the Reader’s Guide for information concerning symbols for missing data and abbreviations.
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933284983

Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

105

chapter A THE OUTPUT OF EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS AND THE IMPACT OF LEARNING

Table A5.2a. Unemployment rates, by educational attainment (2014)
Percentage of unemployed 25-64 year-olds among 25-64 year-olds in the labour force

A5

Upper secondary
or post-secondary
non-tertiary

Completion of
intermediate
lower secondary
programmes

Lower secondary

Completion of
intermediate
upper secondary
programmes

Upper secondary

Post-secondary
non-tertiary

Short cycle
tertiary

Bachelor's or
equivalent

Master's or
equivalent

Doctoral or
equivalent

All levels
of
education

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7)

(8)

(9)

(10)

(11)

(12)

Australia
Austria
Belgium
Canada
Chile1
Czech Republic
Denmark
Estonia
Finland
France1
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Iceland
Ireland
Israel
Italy
Japan
Korea
Luxembourg
Mexico
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Slovak Republic
Slovenia
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Turkey
United Kingdom
United States

x(2)
x(2)
22.6
x(2)
4.6
m
x(2)
c
x(2)
14.1
x(2)
40.5
c
x(2)
c
7.0
21.7
x(6)
x(2)
c
2.3
18.2
x(4)
0.0
0.0
23.8
c
c
47.7
x(2)
c
11.1
c
7.3

11.4d
23.1d
14.9
11.7d
5.1
c
9.9d
c
13.9d
13.2
16.0d
25.7
29.2
c.d
21.5
7.8
19.9
x(6)
2.8
9.7
2.9
11.1
x(4)
7.1
16.9
14.5
c
22.4r
36.6
26.2d
c
8.0
9.8
7.5

a
a
a
a
a
a
a
m
a
a
a
24.5r
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
5.3
a
a
a
a
16.8
a
a
a
a
a
a
a

7.0
10.2
12.9
10.3
5.4
20.7
7.9
11.5
12.1
14.1
11.0
29.0
16.2
4.8
17.4
7.5
14.5
x(6)
2.6
6.4
4.2
9.4
5.2d
6.7
27.6
14.5
42.7
15.1
29.0
11.7
9.4
9.5
7.7
12.5

a
a
a
a
a
a
a
m
a
a
a
44.0r
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
4.4
a
a
m
a
a
c
a
a
8.8
a
a
4.8
a

4.6
4.6
7.4
6.7
5.6
5.4d
5.2
7.8
8.2
8.5
5.0
26.9
6.7
4.3
10.8
6.2
9.1
4.1d
3.3
4.9
4.4
7.1
5.3
2.4
8.7
12.5
11.4
9.7
21.6
4.6
3.8d
9.1
3.2
7.2d

4.2
c
c
6.2
a
x(6)
c
7.7
c
c
2.9
30.1
5.2
c
13.8
a
11.7
x(8)
m
c
a
c
3.5
3.0
7.8
16.8
c
a
c
6.1
x(6)
a
a
x(6)

4.0
3.5
c
4.8
5.7
c
4.8
5.7
4.5
4.8
c
2.8r
c
c
7.1
4.7
c
3.4d
3.3
4.9
5.9
4.6
3.7
3.3
0.0
x(9)
c
4.9r
17.0
5.7
x(9, 10, 11)
10.0
2.6
4.9

2.7
6.5
4.0
4.7
4.9
3.8
4.0
5.0
5.9
6.0
2.4
20.8
3.1
3.5
6.0
4.1
11.6
2.5d
3.1d
3.5
5.0d
4.0
2.4
1.2
6.0
14.1d
7.5
9.4
12.9
3.8
2.9d
8.1
2.7
3.9

3.9
3.4
4.3
4.8d
1.3d
2.3
5.0
4.3
4.8
5.3
2.8
15.4
2.0
3.8
5.0
2.8
6.8
x(9)
x(9)
3.2
x(9)
3.6
3.0
1.8
3.7
7.7
5.5
5.6
12.4
3.3
3.8d
4.6
2.1
2.6

c
5.7
c
x(10)
x(10)
c
c
0.0
c
5.1
1.9
6.7r
c
c
c
2.4
3.9
x(9)
x(9)
c
x(9)
c
c
0.9
0.9
c
c
2.6r
8.2
c
cd
c
c
2.3

4.5
5.0
7.3
5.8
5.3
5.5
5.4
6.8
7.1
8.4
4.8
24.9
6.7
4.1
10.3
5.1
10.8
3.5
3.1
4.7
4.0
6.4
4.0
2.8
7.7
12.8
11.8
9.1
22.4
5.8
4.1
8.6
3.9
5.8

OECD average
EU21 average

15.8
23.6

14.8
18.6

m
m

12.9
16.3

m
m

7.5
9.0

9.1
11.3

5.1
5.2

5.6
6.8

4.5
5.2

3.4
3.9

7.3
9.0

Argentina
Brazil1
China
Colombia
Costa Rica
India
Indonesia
Latvia
Lithuania
Russian Federation1
Saudi Arabia
South Africa

m
x(4)
m
x(4)
7.7
m
m
c
c
x(4)
m
m

m
x(4)
m
x(4)
7.0
m
m
c
c
x(4)
m
m

m
a
m
a
7.4
m
m
a
a
a
m
m

m
4.5d
m
6.2d
7.5
m
m
22.7
27
12.5d
m
m

m
a
m
a
6.1
m
m
a
c
a
m
m

m
5.6d
m
8.4d
6.8
m
m
11.6
15
6.2d
m
m

m
x(6)
m
x(6)
6.0
m
m
9.2
10
x(6)
m
m

m
x(9)
m
x(9)
5.3
m
m
c
x(9)
x(9)
m
m

m
2.9d
m
7.4d
4.4
m
m
6.2
5d
2.9d
m
m

m
x(9)
m
x(9)
1.4d
m
m
3.5
c
x(9)
m
m

m
x(9)
m
x(9)
x(10)
m
m
c
c
x(9)
m
m

m
4.6
m
7.2
6.4
m
m
10.3
10
4.6
m
m

G20 average

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

Less than
primary
OECD
Partners

Tertiary

Primary

Below upper secondary

Note: In most countries data refer to ISCED 2011. The countries with data that refer to ISCED-97 are: Brazil, Indonesia, the Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia and
South Africa. See the description of the levels of education in the Definitions section.
1. Brazil, Chile, France, the Russian Federation: Year of reference 2013.
Source: OECD. Colombia, Costa Rica: OECD Education Database. Latvia, Lithuania: Eurostat. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/education/education-at-aglance-19991487.htm).
Please refer to the Reader’s Guide for information concerning symbols for missing data and abbreviations.
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933284991

106 Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

chapter A

How does educational attainment affect participation in the labour market? – INDICATOR A5

Table A5.3a. [1/3] Trends in employment rates, by educational attainment and age group

A5

(2000, 2005, 2010 and 2014)

Percentage of employed adults, by age group among all adults in the same age group

Partners

OECD

Below upper secondary
Employment rates of 25-64 year-olds

Employment rates of 25-34 year-olds

Employment rates of 55-64 year-olds

2000

2005

2010

2014

2000

2005

2010

2014

2000

2005

2010

2014

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7)

(8)

(17)

(18)

(19)

(20)

Australia
Austria
Belgium
Canada
Chile1
Czech Republic
Denmark
Estonia
Finland
France1
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Iceland
Ireland
Israel
Italy
Japan
Korea
Luxembourg
Mexico
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Slovak Republic
Slovenia
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Turkey
United Kingdom2
United States

61b
m
51b
55
m
47b
62b
42
60b
56
51b
58b
36b
m
56b
m
49b
m
68
58b
61b
58b
65b
65b
43b
73b
31b
53b
54b
68b
64b
53
65b
58

63b
53
49b
56
m
41b
62b
50
58b
59
52b
59b
38b
82
58b
41b
52b
m
66
62b
62b
60b
70b
64b
38b
71b
26b
56b
59b
66b
65b
47
65b
57

65b
55
49b
55
62b
43b
63b
45
55b
55
55b
57b
38b
75
48b
45b
50b
m
65
62b
63b
61b
68b
64b
40b
68b
30b
51b
53b
63b
69b
49
56b
52

60
53
47
56
61
43
62
60
54
54
58
47
45
77
47
49
50
m
66
61
63
59
71
62
39
63
33
49
49
66
69
51
60
55

64b
m
64b
60
m
51b
70b
53
69b
61
60b
67b
50b
m
68b
m
60b
m
65
78b
63b
72b
63b
67b
50b
83b
29b
75b
65b
67b
68b
55
66b
64

64b
61
57b
62
m
43b
64b
60
63b
63
52b
72b
49b
81
64b
43b
65b
m
62
79b
63b
70b
68b
66b
45b
81b
16b
70b
72b
65b
68b
49
64b
62

61b
59
56b
58
59b
47b
65b
51
59b
57
55b
64b
40b
67
44b
45b
57b
m
57
78b
63b
70b
64b
64b
49b
75b
21b
60b
59b
60b
70b
51
56b
55

59
58
52
57
61
46
57
66
52
55
55
51
49
74
38
56
50
m
59
73
65
63
65
61
45
71
28
53
55
65
67
54
57
58

39b
m
19b
37
m
17b
41b
24
33b
24
26b
39b
12b
m
39b
m
23b
m
59
15b
51b
28b
49b
53b
24b
50b
7b
20b
33b
56b
47b
38
51b
40

46b
23
21b
40
m
20b
42b
36
43b
32
32b
39b
16b
81
45b
32b
24b
m
58
22b
52b
35b
61b
48b
21b
50b
9b
27b
38b
59b
51b
30
56b
39

53b
30
26b
43
55b
26b
46b
30
44b
32
40b
40b
20b
74
41b
38b
26b
m
59
25b
53b
42b
64b
51b
22b
48b
21b
28b
36b
60b
54b
31
44b
40

50
30
30
48
54
29
53
44
45
37
48
33
25
76
42
43
33
m
64
26
53
46
66
53
25
45
24
29
35
63
56
33
48
40

OECD average
EU21 average

56b
53b

56b
54b

55b
52b

56
52

63b
63b

61b
61b

57b
56b

57
54

34b
29b

38b
33b

41b
35b

43
38

Argentina
Brazil1, 3
China
Colombia
Costa Rica
India
Indonesia
Latvia
Lithuania
Russian Federation1
Saudi Arabia
South Africa

m
m
m
m
m
m
m
40b
37b
m
m
m

m
m
m
m
m
m
m
52b
46b
m
m
m

m
69b
m
m
64b
m
m
49b
32b
m
m
m

m
67
m
72
65
m
m
51
48
49
m
m

m
m
m
m
m
m
m
50b
52b
m
m
m

m
m
m
m
m
m
m
60b
62b
m
m
m

m
72b
m
m
67b
m
m
58b
41b
m
m
m

m
71
m
73
69
m
m
59
57
58
m
m

m
m
m
m
m
m
m
26b
26b
m
m
m

m
m
m
m
m
m
m
35b
32b
m
m
m

m
52b
m
m
51b
m
m
31b
c
m
m
m

m
52
m
60
53
m
m
33
28
28
m
m

G20 average

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

Notes: In most countries, there is a break in the series, represented by the code “b”, as data for the latest year refer to ISCED 2011 while data for previous years refer
to ISCED-97. For Korea data refer to ISCED-97 for all years. See the description of the levels of education in the Definitions section. Columns showing data for other
age groups are available for consultation on line (see StatLink below).
1. Brazil, Chile, France, the Russian Federation: Data for year 2014 refer to year 2013.
2. The United Kingdom: Data for upper secondary attainment includes completion of a sufficient volume and standard of programmes that would be classified
individually as completion of intermediate upper secondary programmes (18% of the adults are under this group).
3. Brazil: Data for year 2010 refer to year 2009.
Source: OECD. Colombia, Costa Rica: OECD Education Database. Latvia, Lithuania: Eurostat. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/education/education-at-aglance-19991487.htm).
Please refer to the Reader’s Guide for information concerning symbols for missing data and abbreviations.
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933285001

Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

107

chapter A THE OUTPUT OF EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS AND THE IMPACT OF LEARNING

Table A5.3a. [2/3] Trends in employment rates, by educational attainment and age group

A5

(2000, 2005, 2010 and 2014)

Percentage of employed adults, by age group among all adults in the same age group

Partners

OECD

Upper secondary or post-secondary non-tertiary
Employment rates of 25-64 year-olds

Employment rates of 25-34 year-olds

Employment rates of 55-64 year-olds

2000

2005

2010

2014

2000

2005

2010

2014

2000

2005

2010

2014

(21)

(22)

(23)

(24)

(25)

(26)

(27)

(28)

(37)

(38)

(39)

(40)

Australia
Austria
Belgium
Canada
Chile1
Czech Republic
Denmark
Estonia
Finland
France1
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Iceland
Ireland
Israel
Italy
Japan
Korea
Luxembourg
Mexico
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Slovak Republic
Slovenia
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Turkey
United Kingdom2
United States

77b
m
75b
76
m
76b
81b
70
75b
75
70b
65b
72b
m
77b
m
71b
m
69
73b
71b
79b
80b
83b
67b
83b
71b
74b
72b
82b
81b
64
81b
77

80b
73
74b
76
m
75b
80b
74
75b
76
71b
69b
70b
89
77b
67b
74b
m
70
72b
71b
78b
84b
82b
62b
79b
71b
75b
75b
81b
80b
62
82b
73

80b
76
74b
74
72b
74b
79b
69
74b
74
76b
67b
66b
83
66b
70b
73b
m
71
72b
72b
80b
82b
82b
65b
80b
70b
73b
69b
81b
81b
60
78b
68

77
76
73
74
72
78
79
74
73
73
80
54
72
87
68
72
70
m
72
72
73
78
80
81
66
78
71
69
66
85
82
62
80
68

80b
m
84b
79
m
77b
85b
74
76b
80
79b
69b
75b
m
85b
m
67b
m
64
85b
71b
88b
78b
84b
71b
83b
72b
86b
73b
83b
84b
67
83b
80

81b
83
81b
80
m
78b
83b
77
77b
80
74b
73b
75b
82
83b
65b
72b
m
64
82b
71b
86b
82b
84b
68b
78b
73b
84b
78b
81b
83b
64
81b
74

78b
83
80b
77
74b
76b
82b
70
76b
79
78b
71b
71b
73
67b
68b
69b
m
64
83b
72b
87b
77b
85b
74b
80b
72b
81b
69b
80b
84b
64
79b
68

78
83
79
77
70
78
79
76
74
76
82
54
77
78
67
71
63
m
63
84
71
82
76
84
74
78
71
75
65
84
85
65
81
68

53b
m
31b
52
m
39b
57b
46
42b
31
37b
31b
29b
m
48b
m
41b
m
53
32b
48b
43b
65b
68b
28b
51b
27b
18b
51b
66b
66b
20
65b
58

62b
28
38b
57
m
47b
61b
53
53b
40
43b
38b
39b
87
56b
53b
44b
m
59
30b
46b
49b
75b
70b
28b
48b
34b
27b
51b
69b
65b
24
69b
58

71b
39
41b
58
59b
46b
59b
54
55b
41
56b
37b
35b
82
55b
62b
48b
m
62
35b
50b
57b
78b
68b
34b
51b
41b
32b
53b
70b
67b
24
63b
57

67
44
44
59
62
53
63
58
57
46
64
27
43
87
59
65
57
m
67
38
60
63
78
71
42
55
45
33
53
75
70
29
67
58

OECD average
EU21 average

75b
74b

75b
74b

74b
73b

74
73

78b
79b

77b
78b

76b
77b

75
75

45b
41b

50b
45b

53b
48b

56
52

Argentina
Brazil1, 3
China
Colombia
Costa Rica
India
Indonesia
Latvia
Lithuania
Russian Federation1
Saudi Arabia
South Africa

m
m
m
m
m
m
m
67b
69b
m
m
m

m
m
m
m
m
m
m
73b
75b
m
m
m

m
77b
m
m
75b
m
m
66b
63b
m
m
m

m
76
m
76
73
m
m
71
70
72
m
m

m
m
m
m
m
m
m
74b
71b
m
m
m

m
m
m
m
m
m
m
77b
80b
m
m
m

m
79b
m
m
78b
m
m
72b
65b
m
m
m

m
78
m
76
74
m
m
77
75
79
m
m

m
m
m
m
m
m
m
36b
45b
m
m
m

m
m
m
m
m
m
m
49b
52b
m
m
m

m
55b
m
m
61b
m
m
47b
45
m
m
m

m
54
m
61
59
m
m
54
51
43
m
m

G20 average

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

Notes: In most countries, there is a break in the series, represented by the code “b”, as data for the latest year refer to ISCED 2011 while data for previous years refer
to ISCED-97. For Korea data refer to ISCED-97 for all years. See the description of the levels of education in the Definitions section. Columns showing data for other
age groups are available for consultation on line (see StatLink below).
1. Brazil, Chile, France, the Russian Federation: Data for year 2014 refer to year 2013.
2. The United Kingdom: Data for upper secondary attainment includes completion of a sufficient volume and standard of programmes that would be classified
individually as completion of intermediate upper secondary programmes (18% of the adults are under this group).
3. Brazil: Data for year 2010 refer to year 2009.
Source: OECD. Colombia, Costa Rica: OECD Education Database. Latvia, Lithuania: Eurostat. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/education/education-at-aglance-19991487.htm).
Please refer to the Reader’s Guide for information concerning symbols for missing data and abbreviations.
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933285001

108 Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

chapter A

How does educational attainment affect participation in the labour market? – INDICATOR A5

Table A5.3a. [3/3] Trends in employment rates, by educational attainment and age group

A5

(2000, 2005, 2010 and 2014)

Percentage of employed adults, by age group among all adults in the same age group

Partners

OECD

Tertiary
Employment rates of 25-64 year-olds

Employment rates of 25-34 year-olds

Employment rates of 55-64 year-olds

2000

2005

2010

2014

2000

2005

2010

2014

2000

2005

2010

2014

(41)

(42)

(43)

(44)

(45)

(46)

(47)

(48)

(57)

(58)

(59)

(60)

Australia
Austria
Belgium
Canada
Chile1
Czech Republic
Denmark
Estonia
Finland
France1
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Iceland
Ireland
Israel
Italy
Japan
Korea
Luxembourg
Mexico
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Slovak Republic
Slovenia
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Turkey
United Kingdom2
United States

83b
m
85b
83
m
87b
88b
83
84b
83
83b
81b
82b
m
88b
m
81b
m
75
84b
82b
86b
82b
90b
85b
91b
86b
86b
80b
87b
90b
78
88b
85

84b
83
84b
82
m
86b
86b
84
84b
83
83b
82b
83b
94
87b
81b
80b
m
77
84b
82b
86b
84b
89b
83b
87b
84b
87b
83b
87b
90b
75
88b
82

84b
85
84b
81
79b
83b
86b
80
84b
84
87b
80b
79b
90
81b
82b
78b
m
76
85b
81b
88b
84b
90b
85b
85b
82b
87b
80b
88b
88b
76
84b
80

83
85
85
82
84
84
86
84
83
84
88
69
82
91
81
86
78
m
77
85
79
88
87
90
86
83
80
83
77
89
89
76
85
80

84b
m
92b
86
m
83b
88b
85
84b
85
89b
79b
83b
m
91b
m
73b
m
74
83b
80b
93b
82b
87b
87b
91b
83b
92b
75b
82b
91b
83
91b
87

85b
86
90b
85
m
81b
87b
84
86b
86
85b
79b
83b
94
89b
82b
69b
m
74
87b
79b
92b
81b
86b
83b
87b
84b
91b
82b
84b
91b
79
90b
83

85b
86
89b
84
75b
77b
86b
81
84b
87
88b
77b
79b
88
83b
82b
67b
m
74
87b
80b
93b
81b
89b
86b
85b
78b
88b
79b
85b
87b
77
87b
82

84
86
88
85
84
77
84
81
82
86
88
63
81
87
83
86
62
m
76
86
78
90
86
87
86
79
75
80
74
87
88
76
87
82

65b
m
46b
58
m
66b
73b
62
60b
50
58b
50b
52b
m
67b
m
58b
m
57
65b
69b
56b
67b
86b
51b
69b
54b
48b
64b
79b
78b
37
66b
70

69b
48
49b
62
m
69b
73b
74
66b
56
63b
59b
60b
90
70b
68b
67b
m
61
60b
68b
62b
78b
85b
55b
61b
54b
51b
65b
83b
79b
34
72b
72

75b
61
53b
65
74b
71b
71b
66
70b
55
73b
57b
54b
89
66b
71b
67b
m
64
67b
66b
69b
82b
84b
56b
58b
66b
57b
64b
81b
79b
38
65b
70

70
66
61
65
74
78
75
77
71
61
78
46
59
90
63
75
76
m
69
62
65
75
84
86
66
61
67
53
65
83
82
42
66
69

OECD average
EU21 average

84b
85b

84b
85b

83b
84b

83
83

85b
85b

85b
85b

83b
83b

82
81

61b
60b

65b
63b

67b
64b

69
67

Argentina
Brazil1, 3
China
Colombia
Costa Rica
India
Indonesia
Latvia
Lithuania
Russian Federation1
Saudi Arabia
South Africa

m
m
m
m
m
m
m
80b
80b
m
m
m

m
m
m
m
m
m
m
85b
88b
m
m
m

m
86b
m
m
85b
m
m
81b
87b
m
m
m

m
85
m
84
85
m
m
84
89
83
m
m

m
m
m
m
m
m
m
85b
81b
m
m
m

m
m
m
m
m
m
m
86b
89b
m
m
m

m
88b
m
m
87b
m
m
82b
87b
m
m
m

m
88
m
85
87
m
m
84
91
88
m
m

m
m
m
m
m
m
m
56b
59b
m
m
m

m
m
m
m
m
m
m
70b
69b
m
m
m

m
64b
m
m
63b
m
m
64b
74b
m
m
m

m
63
m
68
65
m
m
72
77
54
m
m

G20 average

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

Notes: In most countries, there is a break in the series, represented by the code “b”, as data for the latest year refer to ISCED 2011 while data for previous years refer
to ISCED-97. For Korea data refer to ISCED-97 for all years. See the description of the levels of education in the Definitions section. Columns showing data for other
age groups are available for consultation on line (see StatLink below).
1. Brazil, Chile, France, the Russian Federation: Data for year 2014 refer to year 2013.
2. The United Kingdom: Data for upper secondary attainment includes completion of a sufficient volume and standard of programmes that would be classified
individually as completion of intermediate upper secondary programmes (18% of the adults are under this group).
3. Brazil: Data for year 2010 refer to year 2009.
Source: OECD. Colombia, Costa Rica: OECD Education Database. Latvia, Lithuania: Eurostat. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/education/education-at-aglance-19991487.htm).
Please refer to the Reader’s Guide for information concerning symbols for missing data and abbreviations.
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933285001

Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

109

chapter A THE OUTPUT OF EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS AND THE IMPACT OF LEARNING

Table A5.4a. [1/3] Trends in unemployment rates, by educational attainment and age group

A5

(2000, 2005, 2010 and 2014)

Percentage of unemployed adults, by age group among adults in the same age group who are in the labour force

Partners

OECD

Below upper secondary
Unemployment rates of 25-64 year-olds

Unemployment rates of 25-34 year-olds

Unemployment rates of 55-64 year-olds

2000

2005

2010

2014

2000

2005

2010

2014

2000

2005

2010

2014

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7)

(8)

(17)

(18)

(19)

(20)

Australia
Austria
Belgium
Canada
Chile1
Czech Republic
Denmark
Estonia
Finland
France1
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Iceland
Ireland
Israel
Italy
Japan
Korea
Luxembourg
Mexico
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Slovak Republic
Slovenia
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Turkey
United Kingdom2
United States

7.5b
m
9.8b
10.2
m
19.3b
6.3b
21.8b
11.9b
13.8
13.7b
8.2b
9.9b
m
7.1b
m
10.0b
m
3.7
3.1b
1.5b
3.9b
6.6b
2.2b
20.6b
3.6b
36.3b
9.8b
13.7b
8.0b
4.8b
4.6
6.6b
7.9

6.3b
8.5
12.4b
9.7
m
24.4b
6.5b
13.0b
10.7b
11.1
20.2b
8.3b
12.4b
2.6
6.0b
14.0b
7.8b
m
2.9
5.1b
2.3b
5.8b
3.4b
7.4b
27.1b
7.5b
49.2b
8.7b
9.3b
8.5b
7.2b
9.1
5.1b
9.0

6.2b
8.1
13.2b
12.3
4.6b
22.7b
9.0b
27.7b
11.6b
12.9
15.9b
11.9b
23.5b
7.9
19.4b
9.8b
9.1b
m
3.1
4.1b
4.0b
5.1b
6.1b
5.6b
16.1b
11.8b
40.8b
11.2b
24.5b
11.3b
7.4b
10.6
9.8b
16.8

7.8
10.8
14.3
10.6
5.2
20.7
8.2
11.9
12.5
13.9
12.0
27.7
16.7
4.7
18.7
7.5
15.2
m
2.7
7.7
3.5
10.1
5.2
6.7
17.5
14.8
39.2
15.4
31.4
13.2
8.8
8.5
7.7
10.6

11.4b
m
17.5b
14.9
m
28.3b
10.6b
29.0
16.4b
21.7
14.6b
14.0b
14.1b
m
9.8b
m
14.9b
m
7.3
5.4b
1.8b
4.9b
9.0b
c
32.4b
4.2b
55.7b
11.3b
17.8b
13.1b
c
5.7
9.1b
10.3

12.3b
15.4
23.0b
13.3
m
35.5b
9.7b
17.0
17.4b
18.8
25.6b
11.1b
16.7b
c
10.4b
14.1b
11.8b
m
8.1
8.1b
2.8b
8.7b
5.5b
14.4b
38.3b
9.0b
73.8b
16.1b
11.3b
17.8b
11.8b
11.3
7.8b
11.7

14.3b
15.2
23.4b
17.8
8.0b
28.9b
14.0b
33.6
16.4b
23.8
21.7b
17.2b
32.6b
16.5
32.0b
12.2b
15.0b
m
9.4
7.6b
5.4b
8.6b
8.9b
12.3b
22.6b
15.3b
63.8b
18.9b
31.4b
19.6b
13.3b
12.6
15.5b
20.3

12.4
18.5
24.7
14.4
8.9
26.8
14.7
15.0
18.1
23.6
18.3
37.4
23.4
7.9
34.3
9.7
25.1
m
6.9
14.2
4.7
13.8
8.8
11.8
23.6
17.6
55.9
29.2r
36.7
18.9
16.0
10.2
13.9
13.7

4.9b
m
3.8b
6.9
m
8.1b
3.1b
23.4
11.5b
8.5
15.8b
4.0b
3.9b
m
3.0b
m
6.4b
m
2.7
c
1.2b
2.1b
5.4b
c
7.7b
3.3b
30.6b
4.5b
10.8b
8.1b
c
2.4
5.5b
5.2

3.7b
c
6.1b
7.8
m
13.7b
6.5b
c
9.0b
6.3
18.3b
4.5b
6.4b
c
3.1b
10.2b
4.8b
m
2.3
c
1.9b
4.5b
1.8b
c
13.6b
6.4b
36.5b
2.9b
7.0b
5.2b
6.0b
4.2
3.2b
7.5

3.8b
c
6.4b
10.0
3.5b
14.7b
6.5b
17.5
8.5b
8.3
13.4b
7.0b
16.2b
c
11.4b
8.0b
5.6b
m
3.2
c
2.8b
3.3b
4.0b
c
11.4b
9.7b
22.8b
4.2b
18.4b
7.7b
5.4b
6.4
5.0b
10.1

5.1
6.4
8.0
8.9
3.8
14.0
5.4
c
10.4
9.2
8.3
20.5
12.7
3.1
13.0
6.5
8.9
m
2.5
c
2.5
9.9
3.7
2.2
13.0
15.6
25.4
7.9r
27.0
7.2
5.8
6.5
5.0
8.2

OECD average
EU21 average

9.9b
11.9b

10.7b
12.8b

12.6b
15.2b

12.8
16.2

15.0b
17.2b

16.4b
19.2b

19.0b
22.7b

19.1
24.0

7.4b
8.6b

7.5b
8.8b

8.8b
10.4b

9.2
12.0

Argentina
Brazil1, 3
China
Colombia
Costa Rica
India
Indonesia
Latvia
Lithuania
Russian Federation1
Saudi Arabia
South Africa

m
m
m
m
m
m
m
19.0b
21.0b
m
m
m

m
m
m
m
m
m
m
12.9b
c
m
m
m

m
5.7b
m
m
7.5b
m
m
27.6b
37.8b
m
m
m

m
4.5
m
6.2
7.1
m
m
23.6
25.0
12.5
m
m

m
m
m
m
m
m
m
25.7b
c
m
m
m

m
m
m
m
m
m
m
16.4b
c
m
m
m

m
8.5b
m
m
9.4b
m
m
26.7b
39.2b
m
m
m

m
7.4
m
8.0
9.9
m
m
24.3
c
15.3
m
m

m
m
m
m
m
m
m
8.0b
c
m
m
m

m
m
m
m
m
m
m
7.6b
c
m
m
m

m
2.8b
m
m
5.6b
m
m
24.0b
c
m
m
m

m
2.4
m
5.6
4.9
m
m
22.9r
c
6.6
m
m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

G20 average

Notes: In most countries, there is a break in the series, represented by the code “b”, as data for the latest year refer to ISCED 2011 while data for previous years refer
to ISCED-97. For Korea data refer to ISCED-97 for all years. See the description of the levels of education in the Definitions section. Columns showing data for other
age groups are available for consultation on line (see StatLink below).
1. Brazil, Chile, France, the Russian Federation: Data for year 2014 refer to year 2013.
2. The United Kingdom: Data for upper secondary attainment includes completion of a sufficient volume and standard of programmes that would be classified
individually as completion of intermediate upper secondary programmes (18% of the adults are under this group).
3. Brazil: Data for year 2010 refer to year 2009.
Source: OECD. Colombia, Costa Rica: OECD Education Database. Latvia, Lithuania: Eurostat. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/education/education-at-aglance-19991487.htm).
Please refer to the Reader’s Guide for information concerning symbols for missing data and abbreviations.
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933285011

110 Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

chapter A

How does educational attainment affect participation in the labour market? – INDICATOR A5

Table A5.4a. [2/3] Trends in unemployment rates, by educational attainment and age group

A5

(2000, 2005, 2010 and 2014)

Percentage of unemployed adults, by age group among adults in the same age group who are in the labour force

Partners

OECD

Upper secondary or post-secondary non-tertiary
Unemployment rates of 25-64 year-olds

Unemployment rates of 25-34 year-olds

Unemployment rates of 55-64 year-olds

2000

2005

2010

2014

2000

2005

2010

2014

2000

2005

2010

2014

(21)

(22)

(23)

(24)

(25)

(26)

(27)

(28)

(37)

(38)

(39)

(40)

Australia
Austria
Belgium
Canada
Chile1
Czech Republic
Denmark
Estonia
Finland
France1
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Iceland
Ireland
Israel
Italy
Japan
Korea
Luxembourg
Mexico
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Slovak Republic
Slovenia
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Turkey
United Kingdom2
United States

4.5b
m
5.3b
5.9
m
6.7b
3.9b
14.5
8.8b
8.0
7.8b
11.2b
5.3b
m
2.6b
m
7.2b
m
4.1
1.6b
2.2b
2.3b
3.9b
2.6b
13.9b
3.5b
14.3b
5.7b
10.9b
5.3b
2.2b
5.5
4.0b
3.6

3.4b
4.5
6.9b
5.9
m
6.2b
4.0b
8.4
7.4b
6.6
11.0b
9.6b
6.0b
c
3.1b
9.4b
5.2b
m
3.8
3.2b
3.1b
4.1b
2.3b
2.6b
16.6b
6.7b
12.7b
5.7b
7.3b
6.0b
3.7b
9.1
3.1b
5.1

3.6b
4.0
6.6b
7.6
6.2b
6.2b
6.1b
18.0
7.5b
7.2
6.9b
12.5b
9.5b
6.8
13.8b
6.8b
6.1b
m
3.5
3.6b
4.5b
3.1b
4.5b
2.2b
8.9b
9.7b
12.3b
6.9b
17.2b
6.4b
4.1b
11.3
5.9b
11.2

4.6
4.5
7.3
6.5
5.6
5.4
5.1
7.8
8.1
8.5
4.6
27.6
6.5
4.1
11.9
6.2
9.1
m
3.3
5.1
4.4
7.1
4.5
2.4
8.6
12.6
11.3
9.7
21.6
4.9
3.8
9.1
3.9
7.2

5.3b
m
6.7b
6.8
m
8.7b
3.9b
15.4
10.4b
10.3
6.2b
15.6b
6.8b
m
2.7b
m
12.2b
m
5.0
2.2b
2.5b
2.2b
4.7b
3.7b
16.8b
3.5b
17.7b
5.8b
12.9b
5.6b
2.8b
7.1
4.7b
4.4

4.0b
5.3
9.4b
6.6
m
7.0b
4.3b
7.2
8.0b
9.3
10.9b
13.1b
7.3b
c
3.7b
10.4b
8.1b
m
5.7
4.0b
4.1b
3.9b
3.0b
4.1b
19.9b
8.3b
13.8b
6.7b
8.9b
8.5b
4.7b
11.9
4.1b
6.9

5.0b
5.7
10.2b
9.2
8.1b
7.4b
7.6b
19.4
8.1b
10.8
7.4b
16.3b
11.4b
11.8
18.7b
8.0b
10.1b
m
6.2
4.8b
5.8b
3.4b
7.2b
3.8b
11.5b
11.5b
14.6b
10.2b
21.6b
8.4b
5.4b
13.3
8.1b
14.3

5.9
6.3
10.8
8.0
7.5
7.0
6.9
9.2
9.3
13.5
4.9
36.0
8.5
7.1
16.5
7.8
15.9
m
7.0
4.2r
5.7
7.1
6.7
3.7
11.7
14.9
15.4
14.5
25.9
6.2
5.1
10.9
5.4
10.1

4.1b
m
3.5b
5.5
m
5.3b
4.9b
3.9
9.7b
7.7
13.7b
c
3.6b
m
c
m
1.6b
m
3.7
c
2.6b
2.5b
3.8b
c
11.6b
c
10.1b
10.9b
6.4b
6.6b
c
0.0
4.0b
3.1

3.4b
c
4.1b
5.3
m
4.9b
5.7b
5.9
7.0b
4.6
13.9b
c
4.0b
c
c
9.9b
2.4b
m
3.3
c
2.4b
4.6b
1.7b
c
13.0b
c
11.6b
6.3b
7.0b
5.4b
3.7b
4.5
2.4b
4.2

2.5b
2.8
4.1b
7.2
4.3b
6.5b
6.3b
17.3
7.5b
6.4
8.4b
7.5b
7.9b
c
8.6b
5.2b
2.5b
m
2.7
c
3.9b
2.5b
3.4b
c
7.8b
c
9.9b
5.0b
11.6b
6.3b
3.6b
10.7
5.0b
8.8

2.9
3.6
5.4
6.5
3.8
5.0
5.2
7.4
7.9
6.6
5.6
20.4
6.5
3.1
8.3
4.8
4.2
m
2.5
5.3r
4.1
8.4
3.1
1.4
7.1
12.9
10.3
10.0
16.6
5.8
3.1
7.7
3.3
5.4

OECD average
EU21 average

6.1b
7.1b

6.2b
6.9b

7.6b
8.5b

7.7
9.1

7.3b
8.5b

7.5b
8.2b

9.9b
10.8b

10.2
11.9

5.6b
6.6b

5.7b
6.4b

6.4b
7.1b

6.5
7.9

Argentina
Brazil1, 3
China
Colombia
Costa Rica
India
Indonesia
Latvia
Lithuania
Russian Federation1
Saudi Arabia
South Africa

m
m
m
m
m
m
m
14.5b
19.4b
m
m
m

m
m
m
m
m
m
m
9.0b
8.9b
m
m
m

m
7.2b
m
m
4.6b
m
m
18.7b
20.6b
m
m
m

m
5.6
m
8.4
6.6
m
m
11.2
13.1b
6.2
m
m

m
m
m
m
m
m
m
14.1b
20.0b
m
m
m

m
m
m
m
m
m
m
9.4b
c
m
m
m

m
9.8b
m
m
6.4b
m
m
18.1b
25.4b
m
m
m

m
7.5
m
10.3
11.0
m
m
11.3
14.9
7.6
m
m

m
m
m
m
m
m
m
11.1b
c
m
m
m

m
m
m
m
m
m
m
10.1b
c
m
m
m

m
4.2b
m
m
0.3b
m
m
17.3b
17.6b
m
m
m

m
2.6
m
5.6
1.5
m
m
10.9
13.9
4.4
m
m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

G20 average

Notes: In most countries, there is a break in the series, represented by the code “b”, as data for the latest year refer to ISCED 2011 while data for previous years refer
to ISCED-97. For Korea data refer to ISCED-97 for all years. See the description of the levels of education in the Definitions section. Columns showing data for other
age groups are available for consultation on line (see StatLink below).
1. Brazil, Chile, France, the Russian Federation: Data for year 2014 refer to year 2013.
2. The United Kingdom: Data for upper secondary attainment includes completion of a sufficient volume and standard of programmes that would be classified
individually as completion of intermediate upper secondary programmes (18% of the adults are under this group).
3. Brazil: Data for year 2010 refer to year 2009.
Source: OECD. Colombia, Costa Rica: OECD Education Database. Latvia, Lithuania: Eurostat. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/education/education-at-aglance-19991487.htm).
Please refer to the Reader’s Guide for information concerning symbols for missing data and abbreviations.
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933285011

Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

111

chapter A THE OUTPUT OF EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS AND THE IMPACT OF LEARNING

Table A5.4a. [3/3] Trends in unemployment rates, by educational attainment and age group

A5

(2000, 2005, 2010 and 2014)

Percentage of unemployed adults, by age group among adults in the same age group who are in the labour force

Partners

OECD

Tertiary
Unemployment rates of 25-64 year-olds

Unemployment rates of 25-34 year-olds

Unemployment rates of 55-64 year-olds

2000

2005

2010

2014

2000

2005

2010

2014

2000

2005

2010

2014

(41)

(42)

(43)

(44)

(45)

(46)

(47)

(48)

(57)

(58)

(59)

(60)

Australia
Austria
Belgium
Canada
Chile1
Czech Republic
Denmark
Estonia
Finland
France1
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Iceland
Ireland
Israel
Italy
Japan
Korea
Luxembourg
Mexico
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Slovak Republic
Slovenia
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Turkey
United Kingdom2
United States

3.6b
m
2.7b
4.0
m
2.5b
2.6b
4.6
4.9b
5.1
4.0b
7.5b
1.3b
m
1.6b
m
5.9b
m
3.6
c
2.4b
1.9b
3.3b
1.9b
4.3b
2.7b
4.6b
2.1b
9.5b
3.0b
1.4b
3.9
2.1b
1.8

2.5b
3.0
3.7b
4.6
m
2.0b
3.7b
3.8
4.4b
5.4
5.5b
7.1b
2.3b
c
2.0b
5.0b
5.7b
m
2.9
3.2b
3.7b
2.8b
2.3b
2.1b
6.2b
5.4b
4.4b
3.0b
6.0b
4.5b
2.7b
6.9
2.1b
2.6

2.8b
2.8
4.0b
5.5
5.6b
2.5b
4.6b
9.1
4.4b
4.9
3.1b
8.7b
4.1b
3.6
7.0b
4.2b
5.6b
m
3.3
3.6b
4.9b
2.3b
3.8b
1.6b
4.2b
6.3b
4.8b
4.1b
10.4b
4.5b
2.9b
7.9
3.5b
5.3

3.2
3.7
4.2
4.8
4.9
2.6
4.4
4.7
5.1
5.3
2.5
19.1
2.7
3.6
6.1
3.9
7.6
m
3.1
3.6
5.0
3.9
2.7
1.9
4.1
8.9
5.8
6.1
13.8
4.0
3.2
8.2
2.5
3.7

3.8b
m
3.3b
4.6
m
3.4b
4.2b
4.1
6.7b
6.6
2.7b
13.7b
1.6b
m
2.0b
m
15.5b
m
4.6
c
3.5b
2.0b
3.6b
2.7b
7.4b
4.3b
7.0b
3.8b
14.5b
3.2b
c
6.5
2.0b
2.0

2.8b
3.7
4.9b
5.3
m
2.4b
5.0b
3.1
4.8b
6.4
5.8b
13.3b
3.1b
c
2.4b
5.4b
13.8b
m
4.2
2.7b
5.5b
2.6b
3.3b
3.1b
9.8b
9.2b
5.3b
5.1b
8.3b
7.1b
3.4b
10.9
2.4b
3.0

3.1b
3.8
5.1b
5.9
9.5b
3.9b
7.2b
5.3
5.6b
6.3
3.5b
16.9b
6.3b
c
8.2b
5.6b
12.8b
m
5.0
4.1b
6.5b
2.3b
5.5b
2.3b
6.5b
9.4b
6.3b
7.9b
13.9b
5.8b
4.0b
11.9
4.1b
5.3

3.3
5.2
5.4
5.3
7.2
4.3
7.2
6.0
6.2
7.0
3.4
32.5
3.6
4.6
6.9
5.2
17.7
m
5.1
5.4
7.3
4.0
3.1
3.4
6.5
14.0
8.6
11.9
19.4
4.9
4.6
11.4
2.9
3.9

3.5b
m
c
3.4
m
2.2b
2.9b
3.7
6.5b
4.3
7.5b
c
c
m
c
m
0.7b
m
3.1
c
2.2b
c
3.9b
c
6.7b
c
c
c
4.1b
2.9b
c
3.3
3.7b
c

2.6b
c
c
4.1
m
c
3.6b
c
4.6b
4.3
7.8b
c
c
c
c
5.0b
1.0b
m
1.8
c
3.1b
3.1b
1.9b
c
4.5b
c
7.7b
c
3.6b
2.3b
c
4.3
2.8b
2.3

1.8b
c
3.5b
5.3
3.1b
c
3.5b
14.4
4.1b
4.5
4.3b
c
c
c
4.5b
3.6b
0.8b
m
2.2
c
4.4b
2.8b
2.7b
c
2.0b
c
4.3b
c
5.5b
3.5b
2.4b
3.8
3.8b
5.5

3.2
2.7
3.2
5.1
3.3
c
3.6
2.9
5.2
4.8
3.0
7.8
c
2.9
6.1
3.1
1.4
m
2.4
c
3.5
5.2
3.2
0.6
2.6
c
4.1r
2.9r
8.8
3.6
2.6
4.8
3.0
4.5

OECD average
EU21 average

3.5b
3.8b

3.9b
4.1b

4.7b
5.0b

5.1
5.7

5.2b
5.7b

5.4b
5.8b

6.6b
6.9b

7.5
8.7

3.8b
4.1b

3.7b
4.1b

4.0b
4.4b

3.8
4.2

Argentina
Brazil1, 3
China
Colombia
Costa Rica
India
Indonesia
Latvia
Lithuania
Russian Federation1
Saudi Arabia
South Africa

m
m
m
m
m
m
m
7.5b
8.8b
m
m
m

m
m
m
m
m
m
m
4.1b
c
m
m
m

m
3.5b
m
m
3.2b
m
m
9.9b
6.8b
m
m
m

m
2.9
m
7.4
4.1
m
m
5.1
3.7
2.9
m
m

m
m
m
m
m
m
m
7.2b
12.0b
m
m
m

m
m
m
m
m
m
m
4.0b
c
m
m
m

m
5.3b
m
m
4.6b
m
m
12.2b
8.2b
m
m
m

m
4.4
m
9.5
5.9
m
m
5.6
4.4
3.6
m
m

m
m
m
m
m
m
m
6.8b
c
m
m
m

m
m
m
m
m
m
m
4.3b
c
m
m
m

m
2.0b
m
m
2.3b
m
m
8.5b
c
m
m
m

m
1.5
m
5.7
4.4
m
m
4.3r
c
2.9
m
m

G20 average

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

Notes: In most countries, there is a break in the series, represented by the code “b”, as data for the latest year refer to ISCED 2011 while data for previous years refer
to ISCED-97. For Korea data refer to ISCED-97 for all years. See the description of the levels of education in the Definitions section. Columns showing data for other
age groups are available for consultation on line (see StatLink below).
1. Brazil, Chile, France, the Russian Federation: Data for year 2014 refer to year 2013.
2. The United Kingdom: Data for upper secondary attainment includes completion of a sufficient volume and standard of programmes that would be classified
individually as completion of intermediate upper secondary programmes (18% of the adults are under this group).
3. Brazil: Data for year 2010 refer to year 2009.
Source: OECD. Colombia, Costa Rica: OECD Education Database. Latvia, Lithuania: Eurostat. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/education/education-at-aglance-19991487.htm).
Please refer to the Reader’s Guide for information concerning symbols for missing data and abbreviations.
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933285011

112 Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

How does educational attainment affect participation in the labour market? – INDICATOR A5

chapter A

Table A5.5a. Employment, unemployment and inactivity rates of adults with upper secondary

A5

or post-secondary non-tertiary education, by programme orientation (2014)

25-64 year-olds with upper secondary or post-secondary non-tertiary education as the highest level of attainment

Partners

OECD

Employment rate

Unemployment rate

General

Inactivity rate
Vocational

General

Vocational
and general

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

Vocational
and general
(6)

(7)

(8)

(9)

Australia
Austria
Belgium
Canada
Chile1
Czech Republic
Denmark
Estonia
Finland
France1
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Iceland
Ireland
Israel
Italy
Japan
Korea
Luxembourg
Mexico
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Slovak Republic
Slovenia
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Turkey
United Kingdom2
United States

82
76
75
79
77
75
81
m
77
73
81
58
m
90
69
80
72
m
m
88
m
79
82
83
67
78
71
80
66
86
83
66
81
m

72
75
68
72
70
80
61
m
69
75
62
53
m
79
66
70
62
m
m
75
m
73
77
78
64
77
67
48r
66
82
78
59
79
m

77
76
73
74
72
78
79
74
73
73
80
54
72
87
68
72
70
m
72
72
73
78
80
81
66
78
71
69
66
85
82
62
80
68

4.6
4.3
6.6
6.2
4.6
6.9
6.6
m
9.0
9.0
4.6
30.4
m
3.5
16.4
5.3
8.9
m
m
5.2
m
6.9
4.6
2.1
8.4
14.9
11.2
13.7
22.9
4.3
3.5
8.1
4.1
m

4.5
6.0
9.1
6.7
6.0
4.0
12.1r
m
8.3
8.0
6.2
26.1
m
5.3
15.8
6.5
9.9
m
m
c
m
8.6
4.3
3.3
10.4
11.8
12.2
c
20.7
5.8
5.2
10.1
3.6
m

4.6
4.5
7.3
6.5
5.6
5.4
5.1
7.8
8.1
8.0
4.6
27.6
6.5
4.1
11.9
6.2
9.1
m
3.3
5.1
4.4
7.1
4.5
2.4
8.6
12.6
11.3
9.7
21.6
4.9
3.8
9.1
3.9
7.2

15
21
20
15
20
20
13
m
15
20
16
16
m
7
18
15
21
m
m
7
m
16
14
16
27
8
20
7
15
10
14
29
16
m

25
20
25
23
25
16
31
m
25
19
33
29
m
16
22
25
31
m
m
c
m
20
19
19
29
12
24
42r
17
13
17
35
18
m

19
21
21
21
24
18
16
19
20
20
16
25
23
10
23
23
23
m
25
24
24
16
16
16
28
11
20
23
16
11
14
32
17
27

OECD average
EU21 average

77
75

70
69

74
73

8.5
10.2

8.9
10.5

7.7
9.1

16
16

23
24

20
20

Argentina
Brazil1
China
Colombia
Costa Rica
India
Indonesia
Latvia
Lithuania
Russian Federation1
Saudi Arabia
South Africa

m
m
m
m
74
m
m
80

m
m
m
m
73
m
m
76

m
76
m
76
73
m
m
71

m
m
m
m
4.2
m
m
10.6

m
m
m
m
6.9
m
m
11.0

m
5.6
m
8.4
6.6
m
m
11.2

m
m
m
m
23
m
m
11

m
m
m
m
21
m
m
15

m
19
m
17
21
m
m
20

77

74

70

14.8

c

13

20

m
m
m

72
m
m

m
m
m

15.1
m
m
m

13.1

m
m
m

6.2
m
m

m
m
m

m
m
m

23
m
m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

G20 average

Vocational

Vocational
and general

Vocational

General

Notes: “Vocational and general” also includes people in programmes for which no orientation is specified. Denmark, Finland, Ireland, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg,
Slovenia: Data for the breakdown by programme orientation cover only 15-34 year-olds and 35-64 year-olds if those individuals had completed their highest level of
education 15 years, at most, before the date of the interview. In most countries, data refer to ISCED 2011. The countries with data that refer to ISCED-97 are: Brazil,
Indonesia, the Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia and South Africa. See the description of the levels of education in the Definitions section.
1. Brazil, Chile, France, the Russian Federation: Year of reference 2013.
2. The United Kingdom: Data for upper secondary attainment includes completion of a sufficient volume and standard of programmes that would be classified
individually as completion of intermediate upper secondary programmes (18% of the adults are under this group).
Source: OECD. Colombia, Costa Rica: OECD Education Database. Latvia, Lithuania: Eurostat. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/education/education-at-aglance-19991487.htm).
Please refer to the Reader’s Guide for information concerning symbols for missing data and abbreviations.
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933285023

Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

113

chapter A THE OUTPUT OF EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS AND THE IMPACT OF LEARNING

Table A5.6a. [1/2] Skills and readiness to use information and communication technologies

A5

for problem solving among 25-64 year-olds, by ICT skills required at work (2012)
Complex ICT skills required at work

OECD

Group 2
Group 1
Group 3
(Failed ICT core
(Refused
the computer- test or minimal (Moderate ICT
and problemproblembased
solving skills) solving skills)
assessment)
%
S.E.
%
S.E.
%
S.E.
(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

Moderate ICT skills required at work
Group 4
(Good ICT
and problemsolving skills)
%
S.E.
(7)

(8)

Group 2
Group 1
Group 3
(Failed ICT core
(Refused
Group 4
the computer- test or minimal (Moderate ICT
(Good ICT
and problem- and problemproblembased
solving skills) solving skills) solving skills)
assessment)
%
S.E.
%
S.E.
%
S.E.
%
S.E.

(1)

(2)

(9)

(10)

(11)

(12)

(13)

(14)

(15)

(16)

Australia

3

(1.0)

4

(1.4)

26

(3.1)

67

(3.3)

6

(0.7)

8

(0.9)

30

(1.4)

56

(1.7)

Austria

c

c

7

(2.7)

25

(5.0)

68

(5.1)

4

(0.6)

9

(1.0)

36

(2.1)

51

(2.1)

Canada

1

(0.4)

9

(1.5)

24

(2.5)

66

(2.7)

2

(0.3)

13

(0.7)

32

(1.1)

53

(1.0)

Czech Republic

c

c

3

(3.4)

30

(7.6)

66

(7.6)

6

(1.0)

9

(1.4)

31

(2.7)

54

(2.6)

Denmark

1

(0.4)

6

(1.3)

24

(3.5)

69

(3.4)

2

(0.3)

11

(0.8)

36

(1.1)

51

(1.3)

Estonia

4

(1.4)

8

(2.3)

23

(3.8)

66

(4.1)

10

(0.6)

14

(0.9)

37

(1.2)

39

(1.4)

Finland

2

(0.8)

10

(2.4)

20

(3.8)

69

(4.4)

3

(0.4)

9

(0.9)

31

(1.2)

57

(1.1)

France

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

Germany

c

c

5

(1.8)

19

(4.6)

75

(4.6)

2

(0.4)

9

(1.1)

34

(1.6)

56

(1.8)
(1.8)

National entities

Ireland

c

c

8

(2.3)

31

(4.0)

60

(4.5)

5

(0.7)

10

(1.1)

37

(2.0)

48

Italy

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

Japan

c

c

11

(3.8)

14

(4.3)

73

(5.5)

6

(0.7)

15

(1.1)

23

(1.4)

57

(1.5)

Korea

c

c

7

(2.6)

31

(5.7)

61

(5.8)

1

(0.3)

14

(1.2)

37

(1.8)

48

(2.1)

Netherlands

c

c

6

(1.9)

24

(3.3)

69

(3.4)

1

(0.3)

8

(0.8)

33

(1.5)

58

(1.6)
(1.4)

Norway

c

c

8

(2.0)

25

(3.2)

66

(3.3)

1

(0.2)

9

(0.8)

34

(1.3)

56

Poland

8

(3.1)

17

(3.6)

23

(5.8)

53

(6.2)

18

(1.5)

17

(1.6)

29

(2.3)

36

(2.0)

Slovak Republic

c

c

6

(2.3)

28

(5.5)

64

(5.7)

7

(0.8)

11

(1.1)

39

(1.9)

42

(1.9)

Spain

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

Sweden

c

c

5

(1.5)

16

(2.8)

77

(3.1)

2

(0.3)

9

(0.8)

31

(1.4)

58

(1.4)

United States

c

c

8

(2.6)

30

(4.1)

61

(4.6)

2

(0.5)

12

(1.2)

35

(2.1)

52

(2.2)

Flanders (Belgium)

c

c

7

(1.8)

30

(3.4)

62

(3.5)

2

(0.3)

10

(1.0)

35

(1.5)

54

(1.6)

England (UK)

c

c

4

(1.6)

21

(3.4)

73

(3.8)

2

(0.5)

9

(1.0)

33

(1.8)

55

(1.7)

Northern Ireland (UK)

c

c

c

c

26

(6.0)

71

(6.8)

0

(0.2)

10

(1.8)

40

(2.1)

49

(2.1)

England/N. Ireland (UK)

c

c

4

(1.6)

21

(3.3)

73

(3.7)

2

(0.5)

9

(1.0)

34

(1.7)

55

(1.6)

Average

m

m

7

(0.5)

24

(1.0)

66

(1.1)

4

(0.1)

11

(0.2)

33

(0.4)

52

(0.4)

Russian Federation*

8

(3.2)

22

(10.1)

28

(9.3)

42

(8.7)

13

(4.4)

16

(3.2)

32

(4.2)

39

(3.9)

Partners

Sub-national entities

* See note on data for the Russian Federation in the Methodology section.
Source: OECD. Survey of Adult Skills (PIAAC) (2012). See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/education/education-at-a-glance-19991487.htm).
Please refer to the Reader’s Guide for information concerning symbols for missing data and abbreviations.
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933285038

114 Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

How does educational attainment affect participation in the labour market? – INDICATOR A5

chapter A

Table A5.6a. [2/2] Skills and readiness to use information and communication technologies

A5

for problem solving among 25-64 year-olds, by ICT skills required at work (2012)
Straightforward ICT skills required at work

ICT skills not required at work

Group 2
Group 1
Group 2
Group 1
Group 3
(Failed ICT
(Refused
Group 3
(Failed ICT
(Refused
(Moderate
core test
the
(Moderate
core test
the
Group 4
Group 4
ICT and
or minimal
computerGroup 0
ICT and
or minimal
computer(Good ICT
(Good ICT
problem- and problemproblembased
problem- and problem- (No computer
problembased
assessment) solving skills) solving skills) solving skills) experience) assessment) solving skills) solving skills) solving skills)
%
S.E.
%
S.E.
%
S.E.
%
S.E.
%
S.E.
%
S.E.
%
S.E.
%
S.E.
%
S.E.
OECD

(17)

(18)

(19)

(20)

(21)

(22)

(23)

(24)

(25)

(26)

(27)

(28)

(29)

(30)

(31)

(32)

(33)

(34)

National entities

Australia

17

(1.4)

18

(1.8)

37

(1.8)

28

(2.0)

11

(1.0)

31

(1.8)

18

(1.6)

25

(2.2)

14

(1.9)

Austria

15

(1.4)

19

(1.9)

40

(2.6)

27

(1.9)

27

(1.6)

22

(1.4)

20

(1.7)

22

(2.0)

10

(1.4)

Canada

8

(0.7)

30

(1.2)

36

(1.6)

27

(1.2)

16

(0.8)

14

(0.9)

32

(1.4)

24

(1.2)

13

(1.1)

Czech Republic

20

(2.3)

21

(2.9)

38

(3.4)

21

(2.7)

20

(1.7)

19

(2.1)

25

(2.6)

24

(2.5)

12

(1.9)
(2.1)

Denmark

7

(0.7)

28

(1.9)

39

(1.9)

26

(1.8)

8

(1.0)

16

(1.5)

36

(2.3)

26

(2.4)

13

Estonia

22

(1.2)

28

(1.8)

34

(1.8)

16

(1.6)

19

(0.9)

26

(1.0)

24

(1.3)

22

(1.2)

8

(0.9)

Finland

11

(1.0)

25

(1.8)

37

(1.9)

28

(1.8)

12

(1.4)

24

(1.6)

26

(1.8)

25

(2.0)

14

(1.6)

France

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

Germany

6

(0.9)

27

(2.5)

40

(2.2)

27

(1.8)

23

(1.9)

13

(1.4)

29

(2.0)

24

(1.7)

11

(1.2)
(1.1)

Ireland

22

(1.6)

25

(2.2)

35

(2.2)

18

(1.5)

23

(1.3)

28

(1.7)

21

(1.7)

19

(1.8)

8

Italy

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

Japan

21

(1.7)

25

(1.9)

24

(1.6)

30

(1.7)

34

(1.8)

25

(1.9)

19

(1.5)

13

(1.3)

9

(1.4)

Korea

9

(1.0)

31

(1.7)

41

(2.2)

19

(1.6)

42

(1.5)

9

(0.8)

24

(1.3)

19

(1.3)

6

(0.8)

Netherlands

5

(0.9)

25

(2.3)

44

(2.6)

26

(2.2)

12

(1.4)

12

(1.4)

31

(2.1)

32

(2.3)

13

(1.8)

Norway

10

(1.1)

25

(1.9)

39

(2.1)

26

(1.7)

6

(0.9)

21

(1.8)

35

(2.7)

28

(2.8)

12

(1.7)

Poland

29

(2.0)

28

(2.2)

25

(2.3)

18

(2.0)

34

(1.2)

32

(1.3)

18

(1.4)

10

(1.1)

5

(0.8)
(1.2)

Slovak Republic

22

(2.1)

18

(2.5)

39

(3.0)

21

(2.2)

40

(1.4)

17

(1.1)

12

(1.1)

21

(1.3)

11

Spain

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

Sweden

5

(0.7)

25

(1.7)

40

(2.0)

30

(1.9)

6

(1.5)

17

(1.9)

32

(2.5)

26

(2.6)

19

(2.1)

United States

7

(1.0)

28

(2.0)

44

(2.4)

22

(2.1)

20

(2.0)

14

(1.5)

34

(2.8)

23

(2.3)

8

(1.2)

Partners

Sub-national entities

Flanders (Belgium)

6

(1.0)

30

(2.0)

41

(2.4)

23

(2.1)

21

(1.4)

11

(1.1)

33

(2.2)

26

(1.9)

10

(1.1)

England (UK)

5

(1.0)

32

(2.4)

41

(2.7)

23

(2.0)

10

(1.4)

10

(1.4)

35

(2.9)

32

(2.7)

12

(1.7)

Northern Ireland (UK)

3

(0.7)

32

(3.2)

42

(3.0)

23

(2.8)

29

(2.4)

4

(1.0)

35

(3.1)

26

(2.7)

6

(1.5)

England/N. Ireland (UK)

5

(0.9)

32

(2.3)

41

(2.6)

23

(1.9)

11

(1.4)

10

(1.4)

35

(2.9)

32

(2.6)

11

(1.6)

Average

13

(0.3)

26

(0.5)

38

(0.5)

24

(0.4)

20

(0.3)

19

(0.3)

27

(0.5)

23

(0.5)

11

(0.3)

Russian Federation*

17

(2.4)

19

(3.6)

32

(3.7)

32

(3.9)

31

(3.3)

14

(1.7)

17

(2.7)

21

(2.0)

17

(1.7)

Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

115

* See note on data for the Russian Federation in the Methodology section.
Source: OECD. Survey of Adult Skills (PIAAC) (2012). See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/education/education-at-a-glance-19991487.htm).
Please refer to the Reader’s Guide for information concerning symbols for missing data and abbreviations.
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933285038

INDICATOR A6

WHAT ARE THE EARNINGS ADVANTAGES FROM EDUCATION?
• In all OECD countries, adults with tertiary education earn more than adults with upper secondary
education who, in turn, earn more than adults with below upper secondary education.

• Across OECD countries, compared with adults with upper secondary education with income from
employment, those without that level of education earn about 20% less, those with post-secondary
non-tertiary education earn about 10% more, and those with a tertiary degree earn about 60%
more.

• Across OECD countries, people with a master’s, doctoral or equivalent degree have the highest
earnings advantages. In Brazil and Chile, these people are the most highly rewarded, relative to
people with less education, as they earn more than four times the income of a person with upper
secondary education.

Chart A6.1. Relative earnings of tertiary-educated workers,
by level of tertiary education (2013)
25-64 year-olds with income from employment; upper secondary education = 100
300
280
260
240
220
200
180
160
140
120
100

Bachelor’s or equivalent

Master’s, doctoral or equivalent

All tertiary

450

564

Sweden
Norway
Denmark
Australia1
Estonia2
New Zealand
Belgium2
Canada1
Italy3
Korea
Finland1
Greece
United Kingdom4
Spain1
Japan1, 5
Austria6
France3
Switzerland2
Netherlands5, 7
Luxembourg2
OECD average
Israel
Portugal
Poland1, 5
Slovak Republic
Slovenia
Czech Republic
United States
Ireland8
Turkey8
Mexico1, 5
Hungary
Colombia
Brazil2
Chile3

Index

Note: Tertiary education includes short cycle tertiary, bachelor’s, master’s, doctoral or equivalent degrees.
1. Australia, Canada, Finland, Japan, Mexico, Poland, Spain: Year of reference 2012.
2. Belgium, Brazil, Estonia, Luxembourg, Switzerland: Index 100 refers to the combined ISCED levels 3 and 4 of the educational
attainment levels in the ISCED 2011 classification.
3. Chile, France, Italy: Year of reference 2011.
4. The United Kingdom: Data for upper secondary attainment includes completion of a sufficient volume and standard of programmes
that would be classified individually as completion of intermediate upper secondary programmes (18% of the adults are under this
group).
5. Japan, Mexico, the Netherlands, Poland: Index 100 refers to the combined ISCED levels 3 and 4 of the educational attainment
levels in the ISCED-97 classification.
6. Austria: Master’s, doctoral or equivalent are included in bachelor’s or equivalent.
7. The Netherlands: Year of reference 2010.
8. Ireland, Turkey: Earnings net of income tax.
Countries are ranked in ascending order of the relative earnings of 25-64 year-olds with tertiary education.
Source: OECD. Table A6.1a. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/education/education-at-a-glance-19991487.htm).
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933283686

Context
Even if having a better job is only one among many of the positive social and individual outcomes of
attaining higher qualifications, data show that higher levels of education usually translate into better
chances of employment (see Indicator A5) and higher earnings. In fact, in all OECD countries for which
information is available, the higher the level of education, the greater the relative earnings. This also
seems to hold true for skills: individuals with high literacy proficiency, as measured in the Survey of
Adult Skills, a product of the OECD Programme for the International Assessment of Adult Competencies
(PIAAC), were observed to earn the highest wages, while those with low skills proficiency generally
earned the lowest income (see Indicator A6 in Education at a Glance 2014) (OECD, 2014).

116 Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

The potential to earn more and see those earnings increase over time, along with other social benefits,
is an incentive for individuals to pursue education and training; this is true even though the economic
rewards vary, according to the chosen field of education (See Box A6.1 in Education at a Glance 2013,
OECD [2013]). While relative earnings for individuals with higher educational attainment tend to
increase with age, relative earnings for people with below upper secondary education tend to decrease.
“Relative earnings” are percentages of the earnings of adults with levels of education other than upper
secondary relative to the earnings of those with upper secondary education.

INDICATOR A6

Variations in relative earnings among countries reflect a number of factors, including the demand for
skills in the labour market, the supply of workers at various levels of educational attainment, minimum
wage laws, the strength of labour unions, the coverage of collective-bargaining agreements, relative
incidence of part-time and seasonal work and/or the age composition of the labour force. Variations
in relative earnings among countries can also be due to more homogeneous earnings independent of
education levels or to particularly high or low earnings for the reference group.
The data in this indicator show that earnings advantages vary according to education, age and gender.
Each of these factors seems to play a role in individuals’ earnings advantages to different extents.
The higher the qualification attained, the better-placed individuals are to earn higher wages and to
see increases in those wages over time. However, in many countries, gender gaps in earnings persist,
regardless of the level of education.
Other findings

• About 25% of tertiary-educated individuals earn more than twice the median. They are substantially
less likely to be in the low-earnings category than those with below upper secondary education.
About 10% of tertiary-educated workers earn at or below half the median, compared with about
25% of workers with below upper secondary education. Only 3% of those workers earn more than
twice the median.

• About 65% of 15-24 year-old non-students have earnings from employment, while fewer than half
of students (around 40%) do. In OECD countries, about 50% of 15-24 year-olds have income from
employment.

Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

117

chapter A THE OUTPUT OF EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS AND THE IMPACT OF LEARNING

A6

Analysis
Educational attainment and relative earnings
The higher the level of education, the higher the relative earnings. “Relative earnings” refers to the earnings of
adults with income from employment who have an educational attainment other than upper secondary, relative to
the earnings of those with upper secondary education.
In all OECD countries, adults with tertiary education earn more than adults with upper secondary education who, in
turn, earn more than adults with below upper secondary education. In many countries, upper secondary education
is the level beyond which further education and training implies high relative earnings. As such, upper secondary
education can be considered the benchmark against which earnings related to educational attainment can be
measured. Since private investment costs beyond upper secondary education rise considerably in most countries,
a high earnings advantage is an important incentive for individuals to invest time and money in further education
(Table A6.1a).
Earnings differentials between adults with tertiary education and those with upper secondary education are
generally more pronounced than the differentials between upper secondary and below upper secondary education.
Across OECD countries, compared with adults with upper secondary education with income from employment,
those without this qualification earn about 20% less, those with post-secondary non-tertiary education about 10%
more, those with a tertiary degree earn about 60% more. The 60% earnings advantage accrues only to those with a
bachelor’s or equivalent degree. Those with a short-cycle tertiary degree earn only about 25% more, but those with
a master’s, doctoral or equivalent degree earn more than twice as much as those with upper secondary education as
their highest level of attainment. The results show that continuing tertiary education after a bachelor’s degree pays
off (Table A6.1a).
Chart A6.1 shows that the relative earnings advantages of tertiary-educated workers are largest in Brazil, Chile and
Colombia and are smallest in Denmark, Norway and Sweden. This is even more pronounced when looking at people
with a master’s, doctoral or equivalent degree. In Brazil and Chile, people with those degrees are the most highly
rewarded, relative to persons with less education, as they earn more than four times the income of a person with
upper secondary education as their highest level of attainment (Table A6.1a).

Relative earnings, by gender
Across OECD countries, relative earnings are affected by educational attainment to various degrees. On average,
there are no large gender differences in the relative earnings of tertiary-educated adults with income from
employment. A man or a woman with tertiary education earns about 65% more than a person of the same gender
with upper secondary education as his or her highest level of attainment (Table A6.1a.).
However, gender differences in relative earnings among tertiary-educated adults do vary across countries. In all cases,
the differences are relative to the earnings of adults of the same gender with upper secondary education as their
highest level of attainment and who have income from employment. In Australia, Belgium, Colombia, Estonia, Japan,
Korea, Spain, Turkey and the United Kingdom, women’s relative earnings are more than 10 percentage points higher
than men’s, while in Austria, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Hungary, Israel, Italy, Mexico, Poland, the
Slovak Republic, Slovenia and the United States, men’s relative earnings are more than 10 percentage points higher
than women’s. The gender differences in relative earnings tend to be larger among adults with a master’s, doctoral
or equivalent degree than with any other type of tertiary degree. When comparing the genders, it should be borne in
mind that there may be large differences between the two in the proportion of people with income from employment
(Table A6.1a).

Relative earnings, by age
Higher educational attainment is associated with higher earnings during a person’s working life. On average across
OECD countries, earnings increase with the level of educational attainment, but this increase is particularly large
for older workers. People with higher levels of education are more likely to be employed, and remain employed, and
have more opportunities to gain experience on the job.
Taking the OECD average as an example, young adults with tertiary education earn about 41% more of what young
adults with upper secondary education earn. Older adults earn about 77% more. Chart A6.2 shows the difference
between these two age groups.

118 Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

What are the earnings advantages from education? – INDICATOR A6

chapter A

Chart A6.2. Difference in relative earnings between older and younger
tertiary-educated workers, by level of tertiary education (2013)

A6

Relative earnings of 55-64 year-olds minus that of 25-34 year-olds with income from employment;
compared to earnings of workers with only upper secondary education
Bachelor’s or equivalent

Master’s, doctoral or equivalent

All tertiary

179

Percentage points

120
100
80
60
40

Korea

Turkey3

Greece

Slovenia

France7

Poland4, 6

Austria8

Italy7

Mexico4, 6

Slovak Republic

Norway

Colombia

Chile7

Portugal

Japan4, 6

Switzerland1

Finland6

Czech Republic

OECD average

Spain6

Hungary

Sweden

Denmark

Australia6

Canada6

Belgium1

United States

Netherlands4, 5

Ireland3

Brazil1

Luxembourg1

United Kingdom2

Israel

New Zealand

0

Estonia1

20

Note: Tertiary education includes short cycle tertiary, bachelor’s, master’s, doctoral or equivalent degrees.
1. Belgium, Brazil, Estonia, Luxembourg, Switzerland: Index 100 refers to the combined ISCED levels 3 and 4 of the educational attainment levels in
the ISCED 2011 classification.
2. The United Kingdom: Data for upper secondary attainment includes completion of a sufficient volume and standard of programmes that would
be classified individually as completion of intermediate upper secondary programmes (18% of the adults are under this group).
3. Ireland, Turkey: Earnings net of income tax.
4. Japan, Mexico, the Netherlands, Poland: Index 100 refers to the combined ISCED levels 3 and 4 of the educational attainment levels in the ISCED-97
classification.
5. The Netherlands: Year of reference 2010.
6. Australia, Canada, Finland, Japan, Mexico, Poland, Spain: Year of reference 2012.
7. Chile, France, Italy: Year of reference 2011.
8. Austria: Master’s, doctoral or equivalent are included in bachelor’s or equivalent.
Countries are ranked in ascending order of the percentage-point difference in relative earnings between 55-64 year-old and 25-34 year-old tertiary educated
workers.
Source: OECD. Table A6.1a. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/education/education-at-a-glance-19991487.htm).
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933283698

The relative earnings for tertiary-educated older adults are higher than those for younger adults in all OECD countries.
On average, the differential between the two groups is about 35 percentage points and is higher than 50 percentage
points in France, Greece, Korea, Poland, Slovenia and Turkey. The earnings differentials also increase with the different
levels of education within the category of tertiary education. Across OECD countries, the difference is 27 percentage
points for younger and older adults with a bachelor’s or equivalent qualification, and increases to 69 percentage points
for the two groups who hold a master’s, doctoral or equivalent qualification (Table A6.1a).
Distribution of earnings within levels of educational attainment
Data on the distribution of earnings within groups with different levels of education can show how tightly earnings
centre around the country median. In addition to providing information on equity in earnings, these data indicate
the risks associated with investing in education, as risk is typically measured by the variation in outcomes. Data
on the distribution of earnings (Table A6.4, available on line) include earnings from all employed individuals. This
limits the analysis as the hours worked influence earnings, in general, and the distribution of earnings, in particular
(see the Methodology section for further information).
For people with income from employment, the five earnings categories reported range from “At or below half the
median” income to “More than twice the median” income. As expected, there is a large difference between the
earnings of people with below upper secondary education and those with tertiary education. On average, tertiaryeducated individuals are substantially more likely to earn twice as much as the median worker (about 25% of these
Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

119

chapter A THE OUTPUT OF EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS AND THE IMPACT OF LEARNING

people do) and are substantially less likely to be in the low-earnings category (about 10% are) than people with
below upper secondary education as their highest level of attainment (3% earn more than twice the median and
about 25% earn at or below half the median) (Table A6.4, available on line).
Chart A6.3 shows the results for tertiary-educated workers (excluding short-cycle tertiary education) by comparing
the proportion of wage-earners at or below the median to those earning more than the median. On average,
about 70% of tertiary-educated workers earn more than the median and 30% less. There are some notable
differences in how well tertiary-educated individuals fare in different countries. In Brazil, Chile and Greece,
people with a tertiary degree can expect to earn more than the median (about 90% do) whereas in Norway
tertiary-educated adults have a 50/50 chance of earning more or less than the median. In most of other countries,
about 70% of tertiary-educated workers can expect to earn more than the median. In Brazil and Chile, 60%
or more of tertiary-educated adults earn twice as much as the median worker, while less than 5% of tertiaryeducated workers in Brazil, Chile, the Czech Republic, Greece, Hungary and Portugal earn less than half the
median (Table A6.4, available on line).
In all countries, individuals who remain with below upper secondary qualifications through their working life
usually face large earnings disadvantages. On average across OECD countries, less than 5% of those with below
upper secondary education earn twice the national median. Only in Brazil, Canada and Mexico is this proportion
larger than 5%. On average, over 25% of workers with below upper secondary education as their highest level of
attainment earn less than half the national median; in the United States, about 45% of this group do (Table A6.4,
available on line).

Chart A6.3. Earnings of adults with a bachelor’s, master’s, doctoral or equivalent degree
relative to the median earnings of all workers (2013)
25-64 year-olds with income from employment
More than twice the median
More than the median but at or below twice the median
More than half the median but at or below the median
At or below half of the median

%

100
90
36

80

34

32

31

31

29

27

26

25

26

24

17

13

12

4

46

71

36

33

39

35

37

34

48

47

52

54

24

21

11

13

13

12

11

11

13

14

Sweden

Denmark

Norway

9

25

New Zealand

12

24

Australia3

5 1

20

Finland3

10

20

19

Italy1

17

19

France1

16

16

17
14
2

Czech Republic

11

18

United Kingdom

10

35

Slovak Republic

Ireland2

Hungary

47

17
16

Canada3

14

Spain

16

4

Portugal

Brazil

2

18

United States

12

10
1

23

Israel

15

18

Austria

28

6

47

45

49

66

30

10

45

44

57

40

21

44

OECD average

40

0

28

17

60

50

20

28

Greece

60

35

18

44

70

Chile1

A6

Note: Data exclude short cycle tertiary education.
1. Chile, France, Italy: Year of reference 2011.
2. Ireland: Earnings net of income tax.
3. Australia, Canada, Finland: Year of reference 2012.
Countries are ranked in descending order of the percentage of 25-64 year-olds with a bachelor’s, master’s, doctoral or equivalent degree earning more than twice
the median.
Source: OECD. Table A6.4, available on line. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/education/education-at-a-glance-19991487.htm).
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933283705

120 Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

chapter A

What are the earnings advantages from education? – INDICATOR A6

Relative earnings of students
In OECD countries, about 50% of 15-24 year-olds have income from employment. In this age group, a majority
of non-students (about 65%) has earnings from employment, while less than half of students do (about 40%). In
Belgium, Chile and Greece, about 10% or less of 15-24 year-old students have earnings from employment. In some
countries, such as Switzerland, a proportion of students enrolled in upper secondary education has earnings based
on apprenticeship contracts, but these students are not included in these calculations (Table A6.5b).
Students with income from employment have fewer earnings than non-students. The relative earnings increase
from 43% for those with below upper secondary education to 63% for those with tertiary education (Table A6.5a).
These findings support the widespread notion that schooling beyond compulsory education implies a temporary
loss of income, even when combining studies and work. This loss of income, together with tuition fees and the need
to repay loans, may discourage some individuals from studying while being active in the labour market.
Relative earnings and skills supply

Chart A6.4. Relative earnings of tertiary-educated workers and their share
in the population (2013)
25-64 year-olds with income from employment; upper secondary education = 100
Population with
tertiary education (%)

60
Canada6
United
Kingdom7

50

Luxembourg1
Korea
Australia6
Norway
Finland
1
Estonia
Switzerland1
Sweden
Belgium1
Denmark
Spain6
New Zealand

40

Israel

United States
Ireland3

OECD

ge

avera

OECD average

France5

30

Austria
Greece
Japan2, 6, 8

Poland2, 6

Netherlands2, 4

100

120

140

Colombia
Chile2, 5

Czech Republic
OECD average

10

Hungary

Portugal

20
Italy5

Slovenia

160

Slovak
Republic

Mexico2, 6
Turkey3
Brazil

180

200

220

240

260

Relative earnings (index)

Note: All tertiary includes short cycle tertiary, bachelor’s, master’s, doctoral or equivalent degrees. Data on educational attainment refers to year 2014
or latest available year.
1. Belgium, Estonia, Luxembourg, Switzerland: Index 100 refers to the combined ISCED levels 3 and 4 of the educational attainment levels in
the ISCED 2011 classification.
2. Chile, Japan, Mexico, the Netherlands, Poland: Index 100 refers to the combined ISCED levels 3 and 4 of the educational attainment levels in
the ISCED-97 classification.
3. Ireland, Turkey: Earnings net of income tax.
4. The Netherlands: Year of reference 2010.
5. Chile, France, Italy: Year of reference 2011.
6. Australia, Canada, Finland, Japan, Mexico, Poland, Spain: Year of reference 2012.
7. The United Kingdom: Data for upper secondary attainment includes completion of a sufficient volume and standard of programmes that would be
classified individually as partial level completion of upper secondary education.
8. Japan: Data on educational attainment exclude short-cycle tertiary education at the tertiary level.
Source: OECD. Tables A1.3a and A6.1a. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/education/education-at-a-glance-19991487.htm).
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933283719

Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

121

A6

chapter A THE OUTPUT OF EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS AND THE IMPACT OF LEARNING

A6

There are various factors explaining the variation in earnings. Chart A6.4 shows countries by the relative earnings
of tertiary-educated workers and the share of these workers in the population. The chart also provides some
evidence of the influence of the supply-and-demand of tertiary-educated workers on relative earnings. The earnings
advantages are largest in countries with a small share of tertiary-educated people, such as Brazil, Chile, Colombia,
Hungary and Mexico, whereas earnings advantages are smallest in countries with a large share of tertiary-educated
people, such as Norway and Sweden. But other factors, not shown in Chart A6.4, may explain deviations from
this pattern. For instance, the share of people with a tertiary degree is above the OECD average in Canada (54%)
and below the average in Italy (17%), but relative earnings for these workers are below the OECD average in both
countries (43% higher earnings for a person with a tertiary degree compared with a person with upper secondary
education as the highest level of education) (Table A6.1a).

Definitions
Age groups: adults refers to 25-64 year-olds; younger adults refers to 25-34 year-olds; older adults refers to
55-64 year-olds. The working-age population is the total population aged 25-64.
Completion of intermediate programmes for educational attainment (ISCED 2011) corresponds to recognised
qualification from an ISCED 2011 level programme which is not considered as sufficient for ISCED 2011 level
completion and is classified at a lower ISCED 2011 level. In addition, this recognised qualification does not give
direct access to an upper ISCED 2011 level programme.
Levels of education: In this Indicator two ISCED (International Standard Classification of Education) classifications
are used: ISCED 2011 and ISCED-97.

• When it is specified that ISCED 2011 is used, the levels of education are defined as: below upper secondary
corresponds to ISCED 2011 Levels 0, 1 and 2, and includes recognised qualifications from ISCED 2011 Level 3
programmes, which are not considered as sufficient for ISCED 2011 Level 3 completion, and without direct
access to post-secondary non-tertiary education or tertiary education; upper secondary or post-secondary
non-tertiary corresponds to ISCED 2011 Levels 3 and 4; and tertiary corresponds to ISCED 2011 Levels 5, 6, 7
and 8 (UNESCO Institute for Statistics, 2012).

• When it is specified that ISCED-97 is used, the levels of education are defined as: below upper secondary
corresponds to ISCED-97 Levels 0, 1, 2 and 3C short programmes; upper secondary or post-secondary
non-tertiary corresponds to ISCED-97 Levels 3A, 3B, 3C long programmes, and Level 4; and tertiary corresponds
to ISCED-97 Levels 5A, 5B and 6.
See the section About the new ISCED 2011 classification, at the beginning of this publication, for a presentation of all
ISCED 2011 levels and Annex 3 for a presentation of all ISCED-97 levels.

Methodology
The indicator is based on the regular data collection by the OECD LSO (Labour Market and Social Outcomes of
Learning) Network that takes account of earnings from work for all individuals during the reference period, even if
the individual has worked part time or part year. This database contains data on student versus non-student earnings.
It also gathers information on the earnings of those working full time and full year, for Tables A6.2a and A6.3a, and
Table A6.2b, available on line. See Annex 3 (www.oecd.org/education/education-at-a-glance-19991487.htm) for
additional information.
Regular earnings data collection
Regular earnings data collection (used in all tables) provides information based on an annual, monthly or weekly
reference period, depending on the country. The length of the reference period for earnings also differs. Australia,
New Zealand and the United Kingdom reported data on weekly earnings; Belgium, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Estonia,
Israel (three months), Korea and Portugal reported monthly data; and all other countries reported annual data. Data
on earnings are before income tax, except for Ireland and Turkey, where earnings reported are net of income tax. For
Belgium data on dispersion of earnings from work and earnings of students and non-students are net of income tax.
Data on earnings for individuals in part-time work are excluded in the regular data collection for Slovenia; and data
on part-year earnings are excluded for Slovenia. Earnings of self-employed people are excluded for many countries
and, in general, there is no simple and comparable method to separate earnings from employment and returns to
capital invested in the business.

122 Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

What are the earnings advantages from education? – INDICATOR A6

chapter A

Since earnings data differ across countries in a number of ways, the results should be interpreted with caution.
For example:
• 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 similarly reflected in
the data for countries reporting weekly or monthly earnings;
• migrants are not separated from non-migrants, and in some countries this could have an effect on earnings, as
there could be a migrant earning penalty that is independent of qualification return;
• countries may include earnings for self-employed or part-time work; and
• countries may differ in the extent to which there are employer contributions to pensions, health insurance, etc.
on top of the salary.
In addition, data available in Tables A6.1a and b concern relative earnings and should therefore be used with caution
in assessing the evolution of relative earnings for different levels of education. For Tables A6.5a and b, differences
between countries could be the result of differences in data sources and in the length of the reference period. For
further details, see Annex 3 (www.oecd.org/education/education-at-a-glance-19991487.htm).
This indicator does not take into consideration the impact of effective income from free government services. In
some countries, incomes could be high but they may have to cover, for instance, health insurance and schooling/
tertiary education for children/students, while in other countries incomes could be lower but the state provides
both free health care and schooling.
The total (men plus women, i.e. M+W) average for earnings is not the simple average of the earnings figures for men
and women, but the average based on earnings of the total population. This overall average weights the average
earnings figure separately for men and women by the share of men and women at different levels of attainment.
Full-time and full-year data collection
Full-time and full-year data collection supplies the data for Table A6.2a and b (gender differences in full-time
earnings) and Table A6.3 (differences in full-time earnings by educational attainment).
For the definition of full-time earnings (in Tables A6.2a and b and A6.3), countries were asked whether they had
applied a self-designated full-time status or a threshold value of the typical number of hours worked per week.
Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, Luxembourg, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland and the United Kingdom
reported self-designated full-time status; the other countries defined the full-time status by the number of working
hours per week. The threshold was 44/45 hours per week in Chile, 36 hours per week in Hungary, the Slovak Republic
and Slovenia, 35 hours in Australia, Brazil, Canada, Colombia, Estonia, Israel, Korea, Norway and the United States,
and 30 hours in the Czech Republic, Greece, Ireland, New Zealand and Turkey. Other participating countries did
not report a minimum normal number of working hours for full-time work. For some countries, data on full-time,
full-year earnings are based on the European Survey on Income and Living Conditions (EU-SILC), which uses a
self-designated approach in establishing full-time status.
Note regarding data from Israel
The statistical data for Israel are supplied by and are under the responsibility of the relevant Israeli authorities. The use of
such data by the OECD is without prejudice to the status of the Golan Heights, East Jerusalem and Israeli settlements in the
West Bank under the terms of international law.

References
OECD (2014), Education at a Glance 2014: OECD Indicators, OECD Publishing, Paris, http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/eag-2014-en.
OECD (2013), Education at a Glance 2013: OECD Indicators, OECD Publishing, Paris, http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/eag-2013-en.
UNESCO Institute for Statistics (2012), International Standard Classification of Education: ISCED 2011, UNESCO-UIS, Montreal,
Canada, www.uis.unesco.org/Education/Documents/isced-2011-en.pdf.

Indicator A6 Tables
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933285049

Table A6.1a
WEB Table A6.1b

Relative earnings of workers, by educational attainment, age group and gender (2013)
Trends in relative earnings of workers, by educational attainment and gender (2005, 2010-13)

…
Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

123

A6

chapter A THE OUTPUT OF EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS AND THE IMPACT OF LEARNING

A6

Table A6.2a
WEB Table A6.2b
Table A6.3

Differences in earnings between female and male workers, by educational attainment
and age group (2013)
Trends in the differences in earnings between female and male workers, by educational attainment
(2005, 2010-13)
Percentage of full-time, full-year earners, part-time earners and people without earnings,
by educational attainment, age group and gender (2013)

WEB Table A6.4

Level of earnings relative to median earnings, by gender and educational attainment (2013)

Table A6.5a

Relative earnings of 15-24 year-old students with income from employment, by educational
attainment and gender (2013)

Table A6.5b

Percentage of 15-29 year-olds with income from employment among all 15-29 year-olds,
by age group, gender and student status (2013)

124 Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

What are the earnings advantages from education? – INDICATOR A6

chapter A

Table A6.1a. Relative earnings of workers, by educational attainment, age group and gender (2013)
Adults with income from employment; upper secondary education = 100

OECD

Men and women

Australia
Austria
Belgium1
Canada
Chile2
Czech Republic
Denmark
Estonia1
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Iceland
Ireland3
Israel
Italy
Japan2
Korea
Luxembourg1
Mexico2
Netherlands2
New Zealand
Norway
Poland2
Portugal
Slovak Republic
Slovenia
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland1
Turkey3
United Kingdom4
United States

Post-secondary
non-tertiary

Short cycle
tertiary

Bachelor's
or equivalent

Master's, doctoral
or equivalent

All tertiary
education
25-64

25-64

25-64

25-64

25-64

25-64

Year

(1)

(4)

(7)

(10)

(13)

(16)

2012

83

99

114

137

161

134

2013

71

m

136

171d

x(10)

152

2013

87

m

m

m

m

141

2012

84

119

118

153

189

143

2011

66

a

151

290

564

260

2013

74

m

117

143

185

175

2013

82

134

114

111

166

129

2013

91

m

m

m

m

135

2012

93

128

129

127

187

148

2011

82

m

127

136

207

153

m

m

m

m

m

m

2013

79

109

148

198

m

149

2013

75

99

102

174

250

201

m

m

m

m

m

m

2013

83

92

144

204

m

184

2013

84

a

117

157

225

163

2011

78

m

m

m

m

143

2012

78

m

m

m

m

152

2013

71

m

115

150

200

145

2013

64

m

m

m

m

158

2012

54

a

m

m

m

199

2010

83

m

m

m

m

156

2013

92

116

114

135

186

139

2013

77

101

120

116

166

128

2012

84

m

m

m

m

171

2013

71

102

162

169

m

168

2013

68

m

125

125

176

171

2013

79

a

m

m

m

175

2012

75

124

m

m

m

151

2013

78

117

106

115

151

125

2013

78

m

m

m

m

156

2013

65

a

m

m

m

188

2013

74

a

123

154

174

151

2013

70

m

116

165

243

176

77

112

125

157

214

160

79

113

128

152

187

157

OECD average
EU21 average
Partners

Below upper
secondary

Argentina

m

m

m

m

m

m

2013

60

m

m

241

450

252

m

m

m

m

m

m

2013

65

m

m

m

m

234

India

m

m

m

m

m

m

Indonesia

m

m

m

m

m

m

Latvia

m

m

m

m

m

m

Russian Federation

m

m

m

m

m

m

Saudi Arabia

m

m

m

m

m

m

South Africa

m

m

m

m

m

m

G20 average

m

m

m

m

m

m

Brazil
China
Colombia

Note: Columns showing data for men and women separately and for other age groups are available for consultation on line (see StatLink below).
1. Belgium, Estonia, Luxembourg, Switzerland: Index 100 refers to the combined ISCED levels 3 and 4 of the educational attainment levels in the ISCED 2011 classification.
2. Chile, Japan, Mexico, the Netherlands, Poland: Index 100 refers to the combined ISCED levels 3 and 4 of the educational attainment levels in the ISCED-97 classification.
3. Ireland, Turkey: Earnings net of income tax.
4. The United Kingdom: Data for upper secondary attainment includes completion of a sufficient volume and standard of programmes that would be classified
individually as completion of intermediate upper secondary programmes (18% of the adults are under this group).
Source: OECD. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/education/education-at-a-glance-19991487.htm).
Please refer to the Reader’s Guide for information concerning symbols for missing data and abbreviations.
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933285052

Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

125

A6

chapter A THE OUTPUT OF EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS AND THE IMPACT OF LEARNING

Table A6.2a. Differences in earnings between female and male workers,

A6

by educational attainment and age group (2013)

OECD

Adults with income from employment; average annual full-time, full-year earnings of women as a percentage of men’s earnings
Upper secondary or post-secondary
non-tertiary education

Tertiary education

25-64

35-44

55-64

25-64

35-44

55-64

25-64

35-44

55-64

Year

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7)

(8)

(9)

Australia

2012

79

78

82

75

74

78

75

75

69

Austria

2013

79

82

83

80

76

81

69

71

74

Belgium

2013

79

79

82

82

79

84

83

87

83

Canada

2012

66

52

64

69

66

74

73

77

73

Chile1

2011

77

79

72

69

68

70

62

70

53

Czech Republic

2013

80

81

80

80

73

87

71

66

86

Denmark

2013

83

80

82

80

78

82

74

76

72

Estonia

2013

65

60

76

57

57

63

68

63

71

Finland

2013

79

75

79

78

76

78

76

75

74

France

2011

76

73

70

81

74

75

71

74

63

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

Germany
Greece

2013

79

81

68

80

83

63

75

77

54

Hungary

2013

82

82

79

88

85

92

64

59

68

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

Iceland
Ireland2

2013

77

86

74

73

69

73

76

79

56

Israel

2013

73

66

71

75

72

73

63

62

61

Italy

2011

79

78

76

78

78

74

70

77

71

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

Japan
Korea

2013

66

69

64

63

61

58

68

65

70

Luxembourg

2013

83

83

70

77

82

69

76

85

67

Mexico1

2012

74

72

79

80

78

79

70

69

88

Netherlands1

2010

77

79

76

79

85

79

74

83

74

New Zealand

2013

79

80

78

78

79

74

78

76

73

Norway

2013

82

80

82

80

79

79

75

77

73

Poland1

2012

73

69

74

79

72

89

71

66

76

Portugal

2013

76

76

72

72

74

68

70

75

69

Slovak Republic

2013

72

73

71

17

15

16

71

64

79

Slovenia

2013

85

84

84

88

84

97

82

80

87

Spain

2012

75

81

68

74

74

71

79

78

77

Sweden

2012

83

75

96

81

79

88

83

85

87

Switzerland

2013

86

75

111

84

84

86

78

85

79

Turkey2

2013

69

67

63

86

77

119

82

87

55

United Kingdom3

2013

78

80

68

71

69

67

77

77

79

United States

2013

72

76

81

75

70

71

66

67

63

77

76

77

75

73

76

73

74

72

78

78

76

75

73

75

74

75

73

OECD average
EU21 average
Partners

Below upper secondary education

Argentina
Brazil

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

2013

67

68

62

62

63

54

62

66

60

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

2013

77

78

77

74

70

67

75

78

73

China
Colombia
India

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

Indonesia

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

Latvia

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

Russian Federation

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

Saudi Arabia

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

South Africa

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

G20 average

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

Note: Columns showing the relative earnings for all levels of education combined are available for consultation on line (see StatLink below).
1. Chile, Mexico, the Netherlands, Poland: Educational attainment levels are based in the ISCED-97 classification.
2. Ireland, Turkey: Earnings net of income tax.
3. The United Kingdom: Data for upper secondary attainment includes completion of a sufficient volume and standard of programmes that would be classified
individually as completion of intermediate upper secondary programmes (18% of the adults are under this group).
Source: OECD. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/education/education-at-a-glance-19991487.htm).
Please refer to the Reader’s Guide for information concerning symbols for missing data and abbreviations.
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933285069

126 Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

What are the earnings advantages from education? – INDICATOR A6

chapter A

Table A6.3. [1/3] Percentage of full-time, full-year earners, part-time earners
and people without earnings, by educational attainment, age group and gender (2013)

A6

How to read this table: In Australia, 58% of 25-64 year-old men with below upper secondary education have earnings from a full-time employment. Among
25-64 year-old women, 22% of those that have income from employment work full time.

Tertiary
education

All levels of
education

Below upper
secondary
education

Upper secondary
or post-secondary
non-tertiary
education

Tertiary
education

All levels of
education

Below upper
secondary
education

Upper secondary
or post-secondary
non-tertiary
education

Tertiary
education

All levels of
education

No earnings

Upper secondary
or post-secondary
non-tertiary
education

Part-time earners

Below upper
secondary
education
OECD

Full-time, full-year earners

25-64

25-64

25-64

25-64

25-64

25-64

25-64

25-64

25-64

25-64

25-64

25-64

Year

Gender

(1)

(4)

(7)

(10)

(13)

(16)

(19)

(22)

(25)

(28)

(31)

(34)

Australia

2012

Austria

2013

Belgium

2013

Canada

2012

Chile1

2011

Czech Republic

2013

Denmark

2013

Estonia

2013

Finland

2013

France

2011

Men
Women
M+W
Men
Women
M+W
Men
Women
M+W
Men
Women
M+W
Men
Women
M+W
Men
Women
M+W
Men
Women
M+W
Men
Women
M+W
Men
Women
M+W
Men
Women
M+W
Men
Women
M+W
Men
Women
M+W
Men
Women
M+W
Men
Women
M+W
Men
Women
M+W
Men
Women
M+W
Men
Women
M+W

58
22
38
41
19
27
43
14
29
46
22
35
46
15
29
m
m
m
35
25
31
42
34
39
m
m
m
51
26
37
m
m
m
43
16
29
m
m
m
m
m
m
21
10
16
61
22
42
59
23
41

75
35
58
63
29
46
68
28
49
58
38
49
55
28
41
m
m
m
52
43
48
49
46
48
m
m
m
70
47
59
m
m
m
52
27
40
m
m
m
m
m
m
38
25
31
73
48
61
75
43
59

79
48
61
71
43
57
74
49
61
66
48
56
59
41
49
m
m
m
69
53
60
47
50
49
m
m
m
81
63
71
m
m
m
69
55
61
m
m
m
m
m
m
61
47
53
84
65
73
78
61
69

73
37
54
62
31
46
65
34
49
61
42
51
52
25
37
m
m
m
52
42
47
48
47
47
m
m
m
69
48
58
m
m
m
54
32
43
m
m
m
m
m
m
41
30
36
76
53
64
68
38
53

9
26
18
27
35
32
15
25
20
27
32
29
37
24
30
m
m
m
37
34
36
2
6
3
m
m
m
18
28
23
m
m
m
18
13
15
m
m
m
m
m
m
28
26
27
9
19
13
19
21
20

8
32
19
21
47
34
14
41
27
28
38
33
31
27
29
m
m
m
37
41
39
1
5
3
m
m
m
14
32
22
m
m
m
15
15
15
m
m
m
m
m
m
34
36
35
10
22
15
14
28
21

10
30
21
19
42
31
13
35
24
24
36
31
32
36
35
m
m
m
25
39
33
3
5
4
m
m
m
11
27
20
m
m
m
9
13
11
m
m
m
m
m
m
27
34
31
8
20
15
12
24
18

9
29
20
21
43
33
14
35
24
26
36
31
34
27
30
m
m
m
34
39
36
2
5
4
m
m
m
14
30
22
m
m
m
14
14
14
m
m
m
m
m
m
29
33
31
9
20
15
16
24
20

33
53
43
32
46
41
42
60
51
27
46
36
17
62
41
m
m
m
27
41
34
56
60
57
m
m
m
32
46
40
m
m
m
39
72
56
m
m
m
m
m
m
50
64
57
31
59
44
21
57
39

16
34
24
16
24
20
18
30
24
13
24
18
14
45
30
m
m
m
11
16
13
50
48
49
m
m
m
16
21
18
m
m
m
33
58
45
m
m
m
m
m
m
29
39
34
17
30
23
12
29
20

11
22
17
10
15
12
13
16
14
10
16
14
9
23
16
m
m
m
6
8
7
50
45
46
m
m
m
7
9
9
m
m
m
22
32
27
m
m
m
m
m
m
13
19
16
8
16
12
10
15
13

18
33
26
16
26
21
22
31
26
13
22
18
14
48
32
m
m
m
14
19
17
51
47
49
m
m
m
17
23
20
m
m
m
32
55
43
m
m
m
m
m
m
29
37
33
15
27
21
16
38
27

Germany

Greece

2013

Hungary

Iceland

Ireland2

2013

Israel

2013

Italy

2011

Notes: The length of the reference period varies from one week to one year. Self-employed individuals are excluded in some countries. See the Methodology section
and Annex 3 for further information. Columns showing data for other age groups are available for consultation on line (see StatLink below).
1. Chile, Mexico: Educational attainment levels are based in the ISCED-97 classification.
2. Ireland, Turkey: Earnings net of income tax.
3. The United Kingdom: Data for upper secondary attainment includes completion of a sufficient volume and standard of programmes that would be classified
individually as completion of intermediate upper secondary programmes (18% of the adults are under this group).
Source: OECD. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/education/education-at-a-glance-19991487.htm).
Please refer to the Reader’s Guide for information concerning symbols for missing data and abbreviations.
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933285075

Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

127

chapter A THE OUTPUT OF EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS AND THE IMPACT OF LEARNING

Table A6.3. [2/3] Percentage of full-time, full-year earners, part-time earners
and people without earnings, by educational attainment, age group and gender (2013)

A6

How to read this table: In Australia, 58% of 25-64 year-old men with below upper secondary education have earnings from a full-time employment. Among
25-64 year-old women, 22% of those that have income from employment work full time.

Norway

2013

Poland

Portugal

Slovak Republic

Slovenia

Spain

2012

Sweden

2012

Switzerland

2013

Turkey2

2013

United Kingdom3

2013

United States

2013

All levels of
education

2013

Tertiary
education

New Zealand

Upper secondary
or post-secondary
non-tertiary
education

Netherlands

Below upper
secondary
education

2012

All levels of
education

Mexico1

Tertiary
education

2013

Upper secondary
or post-secondary
non-tertiary
education

Luxembourg

Below upper
secondary
education

2013

All levels of
education

Korea

Tertiary
education

Japan

No earnings

Upper secondary
or post-secondary
non-tertiary
education

OECD

Year

Part-time earners

Below upper
secondary
education

Full-time, full-year earners

25-64

25-64

25-64

25-64

25-64

25-64

25-64

25-64

25-64

25-64

25-64

25-64

Gender

(1)

(4)

(7)

(10)

(13)

(16)

(19)

(22)

(25)

(28)

(31)

(34)

Men
Women
M+W
Men
Women
M+W
Men
Women
M+W
Men
Women
M+W
Men
Women
M+W
Men
Women
M+W
Men
Women
M+W
Men
Women
M+W
Men
Women
M+W
Men
Women
M+W
Men
Women
M+W
Men
Women
M+W
Men
Women
M+W
Men
Women
M+W
Men
Women
M+W
Men
Women
M+W
Men
Women
M+W

m
m
m
30
23
26
65
25
44
84
56
73
m
m
m
69
39
53
41
20
31
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
46
21
35
60
25
44
69
21
41
55
39
51
59
21
40
50
25
38

m
m
m
44
26
35
75
37
58
89
73
83
m
m
m
82
45
65
61
33
48
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
63
39
51
74
44
61
77
23
48
69
53
66
77
39
58
63
44
53

m
m
m
46
23
35
82
56
69
87
72
81
m
m
m
81
59
69
66
45
55
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
70
57
63
79
59
67
78
34
59
75
73
74
82
54
67
76
56
65

m
m
m
43
24
33
74
38
56
85
62
76
m
m
m
78
48
63
58
35
46
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
57
38
48
75
50
62
77
26
52
63
53
60
75
42
58
66
48
57

m
m
m
14
13
13
11
33
23
11
34
20
m
m
m
6
20
14
36
49
42
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
27
30
29
9
6
8
7
39
26
32
43
35
9
23
16
21
21
21

m
m
m
13
17
15
8
31
18
9
22
14
m
m
m
6
25
15
30
54
41
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
24
31
28
9
9
9
9
51
32
21
33
24
7
32
19
18
23
20

m
m
m
27
29
28
7
27
17
12
26
18
m
m
m
8
21
15
29
49
39
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
19
26
23
9
13
12
14
49
29
18
21
19
7
28
18
14
24
20

m
m
m
20
21
20
9
30
19
11
30
18
m
m
m
7
22
15
32
50
41
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
24
29
27
9
11
10
11
48
30
27
34
29
7
28
18
17
23
20

m
m
m
56
64
61
24
41
33
5
10
7
m
m
m
25
40
33
23
32
27
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
26
49
37
31
69
48
24
40
34
13
18
14
32
56
44
29
55
41

m
m
m
44
58
51
17
33
24
2
5
3
m
m
m
11
31
20
8
14
11
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
13
30
21
16
46
30
13
26
20
9
14
10
17
29
23
20
33
26

m
m
m
28
48
37
11
17
14
2
2
2
m
m
m
11
20
16
5
6
6
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
11
16
14
12
28
21
8
18
12
7
6
7
11
19
15
10
20
16

m
m
m
37
55
46
17
31
24
4
7
5
m
m
m
15
30
23
11
15
13
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
18
33
26
16
40
28
12
25
19
11
13
11
18
30
24
17
29
23

Notes: The length of the reference period varies from one week to one year. Self-employed individuals are excluded in some countries. See the Methodology section
and Annex 3 for further information. Columns showing data for other age groups are available for consultation on line (see StatLink below).
1. Chile, Mexico: Educational attainment levels are based in the ISCED-97 classification.
2. Ireland, Turkey: Earnings net of income tax.
3. The United Kingdom: Data for upper secondary attainment includes completion of a sufficient volume and standard of programmes that would be classified
individually as completion of intermediate upper secondary programmes (18% of the adults are under this group).
Source: OECD. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/education/education-at-a-glance-19991487.htm).
Please refer to the Reader’s Guide for information concerning symbols for missing data and abbreviations.
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933285075

128 Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

What are the earnings advantages from education? – INDICATOR A6

chapter A

Table A6.3. [3/3] Percentage of full-time, full-year earners, part-time earners
and people without earnings, by educational attainment, age group and gender (2013)

A6

How to read this table: In Australia, 58% of 25-64 year-old men with below upper secondary education have earnings from a full-time employment. Among
25-64 year-old women, 22% of those that have income from employment work full time.

Russian Federation

Saudi Arabia

South Africa

G20 average

All levels of
education

Latvia

Tertiary
education

Indonesia

Upper secondary
or post-secondary
non-tertiary
education

India

2013

Below upper
secondary
education

Colombia

All levels of
education

China

Tertiary
education

2013

Upper secondary
or post-secondary
non-tertiary
education

Brazil

Below upper
secondary
education

Argentina

All levels of
education

Partners

EU21 average

Tertiary
education

OECD average

No earnings

Upper secondary
or post-secondary
non-tertiary
education

OECD

Year

Part-time earners

Below upper
secondary
education

Full-time, full-year earners

25-64

25-64

25-64

25-64

25-64

25-64

25-64

25-64

25-64

25-64

25-64

25-64

Gender

(1)

(4)

(7)

(10)

(13)

(16)

(19)

(22)

(25)

(28)

(31)

(34)

Men
Women
M+W
Men
Women
M+W

51
24
38
47
22
34

65
39
53
63
37
51

72
59
62
72
54
62

64
40
52
62
39
50

19
26
22
18
23
21

17
30
23
17
29
23

16
29
22
13
26
20

17
29
23
16
27
21

30
50
40
34
55
45

18
31
24
21
34
27

12
19
16
15
20
17

19
31
25
22
34
28

Men
Women
M+W
Men
Women
M+W
Men
Women
M+W
Men
Women
M+W
Men
Women
M+W
Men
Women
M+W
Men
Women
M+W
Men
Women
M+W
Men
Women
M+W
Men
Women
M+W

m
m
m
71
47
62
m
m
m
83
52
71
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m

m
m
m
75
62
69
m
m
m
85
64
76
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m

m
m
m
72
60
65
m
m
m
81
70
75
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m

m
m
m
72
55
65
m
m
m
83
60
73
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m

m
m
m
26
51
36
m
m
m
15
39
25
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m

m
m
m
21
35
28
m
m
m
13
30
21
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m

m
m
m
20
34
28
m
m
m
18
28
23
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m

m
m
m
24
42
32
m
m
m
15
33
23
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m

m
m
m
3
2
3
m
m
m
2
9
5
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m

m
m
m
4
3
4
m
m
m
2
6
4
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m

m
m
m
8
6
7
m
m
m
1
2
2
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m

m
m
m
4
3
4
m
m
m
2
6
4
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m

Men

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

Women

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

M+W

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

Notes: The length of the reference period varies from one week to one year. Self-employed individuals are excluded in some countries. See the Methodology section
and Annex 3 for further information. Columns showing data for other age groups are available for consultation on line (see StatLink below).
1. Chile, Mexico: Educational attainment levels are based in the ISCED-97 classification.
2. Ireland, Turkey: Earnings net of income tax.
3. The United Kingdom: Data for upper secondary attainment includes completion of a sufficient volume and standard of programmes that would be classified
individually as completion of intermediate upper secondary programmes (18% of the adults are under this group).
Source: OECD. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/education/education-at-a-glance-19991487.htm).
Please refer to the Reader’s Guide for information concerning symbols for missing data and abbreviations.
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933285075

Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

129

chapter A THE OUTPUT OF EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS AND THE IMPACT OF LEARNING

Table A6.5a. Relative earnings of 15-24 year-old students with income from employment,

A6

by educational attainment and gender (2013)

Partners

OECD

Earnings of 15-24 year-old students with income from employment compared with earnings of 15-24 year-old non-students
with income from employment; non-students with income from employment = 100

Australia
Austria
Belgium1
Canada
Chile2
Czech Republic
Denmark
Estonia
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Iceland
Ireland1
Israel
Italy
Japan
Korea
Luxembourg
Mexico2
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Slovak Republic
Slovenia
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Turkey1
United Kingdom3
United States

Below upper secondary education

Upper secondary or post-secondary
non-tertiary education

M+W

Men

Women

M+W

Men

Women

M+W

Men

Women

Year

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7)

(8)

(9)

2012

29

c

c

52

51

57

68

c

c

2013

62

64

56

32

37

30

39

47

33

2013

47

55

41

64

65

65

65

75

81

2012

34

31

45

42

42

49

49

40

55

2011

68

66

77

113

124

90

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

2012

44

45

46

47

42

55

43

43

43

2013

83

63

116

82

87

92

88

m

106

2012

39

38

45

56

56

58

53

61

51

2011

c

c

c

55

69

44

41

52

32

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

48

54

44

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

2013

Tertiary education

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

2013

19

m

m

45

41

51

57

m

63

2013

27

21

45

97

97

102

73

m

59

2011

54

83

31

63

62

69

110

119

106

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

2013

44

61

34

51

57

46

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

57

55

63

75

72

79

80

65

96

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

2013

42

50

34

50

58

44

62

54

67

2013

37

40

34

40

38

46

38

36

40

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

2012

52

66

34

36

31

45

41

49

33

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

2013

10

6

35

43

47

41

53

55

50

2013

62

64

60

99

103

91

113

107

115

2013

28

32

23

28

33

25

61

73

49

2013

27

26

30

57

56

61

66

60

74

OECD average

43

48

47

58

60

58

63

62

64

EU21 average

47

56

49

51

52

53

60

65

60

Argentina
Brazil
China
Colombia
India
Indonesia
Latvia
Russian Federation
Saudi Arabia
South Africa

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

2013

60

58

71

111

112

116

102

86

116

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

2013

55

51

73

97

94

106

99

98

101

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

G20 average

2012

Notes: For some countries in this table the age breakdown is 16-24 year-olds. Columns showing the relative earnings for all levels of education combined are available
for consultation on line (see StatLink below).
1. Belgium, Ireland, Turkey: Earnings net of income tax.
2. Chile, Mexico: Data refer to broad ISCED-97 attainment categories.
3. The United Kingdom: Data for upper secondary attainment includes completion of a sufficient volume and standard of programmes that would be classified
individually as completion of intermediate upper secondary programmes (18% of the adults are under this group).
Source: OECD. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/education/education-at-a-glance-19991487.htm).
Please refer to the Reader’s Guide for information concerning symbols for missing data and abbreviations.
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933285081

130 Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

What are the earnings advantages from education? – INDICATOR A6

chapter A

Table A6.5b. Percentage of 15-29 year-olds with income from employment among all 15-29 year-olds,

by age group, gender and student status (2013)

How to read this table: In Australia, 70% of all 15-24 year-old non-students have income from employment; and 47% of all 15-24 year-old students do. Among
all 15-24 year-olds, 56% have income from employment.
Men and women

Partners

OECD

15-24 year-olds

25-29 year-olds
Students

Total

Year
2012

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

70

47

56

79

71

77

2013

87

61

72

90

78

88

2013

28

2

11

35

18

34

2012

89

74

78

90

84

88

2011

50

10

28

70

45

66

m

m

m

m

m

m

2012

71

71

71

81

82

82

2013

41

13

22

54

45

52

2012

77

77

77

84

85

84

2011

76

37

55

92

73

91

2012

66

37

46

70

62

68

2013

27

4

12

54

27

51

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

2013

36

23

28

67

51

65

2013

68

18

45

80

74

79

2011

56

13

32

79

44

72

m

m

m

m

m

m

2013

52

11

23

67

29

64

m

m

m

m

m

m

2012

89

81

87

94

96

94

m

m

m

m

m

m

2013

69

33

47

76

60

74

2013

82

67

72

89

90

89

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

2012

60

20

34

82

71

80

m

m

m

m

m

m

2013

72

53

60

85

61

81

2013

76

76

76

86

87

86

2013

56

32

46

80

63

78

2013

73

41

54

82

62

79

OECD average
EU21 average

64

39

49

77

63

75

57

32

42

72

58

71

Argentina
Brazil
China
Colombia
India
Indonesia
Latvia
Russian Federation
Saudi Arabia

m

m

m

m

m

m

2013

62

32

48

75

70

74

m

m

m

m

m

m

2013

91

79

88

96

97

96

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

South Africa

m

m

m

m

m

m

G20 average

m

m

m

m

m

m

Australia
Austria
Belgium1
Canada
Chile
Czech Republic
Denmark
Estonia
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Iceland
Ireland1
Israel
Italy
Japan
Korea
Luxembourg
Mexico
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Slovak Republic
Slovenia
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Turkey1
United Kingdom2
United States

Non-students

Students

Total

Non-students

Notes: For some countries in this table the age breakdown is 16-24 year-olds instead of 15-24 year-olds. Columns showing data for men and women separately are
available for consultation on line (see StatLink below).
1. Belgium, Ireland, Turkey: Earnings net of income tax.
2. The United Kingdom: Data for upper secondary attainment includes completion of a sufficient volume and standard of programmes that would be classified individually
as completion of intermediate upper secondary programmes (18% of the adults are under this group).
Source: OECD. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/education/education-at-a-glance-19991487.htm).
Please refer to the Reader’s Guide for information concerning symbols for missing data and abbreviations.
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933283672

Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

131

A6

INDICATOR A7

WHAT ARE THE FINANCIAL INCENTIVES TO INVEST
IN EDUCATION?
• Adults completing tertiary education benefit from substantial returns on investment: they are
more likely to be employed and earn more than adults without tertiary education do.

• Not only does education pay off for individuals, but the public benefits of education, in greater
tax revenues and social contributions from a larger proportion of tertiary-educated adults, also
outweigh the cost.

• Across OECD countries, the net public return on investment for a woman with tertiary education is
USD 65 500 over her lifetime – 1.2 times the public cost of investment in her education. For a man,
the net public return is over USD 127 400, which is almost 2.5 times the public cost of investment
in his education.

Chart A7.1. Private net financial returns for a woman
attaining tertiary education (2011)
As compared with returns to upper secondary or post-secondary non-tertiary education,
in equivalent USD converted using PPPs for GDP
USD converted
using PPPs for GDP

300 000
250 000
200 000
150 000
100 000

Chile

United States

Portugal

Poland1

Slovenia

Canada1

Netherlands1

Austria

Czech Republic

Hungary

OECD average

Norway

Slovak Republic

Spain

United Kingdom

Australia2

Israel

Italy1

Germany

Finland

New Zealand

Sweden

Estonia

Denmark

0

Korea

50 000

1. Canada, Italy, the Netherlands, Poland: Year of reference 2010.
2. Australia: Year of reference 2009.
Countries are ranked in ascending order of private net financial returns.
Source: OECD. Tables A7.3b and A7.4b. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/education/education-at-a-glance- 19991487.htm).
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933283725

Context
Devoting time and money in education is an investment in human capital. For adults, having higher
educational attainment improves chances for employment and reduces the risk of unemployment.
Better opportunities in the labour market (see Indicator A5) and higher earnings (see Indicator A6)
are strong incentives for adults to invest in education and to postpone consumption and earnings
for future rewards. Countries, in turn, benefit through reduced public expenditure on social welfare
programmes and revenues earned through taxes paid once individuals enter the labour market.
It is crucial for policy makers to understand the economic incentives for individuals to invest in
education. For instance, large increases in labour market demand for more highly educated workers can
drive up earnings and returns before supply catches up. That signals a need for additional investment
in education. In countries with rigid labour laws and structures that tend to limit differences in wages
across the board, this signal will be weaker.
An understanding of the returns from education is also relevant for policies that address access to
education, taxes and the costs of further education for the individual. It is important, then, to consider
the balance between private and public returns together with the information from other indicators
in this publication. It is not sufficient to consider only the public rate of return to determine the
optimal amount governments should invest in education (see Box A7.1 in Education at a Glance 2013
[OECD, 2013]).

132 Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

In countries with lengthy tertiary programmes and relatively high incomes after upper secondary or
post-secondary non-tertiary education, the effect of foregone earnings is considerable. The magnitude
of this effect also depends on expected wage levels and the probability of finding a job with or without
having tertiary qualifications. As the labour market for young adults worsens (see Indicator C5),
the effect of foregone earnings is reduced, making tertiary education a less costly investment. Since
more highly educated people tend to fare better in the labour market in times of economic hardship
(see Indicator A5), larger earnings differentials add to the benefit to both the individual and society.
Data from 2011 (used in this volume), show that both private and public returns to tertiary education
were higher than returns to upper secondary and post-secondary non-tertiary education.

INDICATOR A7

It should be kept in mind that a host of education-related and contextual factors not reflected in this
indicator affect the financial returns to education. These include the field of study, countries’ specific
economic situation, labour market context and institutional setting, as well as social and cultural factors.
Other findings

• On average across OECD countries, the calculated financial return to tertiary education for a single
worker with no children is around twice as large as returns to such a person with upper secondary
or post-secondary non-tertiary education as his or her highest level of attainment.

• Gross earnings benefits from tertiary education over the course of a lifetime are USD 477 400 for
men and USD 332 600 for women across OECD countries.

• Gross earnings benefits for an adult with upper secondary or post-secondary non-tertiary degree,
compared to benefits for an adult who has not attained this level of education, are particularly
large in Austria, Luxembourg and the United States. In these countries, gross earnings benefits
amount to more than USD 400 000 for a man and USD 250 000 for a woman over their lifetime.

• On average across the 26 OECD countries with available data, the net public return for a woman
who completed upper secondary or post-secondary non-tertiary education is about USD 48 000
compared with a woman who did not complete that level of education. For a man, the net public
return is USD 70 300.

• Across OECD countries, people invest around USD 55 000 to earn a tertiary degree. In the
Netherlands and the United States, average investment exceeds USD 100 000 when direct and
indirect costs are taken into account.

Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

133

chapter A THE OUTPUT OF EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS AND THE IMPACT OF LEARNING

A7

Analysis
This indicator provides information on the incentives to invest in further education by considering its costs and
benefits, including net financial returns and internal rate of return. It examines the choice between pursuing higher
levels of education and entering the labour market. The indicator focuses on two scenarios:
• Investing in tertiary education compared to entering the labour market with an upper secondary or postsecondary non-tertiary degree; and
• Investing in upper secondary or post-secondary non-tertiary education compared to entering the labour market
without an upper secondary or post-secondary non-tertiary degree.
Two types of investors are considered:

• The person (referred to here as “Private”) who chooses to pursue higher levels of education based on the additional
net earnings and costs he or she can expect; and
• The government (referred to here as “Public”) that decides to invest in education based on the additional revenue
it would receive (tax receipts) and the costs involved.
Values are presented separately for men and women to account for gender-specific differences in earnings and
unemployment rates.
Financial incentives for people to invest in education (private financial returns on investment)
Attracted by higher earnings and employment prospects, more people than ever before are attaining upper secondary
or post-secondary education and tertiary education (see Indicators A1, A5 and A6). Different financial components,
such as level of household out-of-pocket spending on education, the additional earnings over the lifecourse, and the
tax and benefits systems can influence someone’s decision to pursue further formal education.

Net private financial returns on investment
In almost all countries with available data for upper secondary and post-secondary non-tertiary and tertiary
education, financial private returns to education are higher for tertiary education than for upper secondary
education. A woman can expect a net financial return on investment in upper secondary or post-secondary nontertiary education of USD 62 000; her expected financial return on investment in tertiary education is USD 145 200
(Tables A7.1b and A7.3b).
Men can expect a higher return to investment in education than women at both the upper secondary or postsecondary non-tertiary (USD 107 100) and tertiary (USD 229 000) levels of education (Tables A7.1a and A7.3a).
These results are consistent with the higher earnings and lower uemployment rates enjoyed by men (see Indicators A5
and A6).

The total private cost of education
Direct costs and foregone earnings are the two components of the total cost of education considered in the
computations of this Indicator. Accounting for both the direct cost and forgone earnings, a woman invests
USD 31 200 in upper secondary or post-secondary non tertiary and USD 57 200 in tertiary education (Tables A7.1b
and A7.3b).
Most adults consider the direct private costs (household expenditure) of education as they decide whether or not
to invest in further education. The direct cost for a person is, on average, lower for upper secondary education
(USD 2 800) than for tertiary education (USD 13 200). In addition, direct private costs for tertiary education vary
more across countries than costs for upper secondary non-tertiary education, ranging from less than USD 2 500
in Austria, Norway and Sweden, to more than USD 25 000 in Australia, Chile, the United Kingdom and the
United States. In fact, the direct costs for tertiary education in the United States – USD 55 000 – are the highest
among all OECD countries (Tables A7.1b and A7.3b).
While they are the most visible part of the total cost of education, direct costs of education represent only a small
share of this cost (10% of the total cost, on average, for upper secondary non-tertiary education and 20% for tertiary
education). The main costs are the foregone earnings – what a student could potentially earn if not in school. Foregone
earnings vary substantially across countries, depending on the length of education, earnings levels and the difference
in earnings across levels of educational attainment. In Estonia and Spain, foregone earnings from investing in upper
secondary or post-secondary non-tertiary education are estimated at less than USD 15 000 for both women and men,
while in Austria, Luxembourg, the Netherlands and Norway, they exceed USD 45 000 (Tables A7.1a and b).

134 Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

What are the financial incentives to invest in education? – INDICATOR A7

chapter A

Chart A7.2. Private costs and benefits of education for a woman,
by educational attainment (2011)

A7

In equivalent USD converted using PPPs for GDP
Total private benefits
Total private costs
Equivalent USD

Upper secondary or post-secondary non-tertiary education

500 000
400 000
300 000
200 000
100 000
0

Denmark

Spain

Slovak Republic

Sweden

Austria

Israel

Italy1

Portugal

Luxembourg1

OECD average

Czech Republic

Austria

Netherlands1

Canada1

Slovenia

Poland1

Portugal

United States

United States

Chile

OECD average

Netherlands1

Slovenia

Hungary

Equivalent USD

Canada1

Australia2

Hungary

Poland1

Czech Republic

Estonia

New Zealand

Germany

Finland

United Kingdom

-200 000

Korea

-100 000

Tertiary education

500 000
400 000
300 000
200 000
100 000
0

Chile

Norway

Slovak Republic

Spain

United Kingdom

Australia

2

Israel

Italy1

Germany

Finland

New Zealand

Sweden

Estonia

Denmark

-200 000

Korea

-100 000

1. Canada, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Poland: Year of reference 2010.
2. Australia: Year of reference 2009.
Countries are ranked in ascending order of net financial private returns (benefits-costs).
Source: OECD. Tables A7.1b and A7.3b. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/education/education-at-a-glance- 19991487.htm).
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933283733

The total private benefits of education
Chart A7.2 shows that while total costs of investing in tertiary education (USD 57 200 for a woman) are higher, on
average, than investing in upper secondary or post-secondary non-tertiary education (USD 31 200 for a woman),
even greater total benefits (USD 208 300 for a woman) accrue to tertiary-educated adults than to adults with upper
secondary or post-secondary non-tertiary education as their highest level of attainment (USD 92 800 for a woman)
(Tables A7.1b and A7.3b).
In general, further education yields higher earnings over a lifetime. A woman with upper secondary or postsecondary non-tertiary education as her highest level of attainment can expect to earn USD 151 800 more in
gross earnings than a woman with a lower level of attainment over the course of her life (Table A7.1b). A tertiaryeducated woman can expect to earn USD 332 600 more in gross earnings than a woman with upper secondary
or post-secondary non-tertiary education. On average, the gross earning benefits from tertiary education are
double the gross earning benefits from upper secondary or post-secondary non-tertiary education for both men
and women. While gross earnings benefits from tertiary education for a woman are only about USD 130 000
in Estonia and Korea, they are more than USD 460 000 in Chile, Luxembourg, Slovenia, the Netherlands and
the United States (Table A7.3b).
Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

135

chapter A THE OUTPUT OF EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS AND THE IMPACT OF LEARNING

A7

As shown in Indicator A6, earnings premiums from higher educational attainment are greater for men than for
women. Gross earnings benefits for men are 40% higher than for women from both upper secondary or postsecondary non-tertiary and tertiary education (Tables A7.1a and b, and Tables A7.3a and b).
Countries’ tax and social benefits systems also have an impact on people’s decisions to pursue – or not – further
education. Higher income taxes and social contributions and lower social transfers related to higher earnings can
act as disincentives to invest in further education by creating a wedge between the level of gross earnings needed
to recover the cost of education and the final net earnings perceived by the individual (Brys and Torres, 2013).
For instance, a man who chose to invest in tertiary education will pay, on average, 40% of his additional income
associated with tertiary education in taxes and social contributions. In Canada, Chile, the Czech Republic, Estonia,
Greece, Korea, New Zealand, Poland, the Slovak Republic and Spain, income taxes and social contributions amount
to less than a third of the gross earning benefits, while in Denmark, Germany, Italy and Slovenia they add up to
about half of the gross earning benefits (Table A7.3a).
Financial incentives for governments to invest in education
(public financial returns on investment)
In an era of budget constraints, government investment in education attracts even greater scrutiny. Governments
are major investors in education and, from a budget point of view, are interested to know if they will recover their
investment.
Higher levels of educational attainment tends to translate into higher income, on average (see Indicator A6). In this
sense, investments in education generate public returns as tertiary-educated adults pay higher income taxes and
social insurance payments and require fewer social transfers.
The discussion of the public returns to education in this chapter is limited to budget considerations and does not
take into account other sources of returns to education enjoyed by society as a whole, such as higher productivity,
better health and life expectancy, and other social outcomes.

Net financial returns on investment for governments
On average across OECD countries, the net public return for a woman attaining tertiary education is USD 65 500
and USD 48 000 for a woman attaining upper secondary or post-secondary non-tertiary education (Tables A7.2b
and A7.4b).
In Estonia, New Zealand, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland and the United Kingdom, public net financial returns on
education are higher for a man with upper secondary or post-secondary non-tertiary education than for a tertiaryeducated man. This could be either because of the relatively higher public direct cost of education at the tertiary
level in some of these countries or because of relatively less progressive tax systems in others (Table A7.1a and
Table A7.3a).

The total public cost of education
The total public cost of investment in an individual’s education include direct government expenditure on education
per student (direct public cost), as well as the foregone tax receipts the government would have received if the
individual had entered the labour market instead of pursuing further education. Chart A7.3 shows that on average,
upper secondary or post-secondary non-tertiary education for a woman costs about USD 31 700 for OECD countries
and ranges from below USD 13 000 in Chile, Hungary and the United Kingdom to over USD 55 000 in Austria,
Denmark, Luxembourg, Norway and Switzerland. Tertiary education for a woman in OECD countries costs an
average of USD 53 900 (Tables A7.2b and A7.4b).
In Denmark, Finland, Germany, Sweden and Switzerland, the direct cost to governments per tertiary student is
higher than USD 85 000, while this direct public cost in Chile, Israel, Korea and Poland is below USD 20 000. Since
these calculations do not take into account public loans, direct public costs in countries that widely offer public
loans, such as Australia, the United Kingdom and the United States, might be underestimated (see Indicator B5).

The total public benefits of education
Governments offset the costs of direct investment and foregone tax receipts by receiving additional tax receipts
and social contributions from higher-educated adults. Overall, taking into account unemployment rate differences
and benefits, total public benefits accruing over the lifetime of a woman whose highest level of attainment is upper
secondary or post-secondary non-tertiary education are USD 77 300, and USD 123 600 for a tertiary-educated
woman (Tables A7.2b and A7.4b).

136 Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

What are the financial incentives to invest in education? – INDICATOR A7

chapter A

Chart A7.3. Public costs and benefits of education for a woman,
by educational attainment (2011)

A7

In equivalent USD converted using PPPs for GDP
Total public benefits
Total public costs
Equivalent USD

Upper secondary or post-secondary non-tertiary education

250 000
200 000
150 000
100 000
50 000
0
-50 000

Germany

Czech Republic

Luxembourg1

Sweden

Netherlands1

United Kingdom

Portugal

Netherlands1

Hungary

Slovenia

United Kingdom

Austria

Hungary

United States

Finland

Denmark

Italy1

Slovenia

OECD average

Slovak Republic

Australia2

United States

Equivalent USD

Switzerland

Norway

Spain

Poland1

Canada1

Portugal

Chile

New Zealand

Estonia

Israel

-150 000

Korea

-100 000

Tertiary education

250 000
200 000
150 000
100 000
50 000
0
-50 000

Austria

Italy1

Chile

Czech Republic

Australia2

Poland1

OECD average

Germany

Slovak Republic

Spain

Canada1

Finland

Israel

Norway

New Zealand

Estonia

Denmark

Korea

Switzerland

-150 000

Sweden

-100 000

1. Canada, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Poland: Year of reference 2010.
2. Australia: Year of reference 2009.
Countries are ranked in ascending order of net financial public returns (benefits-costs).
Source: OECD. Tables A7.2b and A7.4b. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/education/education-at-a-glance- 19991487.htm).
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933283748

Given that gross earnings benefits vary substantially among OECD countries, tax payments and benefits to the
public sector also vary in ways that are somewhat counterintuitive. The largest public gains in tax and social security
benefits from higher education are most often found in countries where earnings differentials are large, or where
average earnings reach high income-tax brackets. In Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Slovenia and the United Kingdom,
tertiary-educated adults pay more in taxes and social contributions, resulting in more than USD 200 000 in total
public benefits from tertiary-educated women. Conversely, because gross earnings benefits from tertiary education
are relatively low in Estonia, Israel, Korea, and New Zealand, the public benefits from education are relatively low
(Table A7.4b).
Since higher taxes can sometimes deter private investment in education, a number of countries have tax policies
that effectively lower the actual tax paid by adults, particularly by those in high-income brackets. Tax relief for
interest payments on mortgage debt has been introduced in many OECD countries to encourage homeownership.
These benefits favour those with higher education and high marginal tax rates. The tax incentives for housing
are particularly large in the Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, Greece, the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden and
the United States (Andrews et al., 2011).
Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

137

chapter A THE OUTPUT OF EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS AND THE IMPACT OF LEARNING

A7

Definitions
Adults refers to 15-64 year-olds.
Direct costs are the direct expenditure on education per student during the time spent in school.
Private direct cost is households’ total expenditure on education and includes net payments to educational
institutions as well as payments for educational goods and services outside of educational institutions (school
supply, tutoring, etc.).
Public direct cost is the government’s spending on a student’s education. It includes the direct public expenditure
on educational institutions, government scholarships and other grants to students and households and transfers
and payments to other private entities for educational purposes.
Foregone earnings are the (unobserved) net earnings an individual would have had if he or she entered the labour
force and successfully found a job instead of choosing to do further studies.
Foregone taxes on earnings are the (unobserved) tax receipts the government would have received if the individual
chose to enter the labour force and successfully found a job instead of choosing to pursue further studies.
Gross earnings benefits are the discounted sum of earnings premiums over the course of a lifetime associated with
a higher level of education provided that the individual successfully enters the labour market.
The income tax effect is the discounted sum of additional level of income tax paid by the private individual or
earned by the government over the course of a lifetime and associated with a higher level of education.
The internal rate of return is the (hypothetical) real interest rate equalising the costs and the benefits related to
the educational investment.
Levels of education: Below upper secondary corresponds to ISCED-97 Levels 0, 1, 2 and 3C short programmes;
upper secondary or post-secondary non-tertiary corresponds to ISCED-97 Levels 3A, 3B, 3C long programmes,
and Level 4; and tertiary corresponds to ISCED-97 Levels 5A, 5B and 6.
The net financial returns are the net present value of the financial investment in education. The net financial
returns are the difference between the discounted financial benefits and the discounted financial cost of education,
and represent the additional value that education produces over and above the 2% real interest that is charged on
these cash flows.
The social contribution effect is the discounted sum of additional employee social contribution paid by the private
individual or received by the government over the course of a lifetime and associated with a higher level of education.
The transfers effect is the discounted sum of additional social transfers from the government to the private
individual associated with a higher education level over the course of a lifetime. Social transfers include two types of
benefits: housing benefits and social assistance.

Methodology
The general approach
This indicator estimates the financial returns on investment in education from the age of entry into further education
to a theoretical age of retirement (64 years old). Returns to education are studied purely from the perspective of
financial investment that weighs the cost and benefits of the investment.
Two periods are considered (Figure 1):

• Time spent in school during which the private person and the government pay the cost of education.
• Time spent in the labour market during which the private person and the government receive the added payments
associated with further education.
In calculating the financial returns to education, the approach taken here is the net present value (NPV) of the
investment. The NPV expresses cash transfers happening at different time in present value which allow for direct
comparability of the cost and benefit. In this framework, lifetime costs and benefits are transferred back to the
start of the investment. This is done by discounting all cash flows back to the beginning of the investment (Y1 in
Figure 1) with a set rate of interest (discount rate).

138 Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

What are the financial incentives to invest in education? – INDICATOR A7

chapter A

Figure 1. Financial returns on investment in education over a life-time
for a representative individual
Foregone earnings

Net additional earnings
In the labour market

Y1
Y2
Y3
Y4
Y5
Y6
Y7
Y8
Y9
Y10
Y11
Y12
Y13
Y14
Y15
Y16
Y17
Y18
Y19
Y20
Y21
Y22
Y23
Y24
Y25
Y26
Y27
Y28
Y29
Y30
Y31
Y32
Y33
Y34
Y35
Y36
Y37
Y38
Y39
Y40
…
…
…
…

In school

Direct cost

A7

To set a value for the discount rate, long-term government bonds have been used as a benchmark. The average longterm interest rate across OECD countries was approximately 4.9% in 2011 which leads to an average real interest
on government bonds across OECD countries of approximately 2%. The 2% real discount rate used in this indicator
reflects the fact that calculations are made in constant prices (OECD, 2015a; 2015b).
The choice of discount rate is difficult, 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 allow for comparability, and to make the
interpretation of results easier, the same discount rate (2%) is applied across all OECD countries. All values presented
in the tables of this indicator are in net present value equivalent USD using purchasing power parities (PPP).
The costs

Total cost
Investing in a higher level of education has direct and indirect costs. The direct cost is the upfront expenditure paid
during the years of additional studies. The indirect costs for a private person are the foregone earnings that the
individual would have received if he or she had decided to work instead of pursue an additional degree of education.
Similarly, the indirect costs for the public are the foregone tax receipts not received because the person chose to
pursue further education instead of entering the labour market.
Private cost= Direct cost + Foregone earnings
Public cost= Direct cost + Foregone tax receipts

Direct cost of education
The source of direct costs of education is the UOE data collection on finance (year of reference 2011 unless otherwise
specified in the tables). The direct cost includes all expenditures on education for all levels of government combined
(public direct cost) and all education-related household expenditure (private direct cost).
Private direct cost is net of loans and grants; public loans are not included in public direct costs. The exclusion of
loans from the public cost may lead to an underestimation of public costs for some countries, particularly at the
tertiary level. Further details on student loans can be found in Indicator B5.
Please note that, because of significant differences in methodology, direct costs are not comparable between this
edition of Education at a Glance and previous editions. For further details, please refer to Annex 3 (www.oecd.org/
education/education-at-a-glance-19991487.htm).

Shadow cost of education (foregone earnings and tax receipts)
Investing in further education also has a shadow cost, or opportunity cost, which is the income the private individual
or the government does not receive while the student is in school.
Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

139

chapter A THE OUTPUT OF EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS AND THE IMPACT OF LEARNING

A7

The shadow cost for a person is the foregone earnings an adult would have made if he or she had entered the
labour force instead of pursuing a higher level of education. From the government’s perspective, the shadow cost
is the foregone taxes the government is not collecting while the person is studying instead of working. To simplify,
the indicator assumes that students do not have earnings or pay taxes while they are studying. To compute foregone
earnings and foregone tax receipts, the indicator assumes that the earnings lost are equal to the minimum wage. This
simplification is used to allow for better comparability of the data across countries. The price for this assumption
is an upward bias in the calculated net present value, as the potential earnings of many young people is likely to be
higher than the minimum wage.
The benefits

Total benefits
The benefits of investing in education are the added income associated with a higher level of education given the
probability of successfully finding a job. For the private individual, this additional income is the added net earnings
expected from an additional level of education, given that the person successfully enters the labour market. Public
benefits are constructed to mirror private benefits. Public benefits are the sum of added tax receipts that accrue
to the government from an adult with a higher level of education, provided that the person successfully enters the
labour market.
For j, the highest level of attainment, and j – 1, a lower level of attainment, total public and private benefits can be
written as:
Total private benefitsj = {Expected net earnings at level j} – {Expected net earnings at level j – 1}
= {(1-Unemployment rate) j* (Net earnings) j + (Unemployment rate) j
*(Net unemployment benefits) j}
– {(1-Unemployment rate) j –1* (Net earnings) j –1 + (Unemployment rate) j –1
* (Net unemployment benefits) j –1}
Total public benefitsj = {Expected tax receipts at level j} – {Expected tax receipts at level j – 1}
= {(1-Unemployment rate) j * (tax receipt)j + (Unemployment rate)j
* (– Net unemployment benefits)j}
– {(1 – unemployment rate) j –1 * (tax receipt) j –1 + (Unemployment rate) j –1
* (– Net unemployment benefits) j –1}
Please note that, because of significant differences in methodology, direct costs are not comparable between this
edition of Education at a Glance and previous editions. For further details, please refer to Annex 3 (www.oecd.org/
education/education-at-a-glance-19991487.htm).

Decomposition of net earning and tax receipt effects
The indicator also presents the decomposition of net earnings and tax receipts effects, defined as the difference in
income associated with a higher level of attainment. These elements help explain the differences between countries
in total benefits, as tax and benefits levels can create a wedge between the added gross earnings associated with a
higher level of education and the equivalent net earnings.
Gross earnings effect is the discounted sum of additional gross earnings level associated with a higher level of
educational attainment. The data on earnings come from the earnings data collection of the OECD Network
on Labour Market, Economic and Social Outcomes of Learning (LSO Network). Earnings are age-, gender- and
attainment level-specific.
The income tax effect is the discounted sum of added level of income tax paid by the individual and received by
the government for an additional level of education. Income tax data are computed using the OECD Taxing Wages
model. The Taxing Wages model determines the level of taxes due on a given level of income. It is assumed that
annual income from employment is equal to a given ratio of the average full-time gross wage earnings for an adult
for each OECD economy. The Taxing Wages model computes the level of the tax wedge on income for several
household composition scenarios. The scenario used for this indicator is of a single worker with no children. For
country-specific details on the income tax in the Taxing Wages model, see OECD Taxing Wages 2014 (OECD, 2014).
The social contribution effect is the discounted sum of added level of employee social contributions associated with
a higher level of attainment, paid by the individual and received by the state. Employee social contributions are
computed using the OECD Taxing Wages model’s scenario of a single worker with no children. For country-specific
details on employee social contributions in the Taxing Wages model, see OECD Taxing Wages 2015 (OECD, 2015c).

140 Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

What are the financial incentives to invest in education? – INDICATOR A7

chapter A

The social transfers effect is the discounted sum of added level of social transfers associated with a higher level of
attainment. Social transfers correspond to the sum of social assistance and housing benefits paid by the government
to individuals. Social transfers are computed using the OECD Tax and Benefits model under the assumption of a
single worker with no children aged 40. For country-specific details on social transfers in the Tax and Benefits
model, see OECD Benefits and Wages country-specific information, available on line (see www.oecd.org/els/soc/
benefits-and-wages-country-specific-information.htm).
Net financial returns
The net financial return to education is the difference between the costs and benefits of an added level of education
and is calculated as follow:
Net financial returns = total benefit+total cost
Methodological caveats
To allow for better comparability across countries, the model relies on some assumptions and simplifications. A
list of the main assumptions and model limitation is available on line in Annex 3 (see www.oecd.org/education/
education-at-a-glance-19991487.htm).
In addition, the data reported are accounting-based values only. The results probably differ from econometric
estimates that would use the same data on the micro level (i.e. data from household or individual surveys) rather
than a lifetime stream of earnings derived from average earnings.
The approach used here estimates future earnings for adults with different levels of education, 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, as technological, economic and
social changes may all alter how wage levels relate to education levels.
In estimating benefits, the effect of education on the likelihood of finding employment when an individual wants
to work is taken into account. However, this also makes the estimate sensitive to the stage in the economic cycle
at which the data are collected. As more highly educated adults typically have a stronger attachment to the labour
market, the value of education generally increases in times of slow economic growth.
Given these factors, the returns on education in different countries should be interpreted with caution.
For further information on methodology, see OECD, 2011, and Annex 3 at www.oecd.org/education/education-ata-glance-19991487.htm.
Note regarding data from Israel
The statistical data for Israel are supplied by and are under the responsibility of the relevant Israeli authorities. The use of
such data by the OECD is without prejudice to the status of the Golan Heights, East Jerusalem and Israeli settlements in the
West Bank under the terms of international law.

References
Andrews, D., A. Caldera Sánchez and Å. Johansson (2011), “Housing Markets and Structural Policies in OECD Countries”, OECD
Economics Department Working Papers, No. 836, OECD Publishing, Paris, http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/5kgk8t2k9vf3-en.
Brys, B. and C. Torres (2013), “Effective Personal Tax Rates on Marginal Skills Investments in OECD Countries: A New Methodology”,
OECD Taxation Working Papers, No. 16, OECD Publishing, Paris, http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/5k425747xbr6-en.
OECD (2015a), “Exchange rates (USD monthly averages)”, Monthly Monetary and Financial Statistics (MEI) (database), http://stats.
oecd.org/Index.aspx?QueryId=169.
OECD (2015b), “Consumer prices: Annual inflation”, Monthly Monetary and Financial Statistics (MEI) (database), http://stats.
oecd.org/Index.aspx?QueryId=169.
OECD (2015c), Taxing Wages 2015, OECD Publishing, Paris, http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/tax_wages-2015-en.
OECD (2014), Taxing Wages 2014, OECD Publishing, Paris, http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/tax_wages-2014-en.
OECD (2013), Education at a Glance 2013: OECD Indicators, OECD Publishing, Paris, http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/eag-2013-en.
OECD (2011), “A User’s Guide to Indicator A9 – Incentives to Invest in Education”, in Education at a Glance 2011: OECD Indicators,
OECD Publishing, Paris, http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/eag-2011-en.

Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

141

A7

chapter A THE OUTPUT OF EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS AND THE IMPACT OF LEARNING

A7

Indicator A7 Tables
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933285095

Table A7.1a

Private costs and benefits for a man attaining upper secondary or post-secondary non-tertiary education
(2011)

Table A7.1b Private costs and benefits for a woman attaining upper secondary or post-secondary
non-tertiary education (2011)
Table A7.2a

Public costs and benefits for a man attaining upper secondary or post-secondary non-tertiary education
(2011)

Table A7.2b Public costs and benefits for a woman attaining upper secondary or post-secondary
non-tertiary education (2011)
Table A7.3a

Private costs and benefits for a man attaining tertiary education (2011)

Table A7.3b Private costs and benefits for a woman attaining tertiary education (2011)
Table A7.4a

Public costs and benefits for a man attaining tertiary education (2011)

Table A7.4b Public costs and benefits for a woman attaining tertiary education (2011)

142 Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

chapter A

What are the financial incentives to invest in education? – INDICATOR A7

Table A7.1a. Private costs and benefits for a man attaining upper secondary

A7

or post-secondary non-tertiary education (2011)

As compared with a man with below upper secondary education, in equivalent USD converted using PPPs for GDP

OECD

Earnings benefits decomposition
Gross
earnings
benefits

Social
Income tax contribution
effect
effect

Direct costs

Foregone
earnings

Total costs

(1)

(2)

(3) = (1) + (2)

(4)

(5)

Australia2

- 4 600

- 27 700

- 32 300

213 400

- 70 300

0

Austria

(6)

Internal
rate
of return

Total
benefits1

Net
financial
returns

(7)

(8)

(9) = (8) + (3)

(10)

- 2 600

155 100

122 800

21.4%
12.5%

Transfers
effect

- 1 600

- 48 800

- 50 500

430 400

- 113 500

- 81 100

- 1 900

238 300

187 800

Belgium3

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

Canada4

- 1 300

- 31 100

- 32 400

220 000

- 57 600

- 14 500

0

152 000

119 600

14.7%

Chile

- 3 700

- 19 000

- 22 700

188 000

- 6 400

- 31 600

- 1 800

141 500

118 800

15.6%

Czech Republic

- 2 600

- 17 800

- 20 400

132 900

- 26 700

- 14 600

- 10 400

97 500

77 100

16.7%

Denmark

- 200

- 35 400

- 35 500

286 800

- 119 100

0

- 16 900

143 200

107 700

16.3%

Estonia

- 200

- 10 800

- 10 900

96 800

- 19 800

- 2 700

0

94 300

83 300

22.6%

Finland

- 300

- 35 800

- 36 100

110 600

- 35 300

- 8 200

- 5 500

69 600

33 400

8.3%

France

q

q

q

q

q

q

q

q

q

q

- 1 300

- 39 700

- 41 000

152 500

- 38 500

- 31 800

- 10 800

90 000

49 000

8.8%

Germany
Greece

m

- 18 300

m

112 200

- 8 900

- 18 200

0

75 400

m

m

- 400

- 17 600

- 18 100

107 500

- 22 100

- 18 800

0

72 400

54 300

15.1%

Iceland

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

Ireland

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

Israel

- 2 700

- 29 600

- 32 300

204 900

- 28 900

- 23 200

0

154 700

122 400

12.4%

Italy4

- 7 700

- 34 000

- 41 700

217 500

- 69 100

- 20 600

0

129 800

88 100

7.1%

Japan

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

Korea

- 9 100

- 24 400

- 33 500

91 400

- 800

- 7 400

- 2 800

76 600

43 100

6.7%

Luxembourg4

- 2 100

- 53 100

- 55 200

414 200

- 117 100

- 51 200

- 2 800

240 800

185 500

13.5%

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

Netherlands4

- 4 900

- 52 100

- 57 000

205 900

- 71 400

- 13 000

0

125 200

68 200

5.7%

New Zealand

11.4%

Hungary

Mexico

- 5 900

- 37 100

- 43 000

200 000

- 55 500

0

- 1 600

155 400

112 400

Norway

m

- 46 700

m

337 000

- 96 800

- 26 300

- 300

218 000

m

m

Poland4

- 2 700

- 17 700

- 20 400

70 200

- 6 200

- 12 500

0

59 700

39 300

10.1%

Portugal

- 900

- 19 200

- 20 100

248 700

- 64 000

- 27 400

0

156 600

136 600

14.5%

Slovak Republic

- 3 800

- 15 600

- 19 400

149 000

- 24 500

- 20 000

0

133 700

114 300

27.6%

Slovenia

- 2 600

- 24 200

- 26 700

154 200

- 29 000

- 34 100

0

91 800

65 100

11.4%

Spain

- 1 600

- 14 500

- 16 100

136 500

- 34 000

- 8 700

0

96 500

80 300

14.5%

Sweden

0

- 24 200

- 24 200

242 700

- 54 400

- 17 000

- 13 300

156 400

132 200

24.3%

Switzerland

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

Turkey

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

United Kingdom

- 3 700

- 24 000

- 27 700

342 400

- 70 400

- 41 100

- 23 100

216 700

189 000

18.2%

United States

- 3 700

- 26 300

- 30 000

402 700

- 92 700

- 22 800

- 6 200

270 600

240 600

23.5%

OECD average

- 2 800

- 28 600

- 31 100

210 300

- 51 300

- 21 000

- 3 800

138 900

107 100

14.7%

EU21 average

- 2 200

- 27 900

- 30 600

200 600

- 51 300

- 23 400

- 4 700

127 100

99 500

14.5%

Notes: Values are based on the difference between men who attained an upper secondary or post-secondary non-tertiary education compared with those who have
not attained that level of education. Values have been rounded up to the nearest hundred.
1. Total benefit is a weighted sum of gross earnings benefits (4), income tax effect (5), social contribution effect (6) and transfer effects (7), taking into account the
probability of employment and the unemployment benefits in case of unemployment. For further details, please refer to the Methodology section.
2. Australia: Year of reference 2009.
3. Belgium: Data are not included in the table because upper secondary education is compulsory.
4. Canada, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Poland: Year of reference 2010.
Source: OECD. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/education/education-at-a-glance-19991487.htm).
Please refer to the Reader’s Guide for information concerning symbols for missing data and abbreviations.
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933285101

Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

143

chapter A THE OUTPUT OF EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS AND THE IMPACT OF LEARNING

Table A7.1b. Private costs and benefits for a woman attaining upper secondary

A7

or post-secondary non-tertiary education (2011)

As compared with a woman with below upper secondary education, in equivalent USD converted using PPPs for GDP

OECD

Earnings benefits decomposition
Gross
earnings
benefits

Social
Income tax contribution
effect
effect

Direct costs

Foregone
earnings

Total costs

(1)

(2)

(3) = (1) + (2)

(4)

(5)

Australia2

- 4 600

- 28 800

- 33 300

141 000

- 31 600

0

Austria

(6)

Internal
rate
of return

Total
benefits1

Net
financial
returns

(7)

(8)

(9) = (8) + (3)

(10)

- 25 000

86 700

53 400

10.5%
8.2%

Transfers
effect

- 1 600

- 47 000

- 48 600

254 800

- 42 500

- 51 000

- 26 500

132 300

83 600

Belgium3

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

Canada4

- 1 300

- 33 100

- 34 400

117 000

- 22 700

- 9 400

0

90 400

55 900

7.6%

Chile

- 3 700

- 14 400

- 18 100

115 000

- 2 000

- 23 200

- 1 400

88 200

70 200

m

Czech Republic

- 2 600

- 19 600

- 22 200

115 400

- 23 200

- 12 700

- 23 200

68 100

45 800

11.7%

Denmark

- 200

- 36 400

- 36 600

200 500

- 81 800

0

0

110 100

73 500

12.4%

Estonia

- 200

- 11 400

- 11 600

59 200

- 12 100

- 1 700

0

52 800

41 200

21.1%

Finland

- 300

- 36 900

- 37 200

83 800

- 18 600

- 6 300

- 21 600

44 100

6 900

3.9%

France

q

q

q

q

q

q

q

q

q

q

- 1 300

- 39 800

- 41 100

150 600

- 33 000

- 31 600

- 35 100

58 400

17 300

4.6%

Germany
Greece

m

- 12 900

m

82 500

0

- 13 400

0

49 100

- 400

- 18 300

- 18 800

102 700

- 20 900

- 18 000

0

71 400

52 600

13.2%

Iceland

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

Ireland

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

Israel

- 2 700

- 28 900

- 31 700

131 600

- 5 600

- 7 100

0

118 700

87 100

9.7%

Italy4

- 7 700

- 31 200

- 38 900

212 200

- 62 300

- 20 100

0

131 800

93 000

9.0%

Japan

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

Korea

- 9 100

- 23 900

- 33 000

45 300

0

- 3 600

- 17 800

22 200

- 10 800

0.6%

Luxembourg4

- 2 100

- 62 000

- 64 100

358 300

- 60 100

- 44 300

- 59 200

190 000

125 800

6.9%

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

Netherlands4

- 4 900

- 51 900

- 56 800

213 000

- 48 400

- 41 600

- 8 000

116 200

59 400

5.2%

New Zealand

5.2%

Hungary

Mexico

m

- 5 900

- 36 300

- 42 200

80 000

- 13 400

0

- 7 200

67 300

25 100

Norway

m

- 46 500

m

206 500

- 53 700

- 16 100

- 12 300

125 000

m

m

Poland4

- 2 700

- 16 300

- 19 000

90 400

- 8 000

- 16 100

0

66 300

47 300

10.2%

Portugal

- 900

- 18 100

- 19 000

166 500

- 30 200

- 18 300

0

114 700

95 700

12.7%

Slovak Republic

- 3 800

- 8 500

- 12 200

101 100

- 16 000

- 13 500

0

91 700

79 500

31.4%

Slovenia

- 2 600

- 23 400

- 25 900

148 500

- 35 200

- 32 800

0

83 000

57 100

9.1%

Spain

- 1 600

- 15 100

- 16 700

129 800

- 33 700

- 8 200

0

94 700

78 000

11.3%

Sweden

0

- 26 000

- 26 000

198 200

- 41 200

- 13 800

- 35 500

107 000

81 000

12.3%

Switzerland

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

Turkey

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

United Kingdom

- 3 700

- 27 100

- 30 800

147 500

- 79 900

- 17 700

- 32 300

35 500

4 700

3.8%

United States

- 3 700

- 27 100

- 30 800

296 200

- 61 900

- 16 700

- 17 900

196 200

165 300

17.4%

OECD average

- 2 800

- 28 500

- 31 200

151 800

- 32 200

- 16 800

- 12 400

92 800

62 000

10.3%

EU21 average

- 2 200

- 27 900

- 30 900

156 400

- 36 000

- 20 100

- 13 400

89 800

61 300

11.0%

Notes: Values are based on the difference between women who attained an upper secondary or post-secondary non-tertiary education compared with those who have
not attained that level of education. Values have been rounded up to the nearest hundred.
1. Total benefit is a weighted sum of gross earnings benefits (4), income tax effect (5), social contribution effect (6) and transfer effects (7), taking into account the
probability of employment and the unemployment benefits in case of unemployment. For further details, please refer to the Methodology section.
2. Australia: Year of reference 2009.
3. Belgium: Data are not included in the table because upper secondary education is compulsory.
4. Canada, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Poland: Year of reference 2010.
Source: OECD. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/education/education-at-a-glance-19991487.htm).
Please refer to the Reader’s Guide for information concerning symbols for missing data and abbreviations.
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933285119

144 Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

What are the financial incentives to invest in education? – INDICATOR A7

chapter A

Table A7.2a. Public costs and benefits for a man attaining upper secondary

A7

or post-secondary non-tertiary education (2011)

As compared with a man with below upper secondary education, in equivalent USD converted using PPPs for GDP

OECD

Earnings benefits decomposition
Income tax
effect

Social
contribution
effect

(3) = (1) + (2)

(4)

(5)

- 3 100

- 21 100

70 300

0

Direct costs

Foregone
taxes on
earnings

Total costs

(1)

(2)

Australia2

- 18 000

Austria

Internal
rate
of return

Total
benefits1

Net
financial
returns

(6)

(7)

(8) = (7) + (3)

(9)

2 600

91 900

70 800

20.0%
9.6%

Transfers
effect

- 51 200

- 8 600

- 59 800

113 500

81 100

1 900

211 900

152 100

Belgium3

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

Canada4

- 29 800

- 3 000

- 32 800

57 600

14 500

0

92 400

59 600

9.0%

Chile

- 12 800

- 100

- 12 800

6 400

31 600

1 800

37 800

25 000

8.8%

Czech Republic

- 21 200

3 400

- 17 800

26 700

14 600

10 400

122 300

104 500

24.6%

Denmark

- 41 300

- 13 500

- 54 800

119 100

0

16 900

151 400

96 600

9.6%

Estonia

- 20 100

- 1 600

- 21 700

19 800

2 700

0

56 000

34 300

8.7%

Finland

- 26 200

3 600

- 22 600

35 300

8 200

5 500

80 700

58 100

18.4%

France
Germany
Greece

q

q

q

q

q

q

q

q

q

- 31 200

- 7 400

- 38 600

38 500

31 800

10 800

136 600

98 000

15.0%

m

- 4 400

m

8 900

18 200

0

30 800

m

m

- 8 600

1 100

- 7 400

22 100

18 800

0

72 600

65 200

27.9%

Iceland

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

Ireland

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

Israel

- 14 600

100

- 14 500

28 900

23 200

0

54 100

39 500

9.2%

Italy4

- 31 300

- 7 000

- 38 300

69 100

20 600

0

106 200

67 800

6.5%

Japan

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

Korea

- 21 500

- 10 800

- 32 300

800

7 400

2 800

11 900

- 20 500

-1.9%

Luxembourg4

- 68 000

- 4 500

- 72 500

117 100

51 200

2 800

185 500

112 900

8.7%

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

Netherlands4

- 29 100

- 2 800

- 31 900

71 400

13 000

0

106 500

74 600

9.6%

New Zealand

- 23 200

- 1 100

- 24 300

55 500

0

1 600

73 300

49 000

9.7%

Norway

- 49 200

- 9 600

- 58 700

96 800

26 300

300

142 600

83 900

8.4%

Poland4

- 17 000

- 5 900

- 22 900

6 200

12 500

0

41 900

19 000

6.3%

Portugal

- 29 300

- 2 300

- 31 600

64 000

27 400

0

81 300

49 600

6.9%

Slovak Republic

- 17 100

3 400

- 13 700

24 500

20 000

0

98 900

85 100

21.8%

Slovenia

- 22 500

- 7 200

- 29 600

29 000

34 100

0

88 200

58 600

10.5%

Spain

- 19 200

1 900

- 17 300

34 000

8 700

0

67 700

50 400

11.4%

Sweden

- 35 000

- 4 200

- 39 200

54 400

17 000

13 300

116 900

77 700

19.5%

Switzerland

- 41 600

- 14 000

- 55 600

52 000

18 900

0

114 200

58 600

7.6%

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

United Kingdom

- 14 500

1 800

- 12 700

70 400

41 100

23 100

184 900

172 200

53.4%

United States

- 34 500

- 3 800

- 38 300

92 700

22 800

6 200

123 800

85 500

11.8%

OECD average

- 28 000

- 3 700

- 31 600

51 300

21 000

3 700

99 300

70 300

13.5%

EU21 average

- 28 400

- 3 000

- 31 300

51 300

23 400

4 700

107 800

81 000

15.8%

Hungary

Mexico

Turkey

Notes: Values are based on the difference between men who attained an upper secondary or post-secondary non-tertiary education compared with those who have
not attained that level of education. Values have been rounded up to the nearest hundred.
1. Total benefit is a weighted sum of gross earnings benefits (4), income tax effect (5), social contribution effect (6) and transfer effects (7), taking into account the
probability of employment and the unemployment benefits in case of unemployment. For further details, please refer to the Methodology section.
2. Australia: Year of reference 2009.
3. Belgium: Data are not included in the table because upper secondary education is compulsory.
4. Canada, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Poland: Year of reference 2010.
Source: OECD. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/education/education-at-a-glance-19991487.htm).
Please refer to the Reader’s Guide for information concerning symbols for missing data and abbreviations.
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933285127

Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

145

chapter A THE OUTPUT OF EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS AND THE IMPACT OF LEARNING

Table A7.2b. Public costs and benefits for a woman attaining upper secondary

A7

or post-secondary non-tertiary education (2011)

As compared with a woman with below upper secondary education, in equivalent USD converted using PPPs for GDP

OECD

Earnings benefits decomposition
Income tax
effect

Social
contribution
effect

(3) = (1) + (2)

(4)

(5)

- 3 200

- 21 200

31 600

0

Direct costs

Foregone
taxes on
earnings

Total costs

(1)

(2)

Australia2

- 18 000

Austria

Internal
rate
of return

Total
benefits1

Net
financial
returns

(6)

(7)

(8) = (7) + (3)

(9)

25 000

62 800

41 600

22.4%
8.0%

Transfers
effect

- 51 200

- 8 200

- 59 500

42 500

51 000

26 500

133 600

74 200

Belgium3

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

Canada4

- 29 800

- 3 200

- 33 000

22 700

9 400

0

49 200

16 200

4.7%

Chile

- 12 800

- 100

- 12 800

2 000

23 200

1 400

25 500

12 700

7.2%

Czech Republic

- 21 200

3 800

- 17 400

23 200

12 700

23 200

104 500

87 100

20.6%

Denmark

- 41 300

- 13 900

- 55 200

81 800

0

0

107 400

52 100

7.7%

Estonia

- 20 100

- 1 700

- 21 800

12 100

1 700

0

26 000

4 200

4.6%

Finland

- 26 200

3 700

- 22 500

18 600

6 300

21 600

80 300

57 800

22.8%

France
Germany
Greece

q

q

q

q

q

q

q

q

q

- 31 200

- 7 500

- 38 600

33 000

31 600

35 100

125 100

86 500

16.4%

m

- 3 100

m

0

13 400

0

13 000

m

m

- 8 600

1 200

- 7 400

20 900

18 000

0

69 600

62 300

25.2%

Iceland

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

Ireland

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

Israel

- 14 600

100

- 14 500

5 600

7 100

0

10 000

- 4 600

1.1%

Italy4

- 31 300

- 6 500

- 37 700

62 300

20 100

0

89 500

51 800

6.6%

Japan

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

Korea

- 21 500

- 10 600

- 32 100

0

3 600

17 800

21 800

- 10 300

0.5%

Luxembourg4

- 68 000

- 5 300

- 73 300

60 100

44 300

59 200

163 100

89 800

11.5%

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

Netherlands4

- 29 100

- 2 800

- 31 900

48 400

41 600

8 000

118 100

86 200

12.0%

New Zealand

- 23 200

- 1 100

- 24 300

13 400

0

7 200

35 700

11 400

5.6%

Norway

- 49 200

- 9 500

- 58 700

53 700

16 100

12 300

93 100

34 400

5.8%

Poland4

- 17 000

- 5 400

- 22 400

8 000

16 100

0

48 200

25 700

7.4%

Portugal

- 29 300

- 2 200

- 31 500

30 200

18 300

0

47 400

15 900

4.5%

Slovak Republic

- 17 100

1 800

- 15 200

16 000

13 500

0

59 700

44 500

16.0%

Slovenia

- 22 500

- 6 900

- 29 400

35 200

32 800

0

78 500

49 100

9.6%

Spain

- 19 200

1 900

- 17 200

33 700

8 200

0

44 000

26 700

7.8%

Sweden

- 35 000

- 4 500

- 39 500

41 200

13 800

35 500

130 100

90 500

22.4%

Switzerland

- 41 600

- 15 300

- 56 900

26 700

14 600

10 700

93 700

36 800

7.5%

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

United Kingdom

- 14 500

2 000

- 12 400

79 900

17 700

32 300

157 000

144 600

37.8%

United States

- 34 500

- 3 900

- 38 500

61 900

16 700

17 900

99 400

60 900

12.0%

OECD average

- 28 000

- 3 700

- 31 700

32 000

16 700

12 400

77 300

48 000

11.8%

EU21 average

- 28 400

- 3 000

- 31 300

36 000

20 100

13 400

88 600

61 700

14.2%

Hungary

Mexico

Turkey

Notes: Values are based on the difference between women who attained an upper secondary or post-secondary non-tertiary education compared with those who have
not attained that level of education. Values have been rounded up to the nearest hundred.
1. Total benefit is a weighted sum of gross earnings benefits (4), income tax effect (5), social contribution effect (6) and transfer effects (7), taking into account the
probability of employment and the unemployment benefits in case of unemployment. For further details, please refer to the Methodology section.
2. Australia: Year of reference 2009.
3. Belgium: Data are not included in the table because upper secondary education is compulsory.
4. Canada, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Poland: Year of reference 2010.
Source: OECD. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/education/education-at-a-glance-19991487.htm).
Please refer to the Reader’s Guide for information concerning symbols for missing data and abbreviations.
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933285133

146 Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

chapter A

What are the financial incentives to invest in education? – INDICATOR A7

Table A7.3a. Private costs and benefits for a man attaining tertiary education (2011)
As compared with a man attaining upper secondary or post-secondary non-tertiary education,
in equivalent USD converted using PPPs for GDP

A7

OECD

Earnings benefits decomposition
Gross
earnings
benefits

Social
Income tax contribution
effect
effect

Direct costs

Foregone
earnings

Total costs

(1)

(2)

(3) = (1) + (2)

(4)

(5)

Australia2

- 27 400

- 52 200

- 79 600

483 700

- 172 400

0

Austria

- 1 900

- 61 000

- 62 900

559 500

- 181 100

Belgium

m

m

m

m

m

Canada3

- 17 400

- 36 800

- 54 200

395 000

Chile

- 38 100

- 33 900

- 71 900

Czech Republic

- 3 300

- 27 100

- 30 400

Denmark

- 4 300

- 52 400

Estonia

- 4 900

Finland
France
Germany
Greece

(6)

Transfers
effect
(7)

Total
benefits1

Net
financial
returns

Internal
rate
of return

(8)

(9) = (8) + (3)

(10)

0

302 800

223 200

10.4%

- 73 200

0

306 500

243 600

11.0%

m

m

m

m

m

- 121 300

- 6 400

0

260 600

206 400

12.2%

766 000

- 70 400

- 83 600

- 1 300

587 100

515 100

15.9%

488 800

- 98 300

- 53 800

0

331 900

301 500

23.5%

- 56 700

421 500

- 214 700

0

- 10 800

189 900

133 200

8.9%

- 20 100

- 25 000

220 400

- 45 000

- 6 200

0

172 200

147 200

20.3%

- 3 400

- 69 200

- 72 600

466 100

- 177 700

- 34 000

0

252 800

180 200

9.6%

q

q

q

q

q

q

q

q

q

q

- 5 200

- 71 300

- 76 500

576 000

- 189 800

- 97 700

0

295 600

219 100

10.6%

m

- 26 800

m

234 100

- 35 900

- 37 900

0

151 400

m

m

- 9 100

- 22 200

- 31 300

620 900

- 156 300

- 108 700

0

346 900

315 600

25.4%

Iceland

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

Ireland

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

Israel

- 11 300

- 31 800

- 43 100

371 300

- 82 900

- 44 600

0

239 300

196 300

13.2%

Italy3

- 15 800

- 40 200

- 56 000

487 500

- 184 400

- 48 600

0

248 800

192 800

9.5%

Japan

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

Korea

- 20 300

- 33 700

- 54 000

154 200

- 2 800

- 12 400

0

137 200

83 200

6.2%

Luxembourg3

m

- 61 900

m

946 300

- 327 000

- 110 800

0

496 700

m

m

Mexico

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

Netherlands3

- 16 900

- 95 000

- 111 900

615 300

- 273 200

- 1 300

0

336 400

224 500

9.5%

New Zealand

- 14 000

- 54 400

- 68 400

240 500

- 73 500

0

0

165 500

97 100

7.1%

Norway

- 2 300

- 55 900

- 58 200

419 100

- 152 700

- 32 700

0

234 700

176 500

8.4%

Poland3

- 6 100

- 18 000

- 24 100

495 800

- 43 900

- 88 400

0

362 200

338 200

29.2%

Portugal

- 8 600

- 24 500

- 33 100

522 100

- 177 300

- 57 400

0

279 500

246 400

18.7%

Slovak Republic

- 9 100

- 24 500

- 33 600

390 700

- 64 700

- 49 900

0

280 900

247 300

20.6%

Slovenia

- 4 100

- 33 600

- 37 700

593 000

- 155 900

- 131 100

0

291 900

254 200

17.4%

Spain

- 12 900

- 45 900

- 58 800

242 500

- 61 700

- 15 400

0

161 500

102 700

9.1%

Sweden

- 200

- 51 900

- 51 900

303 600

- 117 000

- 12 400

0

169 600

117 700

8.3%

Switzerland

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

Turkey

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

United Kingdom

- 25 900

- 40 700

- 66 600

538 400

- 121 000

- 58 100

- 1 800

353 600

287 000

15.7%

United States

- 55 000

- 46 200

- 101 300

861 000

- 261 800

- 48 600

0

547 600

446 300

15.7%

OECD average

- 13 200

- 43 500

- 56 700

477 400

- 137 000

- 46 700

- 500

288 600

229 000

14.0%

EU21 average

- 8 200

- 43 700

- 51 800

484 600

- 145 800

- 54 700

- 700

279 400

222 000

15.5%

Hungary

Notes: Values are based on the difference between men who attained a tertiary education compared with those who have attained an upper secondary or post-secondary
non-tertiary education. Values have been rounded up to the nearest hundred.
1. Total benefit is a weighted sum of gross earnings benefits (4), income tax effect (5), social contribution effect (6) and transfer effects (7), taking into account the
probability of employment and the unemployment benefits in case of unemployment. For further details, please refer to the Methodology section.
2. Australia: Year of reference 2009.
3. Canada, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Poland: Year of reference 2010.
Source: OECD. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/education/education-at-a-glance-19991487.htm).
Please refer to the Reader’s Guide for information concerning symbols for missing data and abbreviations.
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933285143

Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

147

chapter A THE OUTPUT OF EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS AND THE IMPACT OF LEARNING

Table A7.3b. Private costs and benefits for a woman attaining tertiary education (2011)
As compared with a woman attaining upper secondary or post-secondary non-tertiary education,
in equivalent USD converted using PPPs for GDP

A7

OECD

Earnings benefits decomposition
Gross
earnings
benefits

Social
Income tax contribution
effect
effect

Transfers
effect

Total
benefits1

Net
financial
returns

Internal
rate
of return

(8)

(9) = (8) + (3)

(10)

207 500

126 500

8.5%

164 600

8.8%

Direct costs

Foregone
earnings

Total costs

(1)

(2)

(3) = (1) + (2)

(4)

(5)

Australia2

- 27 400

- 53 500

- 81 000

321 200

- 112 300

0

0

Austria

- 1 900

- 61 000

- 62 900

432 400

- 120 400

- 81 600

0

227 500

(6)

(7)

Belgium

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

Canada3

- 17 400

- 38 200

- 55 600

328 800

- 73 600

- 25 100

0

227 600

171 900

13.5%

Chile

- 38 100

- 32 100

- 70 200

463 000

- 25 900

- 75 800

- 1 300

356 300

286 100

13.7%

Czech Republic

- 3 300

- 26 600

- 29 900

282 400

- 56 800

- 31 100

- 3 700

191 700

161 800

16.3%

Denmark

- 4 300

- 54 400

- 58 700

236 600

- 98 300

0

- 13 000

120 800

62 100

6.9%

Estonia

- 4 900

- 21 000

- 25 900

133 200

- 27 200

- 3 700

0

102 500

76 600

13.8%

Finland

- 3 400

- 72 100

- 75 400

290 100

- 95 500

- 21 700

- 2 600

169 800

94 300

7.1%

France

q

q

q

q

q

q

q

q

q

q

- 5 200

- 72 500

- 77 700

326 000

- 83 300

- 68 000

0

175 600

98 000

6.4%

Germany
Greece

m

- 21 900

m

235 300

- 16 700

- 38 100

0

152 900

m

m

- 9 100

- 22 200

- 31 300

323 200

- 93 800

- 56 600

0

171 200

139 800

16.2%

Iceland

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

Ireland

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

Israel

- 11 300

- 31 600

- 42 900

225 300

- 31 700

- 25 800

0

168 400

125 600

11.0%

Italy3

- 15 800

- 38 900

- 54 700

316 800

- 102 900

- 30 100

0

179 300

124 600

9.5%

Japan

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

Korea

- 20 300

- 35 000

- 55 400

131 600

- 900

- 10 600

0

117 000

61 700

5.5%

Luxembourg3

m

- 65 200

m

721 500

- 223 400

- 89 100

0

407 200

m

m

Mexico

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

Netherlands3

- 16 900

- 95 300

- 112 200

479 300

- 189 100

- 6 900

0

281 600

169 400

8.6%

New Zealand

- 14 000

- 55 100

- 69 100

206 300

- 44 100

0

- 3 300

156 900

87 800

8.1%

Norway

- 2 300

- 57 600

- 59 900

304 100

- 85 100

- 23 700

0

196 300

136 400

8.9%

Poland3

- 6 100

- 17 000

- 23 100

316 400

- 28 000

- 56 400

0

233 800

210 700

24.0%

Portugal

- 8 600

- 22 500

- 31 100

413 600

- 119 700

- 45 500

0

248 300

217 200

20.5%

Slovak Republic

- 9 100

- 24 400

- 33 500

233 600

- 38 400

- 31 300

0

168 700

135 200

14.8%

Slovenia

- 4 100

- 32 800

- 36 900

463 800

- 110 500

- 102 500

0

246 700

209 800

16.1%

Spain

- 12 900

- 46 400

- 59 300

284 200

- 73 100

- 18 000

0

190 600

131 200

10.5%

Sweden

- 200

- 52 100

- 52 100

190 400

- 43 300

- 13 300

0

132 900

80 800

7.3%

Switzerland

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

Turkey

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

United Kingdom

- 25 900

- 43 100

- 69 000

422 200

- 93 000

- 50 700

- 80 300

195 600

126 600

8.7%

United States

- 55 000

- 49 200

- 104 200

566 600

- 139 100

- 32 000

0

390 200

286 000

12.2%

OECD average

- 13 200

- 43 900

- 57 200

332 600

- 81 800

- 36 100

- 4 000

208 300

145 200

11.5%

EU21 average

- 8 200

- 43 900

- 52 100

338 900

- 89 600

- 41 400

- 5 500

199 800

137 700

12.2%

Hungary

Notes: Values are based on the difference between women who attained a tertiary education compared with those who have attained an upper secondary or postsecondary non-tertiary education. Values have been rounded up to the nearest hundred.
1. Total benefit is a weighted sum of gross earnings benefits (4), income tax effect (5), social contribution effect (6) and transfer effects (7), taking into account the
probability of employment and the unemployment benefits in case of unemployment. For further details, please refer to the Methodology section.
2. Australia: Year of reference 2009.
3. Canada, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Poland: Year of reference 2010.
Source: OECD. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/education/education-at-a-glance-19991487.htm).
Please refer to the Reader’s Guide for information concerning symbols for missing data and abbreviations.
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933285155

148 Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

What are the financial incentives to invest in education? – INDICATOR A7

chapter A

Table A7.4a. Public costs and benefits for a man attaining tertiary education (2011)
As compared with a man attaining upper secondary or post-secondary non-tertiary education,
in equivalent USD converted using PPPs for GDP

A7

OECD

Earnings benefits decomposition
Income tax
effect

Social
contribution
effect

Transfers
effect

(3) = (1) + (2)

(4)

(5)

(6)

- 5 800

- 37 200

172 400

0

- 74 100

- 10 700

- 84 800

181 100

m

m

m

m

Canada3

- 44 900

- 3 600

- 48 400

Chile

- 18 100

- 100

Czech Republic

- 27 600

5 200

Denmark

- 98 400

Estonia

- 26 600

Finland
France

Direct costs

Foregone
taxes on
earnings

Total costs

(1)

(2)

Australia2

- 31 400

Austria
Belgium

Germany
Greece

Total
benefits1

Net
financial
returns

Internal
rate
of return

(7)

(8) = (7) + (3)

(9)

0

168 800

131 500

11.6%

73 200

0

260 100

175 300

8.0%

m

m

m

m

m

121 300

6 400

0

136 100

87 700

8.0%

- 18 200

70 400

83 600

1 300

149 200

131 000

16.4%

- 22 300

98 300

53 800

0

156 600

134 200

17.0%

- 20 000

- 118 400

214 700

0

10 800

226 200

107 800

5.5%

- 3 000

- 29 600

45 000

6 200

0

56 100

26 500

7.5%

- 91 300

6 900

- 84 400

177 700

34 000

0

217 300

133 000

7.5%

q

q

q

q

q

q

q

q

q

- 87 500

- 13 400

- 100 900

189 800

97 700

0

306 500

205 600

8.7%

m

- 6 400

m

35 900

37 900

0

76 300

m

m

- 29 600

1 400

- 28 200

156 300

108 700

0

271 200

243 000

24.1%

Iceland

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

Ireland

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

Israel

- 19 900

100

- 19 800

82 900

44 600

0

121 300

101 500

11.6%

Italy3

- 35 900

- 8 300

- 44 200

184 400

48 600

0

226 900

182 700

9.4%

Japan

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

Korea

- 13 100

- 14 900

- 27 900

2 800

12 400

0

17 200

- 10 800

0.5%

Luxembourg3

m

- 5 200

m

327 000

110 800

0

408 000

m

m

Mexico

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

Netherlands3

- 73 000

- 5 100

- 78 100

273 200

1 300

0

272 600

194 600

m

New Zealand

- 32 600

- 1 700

- 34 300

73 500

0

0

74 300

40 000

6.3%

Norway

- 75 300

- 11 400

- 86 800

152 700

32 700

0

192 600

105 800

5.5%

Poland3

- 19 100

- 6 000

- 25 000

43 900

88 400

0

143 100

118 100

15.1%

Portugal

- 31 400

- 3 000

- 34 300

177 300

57 400

0

211 800

177 500

11.5%

Slovak Republic

- 28 100

5 300

- 22 800

64 700

49 900

0

123 100

100 400

14.6%

Slovenia

- 34 900

- 9 900

- 44 900

155 900

131 100

0

284 300

239 400

14.0%

Spain

- 59 000

5 900

- 53 100

61 700

15 400

0

100 700

47 600

6.2%

Sweden

- 97 200

- 9 000

- 106 100

117 000

12 400

0

128 800

22 700

3.1%

Switzerland

- 91 300

- 18 500

- 109 700

125 200

36 200

0

161 900

52 200

4.0%

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

United Kingdom

- 27 700

3 100

- 24 700

121 000

58 100

1 800

191 800

167 100

23.4%

United States

- 55 900

- 6 700

- 62 600

261 800

48 600

0

334 200

271 700

14.5%

OECD average

- 49 000

- 5 000

- 53 900

136 600

46 300

500

185 800

127 400

10.6%

EU21 average

- 52 600

- 4 000

- 56 400

145 800

54 700

700

203 400

142 200

11.7%

Hungary

Turkey

Notes: Values are based on the difference between men who attained a tertiary education compared with those who have attained an upper secondary or post-secondary
non-tertiary education. Values have been rounded up to the nearest hundred.
1. Total benefit is a weighted sum of gross earnings benefits (4), income tax effect (5), social contribution effect (6) and transfer effects (7), taking into account the
probability of employment and the unemployment benefits in case of unemployment. For further details, please refer to the Methodology section.
2. Australia: Year of reference 2009.
3. Canada, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Poland: Year of reference 2010.
Source: OECD. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/education/education-at-a-glance-19991487.htm).
Please refer to the Reader’s Guide for information concerning symbols for missing data and abbreviations.
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933285166

Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

149

chapter A THE OUTPUT OF EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS AND THE IMPACT OF LEARNING

Table A7.4b. Public costs and benefits for a woman attaining tertiary education (2011)
As compared with a woman attaining upper secondary or post-secondary non-tertiary education,
in equivalent USD converted using PPPs for GDP

A7

OECD

Earnings benefits decomposition
Income tax
effect

Social
contribution
effect

Transfers
effect

(3)=(1)+(2)

(4)

(5)

(6)

- 37 400

112 300

0

- 10 700

- 84 800

120 400

m

m

m

- 44 900

- 3 700

- 48 600

Chile

- 18 100

- 100

Czech Republic

- 27 600

5 100

Denmark

- 98 400

Estonia

Direct costs

Foregone
taxes on
earnings

Total costs

(1)

(2)

Australia2

- 31 400

- 6 000

Austria

- 74 100

Belgium

m

Canada3

Total
benefits1

Net
financial
returns

Internal
rate
of return

(7)

(8) = (7) + (3)

(9)

0

114 600

77 200

9.7%

81 600

0

197 100

112 400

6.2%

m

m

m

m

m

73 600

25 100

0

96 900

48 300

6.7%

- 18 200

25 900

75 800

1 300

101 600

83 400

14.6%

- 22 400

56 800

31 100

3 700

104 100

81 700

13.5%

- 20 800

- 119 200

98 300

0

13 000

112 800

- 6 400

2.2%

- 26 600

- 3 200

- 29 800

27 200

3 700

0

31 300

1 600

3.6%

Finland

- 91 300

7 200

- 84 100

95 500

21 700

2 600

126 900

42 800

4.6%

France

q

q

q

q

q

q

q

q

q

- 87 500

- 13 600

- 101 100

83 300

68 000

0

158 600

57 500

4.5%

Germany
Greece

m

- 5 200

m

16 700

38 100

0

65 900

m

m

- 29 600

1 400

- 28 200

93 800

56 600

0

162 500

134 300

16.9%

Iceland

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

Ireland

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

Israel

- 19 900

100

- 19 800

31 700

25 800

0

54 400

34 600

7.3%

Italy3

- 35 900

- 8 000

- 43 900

102 900

30 100

0

129 600

85 700

7.8%

Japan

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

Korea

- 13 100

- 15 500

- 28 500

900

10 600

0

13 600

- 14 900

-0.6%

Luxembourg3

m

- 5 500

m

223 400

89 100

0

287 300

m

m

Mexico

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

Netherlands3

- 73 000

- 5 100

- 78 100

189 100

6 900

0

192 700

114 600

m

New Zealand

- 32 600

- 1 700

- 34 300

44 100

0

3 300

51 100

16 800

5.1%

Norway

- 75 300

- 11 800

- 87 100

85 100

23 700

0

112 300

25 200

3.4%

Poland3

- 19 100

- 5 600

- 24 700

28 000

56 400

0

101 400

76 600

12.6%

Portugal

- 31 400

- 2 700

- 34 100

119 700

45 500

0

158 900

124 800

11.0%

Slovak Republic

- 28 100

5 300

- 22 800

38 400

31 300

0

76 800

54 000

10.5%

Slovenia

- 34 900

- 9 700

- 44 700

110 500

102 500

0

221 900

177 200

11.3%

Spain

- 59 000

6 000

- 53 000

73 100

18 000

0

105 800

52 800

6.8%

Sweden

- 97 200

- 9 000

- 106 200

43 300

13 300

0

65 000

- 41 200

0.3%

Switzerland

- 91 300

- 18 300

- 109 600

73 300

28 900

0

91 700

- 17 900

1.5%

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

United Kingdom

- 27 700

3 200

- 24 500

93 000

50 700

80 300

225 300

200 800

37.2%

United States

- 55 900

- 7 100

- 63 000

139 100

32 000

0

178 300

115 300

9.2%

OECD average

- 49 000

- 5 000

- 53 900

81 500

35 800

3 900

123 600

65 500

8.6%

EU21 average

- 52 600

- 3 900

- 56 400

89 600

41 400

5 500

140 200

79 300

9.9%

Hungary

Turkey

Notes: Values are based on the difference between women who attained a tertiary education compared with those who have attained an upper secondary or postsecondary non-tertiary education. Values have been rounded up to the nearest hundred.
1. Total benefit is a weighted sum of gross earnings benefits (4), income tax effect (5), social contribution effect (6) and transfer effects (7), taking into account the
probability of employment and the unemployment benefits in case of unemployment. For further details, please refer to the Methodology section.
2. Australia: Year of reference 2009.
3. Canada, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Poland: Year of reference 2010.
Source: OECD. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/education/education-at-a-glance-19991487.htm).
Please refer to the Reader’s Guide for information concerning symbols for missing data and abbreviations.
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933285175

150 Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

INDICATOR A8

HOW ARE SOCIAL OUTCOMES RELATED TO EDUCATION?
• On average across countries and sub-national entities that participated in the Survey of Adult
Skills (PIAAC) (2012), adults with higher qualifications were more likely to report desirable social
outcomes, including good or excellent health, participation in volunteer activities, interpersonal
trust, and political efficacy (i.e. having a say in government).

• The proportion of adults who reported that they have a say in government (political efficacy) grows
with each additional level of education; and the difference in these proportions is larger between
adults with upper secondary or post-secondary non-tertiary education and those with tertiary
education than between adults who have below upper secondary education and those with upper
secondary or post-secondary non-tertiary education.

• The proportion of adults who reported that they volunteer and enjoy good-to-excellent health
grows with each additional level of education; and the difference in these proportions is larger
between adults with below upper secondary education and those with upper secondary or postsecondary non-tertiary education than between adults with upper secondary or post-secondary
non-tertiary and those with tertiary education.

Chart A8.1. Social outcomes related to education (2012)

Survey of Adult Skills, average, 25-64 year-olds, upper secondary or post-secondary
non-tertiary education as reference category

Percentage-point
difference

Difference between upper secondary or post-secondary non-tertiary and below upper secondary
Difference between upper secondary or post-secondary non-tertiary and tertiary
After accounting for literacy proficiency
After accounting for numeracy proficiency

15
10
5
0
-5
-10

Political efficacy
(reporting to have
a say in government)

Interpersonal trust
(reporting to trust others)

Volunteering
(reporting to volunteer
at least once a month)

Self-reported health
(reporting to be
in good health)

How to read this chart
Percentage-point difference reflects the relative change of social outcomes compared to the reference category. For example,
on average the percentage of individuals with tertiary education reporting that they have a say in government increases
by 13 percentage points compared to someone who has upper secondary or post-secondary non-tertiary education. After
accounting for literacy proficiency or numeracy proficiency the increase drops to 10 percentage points. On the other hand,
on average the percentage of individuals with below upper secondary education reporting that they have a say in government
decreases by 7 percentage points compared to someone who has upper secondary or post-secondary non-tertiary education.
After accounting for literacy proficiency or numeracy proficiency the decrease rises to 4 percentage points.
Note: Calculations are based on a linear regression after accounting for gender, age and monthly earnings.
Social outcomes are ranked in descending order of percentage-point difference between upper secondary or post-secondary non-tertiary and
tertiary education.
Source: OECD. Tables A8.1, A8.2, A8.3a, A8.4, and Tables A8.1 (L), A8.1 (N), A8.2 (L), A8.2 (N), A8.3a (L), A8.3a (N), A8.4 (L) and
A8.4 (N), available on line. See annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/education/education-at-a-glance-19991487.htm).
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933283755

Context
With recent increases in chronic debilitating conditions, such as heart disease, diabetes and depression,
governments are focusing their efforts on encouraging changes in lifestyle to promote healthy
behaviours (OECD, 2013a). The relationship between health and education has been well-documented
in many countries and over many years. Indeed, better-educated people have lower morbidity rates
and increased life expectancy (Cutler and Lleras-Muney, 2006).

152 Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

Health is not the sole social outcome related to education. Interpersonal trust, volunteering and
political engagement are also positively associated with education. Without trust in others and the
rule of law, all relationships, whether business, political or social, function less efficiently. When
people feel they have something to offer, when they are aware of others around them, they are more
apt to participate in social change through volunteering. And when people feel they understand the
political issues facing their country and could make a difference in how their country is run, they are
more likely to be politically engaged (OECD, 2013b).

INDICATOR A8

Other findings

• The differences in the shares of the population reporting positive social outcomes observed among
adults with different levels of educational attainment partly reflect differences in age, gender
and earnings. In most countries, accounting for these factors reduces, but does not eliminate, the
differences observed in social outcomes across levels of educational attainment.

• The outcome that is most strongly influenced by individuals’ age, gender and earnings is health,
where consideration of these factors reduces, by about half, differences in the share of adults
reporting good or excellent health across levels of educational attainment. The differences across
levels of educational attainment are generally not strongly related to these factors for volunteering,
interpersonal trust and political efficacy.

• Both literacy and numeracy skills are associated with positive social outcomes, although educational
attainment itself is the primary factor associated with differences in social outcomes.

Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

153

chapter A THE OUTPUT OF EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS AND THE IMPACT OF LEARNING

A8

Analysis
This year’s indicator on social outcomes related to education (and skills) includes measures of self-reported health,
volunteering, interpersonal trust and political efficacy, as assessed in the Survey of Adult Skills, a product of the
OECD Programme for the International Assessment of Adult Competencies (PIAAC). These four social outcome
measures are considered to be key indicators of individual and national well-being (OECD, 2013a).
Results show that educational attainment is positively associated with these measures of social outcomes even after
accounting for gender, age, monthly earnings and proficiency in literacy or numeracy. Although country-specific
patterns vary, the overall results show that proficiency in literacy and numeracy are related to all measured social
outcomes, whereas gender, age and monthly earnings are related to self-reported health only.
As Chart A8.1 shows, the proportion of adults who believe they have a say in government is 13 percentage points
larger among adults with tertiary education than among adults with upper secondary or post-secondary nontertiary education. There is a 12 percentage-point difference between these two groups when considering adults
who reported that they trust others, a 5 percentage-point difference when considering adults who reported that
they volunteer at least once a month, and a 4 percentage-point difference between the two groups of adults when
considering adults who reported that they are in good health. By contrast, the proportions of adults reporting each
of these positive social outcomes decrease by a range of 4 to 7 percentage points among adults whose highest level
of education is below upper secondary than among adults with upper secondary or post-secondary non-tertiary
education (Tables A8.1, A8.2, A8.3a and A8.4).
Self-reported health
On average across countries and sub-national entities that participated in the Survey of Adult Skills, 79% of adults with
upper secondary or post-secondary non-tertiary education reported that they are “in good health”. In all participating
countries and sub-national entities, there is a positive relationship between educational attainment and self-reported
health. On average, the proportion of adults who reported that they are in good health is 15 percentage points
smaller among adults with below upper secondary as their highest attainment level compared with adults with upper
secondary or post-secondary non-tertiary education. This proportion is 9 percentage points larger among tertiaryeducated adults compared with adults with upper secondary or post-secondary non-tertiary education (Table A8.1).
After accounting for gender, age and monthly earnings, educational attainment loses some of its impact on selfreported health. Proficiency in literacy and numeracy also moderate the impact of educational attainment on
self-reported health. For example, on average, after accounting for gender and age, the proportion of adults who
reported that they are in good health is 12 percentage points smaller among adults with below upper secondary as
their highest attainment level compared with adults with upper secondary or post-secondary non-tertiary education.
It is 7 percentage points smaller when also accounting for monthly earnings, and 6 percentage points smaller when
literacy or numeracy proficiency are also taken into account (Tables A8.1 [L] and A8.1 [N], available on line).
Chart A8.2 shows the percentage-point difference in self-reported health between levels of educational attainment
after accounting for gender, age, monthly earnings and proficiency in literacy or numeracy. Results show that after
accounting for all of these variables, educational attainment continues to play a determinant role in self-reported health.
On average, after accounting for gender, age and monthly earnings, the difference is larger when comparing upper
secondary or post-secondary non-tertiary education with below upper secondary education (-7 percentage points)
than when comparing upper secondary or post-secondary non-tertiary education with tertiary education (4 percentage
points). Large negative differences are observed in the Czech Republic, Estonia, Korea, the Slovak Republic and
the United States, where the proportion of adults reporting to be in good health is about 10 percentage points smaller
among those with below upper secondary education compared to adults with upper secondary or post-secondary
non-tertiary education. By contrast, only in Estonia is the proportion of adults who reported to be in good health
at least 10 percentage points larger among tertiary-educated adults than among adults with upper secondary or
post-secondary non-tertiary education (Table A8.1, and Tables A8.1 [L] and A8.1 [N], available on line).
Volunteering
On average across participating countries and sub-national entities, 18% of adults with upper secondary or postsecondary non-tertiary education reported that they volunteer at least once a month. All participating countries and
sub-national entities show a positive relationship between educational attainment and volunteering. On average,
the proportion of adults who reported that they volunteer once a month is 5 percentage points smaller among adults
with below upper secondary education than among adults who have attained upper secondary or post-secondary
non-tertiary education. This proportion is 5 percentage points larger among tertiary-educated adults than among
adults with upper secondary or post-secondary non-tertiary education (Table A8.2).

154 Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

How are social outcomes related to education? – INDICATOR A8

chapter A

Chart A8.2. Likelihood of reporting to be in good health,
by educational attainment (2012)

A8

Survey of Adult Skills, 25-64 year-olds, upper secondary or post-secondary non-tertiary education
as reference category
Difference between upper secondary or post-secondary non-tertiary and below upper secondary
Difference between upper secondary or post-secondary non-tertiary and tertiary
After accounting for literacy proficiency
After accounting for numeracy proficiency

Percentage-point
difference

15
10
5
0
-5
-10

England/N. Ireland (UK)

Ireland

Austria

Canada

Italy

Czech Republic

Australia

Sweden

Spain

Germany

Norway

Netherlands

Flanders (Belgium)

Average

Poland

Japan

Denmark

Finland

France

Slovak Republic

Korea

United States

-20

Estonia

-15

How to read this chart
Percentage-point difference reflects the relative change of reporting to be in good health compared to the reference category. For example, in
Estonia, the percentage of individuals with tertiary education reporting to be in good health increases by 11 percentage points compared to
someone who has upper secondary or post-secondary non-tertiary education. Similarly, after accounting for literacy proficiency, the percentage
of individuals with tertiary education increases by 10 percentage points compared to someone who has upper secondary or post-secondary
non-tertiary education.
Note: Calculations are based on a linear regression after accounting for gender, age and monthly earnings.
Countries are ranked in descending order of percentage-point difference between upper secondary or post-secondary non-tertiary and tertiary education.
Source: OECD. Table A8.1, and Tables A8.1 (L) and A8.1 (N), available on line. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/education/education-at-aglance-19991487.htm).
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933283763

When comparing adults with upper secondary or post-secondary non-tertiary education and those with tertiary
education, these proportions do not change after accounting for gender and age. When accounting for proficiency
in literacy or numeracy, the percentage-point increase shrinks slightly from 5 to 3 percentage points (Tables A8.2 [L]
and A8.2 [N], available on line).
Chart A8.3 shows the percentage-point difference, between levels of educational attainment, in the proportion of
adults who reported that they volunteer at least once a month, after accounting for gender, age and monthly earnings.
It also shows the impact of accounting for literacy or numeracy proficiency. Results show that after accounting for all
of these variables, educational attainment continues to play a determinant role in whether adults report that they
volunteer at least once a month. On average, after accounting for gender, age and monthly earnings, the difference
is larger when comparing upper secondary or post-secondary non-tertiary education with below upper secondary
education (-6 percentage points) than when comparing upper secondary or post-secondary non-tertiary education
with tertiary education (5 percentage points) (Table A8.2, and Tables A8.2 [L] and A8.2 [N], available on line).
Large negative differences are observed in Austria, Germany and the United States, where the proportion of adults
who reported that they volunteer is about 10 percentage points smaller among adults with below upper secondary
as their highest level of attainment than among adults with upper secondary or post-secondary non-tertiary
education. By contrast, only in the United States is the proportion of adults who reported that they volunteer
more than 10 percentage points larger among tertiary-educated adults than among adults with upper secondary or
post-secondary non-tertiary education (Table A8.2, and Tables A8.2 [L] and A8.2 [N], available on line).
Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

155

chapter A THE OUTPUT OF EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS AND THE IMPACT OF LEARNING

Chart A8.3. Likelihood of reporting to volunteer at least once a month,
by educational attainment (2012)

A8

Survey of Adult Skills, 25-64 year-olds, upper secondary or post-secondary non-tertiary education
as reference category
Difference between upper secondary or post-secondary non-tertiary and below upper secondary
Difference between upper secondary or post-secondary non-tertiary and tertiary
After accounting for literacy proficiency
After accounting for numeracy proficiency

Percentage-point
difference

15
10
5
0
-5

Japan

Spain

Norway

Denmark

Sweden

Korea

Australia

Estonia

Austria

Czech Republic

Netherlands

Average

England/N. Ireland (UK)

Slovak Republic

Germany

Ireland

Poland

Finland

Italy

Canada

Flanders (Belgium)

-15

United States

-10

How to read this chart
Percentage-point difference reflects the relative change of reporting to volunteer at least once a month compared to the reference category.
For example, in the United States, the percentage of individuals with tertiary education reporting to volunteer at least once a month increases
by 13 percentage points compared to someone who has upper secondary or post-secondary non-tertiary education. Similarly, after accounting
for literacy proficiency, the percentage of individuals with tertiary education increases by 11 percentage points compared to someone who has
upper secondary or post-secondary non-tertiary education.
Note: Calculations are based on a linear regression after accounting for gender, age and monthly earnings.
Countries are ranked in descending order of percentage-point difference between upper secondary or post-secondary non-tertiary and tertiary education.
Source: OECD. Table A8.2, and Tables A8.2 (L) and A8.2 (N), available on line. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/education/education-at-aglance-19991487.htm).
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933283778

Interpersonal trust
On average across participating countries and sub-national entities, 18% of adults with upper secondary or postsecondary non-tertiary education reported that they trust others. In all participating countries and sub-national
entities, there is a positive relationship between educational attainment and interpersonal trust. On average, the
proportion of adults who reported that they trust others is 4 percentage points smaller among adults with below
upper secondary education than among adults with upper secondary or post-secondary non-tertiary education,
and is 12 percentage points larger among tertiary-educated adults than among adults whose highest attainment is
upper secondary or post-secondary non-tertiary education (Table A8.3a).
After accounting for gender, age and monthly earnings, there is no change in these differences between levels of
educational attainment. But when also accounting for proficiency in literacy or numeracy, the differences between
levels of educational attainment shrink slightly. The proportion of tertiary-educated adults who reported that they
trust others is 10 percentage points larger than the proportion of adults with upper secondary or post-secondary
non-tertiary education who so reported (Tables A8.3a [L] and A8.3a [N], available on line).
Chart A8.4 shows the differences in the proportion of adults who reported that they trust others related to the level
of educational attainment, after accounting for gender, age and monthly earnings. Particularly larges differences
between tertiary-educated adults and those with upper secondary or post-secondary non-tertiary education are
observed in Norway (20 percentage points) and Denmark (19 percentage points). The largest differences between
adults with below upper secondary education and those with upper secondary or post-secondary non-tertiary
education are seen in Denmark (-10 percentage points) and the Netherlands (-9 percentage points) (Table A8.3a).

156 Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

How are social outcomes related to education? – INDICATOR A8

chapter A

After accounting for proficiency in literacy or numeracy, the proportion of adults who reported that they trust
others is 10 percentage points larger, on average, among tertiary-educated adults than among adults with upper
secondary or post-secondary non-tertiary education. The largest differences are observed in Flanders (Belgium)
and Norway (16 percentage points or more). Conversely, the proportion of adults who so reported is 3 percentage
points smaller, on average, among adults with below upper secondary education than among adults with upper
secondary or post-secondary non-tertiary education. A notable difference between these two groups is observed in
Flanders (Belgium) (-9 percentage points) (Tables A8.3a [L] and A8.3a [N], available on line).

Chart A8.4. Likelihood of reporting to trust others, by educational attainment (2012)
Survey of Adult Skills, 25-64 year-olds, upper secondary or post-secondary non-tertiary education
as reference category
Difference between upper secondary or post-secondary non-tertiary and below upper secondary
Difference between upper secondary or post-secondary non-tertiary and tertiary
After accounting for literacy proficiency
After accounting for numeracy proficiency

Percentage-point
difference

25
20
15
10
5
0
-5

Italy

Slovak Republic

Korea

France

Ireland

Estonia

Austria

Canada

Japan

England/N. Ireland (UK)

Australia

Average

Germany

Spain

Czech Republic

Poland

Finland

United States

Sweden

Flanders (Belgium)

Netherlands

Denmark

-15

Norway

-10

How to read this chart
Percentage-point difference reflects the relative change of reporting to trust others compared to the reference category. For example, in
Norway, the percentage of individuals with tertiary education reporting to trust others increases by 20 percentage points compared to someone
who has upper secondary or post-secondary non-tertiary education. Similarly, after accounting for literacy proficiency, the percentage of
individuals with tertiary education increases by 16 percentage points compared to someone who has upper secondary or post-secondary
non-tertiary education.
Note: Calculations are based on a linear regression after accounting for gender, age and monthly earnings.
Countries are ranked in descending order of percentage-point difference between upper secondary or post-secondary non-tertiary and tertiary education.
Source: OECD. Table A8.3a, and Tables A8.3a (L) and A8.3a (N), available on line. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/education/education-at-aglance-19991487.htm).
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933283784

Political efficacy
On average across participating countries and sub-national entities, 30% of adults with upper secondary or postsecondary non-tertiary education reported that they have a say in government. In all participating countries
and sub-national entities, there is a positive relationship between educational attainment and political efficacy.
On average, the proportion of adults who reported that they have a say in government is 7 percentage points smaller
among adults with below upper secondary education than among adults with upper secondary or post-secondary
non-tertiary education, and is 13 percentage points larger among tertiary-educated adults than among adults with
upper secondary or post-secondary education (Table A8.4).
Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

157

A8

chapter A THE OUTPUT OF EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS AND THE IMPACT OF LEARNING

After accounting for gender, age and monthly earnings, there is no change in these differences between levels
of educational attainment. When accounting for proficiency in literacy or numeracy, the proportion of adults
who reported that they have a say in government is 4 percentage points smaller among adults with below upper
secondary education than among adults with upper secondary or post-secondary non-tertiary education. This
proportion is 10 percentage points larger among tertiary-educated adults than among adults with upper secondary
or post-secondary non-tertiary education (Tables A8.4 [L] and A8.4 [N], available on line).
As shown in Chart A8.5, the proportion of adults who reported that they believe they have a say in government
is 13 percentage points larger among tertiary-educated adults than among adults with upper secondary or postsecondary non-tertiary education, after accounting for gender, age and monthly earnings. Although literacy and
numeracy skills moderate the effect of educational attainment, it continues to play a determinant role in this
social outcome. Particularly large differences in these proportions between adults with upper secondary or postsecondary non-tertiary education and tertiary-educated adults are seen in the Netherlands and Norway. By contrast,
in the United States, the proportion of adults who reported that they believe they have a say in government is
strikingly smaller among adults with below upper secondary education than among adults with upper secondary or
post-secondary non-tertiary education (Table A8.4, and Tables A8.4 [L] and A8.4 [N], available on line).

Chart A8.5. Likelihood of reporting to believe that they have a say in government,
by educational attainment (2012)
Survey of Adult Skills, 25-64 year-olds, upper secondary or post-secondary non-tertiary education
as reference category
Difference between upper secondary or post-secondary non-tertiary and below upper secondary
Difference between upper secondary or post-secondary non-tertiary and tertiary
After accounting for literacy proficiency
After accounting for numeracy proficiency

Percentage-point
difference

25
20
15
10
5
0
-5
-10

Spain

Czech Republic

Estonia

Korea

England/N. Ireland (UK)

Germany

Canada

Italy

Sweden

Denmark

Japan

Average

Austria

Ireland

Slovak Republic

Australia

United States

Finland

Flanders (Belgium)

-20

Netherlands

-15
Norway

A8

How to read this chart
Percentage-point difference reflects the relative change of reporting that they have a say in government compared to the reference category.
For example, in Norway, the percentage of individuals with tertiary education reporting that they have a say in government increases by
20 percentage points compared to someone who has upper secondary or post-secondary non-tertiary education. Similarly, after accounting
for literacy proficiency, the percentage of individuals with tertiary education increases by 14 percentage points compared to someone who has
upper secondary or post-secondary non-tertiary education.
Note: Calculations are based on a linear regression after accounting for gender, age and monthly earnings. Differences between the groups that are
not statistically significant at 95% are not presented.
Countries are ranked in descending order of percentage-point difference between upper secondary or post-secondary non-tertiary and tertiary education.
Source: OECD. Table A8.4, and Tables A8.4 (L) and A8.4 (N), available on line. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/education/education-at-aglance-19991487.htm).
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933291269

158 Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

How are social outcomes related to education? – INDICATOR A8

chapter A

Definitions

A8

Adults refer to 25-64 year-olds.
Levels of education: Below upper secondary corresponds to ISCED-97 Levels 0, 1, 2 and 3C short programmes;
upper secondary or post-secondary non-tertiary corresponds to ISCED-97 Levels 3A, 3B, 3C long programmes,
and Level 4; and tertiary corresponds to ISCED-97 Levels 5A, 5B and 6.
Literacy is the ability to understand, evaluate, use and engage with written texts to participate in society, to achieve
one’s goals, and to develop one’s knowledge and potential. Literacy encompasses a range of skills from the decoding
of written words and sentences to the comprehension, interpretation, and evaluation of complex texts. It does not,
however, involve the production of text (writing). Information on the skills of adults with low levels of proficiency
is provided by an assessment of reading components that covers text vocabulary, sentence comprehension and
passage fluency.
Numeracy is the ability to access, use, interpret and communicate mathematical information and ideas in order
to engage in and manage the mathematical demands of a range of situations in adult life. To this end, numeracy
involves managing a situation or solving a problem in a real context, by responding to mathematical content/
information/ideas represented in multiple ways.
Reporting to be in good health includes adults who reported that they are in excellent, very good or good health.
Reporting to believe they have a say in government includes adults who strongly disagreed or disagreed with the
statement: “People like me don’t have any say about what the government does”.
Reporting to trust others includes adults who strongly disagreed or disagreed that there are only a few people you
can trust completely.
Reporting to volunteer includes adults who reported that they volunteer at least once a month.

Methodology
All data are based on the Survey of Adult Skills (PIAAC) (2012). PIAAC is the OECD Programme for the International
Assessment of Adult Competencies. See Annex 3 (www.oecd.org/education/education-at-a-glance-19991487.htm)
for additional information.
Ordinary least-square regressions using level of education, gender, age and monthly earnings as independent
variables were run to determine the impact of education on self-reported health, volunteering, interpersonal trust
and political efficacy. Regressions were run in a stepwise fashion, including educational attainment first, then
gender and age, and monthly earnings in a final step. Separate analyses were also conducted to control for literacy
or numeracy in each of these steps.
Note regarding data from the Russian Federation in the Survey of Adult Skills (PIAAC)
Readers should note that the sample for the Russian Federation does not include the population of the Moscow municipal
area. The data published, therefore, do not represent the entire resident population aged 16-65 in Russia but rather the
population of Russia excluding the population residing in the Moscow municipal area. More detailed information regarding
the data from the Russian Federation as well as that of other countries can be found in the Technical Report of the Survey
of Adult Skills (OECD, 2014).

References
Cutler, D.M. and A. Lleras-Muney (2006), “Education and Health: Evaluating Theories and Evidence”, NBER Working Paper,
No. 12352.
OECD (2014), Technical Report of the Survey of Adult Skills, www.oecd.org/site/piaac/_Technical%20Report_17OCT13.pdf,
pre-publication copy.
OECD (2013a), How’s Life? 2013: Measuring Well-being, OECD Publishing, Paris, http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264201392-en.
OECD (2013b), OECD Skills Outlook 2013: First Results from the Survey of Adult Skills, OECD Publishing, Paris, http://dx.doi.
org/10.1787/9789264204256-en.
Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

159

chapter A THE OUTPUT OF EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS AND THE IMPACT OF LEARNING

A8

Indicator A8 Tables
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933285189

Table A8.1
WEB Table A8.1 (L)

Likelihood of reporting to be in good health, by educational attainment (2012)
Likelihood of reporting to be in good health, by educational attainment,
after accounting for literacy proficiency (2012)

WEB Table A8.1 (N) Likelihood of reporting to be in good health, by educational attainment,
after accounting for numeracy proficiency (2012)
Table A8.2
WEB Table A8.2 (L)

Likelihood of reporting to volunteer at least once a month, by educational attainment (2012)
Likelihood of reporting to volunteer at least once a month, by educational attainment,
after accounting for literacy proficiency (2012)

WEB Table A8.2 (N) Likelihood of reporting to volunteer at least once a month, by educational attainment,
after accounting for numeracy proficiency (2012)
Table A8.3a

Likelihood of reporting to trust others, by educational attainment (2012)

WEB Table A8.3a (L) Likelihood of reporting to trust others, by educational attainment,
after accounting for literacy proficiency (2012)
Table A8.3a (N) Likelihood of reporting to trust others, by educational attainment,
after accounting for numeracy proficiency (2012)
Table A8.3b

Likelihood of reporting that others do not take advantage of them,
by educational attainment (2012)

Table A8.3b (L) Likelihood of reporting that others do not take advantage of them,
by educational attainment, after accounting for literacy proficiency (2012)
Table A8.3b (N) Likelihood of reporting that others do not take advantage of them, by educational attainment,
after accounting for numeracy proficiency (2012)
Table A8.4
WEB Table A8.4 (L)

Likelihood of reporting to believe they have a say in government, by educational attainment (2012)
Likelihood of reporting to believe they have a say in government, by educational attainment,
after accounting for literacy proficiency (2012)

WEB Table A8.4 (N) Likelihood of reporting to believe they have a say in government, by educational attainment,
after accounting for numeracy proficiency (2012)

160 Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

How are social outcomes related to education? – INDICATOR A8

chapter A

Table A8.1. Likelihood of reporting to be in good health, by educational attainment (2012)
25-64 year-olds, upper secondary or post-secondary non-tertiary education as reference category,
percentage-point difference

A8

The percentages presented in the first column are not related to the regression. They should be used as a reference to better understand the percentage-point
difference presented in the other columns.
How to read this table: In Australia, the percentage of individuals with below upper secondary education reporting to be in good health decreases by 8 percentage
points compared to someone who has upper secondary or post-secondary non-tertiary education. After accounting for gender and age, the percentage
of individuals with below upper secondary education reporting to be in good health decreases by 6 percentage points compared to someone who has upper
secondary or post-secondary non-tertiary education. And after accounting for gender, age and monthly earnings, the percentage of individuals with below upper
secondary education reporting to be in good health decreases by 1 percentage point compared to someone who has upper secondary or post-secondary nontertiary education.

OECD

Percentage
of adults reporting
that they are in
good health among
those who have
upper secondary
or post-secondary
non-tertiary
education

Difference between upper secondary or post-secondary
non-tertiary and below upper secondary

(5)

(6)

(7)

Accounting
for gender, age
and monthly
earnings
pp
S.E.

No control
variable
pp
S.E.

Accounting
for gender
and age
pp
S.E.

(8)

(9)

(10)

(11)

(12)

(13)

(14)

Accounting
for gender, age and
monthly earnings
pp
S.E.

Accounting
for gender
and age
pp
S.E.

Difference between upper secondary
or post-secondary non-tertiary and tertiary

%

S.E.

No control
variable
pp
S.E.

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

Australia

84

(1.1)

-8

(0.02)

-6

(0.02)

-1

(0.02)

6

(0.01)

6

(0.01)

3

(0.01)

Austria

83

(0.6)

-16

(0.02)

-13

(0.02)

-9

(0.02)

7

(0.01)

7

(0.01)

2

(0.01)

Canada

87

(0.6)

-13

(0.02)

-12

(0.02)

-6

(0.02)

5

(0.01)

5

(0.01)

2

(0.01)

Czech Republic

88

(0.9)

-20

(0.04)

-17

(0.03)

-10

(0.03)

9

(0.01)

6

(0.01)

2

(0.01)

Denmark

81

(0.9)

-16

(0.02)

-15

(0.02)

-8

(0.02)

9

(0.01)

8

(0.01)

5

(0.01)

Estonia

56

(0.9)

-14

(0.02)

-14

(0.02)

-10

(0.03)

16

(0.01)

15

(0.01)

11

(0.01)

Finland

77

(1.0)

-15

(0.02)

-9

(0.02)

-6

(0.03)

12

(0.01)

11

(0.01)

5

(0.01)

France

80

(0.8)

-12

(0.01)

-9

(0.01)

-5

(0.02)

10

(0.01)

8

(0.01)

5

(0.01)

Germany

86

(0.8)

-11

(0.03)

-11

(0.02)

-2

(0.03)

6

(0.01)

5

(0.01)

3

(0.01)

Ireland

89

(0.8)

-11

(0.02)

-9

(0.02)

-1

(0.02)

5

(0.01)

4

(0.01)

1

(0.01)

Italy

87

(1.1)

-15

(0.02)

-9

(0.01)

-4

(0.02)

3

(0.02)

2

(0.02)

2

(0.02)

Japan

70

(1.3)

-10

(0.03)

-8

(0.03)

-7

(0.04)

8

(0.02)

6

(0.02)

5

(0.02)

Korea

46

(1.3)

-20

(0.02)

-13

(0.02)

-10

(0.03)

11

(0.02)

9

(0.02)

8

(0.02)

Netherlands

81

(1.0)

-12

(0.02)

-9

(0.02)

-9

(0.02)

7

(0.01)

7

(0.01)

3

(0.01)

Norway

81

(1.0)

-14

(0.02)

-12

(0.02)

-8

(0.02)

8

(0.01)

8

(0.01)

3

(0.01)

Poland

76

(0.9)

-23

(0.02)

-18

(0.02)

-8

(0.04)

17

(0.01)

10

(0.01)

5

(0.01)

Slovak Republic

79

(0.7)

-25

(0.02)

-21

(0.02)

-16

(0.04)

12

(0.01)

9

(0.01)

6

(0.01)

Spain

80

(1.4)

-11

(0.02)

-7

(0.02)

-3

(0.02)

6

(0.02)

5

(0.02)

3

(0.02)

Sweden

84

(0.9)

-16

(0.02)

-15

(0.02)

-9

(0.03)

6

(0.01)

6

(0.01)

3

(0.01)

United States

80

(1.4)

-18

(0.03)

-18

(0.03)

-11

(0.04)

13

(0.01)

13

(0.01)

8

(0.01)

Flanders (Belgium)

84

(0.8)

-11

(0.02)

-9

(0.02)

-5

(0.02)

6

(0.01)

6

(0.01)

4

(0.01)

England (UK)

85

(1.0)

-13

(0.02)

-12

(0.02)

-2

(0.02)

4

(0.01)

4

(0.01)

1

(0.01)

Northern Ireland (UK)

83

(1.4)

-15

(0.02)

-12

(0.02)

-5

(0.02)

7

(0.02)

7

(0.02)

2

(0.01)

England/N. Ireland (UK)

85

(1.0)

-13

(0.02)

-12

(0.02)

-3

(0.02)

4

(0.01)

4

(0.01)

1

(0.01)

Average

79

(0.2)

-15

(0.00)

-12

(0.00)

-7

(0.01)

9

(0.00)

7

(0.00)

4

(0.00)

Russian Federation*

q

q

q

q

q

q

q

q

q

q

q

q

q

q

National entities

Partners

Sub-national entities

Note: Calculations for percentage-point difference are based on linear regressions where the dependent variable is reporting to be in good health and where the
independent variables vary according to the model. In the first regression (columns labelled “No control variable”) only educational attainment is used as an
independent variable. In the second regression (columns labelled “Accounting for gender and age”), gender and age are added as independent variables. In the
third regression (columns labelled “Accounting for gender, age and monthly earnings”), educational attainment, gender, age and monthly earnings are included as
independent variables.
* See note on data for the Russian Federation in the Methodology section.
Source: OECD. Survey of Adult Skills (PIAAC) (2012). See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/education/education-at-a-glance-19991487.htm).
Please refer to the Reader’s Guide for information concerning symbols for missing data and abbreviations.
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933285195

Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

161

chapter A THE OUTPUT OF EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS AND THE IMPACT OF LEARNING

Table A8.2. Likelihood of reporting to volunteer at least once a month,

A8

by educational attainment (2012)

25-64 year-olds, upper secondary or post-secondary non-tertiary education as reference category,
percentage-point difference
The percentages presented in the first column are not related to the regression. They should be used as a reference to better understand the percentage-point
difference presented in the other columns.
How to read this table: In Australia, the percentage of individuals with below upper secondary education reporting to volunteer at least once a month decreases
by 2 percentage points compared to someone who has upper secondary or post-secondary non-tertiary education. After accounting for gender and age, the
percentage of individuals with below upper secondary education reporting to volunteer at least once a month decreases by 5 percentage points compared to
someone who has upper secondary or post-secondary non-tertiary education. And after accounting for gender, age and monthly earnings, the percentage of
individuals with below upper secondary education reporting to volunteer at least once a month decreases by 2 percentage points compared to someone who has
upper secondary or post-secondary non-tertiary education.

OECD

Percentage
of adults reporting
that they volunteer
at least once a
month among
those who have
upper secondary
or post-secondary
non-tertiary
education

Difference between upper secondary or post-secondary
non-tertiary and below upper secondary

Accounting
for gender
and age
pp
S.E.

%

S.E.

No control
variable
pp
S.E.

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

Australia

20

(1.1)

-2

(0.02)

-5

Austria

23

(0.8)

-8

(0.01)

-8

Canada

20

(0.8)

-4

(0.01)

Czech Republic

9

(1.0)

-4

Denmark

27

(1.2)

-8

Estonia

9

(0.7)

Finland

19

France

q

Germany

Accounting
for gender,
age and monthly
earnings
pp
S.E.

Difference between upper secondary
or post-secondary non-tertiary and tertiary

No control
variable
pp
S.E.

Accounting
for gender
and age
pp
S.E.

Accounting
for gender,
age and
monthly
earnings
pp
S.E.

(7)

(8)

(9)

(10)

(11)

(12)

(13)

(14)

(0.02)

-2

(0.02)

4

(0.02)

3

(0.02)

4

(0.02)

(0.01)

-11

(0.02)

6

(0.02)

6

(0.02)

4

(0.02)

-4

(0.01)

-5

(0.02)

9

(0.01)

9

(0.01)

9

(0.01)

(0.02)

-3

(0.02)

-2

(0.04)

3

(0.02)

3

(0.02)

5

(0.03)

(0.02)

-8

(0.02)

-7

(0.02)

0

(0.01)

2

(0.01)

1

(0.02)

-4

(0.01)

-4

(0.01)

-4

(0.01)

4

(0.01)

4

(0.01)

4

(0.01)

(1.0)

-2

(0.02)

-3

(0.02)

-5

(0.02)

6

(0.01)

7

(0.01)

7

(0.02)

q

q

q

q

q

q

q

q

q

q

q

q

q

22

(1.0)

-11

(0.02)

-11

(0.02)

-13

(0.03)

6

(0.01)

6

(0.01)

6

(0.02)

Ireland

20

(0.9)

-5

(0.01)

-9

(0.01)

-8

(0.03)

4

(0.01)

6

(0.01)

6

(0.02)

Italy

14

(1.0)

-4

(0.01)

-5

(0.01)

-4

(0.02)

7

(0.02)

7

(0.02)

8

(0.03)

Japan

12

(0.9)

-3

(0.01)

-5

(0.01)

-3

(0.02)

0

(0.01)

2

(0.01)

0

(0.01)

Korea

12

(0.7)

-1

(0.01)

-5

(0.01)

-4

(0.02)

1

(0.01)

2

(0.01)

2

(0.01)

Netherlands

28

(1.1)

-3

(0.02)

-7

(0.02)

-7

(0.02)

4

(0.02)

4

(0.02)

5

(0.02)

Norway

32

(1.3)

-9

(0.02)

-9

(0.02)

-8

(0.02)

1

(0.02)

2

(0.02)

1

(0.02)

Poland

6

(0.5)

-3

(0.01)

-3

(0.01)

-3

(0.02)

7

(0.01)

7

(0.01)

6

(0.01)

Slovak Republic

8

(0.5)

-3

(0.01)

-3

(0.01)

-2

(0.02)

5

(0.01)

5

(0.01)

5

(0.01)

Spain

13

(1.2)

-6

(0.01)

-7

(0.01)

-7

(0.02)

2

(0.02)

2

(0.02)

1

(0.02)

Sweden

21

(1.1)

-8

(0.02)

-9

(0.02)

-9

(0.02)

1

(0.02)

2

(0.02)

2

(0.02)

United States

24

(1.2)

-12

(0.02)

-11

(0.02)

-13

(0.02)

15

(0.02)

15

(0.02)

13

(0.02)

National entities

Partners

Sub-national entities

Flanders (Belgium)

18

(1.0)

-4

(0.02)

-5

(0.02)

-2

(0.02)

6

(0.01)

7

(0.01)

9

(0.01)

England (UK)

17

(1.1)

-6

(0.02)

-7

(0.02)

-8

(0.02)

6

(0.02)

7

(0.01)

5

(0.02)

Northern Ireland (UK)

17

(1.5)

-8

(0.02)

-10

(0.02)

-12

(0.03)

9

(0.02)

10

(0.02)

8

(0.02)

England/N. Ireland (UK)

17

(1.1)

-6

(0.02)

-7

(0.02)

-8

(0.02)

6

(0.01)

7

(0.01)

5

(0.02)

Average

18

(0.2)

-5

(0.00)

-6

(0.00)

-6

(0.00)

5

(0.00)

5

(0.00)

5

(0.00)

Russian Federation*

q

q

q

q

q

q

q

q

q

q

q

q

q

q

Note: Calculations for percentage-point difference are based on linear regressions where the dependent variable is reporting to volunteer at least once a month and
where the independent variables vary according to the model. In the first regression (columns labelled “No control variable”) only educational attainment is used
as an independent variable. In the second regression (columns labelled “Accounting for gender and age”), gender and age are added as independent variables. In the
third regression (columns labelled “Accounting for gender, age and monthly earnings”), educational attainment, gender, age and monthly earnings are included as
independent variables.
* See note on data for the Russian Federation in the Methodology section.
Source: OECD. Survey of Adult Skills (PIAAC) (2012). See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/education/education-at-a-glance-19991487.htm).
Please refer to the Reader’s Guide for information concerning symbols for missing data and abbreviations.
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933285202

162 Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

How are social outcomes related to education? – INDICATOR A8

chapter A

Table A8.3a. Likelihood of reporting to trust others, by educational attainment (2012)
25-64 year-olds, upper secondary or post-secondary non-tertiary education as reference category,
percentage-point difference

A8

The percentages presented in the first column are not related to the regression. They should be used as a reference to better understand the percentage-point
difference presented in the other columns.
How to read this table: In Australia, the percentage of individuals with below upper secondary education reporting to trust others decreases by 4 percentage
points compared to someone who has upper secondary or post-secondary non-tertiary education. After accounting for gender and age, the percentage of
individuals with below upper secondary education reporting to trust others decreases by 5 percentage points compared to someone who has upper secondary or
post-secondary non-tertiary education. And after accounting for gender, age and monthly earnings, the percentage of individuals with below upper secondary
education reporting to trust others decreases by 3 percentage points compared to someone who has upper secondary or post-secondary non-tertiary education.

OECD

Difference between upper secondary or post-secondary
Percentage
non-tertiary and below upper secondary
of adults reporting
that they trust
others among
those who have
Accounting
upper secondary
for gender,
Accounting
or post-secondary
age and monthly
for gender
non-tertiary
No control
earnings
and age
education
variable
pp
pp
pp
%
S.E.
S.E.
S.E.
S.E.

Difference between upper secondary
or post-secondary non-tertiary and tertiary

No control
variable
pp
S.E.

Accounting
for gender
and age
pp
S.E.

Accounting
for gender,
age and monthly
earnings
pp
S.E.

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7)

(8)

(9)

(10)

(11)

(12)

(13)

(14)

Australia

19

(1.1)

-4

(0.01)

-5

(0.01)

-3

(0.02)

13

(0.01)

13

(0.01)

11

(0.02)

Austria

21

(0.9)

-7

(0.02)

-7

(0.02)

-7

(0.02)

10

(0.02)

10

(0.02)

9

(0.02)

Canada

21

(0.7)

-4

(0.01)

-4

(0.01)

-1

(0.02)

9

(0.01)

9

(0.01)

9

(0.01)

Czech Republic

5

(0.6)

-1

(0.01)

-1

(0.01)

2

(0.02)

10

(0.02)

10

(0.02)

12

(0.03)

Denmark

42

(1.3)

-10

(0.02)

-12

(0.02)

-10

(0.03)

21

(0.02)

20

(0.02)

19

(0.02)

Estonia

7

(0.5)

1

(0.01)

1

(0.01)

0

(0.02)

8

(0.01)

7

(0.01)

8

(0.01)

Finland

27

(1.0)

-8

(0.02)

-7

(0.02)

-8

(0.03)

17

(0.02)

17

(0.02)

14

(0.02)

France

9

(0.6)

-2

(0.01)

-2

(0.01)

-3

(0.01)

7

(0.01)

8

(0.01)

8

(0.01)

Germany

10

(0.7)

-2

(0.02)

-2

(0.02)

-1

(0.03)

12

(0.01)

12

(0.01)

12

(0.01)

Ireland

14

(0.9)

-3

(0.01)

-4

(0.01)

-3

(0.02)

8

(0.01)

9

(0.01)

8

(0.02)

Italy

11

(1.1)

-5

(0.01)

-6

(0.01)

-6

(0.02)

4

(0.02)

4

(0.02)

4

(0.02)

Japan

14

(0.9)

-3

(0.02)

-4

(0.02)

-3

(0.02)

8

(0.01)

9

(0.01)

9

(0.01)

Korea

10

(0.6)

-1

(0.01)

-1

(0.01)

-2

(0.01)

7

(0.01)

7

(0.01)

8

(0.01)

Netherlands

30

(1.0)

-10

(0.02)

-12

(0.02)

-9

(0.02)

15

(0.02)

15

(0.02)

17

(0.02)

Norway

29

(1.1)

-5

(0.02)

-6

(0.02)

-5

(0.02)

20

(0.02)

21

(0.02)

20

(0.02)

Poland

11

(0.8)

-3

(0.01)

-3

(0.01)

-1

(0.03)

13

(0.02)

13

(0.02)

13

(0.02)

Slovak Republic

8

(0.5)

-2

(0.01)

-2

(0.01)

-3

(0.02)

6

(0.01)

6

(0.01)

6

(0.02)

Spain

19

(1.5)

-4

(0.02)

-4

(0.02)

-4

(0.02)

12

(0.02)

12

(0.02)

12

(0.03)

Sweden

31

(1.2)

-7

(0.02)

-8

(0.02)

-7

(0.03)

18

(0.02)

18

(0.02)

16

(0.02)

United States

18

(1.1)

-6

(0.02)

-6

(0.02)

-6

(0.03)

13

(0.02)

13

(0.02)

15

(0.02)

Flanders (Belgium)

13

(0.8)

-4

(0.01)

-5

(0.01)

-9

(0.02)

15

(0.01)

16

(0.01)

16

(0.02)

England (UK)

16

(1.1)

-6

(0.01)

-7

(0.01)

-5

(0.02)

11

(0.01)

11

(0.01)

10

(0.02)

Northern Ireland (UK)

17

(1.4)

-8

(0.02)

-9

(0.02)

-10

(0.03)

6

(0.02)

6

(0.02)

4

(0.03)

England/N. Ireland (UK)

16

(1.0)

-6

(0.01)

-7

(0.01)

-5

(0.02)

11

(0.01)

11

(0.01)

10

(0.02)

Average

18

(0.2)

-4

(0.00)

-5

(0.00)

-4

(0.00)

12

(0.00)

12

(0.00)

12

(0.00)

Russian Federation*

q

q

q

q

q

q

q

q

q

q

q

q

q

q

National entities

Partners

Sub-national entities

Note: Calculations for percentage-point difference are based on linear regressions where the dependent variable is reporting to trust others and where the independent
variables vary according to the model. In the first regression (columns labelled “No control variable”) only educational attainment is used as an independent variable.
In the second regression (columns labelled “Accounting for gender and age”), gender and age are added as independent variables. In the third regression (columns
labelled “Accounting for gender, age and monthly earnings”), educational attainment, gender, age and monthly earnings are included as independent variables.
* See note on data for the Russian Federation in the Methodology section.
Source: OECD. Survey of Adult Skills (PIAAC) (2012). See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/education/education-at-a-glance-19991487.htm).
Please refer to the Reader’s Guide for information concerning symbols for missing data and abbreviations.
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933285214

Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

163

chapter A THE OUTPUT OF EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS AND THE IMPACT OF LEARNING

Table A8.4. Likelihood of reporting to believe that they have a say in government,

A8

by educational attainment (2012)

25-64 year-olds, upper secondary or post-secondary non-tertiary education as reference category,
percentage-point difference
The percentages presented in the first column are not related to the regression. They should be used as a reference to better understand the percentage-point
difference presented in the other columns.
How to read this table: In Australia, the percentage of individuals with below upper secondary education reporting to believe that they have a say in goverment
decreases by 6 percentage points compared to someone who has upper secondary or post-secondary non-tertiary education. After accounting for gender and
age, the percentage of individuals with below upper secondary education reporting to believe that they have a say in goverment decreases by 8 percentage
points compared to someone who has upper secondary or post-secondary non-tertiary education. And after accounting for gender, age and monthly earnings,
the percentage of individuals with below upper secondary education reporting to believe that they have a say in goverment decreases by 6 percentage points
compared to someone who has upper secondary or post-secondary non-tertiary education.

OECD

Difference between upper secondary or post-secondary
Percentage
non-tertiary and below upper secondary
of adults reporting
that they believe
they have a say in
government among
those who have
Accounting
upper secondary
for gender,
Accounting
or post-secondary
age and monthly
for gender
No control
non-tertiary
earnings
and age
variable
education
pp
pp
pp
%
S.E.
S.E.
S.E.
S.E.
(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

Australia

30

Austria

30

(1.1)

-6

(1.0)

-12

(0.02)

-8

(0.02)

-12

Canada

31

(0.9)

-9

(0.02)

Czech Republic

20

(1.2)

-1

Denmark

47

(1.2)

Estonia

21

Finland

Difference between upper secondary
or post-secondary non-tertiary and tertiary

No control
variable
pp
S.E.

Accounting
for gender
and age
pp
S.E.

Accounting
for gender,
age and monthly
earnings
pp
S.E.

(7)

(8)

(9)

(10)

(11)

(12)

(13)

(14)

(0.02)

-6

(0.02)

15

(0.02)

15

(0.02)

14

(0.02)

(0.02)

-10

(0.03)

13

(0.02)

13

(0.02)

13

(0.02)

-9

(0.02)

-9

(0.02)

10

(0.01)

10

(0.01)

11

(0.01)

(0.03)

1

(0.03)

1

(0.05)

8

(0.02)

8

(0.03)

9

(0.03)

-6

(0.02)

-7

(0.02)

-5

(0.02)

12

(0.01)

11

(0.01)

12

(0.02)

(0.8)

-5

(0.02)

-5

(0.02)

-7

(0.02)

10

(0.01)

10

(0.01)

9

(0.02)

42

(1.2)

-12

(0.03)

-12

(0.03)

-10

(0.03)

16

(0.02)

16

(0.02)

15

(0.02)

France

q

q

q

q

q

q

q

q

q

q

q

q

q

q

Germany

21

(0.8)

-7

(0.02)

-7

(0.02)

-5

(0.03)

12

(0.02)

12

(0.02)

11

(0.02)

Ireland

26

(1.2)

-8

(0.02)

-9

(0.02)

-11

(0.03)

13

(0.02)

13

(0.02)

13

(0.02)

Italy

19

(1.1)

-7

(0.02)

-7

(0.02)

-7

(0.02)

10

(0.02)

10

(0.02)

11

(0.03)

Japan

22

(1.0)

-4

(0.02)

-5

(0.02)

-5

(0.03)

12

(0.01)

12

(0.01)

12

(0.02)

Korea

30

(1.2)

-2

(0.02)

1

(0.02)

3

(0.03)

12

(0.02)

10

(0.02)

10

(0.02)

Netherlands

36

(1.3)

-8

(0.02)

-8

(0.02)

-9

(0.02)

19

(0.02)

19

(0.02)

19

(0.02)

Norway

44

(1.6)

-12

(0.02)

-12

(0.02)

-9

(0.03)

21

(0.02)

20

(0.02)

20

(0.02)

Poland

q

q

q

q

q

q

q

q

q

q

q

q

q

q

Slovak Republic

20

(0.8)

-9

(0.01)

-8

(0.01)

-7

(0.03)

15

(0.02)

14

(0.02)

14

(0.03)

Spain

23

(1.4)

-4

(0.02)

-4

(0.02)

-3

(0.02)

7

(0.02)

8

(0.02)

8

(0.02)

Sweden

43

(1.2)

-10

(0.03)

-9

(0.03)

-8

(0.03)

12

(0.02)

11

(0.02)

11

(0.02)

United States

41

(1.2)

-12

(0.03)

-12

(0.03)

-15

(0.04)

13

(0.02)

13

(0.02)

15

(0.02)

Flanders (Belgium)

27

(1.0)

-4

(0.02)

-5

(0.02)

-5

(0.03)

17

(0.02)

17

(0.02)

17

(0.02)

England (UK)

29

(1.4)

-7

(0.02)

-8

(0.02)

-9

(0.03)

13

(0.02)

14

(0.02)

10

(0.02)

Northern Ireland (UK)

21

(1.5)

-6

(0.02)

-8

(0.02)

-11

(0.03)

15

(0.02)

15

(0.02)

13

(0.03)

England/N. Ireland (UK)

29

(1.3)

-7

(0.02)

-8

(0.02)

-9

(0.03)

13

(0.02)

14

(0.02)

10

(0.02)

Average

30

(0.3)

-7

(0.00)

-7

(0.00)

-7

(0.01)

13

(0.00)

13

(0.00)

13

(0.00)

Russian Federation*

q

q

q

q

q

q

q

q

q

q

q

q

q

q

National entities

Partners

Sub-national entities

Note: Calculations for percentage-point difference are based on linear regressions where the dependent variable is reporting to believe that they have a say in
government and where the independent variables vary according to the model. In the first regression (columns labelled “No control variable”) only educational
attainment is used as an independent variable. In the second regression (columns labelled “Accounting for gender and age”), gender and age are added as independent
variables. In the third regression (columns labelled “Accounting for gender, age and monthly earnings”), educational attainment, gender, age and monthly earnings
are included as independent variables.
* See note on data for the Russian Federation in the Methodology section.
Source: OECD. Survey of Adult Skills (PIAAC) (2012). See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/education/education-at-a-glance-19991487.htm).
Please refer to the Reader’s Guide for information concerning symbols for missing data and abbreviations.
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933285229

164 Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

INDICATOR A9

WHAT IS THE IMPACT OF SKILLS ON EMPLOYMENT
AND EARNINGS?
• On average across countries and sub-national entities that participated in the Survey of Adult Skills
(PIAAC) (2012), employment rates and earnings increase with educational attainment and, to a
lesser extent, with higher skills.

• The highest returns to greater skills proficiency accrue to individuals who have attained tertiary
education.

• Among adults with tertiary education and those with upper secondary or post-secondary nontertiary education, skills in using ICT for problem solving are associated with higher earnings
compared to adults who are equally proficient in numeracy, and proficiency in numeracy yields
higher returns than equivalent proficiency in literacy.

Chart A9.1. Difference in hourly earnings,
by educational attainment and skills (2012)
Survey of Adult Skills, 25-64 year-old non-students, average across OECD countries, reference category
is below upper secondary education and proficiency Level 1 or below, or skills Group 0 or 1
Difference in hourly
earnings compared
to adults with below
upper secondary
education and proficiency
Level 1 or below,
or skills Group 0 or 1 (%)

60

Literacy proficiency level
Numeracy proficiency level
Skills and readiness to use ICT for problem solving (skills group)

Upper secondary or post-secondary
non-tertiary education

50

Tertiary education

40
30
20
10
0

1 or below

2

3

4 or 5

1 or below

2

3

4 or 5

How to read this chart
On average, tertiary-educated adults with literacy proficiency of Level 4 or 5 earn 48% more compared with adults with below
upper secondary education and literacy proficiency of Level 1 or below.
The percentages represent the earnings outcomes compared to the reference category (reference category is below upper
secondary education and proficiency Level 1 or below, or skills Group 0 or 1).
Notes: Literacy and numeracy are based on proficiency levels whereas skills and readiness to use ICT for problem solving is based on
skill groups which follow a different approach. For skills and readiness to use ICT for problem solving “4 or 5” should be interpreted
as Group 4. Values are not shown when there are too few observations to provide reliable estimates.
Source: OECD. Tables A9.2 (L), A9.2 (N) and A9.2 (P). See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/education/education-at-a-glance19991487.htm).
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933283798

Context
Basic literacy, numeracy and problem-solving skills are usually acquired in formal schooling (Green
and Riddell, 2012). But adults who have attained the same level of education can have different
levels of proficiency in literacy and numeracy skills, and in skills related to using information and
communication technology (ICT) to solve problems. To the extent that workers’ productivity is related
to the knowledge and skills they possess, and that wages reflect such productivity, albeit imperfectly,
individuals with more skills should expect higher returns from labour market participation, and
would thus be more likely to participate in it. Thus, improving the teaching of literacy and numeracy
in schools and in programmes for adults with poor skills and limited familiarity with ICT may provide
considerable economic and social returns for individuals and society as a whole (OECD, 2013).

166 Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

Other findings

• Adults with upper secondary or post-secondary non-tertiary education and numeracy proficiency

INDICATOR A9

of Level 1 or below earn 7% more per hour than adults with below upper secondary education and
numeracy proficiency of Level 1 or below, while adults with upper secondary or post-secondary
non-tertiary education and numeracy proficiency of Level 4 or 5 earn 16% more per hour than
adults with below upper secondary education and numeracy proficiency of Level 1 or below. High
skills, combined with a tertiary education, are even more highly rewarded. Tertiary-educated adults
with numeracy proficiency of Level 4 or 5 earn 56% more than adults with below upper secondary
education and numeracy proficiency of Level 1 or below – a difference of 40 percentage points.

• The odds of being employed do not necessarily increase as literacy skills improve. For example, in
Poland, the odds ratio of being employed for an adult with tertiary education and literacy proficiency
of Level 1 or below is the highest (11.7), whereas the odds ratio for a tertiary-educated adult with
literacy proficiency of Level 4 or 5 is 9.0.

• The greatest returns for individuals with tertiary education and numeracy proficiency of Level 4 or 5
are observed in the Slovak Republic. The hourly earnings of adults with those levels of education
and skills are 108% higher than those of adults with below upper secondary education and Level 1
or below proficiency in numeracy – a much larger difference than the average (56%).

Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

167

chapter A THE OUTPUT OF EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS AND THE IMPACT OF LEARNING

A9

Analysis
This indicator deepens the analyses discussed in Indicators A5 and A6 that show that employment rates and earnings
increase as the level of education increases. More specifically, it evaluates the relative impact on employment rates
and hourly earnings of higher levels of educational attainment and greater proficiency in literacy, numeracy and
using ICT for problem solving. Findings are based on the Survey of Adult Skills, a product of the OECD Programme
for the International Assessment of Adult Competencies (PIAAC) (2012).
Results show that employment rates and earnings increase with educational attainment and, to a lesser extent,
with higher skills. This means that the labour market rewards educational attainment more highly than the skills
measured by the Survey of Adult Skills.
The impact of education and skills on employment

Impact of education and literacy skills on employment
Higher educational attainment and higher levels of skills have a positive impact on employment. On average
across the OECD countries and sub-national entities that participated in the Survey of Adult Skills in 2012,
48% of adults with below upper secondary qualifications and literacy proficiency of Level 1 or below are employed
(reference group). Individuals with upper secondary or post-secondary non-tertiary education as their highest
level of attainment and with literacy proficiency of Level 4 or 5 are more likely to be employed compared with
the reference group (odds ratio of 2.4 - see Box A9.1. for how to interpret odds ratios). The likelihood of being
employed increases for adults with tertiary qualifications and literacy proficiency of Level 4 or 5 (odds ratio of 4.2)
(Table A9.1 [L]).
The returns associated with greater literacy proficiency within education levels appear to be more limited. For
individuals with below upper secondary education, there is a small difference between those with Level 2 or
Level 3 in literacy (odds ratio of 1.3 and 1.2, respectively). For those with an upper secondary or post-secondary
non-tertiary education, the odds ratio remains the same (2.0), regardless of whether an adult is proficient to
Level 1 or below, Level 2 or Level 3 in literacy. When an adult at that level of education is proficient to Level 4
or 5, the odds of being employed are 2.4. For tertiary-educated adults, the odds of being employed increase as
proficiency in literacy increases: odds ratio of 2.9 for Level 1 or below, 3.7 for Levels 2 and 3, and 4.2 for Level 4
or 5 (Table A9.1 [L]).
In all participating countries and sub-national entities, the odds of being employed are greater for individuals with
tertiary education, regardless of their proficiency in literacy. Data also show that the odds of being employed do not
necessarily increase as an individual improves in literacy. For example, in Poland, the odds ratio of being employed
for an adult with tertiary education and literacy proficiency of Level 1 or below is the highest (11.7), whereas the
odds ratio for an adult with similar educational attainment, but whose literacy proficiency is Level 4 or 5 is 9.0. In
the Slovak Republic, tertiary-educated adults with literacy proficiency of Level 2 or 3 have an odds ratio of more
than 5.0 of being employed while the odds ratio of those with similar educational attainment and with literacy
proficiency of Level 4 or 5 is 3.4, another example where higher literacy skills are not necessarily associated with
higher employment (Table A9.1 [L]).

Impact of education and numeracy skills on employment
Compared to literacy skills, numeracy skills have a more significant impact on employment outcomes. On average
across participating OECD countries and sub-national entities, 47% of individuals with below upper secondary
education as their highest level of attainment and with numeracy proficiency of Level 1 or below are employed
(reference group). For those individuals with below upper secondary education, an increase in numeracy proficiency
from Level 1 or below to Level 2 improves the probability of being employed (odds ratio of 1.5). When such an
individual improves in numeracy from Level 1 or below to Level 3, the odds of being employed increases to 1.8
(Table A9.1 [N]).
An adult with upper secondary or post-secondary non-tertiary education as his or her highest level of attainment
and numeracy proficiency at or below Level 1 has an odds ratio of being employed of 1.9. If that person were to
improve his or her numeracy skills to Level 2, the odds ratio would improve to 2.5; Level 3 proficiency would result
in an odds ratio of 3.0, and a proficiency of Level 4 or 5 would yield a ratio of 3.8.
Similarly, improvements in numeracy proficiency for tertiary-educated adults increase the probability of being
employed: the odds ratio is 2.8 for Level 1 or below; 4.5 for Level 2; 5.5 for Level 3; and 7.6 for Level 4 or 5
(Table A9.1 [N]).

168 Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

What is the impact of skills on employment and earnings? – INDICATOR A9

chapter A

Chart A9.2. Likelihood of being employed, by educational attainment
and numeracy proficiency (2012)

A9

Survey of Adult Skills, 25-64 year-old non-students, reference category is below upper secondary education
and numeracy proficiency of Level 1 or below
Tertiary education

Level 3: 27
Level 4 or 5: 34

Odds
ratio

Level 1 or below

Level 4 or 5: 22

Level 3

Level 2

Level 4 or 5

20
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0

Austria

Netherlands

England/N. Ireland (UK)

Finland

Flanders (Belgium)

Australia

Ireland

Sweden

United States

Canada

Spain1

France1

Average2

Russian Federation*

Germany

Italy1

Norway

Denmark

Czech Republic

Estonia

Poland

Slovak Republic

Odds ratio = 1

How to read this chart
In the Slovak Republic, a person with tertiary education and a numeracy proficiency of Level 4 or 5 is 33.8 times as likely (in terms of odds ratio)
of being employed as someone with below upper secondary education and a numeracy proficiency of Level 1 or below.
The “odds ratio” reflects the relative likelihood of being employed. The reference category is below upper secondary education and a numeracy
proficiency of Level 1 or below and their odds ratio are set to equal 1 (thicker line).
Notes: The odds ratio are based on a logistic regression, after accounting for: age, gender, parents’ educational attainment, immigration background,
parental status (have a child or not), cohabitation status (living with spouse/partner or not), literacy proficiency, skills and readiness to use ICT for
problem solving. Differences between the groups are not shown when they are not statistically significant at 95%.
1. The coefficients for France, Italy and Spain have been estimated without accounting for skills and readiness to use ICT for problem solving since
it was not tested in these countries. Since there is positive correlation between skills and readiness to use ICT for problem solving and numeracy,
literacy and education, the effect of excluding skills and readiness to use ICT for problem solving is likely to be that the coefficients on the proficiency
by education level are overestimated, relative to the results for other countries.
2. Average for the regression excludes France, Italy and Spain as a different model specification was used for these countries.
* See note on data for the Russian Federation in the Methodology section.
Countries are ranked in descending order of the odds ratio of being employed for individuals with tertiary education and a numeracy proficiency of Level 4 or 5.
Source: OECD. Table A9.1 (N). See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/education/education-at-a-glance-19991487.htm).
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933283802

Chart A9.2 shows the odds of being employed among adults with tertiary education and different levels of numeracy
proficiency relative to the odds of being employed among adults with below upper secondary education with numeracy
proficiency of Level 1 or below. As observed with literacy proficiency, adults with tertiary education have greater odds
of being employed, regardless of their proficiency in numeracy. Results show that numeracy has a stronger impact on
employment compared to literacy. For example, in Poland, the odds ratio of being employed for those with numeracy
proficiency of Level 3 is 11.0 whereas it is 22.4 for adults with similar educational attainment and with numeracy
proficiency of Level 4 or 5, the largest difference among participating countries and sub-national entities. On average, the
odds ratio of being employed for individuals with numeracy proficiency of Level 4 or 5 (7.6) is higher than that of adults
with similar educational attainment and with literacy proficiency of Level 4 or 5 (4.2) (Tables A9.1 [L] and A9.1 [N]).

Impact of education and skills and readiness to use ICT for problem solving on employment
On average, 38% of adults with ICT and problem-solving skills of Group 0 or 1 (see the Definitions section below for a
description of skill groups) and below upper secondary education are employed (reference group). Adults with upper
secondary or post-secondary non-tertiary education as their highest level of attainment and good ICT and problemsolving skills are more likely to be employed compared with the reference group (odds ratio of 2.8). The likelihood of
being employed increases for individuals with tertiary qualifications and good ICT and problem-solving skills (odds
ratio of 5.1) (Table A9.1 [P]).
Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

169

chapter A THE OUTPUT OF EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS AND THE IMPACT OF LEARNING

A9

As with literacy and numeracy, tertiary-educated adults have greater odds of being employed, regardless of their
skills and readiness to use ICT for problem solving. The odds ratio of being employed for adults with tertiary
education and good ICT and problem-solving skills are the highest in Norway and Poland (odds ratio of 9.8 and 11.7,
respectively). In these two countries, the odds ratio of being employed increase as skills improve. This is not the case
in Estonia and the Slovak Republic, where the odds of being employed are the fourth and third highest, respectively,
among adults with a similar profile (odds ratio of 8.4 and 8.9, respectively). In these two countries, adults with lower
skills have greater odds of being employed (Table A9.1 [P]).

Employment returns to education and skills proficiency
In most countries, improvements in skills proficiency for adults with below upper secondary as their highest level of
education do not have a statistically significant effect on employment. At the upper secondary or post-secondary nontertiary level, the strongest impact on employment related to changes in skills proficiency tend to be associated with
numeracy proficiency, especially when moving from Level 3 to Level 4 or 5. For example, in Italy and the Slovak Republic,
there is an increase of more than 4 points in the odds ratio between these two proficiency levels (Table A9.1 [N]).
Among tertiary-educated adults, the strongest impact on employment related to changes in skills proficiency
also tend to be associated with numeracy proficiency, especially when moving from Level 3 to Level 4 or 5. In the
Czech Republic, Estonia, Poland and the Slovak Republic, the odds ratio increases by more than 5 points between
these two proficiency levels (Table A9.1 [N]).
The impact of education and skills on earnings
Chart A9.1 shows the impact of educational attainment and skills on hourly earnings. Data for adults with below
upper secondary as their highest level of education are not presented in this chart because differentials in hourly
earnings are not statistically significant across proficiency levels and skills groups among adults with this level of
education. However, pattern starts to take shape when comparing adults with upper secondary or post-secondary
non-tertiary education with various levels of skills, and adults with below upper secondary education and the lowest
level of skills (the reference category) (Tables A9.2 [L], A9.2 [N] and A9.2 [P]).
Results show that among adults with literacy or numeracy proficiency at Level 1 or below, adults with upper
secondary or post-secondary non-tertiary education earn 7% more per hour than adults with below upper secondary
education. For skills and readiness to use ICT for problem solving, this difference is not significant and thus not
displayed in the chart (Tables A9.2 [L], A9.2 [N] and A9.2 [P]).
When moving to higher skills levels, results become significant for all skills measured, and show that literacy
proficiency has less of an effect on earnings than numeracy proficiency, which, in turn, has less of an effect than
ICT skills and the readiness to use ICT for problem solving. The differences in the effect on hourly earnings between
these three skills tend to increase with proficiency, meaning that an adult with upper secondary or post-secondary
non-tertiary education and with good ICT and problem-solving skills can expect greater returns compared with top
performers in literacy and numeracy (Tables A9.2 [L], A9.2 [N] and A9.2 [P]).
The chart shows larger returns to adults with higher skills, but it also shows that attaining higher levels of education
yields greater returns. For example, adults with upper secondary or post-secondary non-tertiary education and
numeracy proficiency of Level 1 or below earn 7% more per hour than adults with below upper secondary education
and numeracy proficiency of Level 1 or below, while adults with upper secondary or post-secondary non-tertiary
education and numeracy proficiency of Level 4 or 5 earn 16% more per hour than adults with below upper secondary
education and numeracy proficiency of Level 1 or below. High skills, combined with a tertiary education, are even
more highly rewarded. Tertiary-educated adults with numeracy proficiency of Level 4 or 5 earn 56% more than adults
with below upper secondary education and numeracy proficiency of Level 1 or below – a difference of 40 percentage
points (Tables A9.2 [L], A9.2 [N] and A9.2 [P]).

Impact of education and literacy skills on earnings
In general, within each education level, there are positive returns to greater literacy proficiency; but the returns are
even greater to higher educational attainment. In many countries, adults with upper secondary or post-secondary
non-tertiary education and the highest skills in literacy earn less than adults with tertiary education and the lowest
literacy skills (Table A9.2 [L]).
Individuals with upper secondary or post-secondary non-tertiary education and literacy proficiency of Level 1 or
below earn 7% more than adults with below upper secondary education and literacy proficiency of Level 1 or below
(reference category), while adults with upper secondary or post-secondary non-tertiary education and literacy

170 Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

What is the impact of skills on employment and earnings? – INDICATOR A9

chapter A

proficiency Level 4 or 5 earn 11% more per hour than adults in the reference category. A similar analysis among
tertiary-educated adults reveals a 24% increase in hourly earnings for adults with literacy proficiency of Level 1
or below and a 48% increase for individual with literacy proficiency of Level 4 or 5 compared with adults in the
reference category. (Table A9.2 [L]).
These estimates are averages; there is significant variation across national and sub-national entities. For instance,
increases in hourly earnings are largest in the Slovak Republic for adults with tertiary education and literacy
proficiency of Level 4 or 5 compared to the reference category. The hourly earnings of these adults are 87% higher
than the earnings of adults with below upper secondary education and literacy proficiency of Level 1 or below –
much larger than the average difference (48%) between these two groups. By contrast, this difference is less than
30% in Finland, Japan, Norway and Sweden (Table A9.2 [L]).
Korea shows the largest difference in returns, related to skills proficiency, among tertiary-educated adults. The
hourly earnings of those with tertiary education and literacy proficiency of Level 1 or below are 42% higher than the
earnings of those with below upper secondary education and literacy proficiency of Level 1 or below. The earnings of
those with tertiary education and literacy proficiency of Level 4 or 5 are 83% higher (Table A9.2 [L]).

Impact of education and numeracy skills on earnings
On average across OECD countries and sub-national entities that participated in the Survey of Adult Skills,
compared to an adult with below upper secondary education and with numeracy proficiency at Level 1 or below
(reference group), an adult with upper secondary or post-secondary non-tertiary education with similar proficiency
in numeracy earns 7% more per hour. Those with similar educational attainment but with numeracy proficiency
at Level 4 or 5 see a 16% increase in their hourly earnings. For tertiary-educated adults, the earnings outcomes,
compared to the reference group, range from an increase of 27% among those with proficiency Level 1 or below in
numeracy to an increase of 56% among those with proficiency Level 4 or 5 in numeracy (Table A9.2 [N]).
As shown in Chart A9.3, the greatest returns for individuals with tertiary education and numeracy proficiency of
Level 4 or 5, compared to the reference category, are observed in the Slovak Republic. These adults earn 108% more
per hour than adults with below upper secondary education and numeracy proficiency of Level 1 or below – a much
larger difference between the two groups than the average (56%). Estonia shows the largest difference in returns
related to numeracy proficiency for tertiary-educated adults. Adults at this level of education who are proficient at
Level 1 or below in numeracy earn 31% more than the reference group, while those with the same level of education
but with numeracy proficiency at Level 4 or 5 earn 76% more (Table A9.2 [N]).

Impact of education and skills and readiness to use ICT for problem solving on earnings
As shown in Chart A9.1, the advantage in having higher ICT and problem-solving skills is greatest among tertiaryeducated adults. In Austria, the Czech Republic, England/Northern Ireland (UK), Korea and the United States,
the relative hourly earnings advantage for tertiary-educated adults who have moderate ICT and problem-solving
skills (Group 3) is at least 15 percentage points greater than for adults with minimal problem-solving skills in
technology-rich environments and adults who failed the first stage of the computer-based assessment (Group 2).
In England/Northern Ireland (UK) and Korea, adults with good ICT and problem-solving skills (Group 4) add 18 and
12 percentage points, respectively, to the relative hourly earnings of adults in Group 3. More generally, across
OECD countries and sub-national entities, the relative hourly earnings advantage for tertiary-educated adults with
moderate ICT and problem-solving skills is 11 percentage points greater than for tertiary-educated adults with
minimal skills in problem solving using ICT and adults who failed the first stage of the computer-based assessment.
The relative earnings is 5 percentage points greater for adults with good ICT and problem-solving skills compared to
those with moderate ICT and problem-solving skills (Table A9.2 [P]).

Earnings returns to education and skills proficiency
The analysis shows the relative importance of each set of skills at different levels of educational attainment. For
example, across countries and sub-national entities that participated in the survey, adults with upper secondary or
post-secondary non-tertiary education, proficiency in using ICT for problem solving is associated with higher earnings
compared to equivalent numeracy skills, which, in turn, yield larger returns than equivalent literacy skills. On average,
adults with upper secondary or post-secondary non-tertiary education and good ICT and problem-solving skills
(Group 4) earn 21% more per hour than adults with below upper secondary education and no computer experience or
who refused the computer-based assessment (Group 0 or 1). Those at Level 4 or 5 in numeracy proficiency earn 16%
more per hour and those at Level 4 or 5 in literacy earn 11% more compared to adults with below upper secondary
education and proficiency Level 1 or below in these skills (Tables A9.2 [L], A9.2 [N] and A9.2 [P]).
Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

171

A9

chapter A THE OUTPUT OF EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS AND THE IMPACT OF LEARNING

Chart A9.3. Difference in hourly earnings, by educational attainment
and numeracy proficiency (2012)

A9

Survey of Adult Skills, 25-64 year-old non-students, reference category is below upper secondary education
and numeracy proficiency of Level 1 or below

Sweden

Denmark

Norway

Austria

Finland

Flanders (Belgium)

England/N. Ireland (UK)

Level 4 or 5

Germany

Level 3

Netherlands

Average2

Ireland

Japan

Canada

Australia

Spain1

Korea

Level 2

Czech Republic

Tertiary education
Level 1 or below

United States

France1

Italy1

Estonia

Poland

90
80
70
06
50
40
30
20
10
0

Slovak Republic

Difference in hourly
earnings compared to adults
with below upper secondary
education and proficiency
Level 1 or below
Level 4 or 5: 108
(%)

How to read this chart
In the Slovak Republic, tertiary-educated adults with numeracy proficiency of Level 4 or 5 earn 108% more compared with adults with below
upper secondary education and numeracy proficiency of Level 1 or below.
The percentages represent the earnings outcomes compared to the reference category (below upper secondary education and a numeracy
proficiency of Level 1 or below).
Notes: The values are based on a linear regression, after accounting for: age, gender, parents’ educational attainment, immigration background,
parental status (have a child or not), cohabitation status (living with spouse/partner or not), literacy proficiency, skills and readiness to use ICT for
problem solving. Differences between the groups are not shown when they are not statistically significant at 95%.
1. The coefficients for France, Italy and Spain have been estimated without accounting for skills and readiness to use ICT for problem solving since
it was not tested in these countries. Since there is positive correlation between skills and readiness to use ICT for problem solving and numeracy,
literacy and education, the effect of excluding skills and readiness to use ICT for problem solving is likely to be that the coefficients on the proficiency
by education level are overestimated, relative to the results for other countries.
2. Average for the regression excludes France, Italy and Spain as a different model specification was used for these countries.
Countries are ranked in descending order of the percentage increase in earnings for individuals with tertiary education and a numeracy proficiency of Level 4 or 5.
Source: OECD. Table A9.2 (N). See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/education/education-at-a-glance-19991487.htm).
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933283811

Definitions
Adults refer to 25-64 year-olds.
Earnings refer to hourly earnings excluding bonuses for wage and salary earners.
The employment rate refers to the number of persons in employment as a percentage of the working-age population
(the number of employed people is divided by the number of all working-age people). Employment rates by gender,
age, educational attainment, programme orientation and age groups are calculated within each of these categories;
for example the employment rate among women is calculated by dividing the number of employed women by the
total number of working-age women.
Levels of education: Below upper secondary corresponds to ISCED-97 Levels 0, 1, 2 and 3C short programmes;
upper secondary or post-secondary non-tertiary corresponds to ISCED-97 Levels 3A, 3B, 3C long programmes,
and Level 4; and tertiary corresponds to ISCED-97 Levels 5A, 5B and 6.
Literacy is the ability to understand, evaluate, use and engage with written texts to participate in society, to
achieve one’s goals, and to develop one’s knowledge and potential. Literacy encompasses a range of skills from
the decoding of written words and sentences to the comprehension, interpretation, and evaluation of complex
texts. It does not, however, involve the production of text (writing). Information on the skills of adults with

172 Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

What is the impact of skills on employment and earnings? – INDICATOR A9

chapter A

low levels of proficiency is provided by an assessment of reading components that covers text vocabulary, sentence
comprehension and passage fluency.
Numeracy is the ability to access, use, interpret and communicate mathematical information and ideas in order
to engage in and manage the mathematical demands of a range of situations in adult life. To this end, numeracy
involves managing a situation or solving a problem in a real context, by responding to mathematical content/
information/ideas represented in multiple ways.
Problem solving in technology-rich environments is the ability to use digital technology, communication tools
and networks to acquire and evaluate information, communicate with others and perform practical tasks. The
assessment focuses on the abilities to solve problems for personal, work and civic purposes by setting up appropriate
goals and plans, and accessing and making use of information through computers and computer networks.
Proficiency levels for literacy and numeracy are based on a 500-point scale. Each level has been defined by particular
score-point ranges. Six levels are defined for literacy and numeracy (Below Level 1 and Levels 1 through 5) which are
grouped in four proficiency levels in Education at a Glance: Level 1 or below – all scores below 226 points; Level 2 –
scores from 226 points to less than 276 points; Level 3 - scores from 276 points to less than 326 points; Level 4
or 5 – scores from 326 points and higher.
Skill groups refer to skills and readiness to use information and communication technologies (ICT) for problem
solving in technology-rich environments. Each group is described in terms of the characteristics of the types of
tasks that can be successfully completed by adults and the related scores in the assessment of problem solving in
technology-rich environments in the Survey of Adult Skills.
• Group 0 or 1 (no computer experience or refused the computer-based assessment)
• Group 2 (failed ICT core test or minimal problem-solving skills – scored below Level 1 in the problem solving in
technology-rich environments assessment)
• Group 3 (moderate ICT and problem-solving skills – scored at Level 1 in the problem solving in technology-rich
environments assessment)
• Group 4 (good ICT and problem-solving skills – scored at Level 2 or Level 3 in the problem solving in technologyrich environments assessment)

Methodology
All data are based on the Survey of Adult Skills (PIAAC) (2012). PIAAC is the OECD Programme for the International
Assessment of Adult Competencies. See Annex 3 (www.oecd.org/education/education-at-a-glance-19991487.htm)
for additional information.
The sample under consideration is restricted to non-students, as including the employment status and reported
earnings for students would likely obscure the impact of skills on labour market outcomes. There is no restriction
based on age implying that the sample includes those aged between 25 and 64. When the impact of skills and
education on earnings is undertaken, the self-employed are excluded.
Box A9.1. Description of logistic regression analysis and interpretation of odds ratio
Logistic regression analysis enables an estimation of the relationship between one or more independent
variables (predictors) on categorical dependent (predicted) variables with two categories (binary logistic
regression) or more than two categories (multinomial logistic regression). Multinomial logistic regression
compares multiple groups through a combination of binary logistic regressions. Logistic regression analyses
were carried out to evaluate the likelihood of being employed for different levels of skills and education. When
a logistic regression is calculated, the statistical software output generates the regression coefficient (ß),
which is the estimated increase in the log odds of the outcome per unit increase in the value of the predictor
variable. Odds ratio (OR) is obtained with the exponential function of the regression coefficient (exp (ß)).
The transformation of log odds (ß) into odds ratios (OR = exp (ß)) makes the data more interpretable in terms
of probability. Three types of outcomes are possible for the odds ratios:
• OR = 1 Predictor variable does not affect odds of outcome
• OR >1 Predictor variable associated with higher odds of outcome
• OR <1 Predictor variable associated with lower odds of outcome
…
Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

173

A9

chapter A THE OUTPUT OF EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS AND THE IMPACT OF LEARNING

A9

In odds ratios, categories are compared with a predetermined reference category. For example, in Table A9.1 (L)
the reference category is 25-64 year-olds with literacy proficiency of Level 1 or below and educational
attainment of below upper secondary education. Odds ratios can be interpreted in such a way that for a unit
change in the predictor variable (e.g. level of education changing from below upper secondary education to
upper secondary or post-secondary non-tertiary education), the odds ratio of the outcome variable relative to
the reference category is expected to change by a factor of the respective parameter estimate, given that the
other variables in the model are held constant.
It is also important to note that the odds of being employed are not the same as the probability of employment
although there is a correspondence between the measures:
Odds = Probability / (1–Probability) and conversely, Probability = Odds / (1+Odds)
The odds of being employed can be defined as the probability of employment over the probability of nonemployment so, for example, a probability of 50% corresponds to odds of 1. As a further example, on average the
probability of being employed stands at 48% for the reference category (i.e. below upper secondary education
and literacy proficiency of Level 1 or below) corresponding to employment odds of 0.92 (= 0.48/(1.0 – 0.48)).
To compare the employment outcomes of different groups of individuals, we estimate the odds ratio, which
is the employment odds of the selected group divided by the employment odds of the reference category.
Therefore, taking the previous example, if the employment odds of the reference category stands at 0.92 and
the odds ratio is 4.2 for individuals with tertiary education and literacy proficiency of Level 4 or 5, then the
odds of being employed for this selected group are 4.2 times the odds of being employed for the baseline group
(i.e. 3.86 = 4.2 * 0.92). Using this figure, we could convert back to probabilities and say that the employment
rate for individuals with tertiary education and literacy proficiency of Level 4 or 5 is approximately 79%
(= 3.86/(1+3.86)).

Note regarding data from the Russian Federation in the Survey of Adult Skills (PIAAC)
Readers should note that the sample for the Russian Federation does not include the population of the Moscow municipal
area. The data published, therefore, do not represent the entire resident population aged 16-65 in Russia but rather the
population of Russia excluding the population residing in the Moscow municipal area. More detailed information regarding
the data from the Russian Federation as well as that of other countries can be found in the Technical Report of the Survey
of Adult Skills (OECD, 2014).

References
Green, D.A., W.C. Riddell (2012), Understanding Educational Impacts: The Role of Literacy and Numeracy Skills, Department of
Economics, University of British Columbia.
OECD (2014), Technical Report of the Survey of Adult Skills, www.oecd.org/site/piaac/_Technical%20Report_17OCT13.pdf,
pre-publication copy.
OECD (2013), OECD Skills Outlook 2013: First Results from the Survey of Adult Skills, OECD Publishing, Paris, http://dx.doi.
org/10.1787/9789264204256-en.

Indicator A9 Tables
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933285230

Table A9.1 (L) Likelihood of being employed, by educational attainment and literacy proficiency (2012)
Table A9.1 (N) Likelihood of being employed, by educational attainment and numeracy proficiency (2012)
Table A9.1 (P) Likelihood of being employed, by educational attainment and skills and readiness to use information
and communication technologies for problem solving (2012)
Table A9.2 (L) Difference in hourly earnings, by educational attainment and literacy proficiency (2012)
Table A9.2 (N) Difference in hourly earnings, by educational attainment and numeracy proficiency (2012)
Table A9.2 (P) Difference in hourly earnings, by educational attainment and skills and readiness to use information
and communication technologies for problem solving (2012)

174 Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

What is the impact of skills on employment and earnings? – INDICATOR A9

chapter A

Table A9.1 (L). [1/2] Likelihood of being employed, by educational attainment

A9

and literacy proficiency (2012)

25-64 year-old non-students, below upper secondary education and proficiency Level 1 or below
as reference category, odds ratio
Logistic regression is used to estimate the odds ratios and p-values; an odds ratio reflects the relative likelihood of being employed compared to someone with
an education level of below upper secondary education and a literacy proficiency of Level 1 or below. The latter group is taken as the reference category for the
interpretation of the relative likelihood and therefore their odds ratio are set to equal 1. Differences between the groups are statistically significant at 95% if
the “p-value” associated with the odds ratio is below 0.05.
How to read this table: In Australia, a person with tertiary education and a literacy proficiency of Level 4 or 5 is 2.6 times as likely (in terms of odds ratio) of being
employed as someone with below upper secondary education and a literacy proficiency of Level 1 or below.

OECD

Percentage of employed adults
among those who have
below upper secondary
education
and literacy proficiency
of Level 0/1

Likelihood of being employed compared to someone with below upper secondary education
and a literacy proficiency of Level 0/1, dependent on:
Below upper secondary education
Literacy proficiency
of Level 2

Literacy proficiency
of Level 3

Literacy proficiency
of Level 4/5

%

S.E.

(1)

(2)

Odds ratio
(3)

p-value
(4)

Odds ratio
(5)

p-value
(6)

Odds ratio
(7)

p-value
(8)

Australia

49

(3.2)

1.4

0.27

1.5

0.27

1.0

0.98

Austria

51

(3.4)

1.1

0.88

1.1

0.79

c

c

Canada

53

(2.3)

1.1

0.58

1.0

0.94

c

c

Czech Republic

37

(6.5)

1.5

0.59

1.3

0.75

c

c

Denmark

50

(2.7)

1.5

0.19

1.3

0.55

c

c

Estonia

48

(3.4)

0.9

0.75

1.1

0.78

c

c

Finland

38

(4.3)

1.4

0.38

1.5

0.41

c

c

France1

48

(1.7)

0.9

0.73

1.0

0.93

c

c

Germany

51

(3.8)

1.4

0.43

1.4

0.73

c

c

Ireland

40

(3.1)

1.5

0.12

1.6

0.12

c

c

Italy1

48

(2.4)

0.9

0.80

0.9

0.84

c

c

Japan

64

(5.5)

0.8

0.65

1.0

0.95

c

c

Korea

61

(2.5)

1.0

0.89

1.0

1.00

c

c

Netherlands

53

(3.3)

0.9

0.83

1.2

0.61

2.0

0.46

National entities

Norway

56

(4.4)

1.3

0.49

1.2

0.73

c

c

Poland

36

(3.8)

1.3

0.52

0.9

0.77

c

c

Slovak Republic

24

(3.4)

1.4

0.22

1.2

0.62

c

c

Spain1

42

(1.4)

1.1

0.55

1.2

0.46

c

c

Sweden

47

(4.1)

2.1

0.09

1.6

0.37

c

c

United States

61

(3.6)

0.7

0.31

0.4

0.15

c

c

Partners

Sub-national entities

Flanders (Belgium)

43

(3.3)

1.9

0.05

1.6

0.22

c

c

England (UK)

50

(2.8)

1.2

0.70

0.9

0.68

c

c

Northern Ireland (UK)

46

(3.4)

1.2

0.51

0.9

0.77

c

c

England/N. Ireland (UK)

50

(2.7)

1.2

0.67

0.9

0.68

1.2

0.87

Average2

48

(0.8)

1.3

0.01

1.2

0.13

c

c

Russian Federation*

37

(11.0)

0.8

0.78

c

c

c

c

Note: Calculations for odds ratio are based on logistic regressions where the dependent variable is the likelihood of being employed and where the independent
variables are educational attainment and proficiency levels, after accounting for: age, gender, parents’ educational attainment, immigration background, parental
status (have a child or not), cohabitation status (living with spouse/partner or not), numeracy proficiency, skills and readiness to use ICT for problem solving. The
reference category is below upper secondary education and proficiency Level 1 or below.
1. The coefficients for France, Italy and Spain have been estimated without accounting for skills and readiness to use ICT for problem solving since it was not tested in these
countries. Since there is positive correlation between skills and readiness to use ICT for problem solving and numeracy, literacy and education, the effect of excluding skills and
readiness to use ICT for problem solving is likely to be that the coefficients on the proficiency by education level are overestimated, relative to the results for other countries.
2. Average for the regression excludes France, Italy and Spain as a different model specification was used for these countries.
* See note on data for the Russian Federation in the Methodology section.
Source: OECD. Survey of Adult Skills (PIAAC) (2012). See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/education/education-at-a-glance-19991487.htm).
Please refer to the Reader’s Guide for information concerning symbols for missing data and abbreviations.
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933285244

Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

175

chapter A THE OUTPUT OF EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS AND THE IMPACT OF LEARNING

Table A9.1 (L). [2/2] Likelihood of being employed, by educational attainment

A9

and literacy proficiency (2012)

25-64 year-old non-students, below upper secondary education and proficiency Level 1 or below
as reference category, odds ratio
Logistic regression is used to estimate the odds ratios and p-values; an odds ratio reflects the relative likelihood of being employed compared to someone with
an education level of below upper secondary education and a literacy proficiency of Level 1 or below. The latter group is taken as the reference category for the
interpretation of the relative likelihood and therefore their odds ratio are set to equal 1. Differences between the groups are statistically significant at 95% if
the “p-value” associated with the odds ratio is below 0.05.
How to read this table: In Australia, a person with tertiary education and a literacy proficiency of Level 4 or 5 is 2.6 times as likely (in terms of odds ratio) of being
employed as someone with below upper secondary education and a literacy proficiency of Level 1 or below.
Likelihood of being employed compared to someone with below upper secondary education
and a literacy proficiency of Level 0/1, dependent on:

OECD

Upper secondary or post-secondary non-tertiary education

Tertiary education

Literacy
proficiency
of Level 0/1

Literacy
proficiency
of Level 2

Literacy
proficiency
of Level 3

Literacy
proficiency
of Level 4/5

Literacy
proficiency
of Level 0/1

Literacy
proficiency
of Level 2

Literacy
proficiency
of Level 3

Literacy
proficiency
of Level 4/5

Odds
ratio

p-value

Odds
ratio

p-value

Odds
ratio

p-value

Odds
ratio

p-value

Odds
ratio

p-value

Odds
ratio

p-value

Odds
ratio

p-value

Odds
ratio

p-value

(9)

(10)

(11)

(12)

(13)

(14)

(15)

(16)

(17)

(18)

(19)

(20)

(21)

(22)

(23)

(24)

Australia

1.5

0.25

1.6

0.13

1.4

0.37

1.5

0.42

2.4

0.07

2.6

0.00

2.7

0.00

2.6

0.03

Austria

1.6

0.13

1.8

0.04

2.2

0.02

2.7

0.23

1.1

0.85

2.7

0.01

3.0

0.01

2.4

0.13

Canada

2.0

0.00

2.0

0.00

1.9

0.00

1.6

0.24

2.2

0.00

2.7

0.00

2.7

0.00

2.4

0.00

Czech Republic

3.9

0.02

3.4

0.04

3.5

0.05

5.5

0.09

c

c

7.8

0.00

4.9

0.03

6.5

0.04

Denmark

1.7

0.02

1.9

0.01

1.5

0.18

1.9

0.40

2.7

0.00

3.8

0.00

3.5

0.00

3.9

0.02

Estonia

2.3

0.00

2.0

0.00

1.9

0.02

2.3

0.09

3.7

0.00

3.9

0.00

3.1

0.00

5.2

0.00

Finland

1.3

0.50

1.7

0.07

2.1

0.04

3.6

0.01

1.4

0.48

2.9

0.00

3.4

0.00

3.0

0.01

France1

1.5

0.04

1.7

0.00

1.3

0.30

1.1

0.84

1.3

0.46

2.6

0.00

2.9

0.00

2.6

0.02

Germany

2.6

0.00

2.3

0.00

2.2

0.03

2.3

0.17

2.7

0.04

3.4

0.00

4.1

0.00

3.6

0.03

Ireland

2.1

0.01

1.9

0.00

2.4

0.00

3.2

0.06

3.6

0.00

4.3

0.00

4.5

0.00

6.0

0.00

Italy1

2.2

0.01

1.3

0.34

1.7

0.15

3.3

0.19

3.8

0.00

2.6

0.00

3.6

0.00

3.2

0.18

Japan

1.1

0.93

0.8

0.62

0.7

0.48

0.6

0.46

c

c

1.0

0.96

0.7

0.51

0.5

0.22

Korea

1.1

0.71

1.0

0.99

0.9

0.85

0.7

0.62

2.0

0.22

0.9

0.68

0.8

0.64

0.7

0.53

Netherlands

1.9

0.08

1.7

0.04

1.5

0.19

1.2

0.70

2.7

0.22

2.4

0.02

2.7

0.01

2.1

0.08

Norway

1.9

0.04

1.9

0.07

1.4

0.51

1.5

0.63

1.8

0.16

2.4

0.03

3.5

0.01

2.9

0.10

Poland

2.2

0.00

2.3

0.00

2.0

0.03

1.8

0.24

11.7

0.00

6.9

0.00

6.4

0.00

9.0

0.00

Slovak Republic

4.4

0.00

3.8

0.00

2.7

0.00

1.6

0.32

c

c

7.6

0.00

5.5

0.00

3.4

0.04

Spain1

2.4

0.00

1.9

0.00

1.8

0.02

1.8

0.50

3.3

0.00

3.0

0.00

2.9

0.00

3.2

0.01

Sweden

2.1

0.06

3.6

0.00

4.1

0.00

7.8

0.03

2.3

0.07

6.6

0.00

9.9

0.00

15.0

0.00

United States

1.0

0.94

0.9

0.68

1.1

0.83

1.2

0.74

1.4

0.47

1.4

0.36

1.3

0.44

1.2

0.73

Flanders (Belgium)

1.8

0.03

2.6

0.00

2.5

0.01

3.4

0.04

3.2

0.04

4.6

0.00

5.4

0.00

7.0

0.00

England (UK)

1.9

0.07

1.4

0.30

1.8

0.08

1.6

0.41

1.7

0.31

1.8

0.07

1.9

0.04

1.6

0.27

Northern Ireland (UK)

1.8

0.09

1.7

0.09

1.6

0.22

1.4

0.48

1.3

0.62

2.4

0.01

2.1

0.09

2.0

0.28

England/N. Ireland (UK)

1.9

0.06

1.4

0.26

1.8

0.07

1.6

0.39

1.7

0.30

1.9

0.05

1.9

0.03

1.6

0.24

Average2

2.0

0.00

2.0

0.00

2.0

0.00

2.4

0.00

2.9

0.00

3.7

0.00

3.7

0.00

4.2

0.00

Russian Federation*

6.3

0.01

4.8

0.01

3.7

0.10

1.7

0.56

2.2

0.20

4.0

0.03

5.0

0.02

4.8

0.03

National entities

Partners

Sub-national entities

Note: Calculations for odds ratio are based on logistic regressions where the dependent variable is the likelihood of being employed and where the independent
variables are educational attainment and proficiency levels, after accounting for: age, gender, parents’ educational attainment, immigration background, parental
status (have a child or not), cohabitation status (living with spouse/partner or not), numeracy proficiency, skills and readiness to use ICT for problem solving. The
reference category is below upper secondary education and proficiency Level 1 or below.
1. The coefficients for France, Italy and Spain have been estimated without accounting for skills and readiness to use ICT for problem solving since it was not tested in these
countries. Since there is positive correlation between skills and readiness to use ICT for problem solving and numeracy, literacy and education, the effect of excluding skills and
readiness to use ICT for problem solving is likely to be that the coefficients on the proficiency by education level are overestimated, relative to the results for other countries.
2. Average for the regression excludes France, Italy and Spain as a different model specification was used for these countries.
* See note on data for the Russian Federation in the Methodology section.
Source: OECD. Survey of Adult Skills (PIAAC) (2012). See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/education/education-at-a-glance-19991487.htm).
Please refer to the Reader’s Guide for information concerning symbols for missing data and abbreviations.
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933285244

176 Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

What is the impact of skills on employment and earnings? – INDICATOR A9

chapter A

Table A9.1 (N). [1/2] Likelihood of being employed, by educational attainment

A9

and numeracy proficiency (2012)

25-64 year-old non-students, below upper secondary education and proficiency Level 1 or below
as reference category, odds ratio
Logistic regression is used to estimate the odds ratios and p-values; an odds ratio reflects the relative likelihood of being employed compared to someone with
an education level of below upper secondary education and a numeracy proficiency of Level 1 or below. The latter group is taken as the reference category for
the interpretation of the relative likelihood and therefore their odds ratio are set to equal 1. Differences between the groups are statistically significant at 95% if
the “p-value” associated with the odds ratio is below 0.05.
How to read this table: In Australia, a person with tertiary education and a numeracy proficiency of Level 4 or 5 is 3.5 times as likely (in terms of odds ratio)
of being employed as someone with below upper secondary education and a numeracy proficiency of Level 1 or below.

OECD

Percentage of employed adults
among those who have
below upper secondary
education and
numeracy proficiency
of Level 0/1

Likelihood of being employed compared to someone with below upper secondary education
and a numeracy proficiency of Level 0/1, dependent on:
Below upper secondary education
Numeracy proficiency
of Level 2

Numeracy proficiency
of Level 3

Numeracy proficiency
of Level 4/5

%

S.E.

(1)

(2)

Odds ratio
(3)

p-value
(4)

Odds ratio
(5)

p-value
(6)

Odds ratio
(7)

p-value
(8)

Australia

49

(2.4)

1.8

0.04

1.6

0.21

2.3

0.47

Austria

51

(3.5)

1.1

0.71

0.9

0.91

c

c

Canada

51

(2.2)

1.6

0.09

1.9

0.18

c

c

Czech Republic

39

(6.2)

1.2

0.74

1.4

0.73

c

c

Denmark

49

(3.2)

2.0

0.06

2.6

0.01

2.7

0.36

National entities

Estonia

47

(3.2)

1.3

0.35

1.9

0.10

c

c

Finland

40

(4.1)

1.2

0.57

1.3

0.56

c

c

France1

49

(1.5)

1.3

0.26

2.0

0.05

c

c

Germany

49

(3.7)

1.9

0.19

1.6

0.57

c

c

Ireland

41

(3.0)

1.3

0.42

1.3

0.59

c

c

Italy1

44

(2.1)

1.6

0.03

2.6

0.01

c

c

Japan

63

(4.6)

1.1

0.84

1.6

0.33

c

c

Korea

60

(2.3)

1.3

0.40

1.7

0.30

c

c

Netherlands

51

(3.1)

1.1

0.66

1.3

0.46

2.9

0.44

Norway

54

(4.0)

1.8

0.09

2.5

0.04

3.6

0.14

Poland

36

(3.5)

1.6

0.18

1.8

0.29

c

c

Slovak Republic

22

(2.7)

3.2

0.00

5.4

0.00

c

c

Spain1

41

(1.6)

1.4

0.03

2.1

0.01

c

c

Sweden

50

(3.9)

1.2

0.69

1.1

0.87

c

c

United States

60

(3.1)

0.9

0.81

c

c

c

c

Partners

Sub-national entities

Flanders (Belgium)

42

(3.4)

1.6

0.24

1.5

0.28

c

c

England (UK)

50

(2.2)

1.4

0.29

1.6

0.37

c

c

Northern Ireland (UK)

44

(2.6)

1.7

0.09

1.7

0.28

c

c

England/N. Ireland (UK)

50

(2.1)

1.5

0.25

1.6

0.34

c

c

Average2

47

(0.7)

1.5

0.00

1.8

0.00

c

c

Russian Federation*

34

(8.7)

1.0

0.96

c

c

c

c

Note: Calculations for odds ratio are based on logistic regressions where the dependent variable is the likelihood of being employed and where the independent
variables are educational attainment and proficiency levels, after accounting for: age, gender, parents’ educational attainment, immigration background, parental
status (have a child or not), cohabitation status (living with spouse/partner or not), literacy proficiency, skills and readiness to use ICT for problem solving. The
reference category is below upper secondary education and proficiency Level 1 or below.
1. The coefficients for France, Italy and Spain have been estimated without accounting for skills and readiness to use ICT for problem solving since it was not tested in these
countries. Since there is positive correlation between skills and readiness to use ICT for problem solving and numeracy, literacy and education, the effect of excluding skills and
readiness to use ICT for problem solving is likely to be that the coefficients on the proficiency by education level are overestimated, relative to the results for other countries.
2. Average for the regression excludes France, Italy and Spain as a different model specification was used for these countries.
* See note on data for the Russian Federation in the Methodology section.
Source: OECD. Survey of Adult Skills (PIAAC) (2012). See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/education/education-at-a-glance-19991487.htm).
Please refer to the Reader’s Guide for information concerning symbols for missing data and abbreviations.
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933285257

Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

177

chapter A THE OUTPUT OF EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS AND THE IMPACT OF LEARNING

Table A9.1 (N). [2/2] Likelihood of being employed, by educational attainment

A9

and numeracy proficiency (2012)

25-64 year-old non-students, below upper secondary education and proficiency Level 1 or below
as reference category, odds ratio
Logistic regression is used to estimate the odds ratios and p-values; an odds ratio reflects the relative likelihood of being employed compared to someone with
an education level of below upper secondary education and a numeracy proficiency of Level 1 or below. The latter group is taken as the reference category for
the interpretation of the relative likelihood and therefore their odds ratio are set to equal 1. Differences between the groups are statistically significant at 95% if
the “p-value” associated with the odds ratio is below 0.05.
How to read this table: In Australia, a person with tertiary education and a numeracy proficiency of Level 4 or 5 is 3.5 times as likely (in terms of odds ratio)
of being employed as someone with below upper secondary education and a numeracy proficiency of Level 1 or below.
Likelihood of being employed compared to someone with below upper secondary education
and a numeracy proficiency of Level 0/1, dependent on:

OECD

Upper secondary or post-secondary non-tertiary education

Tertiary education

Numeracy
proficiency
of Level 0/1

Numeracy
proficiency
of Level 2

Numeracy
proficiency
of Level 3

Numeracy
proficiency
of Level 4/5

Numeracy
proficiency
of Level 0/1

Numeracy
proficiency
of Level 2

Numeracy
proficiency
of Level 3

Numeracy
proficiency
of Level 4/5

Odds
ratio

p-value

Odds
ratio

p-value

Odds
ratio

p-value

Odds
ratio

p-value

Odds
ratio

p-value

Odds
ratio

p-value

Odds
ratio

p-value

Odds
ratio

p-value

(9)

(10)

(11)

(12)

(13)

(14)

(15)

(16)

(17)

(18)

(19)

(20)

(21)

(22)

(23)

(24)

Australia

1.4

0.17

1.6

0.06

1.9

0.07

1.6

0.47

2.8

0.01

2.9

0.00

3.4

0.00

3.5

0.01

Austria

1.6

0.17

1.8

0.04

1.9

0.05

3.1

0.06

1.2

0.82

2.7

0.01

3.0

0.01

2.1

0.15

Canada

2.1

0.00

2.7

0.00

2.8

0.00

3.8

0.01

2.5

0.00

3.7

0.00

4.0

0.00

5.7

0.00

Czech Republic

2.5

0.07

3.5

0.01

4.0

0.01

5.9

0.04

c

c

5.7

0.01

5.9

0.00

10.9

0.00

Denmark

1.8

0.05

2.6

0.00

2.9

0.00

3.5

0.02

3.4

0.00

4.9

0.00

6.3

0.00

9.8

0.00

Estonia

2.2

0.00

2.7

0.00

3.2

0.00

4.3

0.01

3.8

0.00

5.2

0.00

5.3

0.00

12.7

0.00

Finland

1.1

0.78

1.7

0.07

1.7

0.15

2.6

0.05

1.3

0.53

3.1

0.00

2.6

0.01

2.5

0.04

France1

1.6

0.00

2.0

0.00

2.2

0.00

3.1

0.03

1.5

0.15

3.8

0.00

4.7

0.00

6.1

0.00

Germany

2.4

0.00

2.8

0.00

4.4

0.00

5.0

0.00

2.4

0.05

4.9

0.00

6.7

0.00

8.4

0.00

Ireland

1.7

0.01

1.7

0.04

1.9

0.06

1.9

0.28

3.8

0.00

3.5

0.00

3.6

0.00

3.6

0.01

Italy1

2.6

0.00

2.2

0.00

3.3

0.00

8.2

0.00

5.7

0.00

3.9

0.00

8.5

0.00

8.9

0.01

Japan

1.0

0.92

1.1

0.88

1.3

0.43

1.8

0.26

1.6

0.46

1.1

0.72

1.3

0.53

1.6

0.32

Korea

1.1

0.75

1.3

0.36

1.5

0.29

1.7

0.45

1.7

0.25

1.2

0.46

1.2

0.58

1.4

0.55

Netherlands

1.6

0.18

2.3

0.00

1.5

0.28

1.4

0.56

2.4

0.26

3.1

0.00

2.9

0.00

2.1

0.14

Norway

2.0

0.03

2.4

0.00

2.6

0.04

4.1

0.04

1.7

0.14

3.9

0.00

5.8

0.00

9.3

0.00

Poland

2.2

0.00

3.1

0.00

3.4

0.00

4.0

0.02

9.2

0.00

9.5

0.00

11.0

0.00

22.4

0.00

Slovak Republic

4.1

0.00

8.3

0.00

12.1

0.00

16.6

0.00

c

c

15.9

0.00

27.3

0.00

33.8

0.00

Spain1

2.7

0.00

2.3

0.00

3.0

0.00

5.3

0.07

3.3

0.00

3.9

0.00

5.1

0.00

5.8

0.00

Sweden

2.1

0.03

2.1

0.05

2.4

0.07

2.7

0.13

2.5

0.04

4.6

0.00

4.9

0.00

4.5

0.02

United States

1.1

0.72

1.5

0.15

2.5

0.01

3.4

0.07

1.5

0.20

2.1

0.01

2.8

0.01

5.6

0.00

Flanders (Belgium)

1.9

0.02

2.2

0.00

1.8

0.09

1.7

0.25

3.1

0.08

4.6

0.00

3.8

0.00

3.0

0.01

England (UK)

1.7

0.05

2.0

0.01

2.9

0.02

2.4

0.15

2.1

0.02

2.4

0.00

3.0

0.00

2.4

0.06

Northern Ireland (UK)

2.1

0.04

2.0

0.02

3.3

0.00

2.5

0.18

1.5

0.34

3.7

0.00

3.5

0.00

3.7

0.06

England/N. Ireland (UK)

1.7

0.04

2.0

0.01

2.9

0.01

2.5

0.13

2.1

0.01

2.4

0.00

3.0

0.00

2.5

0.05

Average2

1.9

0.00

2.5

0.00

3.0

0.00

3.8

0.00

2.8

0.00

4.5

0.00

5.5

0.00

7.6

0.00

Russian Federation*

6.4

0.00

6.6

0.00

5.0

0.02

2.0

0.50

3.1

0.05

6.2

0.00

6.5

0.00

7.7

0.00

National entities

Partners

Sub-national entities

Note: Calculations for odds ratio are based on logistic regressions where the dependent variable is the likelihood of being employed and where the independent
variables are educational attainment and proficiency levels, after accounting for: age, gender, parents’ educational attainment, immigration background, parental
status (have a child or not), cohabitation status (living with spouse/partner or not), literacy proficiency, skills and readiness to use ICT for problem solving. The
reference category is below upper secondary education and proficiency Level 1 or below.
1. The coefficients for France, Italy and Spain have been estimated without accounting for skills and readiness to use ICT for problem solving since it was not tested in these
countries. Since there is positive correlation between skills and readiness to use ICT for problem solving and numeracy, literacy and education, the effect of excluding skills and
readiness to use ICT for problem solving is likely to be that the coefficients on the proficiency by education level are overestimated, relative to the results for other countries.
2. Average for the regression excludes France, Italy and Spain as a different model specification was used for these countries.
* See note on data for the Russian Federation in the Methodology section.
Source: OECD. Survey of Adult Skills (PIAAC) (2012). See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/education/education-at-a-glance-19991487.htm).
Please refer to the Reader’s Guide for information concerning symbols for missing data and abbreviations.
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933285257

178 Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

What is the impact of skills on employment and earnings? – INDICATOR A9

chapter A

Table A9.1 (P). [1/2] Likelihood of being employed, by educational attainment and skills and readiness

to use information and communication technologies for problem solving (2012)
25-64 year-olds, reference category, below upper secondary education and skills Group 0 or 1
as reference category, odds ratio

Logistic regression is used to estimate the odds ratios and p-values; an odds ratio reflects the relative likelihood of being employed compared to someone with
a level of skills and readiness to use ICT for problem solving of Group 0 or 1. The latter group is taken as the reference category for the interpretation of the
relative likelihood and therefore their odds ratio are set to equal 1. Differences between the groups are statistically significant at 95% if the “p-value” associated
with the odds ratio is below 0.05.
How to read this table: In Australia, a person with tertiary education and among Group 4 of skills and readiness to use ICT for problem solving is 5.2 times as
likely (in terms of odds ratio) of being employed as someone with below upper secondary education and among Group 0 or 1 of skills and readiness to use ICT
for problem solving.

OECD

Likelihood of being employed compared to someone with below upper secondary education
and a level of skills and readiness to use ICT for problem solving of Group 0/1, dependent on:
Percentage of employed adults
among those who have
Below upper secondary education
below upper secondary
Group 4
Group 3
Group 2
education and skills
(Good ICT
(Moderate ICT
and readiness to use ICT for (Failed ICT core test or minimal
and problem-solving skills)
and problem-solving skills)
problem-solving skills)
problem solving of Group 0/1
%

S.E.

(1)

(2)

Odds ratio
(3)

p-value
(4)

Odds ratio
(5)

p-value
(6)

Odds ratio
(7)

p-value
(8)

Australia

31

(3.5)

1.5

0.15

2.5

0.00

2.7

0.01

Austria

40

(2.6)

0.9

0.82

1.0

0.98

0.7

0.67

Canada

41

(3.0)

1.0

0.84

1.2

0.43

1.0

0.94

Czech Republic

28

(5.2)

2.1

0.27

0.5

0.32

0.5

0.52

Denmark

31

(5.1)

1.8

0.01

2.0

0.02

1.1

0.87

Estonia

32

(2.7)

2.2

0.00

2.3

0.02

3.2

0.09

Finland

29

(4.1)

1.5

0.14

1.4

0.40

1.2

0.81

France

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

Germany

43

(5.5)

1.1

0.82

0.6

0.34

0.7

0.63

Ireland

40

(2.9)

1.4

0.17

1.7

0.07

2.2

0.45

Italy

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

Japan

62

(4.0)

0.6

0.16

1.0

0.99

1.3

0.75

Korea

60

(1.7)

1.1

0.72

2.2

0.23

0.6

0.67

Netherlands

39

(4.7)

1.2

0.47

2.0

0.01

3.9

0.00

Norway

22

(6.9)

2.5

0.01

2.7

0.00

3.3

0.04

Poland

31

(2.7)

1.4

0.49

0.6

0.46

c

c

Slovak Republic

27

(2.1)

1.1

0.75

2.1

0.06

2.9

0.08

National entities

Spain

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

Sweden

35

(9.1)

1.6

0.20

1.1

0.80

0.8

0.78

United States

61

(3.8)

0.9

0.85

0.7

0.55

0.3

0.13

Flanders (Belgium)

31

(3.1)

1.7

0.05

1.4

0.30

1.9

0.40

England (UK)

32

(5.0)

2.0

0.05

2.2

0.03

2.1

0.19

Northern Ireland (UK)

40

(3.0)

1.7

0.04

1.9

0.07

2.2

0.22

England/N. Ireland (UK)

33

(4.6)

2.0

0.04

2.2

0.02

2.1

0.17

Average

38

(1.0)

1.5

0.00

1.5

0.00

1.7

0.00

Russian Federation*

21

(5.6)

c

c

c

c

c

c

Partners

Sub-national entities

Note: Calculations for odds ratio are based on logistic regressions where the dependent variable is the likelihood of being employed and where the independent
variables are educational attainment and skill groups, after accounting for: age, gender, parents’ educational attainment, immigration background, parental status
(have a child or not), cohabitation status (living with spouse/partner or not), literacy proficiency and numeracy proficiency. The reference category is below upper
secondary education and Group 0 or 1.
* See note on data for the Russian Federation in the Methodology section.
Source: OECD. Survey of Adult Skills (PIAAC) (2012). See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/education/education-at-a-glance-19991487.htm).
Please refer to the Reader’s Guide for information concerning symbols for missing data and abbreviations.
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933285268

Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

179

A9

chapter A THE OUTPUT OF EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS AND THE IMPACT OF LEARNING

Table A9.1 (P). [2/2] Likelihood of being employed, by educational attainment and skills and readiness

A9

to use information and communication technologies for problem solving (2012)
25-64 year-olds, reference category, below upper secondary education and skills Group 0 or 1
as reference category, odds ratio

Logistic regression is used to estimate the odds ratios and p-values; an odds ratio reflects the relative likelihood of being employed compared to someone with
a level of skills and readiness to use ICT for problem solving of Group 0 or 1. The latter group is taken as the reference category for the interpretation of the
relative likelihood and therefore their odds ratio are set to equal 1. Differences between the groups are statistically significant at 95% if the “p-value” associated
with the odds ratio is below 0.05.
How to read this table: In Australia, a person with tertiary education and among Group 4 of skills and readiness to use ICT for problem solving is 5.2 times as
likely (in terms of odds ratio) of being employed as someone with below upper secondary education and among Group 0 or 1 of skills and readiness to use ICT
for problem solving.

OECD

Likelihood of being employed compared to someone with below upper secondary education and a level of skills
and readiness to use ICT for problem solving of Group 0/1, dependent on:
Upper secondary or post-secondary non-tertiary education

Tertiary education

Group 0/1
(No computer
Group 2
experience or
Group 4
Group 3
refused the (Failed ICT core
(Good ICT
test or minimal (Moderate ICT
computerand problem- and problemproblembased
solving skills) solving skills) solving skills)
assessment)

Group 0/1
(No computer
Group 2
experience or
Group 4
Group 3
refused the (Failed ICT core
(Good ICT
test or minimal (Moderate ICT
computerand problem- and problemproblembased
solving skills) solving skills) solving skills)
assessment)

Odds
ratio

p-value

Odds
ratio

p-value

Odds
ratio

p-value

Odds
ratio

p-value

Odds
ratio

p-value

Odds
ratio

p-value

Odds
ratio

p-value

Odds
ratio

p-value

(9)

(10)

(11)

(12)

(13)

(14)

(15)

(16)

(17)

(18)

(19)

(20)

(21)

(22)

(23)

(24)

Australia

1.8

0.02

1.8

0.09

1.8

0.02

2.9

0.00

c

c

3.4

0.00

4.5

0.00

5.2

0.00

Austria

1.3

0.15

2.1

0.01

1.9

0.02

2.1

0.02

c

c

2.4

0.02

3.6

0.00

2.2

0.05

Canada

1.4

0.11

2.4

0.00

2.3

0.00

2.4

0.00

1.7

0.02

2.8

0.00

3.1

0.00

3.3

0.00

Czech Republic

1.9

0.06

3.6

0.00

2.5

0.00

2.8

0.02

c

c

5.3

0.02

2.6

0.07

4.4

0.00

Denmark

1.7

0.03

2.3

0.00

2.5

0.00

1.6

0.10

c

c

4.3

0.00

5.0

0.00

4.0

0.00

Estonia

2.2

0.00

4.4

0.00

3.8

0.00

4.7

0.00

3.3

0.00

9.4

0.00

7.8

0.00

8.4

0.00

Finland

1.2

0.39

1.8

0.02

2.3

0.00

2.3

0.02

c

c

2.2

0.01

3.9

0.00

3.2

0.00

France

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

Germany

1.4

0.27

2.2

0.01

2.0

0.02

2.2

0.07

1.4

0.44

3.9

0.00

3.5

0.00

3.0

0.00

Ireland

1.6

0.01

2.3

0.00

2.0

0.00

2.6

0.00

c

c

4.6

0.00

4.2

0.00

5.2

0.00

Italy

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

Japan

0.8

0.49

0.9

0.73

1.0

0.92

1.1

0.78

0.8

0.39

0.8

0.48

0.9

0.79

1.3

0.39

Korea

1.2

0.32

1.2

0.36

1.4

0.05

1.8

0.06

0.9

0.60

1.3

0.17

1.2

0.35

1.9

0.02

c

c

2.1

0.01

3.2

0.00

4.3

0.00

c

c

3.1

0.02

5.4

0.00

7.6

0.00

National entities

Netherlands
Norway

c

c

3.1

0.00

3.4

0.00

3.6

0.00

c

c

4.5

0.00

6.3

0.00

9.8

0.00

Poland

1.8

0.00

3.0

0.00

2.7

0.00

3.8

0.00

c

c

7.2

0.00

9.5

0.00

11.7

0.00

Slovak Republic

2.9

0.00

4.4

0.00

5.0

0.00

4.9

0.00

c

c

7.5

0.00

9.6

0.00

8.9

0.00

Spain

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

Sweden

c

c

2.1

0.02

3.1

0.00

3.2

0.01

c

c

4.1

0.00

3.9

0.00

7.1

0.00

0.6

0.04

1.5

0.06

1.1

0.79

1.2

0.61

c

c

1.8

0.05

1.8

0.02

1.3

0.51

Flanders (Belgium)

1.5

0.05

2.6

0.00

2.2

0.00

2.2

0.02

c

c

4.7

0.00

4.6

0.00

4.0

0.00

England (UK)

2.2

0.02

2.4

0.01

3.5

0.00

4.3

0.00

c

c

3.3

0.00

3.6

0.00

4.9

0.00

Northern Ireland (UK)

2.3

0.04

c

c

2.9

0.00

3.4

0.00

c

c

c

c

3.5

0.00

4.5

0.00

England/N. Ireland (UK)

2.2

0.01

2.4

0.01

3.4

0.00

4.3

0.00

c

c

3.3

0.00

3.6

0.00

4.9

0.00

Average

1.6

0.00

2.4

0.00

2.5

0.00

2.8

0.00

c

c

4.0

0.00

4.5

0.00

5.1

0.00

Russian Federation*

5.3

0.01

10.5

0.00

3.6

0.09

2.2

0.24

4.3

0.01

3.6

0.02

6.1

0.01

6.9

0.00

United States

Partners

Sub-national entities

Note: Calculations for odds ratio are based on logistic regressions where the dependent variable is the likelihood of being employed and where the independent
variables are educational attainment and skill groups, after accounting for: age, gender, parents’ educational attainment, immigration background, parental status
(have a child or not), cohabitation status (living with spouse/partner or not), literacy proficiency and numeracy proficiency. The reference category is below upper
secondary education and Group 0 or 1.
* See note on data for the Russian Federation in the Methodology section.
Source: OECD. Survey of Adult Skills (PIAAC) (2012). See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/education/education-at-a-glance-19991487.htm).
Please refer to the Reader’s Guide for information concerning symbols for missing data and abbreviations.
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933285268

180 Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

What is the impact of skills on employment and earnings? – INDICATOR A9

chapter A

Table A9.2 (L). [1/2] Difference in hourly earnings,
by educational attainment and literacy proficiency (2012)

A9

25-64 year-old non-students, below upper secondary and proficiency Level 1 or below as reference category
Ordinary least square regression, used to estimate percentage, reflects the change in hourly earnings compared to someone with below upper secondary
education and a literacy proficiency of Level 1 or below. The latter group is taken as the reference category for the interpretation of the percentage difference.
How to read this table: In Australia, a person with tertiary education and a literacy proficiency of Level 4 or 5 is earning 37% more, compared with someone with
below upper secondary education and a literacy proficiency of Level 1 or below.
Difference in hourly earnings compared to someone with below upper secondary and a literacy proficiency
of Level 0/1, dependent on:
Below upper secondary education

OECD

Literacy
proficiency
of Level 2

Upper secondary or post-secondary non-tertiary education

Literacy
proficiency
of Level 4/5

Literacy
proficiency
of Level 3

Literacy
proficiency
of Level 0/1

Literacy
proficiency
of Level 2

Literacy
proficiency
of Level 3

Literacy
proficiency
of Level 4/5

%

S.E.

%

S.E.

%

S.E.

%

S.E.

%

S.E.

%

S.E.

%

S.E.

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7)

(8)

(9)

(10)

(11)

(12)

(13)

(14)

National entities

Australia

-3

(0.1)

-6

(0.1)

-7

(0.1)

16

(0.1)

6

(0.1)

2

(0.1)

9

(0.1)

Austria

0

(0.1)

7

(0.1)

c

c

7

(0.0)

15

(0.0)

22

(0.1)

29

(0.1)

Canada

1

(0.1)

2

(0.1)

c

c

7

(0.0)

11

(0.0)

10

(0.0)

12

(0.1)

Czech Republic

14

(0.1)

8

(0.2)

c

c

22

(0.1)

21

(0.1)

25

(0.1)

33

(0.1)

Denmark

2

(0.0)

-2

(0.0)

c

c

12

(0.1)

7

(0.0)

5

(0.0)

9

(0.1)

Estonia

-2

(0.1)

-8

(0.1)

c

c

12

(0.1)

1

(0.1)

-2

(0.1)

-3

(0.1)

Finland

-2

(0.1)

-6

(0.1)

c

c

3

(0.1)

1

(0.0)

1

(0.1)

6

(0.1)

France1

3

(0.0)

7

(0.1)

c

c

10

(0.0)

11

(0.0)

12

(0.0)

8

(0.1)

Germany

-3

(0.3)

-10

(0.2)

c

c

-7

(0.2)

-6

(0.2)

0

(0.2)

2

(0.2)

Ireland

3

(0.1)

7

(0.1)

c

c

8

(0.1)

7

(0.1)

11

(0.1)

10

(0.1)

Italy1

-3

(0.1)

1

(0.1)

c

c

4

(0.1)

9

(0.1)

14

(0.1)

23

(0.1)

Japan

9

(0.2)

11

(0.1)

c

c

14

(0.2)

13

(0.1)

10

(0.1)

9

(0.2)

Korea

0

(0.1)

0

(0.1)

c

c

8

(0.1)

20

(0.1)

18

(0.1)

-3

(0.1)

Netherlands

6

(0.1)

1

(0.1)

-1

(0.1)

2

(0.1)

10

(0.1)

13

(0.1)

14

(0.1)

Norway

-4

(0.0)

-4

(0.0)

c

c

7

(0.1)

4

(0.0)

7

(0.0)

10

(0.1)

Poland

-4

(0.2)

-16

(0.3)

c

c

-7

(0.1)

-7

(0.1)

-3

(0.1)

5

(0.2)

Slovak Republic

3

(0.1)

5

(0.1)

c

c

13

(0.1)

25

(0.1)

22

(0.1)

15

(0.1)

Spain1

-1

(0.0)

2

(0.1)

c

c

15

(0.1)

20

(0.1)

12

(0.1)

12

(0.2)

Sweden

1

(0.0)

0

(0.0)

c

c

1

(0.0)

3

(0.0)

4

(0.0)

10

(0.1)

-20

(0.3)

-16

(0.3)

c

c

-4

(0.2)

-4

(0.2)

1

(0.2)

4

(0.3)

Flanders (Belgium)

1

(0.1)

2

(0.1)

c

c

9

(0.1)

10

(0.0)

13

(0.0)

16

(0.1)

England (UK)

-5

(0.1)

-3

(0.1)

c

c

0

(0.1)

-2

(0.1)

5

(0.1)

11

(0.1)

Northern Ireland (UK)

2

(0.1)

-4

(0.1)

c

c

6

(0.1)

7

(0.1)

16

(0.1)

15

(0.1)

England/N. Ireland (UK)

-2

(0.1)

0

(0.1)

30

(0.2)

3

(0.1)

1

(0.1)

8

(0.1)

15

(0.1)

Average2

0

(0.0)

-1

(0.0)

c

c

7

(0.0)

7

(0.0)

9

(0.0)

11

(0.0)

Russian Federation*

7

(0.4)

c

c

c

c

3

(0.4)

1

(0.4)

-2

(0.4)

-3

(0.4)

United States

Partners

Sub-national entities

Note: Calculations are based on ordinary least square regressions where the dependent variable is hourly earnings and where the independent variables are
educational attainment and proficiency levels, after accounting for: age, gender, parents’ educational attainment, immigration background, parental status (have
a child or not), cohabitation status (living with spouse/partner or not), numeracy proficiency, skills and readiness to use ICT for problem solving. The reference
category is below upper secondary education and proficiency Level 1 or below.
1. The coefficients for France, Italy and Spain have been estimated without accounting for skills and readiness to use ICT for problem solving since it was not tested
in these countries. Since there is positive correlation between skills and readiness to use ICT for problem solving and numeracy, literacy and education, the effect of
excluding skills and readiness to use ICT for problem solving is likely to be that the coefficients on the proficiency by education level are overestimated, relative to
the results for other countries.
2. Average excludes France, Italy and Spain as a different model specification was used for these countries.
* See note on data for the Russian Federation in the Methodology section.
Source: OECD. Survey of Adult Skills (PIAAC) (2012). See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/education/education-at-a-glance-19991487.htm).
Please refer to the Reader’s Guide for information concerning symbols for missing data and abbreviations.
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933285270

Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

181

chapter A THE OUTPUT OF EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS AND THE IMPACT OF LEARNING

Table A9.2 (L). [2/2] Difference in hourly earnings,
by educational attainment and literacy proficiency (2012)

A9

25-64 year-old non-students, below upper secondary and proficiency Level 1 or below as reference category
Ordinary least square regression, used to estimate percentage, reflects the change in hourly earnings compared to someone with below upper secondary education
and a literacy proficiency of Level 1 or below. The latter group is taken as the reference category for the interpretation of the percentage difference.
How to read this table: In Australia, a person with tertiary education and a literacy proficiency of Level 4 or 5 is earning 37% more, compared with someone
with below upper secondary education and a literacy proficiency of Level 1 or below.
Difference in hourly earnings compared to someone with below upper secondary and a literacy proficiency
of Level 0/1, dependent on:
Tertiary education

OECD

Literacy proficiency
of Level 0/1

Literacy proficiency
of Level 2

Literacy proficiency
of Level 3

Literacy proficiency
of Level 4/5

%

S.E.

%

S.E.

%

S.E.

%

S.E.

(15)

(16)

(17)

(18)

(19)

(20)

(21)

(22)

Australia

17

(0.1)

25

(0.1)

32

(0.1)

37

(0.1)

Austria

31

(0.1)

39

(0.1)

51

(0.1)

63

(0.1)

Canada

19

(0.1)

28

(0.0)

39

(0.0)

42

(0.1)

Czech Republic

c

c

46

(0.1)

58

(0.1)

75

(0.1)

Denmark

22

(0.1)

22

(0.0)

29

(0.0)

36

(0.1)

Estonia

17

(0.1)

22

(0.1)

24

(0.1)

37

(0.1)

Finland

22

(0.1)

22

(0.0)

26

(0.1)

28

(0.1)

France1

42

(0.1)

44

(0.0)

44

(0.0)

51

(0.1)

Germany

15

(0.2)

23

(0.2)

32

(0.2)

48

(0.2)

Ireland

32

(0.1)

38

(0.1)

44

(0.1)

43

(0.1)

Italy1

38

(0.1)

42

(0.1)

53

(0.1)

60

(0.1)

Japan

c

c

27

(0.1)

27

(0.1)

29

(0.2)

Korea

42

(0.1)

50

(0.1)

65

(0.1)

83

(0.1)

Netherlands

17

(0.1)

39

(0.1)

48

(0.1)

49

(0.1)

Norway

21

(0.1)

28

(0.1)

28

(0.0)

28

(0.1)

Poland

37

(0.2)

33

(0.1)

40

(0.1)

61

(0.2)

Slovak Republic

c

c

68

(0.1)

75

(0.1)

87

(0.1)

Spain1

35

(0.1)

40

(0.1)

43

(0.1)

51

(0.1)

Sweden

12

(0.1)

19

(0.0)

23

(0.0)

27

(0.1)

United States

10

(0.3)

28

(0.2)

34

(0.3)

51

(0.2)

Flanders (Belgium)

52

(0.1)

39

(0.1)

39

(0.0)

43

(0.1)

England (UK)

12

(0.1)

31

(0.1)

38

(0.1)

49

(0.1)

Northern Ireland (UK)

31

(0.2)

35

(0.1)

38

(0.1)

41

(0.1)

England/N. Ireland (UK)

16

(0.1)

35

(0.1)

42

(0.1)

54

(0.1)

Average2

24

(0.0)

33

(0.0)

40

(0.0)

48

(0.0)

Russian Federation*

0

(0.4)

4

(0.4)

5

(0.4)

19

(0.4)

National entities

Partners

Sub-national entities

Note: Calculations are based on ordinary least square regressions where the dependent variable is hourly earnings and where the independent variables are educational
attainment and proficiency levels, after accounting for: age, gender, parents’ educational attainment, immigration background, parental status (have a child or not),
cohabitation status (living with spouse/partner or not), numeracy proficiency, skills and readiness to use ICT for problem solving. The reference category is below
upper secondary education and proficiency Level 1 or below.
1. The coefficients for France, Italy and Spain have been estimated without accounting for skills and readiness to use ICT for problem solving since it was not tested
in these countries. Since there is positive correlation between skills and readiness to use ICT for problem solving and numeracy, literacy and education, the effect of
excluding skills and readiness to use ICT for problem solving is likely to be that the coefficients on the proficiency by education level are overestimated, relative to
the results for other countries.
2. Average excludes France, Italy and Spain as a different model specification was used for these countries.
* See note on data for the Russian Federation in the Methodology section.
Source: OECD. Survey of Adult Skills (PIAAC) (2012). See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/education/education-at-a-glance-19991487.htm).
Please refer to the Reader’s Guide for information concerning symbols for missing data and abbreviations.
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933285270

182 Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

What is the impact of skills on employment and earnings? – INDICATOR A9

chapter A

Table A9.2 (N). [1/2] Difference in hourly earnings,
by educational attainment and numeracy proficiency (2012)

A9

25-64 year-old non-students, below upper secondary and proficiency Level 1 or below as reference category
Ordinary least square regression, used to estimate percentage, reflects the change in hourly earnings compared to someone with below upper secondary
education and a numeracy proficiency of Level 1 or below. The latter group is taken as the reference category for the interpretation of the percentage difference.
How to read this table: In Australia, a person with tertiary education and a numeracy proficiency of Level 4 or 5 is earning 63% more, compared with someone
with below upper secondary education and a numeracy proficiency of Level 1 or below.
Difference in hourly earnings compared to someone with below upper secondary
and a numeracy proficiency of Level 0/1, dependent on:
Below upper secondary education

OECD

Numeracy
proficiency
of Level 2

Upper secondary or post-secondary non-tertiary education

Numeracy
proficiency
of Level 4/5

Numeracy
proficiency
of Level 3

Numeracy
proficiency
of Level 0/1

Numeracy
proficiency
of Level 2

Numeracy
proficiency
of Level 3

Numeracy
proficiency
of Level 4/5

%

S.E.

%

S.E.

%

S.E.

%

S.E.

%

S.E.

%

S.E.

%

S.E.

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7)

(8)

(9)

(10)

(11)

(12)

(13)

(14)

Australia

4

(0.1)

4

(0.1)

5

(0.1)

15

(0.0)

10

(0.0)

16

(0.1)

29

(0.1)

Austria

-2

(0.1)

-1

(0.1)

c

c

10

(0.1)

12

(0.0)

12

(0.1)

15

(0.1)

Canada

3

(0.1)

21

(0.1)

c

c

9

(0.0)

13

(0.0)

17

(0.0)

25

(0.1)

Czech Republic

4

(0.1)

6

(0.1)

c

c

17

(0.1)

14

(0.1)

16

(0.1)

20

(0.1)

Denmark

-2

(0.0)

1

(0.1)

0

(0.1)

7

(0.0)

6

(0.0)

6

(0.0)

7

(0.1)

Estonia

17

(0.1)

14

(0.1)

c

c

17

(0.1)

17

(0.1)

22

(0.1)

35

(0.1)

Finland

0

(0.1)

-3

(0.1)

c

c

0

(0.1)

3

(0.1)

7

(0.1)

14

(0.1)

France1

7

(0.0)

18

(0.1)

c

c

10

(0.0)

15

(0.0)

24

(0.0)

26

(0.1)

Germany

-1

(0.3)

-13

(0.2)

c

c

-5

(0.2)

-5

(0.1)

-2

(0.2)

4

(0.2)

Ireland

4

(0.1)

15

(0.1)

c

c

8

(0.1)

11

(0.1)

13

(0.1)

23

(0.1)
(0.1)

National entities

Italy1

-4

(0.1)

1

(0.1)

c

c

4

(0.1)

9

(0.1)

13

(0.1)

22

Japan

13

(0.1)

20

(0.1)

c

c

10

(0.1)

17

(0.1)

18

(0.1)

28

(0.1)

Korea

0

(0.1)

-9

(0.1)

c

c

13

(0.1)

18

(0.1)

10

(0.1)

-10

(0.2)

Netherlands

6

(0.2)

0

(0.1)

1

(0.2)

6

(0.2)

9

(0.1)

13

(0.1)

13

(0.1)

Norway

0

(0.0)

1

(0.1)

3

(0.1)

8

(0.0)

7

(0.0)

12

(0.1)

19

(0.1)

Poland

10

(0.2)

-8

(0.2)

c

c

1

(0.1)

1

(0.1)

5

(0.1)

9

(0.2)

Slovak Republic

5

(0.1)

8

(0.1)

c

c

10

(0.1)

27

(0.1)

29

(0.1)

24

(0.1)

Spain1

3

(0.0)

10

(0.1)

c

c

14

(0.1)

21

(0.1)

29

(0.1)

43

(0.1)

Sweden

0

(0.0)

0

(0.0)

c

c

2

(0.0)

2

(0.0)

1

(0.0)

4

(0.0)

-18

(0.2)

c

c

c

c

-2

(0.2)

1

(0.2)

13

(0.2)

22

(0.2)

Flanders (Belgium)

5

(0.1)

5

(0.1)

c

c

10

(0.0)

13

(0.0)

15

(0.1)

22

(0.1)

England (UK)

-8

(0.1)

-5

(0.1)

c

c

0

(0.1)

-3

(0.1)

2

(0.1)

2

(0.1)

Northern Ireland (UK)

8

(0.1)

-3

(0.1)

c

c

7

(0.1)

11

(0.1)

22

(0.1)

26

(0.2)

England/N. Ireland (UK)

-7

(0.1)

-4

(0.1)

c

c

2

(0.1)

-1

(0.1)

4

(0.1)

4

(0.1)

Average2

2

(0.0)

3

(0.0)

c

c

7

(0.0)

9

(0.0)

12

(0.0)

16

(0.0)

Russian Federation*

-6

(0.3)

c

c

c

c

13

(0.2)

-3

(0.2)

-4

(0.2)

0

(0.3)

United States

Partners

Sub-national entities

Note: Calculations are based on ordinary least square regressions where the dependent variable is hourly earnings and where the independent variables are
educational attainment and proficiency levels, after accounting for: age, gender, parents’ educational attainment, immigration background, parental status (have a
child or not), cohabitation status (living with spouse/partner or not), literacy proficiency, skills and readiness to use ICT for problem solving. The reference category
is below upper secondary education and proficiency Level 1 or below.
1. The coefficients for France, Italy and Spain have been estimated without accounting for skills and readiness to use ICT for problem solving since it was not tested in these
countries. Since there is positive correlation between skills and readiness to use ICT for problem solving and numeracy, literacy and education, the effect of excluding skills and
readiness to use ICT for problem solving is likely to be that the coefficients on the proficiency by education level are overestimated, relative to the results for other countries.
2. Average excludes France, Italy and Spain as a different model specification was used for these countries.
* See note on data for the Russian Federation in the Methodology section.
Source: OECD. Survey of Adult Skills (PIAAC) (2012). See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/education/education-at-a-glance-19991487.htm).
Please refer to the Reader’s Guide for information concerning symbols for missing data and abbreviations.
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933285280

Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

183

chapter A THE OUTPUT OF EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS AND THE IMPACT OF LEARNING

Table A9.2 (N). [2/2] Difference in hourly earnings,
by educational attainment and numeracy proficiency (2012)

A9

25-64 year-old non-students, below upper secondary and proficiency Level 1 or below as reference category
Ordinary least square regression, used to estimate percentage, reflects the change in hourly earnings compared to someone with below upper secondary education
and a numeracy proficiency of Level 1 or below. The latter group is taken as the reference category for the interpretation of the percentage difference.
How to read this table: In Australia, a person with tertiary education and a numeracy proficiency of Level 4 or 5 is earning 63% more, compared with someone
with below upper secondary education and a numeracy proficiency of Level 1 or below.
Difference in hourly earnings compared to someone with below upper secondary
and a numeracy proficiency of Level 0/1, dependent on:
Tertiary education

OECD

Numeracy proficiency
of Level 0/1

Numeracy proficiency
of Level 2

Numeracy proficiency
of Level 3

Numeracy proficiency
of Level 4/5

%

S.E.

%

S.E.

%

S.E.

%

S.E.

(15)

(16)

(17)

(18)

(19)

(20)

(21)

(22)

Australia

20

(0.1)

35

(0.1)

50

(0.1)

63

(0.1)

Austria

37

(0.1)

36

(0.1)

40

(0.1)

42

(0.1)

Canada

20

(0.0)

35

(0.0)

47

(0.0)

59

(0.1)

Czech Republic

c

c

47

(0.2)

43

(0.1)

54

(0.1)

Denmark

17

(0.1)

21

(0.0)

26

(0.0)

37

(0.1)

Estonia

31

(0.1)

42

(0.1)

55

(0.1)

76

(0.1)

Finland

15

(0.1)

24

(0.1)

34

(0.1)

42

(0.1)

France1

47

(0.1)

46

(0.0)

60

(0.0)

71

(0.1)

Germany

24

(0.2)

22

(0.2)

31

(0.2)

45

(0.2)

Ireland

32

(0.1)

41

(0.1)

50

(0.1)

56

(0.1)

Italy1

39

(0.1)

37

(0.1)

51

(0.1)

71

(0.1)

Japan

11

(0.1)

29

(0.1)

38

(0.1)

56

(0.1)

Korea

47

(0.1)

49

(0.1)

55

(0.1)

70

(0.1)

Netherlands

18

(0.2)

39

(0.1)

47

(0.1)

51

(0.2)

Norway

28

(0.1)

32

(0.1)

33

(0.1)

39

(0.1)

Poland

40

(0.1)

40

(0.1)

55

(0.1)

78

(0.1)

Slovak Republic

c

c

69

(0.1)

78

(0.1)

108

(0.1)

Spain1

37

(0.1)

47

(0.1)

58

(0.1)

65

(0.1)

Sweden

18

(0.1)

17

(0.0)

19

(0.0)

23

(0.0)

United States

26

(0.2)

38

(0.2)

47

(0.2)

70

(0.2)

Flanders (Belgium)

50

(0.2)

42

(0.1)

42

(0.1)

51

(0.1)

England (UK)

26

(0.1)

24

(0.1)

35

(0.1)

40

(0.1)

Northern Ireland (UK)

35

(0.1)

39

(0.1)

44

(0.1)

54

(0.1)

England/N. Ireland (UK)

29

(0.1)

27

(0.1)

37

(0.1)

42

(0.1)

Average2

27

(0.0)

36

(0.0)

44

(0.0)

56

(0.0)

Russian Federation*

-3

(0.3)

3

(0.2)

7

(0.2)

13

(0.3)

National entities

Partners

Sub-national entities

Note: Calculations are based on ordinary least square regressions where the dependent variable is hourly earnings and where the independent variables are
educational attainment and proficiency levels, after accounting for: age, gender, parents’ educational attainment, immigration background, parental status (have a
child or not), cohabitation status (living with spouse/partner or not), literacy proficiency, skills and readiness to use ICT for problem solving. The reference category
is below upper secondary education and proficiency Level 1 or below.
1. The coefficients for France, Italy and Spain have been estimated without accounting for skills and readiness to use ICT for problem solving since it was not tested in these
countries. Since there is positive correlation between skills and readiness to use ICT for problem solving and numeracy, literacy and education, the effect of excluding skills and
readiness to use ICT for problem solving is likely to be that the coefficients on the proficiency by education level are overestimated, relative to the results for other countries.
2. Average excludes France, Italy and Spain as a different model specification was used for these countries.
* See note on data for the Russian Federation in the Methodology section.
Source: OECD. Survey of Adult Skills (PIAAC) (2012). See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/education/education-at-a-glance-19991487.htm).
Please refer to the Reader’s Guide for information concerning symbols for missing data and abbreviations.
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933285280

184 Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

What is the impact of skills on employment and earnings? – INDICATOR A9

chapter A

Table A9.2 (P). [1/2] Difference in hourly earings, by educational attainment and skills
and readiness to use information and communication technologies for problem solving (2012)

A9

25-64 year-old non-students, below upper secondary and a level of skills and readiness to use ICT for problem solving
of Group 0 or 1 as reference category
Ordinary least square regression, used to estimate the percentage, reflects the change in hourly earnings compared to someone with below upper secondary
education and a level of skills and readiness to use ICT for problem solving of Group 0 or 1. The latter group is taken as the reference category for the interpretation
of the percentage difference.
How to read this table: In Australia, a person with tertiary education and among Group 4 of skills and readiness to use ICT for problem solving is earning 48%
more, compared with someone with below upper secondary education and among Group 0 or 1 of skills and readiness to use ICT for problem solving.
Difference in hourly earnings compared to someone with below upper secondary and a level of skills and readiness to use ICT
for problem solving of Group 0/1, dependent on:
Below upper secondary education

OECD

Group 2
(Failed ICT core
test or minimal
problemsolving skills)

Group 3
(Moderate ICT
and problemsolving skills)

Upper secondary or post-secondary non-tertiary education

Group 4
(Good ICT
and problemsolving skills)

Group 0/1
(No computer
experience or
refused the
computer-based
assessment)

Group 2
(Failed ICT core
test or minimal
problemsolving skills)

Group 3
(Moderate ICT
and problemsolving skills)

Group 4
(Good ICT
and problemsolving skills)

%

S.E.

%

S.E.

%

S.E.

%

S.E.

%

S.E.

%

S.E.

%

S.E.

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7)

(8)

(9)

(10)

(11)

(12)

(13)

(14)

Australia

5

(0.1)

8

(0.1)

3

(0.1)

8

(0.1)

22

(0.1)

13

(0.0)

17

(0.0)

Austria

8

(0.1)

7

(0.1)

17

(0.1)

9

(0.0)

20

(0.0)

25

(0.0)

33

(0.0)

Canada

15

(0.0)

17

(0.1)

4

(0.1)

12

(0.1)

20

(0.0)

21

(0.0)

18

(0.0)

Czech Republic

6

(0.1)

1

(0.1)

19

(0.1)

5

(0.1)

20

(0.1)

25

(0.1)

29

(0.1)

Denmark

6

(0.0)

7

(0.0)

14

(0.1)

2

(0.0)

17

(0.0)

14

(0.0)

16

(0.0)

Estonia

29

(0.1)

32

(0.1)

22

(0.2)

12

(0.1)

30

(0.1)

30

(0.1)

39

(0.1)

Finland

3

(0.1)

4

(0.1)

8

(0.1)

1

(0.0)

7

(0.0)

12

(0.0)

17

(0.1)

National entities

France

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

Germany

-24

(0.3)

-24

(0.3)

-21

(0.3)

-31

(0.2)

-18

(0.2)

-15

(0.2)

-13

(0.3)

Ireland

8

(0.1)

17

(0.1)

51

(0.3)

10

(0.1)

8

(0.1)

20

(0.1)

24

(0.1)

Italy

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

Japan

18

(0.1)

14

(0.1)

26

(0.1)

6

(0.1)

13

(0.1)

15

(0.1)

18

(0.1)

Korea

-1

(0.1)

12

(0.1)

-16

(0.2)

11

(0.1)

20

(0.1)

27

(0.1)

19

(0.1)

Netherlands

-7

(0.2)

-9

(0.2)

-7

(0.2)

c

c

-6

(0.2)

2

(0.2)

4

(0.2)

Norway

2

(0.0)

6

(0.0)

10

(0.1)

c

c

9

(0.0)

16

(0.0)

24

(0.0)

Poland

7

(0.1)

9

(0.2)

c

c

-4

(0.1)

6

(0.1)

7

(0.1)

11

(0.1)

Slovak Republic

8

(0.1)

14

(0.1)

2

(0.1)

11

(0.0)

31

(0.1)

41

(0.1)

39

(0.1)

Spain

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

Sweden

5

(0.1)

7

(0.1)

21

(0.1)

c

c

9

(0.0)

11

(0.0)

18

(0.0)

United States

-1

(0.3)

-2

(0.3)

-11

(0.3)

2

(0.3)

5

(0.3)

9

(0.3)

18

(0.3)

Flanders (Belgium)

3

(0.0)

12

(0.1)

13

(0.1)

1

(0.0)

14

(0.0)

22

(0.0)

24

(0.0)

England (UK)

13

(0.1)

17

(0.1)

37

(0.1)

5

(0.1)

11

(0.1)

22

(0.1)

40

(0.1)

Northern Ireland (UK)

8

(0.1)

24

(0.1)

8

(0.1)

5

(0.1)

c

c

24

(0.1)

48

(0.1)

England/N. Ireland (UK)

11

(0.1)

17

(0.1)

35

(0.1)

5

(0.1)

11

(0.1)

21

(0.1)

40

(0.1)

Average

5

(0.0)

8

(0.0)

11

(0.0)

4

(0.0)

13

(0.0)

17

(0.0)

21

(0.0)

Russian Federation*

c

c

c

c

c

c

-21

(0.4)

-7

(0.4)

-15

(0.4)

5

(0.4)

Partners

Sub-national entities

Note: Calculations are based on ordinary least square regressions where the dependent variable is hourly earnings and where the independent variables are
educational attainment and skill groups, after accounting for: age, gender, parents’ educational attainment, immigration background, parental status (have a child
or not), cohabitation status (living with spouse/partner or not), literacy proficiency and numeracy proficiency. The reference category is below upper secondary
education and Group 0/1.
* See note on data for the Russian Federation in the Methodology section.
Source: OECD. Survey of Adult Skills (PIAAC) (2012). See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/education/education-at-a-glance-19991487.htm).
Please refer to the Reader’s Guide for information concerning symbols for missing data and abbreviations.
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933285291

Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

185

chapter A THE OUTPUT OF EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS AND THE IMPACT OF LEARNING

Table A9.2 (P). [2/2] Difference in hourly earings, by educational attainment and skills
and readiness to use information and communication technologies for problem solving (2012)

A9

25-64 year-old non-students, below upper secondary and a level of skills and readiness to use ICT for problem solving
of Group 0 or 1 as reference category
Ordinary least square regression, used to estimate the percentage, reflects the change in hourly earnings compared to someone with below upper secondary
education and a level of skills and readiness to use ICT for problem solving of Group 0 or 1. The latter group is taken as the reference category for the interpretation
of the percentage difference.
How to read this table: In Australia, a person with tertiary education and among Group 4 of skills and readiness to use ICT for problem solving is earning 48%
more, compared with someone with below upper secondary education and among Group 0 or 1 of skills and readiness to use ICT for problem solving.
Difference in hourly earnings compared to someone with below upper secondary and a level of skills and readiness to use ICT
for problem solving of Group 0/1, dependent on:
Tertiary education

OECD

Group 0/1
(No computer experience
or refused the computer-based
assessment)

Group 2
(Failed ICT core test or minimal
problem-solving skills)

Group 3
(Moderate ICT and problemsolving skills)

Group 4
(Good ICT and problem-solving
skills)

%

S.E.

%

S.E.

%

S.E.

%

S.E.

(15)

(16)

(17)

(18)

(19)

(20)

(21)

(22)

Australia

c

c

39

(0,1)

46

(0,0)

48

(0,1)

Austria

c

c

36

(0,1)

58

(0,0)

63

(0,0)

Canada

20

(0,1)

36

(0,0)

47

(0,0)

49

(0,0)

Czech Republic

c

c

50

(0,1)

67

(0,1)

63

(0,1)
(0,0)

National entities

Denmark

c

c

30

(0,0)

36

(0,0)

43

Estonia

46

(0,1)

50

(0,1)

63

(0,1)

74

(0,1)

Finland

c

c

29

(0,1)

38

(0,0)

44

(0,0)

France

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

Germany

-8

(0,3)

10

(0,3)

11

(0,2)

17

(0,3)
(0,1)

Ireland

c

c

51

(0,1)

53

(0,1)

60

Italy

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

Japan

14

(0,1)

26

(0,1)

37

(0,1)

41

(0,1)

Korea

45

(0,2)

50

(0,1)

67

(0,1)

79

(0,1)

Netherlands

c

c

15

(0,2)

30

(0,2)

36

(0,2)

Norway

c

c

36

(0,1)

39

(0,0)

47

(0,0)

Poland

c

c

45

(0,1)

54

(0,1)

60

(0,1)

Slovak Republic

c

c

89

(0,1)

101

(0,1)

100

(0,1)

Spain

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

Sweden

c

c

23

(0,1)

31

(0,0)

38

(0,0)

United States

c

c

33

(0,3)

50

(0,3)

59

(0,3)

Flanders (Belgium)

c

c

52

(0,1)

49

(0,0)

52

(0,0)

England (UK)

c

c

38

(0,1)

65

(0,1)

83

(0,1)

Northern Ireland (UK)

c

c

c

c

58

(0,1)

69

(0,1)

England/N. Ireland (UK)

c

c

38

(0,1)

64

(0,1)

81

(0,1)

Average

c

c

39

(0,0)

50

(0,0)

55

(0,0)

-15

(0,4)

-8

(0,4)

-5

(0,4)

6

(0,4)

Partners

Sub-national entities

Russian Federation*

Note: Calculations are based on ordinary least square regressions where the dependent variable is hourly earnings and where the independent variables are
educational attainment and skill groups, after accounting for: age, gender, parents’ educational attainment, immigration background, parental status (have a child
or not), cohabitation status (living with spouse/partner or not), literacy proficiency and numeracy proficiency. The reference category is below upper secondary
education and Group 0/1.
* See note on data for the Russian Federation in the Methodology section.
Source: OECD. Survey of Adult Skills (PIAAC) (2012). See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/education/education-at-a-glance-19991487.htm).
Please refer to the Reader’s Guide for information concerning symbols for missing data and abbreviations.
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933285291

186 Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

INDICATOR A10

WHERE ARE THE GENDER GAPS IN EDUCATION
AND EMPLOYMENT?
• Over the three past decades, OECD countries have made significant progress in narrowing or closing
long-standing gender gaps in many areas of education and employment, including educational
attainment, pay and labour market participation.

• In 2014, a larger proportion of 25-34 year-old women than men of the same age had attained
tertiary education (46% and 35%, respectively). This pattern is observed in 40 out of 42 countries
with available data.

• New gender gaps in education are opening: young men are significantly more likely than young
women to have low skills and poor academic achievement; while in tertiary education and beyond,
young women are still under-represented in the fields of mathematics, physical science and
computing.

Chart A10.1. Percentage of 25-34 year-olds who have attained tertiary education,
by gender (2014)
Women

%

Men

80
70
60
50
40
30
20

0

Korea1
Canada
Russian Federation1
Norway
Luxembourg
Ireland
Israel
Australia
Sweden
Poland
Latvia
United Kingdom
Belgium
United States
Denmark
Estonia
Slovenia
France1
Netherlands
Finland
Spain
Iceland
OECD average
Switzerland
New Zealand
Greece
Austria
Portugal
Hungary
Slovak Republic
Czech Republic
Saudi Arabia1
Japan
Colombia
Italy
Germany
Chile1
Mexico
Turkey
Costa Rica
Brazil1
Indonesia2
South Africa3

10

1. Brazil, Chile, France, Korea, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia: Year of reference 2013.
2. Indonesia: Year of reference 2011.
3. South Africa: Year of reference 2012.
Countries are ranked in descending order of the percentage of women who attained tertiary education.
Source: OECD. Table A1.4b. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/education/education-at-a-glance-19991487.htm).
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933283820

Context
To compete successfully in today’s global economy, countries need to develop the potential of all of
their citizens. They need to ensure that men and women develop the right skills and find opportunities
to use them productively. Recognising the impact that the gender gap has on participation in labour
markets, occupational mobility and quality of life, policy makers and educators need to help to
eliminate gender differences in education, at the workplace and in access to jobs.
In education, many countries have managed to close gender gaps in learning outcomes. In fact, as
women now surpass men in many aspects of education in OECD countries, there is growing concern
about the underachievement of young men in certain areas, such as reading. Gender differences in
student performance, as well as perceptions that some fields of education are more “suitable” for either
women or men, need to be addressed if greater gender equity in education outcomes is to be achieved.
Gender equality is not only a goal in itself, it is also economically beneficial. Education programmes
that attract candidates of mostly one gender are in danger of excluding many capable students.

188 Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

Other findings

• PISA (the OECD Programme for International Student Assessment) finds that 15-year-old boys

INDICATOR A10

are more likely than girls of the same age to be low achievers. In 2012, 14% of boys and 9% of girls
did not attain the PISA baseline level of proficiency in any of the three core subjects measured in
PISA – reading, mathematics and science (OECD, 2014a).

• Across OECD countries, boys are still marginally more represented than girls in upper secondary
vocational education.

• Men are five times more likely than women to have studied engineering, manufacturing and
construction, on average across OECD countries. By contrast, women are three times more likely
than men to have studied education science.

• In all countries and economies that distributed the PISA parent questionnaire, parents were more
likely to expect their sons, rather than their daughters, to work in science, technology, engineering
or mathematics, even when boys and girls perform at the same level in mathematics.

• Young women have higher educational attainment, but lower employment rates, than young men.
The gender gap is much wider at the lower levels of educational attainment than at the highest
levels.

• Across OECD countries, a 35-44 year-old tertiary-educated woman earns about 74% of what a
similarly educated man earns. But this result also reflects the under-representation of women at
the highest levels of tertiary education and in some fields of education that are highly rewarded by
the labour market.
Trends
Over the three past decades, the gender gap in educational attainment has reversed. Among
55-64 year-olds, more men than women hold tertiary qualifications; but the opposite is true among
25-34 year-olds.

Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

189

chapter A THE OUTPUT OF EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS AND THE IMPACT OF LEARNING

A10

Analysis
The gender gap in attainment rates has reversed
As most OECD countries have made secondary education compulsory, attaining that level of education has become
the norm for men and women. Not only are more young women than ever before participating in formal education
and enrolling in tertiary education, over the past few decades, the gender hierarchy in educational attainment has
been inverted (see Tables A1.2b and A1.4b, available on line).
In 2014, a larger proportion of 25-34 year-old women than men of the same age had attained tertiary education
(46% and 35%, respectively), while the opposite was true for 55-64 year-old women and men (24% and 26%,
respectively). Israel, Latvia and Slovenia show the widest gender gap among 25-34 year-olds: 20 percentage points
or more, in favour of women, among tertiary-educated younger adults (see Table A1.4b, available on line). That
same year, some 85% of younger women had attained at least upper secondary education while 82% of younger men
did, on average across OECD countries (see Tables A1.2b and A1.4b, available on line).
This trend is also observed among students younger than 25. In 2013, 58% of graduates from upper secondary
general programmes were women and 46% were men. However, women are still under-represented at the very
highest levels of education. In most OECD countries in 2013, around 45% of advanced research degrees were
awarded to women (see Indicators A2 and A3).
Low-performing boys
In all 65 countries and economies that participated in PISA 2012, girls outperformed boys in reading by an average
of 38 score points (across OECD countries) – the equivalent of one year of school – as they have done consistently
throughout all the PISA cycles since 2000. Boys, however, continued to outperform girls in mathematics in
38 participating countries and economies by an average of 11 score points (across OECD countries) – equivalent to
around three months of school. PISA also reveals that there is very little difference in science performance between
boys and girls (PISA 2012 database).
Stark gender differences are observed among the lowest-performing students – those who score below PISA
proficiency Level 2, which is considered to be the baseline level of proficiency, in all subjects assessed in PISA.
While the proportion of girls is marginally larger than that of boys among poor performers in mathematics, in
all but six participating countries and economies, a larger proportion of boys than girls does not even achieve the
baseline level of proficiency in any of the three core PISA subjects – reading, mathematics and science. Across
OECD countries, boys are 5 percentage points more likely than girls to be low achievers in reading, science and
mathematics. In 2012, 14% of boys and 9% of girls did not attain the PISA baseline level of proficiency in any of the
three core subjects (Table A10.1 and Chart A10.2).
The percentage of boys who failed to reach the baseline level of proficiency in any subject is worryingly high in many
countries. More than one in five boys in Chile, Greece, Israel, Mexico, the Slovak Republic and Turkey failed to make
the grade in any of the three core PISA subjects. Among partner countries and economies, the proportions are even
larger. In Indonesia, Jordan, Peru and Qatar more than one in two students failed to make the grade.
The proportion of girls who failed to make the grade is much smaller. Peru is the only country or economy that
participated in PISA 2012 where more than one in two girls did not reach the baseline level of proficiency in any of
the three subjects. In Chile and Mexico, more than one in five girls failed to make the grade in all three subjects, and
in eight partner countries and economies, more than one in three girls failed to make the grade (Table A10.1 and
Chart A10.2).
The sizeable number of boys who fail to attain the baseline level of proficiency in all three core PISA subjects is a major
challenge for education systems. Students who perform poorly in all subjects are hard to motivate and keep in school.
Because of their low levels of skills, these students may also feel disconnected from and disengaged with school. It may
then become easier for these students to build an identity based on rebellion against school and formal education than
to engage and invest the effort needed to break the vicious cycle of low performance and low motivation.
Gender differences in participation in pre-vocational and vocational programmes
Students who participated in PISA 2012 were asked to report on the kind of programme in which they were enrolled.
On average across OECD countries, 82% of 15-year-old students were enrolled in a programme with a general
curriculum, 14% were enrolled in a programme with a pre-vocational or vocational curriculum, and 4% were in
modular programmes that combine any or all of these curricula (Table A10.2 and Chart A10.3).

190 Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

Where are the gender gaps in education and employment? – INDICATOR A10

chapter A

Chart A10.2. Gender differences in the percentage of 15-year-old students who are
low achievers in all subjects (e.g. mathematics, reading, science) (PISA 2012)
Girls

Boys

30

40

A10

Qatar
Peru
Jordan
Indonesia
Brazil
Argentina
Montenegro
Colombia
Tunisia
Malaysia
Albania
Uruguay
United Arab Emirates
Bulgaria
Mexico
Thailand
Kazakhstan
Romania
Serbia
Chile
Costa Rica
Israel
Greece
Turkey
Slovak Republic
Sweden
Iceland
Lithuania
Croatia
Hungary
France
Portugal
United States
Luxembourg
Italy
Norway
OECD average
Russian Federation
New Zealand
Belgium
Slovenia
Spain
Austria
Latvia
United Kingdom
Australia
Czech Republic
Denmark
Germany
Chinese Taipei
Netherlands
Switzerland
Ireland
Poland
Canada
Finland
Singapore
Japan
Macao (China)
Viet Nam
Korea
Liechtenstein
Hong Kong (China)
Estonia
Shanghai (China)
0

10

20

50

60

70 %

Note: Gender differences that are statistically significant are marked in a darker tone.
Countries and economies are ranked in descending order of the percentage of boys who are low performers (below PISA proficiency Level 2) in reading, mathematics
and science.
Source: OECD. Table A10.1. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/education/education-at-a-glance-19991487.htm).
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933283830

Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

191

chapter A THE OUTPUT OF EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS AND THE IMPACT OF LEARNING

A10

Chart A10.3. Gender gap in favour of boys in the percentage of 15-year-old students who are
enrolled in a vocational programme (PISA 2012)
Italy
Thailand
Slovenia
Bulgaria
Croatia
Argentina
Montenegro
Greece
Albania
Indonesia
Portugal
Hungary
Belgium
Turkey
Slovak Republic
France
Austria
Serbia
Malaysia
Israel
Japan
Netherlands
OECD average
Kazakhstan
Switzerland
Korea
United Arab Emirates
Uruguay
Luxembourg
Germany
Russian Federation
Australia
Latvia
Lithuania
Spain
Mexico
United Kingdom
Estonia
Shanghai (China)
Chile
Viet Nam
Macao (China)
Brazil
Ireland
Poland
Sweden
Costa Rica
Czech Republic
Colombia
Chinese Taipei
-5

0

5

10

15

20

25

30 Percentage-point difference
(B-G)

Note: Differences that are statistically significant are marked in a darker tone .
The figure only shows countries and economies where 15-year-old students have the option of enrolling in vocational programmes.
Data for the Slovak Republic do not consider gender differences in participation in modular programmes.
Countries and economies are ranked in descending order of the percentage-point difference between boys and girls who are enrolled in vocational programmes
rather than general programmes.
Source: OECD. Table A10.2. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/education/education-at-a-glance-19991487.htm).
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933283846

192 Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

Where are the gender gaps in education and employment? – INDICATOR A10

chapter A

On average across OECD countries, 16% of 15-year-old boys and 13% of 15-year-old girls attend pre-vocational
and vocational schools. However, in many of the countries where large proportions of students are enrolled in prevocational and vocational programmes, boys are heavily over-represented in these programmes. For example, in
Italy 50% of students are enrolled in pre-vocational and vocational programmes. However, while 61% of boys attend
such programmes, only 37% of girls do (Chart A10.3).
In part, this disparity might reflect the fact that boys are more likely to be low achievers than girls, and low achievers
are over-represented among technical and vocational school students. But boys’ over-representation in these tracks
might also reflect a greater awareness among boys for the need to be prepared for the labour market, the need to
acquire more practical skills, or simply the fact that boys might enjoy the content and ways of learning in vocational
programmes more than girls.
Gender differences in field of study
Across OECD countries, boys are still marginally more represented than girls in upper secondary vocational education.
Similarly, 15-year-old boys and girls hold different expectations for the field in which they expect to be working as
young adults. Boys are significantly more likely to expect to work in science, technology, engineering and mathematics
(STEM) occupations; and parents are more likely to expect their sons, rather than their daughters, to work in a STEM
field, even when boys and girls perform at the same level in mathematics (see more details in Box A10.1).
On average across OECD countries, 16-65 year-old men surveyed in the 2012 Survey of Adult Skills (OECD, 2013), a
product of the OECD Programme for the International Assessment of Adult Competencies (PIAAC) are, on average,
five times more likely than women of the same age to have studied engineering, manufacturing and construction
(38% of men reported that they had studied these subjects while only 7% of women so reported) and are 3 percentage
points more likely to have studied science, mathematics and computing (10% of men reported that they had studied
these subjects while 7% of women so reported). By contrast, 16-65 year-old women are around four times more
likely than men to have studied health and welfare (15% of women and 4% of men so reported), around three times
more likely to have studied education science and to have enrolled in teacher training (9% of women and 3% of men
so reported), and around twice as likely as men to have studied humanities, languages and arts (10% of women and
5% of men so reported). (Table A10.3 and Chart A10.4).
Differences in the percentage of 16-65 year-old men and women who reported that they had studied engineering,
manufacturing and construction are larger than 19 percentage points in all countries and economies examined. These
differences are particularly wide in Austria, the Czech Republic, Finland, Germany and the Slovak Republic, where
men are over 40 percentage points more likely than women to have studied these subjects, according to their reports.
Differences are smallest in Canada, Estonia, Italy, Korea and the United Kingdom (Table A10.3 and Chart A10.4).
Box A10.1. Parents’ expectations for their children
Results presented in Chart A10.a suggest that parents still hold different expectations for their sons and
daughters. This could be because parents still harbour stereotypical notions of what women and men excel at
and the career they can pursue when they enter the labour market – which is, in turn, related to occupational
segregation in the labour market.
In Chile, Croatia, Germany, Hong Kong (China), Hungary, Italy, Korea, Macao (China), Mexico and Portugal,
students who participated in PISA 2012 were asked to take home a questionnaire for their parents to complete.
The responses collected allow for more in-depth analyses of parents’ attitudes and perceptions. Among other
things, parents were asked what occupation they expected their 15-year-old child to work in when he or she
is 30 years old.
Chart A10.a shows that, in all countries and economies that distributed the parent questionnaire, parents
were more likely to expect their sons, rather than their daughters, to work in a STEM field. For example, in
Chile, 50% of 15-year-old boys’ parents expected that they would work in STEM occupations; only 16% of girls’
parents reported so.
The gender gap in the percentage of 15-year-old boys and girls whose parents expected them to work in
STEM occupations is larger than 30 percentage points in Chile, Hungary and Portugal. In Korea, relatively few
students have parents who expected them to work in STEM occupations – 17% of boys and 9% of girls; but
even so, the gender gap is a substantial 7 percentage points.

…

Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

193

A10

chapter A THE OUTPUT OF EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS AND THE IMPACT OF LEARNING

The gender differences in academic performance do not explain the observed differences in parents’
expectations for their sons and daughters to work in STEM fields. The gender difference remains large and
significant in all participating countries and economies, even when accounting for students’ performance in
reading, mathematics and science. As expected, results indicate that parents are more likely to expect that
their children will work in STEM fields if they perform better in mathematics. In other words, the better the
student’s mathematic performance, the greater the likelihood that his or her parents will expect that student
to work in a STEM occupation. In Croatia and Italy, parents are less likely to expect their children to work in
STEM occupations if they perform better in reading.

Chart A10.a. Parents’ expectations for their children’s careers (PISA 2012)
Percentage of students whose parents expect that they will work in STEM occupations

30

33

Boys

30

25

Gender gap

24

22

Hong Kong (China) 13

Mexico 21

Germany 19

Croatia 18

Italy 24

Chile 28

Portugal 27

14

7

11

Macao (China) 10

33

Girls

Korea 7

%

60
50
40
30
20
10
0

Hungary 28

A10

Gender gap among
boys and girls
with similar results
in mathematics, reading
and science performance

Note: All gender differences are statistically significant. STEM stands for science, technology, engineering, and mathematics.
Countries and economies are ranked in descending order of the percentage of boys whose parents expect that they will work in STEM occupations when
they are 30 years old.
Source: OECD (2015), The ABC of Gender Equality in Education: Aptitude, Behaviour, Confidence (Table 5.4). PISA 2012 Database. See Annex 3
for notes (www.oecd.org/education/education-at-a-glance-19991487.htm).
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933283880

PISA results also suggest that in Hong Kong (China), Korea, Macao (China), Mexico and Portugal, when comparing
students of similar performance in reading, mathematics and science, students from socio-economically
advantaged households are more likely than students from disadvantaged households to have parents who
expect them to work in STEM occupations. Italy is the only country where advantaged students are less likely to
have parents who expect them to work in STEM occupations.
The literature often suggests that girls’ lack of confidence in their abilities in mathematics and science may
be due to an absence of role models. The paucity of women scientists means that young girls have little in
the way of tangible evidence to disprove the stereotypical notion that mathematics and science are somehow
more “masculine” disciplines. PISA results show that few mothers of 15-year-olds, worldwide, work in STEM
occupations; indeed, in all countries and economies there are far fewer women than men employed in these
sectors. But PISA does not provide strong evidence that the gender gap in mathematics performance is
narrower in households where the mother does work in a STEM occupation. In fact, in Belgium, Bulgaria,
Canada, France, Greece, the Netherlands, Qatar, the Slovak Republic, Turkey and Uruguay, the gender gap in
mathematics performance, in favour of boys, appears to be much wider among students whose mother works
in a STEM field.
What these results suggest is that many parents still expect their sons and daughters to pursue different
occupations, even when they perform similarly in mathematics. While having positive role models is important
for girls, many girls who have parents, and mothers in particular, who work in science- and mathematicsrelated fields often underperform in mathematics compared to boys from similar households. One reason may
be the much higher level of anxiety towards mathematics that girls report, and the fact that they are often
more driven to perform well in school and achieve at a high level. High anxiety coupled with high expectations
often lead to choking under pressure.

194 Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

Where are the gender gaps in education and employment? – INDICATOR A10

chapter A

Chart A10.4. Proportion of the population surveyed in the 2012 Survey of Adult Skills,
by field of study

A10

Percentage of 16-65 year-old men and women with each field of study.
Men

Italy2

Estonia2

Czech Republic

Slovak Republic

Korea

Russian Federation1

Germany

Poland

Austria

Finland

Australia

France

England/ N.Ireland (UK)

Ireland

OECD average

Germany

Austria

Finland

Slovak Republic

Czech Republic

Korea

Australia

England/ N.Ireland (UK)

Canada

Italy

Estonia

Japan
Netherlands

Poland

France

Netherlands

Denmark

Sweden

Australia

Flanders (Belgium)

OECD average

Russian Federation1

Canada

Korea

Ireland

Italy

United States

Spain

England/ N.Ireland (UK)

United States2

Ireland

Japan

Spain

Denmark

France

OECD average

Russian Federation1

Estonia

Flanders (Belgium)

Sweden

Finland

Austria

Poland

Germany

Slovak Republic

Czech Republic

Norway

Engineering, manufacturing and construction

%

70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0

Norway

Humanities, languages and arts

%

70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0

Canada

Norway

Netherlands

Japan

Spain

Flanders (Belgium)

United States

Denmark

Sweden

Teacher training and education science

%

70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0

Women

Note: Gender differences that are statistically significant are marked in a darker tone.
1. See note on data for the Russian Federation in the Mehtodology section.
2. Sample size too small.
Countries and economies are ranked in descending order of the percentage of men in each field of study.
Source: OECD. Survey of Adult Skills (PIAAC) (2012), Table A10.3. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/education/education-at-a-glance-19991487.htm).
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933283850

Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

195

chapter A THE OUTPUT OF EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS AND THE IMPACT OF LEARNING

In all of these countries except Estonia, the gender difference (in percentage points) is smaller because fewer
individuals have studied these fields, not because there is greater gender equity in enrolment in these fields.
Similarly, countries showing a small difference in the percentage of men and women who reported that they had
studied health and welfare tend to be those where these programmes attract comparatively fewer candidates. For
example, Italy, Korea, Poland and the Russian Federation show a small or no gender gap in these fields – but also
relatively few adults reported that they had studied these subjects (Chart A10.4).
Employment rates, by gender
In 2014, women were still less likely than men to participate in the labour market – even when they have a tertiary
qualification – and were also more likely to work part-time. Across all OECD countries and education levels, only
66% of women were employed compared with 80% of men – despite women’s higher educational attainment, in
general. On average, employment rates for those with the lowest qualifications (below upper secondary education)
are significantly higher among younger men than among younger women. The gender gap in employment rates is
the largest among adults with the least education (see Tables A5.1b, A5.3b and c, available on line).
On average across OECD countries, the gender difference in employment rates among 25-64 year-olds with below
upper secondary education as their highest level of attainment is 20 percentage points (66% for men and 47% for
women). This difference shrinks to 15 percentage points among individuals with upper secondary or post-secondary
non-tertiary education (81% for men and 66% for women), and to 8 percentage points among tertiary-educated
men and women (88% for men and 79% for women) (Chart A10.5, and see Tables A5.3b and c, available on line).

Chart A10.5. Employment rates of 25-64 year-old men and women with below upper secondary
and tertiary education (2014)
%

Below upper secondary education
Men
Women

Tertiary education
Men
Women

100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0

Turkey
Mexico
Chile
Costa Rica
Colombia
Brazil
Israel
Italy
Ireland
United States
Greece
Netherlands
Japan
Korea
Poland
OECD average
Canada
United Kingdom
Latvia
Belgium
Russian Federation
Australia
Spain
Denmark
Hungary
Luxembourg
Germany
Czech Republic
Switzerland
Estonia
France
Sweden
Slovenia
New Zealand
Portugal
Iceland
Finland
Austria
Norway
Slovak Republic

A10

Countries are ranked in descending order of the difference between employment rate of 25-64 year-old men and women with below upper secondary education.
Source: OECD. Tables A5.3b and c. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/education/education-at-a-glance-19991487.htm).
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933283861

Although the gap between men’s and women’s employment rates narrows as educational attainment increases, the
employment rate among tertiary-educated women across OECD countries is still considerably lower than that of
men – despite the fact that a larger proportion of 25-64 year-old women (35%) than men of the same age (32%) in
OECD countries now has a tertiary education (see Tables A1.3b, A5.3b and c, available on line).
In all OECD countries except the Slovak Republic, the gender gap in employment is smaller among 25-64 year-olds with
tertiary education than among those who have not attained upper secondary education. The difference is particularly
large in Chile, Mexico and Turkey, where it exceeds 25 percentage points (see Tables A5.3b and c, available on line).

196 Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

Where are the gender gaps in education and employment? – INDICATOR A10

chapter A

Gender differences in unemployment rates are less pronounced than they are in employment rates, on average. This
can be partly explained by differences in labour market participation between women and men. Among adults with
below upper secondary education, unemployment rates are similar for women and men (about 12.5% for both).
Among adults who have an upper secondary or post-secondary non-tertiary education, unemployment rates are
higher among women (8%) than among men (7%). This also observed among tertiary-educated adults, where the
unemployment rate is about 6% for women and 5% men (see Tables A5.4b and c, available on line).
Gender differences in unemployment rates are particularly large in Greece and Turkey. In Turkey, 12% of tertiaryeducated women were unemployed in 2014 compared to only 6% of tertiary-educated men; in Greece, 21% of
tertiary-educated women and 17% of tertiary-educated men were unemployed that year. These differences were
even more pronounced among adults with upper secondary education as their highest level of attainment. In Turkey,
17% of women were unemployed in 2014 compared with 7% of men; while in Greece, 34% of women and 23% of
men with this level of education were unemployed that year (see Tables A5.4b and c, available on line).
Differences in earnings between employed men and women, by educational attainment
Not only are there fewer women in the labour market, when they do work they tend to earn less than men. Regardless
of the level of education, the gender gap in earnings persists. Even among tertiary-educated adults, women earn less
than men. The available data on full-time, full-year earners show that the largest gender gap in earnings is among
workers with tertiary education. Across OECD countries, a 35-44 year-old tertiary-educated woman earns about
74% of what a similarly educated man earns. Only in Belgium, Luxembourg, Sweden, Switzerland and Turkey do
the earnings of tertiary-educated women amount to 85% or more of men’s earnings. In Estonia, Hungary, Israel,
Korea and the Slovak Republic, women with a tertiary degree earn 65% or less of what tertiary-educated men earn
(Chart A10.6 and see Table A6.2a).
However, these findings should be interpreted with some caution. In fact, the results are partly explained by the
under-representation of women at the highest levels of tertiary education and in some fields of education, such as
engineering, manufacturing and construction, which are highly rewarded by the labour market.

Chart A10.6. Earnings of 35-44 year-old tertiary-educated women as a percentage
of the earnings of men of the same age and educational attainment
(2013 or most recent year available)
Adults with income from employment; average annual full-time, full-year earnings

Israel

Hungary

Estonia

Slovak Republic

Brazil

Korea

Poland

Czech Republic

United States

Chile

Mexico

Austria

France

Australia

OECD average

Finland

Portugal

New Zealand

Denmark

Canada

Norway

Italy

Greece

United Kingdom

Spain

Ireland

Colombia

Slovenia

Sweden

Netherlands

Switzerland

Turkey

Luxembourg

Belgium

%

90
85
80
75
70
65
60
55
50

Countries are ranked in descending order of the earnings of 35-44 year-old women with tertiary qualification as a percentage of the earnings of men with the
same characteristics.
Source: OECD. Table A6.2a. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/education/education-at-a-glance-19991487.htm).
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933283875

Methodology
Data on population and educational attainment for most countries are taken from OECD and Eurostat databases,
which are compiled from National Labour Force Surveys by the OECD LSO (Labour Market and Social Outcomes of
Learning) Network. Data on educational attainment for Argentina, China, Colombia, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia and
South Africa are taken from the UNESCO Institute of Statistics (UIS) database on educational attainment of the
population aged 25 and older.
Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

197

A10

chapter A THE OUTPUT OF EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS AND THE IMPACT OF LEARNING

A10

The PISA target population is 15-year-old students. Operationally, these are 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, regardless of the grade level or type of institution and of whether they
participated in school full-time or part-time.
Data on field of studies are based on the Survey of Adult Skills (PIAAC) (2012). PIAAC is the OECD Programme
for the International Assessment of Adult Competencies. See Annex 3 for additional information (www.oecd.org/
education/education-at-a-glance-19991487.htm).
The indicator is based on the regular data collection by the OECD LSO (Labour Market and Social Outcomes of
Learning) Network that takes account of earnings from work for all individuals during the reference period, even
if the individual has worked part time or part year. This indicator is based on the earnings of those working full
time and full year. See Annex 3 (www.oecd.org/education/education-at-a-glance-19991487.htm) for additional
information.
Note regarding data from Israel
The statistical data for Israel are supplied by and are under the responsibility of the relevant Israeli authorities. The use of
such data by the OECD is without prejudice to the status of the Golan Heights, East Jerusalem and Israeli settlements in the
West Bank under the terms of international law.
Note regarding data from the Russian Federation in the Survey of Adult Skills (PIAAC)
Readers should note that the sample for the Russian Federation does not include the population of the Moscow municipal
area. The data published, therefore, do not represent the entire resident population aged 16-65 in Russia but rather the
population of Russia excluding the population residing in the Moscow municipal area. More detailed information regarding
the data from the Russian Federation as well as that of other countries can be found in the Technical Report of the Survey
of Adult Skills (OECD, 2014b).

References
OECD (2015), The ABC of Gender Equality in Education: Aptitude, Behaviour, Confidence, PISA, OECD Publishing, Paris, http://dx.doi.
org/10.1787/9789264229945-en.
OECD (2014a), PISA 2012 Results: What Students Know and Can Do (Volume I, Revised edition, February 2014): Student Performance
in Mathematics, Reading and Science, PISA, OECD Publishing, Paris, http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264208780-en.
OECD (2014b), Technical Report of the Survey of Adult Skills, www.oecd.org/site/piaac/_Technical%20Report_17OCT13.pdf,
pre-publication copy.
OECD (2013), OECD Skills Outlook 2013: First Results from the Survey of Adult Skills, OECD Publishing, Paris, http://dx.doi.
org/10.1787/9789264204256-en.

Indicator A10 Tables
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933285306

Table A10.1 Percentage of low achievers in mathematics, reading and science, by gender (PISA 2012)
Table A10.2 Gender disparities at age 15 in participation in general, vocational and modular programmes
Table A10.3 Percentage of adults, by field of study of the highest level of education attained and gender

198 Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

Where are the gender gaps in education and employment? – INDICATOR A10

chapter A

Table A10.1. [1/3] Percentage of low achievers in mathematics, reading and science, by gender (PISA 2012)
Percentage of 15-year-old students who do not attain the PISA baseline proficiency Level 2
Boys who are:

Partners

OECD

Not low achievers in
any of the three domains

Low achievers only
in mathematics

Low achievers only
in reading

Low achievers only
in science

Low achievers in
all three domains

%

S.E.

%

S.E.

%

S.E.

%

S.E.

%

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7)

(8)

(9)

S.E.
(10)

Australia
Austria
Belgium
Canada
Chile
Czech Republic
Denmark
Estonia
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Iceland
Ireland
Israel
Italy
Japan
Korea
Luxembourg
Mexico
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Slovak Republic
Slovenia
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Turkey
United Kingdom
United States

76
72
75
80
48
72
76
83
79
69
77
57
67
65
81
60
68
84
87
69
38
80
73
70
79
69
60
66
70
63
79
53
75
69

(0.8)
(1.7)
(1.2)
(0.8)
(2.1)
(1.7)
(1.5)
(1.1)
(1.1)
(1.4)
(1.1)
(1.9)
(1.7)
(1.3)
(1.5)
(2.8)
(1.0)
(1.5)
(1.5)
(1.0)
(0.9)
(1.5)
(1.3)
(1.4)
(1.3)
(1.8)
(1.9)
(1.2)
(1.1)
(1.6)
(1.2)
(2.3)
(1.7)
(1.7)

18
16
19
13
45
19
15
11
14
22
17
34
28
23
15
34
23
11
9
20
51
14
22
23
15
24
28
20
22
28
12
41
20
26

(0.7)
(1.4)
(1.3)
(0.7)
(2.1)
(1.4)
(1.3)
(0.9)
(0.9)
(1.1)
(1.1)
(1.7)
(1.7)
(1.1)
(1.4)
(2.6)
(0.9)
(1.2)
(1.2)
(0.8)
(1.0)
(1.3)
(1.2)
(1.2)
(1.2)
(1.5)
(1.6)
(1.0)
(1.0)
(1.4)
(0.8)
(2.2)
(1.4)
(1.5)

19
26
20
15
39
23
19
14
18
25
20
32
27
30
13
32
26
13
10
26
47
17
21
22
16
25
35
30
23
31
18
31
20
22

(0.6)
(1.7)
(1.2)
(0.7)
(2.2)
(1.7)
(1.5)
(1.1)
(1.1)
(1.3)
(1.2)
(1.7)
(1.9)
(1.3)
(1.3)
(2.6)
(0.9)
(1.3)
(1.4)
(0.9)
(1.1)
(1.4)
(1.2)
(1.4)
(1.2)
(1.8)
(2.0)
(1.1)
(0.9)
(1.8)
(1.1)
(2.1)
(1.7)
(1.8)

14
16
18
11
33
14
16
6
10
20
13
30
19
25
11
31
19
9
7
20
45
13
17
21
10
20
27
15
16
25
13
30
14
20

(0.6)
(1.4)
(1.2)
(0.7)
(1.9)
(1.4)
(1.3)
(0.6)
(0.9)
(1.4)
(1.0)
(1.8)
(1.7)
(1.1)
(1.2)
(2.6)
(0.7)
(1.1)
(1.1)
(0.8)
(1.0)
(1.3)
(1.1)
(1.3)
(0.9)
(1.6)
(1.8)
(0.8)
(0.8)
(1.5)
(1.0)
(2.0)
(1.2)
(1.6)

11
12
13
7
26
11
11
4
7
15
10
21
15
18
8
24
14
7
5
14
33
9
13
14
8
15
21
12
12
19
8
21
11
15

(0.6)
(1.2)
(1.1)
(0.6)
(1.8)
(1.2)
(1.1)
(0.6)
(0.6)
(1.0)
(1.0)
(1.5)
(1.4)
(1.0)
(1.1)
(2.2)
(0.6)
(0.9)
(1.0)
(0.7)
(1.0)
(1.1)
(0.9)
(1.0)
(0.8)
(1.4)
(1.7)
(0.7)
(0.7)
(1.5)
(0.7)
(1.7)
(1.1)
(1.4)

OECD average

70

(0.3)

22

(0.2)

24

(0.3)

18

(0.2)

14

(0.2)

Albania
Argentina
Brazil
Bulgaria
Colombia
Costa Rica
Croatia
Hong Kong (China)
Indonesia
Jordan
Kazakhstan
Latvia
Liechtenstein
Lithuania
Macao (China)
Malaysia
Montenegro
Peru
Qatar
Romania
Russian Federation
Serbia
Shanghai (China)
Singapore
Chinese Taipei
Thailand
Tunisia
United Arab Emirates
Uruguay
Viet Nam

27
28
28
43
28
41
65
89
19
21
29
69
82
63
80
31
33
21
23
44
63
48
94
84
81
37
26
43
35
81

(1.3)
(2.0)
(1.1)
(2.3)
(1.8)
(2.3)
(1.9)
(1.2)
(2.4)
(2.1)
(2.1)
(1.7)
(3.1)
(1.6)
(0.8)
(1.9)
(0.9)
(1.7)
(0.6)
(2.2)
(1.7)
(2.1)
(0.8)
(0.7)
(1.4)
(1.8)
(2.1)
(1.8)
(1.6)
(2.4)

61
63
64
45
67
52
29
9
74
72
45
22
11
28
12
54
57
71
71
40
25
37
4
10
14
54
64
48
53
14

(1.5)
(2.4)
(1.1)
(2.2)
(1.9)
(2.3)
(1.7)
(1.0)
(2.4)
(2.4)
(2.0)
(1.5)
(2.8)
(1.3)
(0.7)
(2.0)
(1.1)
(1.9)
(0.6)
(2.2)
(1.4)
(2.0)
(0.7)
(0.7)
(1.3)
(1.8)
(2.2)
(1.7)
(1.8)
(2.1)

55
61
59
51
57
39
27
9
62
69
67
25
14
32
16
63
57
65
68
47
29
43
4
13
16
48
57
48
55
14

(1.9)
(2.0)
(1.2)
(2.4)
(1.8)
(2.1)
(1.9)
(1.0)
(2.6)
(2.3)
(2.0)
(1.9)
(3.0)
(1.7)
(0.7)
(2.0)
(1.1)
(1.9)
(0.5)
(2.2)
(1.8)
(1.9)
(0.6)
(0.6)
(1.3)
(1.8)
(2.4)
(1.7)
(1.8)
(2.0)

55
52
55
42
51
36
19
6
67
61
44
15
8
19
10
48
54
67
68
39
20
37
3
11
11
39
55
42
47
8

(1.5)
(2.5)
(1.3)
(2.4)
(1.8)
(2.0)
(1.4)
(0.7)
(2.4)
(2.7)
(2.2)
(1.4)
(2.2)
(1.3)
(0.6)
(1.9)
(1.0)
(2.1)
(0.6)
(2.0)
(1.5)
(2.3)
(0.5)
(0.7)
(1.1)
(1.8)
(2.2)
(1.9)
(1.7)
(1.4)

40
45
46
35
44
26
16
5
53
55
32
11
5
16
6
42
45
55
60
28
14
27
2
7
9
32
43
36
38
6

(1.2)
(2.3)
(1.2)
(2.2)
(1.8)
(1.8)
(1.3)
(0.6)
(2.5)
(2.7)
(1.8)
(1.3)
(2.3)
(1.1)
(0.5)
(1.8)
(1.1)
(2.0)
(0.6)
(1.9)
(1.1)
(1.9)
(0.4)
(0.7)
(1.1)
(1.8)
(2.4)
(1.6)
(1.7)
(1.3)

Note: Values that are statistically significant are indicated in bold.
Source: OECD. PISA 2012 Database. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/education/education-at-a-glance-19991487.htm).
Please refer to the Reader’s Guide for information concerning symbols for missing data and abbreviations.
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933285319

Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

199

A10

chapter A THE OUTPUT OF EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS AND THE IMPACT OF LEARNING

Table A10.1. [2/3] Percentage of low achievers in mathematics, reading and science, by gender (PISA 2012)
Percentage of 15-year-old students who do not attain the PISA baseline proficiency Level 2

A10

Girls who are:

Partners

OECD

Not low achievers in
any of the three domains

Low achievers only
in mathematics

Low achievers only
in reading

Low achievers only
in science

Low achievers in
all three domains

%

S.E.

%

S.E.

%

S.E.

%

S.E.

%

(11)

(12)

(13)

(14)

(15)

(16)

(17)

(18)

(19)

(20)

Australia
Austria
Belgium
Canada
Chile
Czech Republic
Denmark
Estonia
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Iceland
Ireland
Israel
Italy
Japan
Korea
Luxembourg
Mexico
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Slovak Republic
Slovenia
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Turkey
United Kingdom
United States

77
76
77
83
41
75
77
88
89
75
80
60
70
73
80
63
70
87
90
67
35
81
74
74
84
71
67
78
72
70
83
55
74
73

(0.8)
(1.5)
(1.1)
(0.6)
(1.8)
(1.6)
(1.2)
(0.8)
(0.7)
(1.1)
(1.4)
(1.7)
(1.6)
(1.2)
(1.4)
(1.6)
(1.1)
(1.2)
(1.2)
(0.9)
(1.0)
(1.6)
(1.2)
(1.5)
(1.2)
(1.9)
(2.1)
(1.1)
(1.0)
(1.5)
(1.0)
(2.4)
(1.5)
(1.7)

21
21
19
14
57
23
19
10
10
22
19
37
28
20
19
33
27
11
9
29
58
16
24
22
14
26
27
20
25
26
13
43
24
25

(0.8)
(1.4)
(1.1)
(0.7)
(1.9)
(1.7)
(1.1)
(0.8)
(0.7)
(1.1)
(1.3)
(1.7)
(1.7)
(1.0)
(1.2)
(1.6)
(1.0)
(1.1)
(1.1)
(0.7)
(0.9)
(1.5)
(1.1)
(1.4)
(1.0)
(1.8)
(1.7)
(1.0)
(1.0)
(1.3)
(0.9)
(2.4)
(1.5)
(1.6)

9
13
12
7
27
11
10
4
5
13
9
13
13
12
6
15
13
6
4
17
35
11
11
10
5
12
20
11
13
14
9
12
13
11

(0.6)
(1.1)
(0.9)
(0.4)
(1.7)
(1.2)
(0.9)
(0.7)
(0.6)
(1.1)
(0.9)
(1.1)
(1.2)
(0.8)
(0.9)
(1.3)
(0.7)
(0.8)
(0.7)
(0.9)
(1.0)
(1.3)
(0.9)
(0.9)
(0.7)
(1.5)
(2.2)
(0.9)
(0.8)
(0.9)
(0.8)
(1.0)
(1.2)
(1.1)

13
15
17
10
35
13
17
4
6
17
11
21
17
22
10
26
18
8
5
24
48
13
15
18
8
17
27
11
15
19
12
22
16
16

(0.7)
(1.4)
(1.0)
(0.5)
(1.7)
(1.4)
(1.0)
(0.5)
(0.5)
(1.0)
(1.0)
(1.5)
(1.4)
(1.1)
(1.1)
(1.6)
(1.0)
(1.0)
(0.8)
(0.9)
(0.9)
(1.2)
(1.1)
(1.3)
(0.9)
(1.6)
(2.1)
(0.8)
(0.8)
(1.1)
(0.8)
(1.7)
(1.2)
(1.5)

7
10
10
5
22
7
8
2
3
10
7
10
11
9
5
13
9
4
3
14
29
8
9
8
4
10
17
7
9
11
6
10
11
9

(0.5)
(1.0)
(0.8)
(0.4)
(1.7)
(1.0)
(0.9)
(0.4)
(0.5)
(0.9)
(0.9)
(1.1)
(1.1)
(0.8)
(0.7)
(1.3)
(0.6)
(0.7)
(0.6)
(0.9)
(0.8)
(1.0)
(0.8)
(0.9)
(0.5)
(1.2)
(1.6)
(0.6)
(0.6)
(0.7)
(0.6)
(0.9)
(1.1)
(0.9)

OECD average

73

(0.2)

24

(0.2)

12

(0.2)

17

(0.2)

9

(0.2)

Albania
Argentina
Brazil
Bulgaria
Colombia
Costa Rica
Croatia
Hong Kong (China)
Indonesia
Jordan
Kazakhstan
Latvia
Liechtenstein
Lithuania
Macao (China)
Malaysia
Montenegro
Peru
Qatar
Romania
Russian Federation
Serbia
Shanghai (China)
Singapore
Chinese Taipei
Thailand
Tunisia
United Arab Emirates
Uruguay
Viet Nam

29
28
25
53
19
31
68
91
18
33
38
80
79
74
87
41
40
19
28
50
71
54
96
89
87
50
24
53
36
84

(1.3)
(2.0)
(1.1)
(2.1)
(1.5)
(2.0)
(1.8)
(1.0)
(2.1)
(1.8)
(1.9)
(1.4)
(3.6)
(1.5)
(0.6)
(1.9)
(1.3)
(2.1)
(0.6)
(2.1)
(1.4)
(2.0)
(0.6)
(0.8)
(1.0)
(2.0)
(1.8)
(1.8)
(1.4)
(1.7)

60
70
72
42
80
66
31
8
77
65
45
18
17
24
10
49
56
77
68
41
23
40
4
7
11
46
71
44
58
14

(1.6)
(2.1)
(1.1)
(2.0)
(1.5)
(1.9)
(1.8)
(0.9)
(2.2)
(1.9)
(1.9)
(1.4)
(3.5)
(1.4)
(0.7)
(2.0)
(1.4)
(2.2)
(0.7)
(2.2)
(1.2)
(1.8)
(0.6)
(0.6)
(0.9)
(2.1)
(1.9)
(1.7)
(1.6)
(1.6)

49
46
43
27
47
26
9
4
48
33
47
8
10
10
6
43
29
55
45
28
15
23
2
6
7
21
42
23
40
5

(1.5)
(1.9)
(1.3)
(2.1)
(2.2)
(1.8)
(1.0)
(0.7)
(2.4)
(1.5)
(1.7)
(1.1)
(2.8)
(0.9)
(0.5)
(1.8)
(1.2)
(2.4)
(0.6)
(1.9)
(1.2)
(1.7)
(0.3)
(0.6)
(0.8)
(1.4)
(2.4)
(1.5)
(1.5)
(1.0)

50
49
55
31
60
42
15
5
66
38
39
9
13
12
7
42
46
69
57
35
17
33
2
8
8
29
55
28
46
6

(1.3)
(2.3)
(1.2)
(2.0)
(2.1)
(2.2)
(1.0)
(0.7)
(2.5)
(1.6)
(2.1)
(1.0)
(3.3)
(1.1)
(0.6)
(1.7)
(1.0)
(2.4)
(0.7)
(1.8)
(1.1)
(1.9)
(0.4)
(0.6)
(0.8)
(1.7)
(2.0)
(1.8)
(1.5)
(1.0)

35
38
38
22
42
21
7
3
42
26
25
5
7
8
3
31
26
50
40
20
9
19
1
4
5
16
36
18
32
3

(1.2)
(1.9)
(1.2)
(1.9)
(2.1)
(1.6)
(0.8)
(0.6)
(2.4)
(1.4)
(1.4)
(1.0)
(2.6)
(0.8)
(0.4)
(1.6)
(1.0)
(2.4)
(0.6)
(1.7)
(0.8)
(1.5)
(0.3)
(0.4)
(0.7)
(1.2)
(2.4)
(1.4)
(1.4)
(0.7)

Note: Values that are statistically significant are indicated in bold.
Source: OECD, PISA 2012 Database. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/education/education-at-a-glance-19991487.htm).
Please refer to the Reader’s Guide for information concerning symbols for missing data and abbreviations.
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933285319

200 Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

S.E.

Where are the gender gaps in education and employment? – INDICATOR A10

chapter A

Table A10.1. [3/3] Percentage of low achievers in mathematics, reading and science, by gender (PISA 2012)
Percentage of 15-year-old students who do not attain the PISA baseline proficiency Level 2
Gender gap (B – G)

Partners

OECD

Not low achievers in
any of the three domains

Low achievers only
in mathematics

Low achievers only
in reading

Low achievers only
in science

Low achievers in
all three domains

% dif.

S.E.

% dif.

S.E.

% dif.

S.E.

% dif.

S.E.

% dif.

(21)

(22)

(23)

(24)

(25)

(26)

(27)

(28)

(29)

S.E.
(30)

Australia
Austria
Belgium
Canada
Chile
Czech Republic
Denmark
Estonia
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Iceland
Ireland
Israel
Italy
Japan
Korea
Luxembourg
Mexico
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Slovak Republic
Slovenia
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Turkey
United Kingdom
United States

-1
-5
-3
-3
7
-3
-1
-5
-10
-6
-3
-3
-3
-8
1
-3
-2
-3
-3
2
3
-1
-1
-4
-5
-3
-6
-12
-2
-8
-4
-2
1
-4

(1.0)
(2.3)
(1.5)
(0.9)
(2.2)
(2.2)
(1.5)
(1.2)
(1.2)
(1.6)
(1.4)
(1.8)
(2.0)
(1.8)
(1.9)
(2.8)
(1.2)
(1.5)
(1.7)
(1.3)
(1.0)
(1.4)
(1.7)
(1.6)
(1.4)
(1.2)
(2.2)
(1.8)
(1.2)
(1.7)
(1.4)
(2.5)
(1.6)
(1.7)

-3
-5
-1
-1
-12
-3
-3
0
4
0
-2
-2
-1
4
-4
0
-4
0
0
-9
-8
-2
-2
1
1
-2
0
1
-3
2
-1
-3
-4
1

(0.9)
(2.1)
(1.7)
(0.8)
(2.2)
(1.9)
(1.3)
(1.1)
(1.0)
(1.2)
(1.3)
(2.1)
(2.1)
(1.6)
(1.8)
(2.6)
(1.2)
(1.3)
(1.4)
(1.0)
(0.9)
(1.3)
(1.6)
(1.5)
(1.3)
(1.4)
(2.0)
(1.5)
(1.1)
(1.5)
(1.0)
(2.6)
(1.4)
(1.4)

10
13
8
8
12
12
9
10
13
13
11
19
14
18
7
17
13
7
6
9
12
6
10
13
11
12
15
19
10
17
10
19
6
11

(0.8)
(2.0)
(1.3)
(0.8)
(1.9)
(1.7)
(1.3)
(1.2)
(1.1)
(1.6)
(1.1)
(1.7)
(2.0)
(1.6)
(1.5)
(2.5)
(1.0)
(1.1)
(1.4)
(1.0)
(1.0)
(1.4)
(1.4)
(1.3)
(1.2)
(1.7)
(2.3)
(1.4)
(1.0)
(1.7)
(1.1)
(2.0)
(1.4)
(1.5)

1
1
2
1
-2
2
0
2
4
3
1
9
1
3
1
5
2
1
2
-4
-3
0
2
2
2
3
0
4
0
5
0
7
-2
4

(0.8)
(1.9)
(1.4)
(0.8)
(1.9)
(1.6)
(1.2)
(0.7)
(0.9)
(1.3)
(1.0)
(1.6)
(2.0)
(1.7)
(1.5)
(2.6)
(1.0)
(1.1)
(1.1)
(1.2)
(0.9)
(1.1)
(1.5)
(1.3)
(1.1)
(1.2)
(2.2)
(1.2)
(0.8)
(1.5)
(1.1)
(2.2)
(1.2)
(1.6)

3
2
3
3
4
4
2
2
4
5
3
11
5
8
3
12
5
2
2
0
4
2
5
6
4
6
4
5
3
8
2
11
0
6

(0.7)
(1.5)
(1.2)
(0.7)
(1.8)
(1.2)
(1.0)
(0.8)
(0.7)
(1.2)
(1.0)
(1.4)
(1.7)
(1.3)
(1.2)
(2.2)
(0.7)
(0.8)
(1.0)
(0.9)
(0.8)
(1.0)
(1.1)
(1.2)
(0.9)
(1.1)
(1.9)
(0.9)
(0.7)
(1.4)
(0.9)
(1.8)
(1.1)
(1.1)

OECD average

-3

(0.3)

-2

(0.3)

12

(0.3)

2

(0.2)

4

(0.2)

Albania
Argentina
Brazil
Bulgaria
Colombia
Costa Rica
Croatia
Hong Kong (China)
Indonesia
Jordan
Kazakhstan
Latvia
Liechtenstein
Lithuania
Macao (China)
Malaysia
Montenegro
Peru
Qatar
Romania
Russian Federation
Serbia
Shanghai (China)
Singapore
Chinese Taipei
Thailand
Tunisia
United Arab Emirates
Uruguay
Viet Nam

-3
0
3
-10
9
10
-3
-2
1
-12
-9
-11
2
-11
-7
-10
-6
2
-6
-7
-8
-5
-2
-5
-6
-13
3
-10
0
-3

(1.9)
(1.8)
(1.0)
(2.3)
(1.9)
(2.0)
(2.3)
(1.3)
(2.0)
(2.8)
(2.1)
(2.0)
(4.7)
(1.8)
(1.0)
(1.9)
(1.5)
(1.7)
(0.8)
(2.2)
(1.6)
(2.2)
(0.6)
(1.1)
(1.5)
(1.9)
(1.5)
(2.4)
(1.9)
(1.5)

1
-7
-8
3
-12
-14
-2
0
-2
8
1
3
-6
3
2
5
0
-6
3
-1
1
-3
0
3
3
8
-8
4
-6
0

(2.4)
(1.9)
(1.1)
(2.2)
(1.8)
(1.9)
(2.2)
(1.1)
(2.0)
(3.2)
(1.9)
(1.8)
(4.8)
(1.3)
(0.9)
(2.1)
(1.4)
(1.9)
(0.8)
(2.1)
(1.3)
(2.2)
(0.6)
(0.8)
(1.5)
(1.8)
(1.7)
(2.2)
(2.0)
(1.3)

6
16
15
24
10
14
18
5
15
36
19
17
5
21
10
20
27
10
23
19
14
19
3
7
9
28
14
25
15
8

(2.2)
(1.8)
(1.3)
(2.2)
(2.0)
(1.8)
(1.8)
(0.9)
(2.4)
(2.8)
(2.0)
(2.2)
(4.4)
(1.5)
(0.9)
(1.9)
(1.8)
(2.1)
(0.8)
(2.2)
(1.6)
(1.7)
(0.5)
(0.9)
(1.3)
(1.8)
(2.0)
(2.1)
(1.8)
(1.4)

5
3
-1
10
-9
-6
4
1
1
22
5
6
-4
7
3
6
8
-2
11
4
4
4
1
3
3
11
0
15
1
2

(1.5)
(2.0)
(1.2)
(2.2)
(2.2)
(2.3)
(1.6)
(0.8)
(2.3)
(3.3)
(2.2)
(1.6)
(4.1)
(1.2)
(0.8)
(2.0)
(1.5)
(2.2)
(0.7)
(2.0)
(1.3)
(2.2)
(0.5)
(1.0)
(1.1)
(1.8)
(1.9)
(2.4)
(1.9)
(1.2)

4
7
8
13
2
6
9
2
11
29
7
6
-2
9
3
11
18
5
20
8
5
8
1
3
4
17
7
18
6
3

(1.5)
(1.8)
(1.3)
(2.0)
(2.1)
(1.7)
(1.5)
(0.7)
(2.1)
(3.2)
(2.0)
(1.4)
(3.3)
(1.1)
(0.7)
(1.9)
(1.6)
(2.2)
(0.8)
(1.9)
(1.1)
(2.0)
(0.4)
(0.7)
(1.1)
(1.7)
(2.4)
(2.0)
(1.7)
(1.1)

Note: Values that are statistically significant are indicated in bold.
Source: OECD, PISA 2012 Database. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/education/education-at-a-glance-19991487.htm).
Please refer to the Reader’s Guide for information concerning symbols for missing data and abbreviations.
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933285319

Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

201

A10

chapter A THE OUTPUT OF EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS AND THE IMPACT OF LEARNING

Table A10.2 Gender disparities at age 15 in participation in general, vocational and modular programmes
Results based on students’ self-reports (PISA 2012)

Partners

OECD

A10

Percentage of boys who are enrolled in a
programme whose curriculum is:

Percentage of girls who are enrolled
in a programme whose curriculum is:

General

General

Vocational

Modular

Vocational

Modular

Gender gap (B-G) in the percentage
of students who are enrolled in a programme
whose curriculum is:
General

Vocational

Modular

%

S.E.

%

S.E.

%

S.E.

%

S.E.

%

S.E.

%

S.E.

%-pt
dif.

S.E.

%-pt
dif.

S.E.

%-pt
dif.

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7)

(8)

(9)

(10)

(11)

(12)

(13)

(14)

(15)

(16)

(17)

(18)

Australia
Austria
Belgium
Canada
Chile
Czech Republic
Denmark
Estonia
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Iceland
Ireland
Israel
Italy
Japan
Korea
Luxembourg
Mexico
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Slovak Republic
Slovenia
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Turkey
United Kingdom
United States

89
28
52
0
97
70
100
100
100
82
97
82
82
100
99
95
39
74
79
77
75
76
100
100
100
79
63
40
99
100
88
59
99
100

(0.6)
(1.6)
(1.4)
c
(0.3)
(2.2)
c
(0.3)
c
(1.6)
(1.3)
(2.6)
(1.8)
c
(0.3)
(0.6)
(1.1)
(1.7)
(2.6)
(0.3)
(1.0)
(1.9)
c
c
c
(2.4)
(2.3)
(0.8)
(0.2)
(0.1)
(2.2)
(2.1)
(0.2)
c

11
72
48
0
3
30
0
0
0
18
3
18
18
0
1
5
61
26
21
15
25
24
0
0
0
21
11
60
1
0
12
41
1
0

(0.6)
(1.6)
(1.4)
c
(0.3)
(2.2)
c
(0.3)
c
(1.6)
(1.3)
(2.6)
(1.8)
c
(0.3)
(0.6)
(1.1)
(1.7)
(2.6)
(0.2)
(1.0)
(1.9)
c
c
c
(2.4)
(2.2)
(0.8)
(0.2)
(0.1)
(2.2)
(2.1)
(0.2)
c

0
0
0
100
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
8
0
0
0
0
0
0
26
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
(0.3)
c
c
c
c
c
c
(1.8)
c
c
c
c
c
a
c

90
34
60
0
97
68
100
100
100
88
99
91
90
100
99
99
63
78
81
81
75
80
100
100
100
87
69
54
100
99
91
65
99
100

(0.6)
(1.6)
(1.5)
c
(0.3)
(2.4)
c
(0.2)
c
(1.5)
(0.6)
(2.1)
(1.1)
c
(0.2)
(0.3)
(1.6)
(1.6)
(2.4)
(0.3)
(1.1)
(1.9)
c
c
(0.1)
(1.8)
(2.3)
(0.6)
(0.1)
(0.2)
(2.0)
(2.5)
(0.2)
c

10
66
40
0
3
32
0
0
0
12
1
9
10
0
1
1
37
22
19
14
25
20
0
0
0
13
5
46
0
1
9
35
1
0

(0.6)
(1.6)
(1.5)
c
(0.3)
(2.4)
c
(0.2)
c
(1.5)
(0.6)
(2.1)
(1.1)
c
(0.2)
(0.3)
(1.6)
(1.6)
(2.4)
(0.2)
(1.1)
(1.9)
c
c
(0.1)
(1.8)
(1.2)
(0.6)
(0.1)
(0.2)
(2.0)
(2.5)
(0.2)
c

0
0
0
100
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
6
0
0
0
0
0
0
26
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
(0.2)
c
c
c
c
c
c
(2.1)
c
c
c
c
c
a
c

-1
-6
-7
0
0
3
0
0
0
-6
-2
-10
-8
0
0
-5
-24
-4
-2
-4
0
-4
0
0
0
-8
-7
-15
-1
0
-3
-7
0
0

(0.6)
(2.6)
(2.0)
c
(0.5)
(3.9)
c
(0.4)
c
(2.0)
(1.2)
(1.2)
(2.1)
c
(0.3)
(0.9)
(2.1)
(3.0)
(4.1)
(0.4)
(0.7)
(1.5)
c
c
(0.1)
(1.3)
(3.7)
(1.0)
(0.2)
(0.2)
(3.7)
(4.5)
(0.3)
c

1
6
7
0
0
-3
0
0
0
6
2
10
8
0
0
5
24
4
2
2
0
4
0
0
0
8
6
15
1
0
3
7
0
0

(0.6)
(2.6)
(2.0)
c
(0.5)
(3.9)
c
(0.4)
c
(2.0)
(1.2)
(1.2)
(2.1)
c
(0.3)
(0.9)
(2.1)
(3.0)
(4.1)
(0.3)
(0.7)
(1.5)
c
c
(0.1)
(1.3)
(2.1)
(1.0)
(0.2)
(0.2)
(3.7)
(4.5)
(0.3)
c

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
(0.3)
c
c
c
c
c
c
(2.8)
c
c
c
c
c
a
c

OECD average

80

(0.2)

16

(0.2)

4

(0.1)

83

(0.2)

13

(0.2)

4

(0.1)

-4

(0.3)

3

(0.3)

0

(0.1)

Albania
Argentina
Brazil
Bulgaria
Colombia
Costa Rica
Croatia
Hong Kong (China)
Indonesia
Jordan
Kazakhstan
Latvia
Liechtenstein
Lithuania
Macao (China)
Malaysia
Montenegro
Peru
Qatar
Romania
Russian Federation
Serbia
Shanghai (China)
Singapore
Chinese Taipei
Thailand
Tunisia
United Arab Emirates
Uruguay
Viet Nam

88
79
100
52
76
92
23
100
76
100
91
99
100
99
98
84
28
100
100
100
95
23
79
100
67
72
100
96
95
99

(2.9)
(3.7)
(0.0)
(2.4)
(2.3)
(1.8)
(1.5)
c
(4.2)
c
(2.5)
(0.9)
c
(0.4)
(0.0)
(1.5)
(0.4)
c
c
c
(1.3)
(1.3)
(1.0)
c
(2.1)
(1.4)
c
(0.2)
(0.8)
(1.1)

12
21
0
48
24
8
77
0
24
0
9
1
0
1
2
16
72
0
0
0
5
77
21
0
33
28
0
4
3
0

(2.9)
(3.7)
(0.0)
(2.4)
(2.3)
(1.8)
(1.5)
c
(4.2)
c
(2.5)
(0.9)
c
(0.4)
(0.0)
(1.5)
(0.4)
c
c
c
(1.3)
(1.3)
(1.0)
c
(2.1)
(1.4)
c
(0.2)
(0.8)
(0.0)

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
1

c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
(0.5)
(1.1)

96
91
100
67
73
90
37
100
84
100
94
100
100
100
98
89
40
100
100
100
97
28
79
100
64
87
100
98
99
100

(1.3)
(1.7)
(0.0)
(2.8)
(2.6)
(1.6)
(1.5)
c
(3.1)
c
(2.1)
(0.4)
c
(0.1)
(0.1)
(1.2)
(0.2)
c
c
c
(1.2)
(1.2)
(1.2)
c
(2.0)
(1.2)
c
(0.1)
(0.2)
(0.3)

4
9
0
33
27
10
63
0
16
0
6
0
0
0
2
11
60
0
0
0
3
72
21
0
36
13
0
2
0
0

(1.3)
(1.7)
(0.0)
(2.8)
(2.6)
(1.6)
(1.5)
c
(3.1)
c
(2.1)
(0.4)
c
(0.1)
(0.1)
(1.2)
(0.2)
c
c
c
(1.2)
(1.2)
(1.2)
c
(2.0)
(1.2)
c
(0.1)
(0.1)
(0.0)

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0

c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
(0.2)
(0.3)

-8
-12
0
-14
3
2
-13
0
-8
0
-3
-1
0
-1
0
-5
-11
0
0
0
-1
-5
0
0
3
-16
0
-2
-4
-1

(2.6)
(2.4)
(0.0)
(4.0)
(1.8)
(0.5)
(1.8)
c
(4.2)
c
(2.1)
(1.0)
c
(0.4)
(0.0)
(1.5)
(0.5)
c
c
c
(1.2)
(1.6)
(1.9)
c
(3.0)
(2.2)
c
(0.2)
(0.8)
(0.7)

8
12
0
14
-3
-2
13
0
8
0
3
1
0
1
0
5
11
0
0
0
1
5
0
0
-3
16
0
2
2
0

(2.6)
(2.4)
(0.0)
(4.0)
(1.8)
(0.5)
(1.8)
c
(4.2)
c
(2.1)
(1.0)
c
(0.4)
(0.0)
(1.5)
(0.5)
c
c
c
(1.2)
(1.6)
(1.9)
c
(3.0)
(2.2)
c
(0.2)
(0.8)
(0.0)

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
c
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
1

c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
(0.5)
(0.7)

Note: Values that are statistically significant are indicated in bold.
Source: OECD, PISA 2012 Database. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/education/education-at-a-glance-19991487.htm).
Please refer to the Reader’s Guide for information concerning symbols for missing data and abbreviations.
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933285325

202 Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

S.E.

Where are the gender gaps in education and employment? – INDICATOR A10

chapter A

Table A10.3. [1/2] Percentage of adults, by field of study of the highest level of education attained and gender
16-65 year-olds surveyed in the 2012 Survey of Adult Skills
General programmes

Teacher training and education science

Humanities, languages and arts

Women

%-point
difference
(M – W)

Women

%-point
difference
(M – W)

%

S.E.

%

S.E.

%

S.E.

%

S.E.

%

S.E.

%

S.E.

%

S.E.

%

S.E.

%

S.E.

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7)

(8)

(9)

(10)

(11)

(12)

(13)

(14)

(15)

(16)

(17)

(18)

31
9
29
4
11
29
14
11
6
5
11
34
33
9
8
10
7
12
11
8

(0.9)
(0.7)
(0.6)
(0.0)
(0.7)
(0.8)
(0.8)
(0.8)
(0.4)
(0.7)
(1.2)
(1.1)
(1.0)
(0.7)
(0.6)
(0.5)
(0.6)
(1.0)
(0.7)
(0.9)

28
10
28
8
15
23
14
16
7
10
9
46
41
13
10
13
11
12
14
9

(1.1)
(0.7)
(0.6)
(0.0)
(0.7)
(0.7)
(0.7)
(1.0)
(0.4)
(0.8)
(0.9)
(1.3)
(1.1)
(0.7)
(0.8)
(0.7)
(0.7)
(0.9)
(0.9)
(0.7)

3
-1
0
-4
-4
6
0
-5
-1
-5
1
-12
-8
-4
-2
-4
-4
0
-4
-1

(1.7)
(1.0)
(1.1)
(0.1)
(1.0)
(1.1)
(1.2)
(0.8)
(0.6)
(1.1)
(1.3)
(1.5)
(1.5)
(1.0)
(1.1)
(0.9)
(0.9)
(1.6)
(1.1)
(1.1)

3
2
3
1
5
c
2
3
2
3
c
4
2
4
4
2
2
4
4
5

(0.3)
(0.3)
(0.3)
(0.0)
(0.4)
c
(0.3)
(0.3)
(0.3)
(0.5)
c
(0.4)
(0.3)
(0.4)
(0.4)
(0.3)
(0.3)
(0.6)
(0.3)
(0.8)

8
7
9
7
15
7
6
5
6
12
7
12
7
10
11
9
8
10
11
14

(0.5)
(0.5)
(0.4)
(0.0)
(0.7)
(0.5)
(0.5)
(0.3)
(0.4)
(0.7)
(0.9)
(1.0)
(0.6)
(0.8)
(0.6)
(0.7)
(0.6)
(0.8)
(0.7)
(1.1)

-6
-5
-6
-6
-9
c
-4
-2
-3
-9
c
-8
-5
-7
-7
-6
-6
-6
-8
-9

(0.6)
(0.5)
(0.5)
(0.0)
(0.9)
c
(0.6)
(0.5)
(0.5)
(0.9)
c
(1.0)
(0.6)
(0.9)
(0.8)
(0.7)
(0.6)
(1.0)
(0.8)
(1.2)

5
3
6
3
4
2
3
3
3
7
9
3
6
4
5
3
3
10
5
10

(0.4)
(0.4)
(0.4)
(0.0)
(0.4)
(0.3)
(0.3)
(0.3)
(0.4)
(0.8)
(0.8)
(0.4)
(0.5)
(0.5)
(0.5)
(0.4)
(0.4)
(0.8)
(0.5)
(0.8)

7
4
10
4
8
6
6
8
4
11
25
10
13
6
8
8
6
15
8
10

(0.6)
(0.5)
(0.4)
(0.2)
(0.5)
(0.4)
(0.6)
(0.5)
(0.5)
(0.9)
(1.2)
(0.6)
(0.6)
(0.6)
(0.5)
(0.5)
(0.5)
(1.0)
(0.7)
(0.8)

-2
-1
-4
-1
-4
-4
-4
-4
-1
-4
-17
-7
-7
-3
-2
-5
-3
-5
-4
-1

(0.7)
(0.6)
(0.5)
(0.2)
(0.6)
(0.5)
(0.7)
(0.6)
(0.6)
(1.2)
(1.3)
(0.6)
(0.7)
(0.7)
(0.6)
(0.6)
(0.7)
(1.3)
(0.9)
(1.1)

Flanders (Belgium)
England/N.Ireland (UK)

13
19

(0.7)
(1.2)

20
21

(0.9)
(1.0)

-7
-2

(1.1)
(1.5)

4
3

(0.5)
(0.4)

12
8

(0.7)
(0.6)

-7
-5

(0.8)
(0.7)

5
15

(0.5)
(1.0)

9
22

(0.7)
(1.1)

-4
-7

(0.8)
(1.6)

Average

15

(0.2)

17

(0.2)

-2

(0.3)

3

(0.1)

9

(0.1)

-6

(0.2)

5

(0.1)

10

(0.1)

-4

(0.2)

Russian Federation*

21

(0.7)

17

(1.0)

4

(1.1)

2

(0.4)

12

(1.2)

-10

(1.2)

6

(0.9)

11

(1.0)

-6

(1.3)

Men

Men

Men

Women

%-point
difference
(M – W)

OECD

National entities

Australia
Austria
Canada
Czech Republic
Denmark
Estonia
Finland
France
Germany
Ireland
Italy
Japan
Korea
Netherlands
Norway
Poland
Slovak Republic
Spain
Sweden
United States

Partners

Sub-national entities

Social sciences, business and law

Engineering, manufacturing
and construction

Science, mathematics and computing

Women

%-point
difference
(M – W)

Women

%-point
difference
(M – W)

%

S.E.

%

S.E.

%

S.E.

%

S.E.

%

S.E.

%

S.E.

%

S.E.

%

S.E.

%

S.E.

(19)

(20)

(21)

(22)

(23)

(24)

(25)

(26)

(27)

(28)

(29)

(30)

(31)

(32)

(33)

(34)

(35)

(36)

17
18
15
8
14
8
12
12
17
18
16
16
11
30
18
9
6
19
17
24

(0.8)
(0.8)
(0.6)
(0.0)
(0.7)
(0.5)
(0.6)
(0.6)
(0.8)
(1.2)
(1.2)
(0.8)
(0.7)
(1.0)
(0.8)
(0.6)
(0.5)
(1.1)
(1.1)
(1.4)

25
40
19
32
16
24
23
20
39
25
21
10
12
28
23
15
19
26
24
21

(0.8)
(1.2)
(0.6)
(0.2)
(0.7)
(0.6)
(0.8)
(0.8)
(1.3)
(1.1)
(1.2)
(0.8)
(0.8)
(1.1)
(0.9)
(0.7)
(0.8)
(1.2)
(1.1)
(1.2)

-8
-22
-5
-23
-2
-16
-11
-8
-22
-7
-5
5
0
2
-5
-7
-13
-7
-7
3

(1.2)
(1.3)
(0.8)
(0.2)
(0.9)
(0.9)
(1.0)
(1.0)
(1.5)
(1.7)
(1.6)
(1.0)
(0.9)
(1.6)
(1.1)
(1.1)
(1.0)
(1.6)
(1.6)
(1.4)

6
3
13
3
12
4
2
12
5
18
23
3
9
11
9
6
9
14
7
18

(0.5)
(0.3)
(0.5)
(0.0)
(0.7)
(0.3)
(0.3)
(0.5)
(0.5)
(1.2)
(1.3)
(0.4)
(0.6)
(0.7)
(0.5)
(0.5)
(0.6)
(1.0)
(0.5)
(1.4)

4
2
8
2
7
3
3
10
3
11
19
2
10
3
6
8
5
10
4
11

(0.4)
(0.3)
(0.4)
(0.0)
(0.5)
(0.3)
(0.3)
(0.5)
(0.4)
(0.8)
(1.2)
(0.3)
(0.6)
(0.4)
(0.6)
(0.6)
(0.6)
(0.8)
(0.4)
(0.8)

2
1
5
1
5
2
0
2
1
7
4
1
-1
8
3
-2
4
3
3
7

(0.6)
(0.4)
(0.6)
(0.0)
(0.9)
(0.5)
(0.4)
(0.7)
(0.6)
(1.3)
(1.7)
(0.5)
(0.9)
(0.8)
(0.6)
(0.8)
(0.9)
(1.3)
(0.7)
(1.6)

29
52
24
67
34
40
51
34
54
31
23
31
29
29
44
53
55
32
44
21

(1.1)
(1.1)
(0.7)
(0.2)
(0.9)
(1.0)
(1.2)
(0.9)
(1.1)
(1.5)
(1.4)
(1.3)
(1.0)
(1.1)
(1.0)
(1.1)
(1.1)
(1.3)
(1.0)
(1.4)

3
7
2
22
4
16
7
4
10
2
2
2
6
3
9
14
12
4
8
c

(0.4)
(0.7)
(0.2)
(0.1)
(0.4)
(0.6)
(0.5)
(0.3)
(0.7)
(0.4)
(0.4)
(0.3)
(0.5)
(0.4)
(0.7)
(0.8)
(0.8)
(0.5)
(0.6)
c

26
45
22
45
30
24
44
31
44
29
21
29
23
26
34
38
43
27
36
c

(1.3)
(1.2)
(0.7)
(0.2)
(1.1)
(1.2)
(1.3)
(0.9)
(1.3)
(1.6)
(1.4)
(1.3)
(1.2)
(1.1)
(1.2)
(1.3)
(1.4)
(1.5)
(1.2)
c

Flanders (Belgium)
England/N.Ireland (UK)

14
16

(0.8)
(1.0)

19
23

(0.9)
(1.1)

-5
-7

(1.3)
(1.5)

13
15

(0.8)
(1.0)

8
9

(0.5)
(0.6)

5
6

(0.9)
(1.1)

42
28

(1.0)
(1.1)

7
3

(0.6)
(0.4)

35
25

(1.2)
(1.2)

Average

15

(0.2)

23

(0.2)

-8

(0.3)

10

(0.2)

7

(0.1)

3

(0.2)

38

(0.2)

7

(0.1)

32

(0.3)

Russian Federation*

7

(0.8)

11

(0.7)

-5

(1.3)

9

(0.7)

10

(0.8)

-1

(0.9)

40

(2.0)

14

(1.5)

25

(1.4)

Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

203

Men

Men

Men

Women

%-point
difference
(M – W)

OECD

National entities

Australia
Austria
Canada
Czech Republic
Denmark
Estonia
Finland
France
Germany
Ireland
Italy
Japan
Korea
Netherlands
Norway
Poland
Slovak Republic
Spain
Sweden
United States

Partners

Sub-national entities

Note: Values that are statistically significant are indicated in bold.
* See note on data for the Russian Federation in the Methodology section.
Source: OECD. Survey of Adult Skills (PIAAC) (2012). See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/education/education-at-a-glance-19991487.htm).
Please refer to the Reader’s Guide for information concerning symbols for missing data and abbreviations.
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933285332

A10

chapter A THE OUTPUT OF EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS AND THE IMPACT OF LEARNING

Table A10.3. [2/2] Percentage of adults, by field of study of the highest level of education attained and gender
16-65 year-olds surveyed in the 2012 Survey of Adult Skills

A10

Agriculture and veterinary medicine

Men

Health and welfare

%-point
difference
(M – W)

Women

Men

Women

Services

%-point
difference
(M – W)

Men

Women

%-point
difference
(M – W)

%

S.E.

%

S.E.

%

S.E.

%

S.E.

%

S.E.

%

S.E.

%

S.E.

%

S.E.

%

S.E.

(37)

(38)

(39)

(40)

(41)

(42)

(43)

(44)

(45)

(46)

(47)

(48)

(49)

(50)

(51)

(52)

(53)

(54)

2
5
2
5
5
4
6
6
3
4
4
5
4
5
3
6
8
3
4
c

(0.2)
(0.4)
(0.2)
(0.0)
(0.3)
(0.4)
(0.5)
(0.5)
(0.5)
(0.6)
(0.7)
(0.6)
(0.3)
(0.5)
(0.4)
(0.6)
(0.7)
(0.5)
(0.5)
c

c
3
1
5
2
4
2
2
2
c
c
1
c
2
2
7
6
c
2
c

c
(0.4)
(0.2)
(0.0)
(0.3)
(0.3)
(0.3)
(0.3)
(0.3)
c
c
(0.3)
c
(0.4)
(0.3)
(0.6)
(0.5)
c
(0.3)
c

c
2
0
0
3
0
4
4
2
c
c
4
c
2
2
-1
1
c
2
c

c
(0.6)
(0.3)
(0.0)
(0.4)
(0.5)
(0.6)
(0.6)
(0.5)
c
c
(0.6)
c
(0.6)
(0.5)
(0.8)
(0.9)
c
(0.6)
c

4
2
3
c
3
c
4
3
4
5
5
2
3
5
5
1
c
4
5
6

(0.4)
(0.3)
(0.3)
c
(0.3)
c
(0.4)
(0.3)
(0.5)
(0.7)
(0.7)
(0.3)
(0.4)
(0.5)
(0.4)
(0.3)
c
(0.6)
(0.5)
(0.7)

17
10
15
4
21
7
23
16
19
16
7
11
6
31
27
6
9
16
24
25

(0.8)
(0.6)
(0.6)
(0.5)
(0.7)
(0.4)
(0.7)
(0.7)
(0.8)
(1.0)
(0.7)
(0.6)
(0.4)
(1.0)
(1.1)
(0.5)
(0.7)
(0.9)
(1.0)
(1.1)

-14
-7
-12
c
-18
c
-19
-13
-15
-11
-2
-9
-4
-26
-23
-5
c
-11
-19
-19

(0.9)
(0.7)
(0.7)
c
(0.8)
c
(0.9)
(0.8)
(0.9)
(1.2)
(0.9)
(0.7)
(0.6)
(1.2)
(1.1)
(0.6)
c
(1.1)
(1.1)
(1.5)

4
6
6
8
12
11
6
16
6
8
9
2
3
4
4
10
10
3
5
8

(0.4)
(0.6)
(0.4)
(0.2)
(0.7)
(0.6)
(0.5)
(0.9)
(0.6)
(0.9)
(1.0)
(0.3)
(0.3)
(0.5)
(0.4)
(0.6)
(0.7)
(0.5)
(0.5)
(0.6)

8
18
6
16
13
9
15
19
10
11
7
7
3
4
4
18
24
5
5
7

(0.7)
(0.9)
(0.3)
(0.5)
(0.7)
(0.4)
(0.7)
(0.8)
(0.7)
(0.9)
(0.7)
(0.6)
(0.4)
(0.5)
(0.4)
(0.8)
(1.0)
(0.6)
(0.5)
(0.7)

-3
-12
0
-8
-1
2
-9
-3
-4
-3
2
-5
-1
1
0
-8
-14
-2
0
1

(0.8)
(1.0)
(0.5)
(0.5)
(0.9)
(0.7)
(1.0)
(1.1)
(0.9)
(1.3)
(1.2)
(0.7)
(0.6)
(0.7)
(0.6)
(1.0)
(1.3)
(0.8)
(0.7)
(0.9)

Flanders (Belgium)
England/N.Ireland (UK)

3
1

(0.4)
(0.2)

c
c

c
c

c
c

c
c

4
3

(0.4)
(0.4)

20
12

(1.0)
(0.8)

-16
-9

(1.0)
(0.8)

2
c

(0.3)
c

5
c

(0.6)
c

-3
c

(0.6)
c

Average

4

(0.1)

3

(0.1)

2

(0.2)

4

(0.1)

15

(0.2)

-13

(0.2)

7

(0.1)

10

(0.1)

-3

(0.2)

Russian Federation*

8

(1.3)

4

(0.7)

4

(1.0)

3

(0.8)

8

(0.4)

-5

(1.0)

5

(0.9)

12

(1.0)

-7

(1.0)

OECD

National entities

Australia
Austria
Canada
Czech Republic
Denmark
Estonia
Finland
France
Germany
Ireland
Italy
Japan
Korea
Netherlands
Norway
Poland
Slovak Republic
Spain
Sweden
United States

Partners

Sub-national entities

Note: Values that are statistically significant are indicated in bold.
* See note on data for the Russian Federation in the Methodology section.
Source: OECD. Survey of Adult Skills (PIAAC) (2012). See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/education/education-at-a-glance-19991487.htm).
Please refer to the Reader’s Guide for information concerning symbols for missing data and abbreviations.
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933285332

204 Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

Chapter

B

FINANCIAL AND
HUMAN RESOURCES
INVESTED IN EDUCATION

Indicator B1 How much is spent per student?
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933285349

Indicator B2 What proportion of national wealth is spent on education?
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933285413

Indicator B3 How much public and private investment in education is there?
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933285464

Indicator B4 What is the total public spending on education?
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933285519

Indicator B5 How much do tertiary students pay and what public support do they receive?
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933285558

Indicator B6 On what resources and services is education funding spent?
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933285627

Indicator B7 Which factors influence the level of expenditure on education?
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933285656

Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

205

Classification of educational expenditure
Educational expenditure in this chapter is 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, transport, 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 light blue), and households and other private entities (indicated by medium-blue).
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

Spending on educational institutions
(e.g. schools, universities,
educational administration
and student welfare services)
Spending on
core educational
services

Private funds publicly subsidised

Spending on education outside educational
institutions
(e.g. private purchases of educational goods
and services, including private tutoring)

e.g. public spending on instructional
services in educational institutions

e.g. subsidised private spending on books

e.g. subsidised private spending on
instructional services in educational
institutions

e.g. private spending on books and other
school materials or private tutoring

e.g. private spending on tuition fees
Spending on
research and
development

e.g. public spending on university research

Spending
on educational
services other
than instruction

e.g. public spending on ancillary services
such as meals, transport to schools, or
housing on the campus

e.g. subsidised private spending on student
living costs or reduced prices for transport

e.g. private spending on fees for ancillary
services

e.g. private spending on student living
costs or transport

e.g. funds from private industry for
research and development in educational
institutions

206 Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

Coverage diagrams
For Indicators B1, B2, B3 and B6

CHAPTER B

For Indicator B4

Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

207

HOW MUCH IS SPENT PER STUDENT?
INDICATOR B1

• On average, OECD countries spend USD 10 220 per student per year from primary through tertiary
education: USD 8 247 per primary student, USD 9 518 per secondary student, and USD 15 028 per
tertiary student.

• In primary, secondary and post-secondary non-tertiary education, 90% of total expenditure per
student is devoted to core educational services. Greater differences are seen at the tertiary level,
partly because expenditure on research and development (R&D) represents an average of 32% of
total expenditure per student.

• From 2005 to 2012, expenditure per student in primary, secondary and post-secondary non-tertiary
educational institutions increased by 21%, on average across OECD countries; but between 2008 and
2012, investment in education fell in nearly one-quarter of countries as a result of the economic crisis,
and resulted in a decrease of expenditure per student in a few countries.

Chart B1.1. Annual expenditure by educational institutions per student,
by types of service, from primary to tertiary education (2012)
In equivalent USD converted using PPPs, based on full-time equivalents,
for primary through tertiary education

In equivalent USD
converted using PPPs

R&D
Ancillary services (transport, meals, housing provided by institutions)
Core services
Total

25 000
20 000
15 000
10 000

Switzerland1
Norway
Japan
Iceland
OECD average
New Zealand
Russian Federation
Latvia
Turkey
Colombia
Indonesia

0

Luxembourg
United States
Austria
Netherlands
Belgium
United Kingdom
Ireland1
Sweden
Germany
Australia
Finland
Korea
France
Slovenia
Spain
Italy1
Poland1
Israel
Portugal1
Czech Republic
Estonia
Chile
Slovak Republic
Hungary
Brazil1
Mexico

5 000

1. Public institutions only.
Countries are ranked in descending order of expenditure per student by educational institutions for core services.
Source: OECD. Table B1.2. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/education/education-at-a-glance-19991487.htm).
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933283897

Context
The demand for high-quality education, which can translate into higher costs per student, must
be balanced against other demands on public expenditure and the overall tax burden. Policy makers
must also balance the importance of improving the quality of education services with the desirability
of expanding access to education opportunities, notably at the tertiary level. A comparative review of
trends in expenditure per student by educational institutions shows that, in many OECD countries,
expenditure has not kept up with expanding enrolments. In addition, some OECD countries emphasise
broad access to higher education, while others invest in near-universal education for children as young
as three or four. Both the extent of investment in education and the number of students enrolled can be
affected by financial crises. Consequently, the recent global economic crisis is likely to have resulted in
changes in the level of expenditure per student. However, because the crisis began in late 2008, available
data until 2012 cannot yet show the full extent of this impact.

208 Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

Expenditure per student by educational institutions is largely influenced by teachers’ salaries
(see Indicators B7 and D3), pension systems, instructional and teaching hours (see Indicator B7), the
cost of teaching materials and facilities, the programme provided (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 expenditure per student by educational institutions over time. Ancillary and R&D services
can also influence the level of expenditure per student.

INDICATOR B1

Other findings

• Among the ten countries with the highest expenditure per student by secondary educational
institutions, high teachers’ salaries and low student-teacher ratios are often the main factors
explaining the level of expenditure.

• At the primary and secondary levels there is a strong positive relationship between spending per
student by educational institutions and per capita GDP. The relationship is weaker at the tertiary
level, mainly because financing mechanisms and enrolment patterns differ more at this level.

• Excluding activities peripheral to instruction (R&D and ancillary services, such as welfare services
to students), OECD countries annually spend USD 8 561 per student from primary through
tertiary education, on average. Compared with average total expenditure, this lower amount is
mainly the result of much lower expenditure per student at the tertiary level when peripheral
activities are excluded.

• On average, OECD countries spend around two-thirds more per student at the tertiary level than at
the primary, secondary and post-secondary non-tertiary levels. However, R&D activities or ancillary
services can account for a significant proportion of expenditure at the tertiary level. When these are
excluded, expenditure per student on core educational services at the tertiary level is still, on average,
21% higher than at the primary, secondary and post-secondary non-tertiary levels.

• The orientation of secondary school programmes influences the level of expenditure per student in
most countries. Among the 23 OECD countries with separate data on expenditure for general and
vocational programmes at the upper secondary and post-secondary non-tertiary levels, an average
of USD 328 more was spent per student in a vocational programme than in a general programme
in 2012.
Trends
At primary, secondary and post-secondary non-tertiary levels, the period 2000 to 2012 was one of
relative stability in student enrolments in most countries. During that time, expenditure per student by
educational institutions increased in every country with available data, except Italy, and by an average of
43% (among countries with available data for all years). On average across OECD countries, the increase
was relatively smaller over the period 2000-05 than over the period 2005-12. The largest increases in
expenditure per student between 2005 and 2012 were seen in countries that were still among those
with the lowest expenditure per student in 2012. Since the beginning of the economic crisis in 2008,
expenditure per primary, secondary and post-secondary non-tertiary student continued to increase,
except in Estonia, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Slovenia and Spain.
At the tertiary level, spending per student increased between 2000 and 2012 in most countries, except
Brazil, Chile, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Israel and Switzerland. On average across OECD countries,
expenditure per tertiary student increased by about 4% between 2000 and 2005 and by 11% between
2005 and 2012. Since the beginning of the economic crisis in 2008, expenditure per tertiary student
decreased in more than a third of countries, mainly because enrolment increased faster than expenditure.
In Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Portugal, the Russian Federation and Spain, however, there was an
actual decrease in expenditure by tertiary educational institutions. This led to a decrease in expenditure
per student in all of these countries except Italy and the Russian Federation, where tertiary enrolment
fell even faster.

Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

209

chapter B FINANCIAL AND HUMAN RESOURCES INVESTED IN EDUCATION

Analysis
Expenditure per student by educational institutions

B1

Annual spending per student from primary through tertiary education in 2012 ranged from USD 4 000 or less
per student in Brazil, Colombia, Indonesia, Latvia, Mexico and Turkey to more than USD 10 000 per student in
Australia, Austria, Belgium, Finland, France, Germany, Iceland, Ireland, Japan, the Netherlands, Sweden and the
United Kingdom, and by over USD 15 000 in Luxembourg, Norway, Switzerland and the United States. In more than
one-quarter of countries (11 of 37 countries with available data), spending per student ranged from USD 10 000 to
less than USD 13 000 from primary through tertiary education (Chart B1.1 and Table B1.1a).
Countries have different priorities for allocating their resources (see Indicator B7). For example, among the ten
OECD countries with the largest expenditure per student by educational institutions at the lower secondary level
(Table B1.1a), Denmark, Ireland, Luxembourg, Switzerland and the United States have among the highest teachers’
salaries after 15 years of experience at the lower secondary level, and Austria, Finland, Luxembourg and Norway
have some of the lowest student-teacher ratios at that level (see Table B7.2b).
Even if spending per student from primary through tertiary education is similar among some OECD countries,
the ways in which resources are allocated to the different levels of education vary widely. Spending per student by
educational institutions in a typical OECD country (as represented by the simple mean among all OECD countries)
amounts to USD 8 247 at the primary level, USD 9 518 at the secondary level, and USD 15 028 at the tertiary level
(Table B1.1a and Chart B1.2). The average spending per tertiary student is affected by high expenditure – more
than USD 20 000 – in a few OECD countries, notably Canada, Luxembourg, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, the
United Kingdom and the United States.
These averages mask a broad range of expenditure per student by educational institutions across OECD countries,
varying by a factor of less than 8 at the primary level and by a factor of 7 at the secondary level. At the primary level,
expenditures range from USD 2 700 or less per student in Colombia, Indonesia, Mexico, South Africa and Turkey,
to more than USD 20 000 in Luxembourg. At the secondary level, expenditure ranges from USD 3 100 or less per
student in Brazil, Colombia, Indonesia, Mexico, South Africa and Turkey to more than USD 20 000 in Luxembourg
(Table B1.1a and Chart B1.2). These differences in annual expenditure per student at each level of education can
also lead to large differences in the cumulative expenditure per student over the duration of studies (see Table B1.3
and Chart B1.6, available on line, for differences in cumulative expenditure per student over the duration of primary
and secondary education).
These comparisons are based on purchasing power parities (PPPs) for GDP, not on market exchange rates. Therefore,
they reflect the amount of a national currency required to produce the same basket of goods and services in a given
country as produced by the United States in USD.
Expenditure per student on core education services
On average across OECD countries, expenditure on core education services represents 84% of total expenditure
per student from primary through tertiary education, and exceeds 90% in Ireland, Luxembourg, Mexico and
Poland. In 4 of the 20 countries for which data are available – France, Hungary, the Slovak Republic and Sweden –
core educational services account for less than 80% of expenditure per student. Annual expenditure on R&D and
ancillary services influence the ranking of countries for all services combined. However, this overall picture masks
large variations among the levels of education (Table B1.2).
At the primary, secondary and post-secondary non-tertiary levels, expenditure is dominated by spending on core
education services. On average, OECD countries for which data are available spend 90% of the total expenditure
per student (or USD 8 080) on core educational services. In 11 of the 26 countries for which data are available,
ancillary services provided by these institutions account for less than 5% of the total expenditure per student. The
proportion of total expenditure per student devoted to ancillary services exceeds 10% in Finland, France, Hungary,
Korea, the Slovak Republic and Sweden (Table B1.2).
Greater differences are seen at the tertiary level, partly because R&D expenditure can account for a significant
proportion of spending on education. The OECD countries in which most R&D is performed in tertiary educational
institutions (e.g. Portugal and Switzerland, and Sweden for publicly funded R&D) may report higher expenditure
per student on educational institutions than those in which a large proportion of R&D is performed in other public
institutions or in industry.

210 Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

How much is spent per student? – INDICATOR B1

chapter B

Chart B1.2. Annual expenditure per student by educational institutions for all services,
by level of education (2012)
Expenditure on core, ancillary services and R&D, in equivalent USD converted using PPPs,
based on full-time equivalents
Expenditure per student
(equivalent USD
converted using PPPs)

OECD average

Expenditure per student
(equivalent USD
converted using PPPs)

Secondary education

Lower secondary education

Upper secondary education

OECD average

Expenditure per student
(equivalent USD
converted using PPPs)

Tertiary education

32 876

Sweden
United Kingdom
Iceland
Belgium2
Austria
Slovenia2
Ireland1
Japan2
Finland2
Netherlands
Italy1
Germany
Australia
Korea
Spain
New Zealand
France
Israel
Poland1
Portugal1
Estonia
Slovak Republic2
Czech Republic
Chile
Hungary
Latvia
Brazil1
Colombia
Mexico
Turkey
South Africa
Indonesia

OECD average

Luxembourg1
Switzerland1
Norway2
United States2

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

All secondary education

Luxembourg1
Switzerland1
Norway2
United States
Denmark2
Sweden
United Kingdom
Iceland
Belgium2
Austria
Slovenia2
Ireland1
Japan2
Finland2
Netherlands
Italy1
Germany
Australia
Korea
Spain
New Zealand
France
Israel
Poland1
Portugal1
Estonia
Slovak Republic2
Czech Republic
Chile
Hungary
Latvia
Brazil1
Colombia
Mexico
Turkey
South Africa
Indonesia

22 000
20 000
18 000
16 000
14 000
12 000
10 000
8 000
6 000
4 000
2 000
0

Primary education

Luxembourg1
Switzerland1
Norway2
United States
Denmark2
Sweden
United Kingdom
Iceland
Belgium2
Austria
Slovenia2
Ireland1
Japan2
Finland2
Netherlands
Italy1
Germany
Australia
Korea
Spain
New Zealand
France
Israel
Poland1
Portugal1
Estonia
Slovak Republic2
Czech Republic
Chile
Hungary
Latvia
Brazil1
Colombia
Mexico
Turkey
South Africa
Indonesia

22 000
20 000
18 000
16 000
14 000
12 000
10 000
8 000
6 000
4 000
2 000
0

B1

1. Public institutions only (for Italy, except in tertiary education; for Luxembourg, at tertiary level 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 primary education.
Source: OECD. Table B1.1a. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/education/education-at-a-glance-19991487.htm).
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933283903

Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

211

chapter B FINANCIAL AND HUMAN RESOURCES INVESTED IN EDUCATION

On average across OECD countries, expenditure on R&D and ancillary services at the tertiary level represents
32% and 5%, respectively, of all expenditure per student by tertiary institutions. In 10 of the 23 OECD countries
for which data on R&D and ancillary services are available separately from total expenditure – Australia, Estonia,
Germany, Israel, Italy, Norway, Portugal, the Slovak Republic, Sweden and Switzerland – expenditure on R&D and
ancillary services represents at least 40% of total tertiary expenditure per student by educational institutions. This
can translate into significant amounts: in Australia, Germany, Norway, Sweden and Switzerland, expenditure for
R&D and ancillary services amounts to more than USD 6 000 per student. This is also the case for Canada, Finland,
the Netherlands, the United Kingdom and the United States, where expenditure for R&D and ancillary services
represent a smaller share of expenditure (Table B1.2).
Expenditure per student by educational institutions at different levels of education
Expenditure per student by educational institutions rises with the level of education in almost all countries, but
the size of the differentials varies markedly (Table B1.1a and Chart B1.3). Expenditure on secondary education
is 1.2 times greater than expenditure on primary education, on average. This ratio reaches or exceeds 1.5 in
the Czech Republic, France and the Netherlands largely because of the concurrent increase in the number of
instructional hours for students and significant decrease in the number of teachers’ teaching hours between
primary and secondary education, as compared to the OECD average. The ratio may also be greater due to large
enrolments in vocational programmes, as is observed in the Netherlands (see below). In these countries (except
the Czech Republic), teachers’ salaries are also lower in primary education compared to lower secondary education
(see Indicators B7, D1 and D4).

Chart B1.3. Expenditure per student by educational institutions for all services,
at secondary and tertiary levels of education relative to primary education (2012)
Primary education = 100
Secondary education

Index

Tertiary education

350
300
250
200
150
100

Iceland

Slovenia2

Italy1

Korea

Estonia

Poland1

Latvia

Portugal1

Norway2

Austria

Belgium2

Luxembourg1, 2

Slovak Republic2

Spain

Ireland1

Chile

Indonesia

Israel

Switzerland1, 2

OECD average

Colombia

New Zealand

Japan2

Hungary

France

Finland2

Sweden

Czech Republic

Australia

Germany

Netherlands

United States2

United Kingdom

Turkey

0

Brazil1

50
Mexico

B1

Excluding R&D activities and ancillary services (peripheral services, such as student welfare services), expenditure
on core education services in tertiary institutions is, on average across OECD countries, USD 9 782 per student.
It ranges from USD 5 000 or less in Estonia, Latvia, Portugal and the Slovak Republic to more than USD 10 000
in Austria, Canada, Finland, Ireland, the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden and the United Kingdom, and more than
USD 20 000 in the United States (Table B1.2).

Notes: A ratio of 300 for tertiary education means that expenditure per tertiary student by educational institutions is three times the expenditure
per primary student by educational institutions.
A ratio of 50 for secondary education means that expenditure per secondary student by educational institutions is half the expenditure per primary
student by educational institutions.
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 per student by educational institutions in tertiary education relative to primary education.
Source: OECD. Table B1.1a. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/education/education-at-a-glance-19991487.htm).
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933283917

212 Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

How much is spent per student? – INDICATOR B1

chapter B

Educational institutions in OECD countries spend an average of 1.8 times more per tertiary student than per
primary student, but spending patterns vary widely, mainly because education policies vary more at the tertiary
level (see Indicator B5). For example, Estonia, Iceland, Italy, Korea, Poland and Slovenia spend less than 1.5 times
more on a tertiary student than on a primary student, but Brazil, Mexico and Turkey spend three times as much,
and South Africa four times as much (Table B1.1a and Chart B1.3).
Differences in expenditure per student between general and vocational programmes
On average across the 23 OECD countries for which data are available, only USD 328 more is spent per student in
vocational than in general programmes at upper secondary and post-secondary non-tertiary education, but this
masks large differences in expenditure per student within countries. The difference is less than USD 100 in Chile
and Latvia, but exceeds USD 6 000 in three countries, with higher expenditure per student in vocational than in
general programmes in Israel, and higher expenditure per student in general than in vocational programmes in
Slovenia and Switzerland. Countries with large enrolments in dual-system apprenticeship programmes at the upper
secondary level (e.g. Austria, Finland, Germany, Luxembourg and the Netherlands) tend to have higher expenditure
per student in vocational programmes than in general programmes. The difference is USD 627 in Austria, USD 1 350
in Finland, USD 2 640 in Germany, USD 2 439 in Luxembourg and USD 3 146 in the Netherlands. Exceptions to this
pattern are Australia, Belgium, Chile, Hungary, Slovenia, Switzerland and the United Kingdom, where expenditure
per student enrolled in a general programme is higher than expenditure per student in a vocational programme. The
underestimation of the expenditure made by private enterprises on dual vocational programmes can partly explain
these differences (Table B1.6, and see Table C1.3 and Box B3.1). However, other countries with smaller proportions
of students in vocational programmes also have much higher expenditure per student in vocational than in general
programmes (for example, Israel spends USD 6 167 more per vocational than per general student, and Spain spends
USD 2 106 more) (Table B1.6).
Expenditure per student by educational institutions relative to per capita GDP
Since access to education is universal (and usually compulsory) at the lower levels of schooling in most OECD
countries, spending per student by educational institutions at those levels 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 more
difficult to interpret because student enrolments vary sharply among countries. At the tertiary level, for example,
OECD countries may rank relatively high on this measure if a large proportion of their wealth is spent on educating
a relatively small number of students.
In OECD countries, expenditure per student by educational institutions averages 22% of per capita GDP at the
primary level, 25% at the secondary level, and 40% at the tertiary level. Overall, from primary to tertiary levels of
education, expenditure per student averages 27% of per capita GDP in OECD countries (Table B1.4).
Countries with low levels of expenditure per student may nonetheless show distributions of investment relative
to per capita GDP that are similar to those of countries with a high level of spending per student. For example,
Korea and Portugal – countries with below-OECD-average expenditure per student by educational institutions at
the secondary level and below-OECD-average per capita GDP – spend more per student relative to per capita GDP
than the OECD average.
The relationship between per capita GDP and expenditure per student by educational institutions is difficult to
interpret. However, there is a clear positive relationship between the two at both the primary and secondary levels
of education – in other words, poorer countries tend to spend less per student than richer ones. Although the
relationship is generally positive at these levels, there are variations, even among countries with similar levels of per
capita GDP, and especially those in which per capita GDP exceeds USD 30 000. Ireland and Austria, for example, have
similar levels of per capita GDP (see Table X2.1 in Annex 2) but spend very different proportions of it on primary
and secondary education. In Ireland, the proportions are 19% at the primary level and 25% at the secondary level
(below or at the OECD averages of 22% and 25%, respectively), while in Austria, the proportions are 21% and 31%,
respectively, and are among the largest at the secondary level (Table B1.4 and Chart B1.7, available on line).
There is more variation in spending at the tertiary level, and the relationship between countries’ relative wealth
and their expenditure levels varies as well. Canada, Sweden, the United Kingdom and the United States spend more
than 50% of per capita GDP on each tertiary student – among the largest proportions after Brazil and South Africa
(Table B1.4 and Chart B1.7, available on line). Brazil spends the equivalent of 83% of per capita GDP on each tertiary
student; however, tertiary students represent only 5% of students enrolled in all levels of education combined
(Table B1.7, available on line).
Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

213

B1

chapter B FINANCIAL AND HUMAN RESOURCES INVESTED IN EDUCATION

Chart B1.4. Annual expenditure per student by educational institutions in 2012
related to change since 2005, by level of education
In equivalent USD converted using PPPs, based on full-time equivalents

B1
Annual expenditure
per student (2012, USD)

Primary, secondary and post-secondary non-tertiary
Average

28 000
26 000
24 000
22 000
20 000
18 000

Switzerland

16 000

Norway

14 000
12 000

R2 = 0.30

10 000

United Kingdom
France

Italy

8 000

Canada

Iceland

Ireland

Australia
Spain Slovenia

6 000
4 000

Sweden
Netherlands
Belgium

United States

Average

Poland
Japan
Finland

Israel
Estonia
Czech Republic
Portugal

Hungary

2 000

Korea

Chile

Mexico

Russian
Federation

Slovak Republic

Turkey

0
-20

-10

0

10

20

Annual expenditure
per student (2012, USD)

40

50

60

70

80

Change in expenditure per student
between 2005 and 2012 (%)

Tertiary education

28 000
Switzerland

26 000

30

24 000

United
States
Sweden

22 000

Norway

20 000

Netherlands

18 000

Finland

Australia

16 000

Japan

R2 = 0.07

France
Ireland

Belgium

14 000

Spain

12 000

Israel

Brazil
Iceland

10 000
8 000

Hungary

Portugal

Slovenia

Poland

Italy

Korea

Chile

Russian
Federation

6 000

Average

Czech Republic
Turkey

Mexico

Estonia

Slovak Republic

Average

4 000
2 000
0
-20

-10

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Change in expenditure per student
between 2005 and 2012 (%)

Notes: Average values refer to countries with available data for both 2005 and 2012. At the primary, secondary, and post-secondary non-tertiary
levels, Brazil does not appear in the chart as expenditure per student increased by more than 110% between 2005 and 2012.
Source: OECD. Tables B1.2, B1.5a and B1.5b. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/education/education-at-a-glance-19991487.htm).
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933283927

214 Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

How much is spent per student? – INDICATOR B1

chapter B

Change in expenditure per student by educational institutions between 2000 and 2012
Changes in expenditure by educational institutions largely reflect changes in the size of the school-age population
and in teachers’ salaries. These tend to rise over time in real terms: teachers’ salaries, the main component of
costs, have increased in the majority of countries during the past decade (see Indicator D3). The size of the schoolage population influences both enrolment levels and the amount of resources and organisational effort a country
must invest in its education system. The larger this population, the greater the potential demand for education
services. Change in expenditure per student over years may also vary between levels of education within countries,
as both enrolment and expenditure may follow different trends at different levels of education. At the tertiary level,
compared to other levels of education, expenditure per student decreased in more countries between 2005 and 2012
(Tables B1.5a and b, and Chart B1.4).
Expenditure per primary, secondary and post-secondary non-tertiary student by educational institutions increased
in every country except Italy, and by an average of more than 43% between 2000 and 2012, a time during which
student enrolment at these levels was relatively stable. In most countries, the increase was slightly smaller over the
period 2000-05 than over the period 2005-12, as a result of the combination of a larger increase in expenditure with
a smaller decrease in student numbers in the former than in the latter period.
Between 2005 and 2012, in 23 of the 30 countries for which data are available, expenditure per primary, secondary
and post-secondary non-tertiary student by educational institutions increased by at least 10%. The increase
exceeded 50% in Brazil, Chile, Poland, the Russian Federation, the Slovak Republic and Turkey. By contrast, in
France, Spain and the United States this expenditure increased by only 5% or less. Only Hungary, Iceland and
Italy showed a decrease in expenditure per primary, secondary and post-secondary non-tertiary student during this
period (Table B1.5a).
In Brazil, Chile, Poland, the Russian Federation, the Slovak Republic and Turkey, increases in expenditure per
student over 2005-12 are among the largest, but these countries were still among those with the lowest expenditure
per student in 2012. The correlation between the level of expenditure per student and its variation over time is
weak. For example, Chile and Hungary, with similar levels of expenditure per student in 2012, did not increase
expenditure per student in similar ways. Expenditure per student decreased in Hungary over the period as a result
of a drop in both expenditure and enrolment (with a larger decrease in expenditure than in student numbers).
In Chile, enrolments decreased as much as in Hungary, but expenditure increased significantly over the period
(Table B1.5a and Chart B1.4).
Since the beginning of the economic crisis in 2008, however, expenditure per primary, secondary and post-secondary
non-tertiary student decreased in a few countries, namely Estonia, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Slovenia and Spain. In all
these countries, this trend resulted from a decrease in expenditure (combined with a smaller decrease in enrolment
or, in Spain, with an increase in enrolment). In other countries, expenditure per student increased as in most of
them, expenditure continued to increase even as enrolments dropped (except in Australia, Ireland, Israel, Mexico,
Norway, Turkey and the United Kingdom, where enrolments increased). This demonstrates that, in most countries,
the global economic crisis had not yet affected the overall investment in education (Chart B1.5).
The pattern is different at the tertiary level. Spending per student increased between 2000 and 2012 in most
countries, except in Brazil, Chile, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Israel and Switzerland, where expenditure did not keep
up with expanding enrolments. On average across OECD countries, expenditure per tertiary student by educational
institutions increased by nearly 4% between 2000 and 2005 and by 11% between 2005 and 2012.
Between 2005 and 2012, expenditure per tertiary student increased in most countries. The increase reached 38%
in Korea and 63% in Estonia as a result of a large increase in expenditure combined with constant enrolment. By
contrast, over this period, expenditure per student decreased in a quarter of countries (7 of 28 countries with
available data), particularly in Hungary, Iceland and Switzerland (by more than 10%) and to a lesser extent in Brazil,
Portugal, Spain and the United States. In Hungary, this resulted from a larger decrease in expenditure than in
student numbers; whereas in the other countries, the decline was the result of a rapid increase in the number of
tertiary students (Table B1.5b and Chart B1.4).
Since the beginning of the economic crisis in 2008, expenditure on tertiary institutions has decreased in 7 of the
32 countries with available data: Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Portugal, the Russian Federation and Spain. This
led to a drop in expenditure per student in all of these countries except Italy and the Russian Federation, where
tertiary enrolment fell even faster. Globally, expenditure per student decreased in a third of countries between 2008
and 2012, mainly as enrolment increased faster than expenditure (Chart B1.5).
Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

215

B1

chapter B FINANCIAL AND HUMAN RESOURCES INVESTED IN EDUCATION

Chart B1.5. Changes in the number of students, expenditure on educational institutions
and expenditure per student, by level of education (2008, 2012)
Index of change between 2008 and 2012 (2008 = 100, 2012 constant prices)

B1

Change in expenditure
Change in the number of students (in full-time equivalents)
Change in expenditure per student

Slovenia

Estonia

Iceland

Spain

Italy2

Hungary1

Spain

Brazil1, 2

Iceland

2

Hungary1

United States3

Portugal2, 3

France

Mexico

Ireland2

Norway1, 3

France

Belgium

Sweden

Italy

Finland

Netherlands

OECD average

Mexico

Australia

Japan3

Ireland

United States3

Belgium

Australia

Norway1, 3

Netherlands

OECD average

Israel

Japan

3

Sweden

Finland

Slovenia

Chile

Switzerland1, 2

Korea

Poland

Russian Federation

1, 2

Czech Republic

Turkey

Switzerland2

Canada2

Russian Federation1, 2

Chile

United Kingdom

Czech Republic

Israel

Korea

Poland

Tertiary education

170

1, 2

Estonia

150
140
130
120
110
100
90
80
70

Slovak Republic3

Index of change
(2008 = 100)

Slovak Republic3

Primary, secondary and post-secondary non-tertiary education

Turkey1, 2

Portugal2, 3

150
140
130
120
110
100
90
80
70

Brazil1, 2

Index of change
(2008 = 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 descending order of change in expenditure per student by educational institutions.
Source: OECD. Tables B1.5a and B1.5b. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/education/education-at-a-glance-19991487.htm).
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933283935

Definitions
Ancillary services are services provided by educational institutions that are peripheral to the main educational
mission. The main component of ancillary services is student welfare services. In primary, secondary and
postsecondary non-tertiary education, student welfare services include meals, school health services and
transportation to and from school. At the tertiary level, they include residence halls (dormitories), dining halls and
health care.
Core educational services are directly related to instruction in educational institutions, including teachers’ salaries,
construction and maintenance of school buildings, teaching materials, books and administration of schools.
Research and development (R&D) includes research performed at universities and other tertiary educational
institutions, regardless of whether the research is financed from general institutional funds or through separate
grants or contracts from public or private sponsors.

216 Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

How much is spent per student? – INDICATOR B1

chapter B

Methodology
Data refer to the financial year 2012 and are based on the UOE data collection on education statistics administered
by the OECD in 2014 (for details see Annex 3 at www.oecd.org/education/education-at-a-glance-19991487.htm).
Tables B1.5a and b show the changes in expenditure per student by educational institutions between the financial
years 2000, 2005, 2008, 2010, 2011 and 2012. OECD countries were asked to collect 2000, 2005, 2008, 2010 and
2011 data according to the definitions and coverage of UOE 2014 data collection. All expenditure data and GDP
information for 2000, 2005, 2008, 2010 and 2011 are adjusted to 2012 prices using the GDP price deflator.
The indicator shows direct public and private expenditure by educational institutions in relation to the number of
full-time equivalent students enrolled. Public subsidies for students’ living expenses outside educational institutions
have been excluded to ensure international comparability.
Core educational 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. The classification of R&D expenditure is based on
data collected from the institutions carrying out R&D, rather than on the sources of funds.
Expenditure per student by educational institutions at a particular level of education is calculated by dividing
total expenditure by 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).
Expenditure data for students in private educational institutions are not available for certain countries, and
some other countries provide incomplete data on independent private institutions. Where this is the case, only
expenditure on public and government-dependent private institutions has been taken into account.
Expenditure per student by educational institutions relative to per capita GDP is calculated by expressing
expenditure per student by educational institutions in units of national currency as a percentage of per capita GDP,
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).
Full-time equivalent student: 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 that he/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 per full-time equivalent student by educational institutions than OECD countries that
cannot differentiate among the different types of student attendance.
Note regarding data from Israel
The statistical data for Israel are supplied by and are under the responsibility of the relevant Israeli authorities. The use of
such data by the OECD is without prejudice to the status of the Golan Heights, East Jerusalem and Israeli settlements in the
West Bank under the terms of international law.

Indicator B1 Tables
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933285349

Table B1.1a
WEB Table B1.1b
Table B1.2

Annual expenditure per student by educational institutions for all services (2012)
Annual expenditure per student by educational institutions for core services (2012)
Annual expenditure per student by educational institutions for core services, ancillary services
and R&D (2012)

…
Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

217

B1

chapter B FINANCIAL AND HUMAN RESOURCES INVESTED IN EDUCATION

WEB Table B1.3

B1

Cumulative expenditure per student by educational institutions for all services
over the theoretical duration of primary and secondary studies (2012)

Table B1.4

Annual expenditure per student by educational institutions for all services,
relative to per capita GDP (2012)

Table B1.5a

Change in expenditure per student by educational institutions for all services, relative
to different factors, at the primary, secondary and post-secondary non-tertiary levels
of education (2000, 2005, 2008, 2010, 2011, 2012)
Change in expenditure per student by tertiary education institutions for all services,
relative to different factors (2000, 2005, 2008, 2010, 2011, 2012)

Table B1.5b
Table B1.6
WEB Table B1.7

Annual expenditure per student by secondary educational institutions for all services,
by type of programme (2012)
Percentage of expenditure by educational institutions compared to the proportion of students
enrolled at each level of education (2012)

Additional material available on line only
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933285349

WEB Chart B1.6

Cumulative expenditure per student by educational institutions over the theoretical duration
of primary and secondary studies (2012)

WEB Chart B1.7

Annual expenditure per student by educational institutions relative to per capita GDP (2012)

Cut-off date for the data: 23 October 2015. Updates can be found on line at http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/eag-data-en.

218 Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

How much is spent per student? – INDICATOR B1

chapter B

Table B1.1a. Annual expenditure per student by educational institutions for all services (2012)
In equivalent USD converted using PPPs for GDP, by level of education, based on full-time equivalents

OECD

Primary
Australia
Austria
Belgium
Canada1, 2
Chile3
Czech Republic
Denmark
Estonia
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Iceland
Ireland2
Israel
Italy2
Japan
Korea
Luxembourg2, 4
Mexico
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Poland2
Portugal2
Slovak Republic
Slovenia
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland2
Turkey
United Kingdom
United States

Partners

OECD average
EU21 average
Argentina
Brazil2
China
Colombia3
India
Indonesia3
Latvia
Russian Federation
Saudi Arabia
South Africa2
G20 average

Lower
secondary

Secondary

Tertiary (including R&D activities)

Upper
secondary

Bachelor’s,
master’s,
doctoral or
equivalent
level

PostAll
secondary Short-cycle
secondary non-tertiary
tertiary

All
tertiary

Primary
to tertiary
All tertiary (including R&D
activities and
excluding
undistributed
R&D
programmes)
activities

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7)

(8)

(9)

(10)

7 705

10 574

9 581

10 165

6 379

8 267

18 795

16 859

10 455

10 347

9 563

13 632

14 013

13 806

5 212

15 071

15 641

15 549

11 616

13 189

9 581

11 670

12 210d

12 025d

x(3)

8 212

15 785

15 503

10 156

12 135

9 680d

x(1)

11 695

m

m

15 348

25 525

22 006

15 788

m

4 476

4 312

3 706

3 909

a

4 186

9 409

7 960

7 600

5 235
7 684

4 728

7 902

7 119

7 469

2 445

16 645

10 304

10 319

6 807

10 953

11 460

9 959

10 632

a

m

m

m

m

m

5 668

6 524

7 013

6 791

7 478

a

8 206

8 206

4 690

6 878

8 316

12 909

8 599d

9 985d

x(3)

a

17 863

17 863

10 728

11 030

7 013

9 588

13 070

11 046

m

12 346

16 279

15 281

10 361

10 450

7 749

9 521

12 599

10 650

10 041

8 265

17 159

17 157

10 025

11 363

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

4 370

4 459

4 386

4 419

3 698

2 897

9 658

8 876

7 405

5 564

10 003

10 706

7 541

8 724

11 140

9 665

9 373

9 377

m

10 287

8 681

11 087

11 564

11 298

12 856

x(8)

x(8)

14 922

11 418

10 740
7 903

6 931

x(4)

x(4)

5 689

2 326

6 366

13 777

12 338

7 710

7 924

8 905

8 684

8 774

m

m

10 071

10 071

6 369

8 744

8 595

9 976

10 360d

10 170d

x(3, 6, 7)

10 532d

18 557d

16 872d

m

11 671

7 395

7 008

9 651

8 355

m

5 540

11 173

9 866

8 026

9 569

20 020

20 247

20 962

20 617

1 257

3 749

34 739

32 876

21 358

22 545

2 632

2 367

4 160

3 007

a

x(8)

x(8)

8 115

6 647

3 509

8 185

12 227

12 368

12 296

11 554

11 580

19 305

19 276

12 505

12 211

7 069

8 644

10 262

9 409

9 542

10 289

14 543

13 740

10 841

9 443

12 728

13 373

15 248d

14 450d

x(3)

x(3)

20 016

20 016

12 010

15 497

6 721

6 682

6 419

6 540

m

8 229

9 811

9 799

7 692

7 398

6 105

8 524

8 888d

8 691d

x(3, 7)

a

9 196d

9 196d

4 917

7 952

5 415

5 283

5 027d

5 152d

x(3)

x(3)

9 022

9 022

6 191

6 072

9 015

9 802

6 898d

8 022d

x(3)

6 874

11 615

11 002

8 888

9 031

7 111

9 137

9 145d

9 141d

x(3)

9 394

13 040

12 356

8 983

9 040

10 312

10 966

11 329

11 177

3 610

5 897

24 025

22 534

10 589

12 742

13 889

16 370

17 024d

16 731d

x(3)

x(8)

x(8)

25 264

11 632

17 485

2 577

2 448

3 524

2 904

a

x(8)

x(8)

7 779

5 557

3 514

10 017

10 271

9 963

10 085

a

x(8)

x(8)

24 338

18 593

12 084

11 030

11 856

13 059

12 442

x(8)

x(8)

x(8)

26 562d

23 706

15 494

8 247

9 627

9 876

9 518

6 734

8 968

15 111

15 028

10 309

10 220

8 372

10 040

10 011

9 931

6 461

9 097

14 807

14 955

9 963

10 361

m

m

m

m

a

m

m

m

m

m

3 095

2 981

3 078

3 020

a

x(8)

x(8)

10 455

9 595

3 441

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

2 645

2 651

2 742d

2 677d

x(3)

x(8)

x(8)

5 183

m

3 291

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

1 180

915

1 067

981

a

x(8)

x(8)

2 089

m

1 397

3 489

3 515

3 685

3 610

4 153

5 091

5 290

5 262

4 303

3 983

x(4)

x(4)

x(4)

5 345d

x(4)

5 183

9 115

8 363

7 641

6 190

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

2 431

x(4)

x(4)

2 440

5 188

x(8)

x(8)

10 885

m

3 633

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

Note: Data on early childhood education is available in Indicator C2.
1. Year of reference 2011.
2. Public institutions only (for Canada and Luxembourg, in tertiary education only; for Italy, except in tertiary education).
3. Year of reference 2013.
4. Pre-primary and primary education include reimbursements from local authorities for previous years.
Source: OECD. Argentina, China, Colombia, India, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia, South Africa: UNESCO Institute for Statistics. Latvia: Eurostat. See Annex 3 for notes
(www.oecd.org/education/education-at-a-glance-19991487.htm).
Please refer to the Reader’s Guide for information concerning symbols for missing data and abbreviations.
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933285351

Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

219

B1

chapter B FINANCIAL AND HUMAN RESOURCES INVESTED IN EDUCATION

Table B1.2. Annual expenditure per student by educational institutions for core services,

ancillary services and R&D (2012)

In equivalent USD converted using PPPs for GDP, by level of education and type of service, based on full-time equivalents

B1

Primary, secondary and
post-secondary non-tertiary

Partners

OECD

Ancillary
services
(transport,
meals,
housing
Educational provided by
core services institutions)

Primary to tertiary
(including undistributed programmes)

Tertiary

Total

Ancillary
services
(transport,
meals,
housing
Educational provided by
core services institutions)

Ancillary
services
(transport,
meals,
housing
Educational provided by
core services institutions)

R&D

Total

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7)

(8)

(9)

R&D
(10)

Total
(11)

8 651
11 563

139
601

8 790
12 164

9 956
11 533

499
84

6 403
3 932

16 859
15 549

8 903
11 554

209
445

1 235
1 191

10 347
13 189

Australia
Austria
Belgium
Canada1, 2, 3
Chile4
Czech Republic
Denmark
Estonia
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Iceland
Ireland3
Israel
Italy3, 5
Japan1
Korea
Luxembourg3
Mexico
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway1
Poland3
Portugal1, 3
Slovak Republic1
Slovenia
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland3
Turkey
United Kingdom
United States1

10 712

295

11 007

9 799

356

5 347

15 503

10 830

307

998

12 135

9 723
3 879
6 015
10 780
6 315
8 365
8 039
9 583
m
3 898
x(3)
9 893
5 970
8 030
x(3)
7 093
18 810
2 801
10 464
x(3)
x(3)
6 585
6 759
4 439
7 860
7 616
9 513
x(3)
2 688
9 434
10 769

503
304
404
a
18
988
1 298
261
m
474
x(3)
m
356
420
x(3)
841
1 342
m
0
x(3)
x(3)
178
685
792
598
537
1 138
x(3)
97
605
963

10 226
4 183
6 419
10 780
6 334
9 353
9 338
9 843
m
4 371
9 333
9 893
6 325
8 450
9 408
7 934
20 153
2 801
10 464
8 445
13 611
6 764
7 444
5 231
8 457
8 152
10 652
15 512
2 784
10 056
11 732

14 652
7 600d
6 734
m
4 284
10 728
9 502
9 179
m
5 651
x(7)
11 418
6 418
6 022
x(7)
7 943
20 623
6 647
12 505
x(7)
11 824
7 433
4 561
4 412
8 692
8 435
10 589
11 632d
7 779
16 692
20 423

1 136
x(4)
74
a
406
0
859
846
m
1 754
x(7)
m
1 292
347
x(7)
83
x(4)
m
0
x(7)
186
259
357
1 778
196
548
0
x(4)
x(7)
1 900
3 282

6 218
360
3 512
m
3 517
7 136
4 920
7 132
m
1 471
x(7)
3 504
4 628
3 701
x(7)
1 840
11 519
1 468
6 771
2 900
8 006
2 107
4 278
2 832
2 114
3 372
11 946
13 632
2 221
5 746
2 856

22 006
7 960
10 319
m
8 206
17 863
15 281
17 157
m
8 876
9 377
14 922
12 338
10 071
16 872
9 866
32 876
8 115
19 276
13 740
20 016
9 799
9 196
9 022
11 002
12 356
22 534
25 264
7 779
24 338
26 562

m
5 134d
6 499
m
5 775
8 831
8 313
9 695
m
4 180
x(11)
10 150
6 629
7 566
x(11)
8 359
20 311
3 354
10 868
x(11)
x(11)
6 763
6 511
4 579
8 049
7 789
9 703
x(11)
x(11)
10 465
13 218

m
x(8)
323
a
126
793
1 216
367
m
1 103
x(11)
m
511
402
x(11)
604
1 396
m
0
x(11)
x(11)
195
622
975
507
539
938
x(11)
x(11)
789
1 551

m
100
862
m
977
1 406
921
1 301
m
281
x(11)
590
763
775
x(11)
606
838
155
1 342
547
1 493
440
819
519
475
712
2 101
x(11)
x(11)
830
725

m
5 235
7 684
m
6 878
11 030
10 450
11 363
m
5 564
10 287
10 740
7 903
8 744
11 671
9 569
22 545
3 509
12 211
9 443
15 497
7 398
7 952
6 072
9 031
9 040
12 742
17 485
3 514
12 084
15 494

OECD average
EU21 average

8 080
8 734

554
591

8 982
9 266

9 782
9 410

706
574

4 846
4 992

15 028
14 955

8 561
8 865

633
614

852
915

10 220
10 361

Argentina
Brazil3
China
Colombia4
India
Indonesia4
Latvia
Russian Federation
Saudi Arabia
South Africa3

m
x(3)
m
x(3)
m
x(3)
x(3)
x(3)
m
x(3)

m
x(3)
m
x(3)
m
x(3)
x(3)
x(3)
m
x(3)

m
3 049
m
2 661
m
1 096
3 560
5 345
m
2 494

m
9 595d
m
x(7)
m
x(7)
4 303d
x(7)
m
x(7)

m
x(4)
m
x(7)
m
x(7)
x(4)
x(7)
m
x(7)

m
860
m
x(7)
m
x(7)
959
721
m
x(7)

m
10 455
m
5 183
m
2 089
5 262
8 363
m
10 885

m
3 396d
m
x(11)
m
x(11)
x(11)
x(11)
m
x(11)

m
x(8)
m
x(11)
m
x(11)
x(11)
x(11)
m
x(11)

m
46
m
x(11)
m
x(11)
238
202
m
x(11)

m
3 441
m
3 291
m
1 397
3 983
6 190
m
3 633

G20 average

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

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 2011.
3. Public institutions only (for Canada and Luxembourg, in tertiary education only; for Italy, except in tertiary education).
4. Year of reference 2013.
5. Excludes post-secondary non-tertiary education and short-cycle tertiary programmes.
Source: OECD. Argentina, China, Colombia, India, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia, South Africa: UNESCO Institute for Statistics. Latvia: Eurostat. See Annex 3 for notes
(www.oecd.org/education/education-at-a-glance-19991487.htm).
Please refer to the Reader’s Guide for information concerning symbols for missing data and abbreviations.
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933285363

220 Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

How much is spent per student? – INDICATOR B1

chapter B

Table B1.4. Annual expenditure per student by educational institutions for all services,

relative to per capita GDP (2012)

Partners

OECD

In percentage of GDP per capita, by level of education, based on full-time equivalents

Australia
Austria
Belgium
Canada1, 2
Chile3
Czech Republic
Denmark
Estonia
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Iceland
Ireland2
Israel
Italy2
Japan
Korea
Luxembourg
Mexico
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Poland2
Portugal2
Slovak Republic
Slovenia
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland2
Turkey
United Kingdom

Secondary

Tertiary (including R&D activities)
Bachelor’s,
master’s,
doctoral or
equivalent
level

Primary

Lower
secondary

Upper
secondary

PostAll
secondary Short-cycle
secondary non-tertiary tertiary

All
tertiary

All tertiary
excluding
R&D
activities

Primary
to tertiary
(including R&D
activities and
undistributed
programmes)

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7)

(8)

(9)

(10)

18

25

22

24

15

19

44

39

24

24

21

30

31

31

12

34

35

35

26

29

23

28

29d

29d

x(3)

20

38

37

24

29

23d

x(1)

27

m

m

36

60

52

37

m

21

20

17

18

a

20

44

37

36

25

16

28

25

26

9

58

36

36

24

27

25

26

23

24

a

m

m

m

m

m

23

26

28

28

30

a

33

33

19

28

21

32

21d

25d

x(3)

a

44

44

27

27

19

26

35

30

0

33

44

41

28

28

18

22

29

25

23

19

40

40

23

27

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

19

20

20

20

16

13

43

39

33

25

25

26

19

22

28

24

23

23

m

25

19

25

26

25

28

x(8)

x(8)

33

25

24

22

x(4)

x(4)

18

7

20

44

39

25

25

22

25

25

25

m

m

29

29

18

25

24

28

29d

28d

x(3, 6, 7)

30d

52d

47d

m

33

23

22

30

26

m

17

35

31

25

30

22

22

23

22

1

4

38

36

23

25

16

14

25

18

a

x(8)

x(8)

48

40

21

18

27

27

27

25

25

42

42

27

27

22

27

32

29

30

32

45

43

34

29

25

26

30d

28d

x(3)

x(3)

39

39

23

30

29

29

28

29

m

36

43

43

34

32

22

31

33d

32d

x(3, 7)

a

34d

34d

18

29

21

21

20d

20d

x(3)

x(3)

35

35

24

24

32

34

24d

28d

x(3)

24

41

39

31

32

22

28

28d

28d

x(3)

29

40

38

27

28

24

25

26

25

8

13

55

51

24

29

25

29

31d

30d

x(3)

x(8)

x(8)

45

21

31

14

14

20

16

a

x(8)

x(8)

43

m

20
33

27

28

27

27

a

x(8)

x(8)

65

50

United States

22

24

26

25

x(8)

x(8)

x(8)

53d

48

31

OECD average

22

25

26

25

17

25

41

40

28

27

EU21 average

22

27

26

26

15

26

39

39

27

28

Argentina

m

m

m

m

a

m

m

m

m

m

Brazil2

25

24

24

24

a

x(8)

x(8)

83

76

27

China

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

Colombia3

22

22

23d

22d

x(3)

x(8)

x(8)

43

m

27

India

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

Indonesia3

12

9

11

10

a

x(8)

x(8)

21

m

14

Latvia

23

23

25

24

28

34

35

35

29

27

Russian Federation

x(4)

x(4)

x(4)

22d

x(4)

22

38

35

32

26

Saudi Arabia

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

South Africa2

19

x(4)

x(4)

19

41

x(8)

x(8)

87

m

29

G20 average

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

1. Year of reference 2011.
2. Public institutions only (for Canada and Luxembourg, in tertiary education only; for Italy, except in tertiary education).
3. Year of reference 2013.
Sources: OECD. Argentina, China, Colombia, India, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia, South Africa: UNESCO Institute for Statistics. Latvia: Eurostat. See Annex 3 for notes
(www.oecd.org/education/education-at-a-glance-19991487.htm).
Please refer to the Reader’s Guide for information concerning symbols for missing data and abbreviations.
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933285378

Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

221

B1

chapter B FINANCIAL AND HUMAN RESOURCES INVESTED IN EDUCATION

Table B1.5a. Change in expenditure per student by educational institutions for all services, relative
to different factors, at the primary, secondary and post-secondary non-tertiary levels of education
(2000, 2005, 2008, 2010, 2011, 2012)

B1

Index of change (GDP deflator 2005 = 100, constant prices )
Primary, secondary and post-secondary non-tertiary

Partners

OECD

Change in expenditure
(2005 = 100)

Change in the number of students
(2005 = 100)

Change in expenditure per student
(2005 = 100)

2000

2008

2010

2011

2012

2000

2008

2010

2011

2012

2000

2008

2010

2011

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7)

(8)

(9)

(10)

(11)

(12)

(13)

(14)

(15)

Australia
Austria
Belgium
Canada1, 2, 4
Chile3
Czech Republic
Denmark
Estonia
Finland
France
Germany
Greece1
Hungary5
Iceland
Ireland4
Israel
Italy4, 6
Japan1
Korea
Luxembourg4, 5
Mexico
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway1, 5
Poland
Portugal1, 4
Slovak Republic1
Slovenia
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland4
Turkey4, 5
United Kingdom
United States1

83
m
m
84
96
77
86
m
83
99
m
77
68
73
69
99
96
99
69
m
80
82
m
87
90
100
74
m
92
88
87
71
m
86

110
m
113
105
129
106
99
124
107
103
m
m
96
108
131
120
104
102
115
m
103
106
m
107
114
95
115
104
115
103
103
121
99
111

133
m
112
117
126
110
108
109
112
106
m
m
85
96
140
130
97
105
126
105
111
114
m
113
122
108
135
103
119
102
107
147
106
109

130
m
113
118
147
113
100
104
113
105
m
m
79
99
138
144
93
105
127
101
116
113
m
112
120
101
125
101
116
102
109
149
109
107

130
m
115
115
140
114
81
105
112
104
m
m
75
98
139
154
90
106
125
96
119
113
m
112
125
123
125
98
110
103
110
165
112
104

93
m
91
99
99
107
95
121
95
102
m
101
104
94
97
94
99
109
102
m
95
97
m
95
110
111
108
m
107
98
100
92
113
98

100
m
96
100
96
93
m
90
101
100
m
m
96
101
104
104
100
97
98
m
103
101
m
102
88
100
90
93
102
97
100
102
99
106

101
m
95
98
93
89
105
85
100
100
m
m
94
101
108
108
100
96
93
m
105
102
m
102
83
99
84
90
105
91
98
106
100
100

103
m
96
97
91
87
111
83
99
100
m
m
92
101
109
111
101
95
90
m
106
102
m
102
80
97
82
90
107
91
97
105
102
100

106
m
96
96
90
85
m
81
98
101
m
m
91
100
109
112
99
94
86
m
107
101
m
104
77
97
79
89
107
91
97
107
104
99

89
m
m
84
97
72
90
m
87
98
m
77
66
77
71
106
98
90
67
m
85
85
m
92
82
90
68
m
86
90
86
77
m
88

110
m
117
106
134
114
m
138
107
103
m
m
100
106
126
115
104
105
118
m
100
105
m
105
129
96
128
112
113
107
102
119
100
105

131
m
117
119
135
124
103
129
112
106
m
m
90
95
129
120
97
109
135
m
106
112
m
111
147
109
159
114
113
112
109
138
106
110

126
m
118
121
162
130
90
125
114
105
m
m
86
98
127
130
92
110
142
m
109
111
m
109
149
104
154
113
109
113
112
141
107
107

123
m
119
119
156
134
m
130
114
103
m
m
83
98
127
138
90
113
145
m
111
112
m
108
162
126
159
109
103
113
114
155
108
105

OECD average
EU21 average

84
84

109
108

114
111

114
108

114
108

101
103

99
97

98
96

97
96

97
94

85
83

112
112

117
117

118
115

121
118

Argentina
Brazil4, 5
China
Colombia
India
Indonesia
Latvia
Russian Federation4, 5

m
66
m
m
m
m
m

m
146
m
m
m
m
m

m
170
m
m
m
m
m

m
175
m
m
m
m
m

m
182
m
m
m
m
m

m
98
m
m
m
m
m

m
96
m
m
m
m
m

m
91
m
m
m
m
m

m
89
m
m
m
m
m

m
87
m
m
m
m
m

m
67
m
m
m
m
m

m
210
m
m
m
m
m

132

126

129

151

m

88

87

88

88

m

m
187
m
m
m
m
m
144

m
197
m
m
m
m
m

66

m
152
m
m
m
m
m
150

147

172

Saudi Arabia

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

South Africa

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

G20 average

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

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 2011 instead of 2012. Year of reference 2004 instead of 2005.
3. Year of reference 2013 instead of 2012. Year of reference 2006 instead of 2005.
4. Public institutions only.
5. Public expenditure only.
6. Excluding post-secondary non-tertiary education.
Source: OECD. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/education/education-at-a-glance-19991487.htm).
Please refer to the Reader’s Guide for information concerning symbols for missing data and abbreviations.
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933285381

222 Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

2012

How much is spent per student? – INDICATOR B1

chapter B

Table B1.5b. Change in expenditure per student by tertiary educational institutions for all services,

relative to different factors (2000, 2005, 2008, 2010, 2011, 2012)
Index of change (GDP deflator 2005 = 100, constant prices)

B1

Tertiary

Partners

OECD

Change in expenditure
(2005 = 100)

Change in the number of students
(2005 = 100)

Change in expenditure per student
(2005 = 100)

2000

2008

2010

2011

2012

2000

2008

2010

2011

2012

2000

2008

2010

2011

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7)

(8)

(9)

(10)

(11)

(12)

(13)

(14)

2012
(15)

Australia
Austria
Belgium
Canada1, 2
Chile3
Czech Republic
Denmark4
Estonia
Finland
France
Germany
Greece1
Hungary4
Iceland
Ireland5
Israel
Italy
Japan1
Korea
Luxembourg
Mexico
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway1, 4
Poland
Portugal1, 5
Slovak Republic1
Slovenia
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland4, 5
Turkey4, 5
United Kingdom
United States1

84
m
m
84
84
65
87
m
88
93
m
42
81
70
102
83
93
94
79
m
74
85
m
83
58
71
67
m
87
87
76
77
m
78

111
m
111
109
128
132
98
126
108
113
m
m
106
116
134
99
113
109
127
m
114
109
m
102
111
106
123
103
119
105
91
114
m
112

126
m
119
117
170
139
106
136
116
118
m
m
96
104
136
107
112
110
137
m
129
119
m
105
119
113
128
108
127
117
102
144
m
117

129
m
121
117
184
164
108
157
120
119
m
m
112
101
132
119
113
115
144
m
125
123
m
106
107
106
141
112
124
119
107
167
m
120

133
m
124
113
187
172
m
158
118
119
m
m
79
107
125
117
107
114
142
m
135
125
m
108
113
103
152
103
117
121
111
193
m
125

m
m
94
m
73
72
98
85
95
95
m
68
64
68
85
80
90
99
93
m
83
85
m
88
60
90
71
m
107
82
76
72
93
89

108
m
103
m
133
118
100
99
98
99
m
m
100
110
101
101
100
98
103
m
110
110
m
99
99
101
124
102
105
94
116
113
101
106

125
m
112
m
161
132
108
100
99
102
m
m
88
117
109
108
98
96
102
m
120
119
m
106
95
107
124
104
111
103
129
134
105
123

129
m
116
m
166
133
101
101
100
103
m
m
94
121
109
112
97
97
103
m
126
122
m
109
93
110
121
102
114
106
137
153
110
126

133
m
119
m
178
130
m
97
100
104
m
m
93
120
114
114
94
96
103
m
133
123
m
104
88
108
117
95
117
102
128
159
105
130

m
m
m
m
115
90
88
m
92
98
m
62
126
103
120
103
104
95
84
m
89
99
m
95
97
79
94
m
81
105
101
107
m
88

103
m
107
m
97
112
98
127
110
115
m
m
106
106
133
98
113
112
124
m
104
100
m
102
112
105
99
101
113
112
79
101
m
105

101
m
106
m
106
106
98
135
117
116
m
m
109
89
125
99
114
114
135
m
107
100
m
100
124
106
103
104
114
113
79
108
m
95

100
m
105
m
111
123
107
156
121
116
m
m
119
84
120
106
117
119
140
m
99
101
m
97
115
97
117
110
108
112
78
110
m
96

100
m
104
m
105
133
m
163
118
114
m
m
85
90
110
102
114
119
138
m
101
102
m
105
128
95
130
109
99
119
87
122
m
96

OECD average
EU21 average

80
79

113
114

121
119

126
124

127
122

84
84

105
103

112
107

115
108

115
107

97
95

107
110

108
112

110
115

111
115

Argentina
Brazil4, 5
China
Colombia
India
Indonesia
Latvia
Russian Federation4, 5

m
79
m
m
m
m
m

m
119
m
m
m
m
m

m
148
m
m
m
m
m

m
155
m
m
m
m
m

m
149
m
m
m
m
m

m
70
m
m
m
m
m

m
110
m
m
m
m
m

m
125
m
m
m
m
m

m
150
m
m
m
m
m

m
160
m
m
m
m
m

m
112
m
m
m
m
m

m
93
m
m
m
m
m

147

145

136

142

m

175

156

149

142

m

m
119
m
m
m
m
m
93

m
104
m
m
m
m
m

44

m
108
m
m
m
m
m
84

91

100

Saudi Arabia

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

South Africa

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

G20 average

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

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 2011 instead of 2012. Year of reference 2004 instead of 2005.
3. Year of reference 2013 instead of 2012. Year of reference 2006 instead of 2005.
4. Public expenditure only.
5. Public institutions only.
Source: OECD. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/education/education-at-a-glance-19991487.htm).
Please refer to the Reader’s Guide for information concerning symbols for missing data and abbreviations.
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933285399

Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

223

chapter B FINANCIAL AND HUMAN RESOURCES INVESTED IN EDUCATION

Table B1.6. Annual expenditure per student by secondary educational institutions for all services,

by type of programme (2012)

In equivalent USD converted using PPPs for GDP, by level of education, based on full-time equivalents

B1

Lower secondary

OECD

General
programmes

Upper secondary and post-secondary non-tertiary
All
programmes

General
programmes

Vocational
programmes

All
programmes

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

Australia

11 010

6 382

10 574

11 272

6 378

9 076

Austria

13 632

a

13 632

13 018

13 645

13 416

x(3)

x(3)

11 670

12 958

11 720

12 210

Belgium1
Canada1, 2, 3

m

m

m

x(6)

x(6)

11 695

Chile4

4 312

a

4 312

4 264

4 199

4 244

Czech Republic

7 906

6 991

7 902

5 958

7 392

7 012

Denmark

11 460

a

11 460

x(6)

x(6)

9 959

Estonia

6 592

a

6 524

6 800

7 436

7 101

Finland1

12 909

a

12 909

7 628

8 978

8 599

France

9 588

a

9 588

x(6)

x(6)

12 962

Germany

9 521

a

9 521

10 433

13 073

12 009

m

m

m

m

m

m

Hungary

4 471

2 490

4 459

4 346

4 245

4 310

Iceland

10 706

a

10 706

6 484

10 174

7 648

Ireland5

x(3)

x(3)

11 087

x(6)

x(6)

12 098

Greece

Israel

x(4)

x(5)

x(6)

4 525d

10 692d

5 630d

Italy3, 5

8 877

13 297

8 905

x(6)

x(6)

8 684

Japan1

9 976

a

9 976

x(6)

x(6)

10 360

Korea

7 008

a

7 008

x(6)

x(6)

9 651

Luxembourg

20 247

a

20 247

18 791

21 230

20 265

Mexico

2 882

424

2 367

3 751

4 788

4 160

Netherlands

10 804

16 002

12 227

10 211

13 357

12 366

New Zealand

8 644

a

8 644

9 987

10 501

10 169

Norway1

13 373

a

13 373

x(6)

x(6)

15 248

Poland5

6 682

x(5)

6 682

6 005

7 580d

6 899

x(3)

x(3)

8 524

x(6)

x(6)

8 888

Slovak Republic1

5 283

a

5 283

3 920

5 552

5 027

Slovenia

9 802

a

9 802

10 838

4 615

6 898

Spain

8 987

x(3)

9 137

8 460

10 567

9 145

Sweden

x(3)

x(3)

10 966

9 219

12 625

10 944

Switzerland5

16 370

a

16 370

15 843

8 494

17 024

Turkey

2 448

a

2 448

3 380

3 676

3 524

United Kingdom1

10 722

6 076

10 271

11 951

6 665

9 963

United States3

11 856

a

11 856

x(6)

x(6)

13 059

OECD average
EU21 average

9 484

7 380

9 627

8 698

9 025

9 704

9 843

8 971

10 040

9 369

9 912

9 938

Portugal1, 5

Partners

Vocational
programmes

Argentina
Brazil5
China
Colombia4
India
Indonesia4
Latvia
Russian Federation1
Saudi Arabia
South Africa5
G20 average

m

m

m

m

m

m

x(3)

x(3)

2 981

x(6)

x(6)

3 078

m

m

m

m

m

m

2 651

a

2 651

x(6)

x(6)

2 742

m

m

m

m

m

m

915

a

915

1 449

579

1 067

3 514

3 655

3 515

3 696

3 717

3 705

x(4)

x(5)

x(6)

5 445d

4 481d

5 345d

m

m

m

m

m

m

x(6)

x(6)

x(6)

x(6)

x(6)

4 343d

m

m

m

m

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 2011.
3. Excludes post-secondary non-tertiary education.
4. Year of reference 2013.
5. Public institutions only.
Source: OECD. Argentina, China, Colombia, India, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia, South Africa: UNESCO Institute for Statistics. Latvia: Eurostat. See Annex 3 for notes
(www.oecd.org/education/education-at-a-glance-19991487.htm).
Please refer to the Reader’s Guide for information concerning symbols for missing data and abbreviations.
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933285401

224 Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

WHAT PROPORTION OF NATIONAL WEALTH IS SPENT
ON EDUCATION?
INDICATOR B2

• In 2012, OECD countries spent an average of 5.3% of their GDP on educational institutions from
primary to tertiary education; 11 countries with available data (Canada, Chile, Colombia, Iceland,
Israel, Korea, New Zealand, Norway, South Africa, the United Kingdom and the United States)
spent 6% or more.

• Between 2000 and 2012, expenditure on primary to tertiary education increased at a faster rate
than GDP growth in more than two out of three countries for which data are available. In the other
countries, the share of GDP devoted to education decreased by less than 0.5 percentage point.

• Since the beginning of the economic crisis in 2008 and up to 2010, GDP decreased, in real terms, in
20 of 36 countries with available data, while public expenditure on educational institutions fell in
only six countries. As a result, public expenditure as a percentage of GDP decreased in five countries
during this period. Still, GDP rose, in real terms, in most countries between 2010 and 2012, and
public expenditure on educational institutions fell in more than one out of three OECD countries
as a result of fiscal-consolidation policies.

Chart B2.1. Expenditure on primary to tertiary education institutions
as a percentage of GDP (2012)
From public and private sources, including undistributed programmes
% of GDP

Public expenditure

7

Private expenditure
OECD average (total expenditure)

6
5
4
3
2
0

New Zealand
Colombia
Korea
Norway1
Israel
United States
Iceland
United Kingdom
Chile
Canada
South Africa1
Portugal
Belgium
Finland
Ireland
Australia
Brazil1
Netherlands
Mexico
Sweden
France
Japan
Slovenia
Estonia
Austria
Switzerland1
Poland
Germany
Turkey
Czech Republic
Spain
Latvia
Hungary
Russian Federation
Italy
Slovak Republic
Luxembourg
Indonesia

1

1. Public expenditure only (for Switzerland, in tertiary education only; for Norway, in primary, secondary and post-secondary
non-tertiary education only).
Countries are ranked in descending order of expenditure from both public and private sources on educational institutions.
Source: OECD. Table B2.3. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/education/education-at-a-glance-19991487.htm).
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933283940

Context
Countries invest in educational institutions to help foster economic growth, enhance productivity,
contribute to personal and social development, and reduce social inequality, among other reasons.
The proportion of education expenditure relative to GDP depends on the different preferences of
various public and private actors. Nevertheless, expenditure on education largely comes from public
budgets and is closely scrutinised by governments. During economic downturns, even core sectors
like education can be subject to budget cuts.
The level of expenditure on educational institutions is affected by the size of a country’s school-age
population, enrolment rates, level of teachers’ salaries, and the organisation and delivery of
instruction. At the primary and lower secondary levels of education (corresponding broadly to the
5-14 year-old population), enrolment rates are close to 100% in OECD countries, and changes in the
number of students are closely related to demographic changes. This is not as much the case in upper
secondary and tertiary education, because part of the concerned population has left the education
system (see Indicator C1).

226 Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

This indicator presents a measure of expenditure on educational institutions relative to a nation’s
wealth. National wealth is estimated based on GDP, and expenditure on education includes spending
by governments, enterprises and individual students and their families.

INDICATOR B2

Other findings

• Primary, secondary and post-secondary non-tertiary education accounts for two-thirds of
expenditure on primary to tertiary educational institutions, or 3.7% of GDP, on average across
OECD countries. New Zealand spends the most among OECD and partner countries, with 5.0% of
its GDP devoted to these levels of education, while the Czech Republic, Hungary, Indonesia, Japan,
Latvia, the Russian Federation and the Slovak Republic spend less than 3% of their GDP on these
levels of education.

• Tertiary education accounts for more than one-quarter of expenditure on educational institutions,
or 1.5% of GDP, on average across OECD countries. Canada, Chile, Korea and the United States
spend between 2.3% and 2.8% of their GDP on tertiary institutions.

• Private expenditure on educational institutions as a percentage of GDP is highest at the tertiary
level, on average across OECD countries. This share is highest in Chile, Korea and the United States,
where it ranges from 1.4% to 1.5% of GDP.
Trends
Between 2008 and 2010, public investment in primary to tertiary education increased by an average
of 5% among OECD countries. However, the growth of public expenditure on educational institutions
slowed afterwards, and remained stable between 2010 and 2012, on average across OECD countries.
Between 2008 and 2012, the average annual growth rate across OECD countries decreased
continuously, from 3% in 2008-09 to 0% in 2011-12.
Over the period 2008-10, Estonia, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, the Russian Federation and the United States
cut (in real terms) public expenditure on educational institutions, from about 1% in the United States
to 11% in Hungary and Iceland. Over the period 2010-12, public expenditure continued to decrease in
four of these six countries (the exceptions were Iceland and the Russian Federation) and also decreased
in seven other countries. Among these 11 countries, the decrease during this period reached 5% or
more in Hungary, Italy, Portugal, Slovenia and Spain.

Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

227

chapter B FINANCIAL AND HUMAN RESOURCES INVESTED IN EDUCATION

Analysis

In 2012, expenditure on primary to tertiary educational institutions relative to GDP reached 6% or more in
11 countries with available data, and exceeded 6.7% in Colombia, Korea and New Zealand. At the other end of the
spectrum, Indonesia, Italy, Luxembourg, the Russian Federation and the Slovak Republic spent less than 4% of
their GDP on education (Chart B2.1 and Table B2.1).

Chart B2.2. Expenditure on educational institutions as a percentage of GDP (2012)
From public and private sources, by level of education and source of funds
Public expenditure on educational institutions
Private expenditure on educational institutions
% of GDP

OECD average (total expenditure)

% of GDP

Tertiary education

OECD average (total expenditure)

Iceland
Norway1, 2
Brazil1
Colombia
United Kingdom
Portugal2
Israel
Ireland
Belgium
Australia
Finland
Mexico
Switzerland1
France
Netherlands
Sweden
Slovenia
Korea
United States2
Chile
Canada
Poland
Luxembourg
Estonia
Germany
Austria
Spain
Turkey
Italy
Japan2
Latvia
Czech Republic
Slovak Republic2
Hungary
Indonesia
Russian Federation

5.5
5.0
4.5
4.0
3.5
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0

Primary, secondary and post-secondary non-tertiary education

New Zealand
Denmark
Iceland
Norway1, 2
Brazil1
Colombia
United Kingdom
Portugal2
Israel
Ireland
Belgium
Australia
Finland
Mexico
Switzerland1
France
Netherlands
Sweden
Slovenia
Korea
United States2
Chile
Canada
Poland
Luxembourg
Estonia
Germany
Austria
Spain
Turkey
Italy
Japan2
Latvia
Czech Republic
Slovak Republic2
Hungary
Indonesia
Russian Federation

5.5
5.0
4.5
4.0
3.5
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0

New Zealand

B2

Overall investment relative to GDP
The share of national wealth devoted to educational institutions is substantial in all OECD and partner countries
with available data. In 2012, OECD countries spent an average of 5.3% of their GDP on educational institutions
from primary to tertiary education (see Table C2.3 for the share of GDP devoted to early childhood education).

1. Public expenditure only (for Switzerland, in tertiary education only; for Norway, in primary, secondary and post-secondary non-tertiary
education 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 from both public and private sources on educational institutions in primary, secondary and post-secondary
non-tertiary education.
Source: OECD. Table B2.3. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/education/education-at-a-glance-19991487.htm).
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933283959

228 Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

What proportion of national wealth is spent on education? – INDICATOR B2

chapter B

Expenditure on educational institutions, by level of education
An average of two-thirds of the expenditure on education (excluding early childhood education) in all OECD
countries is devoted to primary, secondary and post-secondary non-tertiary education, while a more than a quarter
goes to tertiary education and 0.1% is not distributed to specific levels of education. Primary and lower secondary
levels receive about 47% of educational expenditure in OECD countries, on average. Expenditure on educational
institutions depends on the age of the population. In most cases, countries with above-average expenditure on
educational institutions relative to GDP are usually those with an above-average proportion of people whose age
corresponds to primary and lower secondary education (Table B2.2 and see Indicator C1).
In all OECD and partner countries with available data, the level of national resources devoted to primary, secondary
and post-secondary non-tertiary education combined is much larger than the share devoted to tertiary education.
This share exceeds 50% of educational expenditure (excluding early childhood education) in all countries. For
primary, secondary and post-secondary non-tertiary education, expenditure as a percentage of GDP ranges from less
than 3% in the Czech Republic, Hungary, Indonesia, Japan, Latvia, the Russian Federation and the Slovak Republic
to 5% in New Zealand.
Expenditure on primary and lower secondary education amounts to 1.5% or more of GDP in all countries, and
reaches 3% or more in Australia, Brazil, Colombia, Denmark, Iceland, Ireland, Mexico, New Zealand, Norway and
the United Kingdom (Table B2.1).
Expenditure on tertiary education amounts to at least 1% of GDP in nearly all countries except Brazil, Indonesia,
Italy (expenditure on short-cycle tertiary programmes is not included), Luxembourg and South Africa, and exceeds
2.3% in Canada, Chile, Korea and the United States (Table B2.3 and Chart B2.2).
Changes in overall spending on educational institutions between 2000 and 2012
The increase in the number of students enrolled in upper secondary and tertiary education between 2000 and 2012
was accompanied in most countries by an increase in financial investments at these levels.
Over the period 2000-12, in all countries with comparable data, both expenditure on primary to tertiary
educational institutions and GDP increased (see Table X2.3). In Chile, France, Italy, Norway, Poland and Sweden,
expenditure on education increased less than GDP, leading to a decrease in expenditure as a proportion of GDP of
up to 0.5 percentage point. In all other countries with comparable data, expenditure on educational institutions
(primary to tertiary) increased at a faster rate than GDP, resulting in an increase in expenditure on educational
institutions as a percentage of GDP (Chart B2.3). The increase was one percentage point or more in Brazil
(from 3.1% to 5.6%), Ireland (from 4.3% to 5.6%), the Netherlands (from 4.5% to 5.5%), Portugal (from 4.7% to
5.8%), the Russian Federation (from 2.1% to 3.7%) and Turkey (from 2.5% to 3.8%) (Table B2.2).

Chart B2.3. Expenditure on primary to tertiary education institutions as a percentage of GDP
(2000, 2008 and 2012)
From public and private sources, excluding undistributed programmes

7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0

2012

2008

2000

New Zealand
Colombia
United States
United Kingdom
Norway1
Chile
Canada
Korea
Israel
Iceland
Portugal
Finland
Belgium
Ireland
Australia
Brazil1
Netherlands
Sweden
South Africa1
France
Mexico
OECD average
Slovenia
Austria
Estonia
Switzerland1
Poland
Japan
Germany
Spain
Czech Republic
Latvia
Italy
Hungary1
Turkey1
Luxembourg
Slovak Republic
Russian Federation1
Indonesia

% of GDP

1. Public expenditure only (for Switzerland, in tertiary education only; for Norway, in primary, secondary and post-secondary non-tertiary
education only).
Countries are ranked in descending order of expenditure from both public and private sources on educational institutions in 2012.
Source: OECD. Table B2.2. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/education/education-at-a-glance-19991487.htm).
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933283964

Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

229

B2

chapter B FINANCIAL AND HUMAN RESOURCES INVESTED IN EDUCATION

Chart B2.4. Impact of the economic crisis on public expenditure on education and index
of change in public expenditure on educational institutions and in GDP (2010 to 2012)
Index of change between 2010 and 2012 in expenditure on educational institutions as a percentage of GDP,
primary to tertiary levels of education (2010 = 100, 2012 constant prices)

Estonia

Hungary

Portugal

Spain

Australia

Canada

Norway

Italy

Poland

United States

Slovak Republic

France

Germany

Slovenia

Ireland

OECD average

Mexico

Iceland

Sweden

Finland

Japan

Canada

Norway

Australia

Spain

Portugal

Hungary

Estonia

Canada

Norway

Australia

Spain

Portugal

Hungary

Estonia

Italy
Italy

Poland

United States
United States

Slovak Republic

France

Germany

Slovenia

Ireland

OECD average

Mexico

Iceland

Sweden

Japan

Netherlands

Finland

Poland

Slovak Republic

France

Germany

Slovenia

Ireland

Between 2011 and 2012

OECD average

Mexico

Iceland

Sweden

Japan

Finland

Netherlands

Korea

Belgium

Switzerland

Brazil

Czech Republic

Russian Federation

Between 2010 and 2011

Israel

Turkey

Chile1

Between 2011 and 2012

Index of change in Gross Domestic Product

Index of change
(2010 = 100)

125
120
115
110
105
100
95
90
85
80

Netherlands

Belgium
Belgium

Switzerland

Brazil

Czech Republic

Russian Federation

Between 2010 and 2011

Israel

Turkey

Chile1

Switzerland

Index of change in public expenditure on educational institutions

Index of change
(2010 = 100)

125
120
115
110
105
100
95
90
85
80

Brazil

Czech Republic

Russian Federation

Israel

Turkey

Chile1

125
120
115
110
105
100
95
90
85
80

Korea

Change in public expenditure on educational institutions
Change in Gross Domestic Product
Change in expenditure on educational institutions as a percentage of GDP

Index of change
(2010 = 100)

Korea

B2

1. Data refer to 2011-2013 instead of 2010-2012.
Countries are ranked in descending order of the change in expenditure on educational institutions as a percentage of GDP.
Source: OECD. Table B2.4. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/education/education-at-a-glance-19991487.htm).
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933283976

230 Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

What proportion of national wealth is spent on education? – INDICATOR B2

chapter B

There were similar changes in expenditure on primary, secondary and post-secondary non-tertiary education
combined, as well as on tertiary education.

B2

Effect of the economic crisis on public expenditure on educational institutions
between 2008 and 2012
The global economic crisis that began in 2008 had – and is still having – major adverse effects on different sectors of
the economy. Data from 2008 to 2012 show clearly the impact of the crisis on the funding of educational institutions,
especially when comparing the periods 2008-10 and 2010-12.
Between 2008 and 2010, GDP (expressed in constant prices) fell in the majority of the countries (20 out of
36 countries with available data), and by 5% or more in Estonia, Finland, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland and
Slovenia. As more than three-quarters of education expenditure in most countries comes from public sources, how
did the downturn in GDP growth affect public spending on education? Available figures show that the education
sector was still relatively untouched by early budget cuts.
Since public budgets in most countries are approved many months before the funds are actually spent, there are
certain built-in rigidities to the funding of education. Moreover, most governments try to protect education from
dramatic reductions in public investment.
Among the 36 countries with available data for the 2008-10 period, only six countries cut (in real terms) public
expenditure on educational institutions: Estonia (by 10%), Hungary (by 11%), Iceland (by 11%), Italy (by 6%),
the Russian Federation (by 4%) and the United States (by 1%). In Hungary, Iceland and Italy, this translated into
a decrease in expenditure on educational institutions as a percentage of GDP (as the reduction in expenditure was
larger than the decrease in GDP, or as GDP increased at the same time). In the three other countries, the share of
GDP devoted to education did not change or increased as the decrease in expenditure was balanced with similar or
larger decreases in GDP.
In all other countries, public expenditure on educational institutions increased or was stable, while GDP decreased
in some of them. As a result, the share of GDP devoted to education continued to rise between 2008 and 2010 (by
6%, on average across OECD countries), except in Chile and Poland. In Chile and Poland, GDP increased at a faster
rate than public expenditure on educational institutions, resulting in a slight decrease of public expenditure on
educational institution as a percentage of GDP (Table B2.4).
During 2010-12, the crisis had a stronger impact on public expenditure on education. While GDP decreased between
2008 and 2010 in two-thirds of the countries with available data, it stayed constant or increased between 2010 and
2012 in all countries except five. The GDP decreased in Greece (by 15%), Italy (by 2%), Portugal (by 5%), Slovenia
(by 2%) and Spain (by 3%) (Chart B2.4).
Public expenditure on educational institutions started to fall between 2010 and 2012 – later than decreases in
GDP, as a result of the necessary time gap to adjust public budgets. Public expenditure decreased between 2010 and
2011, or between 2011 and 2012, or continuously over the two-year period in a larger number of countries than
between 2008 and 2010. Over the whole period 2010-12, public expenditure on educational institutions decreased
in 11 countries, and by 5% or more in Hungary, Italy, Portugal, Slovenia and Spain. Combined with increases in GDP,
this led to decreases of public expenditure on education as a percentage of GDP in all of these 11 countries, most
significantly in Estonia (by 14%) and Hungary (by 13%).

Methodology
Data refer to the financial year 2012 and are based on the UOE data collection on education statistics administered
by the OECD in 2014 (for details see Annex 3 at www.oecd.org/education/education-at-a-glance-19991487.htm).
Note regarding data from Israel
The statistical data for Israel are supplied by and are under the responsibility of the relevant Israeli authorities. The use of
such data by the OECD is without prejudice to the status of the Golan Heights, East Jerusalem and Israeli settlements in the
West Bank under the terms of international law.

Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

231

chapter B FINANCIAL AND HUMAN RESOURCES INVESTED IN EDUCATION

Indicator B2 Tables
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933285413

B2

Table B2.1

Expenditure on educational institutions as a percentage of GDP, by level of education (2012)

Table B2.2

Trends in expenditure on educational institutions as a percentage of GDP, by level of education
(2000, 2005, 2008, 2010, 2011, 2012)

Table B2.3

Expenditure on educational institutions as a percentage of GDP, by source of funding and level
of education (2012)

Table B2.4

Change in public expenditure on educational institutions, as a percentage of GDP
(2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012)

Cut-off date for the data: 23 October 2015. Updates can be found on line at http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/eag-data-en.

232 Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

What proportion of national wealth is spent on education? – INDICATOR B2

chapter B

Table B2.1. Expenditure on educational institutions as a percentage of GDP, by level of education (2012)
From public and private sources of funds 1

OECD

Primary, secondary and post-secondary non-tertiary

Australia
Austria
Belgium
Canada2, 3
Chile4
Czech Republic
Denmark
Estonia
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Iceland
Ireland
Israel
Italy
Japan
Korea
Luxembourg
Mexico
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway5
Poland
Portugal
Slovak Republic
Slovenia
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland5
Turkey
United Kingdom
United States

Partners

OECD average
EU21 average
Argentina
Brazil5
China
Colombia4
India
Indonesia4
Latvia
Russian Federation
Saudi Arabia
South Africa2, 5
G20 average

Tertiary

Short-cycle
tertiary

Bachelor’s,
master’s,
doctoral
or equivalent
level

All
tertiary

Primary
and lower
secondary

Upper
secondary

Postsecondary
non-tertiary

All primary,
secondary
and postsecondary
non-tertiary

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7)

(8)

(9)

3.1

0.8

0.1

4.0

0.2

1.4

1.6

0.0

5.6

2.1

1.0

0.0

3.1

0.3

1.5

1.7

0.0

4.9

2.5

1.8d

x(2)

4.3

0.0

1.4

1.4

0.1

5.9

2.5d

1.1

m

3.6

0.9

1.6

2.5

0.0

6.0

2.4

1.2

a

3.6

0.4

2.2

2.5

0.0

6.1

1.7

1.1

0.0

2.8

0.0

1.4

1.4

0.2

4.4

3.5

1.2

a

4.7

m

m

m

0.2

m

2.0

1.0

0.2

3.2

a

1.6

1.6

0.0

4.9

2.4

1.5d

x(2)

3.9

0.0

1.8

1.8

0.0

5.8

2.5

1.3

0.0

3.8

0.3

1.1

1.4

0.0

5.3

1.9

1.0

0.2

3.1

0.0

1.2

1.2

0.1

4.4

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

1.5

1.0

0.1

2.6

0.0

1.2

1.2

0.2

4.1

3.3

1.3

0.1

4.7

0.0

1.1

1.2

0.6

6.4

3.2

0.9

0.3

4.4

x(7)

x(7)

1.3

0.0

5.6

2.5

1.9

0.0

4.4

0.3

1.3

1.6

0.5

6.5

1.8

1.1

0.1

3.0

m

0.9

0.9

0.0

3.9

2.1

0.9d

x(2, 5, 6)

2.9

0.2d

1.3d

1.5d

0.5

5.0

2.4

1.3

m

3.7

0.3

2.1

2.3

0.7

6.7

2.3

1.0

0.0

3.3

0.0

0.4

0.4

0.0

3.7

3.0

0.9

m

3.9

x(7)

x(7)

1.3

0.2

5.4

2.6

1.2

0.0

3.8

0.0

1.7

1.7

0.0

5.5

3.2

1.6

0.2

5.0

0.3

1.6

1.9

0.0

6.9

3.1

1.5d

x(2)

4.6d

x(2)

1.6

1.6

0.3

6.5

2.4

0.9

0.1

3.4

0.0

1.3

1.3

0.0

4.8

2.9

1.5d

x(2, 6)

4.5

a

1.3d

1.3d

0.1

5.9

1.8

0.9d

x(2)

2.7d

x(2)

1.0

1.0

0.1

3.8

2.6

1.1d

x(2)

3.7

0.1

1.1

1.2

0.0

4.9

2.2

0.9d

x(2)

3.1

0.2

1.1

1.2

0.0

4.3

2.5

1.2

0.0

3.7

0.0

1.7

1.7

0.0

5.4

2.5

0.9d

x(2)

3.5

0.0

1.3

1.3

0.1

4.9

2.0

1.0

a

3.0

x(7)

x(7)

1.4

0.0

4.4

3.0

1.5

a

4.5

x(7)

x(7)

1.8

0.0

6.3

2.7

1.0

x(7)

3.6

x(7)

x(7)

2.8d

a

6.4

2.5
2.4

1.2
1.2

0.1
0.1

3.7
3.6

0.2
0.1

1.4
1.3

1.5
1.4

0.1
0.1

5.3
4.9

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

3.5

1.2

a

4.7

x(7)

x(7)

0.9

0.0

5.6

Primary
to tertiary
(including
Undistributed undistributed
programmes programmes)

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

3.9

0.7

x(2)

4.5

x(7)

x(7)

1.9

0.4

6.8

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

2.0

0.5

a

2.5

x(7)

x(7)

0.8

0.4

3.7

1.9

0.8

0.0

2.8

0.2

1.2

1.4

0.0

4.2

x(4)

x(4)

x(4)

2.3

0.2

1.2

1.4

0.3

4.0

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

2.6

2.0

0.2

4.7

x(7)

x(7)

0.7

0.6

6.0

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

Note: Data on early childhood education is available in Indicator C2.
1. Including international sources.
2. Column 1 only refers to primary education and column 2 refers to all secondary education.
3. Year of reference 2011.
4. Year of reference 2013.
5. Public expenditure only (for Switzerland, in tertiary education only; for Norway, in primary, secondary and post-secondary non-tertiary education only).
Source: OECD. Argentina, China, Colombia, India, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia, South Africa: UNESCO Institute for Statistics. Latvia: Eurostat. See Annex 3 for notes
(www.oecd.org/education/education-at-a-glance-19991487.htm).
Please refer to the Reader’s Guide for information concerning symbols for missing data and abbreviations.
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933285427

Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

233

B2

chapter B FINANCIAL AND HUMAN RESOURCES INVESTED IN EDUCATION

Table B2.2. Trends in expenditure on educational institutions as a percentage of GDP,

by level of education (2000, 2005, 2008, 2010, 2011, 2012)
From public and private sources, by year

B2

Partners

OECD

Primary, secondary
and post-secondary non-tertiary

Primary to tertiary
(excluding undistributed programmes)

Tertiary

2000 2005 2008 2010 2011 2012 2000 2005 2008 2010 2011 2012 2000 2005 2008 2010 2011

2012

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7)

(8)

(9)

(10)

(11)

(12)

(13)

(14)

(15)

(16)

(17)

(18)

Australia
Austria
Belgium
Canada1, 2
Chile3
Czech Republic
Denmark
Estonia
Finland
France
Germany
Greece2
Hungary4
Iceland
Ireland
Israel
Italy
Japan2
Korea
Luxembourg
Mexico
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway2, 4
Poland
Portugal2
Slovak Republic2
Slovenia
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland4
Turkey4
United Kingdom4
United States2

3.6

3.7

3.7

4.3

4.1

4.0

1.4

1.5

1.5

1.6

1.6

1.6

5.1

m

m

m

m

3.1

m

m

m

m

m

1.7

m

m

4.1

4.3

4.3

4.2

4.3

m

1.2

1.3

1.4

1.4

1.4

m

3.3

3.5

3.4

3.9

3.8

3.6

2.3

2.5

2.5

2.7

2.6

2.5

5.5

4.2

3.2

3.9

3.4

3.7

3.6

2.0

1.7

2.0

2.4

2.5

2.5

6.2

2.6

2.8

2.5

2.7

2.7

2.8

0.8

1.0

1.1

1.2

1.4

1.4

3.3

4.0

4.4

4.1

4.7

4.3

4.7

1.5

1.7

1.6

1.8

1.9

m

5.5

m

3.4

3.8

3.8

3.3

3.2

m

1.1

1.3

1.6

1.7

1.6

m

3.5

3.7

3.6

4.0

3.9

3.9

1.6

1.7

1.6

1.8

1.9

1.8

5.1

4.2

3.9

3.8

4.0

3.9

3.8

1.3

1.3

1.4

1.5

1.5

1.4

5.5

m

m

m

3.3

3.2

3.1

m

m

m

1.2

1.2

1.2

m

2.6

2.7

m

m

m

m

0.7

1.5

m

m

m

m

3.3

2.7

3.2

2.9

2.8

2.6

2.6

0.8

0.9

0.9

0.8

1.0

1.2

3.6

4.6

5.2

4.8

4.7

4.7

4.7

1.0

1.2

1.2

1.2

1.1

1.2

5.7

2.9

3.3

4.0

4.5

4.3

4.4

1.4

1.1

1.4

1.5

1.4

1.3

4.3

4.2

3.8

4.0

4.0

4.2

4.4

1.7

1.8

1.5

1.6

1.7

1.6

5.9

3.1

3.1

3.2

3.1

3.0

3.0

0.8

0.8

0.9

1.0

1.0

0.9

3.9

3.0

2.9

2.9

3.0

3.0

2.9

1.4

1.4

1.5

1.5

1.6

1.5

4.4

3.3

3.8

3.9

3.9

3.8

3.7

2.1

2.1

2.4

2.4

2.4

2.3

5.4

m

m

3.1

3.5

3.3

3.3

m

m

m

m

m

0.4

m

3.4

3.9

3.6

3.9

3.9

3.9

0.9

1.2

1.2

1.4

1.3

1.3

4.4

3.2

3.6

3.5

3.8

3.7

3.8

1.3

1.5

1.5

1.6

1.6

1.7

4.5

m

m

m

m

m

5.0

m

m

m

m

m

1.9

m

5.0

5.1

4.8

5.1

4.7

4.6

1.6

1.7

1.6

1.6

1.5

1.6

6.7

3.9

3.7

3.6

3.6

3.4

3.4

1.1

1.6

1.5

1.5

1.3

1.3

4.9

3.7

3.6

3.3

3.7

3.6

4.5

0.9

1.3

1.3

1.4

1.3

1.3

4.7

2.6

2.8

2.6

3.0

2.7

2.7

0.8

0.9

0.9

0.9

1.0

1.0

3.4

m

4.1

3.6

3.8

3.7

3.7

m

1.3

1.1

1.2

1.3

1.2

m

3.1

2.8

3.0

3.2

3.1

3.1

1.1

1.1

1.2

1.3

1.3

1.2

4.2

4.0

4.0

3.8

3.8

3.7

3.7

1.5

1.5

1.5

1.7

1.7

1.7

5.5

3.7

4.0

3.7

3.8

3.8

3.5

1.1

1.3

1.1

1.2

1.2

1.3

4.8

1.8

2.0

2.2

2.5

2.3

2.6

0.7

0.8

0.8

0.9

1.0

1.2

2.5

m

4.2

3.9

4.3

4.4

4.5

m

m

m

m

m

1.8

m

3.6

3.6

3.9

3.8

3.7

3.6

2.1

2.3

2.5

2.6

2.7

2.8

5.6

5.2
m
5.6
6.0
5.9
3.6
5.8
5.1
5.2
5.2
m
m
3.8
6.0
5.3
5.5
4.1
4.4
6.2
m
4.9
4.9
m
6.4
5.1
4.6
3.4
4.7
4.2
5.3
4.8
2.9
m
6.4

5.9
m
5.7
6.6
5.7
3.9
6.5
5.4
5.8
5.4
4.5
m
3.6
5.8
6.0
5.5
4.1
4.5
6.3
m
5.3
5.4
m
6.7
5.1
5.1
3.9
5.1
4.5
5.4
5.0
3.5
m
6.5

5.7
m
5.6
6.4
6.2
4.1
6.1
5.0
5.8
5.3
4.4
m
3.5
5.8
5.7
5.9
4.0
4.5
6.2
m
5.2
5.4
m
6.3
4.7
4.9
3.7
5.0
4.4
5.3
5.0
3.3
m
6.4

5.6

m

5.2
m
5.3
6.0
4.9
3.7
6.0
4.6
5.4
5.2
m
4.2
4.1
6.4
4.4
5.6
4.0
4.3
6.0
m
5.0
5.1
m
6.8
5.3
4.8
3.7
5.3
3.9
5.5
5.3
2.8
m
6.0

OECD average
EU21 average
OECD mean for
countries with data
for all reference years

3.5

3.6

3.6

3.8

3.6

3.7

1.3

1.4

1.4

1.5

1.5

1.5

4.8

3.5

3.5

3.7

3.5

3.6

1.1

1.3

1.3

1.4

1.4

1.4

4.4

5.0
4.8

5.3
5.0

5.2
4.9

5.2

3.3

5.0
4.7

3.5

3.6

3.5

3.7

3.6

3.6

1.3

1.4

1.5

1.6

1.6

1.6

4.8

5.0

5.0

5.2

5.2

5.2

m
4.8
m
m
m
m
m
3.0

m
5.2
m
m
m
m
m
3.0

m
5.3
m
m
m
m
m
2.8

4.9
5.7
6.0
6.1
4.2
m
4.9
5.8
5.3
4.4
m
3.9
5.8
5.6
6.0
3.9
4.5
6.0
3.7
5.2
5.5
6.9
6.2
4.8
5.8
3.7
4.9
4.3
5.4
4.8
3.8
6.3
6.4
4.9

m

m

m

m

m

2.8

m

m

m

m

m

1.4

m

1.7

1.9

2.0

2.0

2.0

2.3

0.5

0.8

0.9

1.0

0.9

1.4

2.1

m
4.0
m
m
m
m
m
2.7

Saudi Arabia

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

South Africa4

m

m

m

m

m

4.7

m

m

m

m

m

0.7

m

m

m

m

m

5.4

G20 average

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

Argentina
Brazil4
China
Colombia3
India
Indonesia3
Latvia
Russian Federation4

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

2.4

3.2

4.1

4.3

4.4

4.7

0.7

0.8

0.8

0.9

0.9

0.9

3.1

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

4.5

m

m

m

m

m

1.9

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

2.5

m

m

m

m

m

0.8

m

m
5.6
m
6.5
m
3.3
4.2
3.7

1. Year of reference 2011 instead of 2012. Year of reference 2004 instead of 2005.
2. Some levels of education are included with others. Refer to “x” code in Table B1.1a for details.
3. Year of reference 2013 instead of 2012. Year of reference 2006 instead of 2005.
4. Public expenditure only (for Switzerland, in tertiary education only; for Norway, in primary, secondary and post-secondary non-tertiary education only;
the Russian Federation, data available for 1995 and 2000 only).
Source: OECD. Argentina, China, Colombia, India, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia, South Africa: UNESCO Institute for Statistics. Latvia: Eurostat. See Annex 3 for notes
(www.oecd.org/education/education-at-a-glance-19991487.htm).
Please refer to the Reader’s Guide for information concerning symbols for missing data and abbreviations.
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933285434

234 Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

What proportion of national wealth is spent on education? – INDICATOR B2

chapter B

Table B2.3. Expenditure on educational institutions as a percentage of GDP,

by source of funding and level of education (2012)
From public and private sources of funds

Partners

OECD

Primary, secondary
and post-secondary non-tertiary

Primary to tertiary
(including undistributed programmes)

Tertiary

Public1

Private2

Total

Public1

Private2

Total

Public1

Private2

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7)

(8)

(9)

3.4

0.6

4.0

0.9

0.7

1.6

4.3

1.3

5.6

3.1

0.0

3.1

1.7

0.0

1.7

4.9

0.0

4.9

4.3

0.0

4.3

1.4

0.0

1.4

5.9

0.0

5.9

3.2d

0.3d

3.6d

1.5

1.0

2.5

4.7

1.3

6.0

2.8

0.8

3.6

1.0

1.5

2.5

3.9

2.2

6.1

2.6

0.2

2.8

1.2

0.2

1.4

4.0

0.4

4.4

4.7

0.0

4.7

m

m

m

m

m

m

3.2

0.0

3.2

1.4

0.2

1.6

4.7

0.1

4.9

3.9

0.0

3.9

1.8

0.1

1.8

5.7

0.1

5.8

3.6

0.2

3.8

1.3

0.2

1.4

4.9

0.4

5.3

2.9

0.2

3.1

1.2

0.0

1.2

4.3

0.1

4.4

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

2.6

0.1

2.6

0.8

0.4

1.2

3.6

0.5

4.1

4.5

0.2

4.7

1.1

0.1

1.2

5.9

0.5

6.4

4.2

0.2

4.4

1.0

0.2

1.3

5.2

0.4

5.6

4.0

0.4

4.4

0.9

0.7

1.6

5.1

1.3

6.5

2.9

0.1

3.0

0.8

0.1

0.9

3.7

0.2

3.9

2.7

0.2

2.9

0.5

1.0

1.5

3.5

1.5

5.0

3.2

0.5

3.7

0.8

1.5

2.3

4.7

2.0

6.7

3.3

0.0

3.3

0.4

0.0

0.4

3.7

0.0

3.7

3.4

0.5

3.9

1.0

0.4

1.3

4.6

0.8

5.4

3.5

0.3

3.8

1.4

0.3

1.7

4.9

0.6

5.5

4.2

0.8

5.0

1.2

0.7

1.9

5.4

1.5

6.9

4.6

0.0

4.6

1.6

0.0

1.6

6.5

0.0

6.5

3.2

0.2

3.4

1.2

0.1

1.3

4.4

0.4

4.8

3.9

0.5

4.5

0.9

0.4

1.3

5.0

0.9

5.9

2.5

0.2

2.7

1.0

0.1

1.0

3.5

0.3

3.8

3.5

0.2

3.7

1.2

0.0

1.2

4.7

0.2

4.9

2.8

0.3

3.1

1.0

0.2

1.2

3.8

0.5

4.3

3.7

0.0

3.7

1.5

0.2

1.7

5.2

0.2

5.4

3.5

0.0

3.5

1.2

0.0

1.2

4.9

0.0

4.9

2.6

0.4

3.0

1.2

0.2

1.4

3.8

0.6

4.4

4.0

0.5

4.5

1.2

0.6

1.8

5.2

1.0

6.3

3.3

0.3

3.6

1.4

1.4

2.8

4.7

1.7

6.4

OECD average

3.5

0.2

3.7

1.2

0.4

1.5

4.7

0.7

5.3

EU21 average

3.4

0.2

3.6

1.2

0.2

1.4

4.6

0.3

4.9

Australia
Austria
Belgium
Canada3, 4
Chile5
Czech Republic
Denmark
Estonia
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Iceland
Ireland
Israel
Italy6
Japan4
Korea
Luxembourg
Mexico
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway4
Poland
Portugal4
Slovak Republic4
Slovenia
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Turkey
United Kingdom
United States4

Argentina
Brazil
China
Colombia5
India
Indonesia5
Latvia
Russian Federation
Saudi Arabia
South Africa
G20 average

Total

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

4.6

0.0

4.6

0.9

0.0

0.9

5.6

0.0

5.6

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

3.6

0.9

4.5

0.9

1.0

1.9

4.9

1.9

6.8

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

2.3

0.2

2.5

0.6

0.2

0.8

3.3

0.4

3.7

2.9

0.0

2.8

1.0

0.3

1.4

3.9

0.3

4.2

2.2

0.1

2.3

0.9

0.5

1.4

3.4

0.6

4.0

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

4.7

m

m

0.7

m

m

6.0

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

1. Including public subsidies to households attributable for educational institutions, and direct expenditure on educational institutions from international sources.
2. Net of public subsidies attributable for educational institutions.
3. Year of reference 2011.
4. Some levels of education are included with others. Refer to “x” code in Table B1.1a for details.
5. Year of reference 2013.
6. Excludes short-cycle tertiary programmes.
Source: OECD. Argentina, China, Colombia, India, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia, South Africa: UNESCO Institute for Statistics. Latvia: Eurostat. See Annex 3 for notes
(www.oecd.org/education/education-at-a-glance-19991487.htm).
Please refer to the Reader’s Guide for information concerning symbols for missing data and abbreviations.
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933285443

Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

235

B2

chapter B FINANCIAL AND HUMAN RESOURCES INVESTED IN EDUCATION

Table B2.4. Change in public expenditure on educational institutions as a percentage of GDP

(2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012)

Index of change between 2008 and 2012 in public expenditure on educational institutions as a percentage of GDP,
primary to tertiary education (2012 constant prices)

B2

Change in public expenditure1
on educational institutions
from primary to tertiary

Change in public expenditure
on educational institutions
in percentage of GDP

Partners

OECD

Between
2008 and 2009
(2008 = 100)
Between
2009 and 2010
(2009 = 100)
Between
2010 and 2011
(2010 = 100)
Between
2011 and 2012
(2011 = 100)
Between
2008 and 2010
(2008 = 100)
Between
2010 and 2012
(2010 = 100)
Between
2008 and 2009
(2008 = 100)
Between
2009 and 2010
(2009 = 100)
Between
2010 and 2011
(2010 = 100)
Between
2011 and 2012
(2011 = 100)
Between
2008 and 2010
(2008 = 100)
Between
2010 and 2012
(2010 = 100)
Between
2008 and 2009
(2008 = 100)
Between
2009 and 2010
(2009 = 100)
Between
2010 and 2011
(2010 = 100)
Between
2011 and 2012
(2011 = 100)
Between
2008 and 2010
(2008 = 100)
Between
2010 and 2012
(2010 = 100)

Change in Gross Domestic Product

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7)

(8)

(9)

(10)

(11)

(12)

(13)

(14)

(15)

(16)

(17)

(18)

Australia
Austria
Belgium
Canada
Chile2
Czech Republic
Denmark
Estonia
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Iceland
Ireland
Israel
Italy
Japan
Korea
Luxembourg
Mexico
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Slovak Republic
Slovenia
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Turkey
United Kingdom
United States

116

106

98

99

123

97

102

102

104

103

104

106

114

104

94

97

118

91

m

m

m

m

m

m

96

102

103

101

98

104

m

m

m

m

m

m

99

102

101

102

102

103

97

103

102

100

100

102

102

100

100

102

102

101

103

106

101

97

109

98

101

97

103

103

98

106

101

109

98

94

111

92

102

104

117

103

107

121

106

106

105

105

112

110

97

99

112

98

95

110

105

99

109

97

104

105

95

102

102

99

97

101

110

97

106

98

107

104

m

m

m

m

m

m

95

102

101

99

96

100

m

m

m

m

m

m

95

95

100

97

90

98

85

102

108

105

87

113

111

92

93

93

103

86

101

104

102

99

105

101

92

103

103

99

94

101

110

101

99

100

111

100

103

101

99

99

104

98

97

102

102

100

99

102

106

99

97

99

105

96

m

m

101

99

m

100

94

104

104

100

98

104

m

m

97

98

m

96

m

m

m

m

m

m

96

95

91

93

90

85

m

m

m

m

m

m

94

94

99

88

89

87

93

101

102

99

94

100

101

94

97

89

94

87

96

93

102

100

89

103

95

97

102

101

92

103

101

95

100

99

96

99

106

98

98

102

103

100

94

100

103

100

93

102

113

98

95

102

111

97

100

108

106

106

109

112

102

106

104

103

108

107

99

102

102

103

101

105

97

97

96

95

94

91

95

102

101

98

96

98

102

95

95

97

97

93

101

104

101

101

105

102

96

103

100

102

100

102

105

101

101

99

106

100

111

102

104

103

114

107

101

107

104

102

107

106

111

96

100

101

106

101

m

m

m

m

m

m

95

105

103

100

100

102

m

m

m

m

m

m

102

106

101

105

109

106

95

105

104

104

100

108

107

101

98

101

108

99

106

102

100

100

108

100

97

101

102

98

98

100

110

101

98

102

111

100

m

m

m

m

m

m

102

101

102

103

103

105

m

m

m

m

m

m

106

99

99

101

105

100

98

102

106

104

100

110

108

97

94

97

105

91

103

103

99

101

105

100

103

104

105

102

106

107

100

99

94

99

99

94

113

101

93

92

114

86

97

102

98

97

99

95

116

99

95

95

115

90

108

109

99

100

118

99

95

105

103

102

99

104

114

104

96

98

119

95

100

100

98

96

100

95

92

101

101

97

93

98

108

99

98

99

107

97

104

99

97

91

103

88

96

100

99

98

96

97

108

99

97

93

107

91

101

102

100

101

103

101

95

106

103

100

100

102

106

96

98

101

102

99

106

101

103

102

108

105

98

103

102

101

101

103

109

98

101

101

107

102

111

110

105

112

122

118

95

109

109

102

104

111

117

101

97

110

118

106

104

102

110

m

m

m

96

102

102

101

98

102

109

100

109

m

m

m

101

98

98

98

99

96

97

103

102

102

100

104

104

96

96

96

100

93

OECD average
EU21 average

103
102

102
101

101
99

100
97

105
103

101
97

97
95

102
102

102
102

101
99

99
97

103
101

107
108

99
98

99
98

99
98

106
106

97
95

Argentina
Brazil
China
Colombia
India
Indonesia
Latvia
Russian Federation
Saudi Arabia
South Africa

m
104
m
m
m
m
m
108
m
m

m
113
m
m
m
m
m
89
m
m

m
103
m
m
m
m
m
100
m
m

m
103
m
m
m
m
m
113
m
m

m
118
m
m
m
m
m
96
m
m

m
106
m
m
m
m
m
113
m
m

m
100
m
m
m
m
m
92
m
m

m
110
m
m
m
m
m
105
m
m

m
101
m
m
m
m
m
104
m
m

m
101
m
m
m
m
m
103
m
m

m
110
m
m
m
m
m
96
m
m

m
101
m
m
m
m
m
108
m
m

m
105
m
m
m
m
m
117
m
m

m
103
m
m
m
m
m
85
m
m

m
102
m
m
m
m
m
96
m
m

m
102
m
m
m
m
m
109
m
m

m
108
m
m
m
m
m
100
m
m

m
104
m
m
m
m
m
104
m
m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

G20 average

1. Excluding subsidies attributable to payments to educational institutions received from public sources.
2. Data refer to 2009-2013 instead of 2008-2012.
Source: OECD. Argentina, China, Colombia, India, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia, South Africa: UNESCO Institute for Statistics. Latvia: Eurostat. See Annex 3 for notes
(www.oecd.org/education/education-at-a-glance-19991487.htm).
Please refer to the Reader’s Guide for information concerning symbols for missing data and abbreviations.
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933285457

236 Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

HOW MUCH PUBLIC AND PRIVATE INVESTMENT
IN EDUCATION IS THERE?
INDICATOR B3

• Public funding accounts for 83% of all funds for educational institutions from primary to tertiary
education, on average across OECD countries.

• Nearly 91% of the funds for primary, secondary and post-secondary non-tertiary educational
institutions come from public sources, on average across OECD countries; only in Chile and
Colombia is this share less than 80%.

• Of primary to tertiary levels of education, tertiary institutions obtain the largest proportion of
funds – 30% – from private sources.

Chart B3.1. Share of private expenditure on educational institutions (2012)

80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0

Primary, secondary and post-secondary non-tertiary education
Tertiary education

Korea
Japan1
Chile
United States1
Colombia
Australia
New Zealand
Israel
Portugal
Hungary
Canada1
United Kingdom
Russian Federation
Latvia
Italy
Mexico
OECD average
Netherlands
Indonesia
Spain
Slovak Republic1
Poland
Estonia
Czech Republic
France
Turkey
Ireland
Germany
Slovenia
Sweden
Belgium
Iceland
Luxembourg
Austria
Norway
Finland
Switzerland
Denmark

%

How to read this chart
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 from private sources, including public funding via subsidies
to households, private fees for educational services or other private spending (e.g. on accommodation) which goes through
the institution.
1. 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 the share of private expenditure on educational institutions for tertiary education.
Source: OECD. Table B3.1. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/education/education-at-a-glance-19991487.htm).
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933283989

Context
More people are participating in a wider range of educational programmes offered by increasing
numbers of providers than ever before. As a result, the question of who should support an individual’s
efforts to acquire more education – governments or the individuals themselves – is becoming
increasingly important. In the current economic environment, many governments are finding it
difficult to provide the necessary resources to support the increased demand for education through
public funds alone. In addition, some policy makers assert that those who benefit the most from
education – the individuals who receive it – should bear at least some of the costs. While public
funding still represents a large part of countries’ investment in education, the role of private sources
of funding is becoming increasingly prominent.
The balance between public and private financing of education is an important policy issue in many
OECD countries, especially at the pre-primary and tertiary levels of education, for which full or
nearly full public funding is less common. At these levels, private funding comes mainly from
households, raising concerns about equity of access to education. The debate is particularly intense
with respect to funding for tertiary education. Some stakeholders are concerned that the balance
between public and private funding should not become so tilted as to discourage potential students
from entering tertiary education. Others believe that countries should significantly increase public

238 Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

support to students, while still others support efforts to increase the amount of funding to tertiary
education provided by private enterprises. By contrast, primary, secondary and post-secondary
non-tertiary education, which is mainly compulsory, is usually conceived as a public good and is
thus largely financed by public funds.

INDICATOR B3

Other findings

• Public funding for educational institutions, including primary, secondary and post-secondary
non-tertiary education combined, and for tertiary education, increased between 2000 and 2012
in nearly all countries for which comparable data are available. However, at the tertiary level, more
households are sharing the cost of education, thus private funding increased at an even greater
rate in more than three-quarters of countries.

• Public funds are mainly allocated to public institutions, but also to private institutions to
varying degrees. For primary to tertiary levels of education combined, public expenditure on
public institutions, per student, is 91% higher than the level of public expenditure on private
institutions, on average across OECD countries. However, the proportion varies from 64% higher
for primary, secondary and post-secondary non-tertiary education combined to more than double
that proportion (151% higher) at the tertiary level.

• Five of the six countries with the lowest amounts of public expenditure per student, in public and
private tertiary institutions, are also those (except one) with the fewest students enrolled in public
tertiary institutions.

• In most countries for which data are available, individual households account for most of the
private expenditure on tertiary education. Austria, Belgium, the Czech Republic, Sweden and the
United Kingdom are the exceptions, where private expenditure from entities other than households
(e.g. private businesses and non-profit organisations) is more significant than private expenditure
from households, mainly because tuition fees charged by tertiary institutions are low or negligible
in these countries (except the United Kingdom).
Trends
Between 2000 and 2012, the average share of public funding for tertiary institutions decreased from
68.8% in 2000, to 64.9% in 2005 and decreased slightly again to 64.5% in 2012 (on average across the
20 OECD countries for which trend data are available for all years) (Table B3.2b). This trend is mainly
influenced by some European countries, where there were significant changes in tuition fees and where
enterprises participate more actively in providing grants to finance tertiary institutions.
Between 2000 and 2012, the share of private funding for tertiary education increased in more than
three-quarters of the countries (17 of 22 countries for which comparable data are available). This share
increased by more than four percentage points, on average across OECD countries, and by more than
nine percentage points in Hungary, Italy, Mexico, Portugal and the Slovak Republic (Table B3.2b). In
these countries, the share of private funding increased the most between 2000 and 2008 as a result of a
much larger increase in private funding than in public funding.
Between 2000 and 2012, the share of private funding did not change much at the primary, secondary,
post-secondary non-tertiary levels, on average across OECD countries for which comparable data are
available, but it increased in some countries – most significantly (by nine percentage points or more) in
Portugal and the Slovak Republic. Chile is the only country with a significant increase (more than nine
percentage points) in the share of public funding during this period (Tables B3.2a).

Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

239

chapter B FINANCIAL AND HUMAN RESOURCES INVESTED IN EDUCATION

Analysis

B3

Public and private expenditure on educational institutions
Educational institutions in OECD countries are mainly publicly funded, although there is a substantial – and
growing – level of private funding at the tertiary level. On average across OECD countries, 83% of all funds for
primary to tertiary educational institutions come directly from public sources; 17% come from private sources
(Chart B3.1 and Table B3.1).
However, the share of public and private funding varies widely among countries. Comparing expenditure on primary
to tertiary levels of education combined, the share of private funds exceeds 20% in Canada, Israel, Portugal and the
United Kingdom, 25% in Australia, Japan and New Zealand, 30% in Colombia, Korea and the United States, and
reaches nearly 40% in Chile. By contrast, in Finland, Luxembourg and Sweden, less than 4% of expenditure on
education comes from private sources (Table B3.1).
Public and private expenditure on primary, secondary and post-secondary non-tertiary
educational institutions
Public funding dominates primary, secondary and post-secondary non-tertiary education in all countries. In half
of the countries, less than 10% of funding for these levels of education comes from private sources, and the share
of private funding exceeds 20% only in Chile and Colombia (among countries with available data) (Table B3.1 and
Chart B3.1). In most countries, the largest share of private expenditure at these levels comes from households
and goes mainly towards tuition fees (Chart B3.2). However, in the Netherlands and Switzerland, most private
expenditure takes the form of contributions from the business sector to the dual system of apprenticeship in
upper secondary and post-secondary non-tertiary education (see Box B3.1). In Canada, too, the contribution from
other private entities is larger than that from households.
Between 2000 and 2012, the share of public funding for primary, secondary and post-secondary non-tertiary
education decreased slightly among the 19 countries with available data for all years (from 90.6% in 2000 to 89.7%
in 2012, on average). This share shrank by two percentage points or more in Israel, Italy, Mexico, Poland and Spain,
and by nine percentage points or more in Portugal and the Slovak Republic. In the other countries, shifts in the
opposite direction, i.e. towards public funding, between 2000 and 2012 exceeded three percentage points in Japan
and Korea and nine percentage points in Chile (Table B3.2a).
Box B3.1. Private expenditure on the work-based component of educational programmes
Many countries have some form of combined school- and work-based educational programmes (e.g. apprenticeship
programmes, dual systems). The impact of reporting these programmes in the financial indicators is strong in a
few countries, even if it is not significant in most countries (see Table at the end of this box). Expenditure by
private employers on training apprentices (e.g. compensation of instructors and cost of instructional materials
and equipment) and other participants in these programmes is included in the financial indicators published in
Education at a Glance. Expenditure to train company instructors is also included.
Among countries with some form of dual education systems, only Germany, Switzerland and, to some extent,
the Netherlands, conduct surveys about private expenditure by employers. In a number of countries, such as
the Czech Republic, Finland, Norway and the Slovak Republic, workplace training is directly financed by the
government, or firms are reimbursed for their expenses; thus private expenditures are implicitly included in
public expenditures reported in the indicators for most of these countries.
However, 10 of 17 countries with medium to large dual systems – Australia, Austria, Denmark, Estonia, France,
Hungary, Iceland, Luxembourg, the Russian Federation and the United Kingdom – do not include private
expenditure by enterprises that relate to these programmes in the financial indicators published in Education
at a Glance. This is mainly because of a lack of such data.
The size of the work-based component varies widely among these countries and can have a significant impact
on total expenditure in some. Among countries with available data on upper secondary education, Germany,
the Netherlands and Switzerland have a significant proportion of all students enrolled in vocational education
and training programmes (VET) with a work-based component (a minimum of 20% in the Netherlands, varying
to a maximum of 80% dependending on the VET track of school or work based, 50% in Germany and 60% in
Switzerland). The corresponding expenditure on these programmes represents between 0.3% and 0.5% of GDP
(see Indicator B2).
…

240 Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

How much public and private investment in education is there? – INDICATOR B3

chapter B

Further research has shown that 6% to 30% of upper secondary students (a “medium” share) are enrolled in
VET programmes with a work-based component in Australia, Finland, France, Hungary, Iceland, Luxembourg,
Norway, the Russian Federation, the Slovak Republic and the United Kingdom, while more than 30% of upper
secondary students (a “large” proportion) in Austria, the Czech Republic, Denmark and Estonia are enrolled
in such programmes. Among the group of countries with missing data on training expenditures, the impact of
not reporting such expenditures is expected to be small for Australia, Denmark, Estonia, Iceland, Norway and
the Slovak Republic, but is potentially large for Austria, France, Hungary, Luxembourg, the Russian Federation
and the United Kingdom (see Table below).
In the financial indicators published in Education at a Glance, the cost of apprentices’ salaries, social security
contributions, and other compensation paid to students or apprentices in combined school- and workbased educational programmes is not included. Private investment in upper secondary VET programmes
with a work-based component is considered to be moderate in Austria, France, Hungary, Luxembourg, the
Netherlands, the Russian Federation and the United Kingdom, and large in Germany and Switzerland,
where apprentices spend a substantial portion of their time in the workplace and where training is intensive
(see Table below).
Level of investment by firms in upper secondary VET programmes
with a work-based component (low, medium, high) (horizontal axis)
relative to the share of students (low, medium, high) enrolled in these programmes (vertical axis)
Importance of investment by firms
Share of dual/part-time
VET to all students

Low

Medium

Large (> 30%)

The Czech Republic, Denmark,
Estonia

Austria

Medium (6-30%)

Australia, Finland,
Iceland, Norway,
the Slovak Republic

France, Hungary
Luxembourg,
the Netherlands,
the Russian Federation,
the United Kingdom

Low (< 6%)

Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Chile,
Greece, Ireland, Israel, Italy,
Japan, Korea, Mexico,
New Zealand, Poland,
Portugal, Slovenia,
Spain, Sweden, Turkey,
the United States

High
Germany, Switzerland

* The importance of investment by firms is an index that reflects the time that trainees spend in the workplace, the intensity of training
(weekly instruction time) at the workplace, and controls for public reimbursement of such expenditure.

Public and private expenditure on tertiary educational institutions
High private returns to tertiary education (see Indicator A7) suggest that a greater contribution to the costs
of education by individuals and other private entities may be justified, as long as there are ways to ensure that
funding is available to students regardless of their economic backgrounds (see Indicator B5). In all countries, the
proportion of private expenditure on education is far higher for tertiary education – an average of nearly 30%
of total expenditure at this level – than it is for primary, secondary and post-secondary non-tertiary education
(Chart B3.1 and Table B3.1).
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 Austria, Finland and Norway (tuition fees
charged by tertiary institutions are low or negligible in these countries) to more than 40% in a third of countries
with available data. The proportion is more than 40% in Australia, Canada, Colombia, Hungary, Israel, New Zealand,
Portugal and the United Kindgom, and exceeds 60% in Chile, Japan, Korea and the United States. These proportions
may be related to the level of tuition fees charged by tertiary institutions (Chart B3.2 and Table B3.1, see Indicator B5).
Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

241

B3

chapter B FINANCIAL AND HUMAN RESOURCES INVESTED IN EDUCATION

Chart B3.2. Distribution of public and private expenditure on educational institutions (2012)
By level of education

B3

All private sources, including subsidies for payments
to educational institutions received from public sources
Expenditure from other private entities
Household expenditure
Public expenditure on educational institutions

Primary, secondary and post-secondary non-tertiary education

Sweden
Finland
Estonia
Luxembourg
Latvia
Denmark
Russian Federation
Belgium
Iceland
Austria
Ireland
Italy
Hungary
Japan1
Poland
United States1
France
Canada1
Slovenia
Czech Republic
Indonesia
OECD average
Israel
Spain
Switzerland
Slovak Republic1
Netherlands
Germany
Turkey
Portugal
United Kingdom
Korea
Mexico
New Zealand
Australia
Chile
Colombia

%

Sweden
Finland
Estonia
Luxembourg
Latvia

Slovak Republic1
Netherlands
Germany
Turkey
Portugal
United Kingdom
Korea
Mexico
New Zealand
Australia
Chile
Colombia
Norway

Tertiary education

%

100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0

Russian Federation
Belgium
Iceland
Austria
Ireland
Italy
Hungary
Japan1
Poland
United States1
France
Canada1
Slovenia
Czech Republic
Indonesia
OECD average
Israel
Spain

100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0

1. 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 the proportion of public expenditure on educational institutions in primary, secondary and post-secondary non-tertiary
education.
Source: OECD. Table B3.1. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/education/education-at-a-glance-19991487.htm).
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933283996

Of these countries, in Korea and the United Kingdom, most students are enrolled in private institutions (around
80% in private universities in Korea; 100% in government-dependent private institutions in the United Kingdom).
In Korea, more than 40% of the education budget comes from tuition fees. In the United Kingdom (England,
Northern Ireland, Wales), tertiary education is funded through a combination of tuition fees (paid by students
directly to the institution), and central government grants paid indirectly from a higher education-funding agency
(see Indicators B5, and Indicator C7 in Education at a Glance 2014).
The contribution from private entities other than households to financing educational institutions is larger for
tertiary education than for other levels of education, on average across OECD countries. The share of expenditure
on tertiary institutions covered by private entities other than households is above 10% in more than one-third
of countries with available data. In Sweden, these contributions are largely devoted to sponsoring research and
development. This share reaches 15% or more in Australia, Israel and the United States, and exceeds 20% in Canada,
Korea and the United Kingdom (see Box B3.2).

242 Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

How much public and private investment in education is there? – INDICATOR B3

chapter B

Box B3.2. Expenditure by private entities other than households on tertiary education
Expenditure by other private entities is reported in the financial indicators published in Education at a Glance.
The share of private expenditure on educational institutions varies between countries due to differences in the
extent of the contribution by these private entities and in whether these expenditures are covered in the data
reported.
The OECD launched a survey in 2015 to better analyse how these expenditures are covered in financial indicators.
The replies from the 14 participating countries (excluding Brazil, which reports only public expenditure in
financial indicators; see the list of participating countries below) do not allow for drawing definitive conclusions;
nonetheless, they show that, in most of these countries, both private enterprises and non-profit organisations
fund educational institutions. However, tertiary institutions in the Netherlands do not receive funds from
non-profit organisations, nor do short-cycle tertiary programmes in the Slovak Republic and Sweden.
For most of these countries, expenditure from private enterprises and non-profit organisations are at least
partially covered in the financial indicators. Expenditure from private enterprises are fully covered only in
Canada, Finland, the Netherlands, Sweden and the United Kingdom (at bachelor’s, master’s, doctoral or
equivalent levels), and expenditure from non-profit organisations are also fully covered in Canada, Israel,
Slovenia and Sweden. Some of these countries, such as Canada and Israel, are among those with the largest
proportions of funds from other private entities in OECD countries (see Table B3.1).
These types of expenditure are difficult to cover because of a lack of available sources of data. Usually only
expenditure related to public educational institutions can be accounted for; only a few countries estimate the
extent of the partial coverage. For example, the Slovak Republic estimated that up to 10% of expenditure from
private enterprises is not covered, which could have an impact of one to two percentage points on the share of
private expenditure on educational institutions.
Payments to educational institutions from both private enterprises and non-profit organisations are
more widely covered than support to households and students. In the 12 countries providing information
on the coverage of various types of expenditure from these private entities (excluding the Slovak Republic
and Slovenia), half of the countries cover support, at least partially, while all countries cover payments to
educational institutions, at least partially.
Expenditure to educational institutions for research and development is the most widely covered (it is
fully covered in the Flemish Community of Belgium, Canada, Finland, Hungary, the Netherlands, Sweden,
Switzerland, the United Kingdom and the United States, and partially covered in Australia, New Zealand and
Portugal). Payments for specific educational activities and fees paid to institutions for ancillary services are less
widely covered. Australia, the Flemish Community of Belgium, Sweden and the United Kingdom do not have
data on one or both of these types of expenditure.
Support to households and students is not as well covered, but is often funded from public sources only. These
data are also more difficult to collect: Australia, Canada, New Zealand, Portugal and Sweden do not cover
scholarships and other grants to households and students, for example.

Payments to educational institutions
of which: Payments for specif. educational activities
of which: Fees paid to institutions for ancillary services
of which: Payments for R&D expenditure
Support to households and students
Scholarships and other grants to households and students
Student loans

Fully
covered
31%
38%
31%
69%
38%
31%
31%

Partially
covered
69%
23%
23%
23%
15%
8%
8%

Not
covered
0%
31%
15%
0%
31%
38%
31%

Not
applicable
0%
8%
31%
8%
15%
23%
31%

List of respondent countries: Australia, Belgium (Flemish Community), Brazil, Canada, Finland, Hungary,
Israel, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Portugal, the Slovak Republic, Sweden, Switzerland, the United Kingdom
and the United States.
For more details on countries’ responses, see Annex 3 (www.oecd.org/education/education-at-a-glance-19991487.htm).

Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

243

B3

chapter B FINANCIAL AND HUMAN RESOURCES INVESTED IN EDUCATION

B3

In many OECD countries, greater participation in tertiary education (see Indicator C1) reflects strong individual
and social demand. The increases in enrolment have been accompanied by increases in investment from both
public and private sources, and changes in the proportions of public and private expenditure. On average across the
20 OECD countries for which trend data are available for all reference years, the share of public funding for tertiary
institutions decreased by more than four percentage points between 2000 and 2012, from 68.8% in 2000 to 64.9%
in 2005, and continued to decrease slightly over the following years to 64.5% in 2012. The decrease in this share
is particularly large in some, mostly European, countries where there had been large increases in private funding,
from tuition fees and/or as enterprises participated more actively, largely through grants to tertiary institutions.
In most countries with available data for the different years, the change in the share of public/private funding
since 2005 was small; between 2005 and 2012, changes were smallest since 2008 (Table B3.2b, Chart B3.3 and see
Indicator B5).
Seventeen of the 22 countries for which comparable data are available for 2000 and 2012 showed an increase in
the share of private funding for tertiary education. This increase exceeded 9 percentage points in Hungary, Italy,
Mexico, Portugal and the Slovak Republic. Some countries reported particularly large increases before 2000
(see Education at a Glance 2014). For example, in Australia, the increase between 1995 and 2000 was notable
and associated with changes to the Higher Education Contribution Scheme/Higher Education Loan Programme
implemented in 1997. By contrast, Chile, Korea and Poland show significant decreases (by 6 percentage points or
more) in the share of private expenditure on tertiary educational institutions between 2000 and 2012. In Chile and
Korea, where tuition fees are particularly high (see Indicator B5), the decrease resulted from a larger increase in
public expenditure than in private expenditure.
In some countries, trends in the changes in the share of public/private funding move in opposite directions before
and after 2008. This is most significant in Chile, Korea and Poland, where the share of private funds increased
between 2005 and 2008, and then decreased between 2008 and 2012, resulting in an overall decrease in the share
of private funds between 2005 and 2012. In these countries, contrary to what was observed in most other countries,
the change in the share of private expenditure was larger between 2008 and 2012 than between 2005 and 2008
(Chart B3.3).
Between 2000 and 2012, private expenditure on educational institutions generally increased faster than public
expenditure. Nevertheless, public investment in tertiary education also increased in most countries for which
2000 and 2012 data are available, regardless of the changes in private spending. Five of the ten countries with
the largest increases in private expenditure during this period (Chile, the Czech Republic, Iceland, Mexico and the
Slovak Republic) are also among the ten countries with the largest increases in public expenditure (Table B3.2b).
Public expenditure on educational institutions per student, by type of institution
The level of public expenditure partly shows the degree to which governments value education (see Indicators B2
and B4). Naturally, public funds go to public institutions; but in some cases a significant part of the public budget
may be devoted to private educational institutions (government-dependent private institutions and independent
private institutions).
Table B3.3 shows public investment in educational institutions relative to the size of the education system. The data
focus on public expenditure, per student, on public and private educational institutions (private funds are excluded
from Table B3.3, although in some countries they represent a significant share of the resources of educational
institutions, especially at the tertiary level). This measure complements data on public expenditure relative to
national income (see Indicator B2).
On average across OECD countries, at primary to tertiary levels of education combined, public expenditure,
per student, on public institutions is 91% higher than public expenditure, per student, on private institutions
(USD 9 317 and USD 4 889, respectively). However, the difference varies according to the level of education. At the
primary, secondary and post-secondary non-tertiary levels of education, public expenditure, per student, on public
institutions is around 1.6 times that on private institutions (USD 8 683 and USD 5 284, respectively), whereas at
the tertiary level, public expenditure, per student, on public institutions is 2.5 times that on private institutions
(USD 11 913 and USD 4 751, respectively).
At the primary, secondary and post-secondary non-tertiary levels of education (the levels with the largest proportion
of public funds, Table B3.2b), public expenditure per student on both public and private institutions averages
USD 8 039 in OECD countries, but varies from less than USD 2 350 in Mexico and partner countries Colombia

244 Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

How much public and private investment in education is there? – INDICATOR B3

chapter B

and Indonesia, to more than USD 10 000 in Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Norway, Sweden and the United States,
and exceeds USD 19 000 in Luxembourg. At this level, most students are enrolled in public institutions, and public
expenditure per student is usually higher on public than on private institutions, except in Denmark, Israel and, to
a lesser extent, Hungary and the Slovak Republic (Table B3.3). In these four OECD countries, between 9% and 20%
of students are enrolled in private institutions. In Mexico and the Netherlands, the amount of public expenditure,
per student, on private institutions is small or negligible, as the private sector is marginal and receives little or no
public funds (see Table C1.4).

Chart B3.3. Share of private expenditure on tertiary education institutions (2005 and 2012)
and change, in percentage points, in the share of private expenditure between 2005 and 2012

Iceland

Norway

Iceland

Norway

Finland

Belgium
Belgium

Sweden

Slovenia

Ireland

France

Czech Republic

Estonia

Poland

Slovak Republic1

2005

Spain

Netherlands

OECD average

Italy

Canada1

Portugal

Israel

Australia

United States

Chile

Japan1

Korea

90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0

Mexico

2012

%

Change (in percentage points) in the proportion of private expenditure
between 2005 and 2012

Finland

Sweden

Slovenia

Ireland

France

Czech Republic

Difference 2012-2005

Estonia

Poland

Slovak Republic1

Spain

Netherlands

Difference 2012-2008

Mexico

OECD average

Italy

Canada1

Israel

Australia

United States

Chile

Japan1

Korea

25
20
15
10
5
0
-5
-10
-15
-20
-25

Portugal

Difference 2008-2005

Percentage points

1. 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 the share of private expenditure on educational institutions in 2012.
Source: OECD. Table B3.2b. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/education/education-at-a-glance-19991487.htm).
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933284007

At the tertiary level, public expenditure, per student, on both public and private institutions averages USD 9 223 in
OECD countries, but varies from about USD 2 800 or less in Chile, Colombia and Indonesia, to more than USD 17 000
in Finland, Norway and Sweden – three countries where the share of private expenditure is small or negligible. In all
countries with available data except Israel and Latvia, public expenditure, per student, is higher on public than on
private institutions (Table B3.3 and Chart B3.4).
Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

245

B3

chapter B FINANCIAL AND HUMAN RESOURCES INVESTED IN EDUCATION

In Belgium, Estonia, Hungary, Iceland, Israel, Latvia and Sweden, public expenditure goes to both public and private
institutions, and public expenditure, per student, on private institutions represents at least 50% – and up to more
than 100% – of the level of public expenditure, per student, on public tertiary institutions (Table B3.3). However,
these countries show different participation patterns. In Hungary and Sweden, at least 80% of students are enrolled
in public institutions, whereas in Belgium, Estonia, Israel and Latvia, tertiary students are mainly enrolled in private
institutions. In the remaining countries, public expenditure goes mainly to public institutions (Chart B3.4 and
Table B3.3).

Chart B3.4. Annual public expenditure on educational institutions per student
in tertiary education, by type of institution (2012)
Public institutions
Private institutions
Total public and private institutions

In equivalent USD
converted using PPPs

25 000
20 000
15 000
10 000

Colombia (52%)

Indonesia (33%)

Latvia (8%)

Chile (16%)

Korea (19%)

Estonia (17%)

Portugal (80%)

Hungary (83%)

Poland (77%)

Russian Federation1 (89%)

Mexico (68%)

Israel (11%)

Turkey (90%)

Japan (23%)

Italy (91%)

Slovak Republic (m)

Czech Republic (86%)

Australia (0%)

New Zealand (89%)

Slovenia (90%)

Spain (84%)

Iceland (m%)

OECD average (61%)

France (81%)

United States (68%)

Netherlands1 (91%)

Belgium (42%)

United Kingdom (0%)

Germany (93%)

Austria (84)

Sweden (90%)

0

Finland (71%)

5 000

Norway (84%)

B3

At this level, patterns in the allocation of public funds to public and private institutions differ. In the Netherlands,
at least 90% of students are enrolled in public institutions, and most public expenditure goes to these institutions.
Public expenditure, per student, on public institutions is higher than the OECD average, and public expenditure,
per student, on private institutions is negligible. About 30% of total expenditure on tertiary institutions in the
Netherlands come from private sources (Chart B3.4 and Table B3.1).

Note: The figures into brackets represent the percentage of students enrolled in public institutions in tertiary education, based on full-time equivalents.
1. Government-dependent institutions are included with public institutions.
Countries are ranked in descending order of public expenditure on public and private educational institutions per student.
Source: OECD. Table B3.3. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/education/education-at-a-glance-19991487.htm).
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933284014

Definitions
Other private entities include private businesses and non-profit organisations, e.g. religious organisations, charitable
organisations and business and labour associations.
Private spending includes all direct expenditure on educational institutions, whether partially covered by public
subsidies or not. Expenditure by private companies on the work-based element of school- and work-based training
of apprentices and students is also taken into account. Public subsidies attributable to households, included in
private spending, are shown separately.
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.
Public expenditure is related to all students at public and private institutions, whether these institutions receive
public funding or not.

246 Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

How much public and private investment in education is there? – INDICATOR B3

chapter B

Methodology
Data refer to the financial year 2012 and are based on the UOE data collection on education statistics administered
by the OECD in 2014 (for details see Annex 3 at www.oecd.org/education/education-at-a-glance-19991487.htm).
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 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.
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.
Expenditure on educational institutions is calculated on a cash-accounting basis and, as such, represents a snapshot
of expenditure in the reference year. Many countries operate a loan payment/repayment system at the tertiary level.
While public loan payments are taken into account, loan repayments from private individuals are not, and so the
private contribution to education costs may be under-represented.
The data on expenditure for 2000, 2005, 2008, 2010 and 2011 were updated based on a survey in 2014, and
expenditure for 2000 to 2011 were adjusted to the methods and definitions used in the current UOE data collection.
Note regarding data from Israel
The statistical data for Israel are supplied by and are under the responsibility of the relevant Israeli authorities. The use of
such data by the OECD is without prejudice to the status of the Golan Heights, East Jerusalem and Israeli settlements in the
West Bank under the terms of international law.

Indicator B3 Tables
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933285464

Table B3.1

Relative proportions of public and private expenditure on educational institutions,
by level of education (2012)

Table B3.2a

Trends in the proportion of public expenditure on educational institutions and index of change in public
and private expenditure, at primary, secondary, post-secondary non-tertiary level
(2000, 2005, 2008, 2010 to 2012)
Table B3.2b Trends in the proportion of public expenditure on tertiary education institutions and index of change
in public and private expenditure (2000, 2005, 2008, 2010 to 2012)
Table B3.3

Annual public expenditure on educational institutions per student, by type of institution (2012)

Cut-off date for the data: 23 October 2015. Updates can be found on line at http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/eag-data-en.

Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

247

B3

chapter B FINANCIAL AND HUMAN RESOURCES INVESTED IN EDUCATION

Table B3.1. Relative proportions of public and private expenditure on educational institutions,

by level of education (2012)

Distribution of public and private sources of funds for educational institutions after transfers from public sources

All private
sources1

Private: of which,
subsidised

(6)

(7)

(8)

(9)

(10)

(11)

(12)

(13)

(14)

(15)

3.6
4.5
3.0
m
0.9
3.1
7.2
2.9
3.6
3.3
m
m
3.8
a
6.7
1.1
2.1
m
1.6
1.7
5.5
6.4
1.9
m
0.9
1.9
4.4
2.9
1.6
0.0
1.4
1.0
5.9
m

44.9
95.3
89.9
54.9
34.6
79.3
m
78.2
96.2
79.8
85.9
m
54.4
90.6
81.8
52.4
66.0
34.3
29.3
94.8
69.7
70.5
52.4
96.1
77.6
54.3
73.8
86.1
73.1
89.3
m
80.4
56.9
37.8

40.0
1.9
4.9
23.4
54.8
8.5
m
15.2
x(9)
10.6
x(9)
m
x(9)
8.7
15.8
29.6
26.5
51.6
42.1
2.8
30.0
15.6
33.1
3.3
20.2
35.0
13.8
11.4
23.0
0.4
m
19.6
19.3
45.8

15.0
2.8
5.2
21.7
10.7
12.3
m
6.6
x(9)
9.6
x(9)
m
x(9)
0.7
2.4
18.0
7.5
14.1
28.6
2.4
0.3
13.9
14.5
0.6
2.3
10.8
12.4
2.5
4.0
10.4
m
m
23.8
16.4

55.1
4.7
10.1
45.1
65.4
20.7
m
21.8
3.8
20.2
14.1
m
45.6
9.4
18.2
47.6
34.0
65.7
70.7
5.2
30.3
29.5
47.6
3.9
22.4
45.7
26.2
13.9
26.9
10.7
m
19.6
43.1
62.2

10.1
9.4
15.7
4.3
6.7
1.4
m
4.2
15.0
7.3
m
m
9.8
a
17.8
5.9
19.6
m
6.5
11.8
3.7
9.5
11.4
18.0
11.0
13.1
18.7
15.9
8.3
0.0
m
5.1
8.7
12.7

71.7
95.7
94.9
76.2
60.1
87.3
m
93.4
98.3
88.0
86.6
m
81.5
92.1
92.6
77.1
88.4
70.1
66.5
97.4
80.3
81.7
74.2
m
88.1
78.5
84.6
89.8
84.2
96.7
m
83.8
76.4
68.4

22.1
2.7
3.8
12.0
35.1
7.7
m
4.8
x(14)
8.3
x(14)
m
x(14)
7.1
6.9
13.9
9.7
19.7
22.6
2.1
19.5
7.8
18.4
m
11.3
19.1
10.6
9.3
14.1
0.1
m
16.2
15.2
24.5

6.2
1.6
1.3
11.8
4.8
5.0
m
1.8
x(14)
3.7
x(14)
m
x(14)
0.8
0.5
9.0
1.9
10.2
11.0
0.5
0.2
10.5
7.4
m
0.6
2.4
4.8
0.9
1.7
3.1
m
m
8.3
7.1

28.3
4.3
5.1
23.8
39.9
12.7
m
6.6
1.7
12.0
13.4
m
18.5
7.9
7.4
22.9
11.6
29.9
33.5
2.6
19.7
18.3
25.8
m
11.9
21.5
15.4
10.2
15.8
3.3
m
16.2
23.6
31.6

5.4
6.2
5.9
1.7
3.3
2.5
m
3.2
7.2
4.4
m
m
5.5
a
9.1
2.4
6.3
m
3.8
2.9
5.0
7.4
4.5
m
3.7
4.4
8.3
6.0
3.5
0.0
m
2.3
6.7
5.5

OECD average
EU21 average

90.6
92.8

7.9
6.2

2.2
1.4

9.4
7.2

3.1
3.5

69.7
78.1

21.7
14.0

10.0
8.0

30.3
21.9

10.1
11.0

83.5
88.6

12.8
8.3

4.5
3.0

16.5
11.4

4.7
5.2

Argentina
Brazil
China
Colombia4
India
Indonesia4
Latvia
Russian Federation
Saudi Arabia
South Africa

m
m
m
78.0
m
90.6
97.7
96.7
m
m

m
m
m
21.8
m
9.4
2.1
2.6
m
m

m
m
m
0.2
m
m
0.2
0.7
m
m

m
m
m
22.0
m
9.4
2.3
3.3
m
m

m
m
m
2.4
m
1.2
4.0
m
m
m

m
m
m
42.6
m
70.7
63.6
63.5
m
m

m
m
m
57.4
m
29.3
36.2
23.8
m
m

m
m
m
0.0
m
m
0.2
12.7
m
m

m
m
m
57.4
m
29.3
36.4
36.5
m
m

m
m
m
5.4
m
2.2
10.8
m
m
m

m
m
m
69.1
m
87.7
87.1
85.4
m
m

m
m
m
30.7
m
12.3
12.8
9.8
m
m

m
m
m
0.2
m
m
0.2
4.9
m
m

m
m
m
30.9
m
12.3
12.9
14.6
m
m

m
m
m
3.1
m
1.3
6.2
m
m
m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

G20 average

OECD
Partners

Public sources

(5)

17.6
4.0
3.7
9.0
22.0
9.0
2.8
0.9
0.7
9.0
13.5
m
5.8
4.0
4.3
11.1
4.5
7.1
16.1
2.2
17.2
13.3
17.5
m
8.0
14.8
11.9
9.0
11.3
0.0
11.5
14.6
16.0
8.0

All private
sources1

(4)

2.7
1.0
0.1
5.0
0.7
2.0
0.0
0.0
x(4)
1.5
x(4)
m
x(4)
0.4
m
3.6
0.1
2.1
1.7
0.2
0.1
9.0
4.7
m
m
m
2.1
0.3
0.8
0.0
11.5
m
2.4
m

Expenditure
of other
private entities

(3)

14.9
3.1
3.6
4.0
21.3
7.0
2.8
0.9
x(4)
7.5
x(4)
m
x(4)
3.7
4.3
7.5
4.4
5.1
14.4
2.0
17.1
4.4
12.8
m
8.0
14.8
9.8
8.6
10.5
0.0
0.0
14.6
13.7
8.0

Household
expenditure

(2)

82.4
96.0
96.3
91.0
78.0
91.0
97.2
99.1
99.3
91.0
86.5
m
94.2
96.0
95.7
88.9
95.5
92.9
83.9
97.8
82.8
86.7
82.5
m
92.0
85.2
88.1
91.0
88.7
100.0
88.5
85.4
84.0
92.0

Public sources

(1)

Australia
Austria
Belgium
Canada2, 3
Chile4
Czech Republic
Denmark
Estonia
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Iceland
Ireland
Israel
Italy5
Japan3
Korea
Luxembourg
Mexico
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway3
Poland
Portugal3
Slovak Republic3
Slovenia
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Turkey
United Kingdom
United States3

All private
sources1

Expenditure
of other
private entities

Private sources
Household
expenditure

Private sources

Private: of which,
subsidised

Private sources

Private: of which,
subsidised

Primary to tertiary
(including undistributed programmes)

Expenditure
of other
private entities

Tertiary

Household
expenditure

Primary, secondary
and post-secondary non-tertiary

Public sources

B3

Note: Proportions of total expenditure from public sources in early childhood education is available in Indicator C2.
1. Including subsidies attributable to payments to educational institutions received from public sources.
2. Year of reference 2011 instead of 2012.
3. Some levels of education are included with others. Refer to “x” code in Table B1.1a for details.
4. Year of reference 2013 instead of 2012.
5. Excludes short-cycle tertiary programmes.
Source: OECD. Argentina, China, Colombia, India, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia, South Africa: UNESCO Institute for Statistics. Latvia: Eurostat. See Annex 3 for notes
(www.oecd.org/education/education-at-a-glance-19991487.htm).
Please refer to the Reader’s Guide for information concerning symbols for missing data and abbreviations.
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933285473

248 Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

How much public and private investment in education is there? – INDICATOR B3

chapter B

Table B3.2a. Trends in the proportion of public expenditure1 on educational institutions

and index of change in public and private expenditure, at primary, secondary,
post-secondary non-tertiary level (2000, 2005, 2008, 2010 to 2012)

Index of change of public and private sources of funds for educational institutions after transfers from public sources, by year
Index of change between 2000 and 2012 in expenditure
on educational institutions
(2005 = 100, constant prices)

Partners

OECD

Share of public expenditure
on educational institutions
(%)

Private sources2

Public sources

2000

2005

2008

2010

2011

2012

2000

2008

2010

2011

2012

2000

2008

2010

2011

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7)

(8)

(9)

(10)

(11)

(12)

(13)

(14)

(15)

2012
(16)

Australia
Austria
Belgium
Canada3, 4
Chile5
Czech Republic
Denmark3
Estonia
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Iceland
Ireland
Israel
Italy
Japan3
Korea
Luxembourg
Mexico
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Slovak Republic3
Slovenia
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Turkey
United Kingdom
United States

83.7
m
m
92.4
68.4
91.7
97.8
m
99.3
91.6
m
91.7
92.7
96.4
96.0
94.8
97.8
89.8
80.8
m
86.1
86.1
m
99.0
95.4
99.9
97.6
m
93.0
99.9
88.9
m
m
91.7

83.5
m
94.9
89.9
69.8
89.9
97.9
98.9
99.2
91.4
m
92.5
95.5
96.2
96.8
93.0
96.3
90.1
77.0
m
82.9
87.1
m
m
98.2
99.9
86.2
91.9
93.5
99.9
86.9
m
m
91.8

82.5
m
95.2
88.6
78.4
90.4
97.6
99.0
99.0
91.2
m
m
100.0
96.4
97.7
93.0
97.1
90.0
77.8
m
82.9
86.6
m
m
94.7
99.9
84.8
91.7
93.1
99.9
86.3
m
m
91.8

84.7
m
96.0
89.3
78.6
90.8
97.6
98.7
99.2
91.4
87.1
m
100.0
96.2
95.9
92.4
96.6
93.0
78.5
m
82.7
86.9
m
m
93.8
100.0
88.0
91.3
91.8
99.9
88.1
m
m
92.3

83.6
m
96.2
89.7
78.3
90.9
97.2
98.9
99.3
91.2
87.2
m
100.0
96.3
95.8
89.5
96.2
93.0
80.7
m
82.6
86.6
m
m
93.9
99.9
88.6
91.1
91.1
100.0
88.3
86.8
m
91.9

82.4
96.0
96.3
91.0
78.0
91.0
97.2
99.1
99.3
91.0
86.5
m
94.2
96.0
95.7
88.9
95.5
92.9
83.9
97.8
82.8
86.7
82.5
m
92.0
85.2
88.1
91.0
88.7
100.0
88.5
85.4
84.0
92.0

83
m
m
86
94
78
86
81
83
99
m
m
68
73
68
101
95
98
72
m
84
81
m
87
87
100
84
m
92
88
89
71
75
86

108
m
113
104
145
106
99
124
107
102
m
m
96
108
132
120
105
102
116
m
103
105
m
107
110
95
113
104
115
103
102
121
94
111

135
m
113
116
141
111
108
109
112
106
m
m
85
96
138
129
98
108
128
m
111
114
m
113
116
108
138
103
117
102
108
147
102
110

130
m
114
117
165
114
99
103
113
104
m
m
79
99
136
139
93
108
133
m
115
113
m
112
115
101
129
100
113
103
111
149
113
107

129
m
116
116
156
115
79
105
112
104
m
m
75
98
137
147
88
110
136
96
119
112
m
112
115
m
128
96
105
103
112
165
114
104

82
m
m
63
100
63
89
m
66
97
m
m
m
70
87
74
55
101
58
m
65
89
m
m
226
101
13
m
99
a
74
m
m
87

116
m
106
118
92
101
112
119
126
105
m
m
m
103
97
120
81
103
111
m
103
111
m
m
337
89
126
107
122
a
108
m
m
111

123
m
88
123
89
100
124
129
104
106
m
m
m
96
179
142
89
73
118
m
112
116
m
m
417
87
117
110
150
a
98
m
m
102

129
m
83
120
105
102
134
108
97
107
m
m
m
97
183
217
96
74
107
m
118
118
m
m
402
89
104
110
158
a
98
m
m
105

139
m
83
102
101
102
m
89
99
108
m
m
m
105
187
243
109
76
88
m
119
117
m
m
538
m
108
108
192
a
97
m
m
101

OECD average
OECD average for
19 countries with
data available for
all reference years
EU21 average

92.1

91.5

91.7

91.9

91.6

90.6

85

109

114

115

114

84

118

125

128

137

90.6

89.5

89.6

90.0

89.9

89.7

86

111

117

119

118

83

121

129

134

144

95.1

94.7

94.9

94.4

94.4

92.8

84

107

110

108

106

90

124

137

135

153

Argentina
Brazil
China
Colombia5
India
Indonesia5
Latvia
Russian Federation
Saudi Arabia
South Africa

m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m

m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m

m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m

m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m

m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m

m
m
m
78.0
m
90.6
97.7
96.7
m
m

m
66
m
m
m
m
m
66
m
m

m
146
m
m
m
m
m
132
m
m

m
170
m
m
m
m
m
126
m
m

m
175
m
m
m
m
m
129
m
m

m
182
m
m
m
m
m
151
m
m

m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m

m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m

m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m

m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m

m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m

G20 average

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

1. Excluding international funds in public and total expenditure on educational institutions.
2. Including subsidies attribuable to payments to educational institutions received from public sources.
3. Some levels of education are included with others. Refer to “x” code in Table B1.1a for details.
4. Year of reference 2011 instead of 2012.
5. Year of reference 2013 instead of 2012.
Source: OECD. Argentina, China, Colombia, India, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia, South Africa: UNESCO Institute for Statistics. Latvia: Eurostat. See Annex 3 for notes
(www.oecd.org/education/education-at-a-glance-19991487.htm).
Please refer to the Reader’s Guide for information concerning symbols for missing data and abbreviations.
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933285480

Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

249

B3

chapter B FINANCIAL AND HUMAN RESOURCES INVESTED IN EDUCATION

Table B3.2b. Trends in the proportion of public expenditure1 on tertiary education institutions

and index of change in public and private expenditure (2000, 2005, 2008, 2010 to 2012)

Index of change of public and private sources of funds for educational institutions after transfers from public sources, by year

B3

Index of change between 2000 and 2012 in expenditure
on educational institutions
(2005 = 100, constant prices)

Partners

OECD

Share of public expenditure
on educational institutions
(%)

Private sources2

Public sources

2000

2005

2008

2010

2011

2012

2000

2008

2010

2011

2012

2000

2008

2010

2011

2012

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7)

(8)

(9)

(10)

(11)

(12)

(13)

(14)

(15)

(16)

Australia
Austria
Belgium
Canada3, 4
Chile5
Czech Republic
Denmark3
Estonia
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Iceland
Ireland
Israel
Italy
Japan3
Korea
Luxembourg
Mexico
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Slovak Republic3
Slovenia
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Turkey
United Kingdom
United States

49.9
m
m
61.0
19.5
85.4
97.6
m
97.2
84.4
m
99.7
76.7
91.8
79.2
60.1
77.5
38.5
23.3
m
79.4
75.0
m
96.3
66.6
92.5
91.2
m
74.4
91.3
m
m
m
37.4

45.4
m
90.8
55.1
15.9
81.2
96.7
69.9
96.1
83.6
m
96.7
78.5
90.5
84.0
46.5
73.2
33.7
24.3
m
69.0
73.0
m
100.0
74.0
68.1
77.3
76.5
77.9
88.2
m
m
m
42.0

44.9
m
90.0
58.7
14.6
79.1
95.5
78.8
95.4
81.7
m
m
m
92.2
82.6
51.3
70.7
33.3
22.3
m
70.1
71.5
m
96.9
69.6
62.1
73.1
83.8
78.9
89.1
m
m
m
41.3

46.5
m
89.9
56.6
22.1
78.8
95.0
75.4
95.9
81.9
86.4
m
m
91.2
81.2
54.2
67.6
34.4
27.3
m
69.9
71.8
m
96.0
70.6
69.0
70.2
84.7
78.2
90.6
m
m
m
40.0

45.6
m
90.1
57.4
24.2
81.1
94.5
80.4
95.9
80.8
86.6
m
m
90.6
80.5
49.0
66.5
34.5
27.0
m
67.1
70.8
m
95.9
75.5
68.6
76.9
85.2
77.5
89.5
m
m
m
38.7

44.9
95.3
89.9
54.9
34.6
79.3
m
78.2
96.2
79.8
85.9
m
54.4
90.6
81.8
52.4
66.0
34.3
29.3
94.8
69.7
70.5
52.4
96.1
77.6
54.3
73.8
86.1
73.1
89.3
m
80.4
56.9
37.8

92
m
m
93
103
68
87
93
89
94
m
m
81
71
96
107
99
107
75
m
85
87
m
83
52
100
79
m
83
90
76
77
m
70

110
m
110
116
118
127
98
135
107
110
m
m
106
118
133
109
108
108
116
m
116
107
m
102
104
96
114
114
121
105
91
114
m
110

129
m
118
120
237
131
106
132
116
115
m
m
96
105
132
125
102
112
154
m
130
116
m
105
110
112
116
119
127
119
102
144
m
111

130
m
120
121
279
162
108
159
120
115
m
m
112
101
126
126
101
117
160
m
121
119
m
106
109
103
140
121
123
120
107
167
m
111

131
m
121
113
405
145
m
136
118
113
m
m
79
107
135
132
95
116
171
m
137
119
m
108
114
78
145
115
108
122
111
193
m
112

77
m
m
73
81
50
62
m
62
88
m
m
m
61
133
62
79
87
80
m
49
78
m
m
74
17
26
m
101
65
m
m
m
84

112
m
120
100
130
145
135
84
127
126
m
m
m
96
147
90
123
110
130
m
110
115
m
m
129
126
143
72
114
97
m
m
m
113

124
m
130
113
158
152
164
100
121
130
m
m
m
97
160
92
134
109
132
m
125
123
m
m
130
107
168
70
125
93
m
m
m
121

129
m
130
110
166
164
183
90
128
138
m
m
m
101
161
113
139
113
139
m
132
132
m
m
101
101
144
68
126
105
m
m
m
127

134
m
135
113
145
164
m
88
116
145
m
m
m
106
137
104
134
113
133
m
132
135
m
m
93
140
175
60
140
110
m
m
m
133

OECD average
OECD average for
20 countries with
data available for
all reference years
EU21 average

72.7

70.7

69.1

70.2

70.4

69.7

86

112

123

129

133

71

116

124

127

126

68.8

64.9

64.1

64.9

64.9

64.5

87

113

126

130

136

71

119

126

128

130

84.9

81.5

80.1

80.5

81.3

78.1

86

112

117

122

116

70

120

127

127

127

Argentina
Brazil
China
Colombia5
India
Indonesia5
Latvia
Russian Federation
Saudi Arabia
South Africa

m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m

m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m

m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m

m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m

m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m

m
m
m
42.6
m
70.7
63.6
63.5
m
m

m
79
m
m
m
m
m
44
m
m

m
119
m
m
m
m
m
147
m
m

m
148
m
m
m
m
m
145
m
m

m
155
m
m
m
m
m
136
m
m

m
149
m
m
m
m
m
142
m
m

m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m

m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m

m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m

m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m

m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m

G20 average

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

1. Excluding international funds in public and total expenditure on educational institutions.
2. Including subsidies attribuable to payments to educational institutions received from public sources.
3. Some levels of education are included with others. Refer to “x” code in Table B1.1a for details.
4. Year of reference 2011 instead of 2012.
5. Year of reference 2013 instead of 2012.
Source: OECD. Argentina, China, Colombia, India, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia, South Africa: UNESCO Institute for Statistics. Latvia: Eurostat. See Annex 3 for notes
(www.oecd.org/education/education-at-a-glance-19991487.htm).
Please refer to the Reader’s Guide for information concerning symbols for missing data and abbreviations.
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933285491

250 Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

How much public and private investment in education is there? – INDICATOR B3

chapter B

Table B3.3. Annual public expenditure on educational institutions per student,

by type of institution (2012)

In equivalent USD converted using PPPs for GDP, by level of education and type of institution, based on full-time equivalents
Primary, secondary
and post-secondary non-tertiary

Primary to tertiary
(including undistributed programmes)

Tertiary

Partners

OECD

Total
Total
public
public
Public
Private
Public
Private
institutions institutions and private institutions institutions and private

of which:
R&D
activities

Total
public
Public
Private
institutions institutions and private

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7)

(8)

(9)

(10)

Australia
Austria
Belgium
Canada1
Chile2
Czech Republic
Denmark
Estonia
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Iceland
Ireland
Israel
Italy3
Japan
Korea
Luxembourg
Mexico
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway4
Poland
Portugal4
Slovak Republic4
Slovenia
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Turkey
United Kingdom
United States4

8 926
12 147
11 803
9 789
4 459
5 971
10 843
6 309
9 284
9 230
x(3)
m
4 065
9 130
9 546
5 843
8 117
x(3)
7 589
21 111
2 595
9 107
7 205
13 700
5 809
7 444
4 605
7 956
8 611
10 789
13 540
2 454
9 506
11 676

6 137
7 373
9 773
m
2 726
3 975
12 012
4 799
9 266
5 413
x(3)
m
4 363
6 894
m
7 212
1 636
x(3)
6 241
7 419
7
0
3 554
12 155
3 610
1 898
4 659d
5 404
3 747
9 902
m
0
6 697
1 069

7 971
11 673
10 597
m
3 408
5 839
11 006
6 244
9 283
8 478
8 518
m
4 116
8 956
m
6 122
7 659
8 851
7 342
19 178
2 320
8 886
6 967
13 612
5 636
6 605
4 610d
7 920
7 128
10 652
m
2 377
8 427
10 794

x(6)
16 128
14 622
13 028
6 373
8 097
m
7 329
20 194
13 803
x(6)
m
5 252
8 667
11 539
2 958
7 186
x(6)
10 540
32 459
8 257
14 063
7 736
22 267
7 051
5 727
6 538
8 750
10 215
20 039
25 264
6 980
a
12 492

x(6)
7 815
12 711
m
2 080
402
a
4 260
9 713
3 861
x(6)
m
2 706
7 712
m
6 682
2 024
x(6)
1 560
m
a
0
2 948
5 037
890
1 999
x(2)
3 400
1 037
14 229
m
0
13 352
4 863

7 276
14 815
13 511
m
2 751
7 016
m
4 795
17 181
11 955
14 438
m
4 832
8 497
m
6 273
6 707
6 433
3 308
m
5 656
12 786
7 198
19 564
5 637
4 989
6 538
8 224
8 775
19 439
m
6 257
13 352
10 041

5 848
3 932
4 102
m
321
2 168
m
2 798
5 822
4 309
5 790
m
1 314
x(6)
3 458
m
3 408
m
1 368
1 202
1 468
5 212
1 776
7 168
1 255
3 098
2 723
1 615
2 908
9 178
m
m
3 577
x(6)

x(10)
13 297
12 936
10 570
4 713
6 751
m
6 408
11 050
10 095
x(10)
m
4 626
9 723
9 881
6 189
7 931
x(10)
9 662
21 998
3 233
10 035
7 301
15 393
6 069
7 288
5 145
8 129
9 004
12 496
15 859
3 072
9 506
11 840

x(10)
7 553
10 389
m
2 501
2 537
m
4 324
9 458
5 136
x(10)
m
4 096
7 192
m
6 365
1 734
x(10)
3 069
m
5
0
3 380
15 658
2 305
2 019
4 659
4 063
3 418
10 442
m
0
8 702
3 224

7 837
12 624
11 430
m
3 225
6 395
m
5 866
10 839
9 129
9 785
m
4 536
9 475
m
6 250
7 465
8 805
7 103
m
2 819
9 659
7 011
15 413
5 636
6 441
5 109
7 995
7 476
12 198
m
2 944
9 127
10 603

OECD average
EU21 average

8 683
9 066

5 284
5 664

8 039
8 550

11 913
12 294

4 751
5 227

9 223
10 294

3 433
3 572

9 317
9 592

4 889
5 052

7 971
8 336

Argentina
Brazil
China
Colombia2
India
Indonesia2
Latvia
Russian Federation
Saudi Arabia
South Africa

m
3 049
m
2 446
m
1 389
3 481
x(3)
m
2 431

m
m
m
535
m
343
2 828
x(3)
m
m

m
m
m
2 071
m
1 096
3 470
5 167
m
m

m
10 455
m
4 201
m
5 778
2 066
x(6)
m
m

m
m
m
0
m
284
3 193
x(6)
m
m

m
m
m
2 203
m
2 089
3 109
5 284
m
m

m
860
m
m
m
m
1 110
x(6)
m
m

m
3 441
m
2 898
m
1 809
3 446
x(10)
m
m

m
m
m
350
m
531
3 175
x(10)
m
m

m
m
m
2 270
m
1 397
3 380
5 719
m
m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

G20 average

1. Year of reference 2011.
2. Year of reference 2013.
3. Excluding post-secondary non-tertiary education and short-cycle tertiary programmes.
4. Some levels of education are included with others. Refer to “x” code in Table B1.1a for details.
Source: OECD. Argentina, China, Colombia, India, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia, South Africa: UNESCO Institute for Statistics. Latvia: Eurostat. See Annex 3 for notes
(www.oecd.org/education/education-at-a-glance-19991487.htm).
Please refer to the Reader’s Guide for information concerning symbols for missing data and abbreviations.
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933285509

Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

251

B3

WHAT IS THE TOTAL PUBLIC SPENDING ON EDUCATION
INDICATOR B4

• Primary to tertiary education accounts for 11.6% of total public spending, on average across OECD
countries, ranging from 8% or less in Hungary, Italy and Spain, to more than 18% in Mexico and
New Zealand.

• The proportion of public expenditure devoted to primary to tertiary education decreased between
2005 and 2012 in nearly two-thirds of the countries with available data for both years, and remained
stable for most others, except, most notably, in Brazil and Israel, where it increased by 3 percentage
points or more.

• During the shorter period 2008-12, the height of the economic crisis, the share of public expenditure
devoted to primary to tertiary education decreased by 2% as public expenditure on education grew
at a lower rate (or decreased at a faster rate) than public expenditure on all other services in 16 of
the 26 OECD countries with available data.

Chart B4.1. Total public expenditure on primary to tertiary education
as a percentage of total public expenditure (2005, 2008, 2012)

Italy

Spain

Hungary

Luxembourg

Japan

France

Czech Republic

Austria

Slovak Republic

Portugal

Germany

Poland

Slovenia

Netherlands

Estonia

2005

Belgium

Finland

2008

OECD average

Sweden

United States

United Kingdom

Israel

Canada

Iceland

Australia

Norway

Korea

Ireland

Chile

2012

Switzerland

Brazil

Mexico

22
20
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0

New Zealand

% of total
public expenditure

Countries are ranked in descending order of total public expenditure on primary to tertiary education as a percentage of total public expenditure
in 2012.
Source: OECD. Table B4.2. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/education/education-at-a-glance-19991487.htm).
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933284022

Context
Countries’ decisions concerning budget allocations to various sectors, including education, health
care, social security and defence, depend not only on the countries’ priorities, but also on whether
markets, alone, can provide those services adequately, especially at the tertiary level of education.
Markets may fail to do so if the public benefits are greater than the private benefits; thus government
funding can help to increase access to tertiary education.
However, the economic crisis has put pressure on public budgets to the extent that less public resources
may be allocated to education. This, in turn, may affect access to or the outcomes and quality of education.
At the same time, the demand for education and training from people who are not in work may increase,
requiring more spending on education. Yet higher expenditure is not necessarily associated with better
outcomes or the quality of education. In addition, levels of expenditure are affected by many factors (see
Indicator B7) that need to be taken into account when comparing countries.
This indicator presents total public spending on education, relative to both a country’s total public
spending and to its gross domestic product, to account for the relative sizes of public budgets. In
addition, it includes data on the different sources of public funding invested in education (central,
regional and local government) and on the transfers of funds between these levels of government.

252 Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

Other findings

• While public expenditure on education as a percentage of total public expenditure on all services
decreased, on average, across OECD countries between 2005 and 2012, public expenditure on
education relative to GDP increased slightly during this period.

INDICATOR B4

• Most OECD and partner countries (33 out of 38 countries with available data) spend more than
twice as much on primary, secondary and post-secondary non-tertiary education combined as on
tertiary education.

• At the primary, secondary and post-secondary non-tertiary levels of education, only New Zealand
had an entirely centralised public funding system.
Trends
Between 2000 and 2012, the percentage of total public expenditure devoted to primary to tertiary
education decreased slightly in half of the countries with available data (13 of 25 countries). The
decrease was especially substantial (one percentage point or more) in eight countries and exceeded
two percentage points in Estonia and Mexico. However, the share also increased substantially (by two
percentage points or more) in some countries, most notably Brazil, Chile, Israel and the Slovak Republic
(Table B4.2).
There is no clear pattern regarding public expenditure on education as a percentage of GDP between
2000 and 2012. The share of public expenditure devoted to education decreased in half of the countries
between 2000 and 2012, as did public expenditure on education as a percentage of GDP in around
one-third of countries (8 out of 27 countries) during this period. On average across OECD countries
with available data for both years, expenditure on education as a percentage of GDP increased.
Between 2008 and 2012, in two-thirds of countries (18 of 27 countries with available data), both
public expenditure on education and total public expenditure for all services increased. However, in
17 of 27 countries, public expenditure on all services grew faster or decreased slower than public
expenditure on education (Table B4.2).

Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

253

chapter B FINANCIAL AND HUMAN RESOURCES INVESTED IN EDUCATION

Analysis

In most countries, and on average across OECD countries, more than two-thirds of total public expenditure on
primary to tertiary education as a percentage of total public expenditure was devoted to primary, secondary and
post-secondary non-tertiary education. This is primarily explained by the near-universal enrolment rates at these
levels of education (see Indicator C1) and the demographic structure of the population.
Public expenditure devoted to tertiary education amounts to 25.9% of public expenditure from primary to tertiary
education, on average across OECD countries. The percentages range from about 18% or less in Brazil (18.2%),
Israel (18.1%), Korea (18.2%), Luxembourg (12.0%) and Portugal (18.3%) to 30% or more in Canada (34.6%),
Finland (33.6%), Germany (30.5%), the Netherlands (30.9%), Norway (32.5%), Sweden (33.0%) and the
United States (30.5%), and exceeded 35% in Austria (36.7%) (Table B4.1).
When public expenditure on education is considered as a proportion of total public spending, the relative sizes of
public budgets must be taken into account. Indeed, the picture is different when looking at public expenditure on
education as a percentage of GDP, compared with public expenditure on education as a percentage of total public
expenditure. In 2012, public expenditure on primary to tertiary education as a proportion of GDP was 3.5% or
less in Indonesia (3.3%), the Russian Federation (3.4%) and the Slovak Republic (3.5%). At the other end of the
spectrum, only Norway (7.7%) spent more than 7% of its GDP on primary to tertiary education – well above the
OECD average of 4.8% (Table B4.1).

2012

2005

Czech Republic

% of GDP

Germany

Chart B4.2. Total public expenditure as a percentage of GDP (2005, 2012)
60
50
40
30
20

Chile

Mexico

Korea

Switzerland

Brazil

New Zealand

Australia

Estonia

Slovak Republic

Israel

Ireland

Canada

United States

Japan

Poland

Luxembourg

Iceland

United Kingdom

Spain

Portugal

Slovenia

Netherlands

Hungary

Italy

Sweden

Austria

Belgium

Finland

0

Norway

10
France

B4

Overall level of public resources invested in education
In 2012, total public expenditure on primary to tertiary education as a percentage of total public expenditure for all
services averaged 11.6% in OECD countries, ranging from 8.0% or less in Hungary (7.5%), Italy (7.4%) and Spain
(8.0%) to 18% or more in Mexico (18.4%) and New Zealand (18.4%) (Chart B4.1 and Table B4.1).

Note: This chart represents public expenditure on all services and not simply public expenditure on education.
Countries are ranked in descending order of total public expenditure as a percentage of GDP in 2012.
Source: OECD. Annex 2. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/education/education-at-a-glance-19991487.htm).
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933284034

Contrary to expectations, the five countries with the highest total public expenditure on primary to tertiary
education as a percentage of total public expenditure in 2012 – namely, Brazil, Chile, Mexico, New Zealand and
Switzerland (Chart B4.1) – are at the bottom end of the spectrum in total public expenditure on all services as a
percentage of GDP (Chart B4.2). Norway is the exception with high proportions on both counts.
When looking at total public expenditure on all services (including health, social security and the environment), and
not simply public expenditure on education, as a proportion of GDP, rates differ greatly among countries. In 2012,
almost one in five countries with available data reported that total public expenditure on all services was more than
50% of GDP, including France (55.1%) where total public expenditure on all services was more than 55% of GDP.
At the other extreme, total public expenditure on all services accounted for about 25% or less in Chile and Mexico
(24.5% and 25.3% of their GDP respectively) (Chart B4.2 and Annex 2).

254 Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

What is the total public spending on education? – INDICATOR B4

chapter B

Changes in total public expenditure on education as a percentage of total public expenditure
between 2000 and 2012

An increase was observed between 2000 and 2005…
Over a period of 5 years (2000-05), public expenditure on primary to tertiary education as a percentage of total public
expenditure increased in two-thirds of countries (17 of 28 countries with available data for both 2000 and 2005), and
by 0.2 percentage points on average across OECD countries. Among other countries, public expenditure on primary to
tertiary education as a percentage of total public expenditure decreased most significantly (by 1 percentage point or
more) in France and Portugal.
During this period, public expenditure on primary to tertiary education as a percentage of GDP also increased, by
0.2 percentage point, on average across OECD countries with data for both years. In two-thirds of countries (18 of
28 countries), public expenditure on education as a percentage of GDP grew more than public expenditure on education
as a percentage of total public expenditure, reflecting slower growth in GDP than in public expenditure (Table B4.2).

…but a drop was seen after 2005, coinciding with the 2008 financial crisis.
Spending patterns changed considerably between 2005 and 2012. During this seven-year period, public expenditure
on education as a percentage of total public expenditure decreased in nearly two-thirds of countries (16 of
27 countries with available data), and by an average of 0.5 percentage point among OECD countries with available
data for both years.
The decrease was the largest in Estonia (-2.2 percentage points), Iceland (-1.8) and Mexico (-1.9) and was also substantial
(-1 percentage point or more) in Hungary, Norway, Poland, Slovenia, Spain and the United States. Nevertheless,
one-third of countries showed an increase in expenditure on education as a percentage of total public expenditure from
2005 to 2012. The increases were largest (1 percentage point or more) in Brazil (3.9 percentage points), Chile (1.9),
Israel (3.0) and Switzerland (1.1).
Comparing data from 2005 and 2012 also shows a different pattern regarding the proportion of GDP spent on education,
because GDP was also affected by the economic crisis. As a result, public expenditure on primary to tertiary education
as a percentage of GDP increased or remained stable in two-thirds of countries (21 of 29 countries). On average among
OECD countries with available data for all years, the increase was 0.1 percentage point. This share decreased the most
(by 0.9 percentage point) in Hungary and Norway (Table B4.2 and Box B2.1 in Indicator B2).
First effect of the economic crisis: In half of the countries, public expenditure on education
varied at a slower rate than public expenditure for all services
The variations observed between 2008 and 2012 are possibly linked to the effects of the global economic crisis, which
began in 2008. The crisis put more pressure on overall public budgets, requiring governments to prioritise allocations
among education and other key public sectors, such as health and social security (Table B4.2 and Chart B4.3).
Between 2008 and 2012, there was no clear global trend concerning the evolution of public expenditure on primary
to tertiary education as a percentage of total public expenditure as was the case for the period 2000-05.
Nevertheless, in two-thirds of countries (18 of 27 countries with available data), public expenditure on education and
total public expenditure for all services both increased between 2008 and 2012. In 10 of these 18 countries, public
expenditure on all services grew faster than public expenditure on education (Table B4.2 and Chart B4.3). The differences
were greatest in France, Korea and Norway. In the eight other countries, public expenditure on education grew faster
than public expenditure for all services. In these 18 countries, growth in public expenditure for all services ranged from
5% in Sweden to 15% or more in Australia, Brazil, Chile and Mexico, and exceeded 30% in Korea.
Among the remaining third of countries (9 of 27 countries with available data), total public expenditure on all
services and public expenditure on education both decreased in five (Estonia, Hungary, Iceland, Italy and Slovenia).
In Iceland, public expenditure on all services shrank by as much as 22%, and public expenditure on education also
fell, but not as steeply (by 8%). In Estonia, Hungary, Italy and Slovenia, public expenditure on education declined
more steeply than public expenditure on all services (Table B4.2 and Chart B4.3).
In the last four countries (Ireland, Portugal, Spain and the United States), public expenditure on all services and
public expenditure on education diverged between 2008 and 2012. Public expenditure on education decreased
(as well as the share of public expenditure on education as a percentage of total public expenditure) in Portugal,
Spain and the United States, and increased (as did the share of public expenditure on education as a percentage of
total public expenditure) in Ireland.
Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

255

B4

chapter B FINANCIAL AND HUMAN RESOURCES INVESTED IN EDUCATION

Chart B4.3. Index of change between 2008 and 2012 in total public expenditure on education
as a percentage of total public expenditure
Primary to tertiary education (2008 = 100, 2012 constant prices)

B4

Hungary

Spain

Estonia

Italy

United States

Korea

Norway

Slovenia

France

Belgium

Finland

Japan

Portugal

OECD average

Poland

Netherlands

Canada

Sweden

Mexico

Australia

Czech Republic

Switzerland

Brazil

Ireland

Chile

Israel

135
130
125
120
115
110
105
100
95
90
85
80
75

Iceland

Index of change

Slovak Republic

Change in public expenditure on education
Change in public expenditure for all services
Change in total public expenditure on education as a percentage of total public expenditure

Countries are ranked in descending order of the change in total public expenditure on primary to tertiary education as a percentage of total public expenditure.
Source: OECD. Table B4.2. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/education/education-at-a-glance-19991487.htm).
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933284040

Sources of public funding invested in education
All government sources of expenditure on education, apart from international sources, are classified into three
different levels of government: central, regional and local. In some countries, the funding of education is centralised;
in others, funding can become decentralised after transfers among the different levels of government.
In recent years, many schools have become more autonomous and decentralised organisations (see Indicator D6 in
Education at a Glance 2012 [OECD, 2012]); they have also become more accountable to students, parents and the
public at large for their outcomes. The results from the OECD Programme for International Student Assessment
(PISA) suggest that when autonomy and accountability are intelligently combined, they tend to be associated with
better student performance (OECD, 2013).
Public funding is more centralised at the tertiary level than at lower levels of education (see Tables B4.3 and B4.6
in Education at a Glance 2014). In 2012, on average across OECD countries, 52.6% of public funds for primary,
secondary and post-secondary non-tertiary education combined came from the central government, before
transfers (Table B4.3).
For primary, secondary and post-secondary non-tertiary education combined, the share of initial public funds
from the central government differed greatly among countries. Six countries reported a share of less than 10%,
namely Canada (3.6%), Denmark (5.8%), Germany (7.4%), Norway (9.3%), Poland (4.8%) and Switzerland (3.6%).
In Canada, funding for primary and secondary education is provided at the provincial/territorial level, with the
exception of a small amount of federal funding for some First Nations/Aboriginal schools. At the other extreme,
public funds came nearly exclusively from the central government in Ireland, New Zealand and Turkey, and more
than 90% of initial public funds came from the central government in Chile (94.9%), the Netherlands (91.0%),
Portugal (90.6%) and Slovenia (90.4%).
Nevertheless, this picture changes when transfers among levels of government are taken into account. After these
transfers, less than 5% of public funds came from central sources in Australia (3.9%), Canada (2.9%), Japan (1.8%),
Korea (0.8%), Poland (3.8%), Switzerland (0.2%) and the United States (0.5%). Only New Zealand had an entirely
centralised funding system even after taking transfers into account (Chart B4.4 and Table B4.3). On average across
OECD countries, 40.6% of public funds for primary, secondary and post-secondary non-tertiary levels combined
came from local sources, after transfers, compared with 26.7% before transfers.

256 Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

What is the total public spending on education? – INDICATOR B4

chapter B

Chart B4.4. Distribution of initial sources of public funds for education by level of government
in primary, secondary and post-secondary non-tertiary education (2012)

B4

Initial funds from the local level of government
Initial funds from the regional level of government
Initial funds from the central level of government

%

100
80
60
40

Canada1
Canada1

Poland

Switzerland
Switzerland

Denmark1

Norway

Germany

Spain1

United States1

Czech Republic

Brazil

Japan1

Iceland

Belgium

Australia

Finland

United Kingdom

Latvia

OECD average

Hungary2

Korea

Estonia

France

Mexico

Austria

Italy

Slovak Republic1

Colombia

Israel

Luxembourg

Slovenia

Portugal

Chile

Netherlands

Ireland

0

New Zealand

20

Change in the proportion of educational funds received from the different levels of government
between initial and final purchasers of educational resources (2012)
In percentage points

Poland

Denmark1

Norway

Germany

United States1

Spain1

Czech Republic

Brazil

Japan1

Belgium

Iceland

Australia

Finland

United Kingdom

Latvia

OECD average

Hungary2

Korea

Estonia

France

Mexico

Austria

Italy

Colombia

Luxembourg

Israel

Slovenia

Portugal

Netherlands

Chile

Ireland

80
60
40
20
0
-20
-40
-60
-80

New Zealand

Percentage points

Slovak Republic1

Change in the proportion of funds received from the local level of government
Change in the proportion of funds received from the regional level of government
Change in the proportion of funds received from the central level of government

1. Some levels of education are included with others. Refer to “x” code in Table B1.1a for details.
2. Funds from local level include funds from regional level of government.
Countries are ranked in descending order of the share of initial sources of funds from the central level of government.
Source: OECD. Table B4.3. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/education/education-at-a-glance-19991487.htm).
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933284057

The extent of transfers of public funds from central to lower levels of government varies widely between countries.
The difference after transfers from central to lower levels of government represents more than 30 percentage points
in Austria, Chile, Estonia, Finland and Hungary, and more than 40 percentage points in Korea, Latvia, Mexico and
the Slovak Republic. In Austria, Canada and the United States, the difference after transfers from regional to local
sources of public funds exceeds 30 percentage points (Chart B4.4).

Definitions
Public expenditure on education covers expenditure on educational institutions and support for students’ living
costs and for other private expenditure outside institutions. It includes expenditure by all public entities, including
ministries other than ministries of education, local and regional governments, and other public agencies. OECD
countries differ in the ways in which they use public money for education. Public funds may flow directly to
institutions 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 students’ living costs.
Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

257

chapter B FINANCIAL AND HUMAN RESOURCES INVESTED IN EDUCATION

B4

All government sources of expenditure on education, apart from international sources, can be classified into three
levels: central (national) government, regional government (province, state, Bundesland, etc.), and local government
(municipality, district, commune, etc.). The terms “regional” and “local” apply to governments whose responsibilities
are exercised within certain geographical subdivisions of a country. They do not apply to government bodies whose
roles are not geographically circumscribed but are defined in terms of responsibility for particular services, functions
or categories of students.
Total public expenditure, also referred to as total public spending, corresponds to the non-repayable current and
capital expenditure of all levels of government: central, regional and local. It includes direct public expenditure on
educational institutions as well as public support 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).

Methodology
Data refer to the financial year 2012 and are based on the UOE data collection on education statistics administered
by the OECD in 2014 (for details see Annex 3 at www.oecd.org/education/education-at-a-glance-19991487.htm).
Figures for total public expenditure and GDP have been taken from the OECD National Accounts Database (see
Annex 2) and use the System of National Accounts 1993.
Educational expenditure is expressed as a percentage of a country’s total public sector expenditure and as a
percentage of GDP.
Though expenditure on debt servicing (e.g. interest payments) is included in total public expenditure, it is excluded
from public expenditure on education. The reason is that some countries cannot separate interest payments 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 in which interest payments represent a large proportion of
total public expenditure on all services.
Note regarding data from Israel
The statistical data for Israel are supplied by and are under the responsibility of the relevant Israeli authorities. The use of
such data by the OECD is without prejudice to the status of the Golan Heights, East Jerusalem and Israeli settlements in the
West Bank under the terms of international law.

References
OECD (2014), Education at a Glance 2014: OECD Indicators, OECD Publishing, Paris, http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/eag-2014-en.
OECD (2013), PISA 2012 Results: What Makes Schools Successful (Volume IV): Resources, Policies and Practices, PISA, OECD Publishing,
Paris, http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264201156-en.
OECD (2012), Education at a Glance 2012: OECD Indicators, OECD Publishing, Paris, http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/eag-2012-en.

Indicator B4 Tables
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933285519

Table B4.1

Total public expenditure on education (2012)

Table B4.2

Trends in total public expenditure on primary to tertiary education (2000, 2005, 2008, 2010, 2011,
and 2012)

Table B4.3

Sources of public funds for education, for primary, secondary and post-secondary non-tertiary education
(2012)

Cut-off date for the data: 23 October 2015. Updates can be found on line at http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/eag-data-en.

258 Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

What is the total public spending on education? – INDICATOR B4

chapter B

Table B4.1. Total public expenditure on education (2012)
Direct public expenditure on educational institutions plus public subsidies to households1 and other private entities,
as a percentage of total public expenditure and as a percentage of GDP, by level of education

Partners

OECD

Public expenditure1 on education as a percentage
of total public expenditure

B4

Public expenditure1 on education
as a percentage of GDP

All tertiary

Primary to tertiary
(including
undistributed
programmes)

Primary, secondary
and post-secondary
non-tertiary

All tertiary

Primary to tertiary
(including
undistributed
programmes)

(9)

(10)

(16)

(19)

(20)

10.1

3.4

13.5

3.4

1.1

4.6

6.1

3.5

9.6

3.1

1.8

5.0

8.1

2.7

11.0

4.3

1.4

5.9

7.8

4.1

12.0

3.2

1.7

5.0

11.6

4.8

16.4

2.8

1.2

4.0

6.1

2.4

8.9

2.6

1.0

3.7

Primary, secondary
and post-secondary
non-tertiary
(6)

Australia
Austria
Belgium
Canada2, 3
Chile4
Czech Republic
Denmark
Estonia
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Iceland
Ireland
Israel
Italy
Japan3
Korea
Luxembourg
Mexico
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway3
Poland
Portugal3
Slovak Republic3
Slovenia
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Turkey
United Kingdom
United States3

8.6

m

m

5.0

m

m

8.4

2.7

11.2

3.3

1.0

4.4

7.4

3.8

11.2

4.1

2.1

6.1

6.6

2.2

8.8

3.6

1.2

4.8

6.7

3.0

9.8

2.9

1.3

4.3

m

m

m

m

m

m

5.3

1.7

7.5

2.6

0.8

3.6

10.0

3.2

14.0

4.5

1.4

6.4

11.1

3.1

14.2

4.5

1.3

5.7

9.8

2.3

12.8

4.0

0.9

5.2

5.8

1.6

7.4

2.8

0.8

3.6

6.5

1.8d

8.8

2.7

0.8d

3.7

9.6

2.6

14.5

3.2

0.9

4.8

7.5

1.0

8.5

3.2

0.4

3.7

13.5

4.0

18.4

3.4

1.0

4.7

7.5

3.3

10.8

3.5

1.6

5.1

13.2

5.2

18.4

4.4

1.7

6.1

9.0d

4.6

14.1

4.9d

2.5

7.7

7.6

2.7

10.3

3.2

1.1

4.3

7.8

1.8d

9.8

3.6

0.8d

4.5

6.3d

2.4

9.0

2.5d

0.9

3.5

7.4

2.5

9.9

3.5

1.2

4.7

5.9

2.1

8.0

2.8

1.0

3.7

7.9

3.9

11.7

3.9

1.9

5.9

10.8

4.2

15.3

3.5

1.3

4.9

m

m

m

2.6

1.4

3.9

8.8

3.0

11.9

4.0

1.4

5.4

8.1

3.5d

11.6

3.3

1.5d

4.8

OECD average

8.3

3.0

11.6

3.5

1.3

4.8

EU21 average

7.3

2.6

10.0

3.4

1.2

4.6

Argentina
Brazil
China
Colombia4
India
Indonesia4
Latvia
Russian Federation

m
14.1
m
m
m
m
m

m
3.1
m
m
m
m
m

m
17.2
m
m
m
m
m

m
4.7
m
3.6
m
2.3
2.9

m
1.0
m
0.9
m
0.6
1.0

m
5.7
m
4.9
m
3.3
3.8
3.4

m

m

m

2.2

0.9

Saudi Arabia

m

m

m

m

m

m

South Africa

m

m

m

4.8

0.8

6.1

G20 average

m

m

m

m

m

m

Note: Values for each level of education (columns 1 to 5, 7, 8, 11 to 15, 17 and 18) are available for consultation on line (see Statlink below).
1. Public expenditure presented in this table includes public subsidies to households for living costs (scholarships and grants to students/households and students
loans), which are not spent on educational institutions. Therefore the figures presented here exceed those on public spending on institutions found in Table B2.3.
2. Year of reference 2011 instead of 2012.
3. Some levels of education are included with others. Refer to “x” code in Table B1.1a for details.
4. Year of reference 2013 instead of 2012.
Source: OECD. Argentina, China, Colombia, India, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia, South Africa: UNESCO Institute for Statistics. Latvia: Eurostat. See annex 3 for notes
(www.oecd.org/education/education-at-a-glance-19991487.htm).
Please refer to the Reader’s Guide for information concerning symbols for missing data and abbreviations.
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933285522

Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

259

chapter B FINANCIAL AND HUMAN RESOURCES INVESTED IN EDUCATION

Table B4.2. Trends in total public expenditure on primary to tertiary education

(2000, 2005, 2008, 2010, 2011 and 2012)

Direct public expenditure on educational institutions plus public subsidies to households1 and other private entities,
as a percentage of total public expenditure and as a percentage of GDP, for primary to tertiary levels of education combined by year

B4

Index of change between 2008 and 2012 in:
(2008 = 100, 2012 constant prices)
Public expenditure1 on education
as a percentage
of total public expenditure

Partners

OECD

Public
expenditure
Public
for all
expenditure
2000 2005 2008 2010 2011 2012 2000 2005 2008 2010 2011 2012 on education
services
Public expenditure1 on education
as a percentage of GDP

Total public
expenditure on
education as a
percentage of total
public expenditure

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7)

(8)

(9)

(10)

(11)

(12)

(13)

(14)

(15)

Australia
Austria
Belgium
Canada2, 3
Chile4
Czech Republic
Denmark
Estonia
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Iceland
Ireland
Israel
Italy
Japan3
Korea
Luxembourg
Mexico
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Slovak Republic3
Slovenia
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Turkey
United Kingdom
United States

14.0
m
m
11.8
13.8
8.0
13.7
13.5
11.8
10.3
m
7.0
8.7
14.0
13.4
10.7
8.6
8.6
15.4
m
20.6
10.4
m
13.8
11.2
11.4
6.4
m
10.0
12.2
13.6
m
m
12.8

14.4
m
10.4
11.7
14.5
8.3
14.0
13.4
11.8
9.3
m
9.2
9.0
15.8
13.9
9.8
8.2
8.7
14.4
m
20.4
11.4
m
15.4
11.3
10.0
8.8
11.6
9.6
11.8
14.1
m
m
13.3

13.2
m
11.3
11.7
15.0
8.3
13.3
12.8
11.7
9.3
m
m
8.4
11.1
13.3
10.8
8.4
8.6
13.5
m
17.5
10.9
m
14.8
10.4
9.9
8.8
10.6
9.6
11.8
14.1
8.1
m
12.8

14.9
m
11.0
11.7
15.4
8.3
13.2
12.8
11.6
9.2
9.6
m
7.9
12.5
9.6
11.1
8.0
8.5
14.0
m
17.7
10.7
m
14.0
10.2
10.0
9.2
10.1
9.2
12.0
15.0
8.6
m
12.1

14.2
m
10.8
11.9
16.9
8.9
12.5
12.5
11.5
9.0
9.9
m
7.6
13.2
12.9
12.1
7.7
8.4
14.0
m
17.3
10.9
m
13.6
10.1
9.7
9.2
9.9
9.0
11.9
14.9
9.0
m
13.0

13.5
9.6
11.0
12.0
16.4
8.9
m
11.2
11.2
8.8
9.8
m
7.5
14.0
14.2
12.8
7.4
8.8
14.5
8.5
18.4
10.8
18.4
14.1
10.3
9.8
9.0
9.9
8.0
11.7
15.3
m
11.9
11.6

4.5
m
m
4.8
3.5
3.2
7.2
4.9
5.5
5.2
m
3.1
4.1
5.7
4.1
5.2
3.8
3.3
3.3
m
3.8
4.3
m
7.8
4.4
4.7
3.3
m
3.8
6.4
4.5
2.5
m
4.2

4.5
m
5.3
4.8
2.7
3.4
7.2
4.5
5.7
4.9
m
4.0
4.4
6.5
4.5
4.6
3.8
3.2
3.6
m
4.3
4.8
m
8.6
4.9
4.5
3.3
5.2
3.6
6.0
4.9
2.8
m
4.6

4.3
m
5.5
4.8
3.7
3.3
6.7
5.0
5.5
4.8
m
m
4.1
6.1
5.5
4.7
3.9
3.3
3.8
m
4.1
4.8
m
8.1
4.5
4.2
3.0
4.6
3.9
5.8
4.4
2.9
m
4.9

5.0
m
5.6
5.4
3.5
3.5
7.5
5.1
6.2
5.0
4.5
m
3.9
6.1
6.0
4.7
3.9
3.5
3.9
m
4.5
5.2
m
8.1
4.6
4.9
3.6
5.0
4.1
5.9
4.7
3.5
m
5.0

4.8
m
5.6
5.3
3.9
3.7
7.1
4.7
6.1
4.9
4.4
m
3.8
6.0
5.8
4.8
3.7
3.5
3.9
m
4.4
5.1
m
7.6
4.3
4.7
3.5
4.9
4.0
5.8
4.7
3.3
m
4.8

4.6
5.0
5.9
5.0
4.0
3.7
m
4.4
6.1
4.8
4.3
m
3.6
6.4
5.7
5.2
3.6
3.7
4.8
3.7
4.7
5.1
6.1
7.7
4.3
4.5
3.5
4.7
3.7
5.9
4.9
3.9
5.4
4.8

119
m
106
109
128
108
m
86
106
102
m
m
78
92
103
121
87
109
120
m
116
105
m
101
108
98
117
92
90
105
112
m
m
99

116
110
111
110
115
106
112
99
111
108
m
84
93
78
94
108
98
112
132
m
116
106
m
111
110
100
113
99
108
105
106
m
m
110

102
m
95
99
111
102
m
87
96
94
m
m
83
118
110
113
88
97
91
m
100
99
m
91
99
97
104
93
84
100
105
m
m
91

OECD average
EU21 average
OECD average
(countries with
available data for all years)

11.8
10.4

12.0
10.7

11.4
10.6

11.3
10.2

11.5
10.2

11.6
10.0

4.5
4.5

4.7
4.7

4.6
4.7

4.9
5.0

4.8
4.8

4.8
4.6

105
99

106
104

98
95

11.8

12.0

11.4

11.3

11.5

11.5

4.6

4.7

4.6

4.9

4.8

4.8

~

~

~

Argentina
Brazil
China
Colombia4
India
Indonesia4
Latvia
Russian Federation

m
9.5
m
m
m
m
m
7.7

m
13.3
m
m
m
m
m
7.8

m
16.1
m
m
m
m
m
m

m
16.8
m
m
m
m
m
m

m
17.6
m
m
m
m
m
m

m
17.2
m
m
m
m
m
m

m
3.2
m
m
m
m
m
2.1

m
4.2
m
m
m
m
m
2.7

m
5.0
m
m
m
m
m
3.0

m
5.4
m
m
m
m
m
3.0

m
5.5
m
m
m
m
m
2.8

m
5.7
m
4.9
m
3.3
3.8
3.4

m
126
m
m
m
m
m
m

m
118
m
m
m
m
m
m

m
107
m
m
m
m
m
m

Saudi Arabia

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

South Africa

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

6.1

m

m

m

G20 average

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

1. Public expenditure presented in this table includes public subsidies to households for living costs (scholarships and grants to students/households and students
loans), which are not spent on educational institutions. Thus the figures presented here exceed those on public spending on institutions found in Table B2.3.
2. Year of reference 2011 instead of 2012.
3. Some levels of education are included with others. Refer to “x” code in Table B1.1a for details.
4. Year of reference 2013 instead of 2012. Data refer to 2009-2012 instead of 2008-2011.
Source: OECD. Argentina, China, Colombia, India, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia, South Africa: UNESCO Institute for Statistics. Latvia: Eurostat. See Annex 3 for notes
(www.oecd.org/education/education-at-a-glance-19991487.htm).
Please refer to the Reader’s Guide for information concerning symbols for missing data and abbreviations.
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933285538

260 Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

What is the total public spending on education? – INDICATOR B4

chapter B

Table B4.3 Sources of public funds for education, for primary, secondary

and post-secondary non-tertiary education (2012)
Before and after transfers

Partners

OECD

Initial funds (before transfers between levels of government)

Final funds (after transfers between levels of government)

Central

Regional

Local

Total

Central

Regional

Local

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7)

Total
(8)

Australia
Austria
Belgium
Canada1, 2
Chile3
Czech Republic
Denmark
Estonia
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Iceland
Ireland
Israel
Italy
Japan2
Korea
Luxembourg
Mexico
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway2
Poland
Portugal2
Slovak Republic2
Slovenia
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Turkey
United Kingdom
United States2

31.7
76.6
22.7
3.6
94.9
15.9
5.8
64.7
41.3
70.4
7.4
m
64.4
27.4
99.1
89.6
82.2
16.4
70.2
89.1
78.1
91.0
100.0
9.3
4.8
90.6
81.5
90.4
14.7
m
3.6
100.0
34.5
11.2

68.3
12.6
73.2
75.4
a
58.8
0.0
a
a
16.9
75.1
m
x(3)
a
a
a
8.1
66.8
26.4
a
21.9
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.9
5.8
a
a
79.4
m
61.5
a
a
38.5

m
10.8
4.1
21.0
5.1
25.3
94.2
35.3
58.7
12.7
17.5
m
35.6d
72.6
0.9
10.4
9.7
16.8
3.4
10.9
0.0
8.9
0.0
90.7
93.3
3.6
18.5
9.6
5.9
m
34.9
m
65.5
50.4

100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
m
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
m
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0

3.9
39.6
23.9
2.9
57.2
13.4
12.4
26.9
10.6
70.2
6.8
m
30.0
26.7
83.7
71.6
81.7
1.8
0.8
83.8
28.5
88.9
100.0
8.2
3.8
85.1
23.0
90.0
14.3
m
0.2
94.3
34.5
0.5

96.1
48.6
72.0
11.5
a
61.2
0.0
a
a
16.9
71.4
m
x(7)
a
a
a
6.7
81.4
30.3
a
71.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.9
5.8
a
a
79.8
m
61.0
5.7
a
1.7

m
11.8
4.1
85.6
42.8
25.3
87.6
73.1
89.4
12.9
21.8
m
70.0d
73.3
16.3
28.4
11.6
16.8
68.9
16.2
0.0
11.1
0.0
91.8
94.3
9.2
77.0
10.0
5.9
m
38.8
m
65.5
97.9

100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
m
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
m
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0

OECD average
EU21 average

52.6

21.6

26.7

100.0

38.1

24.1

40.6

100.0

55.1

19.5

27.4

100.0

43.3

24.3

37.5

100.0

Argentina
Brazil
China
Colombia3
India
Indonesia
Latvia
Russian Federation

m
17.6
m
85.3
m
m
64.2

m
45.1
m
5.7
m
m
a

m
37.3
m
9.0
m
m
35.8

m
100.0
m
100.0
m
m
100.0

m
10.4
m
85.3
m
m
20.8

m
47.0
m
5.7
m
m
a

m
42.6
m
9.0
m
m
79.2

m
100.0
m
100.0
m
m
100.0
100.0

m

m

m

m

7.0

71.7

21.3

Saudi Arabia

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

South Africa

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

G20 average

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

1.Year of reference 2011.
2. Some levels of education are included with others. Refer to “x” code in Table B1.1a for details.
3. Year of reference 2013.
Source: OECD. Argentina, China, Colombia, India, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia, South Africa: UNESCO Institute for Statistics. Latvia: Eurostat. See Annex 3 for notes
(www.oecd.org/education/education-at-a-glance-19991487.htm).
Please refer to the Reader’s Guide for information concerning symbols for missing data and abbreviations.
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933285547

Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

261

B4

HOW MUCH DO TERTIARY STUDENTS PAY AND WHAT
PUBLIC SUPPORT DO THEY RECEIVE?
INDICATOR B5

• OECD countries differ significantly in the amount of tuition fees charged by their tertiary
institutions. In eight OECD countries, public institutions charge no tuition fees for full-time
students in bachelor or equivalent programmes. However, in more than half of the remaining
countries with available data, public institutions charge annual tuition fees in excess of USD 2 000
for national students.

• In all OECD countries, people with a master’s, doctoral or equivalent degree have better labour
market opportunities compared to those with only a bachelor’s degree. However, in one-third
of OECD countries, tuition fees charged by public institutions for master’s and doctorate or
equivalent programmes are not much higher than those charged for bachelor’s degree programmes.
The difference in tuition fees between bachelor’s and master’s degree programmes is more than
USD 1 400 only in Australia, Colombia, Korea and the United States.

• An increasing number of OECD countries charge higher tuition fees for international students than
for national students, and many also differentiate tuition fees by field of education, largely because
of the relevance of the different qualifications on the labour market.

Chart B5.1. Average tuition fees charged by public institutions related
to the proportion of students who benefit from public loans
and/or scholarships/grants at bachelor’s and equivalent level (2013-14)

For full-time national students, in USD converted using PPPs for GDP, academic year 2013/14
Average tuition fees charged by public institutions,
bachelor's and equivalent programmes, in USD

United Kingdom1

9 000

United States2

7 500
6 000
Australia3

4 500

New Zealand

3 000
Italy

1 500

Switzerland4
Austria

0
0

Belgium (Fr.)

Belgium (Fl.)

Finland
France5

25

Norway

Turkey

50

75

100

Percentage of students who benefit
from public loans and/or scholarships/grants

Note: Arrows show how the average tuition fees and the proportion of students who benefit from public support have changed
since 1995 further to reforms.
1. Tuition fees refer to England only.
2. Reference year 2011-12.
3. Only includes the major Australian Government scholarships programmes. It excludes all scholarships provided by education
institutions and the private sector.
4. Swiss data refer to the financial year 2013 and the academic year 2012/2013.
5. Tuition fees range from USD 215 to USD 715 for university programmes depending from the Ministry of Higher Education.
Sources: OECD. Tables B5.1a and B5.3. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/education/education-at-a-glance-19991487.htm).
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933284064

Context
Many countries have similar goals for tertiary education, such as strengthening the knowledge
economy, increasing access for students, boosting completion rates, and ensuring the financial
stability of their higher education systems. However, OECD countries differ in the way the spending
on tertiary education is shared among governments, students and their families and other private
entities, and in the financial support they provide to students.

262 Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

Policy decisions relating to tuition fees affect both the cost of tertiary education to students and the
resources available to tertiary institutions. Tuition fees paid by students and their families can play a
significant role in funding tertiary educational institutions (see Indicator B3) and also affect decisions
to enrol in tertiary programmes within the country or abroad (see Indicator C4).

INDICATOR B5

Public support to students and their families enables governments to encourage participation in
education – particularly among low-income students – by covering part of the cost of education and
related expenses. In this way, governments address access and equality of opportunity issues. The
impact of such support should therefore be judged, at least partly, by examining participation and
retention in, and completion of, tertiary education.
Public support to students also indirectly funds tertiary institutions. Channelling funding to
institutions through students may also help to increase competition among institutions and to be more
responsive to student needs. Since aid for students’ living costs can serve as a substitute for income
from work, public subsidies may enhance educational attainment by allowing students to work less.
This support comes in many forms, including means-based subsidies, family allowances for students,
tax allowances for students or their parents, or other household transfers. Governments will strive
to strike the right balance among these different subsidies, especially in a period of financial crisis.
Based on a given amount of subsidies, public support, such as tax reductions or family allowances,
may provide less support for low-income students than means-tested subsidies, as the former are not
targeted specifically to support low-income students. However, they may still help to reduce financial
disparities among households with and without children in education.
Other findings

• Countries with high tuition fees tend to be those where private entities, such as enterprises, also
contribute the most to funding tertiary institutions.

• The high entry rates into tertiary education in some countries that charge no tuition fees may also
be related to these countries’ highly developed financial support systems for students, and not just
to the absence of tuitions fees.

• OECD data show no strong cross-country relationship between levels of tuition fees and
participation in tertiary education. However, among countries with high tuition fees, student
financial support systems that offer loans with income-contingent repayment combined with
means-tested grants may help to promote access and equity while sharing the costs of higher
education between the state and students.
Trends
As reported in Education at a Glance 2012, between 1995 and 2010, 14 of the 25 countries with
available information implemented reforms to tuition fees. In all of these 14 countries except Iceland
and the Slovak Republic, the reforms were combined with a change in the level of public support
available to students.
Since 2010, ten countries have introduced reforms on tuition fees in tertiary education. These reforms
related to all levels of tertiary education in Australia, Belgium (French Community), Estonia, Hungary,
Italy, Korea, New Zealand, Turkey and the United Kingdom; in Sweden, they focused on bachelor’s and
master’s or equivalent levels. In all these countries except Belgium (French Community), New Zealand
and Turkey, these reforms were combined with changes in the support system of students. These
reforms usually share two different objectives: on the one hand, the need to ensure stability of
funding for tertiary institutions, and on the other hand, to ensure that all students have access to
tertiary studies. For example, in the United Kingdom, tuition fees doubled – and nearly tripled in
some universities – in 2012, as part of a government plan to stabilise university finances. In parallel,
conditions for student loan repayment have been changed to adapt to the changes in tuition fees
(see Box B5.2).

Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

263

chapter B FINANCIAL AND HUMAN RESOURCES INVESTED IN EDUCATION

Analysis

B5

Annual tuition fees charged by tertiary educational institutions for national bachelor’s degree
students
The level of tuition fees charged by tertiary educational institutions – as well as the level and type of financial
assistance countries provide through their student-support systems – are among the most hotly debated publicpolicy topics in education today. The different ways to combine tuition fees and financial support to students
can greatly influence the access to and equity in tertiary education. Striking the right balance between providing
sufficient support to institutions through tuition fees and maintaining access and equity is challenging.
Several factors influence the level of tuition fees, such as the salary of professors, in the competition to hire the best
ones in a global academic market; the development of non-teaching services (employability services, relations with
companies); the growth of digital learning; and investments to support internationalisation.
On the one hand, higher tuition fees increase the resources available to educational institutions, support their
efforts to maintain quality academic programmes and develop new ones, and can help institutions accommodate
increases in student enrolment. However, high tuition fees may also restrict access to tertiary education for
students – particularly those from low-income backgrounds – in the absence of a strong system of public support
to help them pay or reimburse the cost of their studies. In addition, high tuition fees may prevent some students
from pursuing fields that require extended periods of study, especially when labour market opportunities are not
sufficient in these fields.
On the other hand, lower tuition fees can help to promote student access and equity in higher education, particularly
among disadvantaged populations. However, they may also constrain the ability of tertiary institutions to maintain an
appropriate quality of education, especially in light of the massive expansion of tertiary education in all OECD countries
in recent years. Moreover budgetary pressures stemming from the global economic crisis may make it more difficult for
countries that have lower tuition fees to sustain this model in the future.
Differentiating tuition fees (by level of education, field of education, student background or mode of delivery) is a
way for countries to adjust the level of tuition fees to take into account equity issues to access tertiary education,
costs to provide education and labour market opportunities.
There are large differences among countries in the average tuition fees charged by tertiary educational institutions
for national students in bachelor’s degree or equivalent programmes. In the four Nordic countries with available data
(Denmark, Finland, Norway and Sweden), and in Estonia, the Slovak Republic, Slovenia and Turkey, public institutions
do not charge tuition fees for full-time students. However tuition fees can be charged in Estonia to part-time students;
in the Slovak Republic to students enrolled in two or more programmes; and, in Turkey, to students enrolled in evening
programmes and to those who have not graduated within the theoretical duration of a programme.
By contrast, tuition fees for public institutions are higher than USD 2 000 in more than half of the countries with
available data, and they exceed USD 4 000 in Australia, Canada, Korea and New Zealand, USD 5 000 in Japan,
and USD 8 000 in the United Kingdom (for government-dependent private institutions in England only) and the
United States. Meanwhile, in Austria, Belgium (Flemish and French Communities), Colombia, Italy and Switzerland,
students are charged lower tuition fees (under USD 2 000) for bachelor’s programmes in public institutions.
Among the EU21 countries for which data are available, only Italy, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom
(in government-dependent private institutions) have annual tuition fees that exceed USD 1 500 per full-time
national student (Table B5.1a and Chart B5.2).
Differentiation of tuition fees across tertiary programmes and between fields of education
In all OECD countries with available data, people with a master’s, doctorate or equivalent degrees have higher earnings
advantages and better labour market opportunities compared to those with only a bachelor’s degree (see Indicators A5
and A6). However, the tuition fees charged by public institutions for national students in master’s and doctorate or
equivalent programmes are generally not much higher than those charged for bachelor’s programmes. In one-third
of OECD countries, similar tuition fees are charged by public institutions to full-time students regardless of the level
of the programme. No tuition fee is charged in Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Norway, the Slovak Republic, Sweden
(for national students) and Turkey; and similar tuition fees are charged in the different levels of tertiary education
in Austria (about USD 860), Canada (about USD 4 760 to 4 960 for bachelor’s and master’s programmes), Japan
(about USD 5 150), the Netherlands (USD 2 300 for bachelor’s and master’s programmes) and the United Kingdom
(about USD 9 000, in government-dependent private institutions).

264 Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

How much do tertiary students pay and what public support do they receive? – INDICATOR B5

chapter B

Chart B5.2. Average annual tuition fees charged by public institutions
at bachelor’s or equivalent level (2013-14)
Tuition fees charged to full-time national students,
converted in USD using PPPs for GDP, academic year 2013/14

B5

Average annual
tuition fees in USD

10 000
9 000
8 000

United Kingdom1 (58%, 24 338)

United States3 (m, 26 562)

7 000
6 000
5 000
4 000
3 000

Japan (48%, 18 557)
Canada2 (m, 27 373), Korea2 (55%, 11 173)
Australia (91%, 18 795)
New Zealand (74%, 10 995)

Israel (57%, 13 777)
Netherlands (60%, 19 305)

2 000
1 000
500
0

Italy (37%, 10 071)
Switzerland (60%, 25 264)
Austria (45%, 15 641), Belgium (Fl.) (69%, 15 785)4
France5 (m, 16 279), Belgium (Fr.) (69%, 15 785)4
Denmark (71%, 3 695), Estonia (68%, 8 206), Finland (55%, 17 863), Norway (m, 20 016),
Slovak Republic (56%, 9 022), Slovenia3 (79%, 11 615), Sweden (47%, 24 025), Turkey (34%, 7779)

Notes: 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. Expenditure per student (in USD – all services, including
R&D) in bachelor’s, master’s, doctoral or equivalent programmes and the net entry rate in bachelor’s or equivalent programmes are added next to
country names (and refer to 2012-13 reference year).
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 almost all students are enrolled in government-dependent private institutions. Tuition
fees refer to England only.
2. Reference year 2014-15 for tuition fees (2014 in Korea).
3. Reference year 2011-12 for tuition fees.
4. Expenditure per student and entry rate refer bachelor, master, doctorate or equivalent programmes for the whole Belgium.
5. Tuition fees range from USD 215 to USD 715 for university programmes depending from the Ministry of Higher Education.
Sources: OECD. Tables B1.1a and B5.1a and Indicator C3. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/education/education-at-a-glance-19991487.htm).
Please refer to the Reader’s Guide for information concerning symbols for missing data and abbreviations.
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933284079

However, the difference between bachelor’s and master’s programmes in tuition fees charged to national students
is substantial in some countries. Tuition fees for master’s programmes in public institutions are 30% higher than
those for bachelor’s programmes in Korea and the United States, 60% higher in Australia, and more than four
times higher in Belgium (French Community) and Colombia (tuition fees for bachelor’s programmes are less than
USD 600 in these two countries). Expressed in USD, these differences range between USD 1 500 and USD 2 900 in
Australia, Korea and the United States (Table B5.1a, and Table B5.1c, available on line).
Among countries with available data on tuition fees charged by public institutions for national students in doctoral
programmes, tuition fees are much lower than those charged for bachelor’s and master’s programmes in a few
countries, including Australia, Belgium (Flemish Community) and Switzerland. For example, in Australia, tuition fees
in public institutions amounts to USD 314 for a doctorate, compared with USD 4 473 for a bachelor’s programme, as
very few national doctoral students pay any fee in Australia (less than 5% of doctoral students in public institutions).
Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

265

chapter B FINANCIAL AND HUMAN RESOURCES INVESTED IN EDUCATION

When tertiary institutions charge tuition fees for students, these fees are also differentiated by field of education in
more than half of the countries with available data. The exceptions are Belgium (Flemish and French Communities),
Italy, the Netherlands and Switzerland. Australia shows the widest spectrum of fees in public educational institutions,
with highest fees being nearly three times the level of the lowest fees for master’s programmes (from USD 3 876
in education to USD 10 231 in social sciences, business and law). A ratio of 1 to 3 between tuition fees by field of
education also appears for bachelor’s and master’s programmes in independent private institutions in Australia, and
for bachelor’s programmes in public institutions in Colombia (Table B5.2, available on line, and Box B5.1).

Box B5.1. Bases for differentiation of tuition fees by field of education
Differentiating tuition fees by field of education is a way for countries to adjust the level of tuition fees to take into
account equity issues to access tertiary education, costs to provide education and labour market opportunities.
The table below shows that the main rationale for differentiating fees is the relevance of the different qualifications
on the labour market. This is one of the bases for differentiating tuition fees in all countries with available data,
except the United States, where differences in tuition fees between fields of education result from differences in
tuition fees between institutions rather than differences within institutions. In Australia for example, tuition fee
differentiation is linked to the level of salaries that graduates in certain disciplines can expect to receive.
However, the public cost of the field of education is also used to differentiate tuition fees in Australia, as well
as in Hungary and New Zealand. In these countries, the higher the cost of the field of education, the higher
the level of tuition fees charged by educational institutions.
Chart B5.a. Differentiation of level of tuition fees by field of education,
tertiary education (2013-14)
National students
Reasons for differentiation of level of tuition fees by field of education

OECD

Differentiation
of level of
Relevance
tuition fees
of the different
by field of
qualifications on
education
the labour market

Partners

B5

However, in Colombia, Korea, Slovenia and the United States, tuition fees charged for doctoral programmes in public
institutions are higher than those for bachelor’s and master’s programmes. This is also true in independent private
institutions, except in Slovenia where data are not available (Table B5.1a, and Table B5.1d, available on line)

Public
cost
of the
studies

Other
(4)

(1)

(2)

(3)

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

Austria

Yes

No

No

No

France

Yes

m

m

Australia

Canada

Yes

Yes

No

No

Hungary

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

Israel

Yes

Yes

No

No

Korea

Yes

Yes

No

No

New Zealand

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

Norway

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

Slovak Republic1

Yes

Yes

No

No

Slovenia2

Yes

m

m

m

United Kingdom

Yes

Yes

No

No

United States

Yes

No

No

Differences in tuition fees by field of education are a result of differences
in tuition charged at different institutions (not differences in tuition fees
charged within an institution for different fields of education).

Colombia

Yes

Yes

No

Each higher education institution defines the level of tuition fees and
the methodology to determine the level of fees (they are usually associated
to the socioeconomic conditions of students and their families).

Note: Countries without differentation of tuition fees by field of education are not reported in this table.
1. Differentiation of tuition fees in independent private institutions only.
2. Differentiation of tuition fees for doctoral or equivalent programmes only. In bachelor’s, master’s or equivalent level, full-time students do not pay
tuition fees.
Source: OECD. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/education/education-at-a-glance-19991487.htm).

266 Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

How much do tertiary students pay and what public support do they receive? – INDICATOR B5

chapter B

Tuition fees for non-national students
National policies regarding tuition fees and financial aid to students generally cover all students studying in the
country’s educational institutions. Countries’ policies also take international students into account. Differences
between national and international students, in the fees they are charged or the financial support they may receive
from the country in which they study, can, along with other factors, such as the public support that these students may
receive from the country they come from, have an impact on the flows of international students. These differences can
attract students to study in some countries or discourage students from studying in others (see Indicator C4), especially
in a context where an increasing number of OECD countries are charging higher tuition fees for international students.
In the majority of countries with available data (20 out of 38), the tuition fees charged by public educational
institutions may differ for national and international students enrolled in the same programme. However, in
countries from the European Union and the European Economic Area (EEA), the same tuition fees are charged for
nationals and students from the EU and EEA countries. In Austria, for example, the average tuition fees charged
by public institutions for students who are not citizens of EU or European Economic Area (EEA) countries are
twice the fees charged for citizens of these countries (for bachelor, master and doctorate programmes in public
institutions). Similar policies are found in Australia, Belgium (French and Flemish communities), Canada, Chile,
the Czech Republic, Denmark (as of 2006-07), Estonia, Ireland, the Netherlands, New Zealand (except for foreign
PhD students), Poland, Portugal, the Russian Federation, Sweden (as of 2011), Turkey, the United Kingdom and the
United States. In these countries, tuition fees vary based on citizenship or on an individual’s residence, and can also
vary according to fields of education, as in Sweden (see Table B5.6, available on line, and Indicator C4 and Box C4.2).
Grants and loans to students
OECD research (OECD, 2008) suggests that having a robust financial support system is important for ensuring good
outcomes for students in higher education, and that the type of aid is also critical. A key question in many OECD
countries is whether financial support for students in tertiary education should be provided primarily in the form
of grants or loans. Governments support students’ living or educational costs through different combinations of
these two types of support. Tax reductions and tax credits for education are not included in this indicator. Advocates
of student loans argue that loans allow available resources to be spread further. If the amount spent on grants were
used to guarantee or subsidise loans instead, more aid would be available to more students, and overall access to
higher education would increase.

Chart B5.3. Distribution of scholarships/grants and public loans to students
in bachelor’s or equivalent level (2013-14)
Percentage of students
Benefit from public loans only or from public loans AND scholarships/grants
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

Percentage
of students

100
80
60
40

Switzerland5

Austria

Belgium (Fr.)4

Italy1

Belgium (Fl.)4

France

Finland3

Turkey1

Norway

United States2

New Zealand

Australia

0

United Kingdom1

20

1. Reference year 2014-15.
2. Reference year 2011-12.
3. Includes master’s, doctoral or equivalent levels.
4. Includes master’s or equivalent level.
5. Bachelor’s or equivalent level includes short-cycle tertiary programmes. Swiss data refer to the financial year 2013 and the academic year 2012/2013.
Countries are ranked in descending order of the percentage of students receiving financial support for their studies.
Source: OECD. Table B5.3. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/education/education-at-a-glance-19991487.htm).
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933284082

Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

267

B5

chapter B FINANCIAL AND HUMAN RESOURCES INVESTED IN EDUCATION

B5

Loans also shift some of the cost of education to those who benefit most from higher education, namely, the
individual student reflecting the high private returns of completing tertiary education (see Indicator A7). 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 types of support
provided to borrowers or lenders and the costs of administration and servicing. Finally, high level of student debt
may have adverse effects both for students and for governments, if large numbers of students are unable to repay
their loans (see Box B5.1 in Education at a Glance 2014).
Among the few countries with available data on the distribution of financial support to bachelor students in public
institutions, 75% or more students in Australia, New Zealand, Norway, the United Kingdom and the United States
benefit from public loans or scholarships/grants. Excluding Norway, these countries are also among countries with
the highest tuitions fees in OECD countries. In Austria, Belgium (Flemish and French Communities), France, Italy
and Switzerland, tuition fees are moderate, and most students in these countries do not benefit from financial
support, but those who do usually receive such support in the form of scholarships and grants. Only bachelor’s
degree students in Belgium (French Community) benefit from a combination of both loans and scholarships/grants.
In Finland and Turkey, public institutions do not charge tuition fees, and most students benefit from scholarships
(Finland) or from scholarships/grants or loans (Turkey) (Table B5.3 and Chart B5.3).
Country approaches to funding tertiary education
Although many countries have similar goals for tertiary education, such as strengthening the knowledge economy,
increasing access for students, encouraging high completion rates, and ensuring the financial stability of their higher
education systems, countries differ dramatically in the way the cost of higher education is shared among governments,
students and their families, and other private entities – and in the financial support they provide to students.
Whereas the cost of tertiary education, and the level of support available to students, varies markedly across
OECD countries, some patterns can be identified to draw a classification of approaches to funding tertiary education.
Countries can be grouped into four models, according to two factors: the level of tuition fees, and the financial
support available through the country’s student financial aid system for tertiary education.
There is no single model for financing tertiary education. Countries in which tertiary institutions charge similar
tuition fees may vary in the proportion of students benefiting from public support and/or in the average amount
of these subsidies (Tables B5.1a and B5.3, and Chart B5.1). However, arrangements regarding the tuition fees
charged by tertiary educational institutions and financial support to students have been the subject of reforms in
many OECD countries in recent years, to ensure that tertiary institutions have the necessary financial and human
resources to face the increasing student population, and to ensure equity in access to tertiary studies, so that some
countries have moved from one model to another over this period (Chart B5.1 and Box B5.2 on changes in tuition
fees and financial support to student).

Box B5.2. Reforms on tuition fees and level of public subsidies
available to students (2010 to 2015)
Reforms implemented since 2010 on bachelor’s, master’s and doctoral or equivalent levels

On levels
of tuition
fees

On public support
to students
(in combination
with changes on
tuition fees)

(1)

(2)

(3)

Australia

Yes

Yes

Introduction of the demand driven funding system from 2012, under which the government provides
a subsidy for each student enrolled in a bachelor-level course (excluding medicine) at a public
university and amended indexation of higher education to better reflect the costs of higher education.

Belgium (Fr.)

Yes

No

Since the 2010-11 academic year, reforms to ensure the free provision and the democratization
of higher education: mainly the abolition of school fees (minerval) for students who receive a
scholarship from the Ministry of the Wallonia-Brussels Federation and decrease of the amount for
those from low socio-economic background; for all students the indexing of the amount of school
fees has been removed for the next five years.

Denmark

No

Yes

The state education grant for students living with their parents has been reduced (around 6% of tertiary
students live with their parents). Furthermore, the yearly regulation of the state education grant will in
the future be the same as transfer payments such as unemployment benefit and social security.

Comments

1. Reforms at bachelor’s, master’s or equivalent levels only.
Source: OECD. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/education/education-at-a-glance-19991487.htm).

268 Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

…

How much do tertiary students pay and what public support do they receive? – INDICATOR B5

chapter B

Box B5.2. (continued) Reforms on tuition fees and level of public subsidies
available to students (2010 to 2015)

B5

Reforms implemented since 2010 on bachelor’s, master’s and doctoral or equivalent levels

On levels
of tuition
fees

On public support
to students
(in combination
with changes on
tuition fees)

(1)

(2)

Estonia

Yes

Yes

To enhance the accessability of tertiary level education and to increase the efficiency of studies,
conditions for a university to demand the reimbursement of study costs from a student is based
on condition relating to full-time enrolment; Estonian being the language of instruction of the
programme, and completion of the studyload by the student.
New needs-based student support system introduced in 2013/2014. Students from less privileged
families can apply for study allowance (EUR 75-220 per month) when studying full time and in
Estonian language. In addition, starting from 2015, need-based special allowance was introduced if
the application for a need-based study allowance of a student has been declined and the economic
situation of the family has been changed since. The possibility to apply for special study loans from
banks has remained.

Finland

No

No

The new Finnish government from 2015 plans to introduce tuition fees for students coming from
outside the EU and European Economic Area to study in Finland. Between 2010 and 2014 there
was a tuition fee trial period when it was possible for higher education institutions to charge fees
to foreign students coming from outside the EU or the European Economic Area and studying in
university and polytechnic programmes at master’s level given in a foreign language.

France

No

No

Changes in 2013 and 2014 to increase the financial support to tertiary students (increase in the
amount of scholarships; in the number of scholarships to students and conditions to benefit from
scholarship extended).

Hungary

Yes

Yes

There are fully state-financed, partially state-financed, as well as full-paid tuition places in the
Hungarian higher education. In 2012-13 academic year , the number of fully financed places in
tertiary insitutions has been decreased (by 27%) and the number of places that are 50% financed
by the state have been increased (by a lower rate). This reduction has mainly affected fields of study
such as law and economics, with science and technology being better supported.)
In 2012-13 academic year, a new student loan form (namely Diákhitel2) was launched for all
students who pay the cost of studies (“cost-refunding” or “tuition fee”), besides Diákhitel1.
Diákhitel2 can be used only for the cost of studies.

Italy

Yes

Yes

Following the adoption of a general university reform in 2010, the students’ support system
is currently undergoing significant change. The main aims of the reform are to strengthen the
opportunities for students coming from a low socio-economic background and to promote merit
amongst all students. The main measures are the definition of minimum standards of student
services, to be guaranteed to all students coming from a low socio-economic background, and
the creation of a national fund to support the most successful students. In this context, an
Observatory on Students’ Welfare (Osservatorio per il Diritto allo Studio) was created in 2013 to
collect information on the student population, to monitor and report on students’ support services,
and to advise the Ministry on standards for the student support system. While the required
legislation to implement these reforms has already been approved, administrative procedures and
implementation measures are currently being developed.

Korea

Yes

Yes

Reforms in 2012 to increase the level of public support for higher education, with the goal of
expanding access to and improving equity in tertiary education. National scholarships to students
since 2012 by combining and expanding the existing scholarships for low-income students.

Netherlands

No

No

No reform, but tuition fees are corrected each year for inflation.

New Zealand

Yes

No

Control increases in tuition fees : limits on how much a provider may increase all fees and course
costs are defined by the Ministry. This level is set each year and since 2011 has been 4%. A level of
3% is proposed for the 2016 calendar year.

Slovak Republic

No

No

The conditions of determining the maximum amount of tuition fees have been amended; specific
charges are determined by each school separately in its internal regulation.

Sweden1

Yes

Yes

Tuition fees were introduced for non-EEA students 2011 in higher education institutions, except at
doctoral level, and at the same time public stipend programmes were introduced. These stipends are
distributed via other state agencies than CSN.

Turkey

Yes

No

As of the academic year 2012-13, students in first education (regular morning programmes) and
open education programmes are not charged tuition fees over the course of the theoretical duration
of the programmes. Tuition fees are paid only by students in public institutions who are enrolled in
evening programmes and those who have not graduated from a programme within the theoretical
duration.

United Kingdom

Yes

Yes

For new students starting courses in England from 2012-13 the maximum tuition fee cap increased
to GBP 9 000 per year (from GBP 3 290). Tuition fee loans available to students also increased to
GBP 9 000 per year, with repayment terms also changing (earnings threshold at which repayments
start increased; a real interest rate to be charged when income is above the earnings threshold;
earnings thresholds will be increased annually in line with earnings; the length of time before all
debts are written off is extended from 25 to 30 years; extension of free loans to part-time students).

United States

No

No

Prior to 2010 the federal government guaranteed student loans provided by banks and non-profit
lenders. In 2010, the guaranteed loan program was eliminated and all U.S. federal student loans
became direct loans (originated and funded directly by the U.S. Department of Education).

Comments
(3)

1. Reforms at bachelor’s, master’s or equivalent levels only.
Source: OECD. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/education/education-at-a-glance-19991487.htm).

Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

269

chapter B FINANCIAL AND HUMAN RESOURCES INVESTED IN EDUCATION

Model 1: Countries with no or low tuition fees and generous student-support systems

B5

This group is composed of the Nordic countries: Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden. Students pay
no tuition fee and benefit from generous public support for higher education. In these countries, more than 55%
of students benefit from public grants, public loans, or a combination of the two (Table B5.3, and Table B5.4 in
Education at a Glance 2014). These countries have more progressive tax structures (OECD, 2011) and individuals
face high income tax rates. The average entry rate into bachelor programmes for this group – 59% – is above the
OECD average of 56% (see Indicator C3, Table C3.1). These entry rates may also reflect the attractiveness of these
countries’ highly-developed student financial support systems, not just the absence of tuition fees.
The approach to funding tertiary education in this model reflects these countries’ deeply rooted social values, such
as equality of opportunity and social equity. The notion that government should provide its citizens with tertiary
education at no charge to the individual is a salient feature of the culture of education in these countries: the funding
of both institutions and students is based on the principle that access to tertiary education is a right, rather than a
privilege.
However, during the past decade, Denmark and Sweden (as of 2011) decided to introduce tuition fees for
international students to increase the resources available for their tertiary institutions and/or to improve the
quality of the programmes they offer (Sweden). Iceland also considered doing so, and between 2010 and 2014,
Finland implemented a tuition fee trial period for higher education institutions to charge fees to some foreign
students coming from outside EU or the European Economic Area. Such a change may discourage international
students from studying in these countries. Sweden has seen a reduction in the number of international students
in the country since this reform. Between autumn 2010 and autumn 2011 the number of students who were not
part of an exchange programme and came from outside the European Economic Area and Switzerland decreased by
almost 80% (Swedish Higher Education Authority, 2013).
Model 2: Countries with high tuition fees and well-developed student-support systems
The second group includes Australia, Canada, the Netherlands, New Zealand, the United Kingdom and the
United States. These countries have potentially high financial obstacles to entry into tertiary education, but they
also offer significant public support to students. The average entry rate to bachelor programmes for this group of
countries is 71%, significantly above the OECD average (56%) and higher than most countries with low tuition fees.
Since 1995, the United Kingdom has moved from Model 4 (countries with lower tuition fees and less-developed
student-support systems) to Model 2 (Chart B5.1), and the Netherlands moved from Model 1 to Model 2 as tuition fees
increased and the student-support system is well-developed (see Chart B5.1 in Education at a Glance 2014). Countries
in Model 2 tend to be those where private entities (e.g. private businesses and non-profit organisations) contribute the
most to financing tertiary institutions. In other words, in Model 2 countries, the cost of education is shared among
government, households and private companies (see Chart B3.2 and Table B3.1).
Tuition fees charged by public institutions for bachelor’s programmes (government-dependent private institutions in
the United Kingdom) exceed USD 4 000 in all these countries (except the Netherlands, where they reach USD 2 300).
At least 85% of tertiary students receive support from public loans or scholarships/grants in Australia, New Zealand,
the United Kingdom and the United States, the four countries with data available (Tables B5.1a and B5.3). Studentsupport systems are well-developed and mostly accommodate the needs of the entire student population (Table B5.3
and Table B5.3 in Education at a Glance 2014).
In this group of countries, access to tertiary education is above the OECD average. For example, Australia and
New Zealand have among the highest entry rates into bachelor’s programmes (91% and 74%, respectively), although
these rates also reflect the high proportion of international students enrolled (entry rates excluding international
students are still above the average). Entry rates were also above the OECD average (56%) in the Netherlands (60%)
and the United Kingdom (58%) in 2013. These countries spend more on core services (services directly related to
instruction) per tertiary student than the OECD average and have a relatively high level of revenue from income tax
as a percentage of GDP, compared to the OECD average. The Netherlands is an outlier, as its level of income taxation
is below the OECD average (see Table B1.1b, available on line, and Table C3.1).
OECD research (OECD, 2008) suggests that, in general, this model can be an effective way for countries to increase
access to higher education. However, during periods of economic crisis, high tuition fees impose a considerable
financial burden on students and their families and can discourage some of them from entering tertiary education,
even when relatively high levels of student support are available.

270 Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

How much do tertiary students pay and what public support do they receive? – INDICATOR B5

chapter B

Model 3: Countries with high tuition fees and less-developed student-support systems
In Chile, Japan and Korea, most students are charged high tuition fees (more than USD 4 700 for bachelor’s
programme in public institutions in Japan and Korea in 2013-14; more than USD 5 800 for Chile, as based on
data from Education at a Glance 2014), but student-support systems are somewhat less developed than those in
Models 1 and 2. This approach can impose a heavy financial burden on students and their families. Entry rates
into bachelor’s programmes are slightly above or below the OECD average (58% in Chile, 48% in Japan and 55% in
Korea). In Japan and Korea, some students who excel academically but have difficulty financing their studies can
benefit from reduced tuition and/or admission fees or receive total exemptions.
Japan and Korea are among the countries with the lowest levels of public expenditure allocated to tertiary education
as a percentage of GDP (see Chart B2.2). This partially explains the small proportion of students who benefit
from public loans. However, both countries have recently implemented reforms to improve their student-support
systems. In Korea, reforms in 2012 aimed to expand access to and improve equity in tertiary education by offering
national scholarships to students and by combining and expanding existing scholarships for low-income students.
Model 4: Countries with low tuition fees and less-developed student-support systems
The fourth group includes all other European countries for which data are available (Austria, Belgium, France, Italy,
and Switzerland in this edition, but also the Czech Republic, Ireland, Poland, Portugal and Spain as based on data
from Education at a Glance 2014). All of these countries charge moderate tuition fees compared to those in Models 2
and 3, although since 1995, reforms were implemented in some of these countries – particularly Austria and Italy – to
increase tuition fees in public institutions (Chart B5.1 and Box B5.1 in Education at a Glance 2012). Model 4 countries
have relatively low financial barriers to entry into bachelor’s programmes, combined with relatively low levels of
support for students, which are mainly targeted to specific groups. Tuition fees charged by public institutions in this
group never exceed USD 1 600, and in countries for which data are available, most students do not benefit from public
support (Tables B5.1a and B5.3). Turkey is moving from Model 4 to Model 1. As of academic year 2012/13, tuition fees
are no longer charged in public institutions for students in first education (regular morning programmes) and open
education programmes, and most students benefit from student loans or scholarship/grants. These reforms aim to
facilitate access to tertiary education for all.
In Model 4 countries, tertiary institutions usually depend heavily on the state for funding, and participation in tertiary
education is typically below the OECD average. The average entry rate into bachelor’s programmes in this group of
countries – 52% – is relatively low; but in some countries, such as Austria and Spain this is complemented by aboveaverage entry rates into short-cycle tertiary programmes. Similarly, expenditure per student in bachelor’s, master’s
or doctoral programmes is also comparatively low (see Chart B5.2 and Indicator B1). While high tuition fees can raise
potential barriers to student participation, Model 4 suggests that lower tuition fees, which are assumed to ease access
to education, do not necessarily guarantee greater access to tertiary education.
In these countries, students and their families can benefit from support provided by sources other than the ministry
of education (e.g. housing allowances, tax reductions and/or tax credits for education), but these are not covered in
this analysis. In France, for example, of total state funding, housing allowances represent about 90% of scholarships/
grants, and about one-third of students benefit from them. Poland is notable in that most students enrolled in
public institutions have their studies fully subsidised by the state, while students enrolled in part-time studies pay
the full costs of tuition.
In Model 4 countries, loan systems, such as public loans or loans guaranteed by the state, are not available or are only
available to a small proportion of students in these countries (Table B5.3). 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.
Implementation of public loan systems and amount of public loans
According to available data, public loan systems (see Box B5.1 on types of student loans in Education at a Glance
2014) are particularly well-developed in countries with high tuition fees, including Australia, the United Kingdom
and the United States, where some 62% or more of students benefit from a public loan during their tertiary studies
in bachelor’s, master’s, doctoral or equivalent programmes (only 32% of doctoral students in the United States).
Public loan systems are also well-developed in countries where tertiary institutions do not charge tuition fees for
national students, such as Denmark (35%), Norway (68%) and Sweden (52%).
Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

271

B5

chapter B FINANCIAL AND HUMAN RESOURCES INVESTED IN EDUCATION

B5

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. Among the 20 countries with available data, the average annual gross amount of public loan
available to students exceeds USD 4 000 in all countries (with available data) where the majority of student benefit
from a public loan. It also exceeds this amount in countries where a small or even marginal proportion of students
benefit from a public loan (for example in Japan) (Table B5.4).
Interestingly, the larger the proportion of students who have a loan, the higher the average annual gross amount of
loans available to each student. On the one hand, in Belgium (French Community), Estonia and Finland, 9% to 22%
of students benefit from a loan, and the average annual gross amount of loan in these countries is no more than
USD 3 500. On the other hand, in Australia, Norway, Sweden, the United Kingdom and the United States, most
students take out a loan (52% to 92% of students) and the average annual gross amount of loan exceeds USD 4 000
(Table B5.4).
The comparison of average tuition fees and average amounts of loans should be interpreted with caution since, in a
given education programme, the amount of a loan can vary widely among students, even if the programme’s tuition
fees are the same. Nevertheless, such a comparison provides some insight into whether students take a loan to cover
tuition fees and living expenses. In the OECD countries for which data on annual gross amounts of loans are available
(in public and private institutions combined), the average amount of public loan exceeds the average tuition fee
charged by public institutions, except in Australia, Canada (for bachelor’s degree students), the United Kingdom and
the United States (at bachelor’s and doctoral levels) – four countries with among the highest tuitions fees for bachelor’s,
master’s and doctoral programmes. This suggests that public loans may help support students’ living expenses during
their studies, but not necessarily in countries where tuition fees charged to students are the highest. In Canada, the
average amount of public loan does not exceed the average tuition fee charged by public institution, but data refer only
to the federal portion of the loan; students typically receive another portion provided by the province or territory,
often raising the total so that some living expenses are covered.
Among the countries where public institutions charge average tuition fees above USD 2 000 for bachelor’s programmes
and for which data on annual gross amounts of loans are available, the average amount of a student loan exceeds the
amount of fees only in Japan, the Netherlands and New Zealand. By contrast, in the United Kingdom (for governmentdependent private institutions) and the United States, the average tuition fee is much higher than the average student
loan (in the United States, many students have both grants and loans). The largest differences between average tuition
fees and the average amount of loans are observed in the Nordic countries (Denmark, Finland, Norway and Sweden),
Estonia and Turkey, where no tuition fee is charged by institutions and a large proportion of students benefit from a
public loan (or a loan guaranteed by the state). The average loan in these countries ranges from about USD 2 700 in
Finland (private loan guaranteed by the state) to USD 10 000 in Norway (Table B5.1a and Table B5.4).
Public loan systems also offer some financial aid to students through the interest rate that these students may have to
pay, the repayment system or even remission/forgiveness mechanisms (Table B5.3).

Financial support through interest rates
The financial benefits from reducing interest rates on public or private loans is twofold, as the interest rates supported
by students during and after their studies may differ. Comparing interest rates among countries is difficult, as the
structure of interest rates, both public and private, is not known and can vary significantly among countries, such
that a given interest rate may be considered high in one country and low in another. However, differences in rates
during and after tertiary studies seem intended to reduce the financial burden on students during their studies.
In Canada, Japan, New Zealand and the Slovak Republic, there is no nominal interest rate on a public loan during
the period of studies; but after this period, students/graduates may incur an interest charge 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, charges an interest rate on loans to borrowers who are overseas. Australia, Brazil,
Colombia, Estonia, Hungary, Korea, the Netherlands and Sweden 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 that has remained unpaid for 11 months or more is indexed to ensure that the real value of the loan
is maintained (Table B5.4).

Repayment of loans
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. The repayment period varies among

272 Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

How much do tertiary students pay and what public support do they receive? – INDICATOR B5

chapter B

countries, ranging from ten years or less in Australia, Canada, Estonia, New Zealand, the Slovak Republic and
Turkey, to twenty years or more in Norway, Sweden and in the United States (for income based repayments).
Among the 16 countries with available data on repayment systems, four English-speaking countries (Australia,
New Zealand and the United Kingdom, and the United States for part of the student’s loans) as well as Hungary,
Korea (for part of the student’s loans) and the Netherlands make the repayment of loans dependent on graduates’
level of income. Among countries with income-contingent repayment systems, the minimum annual income
threshold above which borrowers have to reimburse the loan varies largely between countries. While it is about
USD 13 000 in New Zealand, it varies among other countries from USD 20 000 in the Netherlands to more than
USD 30 000 in Australia and the United Kingdom (Table B5.5).
Besides repayment, schemes for remission (delaying the repayment) and/or forgiveness of student loans exist in
nearly all countries with a student-loan system. These systems may benefit to significant proportions of students
who took a loan during their studies. Among countries with available information, the proportion of students
benefiting from remission and/or forgiveness varies from 2% or less in Australia, Finland, Hungary, Japan,
New Zealand and Sweden, to 10% in the Netherlands. This can translate into significant proportions of loans
that are not repaid. In Australia, Canada and the Netherlands, it is estimated that 10% or more of the loans are
expected not to be repaid.
The conditions to benefit from such mechanisms vary between countries. Death, disability or poor financial
situation of the graduate who took the loan are commonly accepted reasons for obtaining forgiveness or a
remission. Furthermore, conditions for remission and/or forgiveness are linked in some countries to the labour
market situation or to students’ results. For example, in the United States, teachers and individuals in public service
may apply to loan-forgiveness programmes; in Australia, graduates of specific fields (and employed in a related
occupation) and graduates who take up related occupations or work in specified locations benefit from remission
through a reduction of their repayments. In Colombia and Japan, some graduates with particularly outstanding
results may also expect forgiveness of all or part of their student loan.

Debt at graduation
During economic crises, when young graduates may have difficulties in finding a job, the level of debt at graduation
becomes a concern. When labour market opportunities are scarce, many graduates may to go back to school – and
risk assuming even more debt.
In several countries, most students are in debt at graduation. Countries whose tertiary institutions charge high tuition
fees are also those whose students have the highest levels of debt at graduation. In countries with a relatively small
proportion of graduates in debt, the debt burden is also lighter. For example, in Finland, fewer than one in two students
is in debt at graduation for an average of about USD 8 300, while in the United Kingdom (England only), nine out of ten
graduates have debt from loans of an average of more than USD 30 000 (Table B5.4).
However, and contrary to what could be expected, graduates in countries with no tuition fee can also have a high level
of debt at graduation. This is the case of students in Norway and Sweden, where the average annual gross amount of
loan available to each students reaches around USD 10 000 and USD 6 800, respectively, and also covers student living
expenses, as there is no tuition fee for tertiary studies. In addition, compared to countries with higher tuition fees, income
is generally lower after graduation and taxes are higher in these countries (see Model 1).

Definitions
Average tuition fees charged in public and private tertiary institutions distinguishes tuition fees between shortcycle, bachelor, master, doctorate or equivalent programmes. This indicator gives an overview of tuition fees at each
level by type of institution and shows 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 are derived from the weighted average of the main programmes.
Student loans refer to the full range of student loans in order to provide information on the level of support received
by students. The gross amount of loans provides an appropriate measure of the financial aid to current participants
in education. Interest payments and repayments of principal by borrowers should be taken into account when
assessing the net cost of student loans to public and private lenders. In most countries, loan repayments do not
flow to education authorities, and the money is not available to them to cover other expenditures on education.
Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

273

B5

chapter B FINANCIAL AND HUMAN RESOURCES INVESTED IN EDUCATION

B5

OECD indicators take the full amount of scholarships and loans (gross) into account when discussing financial aid to
current students. Some OECD countries also have difficulty quantifying the amount of loans to students. Therefore,
data on student loans should be treated with some caution.

Methodology
Data refer to the financial year 2013 or school year 2013-14 and are based on a special survey administered by the
OECD and undertaken in 2015 (for details see Annex 3 at www.oecd.org/education/education-at-a-glance-19991487.
htm).
Amounts of tuition fees and amounts of loans in national currency are converted into equivalent USD by dividing
the national currency 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 programmes and do not cover all educational institutions.
Note regarding data from Israel
The statistical data for Israel are supplied by and are under the responsibility of the relevant Israeli authorities. The use of
such data by the OECD is without prejudice to the status of the Golan Heights, East Jerusalem and Israeli settlements in the
West Bank under the terms of international law.

References
OECD (2011), Revenue Statistics 2011, OECD Publishing, Paris, http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/ctpa-rev-data-en.
OECD (2008), Tertiary Education for the Knowledge Society: Volume 1 and Volume 2, OECD Publishing, Paris, http://dx.doi.org/
10.1787/9789264046535-en.
Swedish Higher Education Authority (2013), “Fewer Students from Asia after the Tuition Reform”, Statistical Analysis, Stockholm.

Indicator B5 Tables
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933285558

Table B5.1a

Estimated annual average tuition fees charged by educational institutions (bachelor’s, master’s,
doctoral or equivalent level) (2013-14)

WEB Table B5.1b

Estimated annual average tuition fees charged by educational institutions for students in bachelor’s
or equivalent programmes (2013-14)

WEB Table B5.1c

Estimated annual average tuition fees charged by educational institutions for students in master’s
or equivalent programmes (2013-14)

WEB Table B5.1d

Estimated annual average tuition fees charged by educational institutions for students in doctoral
or equivalent programmes (2013-14)

WEB Table B5.1e

Estimated annual average tuition fees charged by educational institutions for students in short-cycle
tertiary programmes (2013-14)

WEB Table B5.2

Average tuition fees charged by tertiary institutions for bachelor’s, master’s, doctoral or equivalent
programmes, by field of education (2013-14)

Table B5.3

Financial support to students and tuition fees charged by educational institutions (2013-14)

Table B5.4

Public loans to students in bachelor’s, master’s, doctoral or equivalent programmes (2013-14)

Table B5.5

Repayment and remission of public loans to students in bachelor’s, master’s, doctoral or equivalent
programmes (academic year 2013/14)

WEB Table B5.6

Estimated annual average tuition fees charged by educational institutions for international students
(2013-14)

274 Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

How much do tertiary students pay and what public support do they receive? – INDICATOR B5

chapter B

Table B5.1a. [1/2] Estimated annual average tuition fees charged by educational institutions

(bachelor’s, master’s, doctoral or equivalent level)1 (2013-14)

National students, in equivalent USD converted using PPPs, by type of institutions and degree structure,
based on full-time students, academic year 2013-14

Partners

OECD

Percentage of
full-time students
enrolled in:

16

x(3)

94
m
89
79
98
10
91
26
25
m
68
m
97
84
91
81
94
93
85
92
95
93
a
60

6
m
11
20
0
72
a
a
a
m
a
m
3
5
a
0
a
6
0
8
4
a
100
0

0
m
a
0
2
18
9
74
75
m
32
m
1
11
9
19
6
1
15
a
1
7
0
40

Argentina
Brazil
China
Colombia
India
Indonesia
Latvia
Russian Federation
Saudi Arabia
South Africa

m
100
m
100
m
m
78
49
m
m

m
26
m
41
m
m
0
94
m
m

m
0
m
0
m
m
80
0
m
m

m
74
m
59
m
m
20
6
m
m

Doctoral
or equivalent level

84

86
m
68
71
88
83
100
91
100
83
100
91
61
63
53
95
69
81
69
50
77
100
78
72

Master’s
or equivalent level

96

Germany
Greece
Hungary
Iceland
Ireland
Israel
Italy
Japan2
Korea
Luxembourg
Mexico
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway2
Poland
Portugal
Slovak Republic
Slovenia3
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland4
Turkey
United Kingdom2
United States3

Bachelor’s
or equivalent level

France

Doctoral
or equivalent level

5
x(3)
1
a
m
64
12
0
8
a

Master’s
or equivalent level

(4)

a
15d
57
60
m
16
2
1
74
33

Independent private
institutions

Bachelor’s or
equivalent level

(3)

95
85
43
40
m
20
87
99
18
67

Government dependent
private institutions
Doctoral
or equivalent level

(2)

71
100
65
88
78
100
97
90
85
56

Public
institutions
Master’s
or equivalent level

(1)

Australia
Austria
Belgium (Fl.)
Belgium (Fr.)
Canada2
Chile
Czech Republic
Denmark
Estonia
Finland

Annual average tuition fees
in USD charged by institutions (for full-time students)

Bachelor’s
or equivalent level

Public institutions
(bachelor’s, master’s, doctoral
or equivalent level)
Government dependent private
institutions (bachelor’s, master’s, doctoral
or equivalent level)
Independent private institutions
(bachelor’s, master’s, doctoral
or equivalent level)

Percentage of students enrolled full-time
(bachelor’s, master’s, doctoral or equivalent level)

Note: Tuition fees and associated proportions of students should be interpreted with caution as they result from the weighted average of the main tertiary
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. Proportions of students reported in columns 1, 2, 3 and 4
are based on the data collection used for other indicators (UOE data collection), and refer to school year 2013.

(5)

(6)

(7)

(8)

(9)

(10)

(11)

(12)

(13)

4 473
7 334
314
a
a
a
861
861
861
861
861
861
729
729
301 to 376
x(5)
x(6)
x(7)
155
710
m
151
721
m
4 761
4 961
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
no tuition fees no tuition fees no tuition fees
m
m
m
no tuition fees no tuition fees no tuition fees no tuition fees no tuition fees no tuition fees
no tuition fees no tuition fees no tuition fees no tuition fees no tuition fees no tuition fees
0 to 8 313 300 to 2 166

458

x(11)

x(12)

m

m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
2 957
m
m
2 934
m
m
1 602
x(5)
1 235
a
a
a
5 152
5 150
5 149
a
a
a
4 773
6 281
7 137
a
a
a
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
2 300
2 300
a
m
m
m
4 113
m
4 290
m
m
m
no tuition fees no tuition fees no tuition fees
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
no tuition fees no tuition fees no tuition fees
a
a
a
no tuition fees no tuition fees
5 839 no tuition fees no tuition fees
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
no tuition fees no tuition fees no tuition fees no tuition fees no tuition fees no tuition fees
1 015
1 015
457
1 015
1 015
a
no tuition fees no tuition fees no tuition fees
a
a
a
a
a
a
9 019
9 019
9 019
8 202
10 818
13 264
a
a
a
m
m
m
574
m
m
m
m
m
m

m
m
m
3 212
m
m
m
m
m
m

m
m
m
3 667
m
m
m
m
m
m

m
a
m
a
m
m
m
m
m
m

m
a
m
a
m
m
m
m
m
m

m
a
m
a
m
m
m
m
m
m

8 322
7 537 1 997
m
m
m
m
m
m
a
a
a
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
a
a
a
1 808
1 098
m
to 7 598 to 12 994
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
7 028
m
m
6 168
x(11) 2 542
8 263
6 926 5 743
8 554
12 270 11 510
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
a
m
m
m
6 552
8 263
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
2 300
1 700 5 847
a
a
m
m
m
m
a
a
a
m
m
a
m
m
m
m
m
m
21 189
16 932 22 929
m
m
m
3 082
m
m
m
m
m
m

m
m
m
7 097
m
m
m
m
m
m

m
m
m
9 885
m
m
m
m
m
m

Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

275

1. Scholarships/grants that the student may receive are not taken into account.
2. Reference year 2014-15 for tuition fees (in Japan, for public institutions only).
3. Reference year 2011-12 for tuition fees.
4. Financial reference year 2013 and academic reference year 2012-13.
Source: OECD. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/education/education-at-a-glance-19991487.htm).
Please refer to the Reader’s Guide for information concerning symbols for missing data and abbreviations.
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933285566

B5

chapter B FINANCIAL AND HUMAN RESOURCES INVESTED IN EDUCATION

Table B5.1a. [2/2] Estimated annual average tuition fees charged by educational institutions

(bachelor’s, master’s, doctoral or equivalent level)1 (2013-14)

National students, in equivalent USD converted using PPPs, by type of institutions and degree structure,
based on full-time students, academic year 2013-14

B5

Note: Tuition fees and associated proportions of students should be interpreted with caution as they result from the weighted average of the main tertiary
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. Proportions of students reported in columns 1, 2, 3 and 4
are based on the data collection used for other indicators (UOE data collection), and refer to school year 2013.
Comment
OECD

(14)

Australia
Austria
Belgium (Fl.)2
Belgium (Fr.)
Canada2
Chile
Czech Republic
Denmark
Estonia
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Iceland
Ireland
Israel
Italy

Japan2
Korea
Luxembourg
Mexico
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway2
Poland
Portugal
Slovak Republic

Slovenia3
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland4
Turkey

Partners

United Kingdom2
United States3

Since the summer term 2009 only national students as well as EU/EEA students who exceed the theoretical duration of study plus a range of tolerance
are not exempted from paying tuition fees (other reasons for exemption exist). Tuition fees excludes mandatory membership in the official body of
university students (about USD 43).
Tuition fees charged to student in bachelor’s or master’s or equivalent programmes who do not receive a scholarship. Tuitions fees charged to students
depend from the status of student regarding scholarship: USD 122 for student receiving a scholarship and USD 482 for students receiving almost a
scholarship (“bijna beursstudenten”).
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.

Starting from academic year 2013-14, all degree programmes taught in Estonian are free of charge for full-time students. Fees can be charged from
students who do not succeed to study full-time.
Excluding membership fees to student unions.
In public institutions, tuitions fees in most bachelor’s or equivalent programmes are less than USD 750; and fees may exceed this amount in some
paramedical training. Only annual tuition fees of public institutions depending from the Ministry of Higher Education or the Ministry of Agriculture
correspond to amounts set by ministerial decrees. Other data on the registration fee are rough estimates with no statistical or regulatory nature.

Students are either fully financed through a state scholarship; partially financed through a state scholarship (50% of the cost of studies), or pay the full
cost of studies.

Each institution fixes scales for tuition fees dependent on the economic circumstances of the student’s family, according to equity and solidarity criteria
that respects the general rules determined at national level. The annual average tuition fees are calculated on the basis of the actual tuition fees paid by
each student (net amount); students totally exempted from fees are not included in the calculation. Students partially exempted are considered on the
basis of their actual payment. Programmes at equivalent levels are excluded.
Average amount of annual tuition fees charged by independent private insitutions refer to fees in private universities for the first academic year.

Tuition fees in public institutions refer to the mandatory fee and apply to all EEA students.
Average tuition fees for all tertiary levels in universities only.
Tuition fees for independent private institutions refer to the largest private institution, mainly providing courses in business administration (economics,
marketing and management). Candidates for the doctoral degree are formally not students, but employed as research fellows. The contract period at the
universities is normally four years, to allow for teaching activities in addition to the three years of research.

Generally full-time students do not pay the tuition fees, but students who are simultaneously enrolled in one academic year in two or more study
programmes offered by a public university in the same level, are required to pay annual tuition fees for the second and the other study programmes
in the academic year. In addition, students studying longer than the standard duration of study are required to pay annual tuition fees for each
additional year of study.
Full-time students do not pay tuition fees. In independent private institutions, students are enrolled on a part-time basis only.
Proportion of full-time students include students in master’s or equivalent level (ISCED 7) and short-cycle tertiary programmes (ISCED 5).
As of the academic year 2012/13, in public institutions, students in first education (regular morning programmes) and open education programmes are
not charged tuition fees over the course of the theoretical duration of the programmes. Tuition fees are charged only for students in public institutions
who are enrolled in evening programmes and those who have not graduated from a programme within the theoretical duration.
Average tuition fees for all tertiary levels.

Argentina
Brazil
China
Colombia
India
Indonesia
Latvia
Russian Federation
Saudi Arabia
South Africa
1. Scholarships/grants that the student may receive are not taken into account.
2. Reference year 2014-15 for tuition fees (in Japan, for public institutions only).
3. Reference year 2011-12 for tuition fees.
4. Financial reference year 2013 and academic reference year 2012-13.
Source: OECD. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/education/education-at-a-glance-19991487.htm).
Please refer to the Reader’s Guide for information concerning symbols for missing data and abbreviations.
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933285566

276 Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

How much do tertiary students pay and what public support do they receive? – INDICATOR B5

chapter B

Table B5.3. Financial support to students and tuition fees charged by educational institutions (2013-14)
National students, based on full-time students, academic year 2013-14
Bachelor’s or equivalent level

Partners

OECD

Distribution of financial aid to students
Percentage of students that:

benefit from
public loans
only

benefit from
scholarships/
grants only

benefit
from public
loans AND
scholarships/
grants

Distribution of scholarships/grants in support of tuition fees
Percentage of students that:

receive
DO NOT receive
receive
scholarships/
receive
DO NOT
scholarships/
scholarships/
grants whose
scholarships/
benefit from
grants
grants that
amount is
grants that
public loans OR
in support
scholarships/ are higher than equivalent to partially cover
the tuition fees the tuition fees the tuition fees of tuition fees
grants

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7)

(8)

Australia1
Austria
Belgium (Fl.)
Belgium (Fr.)
Canada
Chile
Czech Republic
Denmark
Estonia
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Iceland
Ireland
Israel
Italy5
Japan
Korea
Luxembourg
Mexico
Netherlands2
New Zealand3
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Slovak Republic
Slovenia
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland4
Turkey5, 6
United Kingdom5, 7
United States8

43
a
a
x(3)
m
m

0
17
23d
x(3)
m
m

44
a
a
19d
m
m

13
83
77d
81
m
m

x(7)
15
23d
19d
m
m

x(7)
2
a
x(5)
m
m

44
0
a
x(5)
m
m

56
83
77d
81d
m
m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m
a

m
52d

m
a

m
48d

m
52d

m
a

m
a

m
48d

m

35

m

65

27

7

a

65

m
m
m
m

m
m
m
m

m
m
m
m

m
m
m
m

m
m
m
m

m
m
m
m

m
m
m
m

m
m
m
m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m
0d
m
m
m

m
20d
m
m
m

m
0d
m
m
m

m
80d
m
m
m

m
7d
m
m
m

m
5d
m
m
m

m
8d
m
m
m

m
80d
m
m
m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

48

0

27

24

Argentina
Brazil
China
Colombia
India
Indonesia
Latvia
Russian Federation
Saudi Arabia
South Africa

45

5

37

13

m

m

m

m

14

5

61

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

a

m

a

a

m

m

m

m

m
m
0
39
92d

m
m
7
16
a

m
m
0
0
x(1)

m
m
92
45
8d

m
m
8
15
a

m
m
0
0
a

m
m
0
0
a

m
m
92
84
100d

11

19

55

15

m

m

m

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

Note: Distribution of financial aid to students and scholarships/grants in support of tuition fees at master’s and doctoral or equivalent levels are available on line.
1. Only includes the major Australian Government scholarships programmes. It excludes all scholarships provided by education institutions and the private sector.
2. Public institutions only.
3. Average values for full-time students across all levels of tertiary education.
4. Bachelor’s or equivalent level includes short-cycle tertiary programmes. Swiss data refer to the financial year 2013 and the academic year 2012/2013.
5. Reference year 2014-15.
6. Students who benefit from scholarships/grants only includes those receiving public scholarships/grants.
7. Excludes independent private institutions.
8. Reference year 2011-12.
Source: OECD. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/education/education-at-a-glance-19991487.htm).
Please refer to the Reader’s Guide for information concerning symbols for missing data and abbreviations.
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933285571

Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

277

B5

chapter B FINANCIAL AND HUMAN RESOURCES INVESTED IN EDUCATION

Table B5.4. [1/2] Public loans to students in bachelor’s, master’s, doctoral

or equivalent programmes (2013-14)

National students, in USD converted using PPPs

B5

OECD

Year of the creation
of a public loan system in the country
Australia

Bachelor, master’s, doctoral
or equivalent level

(1)

(2)

(3)

1989

79 (85% for bachelors, 63% for masters,
and 2% for doctoral)

4 017

Belgium (Fl.)

a

a

a

Belgium (Fr.)1

1983

9

1 458

Canada2, 3, 4

1964

m

4 277 (bachelor’s), 5 899 (master’s),
6 489 (doctoral)

Denmark5

1988/89

about 35

4 723

Estonia2

1995

11

3 487

Finland2

1969

22

2 714

France2
Hungary1, 2, 6

2001

0.1

1 600

m

2 790

Italy2

m

m

4 959

Japan5

1943

38

6 483 (interest-free loans);
8 430 (interest-bearing loans)

Korea7

1994

18.5

5 623

Mexico

1970

m

m

Netherlands

1986

m

6 878

New Zealand

1992

m

5 897

Norway5

1947

68

10 083

Poland

1998

Portugal
Slovak Republic7

m

m

m

m
4 510

1997

m

Slovenia

a

a

a

Sweden5

2001 (current system); 1965 for first system

52

6 829

Switzerland3

Partners

Proportion of students
who have a loan (in %)
(academic year 2013-14)

Average annual gross amount of loan
borrowed to each student
(in USD)

more than 50 years

m

3 987

Turkey

1961

32

3 561 (bachelor’s), 7 122 (master’s),
10 683 (doctoral)

United Kingdom5

1990

92

5 612 (maintenance loan)
and 10 824 (tuition fee loan)

United States8

1960s

62 (bachelor’s), 67 (master’s); 32 (doctoral)

4 330 (bachelor’s), 16 363 (master’s),
5 984 (doctoral)

Brazil

m

m

m

Colombia

1953

m

3 003

Note: Columns 4, 5 and 6 available on line display the average annual gross amount of loan at bachelor’s, master’s and doctoral or equivalent levels.
1. All students in bachelor’s, master’s, doctoral or equivalent programmes.
2. Private loan guaranteed by the state rather than public loan (in Italy, for the majority of student loans).
3. Reference year 2012-13.
4. Only includes information on the federal portion of student financial assistance, that is to say 60% of student loans provided in the provinces participating in
the Canada Student Loans Program (CSLP). Excludes the province of Quebec (about 25% of the Canadian population) that does not participate in the CSLP.
5. Reference year 2014-15 (for Japan, 2013-14 reference year for debt at graduation).
6. Data refer to Diákhitel1 only. In the academic year 2012-13 a new student loan form (Diákhitel2) was launched, besides Diákhitel1. Diákhitel2 can be used only for
the cost of studies (“cost-refunding” or “tuition fee”), while Diákhitel1 can be used for any purpose (e.g. student living expenses).
7. Includes short-cycle tertiary programmes.
8. Reference year 2011-12 for the proportion of students with student loans; reference year 2014-15 for information on interest rates.
Source: OECD. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/education/education-at-a-glance-19991487.htm).
Please refer to the Reader’s Guide for information concerning symbols for missing data and abbreviations.
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933285585

278 Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

How much do tertiary students pay and what public support do they receive? – INDICATOR B5

chapter B

Table B5.4. [2/2] Public loans to students in bachelor’s, master’s, doctoral

or equivalent programmes (2013-14)

National students, in USD converted using PPPs
Subsidy through reduced interest rate

OECD

Interest rate
during studies

Interest rate
after studies

Percentage
of graduates with debt
(in %)

Average debt at graduation
(in USD)

(7)

(8)

(9)

(10)

2% (no real interest rate)

2% (no real interest rate)

74%

m

Belgium (Fl.)

a

a

a

a

Belgium (Fr.)1

m

m

m

m

Australia

Canada2, 3, 4

No nominal interest rate

5.4%

m

12 422

Denmark5

4.0 % (interest rate higher than
cost of government borrowing)

1.0 % (interest rate higher equal
to cost of government borrowing)

57%

14 856

Estonia2

5.0%

5.0%

m

m

Finland2

1.0%

Full interest rate agreed
with the private bank

43.5%

8 291

France2
Hungary1, 2, 6

m

m

m

m

Variable (7.5% to 6.5%)
for Diákhitel1

Variable (7.5% to 6.5%)
for Diákhitel1

m

m

Italy2

m

m

m

m

Japan5

No nominal nor real interest rate

Maximum of 3%,
rest paid by government

m

29 942

Korea7

2.9%

2.9%

m

m

Mexico

m

m

m

m

Netherlands

Cost of government borrowing
(0.12%)

Cost of government borrowing
(0.12%)

67%

18 100

New Zealand

No nominal nor real interest rate

No nominal interest rate
if New Zealand based,
5.9% otherwise

m

USD 13 437 (2014 average for
both graduates and non-graduate borrowers
who have left study, and regardless
of what level they studied at)

Norway5

a (repayment of the loan
starts after graduation)

2.52% (cost of government
borrowing, +1.25% to cover
defaulting costs)

m

26 826

Poland

m

m

m

m

Portugal

m

m

m

m

No nominal nor real interest rate

3.19%

0.81%

3 247

Slovak Republic7
Slovenia

a

a

a

a

Sweden5

1%

1%

77%

22 789

Switzerland3

Partners

B5

Debt at graduation

m

m

m

m

Turkey

a (repayment of the loan
starts after graduation)

Based on the domestic producer
price index

m

m

United Kingdom5

Retail price index, plus 3%
(5.5% for 2014-15)

from retail price index
(2.5% for 2014-15) to retail price
index, plus 3% (5.5% for 2014-15),
based on earnings

91.6%

30 349

United States8

0 to 7.21%
(cost of government borrowing)

4.66 to 7.21%
(cost of government borrowing)

m

m

3.4%

3.4%

Brazil
Colombia

Consumer price index to consumer Consumer price index to consumer
proce index + 8%
proce index + 8%

m

m

m

7 298

Note: Columns 4, 5 and 6 available on line display the average annual gross amount of loan at bachelor’s, master’s and doctoral or equivalent levels.
1. All students in bachelor’s, master’s, doctoral or equivalent programmes.
2. Private loan guaranteed by the state rather than public loan (in Italy, for the majority of student loans).
3. Reference year 2012-13.
4. Only includes information on the federal portion of student financial assistance, that is to say 60% of student loans provided in the provinces participating in
the Canada Student Loans Program (CSLP). Excludes the province of Quebec (about 25% of the Canadian population) that does not participate in the CSLP.
5. Reference year 2014-15 (for Japan, 2013-14 reference year for debt at graduation).
6. Data refer to Diákhitel1 only. In the academic year 2012-13 a new student loan form (Diákhitel2) was launched, besides Diákhitel1. Diákhitel2 can be used only for
the cost of studies (“cost-refunding” or “tuition fee”), while Diákhitel1 can be used for any purpose (e.g. student living expenses).
7. Includes short-cycle tertiary programmes.
8. Reference years 2011-12 for the proportion of students with student loans; reference year 2014-15 for information on interest rates.
Source: OECD. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/education/education-at-a-glance-19991487.htm).
Please refer to the Reader’s Guide for information concerning symbols for missing data and abbreviations.
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933285585

Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

279

chapter B FINANCIAL AND HUMAN RESOURCES INVESTED IN EDUCATION

Table B5.5. [1/2] Repayment and remission of public loans to students in bachelor’s, master’s, doctoral

or equivalent programmes (academic year 2013-14)
National students, in USD converted using PPPs

B5

Repayment

OECD

Repayment system
Australia

Duration of typical
amortisation period
(in years)

Estimated annual
income of recent
graduates (in USD)

Average annual amount
of repayment (in USD)

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

Income contingent

33 709

8,5

34 492

2 424

Belgium (Fl.)

a

a

a

m

a

Belgium (Fr.)

m

m

m

m

m

Canada1, 2, 3

m

m

9.5

m

m

Denmark4

Mortgage style

a

7 to 15

m

m

Estonia

Mortgage style

a

8 to 10

21 556
(gross salary in 2012)

m

Finland

Mortgage style

a

5 to 15

37 574

1 530

France

m

m

m

m

m

Hungary5

Income
contingent

None

10 to 15

m

1 259 (Diákhitel1);
664 ((Diákhitel2)

Italy

m

m

m

m

m

Japan4

Mortgage style

a

15

m

2 178 (from 1 064 to 10 024)

Korea6

Income contingent
and mortgage style

About 21 755 (income
contingent loan);
a (mortgage style loan)

m (income contingent loan);
up to 10 years (mortgage style loan)

m

m

Netherlands

Income
contingent

19 516

15

m

1 086

New Zealand

Income
contingent

12 996

7

m

1 907 (12% of income amount
above income threshold,
plus any voluntary repayments)

Norway

Mortgage style

a

20

m

1 609

Slovak Republic7

780 (from 86 to 2 300)

Mortgage style

a

7.1 (from 5 to 10)

m

Slovenia

a

a

a

a

a

Sweden4

Mortgage style

a

25

m

Typically 756
m

Switzerland
Turkey
United Kingdom4
United States

Partners

Annual minimum
income threshold
(in USD)

Brazil
Colombia

m

m

m

m

Mortgage style

a

2 to 6

m

m

Income
contingent

30 062

m

30 778

616 (1st year of repayment
for 2012 cohort) to 1 560 (8th year
of repayment for 2005 cohort)

Mortgage style
and income contingent

m

10 (mortgage style repayment);
20 to 25 (income based repayment;
predicted period)

24 448

m

m

m

m

m

m

Mortgage style

a

From same to twice the time of the
study period

18 982

m

1. Private loan guaranteed by the state rather than public loan (in Italy, for the majority of student loans).
2. Reference year 2012-13.
3. Only includes information on the federal portion of student financial assistance, that is to say 60% of student loans provided in the provinces participating in the
Canada Student Loans Program (CSLP). Excludes the province of Quebec (about 25% of the Canadian population) that does not participate in the CSLP.
4. Reference year 2014-15.
5. In the academic year 2012-13, a new student loan form (namely Diákhitel2) was launched, besides Diákhitel1. Diákhitel2 can be used only for the cost of studies
(“cost-refunding” or “tuition fee”), while Diákhitel1 can be used for any purpose (e.g. student living expenses).
6. Eligibility rule: Income Contingent Student Loans, if 35 years old or younger, 7th income decile or below, took 12 credits or more and gained 70 points or higher
(maximum 100 points). General Installment Student Loans, if 55 years old or younger, 8th income decile or above, undergraduate and graduate students, took
12 credits or more, and gained 70 points or higher (maximum 100 points).
7. Includes short-cycle tertiary programmes.
Source: OECD. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/education/education-at-a-glance-19991487.htm).
Please refer to the Reader’s Guide for information concerning symbols for missing data and abbreviations.
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933285591

280 Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

How much do tertiary students pay and what public support do they receive? – INDICATOR B5

chapter B

Table B5.5. [2/2] Repayment and remission of public loans to students in bachelor’s, master’s, doctoral

or equivalent programmes (academic year 2013-14)
National students, in USD converted using PPPs

B5

Remission

Existence
of remission/
forgiveness

Death
or disability of
the graduate

Financial situation of the graduate

Other conditions

Proportion
of students
that benefit
of the
remission/
forgiveness

(6)

(7)

(8)

(9)

(10)

Australia

Yes

Death

Bankruptcy (forgiveness)

Belgium (Fl.)
Belgium (Fr.)
Canada1, 2, 3

a
m
Yes

Denmark4

Yes

Estonia

Yes

Finland
France
Hungary5

No
m
Yes

Italy
Japan4

m
Yes

Korea6

Yes

Netherlands

Yes

New Zealand

Yes

Norway

Yes

Slovak Republic7
Slovenia
Sweden4

m
a
Yes

Switzerland
Turkey

m
Yes

United Kingdom4

Yes

United States

Yes

Brazil

m
Yes

m

m

Partners

OECD

Conditions for remission/forgiveness

Colombia

Proportion
of loans
that are
not repaid
(11)

Remission : decrease of the compulsory Forgiveness: m Forgiveness:
HELP repayments for graduates of specific
Remission:
17%
fields (and employed in a related occupation)
0.56%
Remission:
and graduates who take up related
0.06%
occupations or work in specified locations.
a
a
a
a
a
m
m
m
m
m
a
Graduates who have difficulty to pay the
m
13%
monthly Canada Student Loan payments
(based on income and family size)
a
Based on financial situation, if the
A very few
About 1%
graduate does not have a huge debt to
private creditors. If the debtor has a huge
debt to both the government (e.g. public
loans) and private creditors, it is possible
to apply for a general debt relief.
Death; graduates
Graduates with a child with profound
6%
m
who lost the ability
disability
to work
at 80%-100%
a
a
a
a
1.5%
m
m
m
m
m
Death; 100%
Pensioner status
0.035%
0.063%
disability
(Diákhitel1)
(Diákhitel1)
of the graduate
m
m
m
m
m
Death; physical or
Graduate school recipients of Category
0.63%
m
mental disabilities
1 Loans with particularly outstanding
of the graduate
results
a
65 years old or older people with no
Interest relief while serving in the army
m
m
other income than a national pension,
(General Installment Student Loans,
and whose income is below a threshold
Income Contingent Student Loans)
(the foundation’s standard)
a
*income level condition is not applied
10%
10%
to graduate students
Death
Bankruptcy
Less than
m
0.2%
Death or illness
People with low income,
In case of childbirth or care of small
5%
m
or in unemployment
children
m
m
m
m
1.08%
a
a
a
a
a
Death; not timePeople of high age (65/68 years)
2%
7.3%
limited sickness
compensation
with low income
m
m
m
m
m
Death; unability
m
m
to work due
to disability
Death
Loans are written off 30 years after
m
m
graduation
Death
Graduates whose federal student
Graduates who enter and remain
m
m
or disability
loan debt is higher than their annual
in the teaching profession or in public
discretionary income or represents a services for a certain number of years may
significant portion of their annual income have a portion of their loans forgiven
m
On graduation from the programme
for which loans were approved
and on obtaining the best results
in Saber Pro tests

m

m

n

m

1. Private loan guaranteed by the state rather than public loan (in Italy, for the majority of student loans).
2. Reference year 2012-13.
3. Only includes information on the federal portion of student financial assistance, that is to say 60% of student loans provided in the provinces participating in the
Canada Student Loans Program (CSLP). Excludes the province of Quebec (about 25% of the Canadian population) that does not participate in the CSLP.
4. Reference year 2014-15.
5. In the academic year 2012/2013, a new student loan form (namely Diákhitel2) was launched, besides Diákhitel1. Diákhitel2 can be used only for the cost of studies
(“cost-refunding” or “tuition fee”), while Diákhitel1 can be used for any purpose (e.g. student living expenses).
6. Eligibility rule: Income Contingent Student Loans, if 35 years old or younger, 7th income decile or below, took 12 credits or more and gained 70 points or higher
(maximum 100 points). General Installment Student Loans, if 55 years old or younger, 8th income decile or above, undergraduate and graduate students, took
12 credits or more, and gained 70 points or higher (maximum 100 points).
7. Includes short-cycle tertiary programmes.
8. Reference years 2011-12 for the proportion of students with student loans; 2012-13 for debt at graduation, 2014-15 otherwise.
Source: OECD. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/education/education-at-a-glance-19991487.htm).
Please refer to the Reader’s Guide for information concerning symbols for missing data and abbreviations.
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933285591

Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

281

ON WHAT RESOURCES AND SERVICES IS EDUCATION
FUNDING SPENT?
INDICATOR B6

• About 90% or more of total expenditure on education is devoted to current expenditure, on average
across OECD countries, and in most OECD countries, at both primary, secondary, post-secondary
non-tertiary levels combined and at tertiary level.

• In two-thirds (24 of 33) of OECD and partner countries with available data, the share of total
expenditure devoted to capital expenditure is larger at the tertiary level than at primary, secondary
and post-secondary non-tertiary levels combined. This may be because new buildings have had to
be constructed in recent years to accommodate the expansion of tertiary education.

• In OECD and partner countries with available data, most current expenditure goes to compensating
education staff (teachers and others).

Chart B6.1. Distribution of current expenditure on educational institutions
for primary, secondary and post-secondary non-tertiary education (2012)
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0

Compensation of all staff

Other current expenditure

Mexico1
Colombia1
Belgium
Turkey1
Portugal1
Japan2
Denmark
South Africa1
Switzerland1
Luxembourg
Ireland1
Germany
Netherlands
Israel
United States2
Italy1
Norway2
France
Spain
Canada
OECD average
Slovenia
Indonesia
Russian Federation
United Kingdom
Australia
Austria
Iceland
Latvia
Brazil1
Korea
Hungary
Sweden
Slovak Republic2
Finland
Czech Republic

% of total
expenditure

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 the share of compensation of all staff in primary, secondary and post-secondary non-tertiary
education.
Source: OECD. Table B6.2. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/education/education-at-a-glance-19991487.htm).
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933284092

Context
Decisions about how resources are allocated affect the material conditions under which instruction
takes place and can also influence the nature of instruction.
While savings can be made by cutting capital expenditure (such as not building new schools) and
some current expenditure (not purchasing certain teaching materials), when pressures on education
budgets increase, changes in spending on staff have the greatest impact on overall spending. Still,
saving money by reducing salaries and benefits or cutting the number of teachers and other staff
is unpopular politically and possibly counterproductive, in that it discourages good teachers from
wanting to enter or remain in the profession. In fact, in addition to managing material resources more
efficiently, human resources must also be well-managed in order to improve the quality of education
systems. Deferring expenditures, such as hiring new teachers or salary increases, are temporary
measures in response to pressures on public budgets.
This indicator describes the resources and services on which money for education is spent. It shows
the difference between current and capital expenditure. Capital expenditure can be affected by
expanding enrolments, which often require the construction of new buildings. This indicator also
presents details on where current expenditure is spent, either on compensation of education staff or
elsewhere. Current expenditure is mainly affected by teachers’ salaries (see Indicator D3), but also by

282 Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

pension systems, the age distribution of teachers, and the size of the non-teaching staff employed in
education. In addition, educational institutions offer not only instruction but other services, such as
meals, transport, housing services and/or research activities. All these expenditures are addressed in
this indicator.

INDICATOR B6

Other findings

• Current expenditure devoted to purposes other than compensating staff is largest at the tertiary
level in almost all countries except Brazil and Iceland; and it reaches 33% of all current expenditure,
on average across OECD countries. In five OECD and partner countries, this proportion is 40% or
larger. These large proportions could be explained by the higher costs of facilities and equipment
in tertiary education compared to other levels of education.

• At the primary, secondary and post-secondary non-tertiary levels of education, OECD countries
spend an average of 21% of current expenditure for purposes other than compensating education
personnel. In most countries, there is little difference between primary and secondary education in
the proportion of current expenditure used for purposes other than compensation. However, the
difference exceeds 5 percentage points in the Czech Republic, Denmark, South Africa and Turkey,
and 10 percentage points in Indonesia, Ireland and Luxembourg.

• Most current expenditure is related to compensation of staff in nearly all countries except, at the
tertiary level, the Czech Republic and Indonesia. Only Brazil and Iceland devote 80% or more of
current expenditure to staff compensation at the tertiary level; 19 countries devote similar shares
of current expenditure to staff compensation at the primary, secondary and post-secondary nontertiary levels of education combined.

Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

283

chapter B FINANCIAL AND HUMAN RESOURCES INVESTED IN EDUCATION

Analysis
Current and capital expenditure by educational institutions

B6

Education expenditure includes both current and capital expenditure. Current expenditure by educational
institutions takes account of the spending on school resources used each year to operate schools. It includes, for
instance, the compensation of teachers and other staff, maintenance of school buildings, students’ meals or the
rental of school buildings and other facilities. Capital expenditure by educational institutions refers to spending on
assets that last longer than one year. It includes, for instance, spending on the construction, renovation and major
repair of school buildings.
The largest share of expenditure is current expenditure, given the labour-intensive nature of instruction. In 2012,
about 90% or more of total expenditure was devoted to current expenditure at the primary, secondary and postsecondary non-tertiary levels of education combined and at the tertiary level, on average among OECD countries.
Current expenditure amounts to more than 78% of total expenditure at each level of education in every OECD and
partner country. The share varies from 86% (Indonesia) to nearly 98% (Austria) in primary education; from nearly
86% (Portugal) to more than 98% (Austria and South Africa) in secondary education; and from 78% (Turkey) to 97%
(Belgium) in tertiary education (Tables B6.1 and B6.2 and Chart B6.2).
The OECD average share of current expenditure differs by three percentage points between primary, secondary
and post-secondary non-tertiary education combined (93.0%) and tertiary education (90.0%). Nevertheless,
differences among countries between the share of current expenditure on primary, secondary and post-secondary
non-tertiary education combined and on tertiary education can be relatively large. In most countries, the share of
current expenditure on the former levels of education is larger than on the latter level. The main exceptions are
Finland, Israel, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal and Sweden where the share of current expenditure on tertiary
education exceeds the share in primary, secondary and post-secondary non-tertiary education combined by more
than one to four percentage points. In contrast, the share of current expenditure at primary, secondary and postsecondary non-tertiary education combined exceeds the share in tertiary education by five percentage points or
more in Australia, Hungary, Indonesia, Italy, Latvia, Poland, the Slovak Republic, Spain and Turkey.
The differences among countries are likely to reflect how the different levels of education are organised in each
country, as well as the degree to which the expansion in enrolments requires the construction of new buildings,
especially at the tertiary level. Capital expenditure on tertiary education exceeds 15% in Indonesia (20.2%), Latvia
(18.4%), Poland (18.4%), the Slovak Republic (18.8%) and Turkey (22.0%). The ways countries report expenditure
related to university buildings may also explain differences in the share of current and capital expenditure at the
tertiary level. For example, the buildings and lands used for education can be owned, used free of charge, or rented
by the institutions; and the amount of current and capital expenditure partly depends on the type of real estate
management used in the country (see Box B6.1 in Education at a Glance 2012 [OECD, 2012]).
Distribution of current expenditure
Current expenditure by educational institutions can be subdivided further into three broad functional categories:
compensation of teachers, compensation of other staff, and other current expenditures. Other current expenditures
include, for instance, teaching materials and supplies, maintenance of school buildings, students’ meals and rental
of school facilities. The amount allocated to each of these categories depends partly on current and projected
changes in enrolments, on the salaries of education personnel, and on the costs of maintenance and construction
of education facilities. Despite the fact that the shares of these categories do not change much from year to year,
countries’ decisions might affect not only the amounts allocated, but also these shares.
At the primary, secondary and post-secondary non-tertiary levels, more than 62% of current expenditure is devoted
to compensating teachers, more than 15% to compensating other staff, and more than 21% to expenditure other
than compensation, on average across OECD countries. For tertiary education, nearly 40% of current expenditure
is devoted to the compensation of teachers, on average across OECD countries, as larger shares are devoted to
compensating other staff (more than 26%) and other current expenditure (about 33%).
There are relatively large differences in how current expenditure is allocated between the primary, secondary, and
post-secondary non-tertiary levels combined and tertiary education. For instance, in all countries, the share devoted
to compensation of teachers is larger at the combined primary, secondary and post-secondary non-tertiary levels of
education than at the tertiary level.

284 Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

On what resources and services is education funding spent? – INDICATOR B6

chapter B

Chart B6.2. Distribution of current and capital expenditure on educational institutions
(2012)
By resource category and level of education
Current expenditure

Latvia

Japan2

Korea

Latvia

Japan2

Korea

Indonesia

Netherlands

Luxembourg
Luxembourg

Netherlands

Norway2
2

Indonesia

Portugal1, 2
Portugal1, 2

Brazil1

Czech Republic

Finland

Germany

Slovenia

Sweden

OECD average

Canada

2

Turkey1

Spain

Iceland

Poland

Ireland1

Belgium

Slovak Republic2

Hungary

Norway

Israel

Russian Federation

Israel

Australia
Australia

Russian Federation

United States2
United States2

France
France

Colombia1

Switzerland1
Switzerland1

Brazil1

Denmark

Czech Republic

Finland

Germany

Sweden

Slovenia

OECD average

Canada2

Turkey1

Spain

Iceland

Poland

Ireland1

South Africa1

Belgium

Slovak Republic2

Italy1

Hungary

United Kingdom

Tertiary education

Italy1

Austria

100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0

Mexico1

% of total
expenditure

Primary, secondary, and post-secondary non-tertiary

United Kingdom

Austria

100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0

Mexico1

% of total
expenditure

B6

Capital expenditure

1. Public institutions only (for Italy, except in tertiary education).
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 the share of current expenditure on primary, secondary and post-secondary non-tertiary education.
Source: OECD. Table B6.2. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/education/education-at-a-glance-19991487.htm).
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933284103

The share of other current expenditure is more than 30% in primary, secondary and post-secondary non-tertiary
education combined in only four countries, namely the Czech Republic (42.0%), Finland (35.7%), the Slovak Republic
(33.9%) and Sweden (32.2%). In contrast, at the tertiary level, this share is more than 30% in more than half of
OECD countries with available data and less than 20% in only two countries: Brazil (18.9%) and Iceland (17.4%).
The variation in current expenditure not devoted to compensation of staff between levels of education reflects
differences in the size of administrative systems (for instance, the number of employees or the equipment available
to administrative staff) across these levels. The cost of facilities and equipment is expected to be higher in tertiary
education than in other levels of education. Meanwhile, the differences among countries in compensation of other
staff likely reflect the degree to which education personnel, such as principals, guidance counsellors, bus drivers,
school nurses, janitors and maintenance workers, are included in the category “non-teaching staff” (see Indicator D2).
Compensation of staff involved in research and development at the tertiary level may also explain part of the
differences, between countries and between levels of education, in the share of current expenditure devoted to
compensation of other staff.
Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

285

chapter B FINANCIAL AND HUMAN RESOURCES INVESTED IN EDUCATION

Definitions

B6

Capital expenditure refers to spending on assets that 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.
Current expenditure refers to spending on goods and services consumed within the current year and requiring
recurrent production in order to sustain educational services. Current expenditure by 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.

Methodology
Data refer to the financial year 2012 and are based on the UOE data collection on education statistics administered
by the OECD in 2014 (for details see Annex 3 at www.oecd.org/education/education-at-a-glance-19991487.htm).
Calculations cover expenditure by public institutions or, where available, by both public and private institutions.
Note regarding data from Israel
The statistical data for Israel are supplied by and are under the responsibility of the relevant Israeli authorities. The use of
such data by the OECD is without prejudice to the status of the Golan Heights, East Jerusalem and Israeli settlements in the
West Bank under the terms of international law.

References
OECD (2012), Education at a Glance 2012: OECD Indicators, OECD Publishing, Paris, http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/eag-2012-en.

Indicator B6 Tables
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933285627

Table B6.1

Expenditure by primary and secondary educational institutions, by resource category (2012)

Table B6.2

Expenditure by educational institutions, by resource category and level of education (2012)

Cut-off date for the data: 23 October 2015. Updates can be found on line at http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/eag-data-en.

286 Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

On what resources and services is education funding spent? – INDICATOR B6

chapter B

Table B6.1. Expenditure by primary and secondary educational institutions,

by resource category (2012)

Distribution of total and current expenditure by educational institutions from public and private sources

Other current
expenditure

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7)

(8)

(9)

(10)

(11)

(12)

Australia
Austria
Belgium1
Canada1, 2
Chile
Czech Republic
Denmark
Estonia
Finland1
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Iceland
Ireland3
Israel
Italy3
Japan1
Korea
Luxembourg
Mexico3
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway1
Poland
Portugal1, 3
Slovak Republic1
Slovenia1
Spain1
Sweden
Switzerland1, 3
Turkey3
United Kingdom
United States

91.3
97.8
95.2
93.2
m
90.1
90.1
m
93.1
91.6
93.7
m
96.9
94.9
94.6
90.0
96.4
86.9
87.1
86.5
97.5
88.3
m
90.3
94.7
96.1
96.3
93.1
95.0
93.4
90.3
95.4
97.2
91.2

8.7
2.2
4.8
6.8
m
9.9
9.9
m
6.9
8.4
6.3
m
3.1
5.1
5.4
10.0
3.6
13.1
12.9
13.5
2.5
11.7
m
9.7
5.3
3.9
3.7
6.9
5.0
6.6
9.7
4.6
2.8
8.8

62.9
62.0
67.5
63.7
m
43.8
68.3
m
54.5
56.3
x(5)
m
x(5)
x(5)
71.6
x(5)
62.0
x(5)
56.3
71.8
86.4
x(5)
m
x(5)
x(1)
x(5)
49.7
x(5)
67.6
52.9
66.0
x(5)
68.8
54.6

15.3
13.3
21.6
15.0
m
18.8
19.2
m
10.4
21.3
x(5)
m
x(5)
x(5)
18.5
x(5)
21.0
x(5)
15.2
5.6
8.2
x(5)
m
x(5)
x(1)
x(5)
13.3
x(5)
10.4
16.6
17.0
x(5)
9.5
26.8

78.2
75.3
89.1
78.6
m
62.6
87.4
m
64.8
77.6
82.2
m
70.5
74.1
90.1
83.7
83.0
85.8
71.5
77.4
94.6
82.5
m
80.6
x(1)
87.3
63.0
80.4
78.0
69.5
82.9
90.3
78.4
81.4

21.8
24.7
10.9
21.4
m
37.4
12.6
m
35.2
22.4
17.8
m
29.5
25.9
9.9
16.3
17.0
14.2
28.5
22.6
5.4
17.5
m
19.4
x(1)
12.7
37.0
19.6
22.0
30.5
17.1
9.7
21.6
18.6

90.8
98.1
97.8
93.2
m
93.0
93.4
m
92.6
91.5
92.0
m
97.0
93.8
95.6
92.5
97.9
88.0
87.0
91.0
97.4
88.0
m
88.7
96.6
85.7
97.2
92.8
94.9
92.7
92.9
93.5
97.6
91.2

9.2
1.9
2.2
6.8
m
7.0
6.6
m
7.4
8.5
8.0
m
3.0
6.2
4.4
7.5
2.1
12.0
13.0
9.0
2.6
12.0
m
11.3
3.4
14.3
2.8
7.2
5.1
7.3
7.1
6.5
2.4
8.8

x(11)
66.9
71.3
63.7
m
43.5
65.1
m
50.6
57.9
x(11)
m
x(11)
x(11)
63.9
x(11)
61.9
x(11)
56.0
77.1
75.3
x(11)
m
x(11)
x(7)
x(11)
54.1
x(11)
72.6
51.1
73.0
x(11)
65.1
54.6

x(11)
6.9
17.9
15.0
m
12.7
16.9
m
13.4
23.6
x(11)
m
x(11)
x(11)
15.1
x(11)
19.8
x(11)
15.8
11.1
15.7
x(11)
m
x(11)
x(7)
x(11)
13.5
x(11)
9.0
15.3
12.1
x(11)
10.8
26.7

75.0
73.8
89.2
78.6
m
56.2
82.0
m
64.0
81.5
82.7
m
70.4
73.2
79.1
79.4
81.7
85.9
71.8
88.2
91.1
81.6
m
80.0
x(7)
85.2
67.5
76.4
81.6
66.4
85.1
84.4
75.9
81.4

25.0
26.2
10.8
21.4
m
43.8
18.0
m
36.0
18.5
17.3
m
29.6
26.8
20.9
20.6
18.3
14.1
28.2
11.8
8.9
18.4
m
20.0
x(7)
14.8
32.5
23.6
18.4
33.6
14.9
15.6
24.1
18.6

OECD average
EU21 average

92.9
93.7

7.1
6.3

62.5
61.3

15.6
15.3

79.3
77.7

20.7
22.3

93.2
94.0

6.8
6.0

62.4
61.6

15.1
14.3

78.2
76.9

21.8
23.1

Argentina
Brazil2
China
Colombia3, 4
India
Indonesia4
Latvia
Russian Federation

m
91.4
m
91.5
m
86.0
87.9

m
8.6
m
8.5
m
14.0
12.1

m
x(5)
m
81.7
m
x(5)
x(5)

m
x(5)
m
9.7
m
x(5)
x(5)

m
72.9
m
91.5
m
84.6
74.8

m
27.1
m
8.5
m
15.4
25.2

m
92.5
m
91.5
m
92.1
88.1

m
7.5
m
8.5
m
7.9
11.9

m
x(11)
m
81.7
m
x(11)
x(11)

m
x(11)
m
9.7
m
x(11)
x(11)

m
73.5
m
91.5
m
68.6
72.2

m
26.5
m
8.5
m
31.4
27.8
m

Capital

Capital

Compensation
of all staff

Percentage
of current expenditure
Compensation
of teachers

Percentage
of total expenditure
Other current
expenditure

Compensation
of all staff

Compensation
of other staff

Compensation
of teachers

Percentage
of current expenditure

Current

Partners

OECD

Current

Percentage
of total expenditure

B6

Secondary

Compensation
of other staff

Primary

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

Saudi Arabia

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

South Africa3

94.1

5.9

77.4

4.6

82.0

18.0

98.6

1.4

82.6

4.6

87.2

12.8

G20 average

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

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 2011.
3. Public institutions only.
4. Year of reference 2013.
Source: OECD. Argentina, China, Colombia, India, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia, South Africa: UNESCO Institute for Statistics. Latvia: Eurostat. See Annex 3 for notes
(www.oecd.org/education/education-at-a-glance-19991487.htm).
Please refer to the Reader’s Guide for information concerning symbols for missing data and abbreviations.
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933285635

Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

287

chapter B FINANCIAL AND HUMAN RESOURCES INVESTED IN EDUCATION

Table B6.2. Expenditure by educational institutions, by resource category and level of education (2012)
Distribution of total and current expenditure by educational institutions from public and private sources
Primary, secondary and post-secondary non-tertiary

(5)

(6)

(7)

(8)

(9)

(10)

(11)

(12)

x(5)
8.7
19.2
15.0
m
14.4
17.9
m
12.4
22.9
x(5)
m
x(5)
x(5)
16.6
x(5)
20.4
x(5)
15.6
8.8
11.8
x(5)
m
x(5)
x(1)
x(5)
13.4
x(5)
9.6
15.8
14.2
x(5)
10.3
26.7

76.0
73.9
89.1
78.6
m
58.0
84.5
m
64.3
80.2
82.1
m
70.1
73.6
82.4
81.9
80.8
85.8
71.7
83.6
92.9
81.9
m
80.2
x(1)
86.1
66.1
78.3
80.0
67.8
84.2
86.4
77.0
81.4

24.0
26.1
10.9
21.4
m
42.0
15.5
m
35.7
19.8
17.9
m
29.9
26.4
17.6
18.1
19.2
14.2
28.3
16.4
7.1
18.1
m
19.8
x(1)
13.9
33.9
21.7
20.0
32.2
15.8
13.6
23.0
18.6

85.2
93.3
97.0
89.5
m
90.6
m
m
96.4
92.0
89.8
m
90.5
95.3
94.1
94.6
90.5
87.2
86.2
86.6
93.2
89.5
m
93.9
81.6
92.8
81.2
88.9
85.2
96.6
88.9
78.0
93.7
86.7

14.8
6.7
3.0
10.5
m
9.4
m
m
3.6
8.0
10.2
m
9.5
4.7
5.9
5.4
9.5
12.8
13.8
13.4
6.8
10.5
m
6.1
18.4
7.2
18.8
11.1
14.8
3.4
11.1
22.0
6.3
13.3

x(11)
59.8
49.0
38.2
m
25.2
m
m
33.8
39.7
x(11)
m
x(11)
x(11)
43.2
x(11)
33.3
x(11)
34.9
16.5
61.7
x(11)
m
x(11)
x(11)
x(11)
31.5
x(11)
54.1
x(11)
49.4
x(11)
35.6
29.4

x(11)
5.0
28.4
28.3
m
15.4
m
m
28.9
38.6
x(11)
m
x(11)
x(11)
28.6
x(11)
29.5
x(11)
19.5
50.0
15.3
x(11)
m
x(11)
x(11)
x(11)
22.2
x(11)
21.4
x(11)
27.3
x(11)
28.1
35.4

62.4
64.9
77.4
66.5
m
40.6
m
m
62.7
78.4
66.7
m
60.5
82.6
71.9
70.9
62.9
59.6
54.4
66.4
77.0
70.3
m
68.1
75.7
70.8
53.7
72.9
75.5
64.3
76.7
62.4
63.6
64.8

37.6
35.1
22.6
33.5
m
59.4
m
m
37.3
21.6
33.3
m
39.5
17.4
28.1
29.1
37.1
40.4
45.6
33.6
23.0
29.7
m
31.9
24.3
29.2
46.3
27.1
24.5
35.7
23.3
37.6
36.4
35.2

OECD average
EU21 average

93.0
93.8

7.0
6.2

62.4
61.4

15.2
14.6

78.6
77.0

21.4
23.0

90.0
90.6

10.0
9.4

39.7
38.3

26.4
26.9

67.1
66.6

32.9
33.4

Argentina
Brazil3
China
Colombia3, 5
India
Indonesia5
Latvia
Russian Federation
Saudi Arabia3, 5
South Africa3

m
92.1
m
91.5
m
88.3
88.0
90.2
m
96.0

m
7.9
m
8.5
m
11.7
12.0
9.8
m
4.0

m
x(5)
m
81.7
m
x(5)
x(5)
x(5)
m
79.7

m
x(5)
m
9.7
m
x(5)
x(5)
x(5)
m
4.6

m
73.2
m
91.5
m
78.3
73.3
77.4
m
84.3

m
26.8
m
8.5
m
21.7
26.7
22.6
m
15.7

m
90.6
m
m
m
79.8
81.6
85.8
m
m

m
9.4
m
m
m
20.2
18.4
14.2
m
m

m
x(11)
m
m
m
x(11)
x(11)
x(11)
m
m

m
x(11)
m
m
m
x(11)
x(11)
x(11)
m
m

m
81.1
m
m
m
31.2
64.7
62.9
m
m

m
18.9
m
m
m
68.8
35.3
37.1
m
m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

Other current
expenditure

Compensation
of all staff

Compensation
of other staff

(4)

x(5)
65.2
69.9
63.7
m
43.6
66.6
m
51.9
57.3
x(5)
m
x(5)
x(5)
65.8
x(5)
60.5
x(5)
56.1
74.8
81.1
x(5)
m
x(5)
x(1)
x(5)
52.7
x(5)
70.5
52.0
69.9
x(5)
66.7
54.6

G20 average

Compensation
of teachers

(3)

Capital

(2)

8.8
2.0
3.1
6.8
m
7.8
8.1
m
7.2
8.4
7.6
m
3.1
5.6
4.8
9.0
2.7
12.5
13.0
10.9
2.5
11.9
m
10.6
4.3
10.2
3.1
7.1
5.1
7.0
8.2
5.8
2.6
8.8

Current

(1)

91.2
98.0
96.9
93.2
m
92.2
91.9
m
92.8
91.6
92.4
m
96.9
94.4
95.2
91.0
97.3
87.5
87.0
89.1
97.5
88.1
m
89.4
95.7
89.8
96.9
92.9
94.9
93.0
91.8
94.2
97.4
91.2

Other current
expenditure

Compensation
of other staff

Percentage
of current expenditure

Compensation
of teachers

Percentage
of total expenditure

Australia
Austria
Belgium
Canada1, 2
Chile
Czech Republic
Denmark
Estonia
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Iceland
Ireland3
Israel
Italy3, 4
Japan2
Korea
Luxembourg3
Mexico3
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway2
Poland
Portugal2, 3
Slovak Republic2
Slovenia
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland3
Turkey3
United Kingdom
United States2

Current
OECD
Partners

Tertiary

Percentage
of current expenditure

Capital

Percentage
of total expenditure

Compensation
of all staff

B6

1. Year of reference 2011.
2. Some levels of education are included with others. Refer to “X” code in Table B1.1a for details.
3. Public institutions only (For Italy and the United Kingdom, except in tertiary education. For Luxembourg, in tertiary education only).
4. Excludes short-cycle tertiary programmes.
5. Year of reference 2013.
Source: OECD. Argentina, China, Colombia, India, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia, South Africa: UNESCO Institute for Statistics. Latvia: Eurostat. See Annex 3 for notes
(www.oecd.org/education/education-at-a-glance-19991487.htm).
Please refer to the Reader’s Guide for information concerning symbols for missing data and abbreviations.
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933285646

288 Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

WHICH FACTORS INFLUENCE THE LEVEL OF EXPENDITURE
ON EDUCATION?
INDICATOR B7

• Four factors influence expenditure on education related to the salary cost of teachers per student:
instruction time of students, teaching time of teachers, teachers’ salaries and estimated class size.
Consequently, a given level of the salary cost of teachers per student may result from different
combinations of these four factors.

• In most countries, the salary cost of teachers per student increases with the level of education.
• Between 2010 and 2013, the salary cost of teachers per student increased in a majority of countries
at the primary and lower secondary levels of education. On average, it increased by 2.6% (from
USD 2 550 to USD 2 616) at the primary level and by 1.0% (from USD 3 185 to USD 3 215) at the
lower secondary level.

Chart B7.1. Salary cost of teachers per student, by level of education (2013)
In USD

Primary education

USD

Lower secondary education

Upper secondary education

14 000
12 000
10 000
8 000
6 000
4 000

Chile

Mexico

Hungary

Slovak Republic

Turkey

Estonia

Israel

Czech Republic

France

Korea

Poland

Italy

Iceland

Japan

OECD average

Greece

Portugal

Spain

United States

Ireland

Norway

Netherlands

Slovenia

Australia

Canada

Finland

Germany

Austria

Belgium (Fr.)

Luxembourg

0

Belgium (Fl.)

2 000

Countries are ranked in descending order of the salary cost of teachers per student in lower secondary education.
Source: OECD. Table B7.1. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/education/education-at-a-glance-19991487.htm).
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933284112

Context
Governments have become increasingly interested in the relationship between the amount of
resources devoted to education and student learning outcomes. Governments seek to provide more
and better education for their populations while, at the same time, ensuring that public funding is used
efficiently, particularly when public budgets are being tightened. Teachers’ compensation is usually
the largest part of expenditure on education and thus of expenditure per student (see Indicator B6).
The salary cost of teachers is a function of the instruction time of students, the teaching time of
teachers, teachers’ salaries and the number of teachers needed to teach students, which depends on
estimated class size (Box B7.1).
Differences among countries in these four factors may explain differences in the level of expenditure
per student. Similarly, a given level of expenditure may be associated with different combinations of
these factors. This indicator examines the choices countries make when investing their resources in
primary and secondary education, and explores how changing policy choices between 2005, 2010
and 2013 relating to these four factors affected the salary cost of teachers. However, some of these
choices do not necessary reflect policy decisions but, rather, demographic changes, such as shrinking
numbers of students. Thus, for example, in countries where enrolments have been declining in recent
years, class size would also shrink (assuming all other factors remain constant), unless there was a
simultaneous drop in the number of teachers as well.

290 Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

Other findings

• Similar levels of expenditure among countries can mask a variety of contrasting policy choices. This
helps to explain why there is no simple relationship between overall spending on education and
the level of student performance. For example, at the upper secondary level of education, Austria
and Canada had similar levels of salary costs of teachers per student in 2013, above the average. In
Austria, this was the result of the combination of above-average teachers’ salaries and instruction
time, and below-average teaching time and estimated class size. In Canada, it was mostly the result
of above-average teachers’ salaries and, to a lesser extent, of below-average estimated class size,
whose effects were slightly counterbalanced by above-average teaching time and below-average
instruction time.

INDICATOR B7

• Teachers’ salaries are most often the primary factor influencing the difference from the average
salary cost of teachers per student at each level of education; estimated class size is the second
factor.

• When differences in countries’ wealth are taken into account, teachers’ salaries are less often the
primary factor influencing the difference from the average salary cost of teachers per student.
Trends
The increase in the salary cost of teachers per student between 2010 and 2013 was mostly influenced
by changes in two factors: teachers’ salaries and estimated class size. During this period, among
countries with available data for both years, teachers’ salaries decreased by an average of less than
1% at the primary and lower secondary levels, while estimated class size decreased by 1% at the
primary level and increased by more than 10% at the lower secondary level. Variations in the other
two factors, instruction time and teaching time, are usually smaller in most countries, but the average
is influenced by large variations in some countries. Teaching time at the lower secondary level varied
the most during the period, and increased, on average, by 2.9% among countries with available data
for both years.
At the primary and lower secondary levels of education, a similar number of countries increased
and decreased teachers’ salaries and/or estimated class size between 2010 and 2013. These changes
resulted in an increase in the salary cost per student in the majority of countries and on average
across countries with available data for both years. However, the salary cost per student decreased
in some countries during this period, most significantly (by around 15% or more) in Portugal and
Spain at both primary and lower secondary levels. In both of these countries, decreases in teachers’
salaries combined with increases in estimated class size are the main reasons for decreases in the
salary cost of teachers per student. Some other countries also introduced reforms since 2005 that
affected the salary cost of teachers per student. For instance, in Hungary, teaching time was increased
at the secondary level in 2006, decreasing the number of teachers required at this level. That, in turn,
reduced expenditure on teachers’ salaries. Italy implemented reforms on class size to increase slightly
the number of students per class. This resulted in a decrease in the salary cost of teachers per student
(see Table B7.5 in Education at a Glance 2012 [OECD, 2012]).

Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

291

chapter B FINANCIAL AND HUMAN RESOURCES INVESTED IN EDUCATION

Analysis

B7

Variation in the salary cost of teachers per student, by level of education
Per-student expenditure reflects the structural and institutional factors that relate to the organisation of schools
and curricula. Expenditure can be broken down into the compensation of teachers and other expenditure (defined
as expenditure for all purposes other than teacher compensation). Teacher compensation usually constitutes the
largest part of expenditure on education. As a result, the level of teacher compensation divided by the number of
students (referred to here as “salary cost of teachers per student”) is the main proportion of expenditure per student.
Box B7.1. Relationship between salary cost of teachers 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 to measure the extent
of their effects is to compare the differences between national figures and the OECD average. This analysis
computes the differences in expenditure per student among countries and the OECD average, and then
calculates the contribution of these different factors to the variation from the OECD average.
This exercise is based on a mathematical relationship between the different factors and follows the method
presented in the Canadian publication Education Statistics Bulletin (2005) (see explanations in Annex 3).
Educational expenditure is mathematically linked to factors related to a country’s school context (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 is broken down into compensation of teachers and other expenditure (defined as all expenditure
other than compensation of teachers). Compensation of teachers divided by the number of students, or “the
salary cost of teachers per student” (CCS), is estimated through the following calculation:
CCS = SAL

instT

1
teachT

1
SAL
=
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, in hours, 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 the upper secondary level, as class size is difficult to
define and compare because 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 (Chapter
D). However, for the purpose of the analysis, an “estimated” class size or proxy class size is computed based on
the ratio of students to teaching staff and the number of teaching hours and instruction hours (see Box D2.2).
As a proxy, this estimated class size should be interpreted with caution.
Using this mathematical relationship and comparing a country’s values for the four factors to the OECD averages
makes it possible to measure both the direct and indirect contribution of each of these four factors to the
variation in salary cost per student between that country and the OECD average (for more details, see Annex 3).
For example, in the case where only two factors interact, if a worker receives a 10% increase in the hourly wage
and increases the number of hours of work by 20%, his/her earnings will increase by 32% as a result 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 the two factors (0.1 * 0.2). To account for differences in countries’ level of wealth when comparing
salary costs per student, salary cost per student, as well as teachers’ salaries, can be divided by GDP per capita (on
the assumption that GDP per capita is an estimate of countries’ level of wealth). This makes it possible to compare
countries’ “relative” salary cost per student (see Education at a Glance 2015 tables, available on line).
The salary cost of teachers per student is estimated based on theoretical values: statutory salaries at a specific
point in the salary scale, theoretical instruction time of student and statutory teaching time of teachers; and
estimated class size. As a consequence, this measure may differ from the actual salary cost of teachers resulting
from the combination of actual average values for these four factors. This also explains part of the differences
between this indicator and Indicators B1, B2, B3 and B6 that are based on actual expenditure and student
population at each level of education.

292 Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

Which factors influence the level of expenditure on education? – INDICATOR B7

chapter B

The salary cost of teachers per student is based on the instruction time of students, the teaching time of teachers,
teachers’ salaries and the number of teachers needed to teach students, which depends on estimated class size
(Box B7.1). As a consequence, differences among countries in these four factors may explain differences in the
level of expenditure. In the same way, a given level of expenditure may result from a different combination of these
factors.
Salary costs of teachers per student show a common pattern across OECD countries: they usually rise with the
level of education taught. However, in some countries they are lower at the upper secondary level than at the lower
secondary level. Overall, among OECD countries with available data for each of these different levels in 2013, the
average salary cost of teachers per student is USD 2 677 per primary student, USD 3 350 per lower secondary
student and USD 3 749 per upper secondary student (Chart B7.1).
Disparities in salary cost of teachers among OECD countries
The variation in salary cost of teachers per student between levels of education is significant among countries. In
2013, there was a difference of less than USD 100 in Canada, Chile, Hungary, Iceland and Mexico among these three
levels of education, but the difference was over USD 1 900 in France and exceeded USD 2 000 in Belgium (Flemish
and French Communities) and Slovenia (Table B7.1 and Chart B7.1).
This increase in the salary cost of teachers per student with the level of education taught is partly the result of
increases in teachers’ salaries and in the instruction time of students at higher education levels. In 2013, the
OECD average salary varies from USD 41 864 at the primary level to USD 43 634 at the lower secondary level
and USD 45 701 at the upper secondary level. Meanwhile, the OECD average annual instruction time varies from
794 hours at the primary level, to 905 hours at the lower secondary level and 929 hours at the upper secondary level.
The increase is also related to the fact that teaching time generally decreases as the level of education increases,
implying that more teachers are necessary to teach a given number of students (the OECD average annual teaching
time in 2013 decreases from 772 hours at the primary level, to 694 hours at the lower secondary level to 643 hours
at the upper secondary level). However, larger classes at higher levels of education tend to reduce the salary cost per
student (the OECD average estimated class size increases between primary, lower secondary and upper secondary
levels from 15.2 students to 17.3 students to 17.6 students, respectively) (Tables B7.2a and b, and Table B7.2c,
available on line).
Variations in salary costs of teachers per student between 2010 and 2013
The salary cost of teachers per student also varies over time in a given level of education. These changes are only
analysed at the primary and lower secondary levels of education because trend data are not available at the upper
secondary level. This analysis is also limited to countries with data for both 2010 and 2013 (24 and 23 countries,
respectively, for the primary and lower secondary levels), as comparable data over a larger period (for 2005, 2010
and 2013) are available for fewer countries.
The salary cost of teachers per student increased slightly (by less than 3%) at both the primary and lower secondary
levels between 2010 and 2013 (from USD 2 550 to USD 2 616 at the primary level and from USD 3 185 to USD 3 215
at the lower secondary level), on average across the countries with available data for both years (Chart B7.2).
In most countries, the salary cost of teachers per student at both of these levels of education increased between
2010 and 2013. The increase reached 25% or more in Korea at the primary level and exceeded 35% in Israel at the
primary level and in Poland at the lower secondary level (Chart B7.3).
However, the salary cost of teachers per student also fell between 2010 and 2013 in a significant number of countries,
most notably in Portugal (by 29% at the primary level and 34% at the lower secondary level) and Spain (by around
15% at the primary level and 24% at the lower secondary level). Decreases of more than 10% and up to 15% in the
salary cost of teachers per student were also observed at the primary level in Hungary and Italy, and at the lower
secondary level in Belgium (French Community), Hungary and Slovenia (Chart B7.2).
Impact of teachers’ salaries and class size on salary cost of teachers per student
Of the four factors that determine the level of the salary cost of teachers, two are largely responsible for the wide
variations in this cost: teachers’ salaries and class size. Between 2010 and 2013, among countries with available data
for this period, average teachers’ salaries (expressed in constant prices) decreased by less than 1% at the primary
and lower secondary levels, while estimated class size decreased by 1% at the primary level and increased by more
than 10% at the lower secondary level (Tables B7.2a and b).
Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

293

B7

chapter B FINANCIAL AND HUMAN RESOURCES INVESTED IN EDUCATION

Chart B7.2. Change in the salary cost of teachers per student,
primary and lower secondary education (2005, 2010 and 2013)
In USD

B7

Salary cost in 2013

USD

Salary cost in 2005

Hungary

Turkey

Estonia

Chile

Mexico

Slovak Republic

Hungary

Estonia

Slovak Republic

Chile

Mexico

Israel

France

Poland

Korea

Slovenia

Japan

Finland

Italy

Iceland

Australia

Spain

Austria

Germany

Ireland

Belgium (Fr.)

Portugal

Norway

Poland

USD

12 821

Israel

Korea

France

Italy

Iceland

Japan

Norway

Ireland

Australia

Germany

Finland

Austria

Slovenia

Spain

Portugal

Belgium (Fr.)

Lower secondary education

Luxembourg

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

Salary cost in 2010

Primary education

Luxembourg

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

Countries are ranked in descending order of the salary cost of teacher per student in 2010.
Source: OECD. Tables B7.3 and B7.4. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/education/education-at-a-glance-19991487.htm).
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933284120

At both the primary and lower secondary levels, the small decrease in average teachers’ salaries (in real terms)
across OECD countries with comparable data for 2010 and 2013 resulted from decreases and increases in a similar
number of countries. Teachers’ salaries decreased most notably (by 10% or more) in Hungary, Portugal and Spain at
both these levels, and this contributed (with the increase in estimated class size) to the decrease in the salary cost
of teachers per student in these countries (Chart B7.3).
Among countries with data for both 2010 and 2013, the small decrease in average estimated class size at the primary
level and the large increase in average estimated class size at the lower secondary level also resulted from decreases
and increases in a similar number of countries. At the primary and lower secondary levels, the largest reductions
were observed in countries that had relatively large estimated classes in 2010 (Chile and Israel at the primary level,
and Poland at the lower secondary level) and also in countries with below-average estimated class size in 2010
(Luxembourg at both primary and lower secondary levels). In all four of these countries, this resulted in an increase
of the salary cost per student. Nevertheless, estimated class size also increased significantly in some countries,
contributing to a decrease in salary cost per student. This was the case most notably in Portugal (from 10.6 to 14.3
at the primary level and from 9.5 to 15.3 at the lower secondary level), in Poland at the primary level (from 9.3 to
11.2 students), and in the French Community of Belgium (from 11.6 to 13.7 students) and Spain (from 14.9 to
17.2 students) at the lower secondary level.

294 Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

Which factors influence the level of expenditure on education? – INDICATOR B7

chapter B

Chart B7.3. Change in the salary cost of teachers per student, teachers’ salaries
and estimated class size, primary and lower secondary education (2010, 2013)
Change in percentage, between 2010 and 2013
Change in teachers’ salary

Change in estimated class size

%

Portugal

Spain

Hungary

Slovenia

Belgium (Fr.)

Iceland

France

Italy

Ireland

Austria

Estonia

Israel

Finland

Japan

Australia

Chile

Mexico

Luxembourg

Norway

Germany

Korea

Portugal

Spain

Italy

Hungary

Iceland

Ireland

Slovenia

France

Poland

Austria

Belgium (Fr.)

Finland

Japan

Australia

Mexico

Turkey

Norway

Slovak Republic

Germany

Chile

Luxembourg

Korea

Israel

Estonia

61.1

Lower secondary education

Slovak Republic

60
50
40
30
20
10
0
-10
-20
-30
-40

Primary education

Poland

60
50
40
30
20
10
0
-10
-20
-30
-40

B7

Change in salary cost of teachers per student

Countries are ranked in descending order of the change in the salary cost of teachers per student between 2010 and 2013.
Source: OECD. Tables B7.2a, B7.2b, B7.3 and B7.4. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/education/education-at-a-glance-19991487.htm).
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933284134

Changes in instruction time and teaching time, the two other factors influencing the salary cost of teachers, averaged
from -0.5% to 2.9% at both primary and lower secondary levels (among countries with available data for both years)
during the same period (Tables B7.2a and B7.2b). This may reflect the political sensitivity of implementing reforms
in these areas (see Table B7.5 in Education at a Glance 2012).
Nevertheless, in a small number of countries, instruction time and/or teaching time did change significantly. For
example in Norway, Poland and Portugal, reforms were recently introduced to increase instruction time in reading
and mathematics. Between 2010 and 2013, teaching time changed most significantly (by more than 100 hours) in
Korea (a decrease from 807 to 667 hours at the primary level) and Luxembourg (an increase from 634 to 739 hours
at the lower secondary level). Instruction time changed also significantly (by more than 100 hours) between 2010
and 2013 in some countries as well. At the lower secondary level, instruction time decreased by more than 100 hours
in Iceland and increased by more than 100 hours in Portugal.
Relationship between expenditure on education and policy choices
Higher levels of expenditure on education cannot automatically be equated with better performance by education
systems. This is not surprising, as countries spending similar amounts on education do not necessarily have similar
education policies and practices. For example, at the upper secondary level of education, Austria and Canada had
similar levels of salary cost of teachers per student in 2013 (USD 5 093 and USD 4 839, respectively) both higher
Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

295

chapter B FINANCIAL AND HUMAN RESOURCES INVESTED IN EDUCATION

In addition, even though countries may make similar policy choices, those choices can result in different levels of
salary cost of teachers per student. For example, in Canada and Ireland, the salary cost of teachers per student at the
upper secondary level is the result of balancing two opposing effects: above-average teaching time reduces the salary
cost of teachers per student relative to the OECD average, and relatively high teachers’ salaries (and small estimated
class size in Canada) increase the salary cost of teachers per student relative to the OECD average.
The salary cost of teachers per student resulting from this combination is above the OECD average in these two
countries, but the difference from the OECD average varies from USD 315 more in Ireland to USD 1 091 more in
Canada (Table B7.5 and Chart B7.4).

Chart B7.4. Contribution of various factors to salary cost of teachers per student,
upper secondary education (2013)
In USD
Contribution of estimated class size
Contribution of teaching time
Contribution of instruction time

USD

Contribution of teachers’ salaries
Difference with OECD average

12 000
10 000
8 000
6 000
4 000
2 000
0

Chile

Slovak Republic

Hungary

Turkey

Israel

Italy

Netherlands

France

Ireland

Portugal

Canada

Austria

Germany

Belgium (Fr.)

-4 000

Belgium (Fl.)

-2 000
Luxembourg

B7

than the OECD average. In Canada, this was largely because teachers’ salaries were higher than the average, whereas
in Austria, it was the result of the combination of below-average estimated class size and teaching time and, to a
lesser extent, of above-average instruction time and teachers’ salaries. Hungary and the Slovak Republic also had
similar salary cost of teachers per student (below the average). Both countries had similar teachers’ salaries and
teaching time, but the two other factors (instruction time and estimated class size) influenced the salary cost of
teachers in different ways in the two countries (Table B7.5 and Chart B7.4).

How to read this chart
This chart shows the contribution (in USD) of the factors influencing the difference between salary cost of teachers per student in the country
and the OECD average. For example, in Chile, the salary cost of teachers per student is USD 2 624 lower than the OECD average. This is because
Chile has lower teachers’ salaries (- USD 1 183) than the OECD average, above-average instruction time for students (+ USD 557), above-average
teaching time for teachers (- USD 1 136), and above-average estimated class size (- USD 863).
Note: Contributions expressed in percentage of GDP per capita are also available in a similar chart on line.
Countries are ranked in descending order of the difference between the salary cost of teachers per student and the OECD average.
Sources: OECD. Table B7.5. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/education/education-at-a-glance-19991487.htm).
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933284144

Main factors influencing the salary cost of teachers per student, by level of education
Comparing the salary cost of teachers per student to the OECD average and how the four factors contribute to this
difference allows for an analysis of the extent of each factor’s impact on the differences in salary cost of teachers
per student. At each level of education, teachers’ salaries are most often the primary factor – that is, the factor with
the largest impact – influencing the difference in the average salary cost of teachers per student. Among countries
with available data in 2013, teachers’ salaries were the primary factor in 22 of 29 countries at the primary level, in
17 of 30 countries at the lower secondary level, and in 14 of 16 countries at the upper secondary level. This is true
in countries with the highest and lowest levels of salary cost of teachers per student.

296 Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

Which factors influence the level of expenditure on education? – INDICATOR B7

chapter B

For example, at the lower secondary level, the above-average salaries of teachers is the main factor influencing
the difference from the average salary cost of teachers per student in the country with the highest salary cost
(Luxembourg), as well as in seven of the ten countries with the lowest salary cost of teachers per student (Chile,
the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Israel, Poland and the Slovak Republic) (Table B7.4).
Estimated class size is the second most influential factor responsible for the difference in salary cost of teachers per
student at each level of education (for 4 countries at the primary level, 11 countries at the lower secondary level,
and 1 country at the upper secondary level). At the lower secondary level, below-average estimated class size is
the primary factor in 3 of the 6 countries with the highest salary cost of teachers per student, namely Austria and
Belgium (Flemish and French Communities) (Box B7.2 and Table B7.4).

Box B7.2. Main factors influencing salary cost of teacher per student, by level of education (2013)
Primary education

Lower secondary education

Upper secondary education

22 countries
AUS (+), BFL (+), BFR (+), CAN (+),
CHL (-), CZE (-), EST (-), DEU (+),
GRC (-), HUN (-), ISL (-), IRL (+),
ISR (-), ITA (-), JPN (+), KOR (+),
LUX (+), NLD (+), POL (-), PRT (-),
SVK (-), TUR (-)

17 countries
AUS (+), CAN (+), CHL (-), CZE (-),
EST (-), DEU (+), GRC (-),
HUN (-), ISL (-), IRL (+), ISR (-),
ITA (-), LUX (+), NLD (+), POL (-),
PRT (-), SVK (-)

14 countries
BFL (+), BFR (+), CAN (+),
CHL (-), FRA (-), DEU (+),
HUN (-), IRL (+), ISR (-),
ITA (-), LUX (+), NLD (+),
SVK (-), TUR (-)

Instruction
time

1 country
FIN (-)

1 country
ESP (+)

0 country

Teaching time

2 countries
FRA (-), SVN (+)

1 country
USA (-)

1 country
AUT (+)

Estimated
class size

4 countries
AUT (+), MEX (-),
NOR (+), ESP (+)

11 countries
AUT (+), BFL (+), BFR (+), FIN (+),
FRA (-), JPN (-), KOR (-), MEX (-),
NOR (+), SVN (+), TUR (-)

1 country
PRT (+)

Salary

Note: For each level of education, countries are included in the cell corresponding to the factor which has the largest impact (measured in USD) on the
salary cost of teachers’ per student. The positive or negative signs show whether the factor increases or decreases the salary cost of teacher per student.
Sources: OECD. Tables B7.3, B7.4 and B7.5. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/education/education-at-a-glance-19991487.htm).
Please refer to the Reader’s Guide for information concerning symbols for missing data and abbreviations.
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933285727

Main factors influencing the salary cost of teachers per student, after accounting
for countries’ wealth
The level of teachers’ salaries and, in turn, the level of the salary cost of teachers per student, depend on a country’s
relative wealth. To control for differences in wealth among countries, the levels of teachers’ salaries (and salary cost
per student) relative to GDP per capita were analysed. Comparing the relative salary cost of teachers per student using
this analysis affects the ranking of countries (Chart B7.4 continued, available on line). However, the position of only
a few countries changes significantly compared to the analysis in USD. At the upper secondary level, Luxembourg
has the highest salary cost of teachers per student in USD, mainly as a result of the high USD salaries, but not
as a proportion of per capita GDP, even if the salary cost of teachers per student is still above the OECD average
because of below-average estimated class size. As a result, teachers’ salaries, as a percentage of per capita GDP,
do not raise the salary cost of teachers per student (Tables B7.3 continued, B7.4 continued, B7.5 continued, and
Chart B7.4 continued, available on line).
Even after accounting for differences in countries’ wealth, teachers’ salaries, as a percentage of GDP per capita, and
estimated class size are the main factors influencing variations from the average salary cost of teachers per student
at each level of education (Box B7.2 continued, available on line).
Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

297

B7

chapter B FINANCIAL AND HUMAN RESOURCES INVESTED IN EDUCATION

Methodology

B7

Data referring to the 2013 school year, as well as 2005 and 2010 data relating to salaries of teachers and teaching
time are based on the UOE data collection on education statistics and on the Survey on Teachers and the Curriculum,
which were both administered by the OECD in 2014. Other data referring to the 2005 and 2010 school year are
based on the UOE data collection on education statistics, and on the Survey on Teachers and the Curriculum, which
were both administered by the OECD and published in the 2007 and 2012 editions of Education at a Glance (data on
ratio of student to teaching staff and instruction time). Data for 2013 instruction time refer to 2014 data from the
2014 edition of Education at a Glance. The consistency of 2005, 2010 and 2013 data has been validated (for details,
see Annex 3 at www.oecd.org/education/education-at-a-glance-19991487.htm).
Salary cost of teachers per student is calculated based on teachers’ salaries, the number of hours of instruction for
students, the number of hours of teaching for teachers, and the estimated class size (a proxy of the class size; see
Box D2.2). In most cases, the values for these variables are derived from Education at a Glance (see above). At upper
secondary level, teachers’ salaries and teaching time refer to general programmes. Teachers’ salaries in national
currencies are converted into equivalent USD by dividing the national currency figure by the purchasing power
parity (PPP) index for private consumption, following the methodology used in Indicator D3 on teachers’ salaries,
which results in the salary cost per student expressed in equivalent USD. Further details on the analysis of these
factors are available in Annex 3 at www.oecd.org/education/education-at-a-glance-19991487.htm.
Note regarding data from Israel
The statistical data for Israel are supplied by and are under the responsibility of the relevant Israeli authorities. The use of
such data by the OECD is without prejudice to the status of the Golan Heights, East Jerusalem and Israeli settlements in the
West Bank under the terms of international law.

Reference
OECD (2012), Education at a Glance 2012: OECD Indicators, OECD Publishing, Paris, http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/eag-2012-en.

Indicator B7 Tables
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933285656

Table B7.1

Salary cost of teachers per student, by level of education (2013)

Table B7.2a

Factors used to compute the salary cost of teachers per student, in primary education
(2005, 2010 and 2013)
Table B7.2b
Factors used to compute the salary cost of teachers per student, in lower secondary education
(2005, 2010 and 2013)
Factors used to compute the salary cost of teachers per student, in upper secondary education
WEB Table B7.2c
(2013)
Table B7.3
Contribution of various factors to salary cost of teachers per student in primary education
(2005, 2010 and 2013)
Table
B7.3
(continued)
Contribution
of various factors to salary cost of teachers per student in primary education (2013)
WEB
Table B7.4

Contribution of various factors to salary cost of teachers per student
in lower secondary education (2005, 2010 and 2013)
WEB Table B7.4 (continued) Contribution of various factors to salary cost of teachers per student
in lower secondary education (2013)
Table B7.5
Contribution of various factors to salary cost of teachers per student
in upper secondary education (2013)
Table
B7.5
(continued)
Contribution of various factors to salary cost of teachers per student
WEB
in upper secondary education (2013)

Additional material available on line only
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933285656

WEB Chart B7.4 (continued) Contribution of various factors to salary cost of teachers per student,
upper secondary education (2012)
WEB Box B7.2 (continued) Main factors influencing salary cost of teachers per student as a percentage of per capita GDP,
by level of education (2013)

298 Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

Which factors influence the level of expenditure on education? – INDICATOR B7

chapter B

Table B7.1. Salary cost of teachers per student, by level of education (2013)
In equivalent USD, converted using PPPs for private consumption, and in percentage of per capita GDP

OECD

Salary cost of teachers per student
(in USD)

Australia
Austria
Belgium (Fl.)
Belgium (Fr.)
Canada
Chile
Czech Republic
Denmark
England
Estonia
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Iceland
Ireland
Israel
Italy
Japan
Korea
Luxembourg
Mexico
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Scotland
Slovak Republic
Slovenia
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Turkey
United States
OECD average

B7

Salary cost of teachers per student
(in percentage of GDP per capita)

Primary

Lower secondary

Upper secondary

Primary

Lower secondary

Upper secondary

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

3 608

4 684

m

8.1

10.6

m

3 609

5 191

5 093

8.2

11.8

11.6

3 842

5 218

6 344

9.8

13.4

16.2

3 739

5 078

6 167

9.6

13.0

15.8

4 755

4 755

4 839

11.4

11.4

11.6

1 181

1 095

1 124

6.0

5.5

5.7

973

1 633

m

3.7

6.2

m

m

m

m

m

m

m
m

m

m

m

m

m

1 015

1 350

m

4.5

6.0

m

3 008

4 749

m

8.0

12.7

m

1 735

2 374

3 643

4.8

6.6

10.1

4 047

5 047

5 573

9.7

12.1

13.4

2 720

3 515

m

12.1

15.7

m

1 229

1 252

1 287

5.9

6.0

6.1

2 985

2 970

m

7.4

7.4

m

3 426

4 063

4 063

8.7

10.4

10.4

1 956

2 131

2 391

6.5

7.0

7.9

2 692

3 100

2 963

8.5

9.8

9.4

2 790

3 491

m

8.3

10.4

m

2 981

2 941

m

9.6

9.4

m

11 674

12 821

12 821

13.7

15.0

15.0

958

1 057

m

6.5

7.2

m

3 258

4 176

3 593

7.6

9.7

8.4
m

m

m

m

m

m

4 307

4 525

m

7.0

7.4

m

2 247

2 519

m

9.9

11.1

m

2 777

3 516

4 366

11.4

14.4

17.9

m

m

m

m

m

m

924

1 254

1 152

3.9

5.2

4.8

2 392

4 661

m

9.2

17.9

m

3 067

4 052

m

10.4

13.8

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

1 368

1 459

1 800

8.5

9.1

11.2

m

3 967

m

m

7.5

m

2 677

3 350

3 749

7.9

9.4

10.4

Source: OECD. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/education/education-at-a-glance-19991487.htm).
Please refer to the Reader’s Guide for information concerning symbols for missing data and abbreviations.
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933285662

Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

299

chapter B FINANCIAL AND HUMAN RESOURCES INVESTED IN EDUCATION

Table B7.2a. [1/2] Factors used to compute the salary cost of teachers per student,

in primary education (2005, 2010 and 2013)

Teachers’ salary
(annual, in USD. 2013 constant prices)

OECD

B7

Instruction time
(for students, hours per year)

Teaching time
(for teachers, hours per year)

2005

2010

2013

Variation
2010-2013
(%)

2005

2010

2013

Variation
2010-2013
(%)

2005

2010

2013

Variation
2010-2013
(%)

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7)

(8)

(9)

(10)

(11)

(12)

Australia1
Austria1
Belgium (Fl.)
Belgium (Fr.)1
Canada
Chile1
Czech Republic2
Denmark
England
Estonia1
Finland1
France1
Germany1
Greece
Hungary1
Iceland1
Ireland1
Israel1
Italy1
Japan1
Korea1
Luxembourg1
Mexico1
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway1
Poland1
Portugal1
Scotland
Slovak Republic1
Slovenia1
Spain1
Sweden
Switzerland
Turkey1
United States

50 684

53 076

56 335

6.1

952

982

1 010

2.9

888

868

879

1.3

42 514

44 344

43 015

-3.0

690

690

705

2.2

774

779

779

0.0

47 103

47 821

48 690

1.8

m

m

821

m

752

752

752

0.0

44 457

46 111

47 381

2.8

840

840

849

1.1

722

732

721

-1.5

m

m

66 702

m

m

917

919

0.3

m

799

796

-0.4

m

25 771

26 610

3.3

m

1 083

1 049

-3.2

1 128

1 105

1 129

2.2

m

m

18 273

m

661

588

676

15.0

813

862

827

-4.1

51 700

54 558

52 672

-3.5

671

701

754

7.6

640

650

662

1.8

54 792

50 317

47 279

-6.0

880

893

861

-3.5

m

684

722

5.6

10 070

13 857

13 233

-4.5

752

595

661

11.0

630

630

619

-1.7

37 024

41 276

39 701

-3.8

530

608

632

3.9

677

680

677

-0.5

35 709

34 804

33 500

-3.7

918

847

864

2.0

924

924

924

0.0

58 592

60 865

63 221

3.9

627

641

683

6.5

808

805

800

-0.6

34 859

35 333

25 826

-26.9

864

720

783

8.8

604

589

569

-3.4

19 280

15 143

13 061

-13.8

555

555

616

11.0

583

604

601

-0.5

35 173

33 350

31 145

-6.6

720

800

729

-8.9

671

624

624

0.0

51 371

59 108

56 057

-5.2

941

915

915

0.0

915

915

915

0.0

23 621

29 035

29 869

2.9

666

914

957

4.7

731

820

840

2.5

35 402

35 367

33 230

-6.0

990

891

891

0.0

739

770

752

-2.3

51 724

48 139

48 546

0.8

707

735

762

3.7

578

707

736

4.2

53 256

49 598

51 594

4.0

667

667

648

-2.9

883

807

667

-17.4

73 586 100 460 102 956

2.5

847

924

924

0.0

774

739

810

9.5

24 353

25 097

26 533

5.7

800

800

800

0.0

800

800

800

0.0

m

m

54 001

m

940

940

940

0.0

930

930

930

0.0

OECD average
Average for 24 countries
with all data available
for 2010 and 2013

m

m

43 292

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

922

m

38 749

41 099

44 538

8.4

599

701

748

6.7

741

741

741

0.0

20 453

23 132

24 921

7.7

m

600

635

5.8

m

644

629

-2.3

43 221

42 528

36 663

-13.8

855

757

806

6.5

765

779

747

-4.0

48 098

47 148

43 991

-6.7

a

a

a

m

893

855

855

0.0

m

14 354

15 650

9.0

m

695

680

-2.0

m

841

832

-1.1

38 258

41 882

38 261

-8.6

621

621

664

7.0

627

627

627

0.0

44 294

47 288

42 187

-10.8

793

875

787

-10.0

880

880

880

0.0

34 971

m

38 175

m

741

741

754

1.8

m

m

a

m

60 689

61 677

63 504

3.0

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

23 762

27 122

27 139

0.1

720

720

720

0.0

720

720

720

0.0

60 284

55 802

59 339

6.3

m

m

967

m

m

m

m

m

41 602

42 112

41 864

-1.8

761

773

794

2.5

771

771

772

-0.4

~

39 700

39 389

-0.8

~

769

781

1.5

~

773

769

-0.5

Note: Data in this table come either from chapter D (for 2005, 2010 and 2013 data relating to salaries of teachers and teaching time, 2013 data on ratio of
student to teaching staff) or from 2007 and 2012 editions of Education at a Glance (data on ratio of student to teaching staff and instruction time). Data for 2013
instruction time refer to 2014 data from the 2014 edition of Education at a Glance. Please see notes on these data in these tables.
1. Countries with all data available for both 2010 and 2013.
2. Current instruction time for 2005 and 2010, minimum instruction time for 2013.
Source: OECD. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/education/education-at-a-glance-19991487.htm).
Please refer to the Reader’s Guide for information concerning symbols for missing data and abbreviations.
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933285671

300 Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

Which factors influence the level of expenditure on education? – INDICATOR B7

chapter B

Table B7.2a. [2/2] Factors used to compute the salary cost of teachers per student,

in primary education (2005, 2010 and 2013)

OECD

Ratio of students to teaching staff
(number of students per teacher)

Estimated class size
(number of students per classroom)

2005

2010

2013

Variation
2010-2013
(%)

2005

2010

2013

Variation
2010-2013
(%)

(13)

(14)

(15)

(16)

(17) = (13)*(5) / (9)

(18) = (14)*(6) / (10)

(19) = (15)*(7) / (11)

(20)

Australia1
Austria1
Belgium (Fl.)
Belgium (Fr.)1
Canada
Chile1
Czech Republic2
Denmark
England
Estonia1
Finland1
France1
Germany1
Greece
Hungary1
Iceland1
Ireland1
Israel1
Italy1
Japan1
Korea1
Luxembourg1
Mexico1
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway1
Poland1
Portugal1
Scotland
Slovak Republic1
Slovenia1
Spain1
Sweden
Switzerland
Turkey1
United States

16.2

15.7

15.6

-0.8

17.4

17.8

17.9

0.8

14.1

12.2

11.9

-2.6

12.6

10.8

10.8

-0.5

12.8

12.4

12.7

2.2

m

m

13.8

m

12.8

12.4

12.7

2.2

14.9

14.2

14.9

4.9

OECD average
Average for 24 countries
with all data available
for 2010 and 2013

m

17.9

14.0

-21.7

m

20.6

16.2

-21.2

25.9

24.6

22.5

-8.6

m

24.2

20.9

-13.3

17.5

18.7

18.8

0.6

14.3

12.7

15.4

20.6

11.9

11.5

m

m

12.5

12.4

m

m

14.9

19.8

m

m

m

25.9

m

m

m

13.1

13.0

-0.5

m

12.4

13.9

12.4

15.9

14.0

13.2

-5.9

12.5

12.5

12.3

-1.7

19.4

18.7

19.3

3.3

19.2

17.1

18.1

5.4

18.8

16.7

15.6

-6.5

14.6

13.3

13.3

0.2

11.1

m

9.5

m

15.8

m

13.1

m

10.6

10.8

10.6

-1.3

10.1

9.9

10.9

10.1

11.3

10.3

10.4

1.5

m

13.2

12.2

-7.5

17.9

15.9

16.4

2.8

18.4

15.9

16.4

2.8

17.3

20.6

15.3

-25.8

15.7

22.9

17.4

-24.2

10.6

11.3

12.3

8.9

14.2

13.1

14.6

11.4

19.4

18.4

17.4

-5.3

23.7

19.1

18.0

-5.8

28.0

21.1

17.3

-18.1

21.2

17.4

16.8

-3.7

m

10.1

8.8

-12.7

m

12.6

10.1

-20.3

28.3

28.1

27.7

-1.6

28.3

28.1

27.7

-1.6

15.9

15.7

16.6

5.3

16.1

15.9

16.8

5.3

18.1

16.2

16.4

1.0

m

m

m

m

10.9

10.5

10.3

-1.1

8.8

9.9

10.4

5.5

11.7

10.0

11.1

11.4

m

9.3

11.2

20.5

10.8

10.9

13.2

21.3

12.1

10.6

14.3

34.6

14.9

19.8

m

m

m

m

m

m

18.9

17.1

16.9

-0.7

m

14.1

13.9

-1.7

15.0

16.2

16.0

-1.5

14.9

16.1

16.9

5.5

14.3

13.2

13.8

4.6

12.9

13.1

12.3

-5.9

12.2

11.7

12.7

8.6

m

m

m

m

14.6

14.9

14.8

-1.0

m

m

m

m

25.8

21.7

19.8

-8.5

25.8

21.7

19.8

-8.5

14.9

14.5

15.3

5.6

m

m

m

m

16.1

15.6

14.9

-1.4

16.2

15.8

15.2

0.9

~

15.6

17.1

9.6

~

15.5

15.3

-1.3

Note: Data in this table come either from chapter D (for 2005, 2010 and 2013 data relating to salaries of teachers and teaching time, 2013 data on ratio of
student to teaching staff) or from 2007 and 2012 editions of Education at a Glance (data on ratio of student to teaching staff and instruction time). Data for 2013
instruction time refer to 2014 data from the 2014 edition of Education at a Glance. Please see notes on these data in these tables.
1. Countries with all data available for both 2010 and 2013.
2. Current instruction time for 2005 and 2010, minimum instruction time for 2013.
Source: OECD. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/education/education-at-a-glance-19991487.htm).
Please refer to the Reader’s Guide for information concerning symbols for missing data and abbreviations.
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933285671

Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

301

B7

chapter B FINANCIAL AND HUMAN RESOURCES INVESTED IN EDUCATION

Table B7.2b. [1/2] Factors used to compute the salary cost of teachers per student,

in lower secondary education (2005, 2010 and 2013)

Teachers’ salary
(annual in USD, 2013 constant prices)

OECD

B7

Instruction time
(for students, hours per year)

Teaching time
(for teachers, hours per year)

2005

2010

2013

Variation
2010-2013
(%)

2005

2010

2013

Variation
2010-2013
(%)

2005

2010

2013

Variation
2010-2013
(%)

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7)

(8)

(9)

(10)

(11)

(12)

Australia1
Austria1
Belgium (Fl.)
Belgium (Fr.)1
Canada
Chile1
Czech Republic2
Denmark
England
Estonia1
Finland1
France1
Germany1
Greece
Hungary1
Iceland1
Ireland1
Israel1
Italy1
Japan1
Korea1
Luxembourg1
Mexico1
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway1
Poland1
Portugal1
Scotland
Slovak Republic1
Slovenia1
Spain1
Sweden
Switzerland
Turkey
United States

50 801

53 076

56 315

6.1

970

997

1 015

1.8

810

819

821

0.3

46 053

47 996

46 631

-2.8

913

914

900

-1.5

607

607

607

0.0

47 103

47 821

48 690

1.8

m

m

928

m

684

669

669

0.0

44 956

46 111

47 381

2.8

960

960

971

1.1

662

671

661

-1.5

m

m

66 702

m

m

922

921

-0.1

m

740

743

0.4

m

25 771

26 610

3.3

m

1 083

1 062

-2.0

1 128

1 105

1 129

2.2

m

m

18 273

m

902

862

874

1.3

647

647

620

-4.1

51 700

55 344

53 431

-3.5

880

900

930

3.3

640

650

662

1.8

54 792

50 317

47 279

-6.0

900

925

911

-1.5

m

703

745

5.9

10 070

13 857

13 233

-4.5

1 073

802

823

2.5

630

630

619

-1.7

41 697

44 578

42 877

-3.8

796

777

844

8.7

592

595

592

-0.5

38 567

37 834

36 589

-3.3

959

971

991

2.1

648

648

648

0.0

63 357

67 426

68 698

1.9

872

887

866

-2.3

758

756

752

-0.5

34 859

35 333

25 826

-26.9

998

796

785

-1.3

434

415

415

0.0

19 280

15 143

13 061

-13.8

717

671

710

5.9

555

604

601

-0.5

35 173

33 350

31 145

-6.6

872

969

839

-13.4

671

624

624

0.0

51 924

59 749

56 667

-5.2

848

929

935

0.7

735

735

735

0.0

24 071

26 428

28 715

8.7

971

981

1 004

2.3

579

598

644

7.6

38 563

38 534

36 207

-6.0

1 016

1 023

990

-3.2

605

630

616

-2.3

51 724

48 139

48 546

0.8

869

877

895

2.1

505

602

608

1.1

53 127

49 485

51 489

4.1

867

859

842

-2.0

621

627

557

-11.2

96 227 107 575 110 243

2.5

782

908

845

-6.9

642

634

739

16.7

31 129

32 257

34 083

5.7

1 167

1 167

1 167

0.0

1 047

1 047

1 047

0.0

m

m

66 831

m

1 067

1 000

1 000

0.0

750

750

750

0.0

OECD average
Average for 23 countries
with all data available
for 2010 and 2013

m

m

44 509

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

841

m

38 749

41 099

44 538

8.4

827

836

868

3.8

656

654

663

1.5

20 453

23 132

24 921

7.7

m

765

810

5.9

m

572

555

-3.0

43 221

42 528

36 663

-13.8

880

757

892

17.8

623

634

609

-4.0

48 098

47 148

43 991

-6.7

a

a

a

a

893

855

855

0.0

m

14 354

15 650

9.0

m

822

828

0.7

m

652

645

-1.1

38 258

41 882

38 261

-8.6

791

817

767

-6.1

627

627

627

0.0

50 864

53 880

46 907

-12.9

956

1 050

1 061

1.1

713

713

713

0.0

35 860

m

38 852

m

741

741

754

1.8

m

m

a

m

69 260

70 052

71 929

2.7

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

25 116

28 279

28 110

-0.6

791

768

840

9.4

504

504

504

0.0

55 361

59 163

60 965

3.0

m

m

1 011

m

m

m

981

m

43 680

43 795

43 634

-1.8

903

895

905

1.0

677

679

694

0.2

~

41 921

41 540

-0.9

~

905

910

0.5

~

686

706

2.9

Note: Data in this table come either from chapter D (for 2005, 2010 and 2013 data relating to salaries of teachers and teaching time, 2013 data on ratio
of student to teaching staff) or from 2007 and 2012 editions of Education at a Glance (data on ratio of student to teaching staff and instruction time).
Data for 2013 instruction time refer to 2014 data from the 2014 edition of Education at a Glance. Please see notes on these data in these tables.
1. Countries with all data available for both 2010 and 2013.
2. Current instruction time for 2000 and 2005, minimum instruction time for 2013.

Source: OECD. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/education/education-at-a-glance-19991487.htm).
Please refer to the Reader’s Guide for information concerning symbols for missing data and abbreviations.
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933285680

302 Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

Which factors influence the level of expenditure on education? – INDICATOR B7

chapter B

Table B7.2b. [2/2] Factors used to compute the salary cost of teachers per student,

in lower secondary education (2005, 2010 and 2013)

OECD

Ratio of students to teaching staff
(number of students per teacher)

Australia1
Austria1
Belgium (Fl.)
Belgium (Fr.)1
Canada
Chile1
Czech Republic2
Denmark
England
Estonia1
Finland1
France1
Germany1
Greece
Hungary1
Iceland1
Ireland1
Israel1
Italy1
Japan1
Korea1
Luxembourg1
Mexico1
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway1
Poland1
Portugal1
Scotland
Slovak Republic1
Slovenia1
Spain1
Sweden
Switzerland
Turkey
United States
OECD average
Average for 23 countries
with all data available
for 2010 and 2013

Estimated class size
(number of students per classroom)

B7

2005

2010

2013

Variation
2010-2013
(%)

2005

2010

2013

Variation
2010-2013
(%)

(13)

(14)

(15)

(16)

(17) = (13)*(5) / (9)

(18) = (14)*(6) / (10)

(19) = (15)*(7) / (11)

(20)

12.1

12.0

12.0

0.0

14.5

14.6

14.9

1.6

10.6

9.3

9.0

-3.3

16.0

14.0

13.3

-4.7

9.4

8.1

9.3

15.2

m

m

12.9

m

9.4

8.1

9.3

15.2

13.7

11.6

13.7

18.2

m

17.9

14.0

-21.7

m

22.3

17.4

-22.1

25.9

25.1

24.3

-3.2

m

24.6

22.9

-7.1

13.5

11.2

11.2

-0.2

18.8

14.9

15.8

5.4

11.9

11.5

m

m

16.4

15.9

m

m

15.1

17.1

m

m

m

22.5

m

m

m

10.4

9.8

-5.8

m

13.2

13.0

-1.7
1.1

10.0

9.8

9.0

-7.5

13.4

12.7

12.9

14.2

15.0

15.4

2.5

21.0

22.5

23.6

4.7

15.5

14.9

13.6

-8.5

17.9

17.4

15.7

-10.1

7.9

m

7.3

m

18.1

m

13.9

m

10.4

10.7

10.4

-2.5

13.4

11.9

12.3

3.8

11.3

10.3

10.5

2.1

14.7

16.0

14.1

-11.6

15.5

14.4

13.9

-3.1

17.9

18.2

17.8

-2.5

13.4

12.8

13.5

5.6

22.4

20.9

21.0

0.4

10.1

11.9

11.7

-1.7

17.0

19.3

18.8

-2.7

15.1

14.4

13.9

-3.5

26.0

21.0

20.5

-2.6

20.8

19.7

17.5

-11.1

29.0

27.0

26.5

-1.9

9.0

9.1

8.6

-5.8

11.0

13.1

9.8

-24.9

33.7

32.7

32.2

-1.4

37.6

36.5

35.9

-1.4

16.2

16.5

16.0

-3.0

23.1

22.0

m

m

16.8

16.3

16.4

0.5

m

m

m

m

10.2

9.9

9.8

-0.7

12.9

12.7

12.9

1.6

12.7

12.7

9.9

-22.0

m

17.0

14.4

-14.8

7.5

7.9

10.4

31.2

10.6

9.5

15.3

61.1

15.1

17.1

m

m

m

m

m

m

14.1

13.6

12.5

-8.2

m

17.1

16.0

-6.6

11.1

8.0

8.2

2.8

14.0

10.4

10.0

-3.5

12.5

10.1

11.6

14.8

16.8

14.9

17.2

16.1

12.0

11.4

12.0

5.2

m

m

m

m

11.7

11.8

11.8

-0.1

m

m

m

m

m

m

19.3

m

m

m

32.1

m

15.1

14.0

15.4

9.9

m

m

15.8

m

13.6

13.4

13.0

-0.3

18.1

17.6

17.3

-0.2

~

13.2

12.9

-1.8

~

15.5

17.1

10.4

Note: Data in this table come either from chapter D (for 2005, 2010 and 2013 data relating to salaries of teachers and teaching time, 2013 data on ratio
of student to teaching staff) or from 2007 and 2012 editions of Education at a Glance (data on ratio of student to teaching staff and instruction time).
Data for 2013 instruction time refer to 2014 data from the 2014 edition of Education at a Glance. Please see notes on these data in these tables.
1. Countries with all data available for both 2010 and 2013.
2. Current instruction time for 2000 and 2005, minimum instruction time for 2013.

Source: OECD. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/education/education-at-a-glance-19991487.htm).
Please refer to the Reader’s Guide for information concerning symbols for missing data and abbreviations.
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933285680

Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

303

chapter B FINANCIAL AND HUMAN RESOURCES INVESTED IN EDUCATION

Table B7.3. Contribution of various factors to salary cost of teachers per student

in primary education (2005, 2010 and 2013)

In equivalent USD, converted using PPPs for private consumption

B7

Contribution of the underlying factors to the difference
from the OECD average

OECD

Salary cost of teachers
per student

Australia
Austria
Belgium (Fl.)
Belgium (Fr.)
Canada
Chile
Czech Republic
Denmark
England
Estonia
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Iceland
Ireland
Israel
Italy
Japan
Korea
Luxembourg
Mexico
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Scotland
Slovak Republic
Slovenia
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Turkey
United States
OECD average
(countries with
available data for both
2010 and 2013)

Difference
(in USD) from
the 2013
OECD average
of
USD 2 677

Effect (in USD)
Effect (in USD) of instruction time
of teachers’ salary
(for students)
below/above
below/above
the 2013
the 2013
OECD average
OECD average
of
of
USD 39 960
789 hours

Effect (in USD)
of teaching time
(for teachers)
below/above
the 2013
OECD average
of
770 hours

Effect (in USD)
of estimated
class size
below/above
the 2013
OECD average
of
15.3 students
per class
2013

2005

2010

2013

2013

2013

2013

2013

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)= (5)+(6)+(7)+(8)

(5)

(6)

(7)

(8)

3 125

3 373

3 608

931

1 082

781

- 424

- 508

3 007

3 623

3 609

932

232

- 355

- 39

1 094

m

m

3 842

1 165

636

131

75

324

3 477

3 720

3 739

1 062

541

235

208

78

m

m

4 755

2 078

1 853

563

- 124

- 214

m

1 046

1 181

-1 496

- 753

553

- 710

- 585

m

m

973

-1 704

-1 301

- 270

- 127

-7

4 343

4 738

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

2 537

m

m

m

m

m

m
181

m

1 058

1 015

-1 662

-1 931

- 333

420

2 329

2 942

3 008

331

- 19

- 635

368

616

1 845

1 862

1 735

- 943

- 384

200

- 397

- 362

3 110

3 643

4 047

1 370

1 529

- 490

- 130

462

3 150

m

2 720

43

-1 209

- 20

834

438

1 817

1 406

1 229

-1 448

-2 188

- 511

527

723

3 108

3 246

2 985

308

- 716

- 228

601

651

2 866

3 714

3 426

749

1 035

456

- 534

- 208

1 368

1 412

1 956

- 721

- 672

452

- 202

- 298

3 339

3 120

2 692

15

- 497

328

62

122

2 670

2 620

2 790

113

535

- 94

122

- 450

1 902

2 349

2 981

304

729

- 565

409

- 269

m

9 940

11 674

8 997

5 648

1 033

- 337

2 653

860

892

958

-1 719

- 691

25

- 67

- 986

m

m

3 258

581

899

524

- 569

- 274

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

3 551

3 931

4 307

1 630

375

- 186

132

1 309

m

2 322

2 247

- 430

-1 191

- 551

515

797

4 003

3 905

2 777

99

- 235

60

82

193

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

842

924

-1 753

-1 535

- 259

- 137

177

2 549

2 580

2 392

- 285

- 111

- 437

524

- 261

3 094

3 594

3 067

390

156

-5

- 386

625

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

921

1 251

1 368

-1 309

- 753

- 180

133

- 509

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

~

2 550

2 616

~

~

~

~

~

Source: OECD. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/education/education-at-a-glance-19991487.htm).
Please refer to the Reader’s Guide for information concerning symbols for missing data and abbreviations.
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933285697

304 Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

Which factors influence the level of expenditure on education? – INDICATOR B7

chapter B

Table B7.4. Contribution of various factors to salary cost of teachers per student

in lower secondary education (2005, 2010 and 2013)
In equivalent USD, converted using PPPs for private consumption

B7

Contribution of the underlying factors to the difference
from the OECD average

OECD

Effect (in USD)
Effect (in USD) of instruction time
of teachers’ salary
(for students)
Difference (in USD)
below/above
below/above
from the 2013
the 2013
the 2013
OECD average
OECD average
OECD average
of
of
of
Salary cost of teacher
per student
USD 3 350
USD 43 634
905 hours

Australia
Austria
Belgium (Fl.)
Belgium (Fr.)
Canada
Chile
Czech Republic
Denmark
England
Estonia
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Iceland
Ireland
Israel
Italy
Japan
Korea
Luxembourg
Mexico
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Scotland
Slovak Republic
Slovenia
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Turkey
United States
OECD average
(countries with
available data for both
2010 and 2013)

Effect (in USD)
of teaching time
(for teachers)
below/above
the 2013
OECD average
of
694 hours

Effect (in USD)
of estimated
class size
below/above
the 2013
OECD average
of
17 students
per class
2013

2005

2010

2013

2013

2013

2013

2013

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)= (5)+(6)+(7)+(8)

(5)

(6)

(7)

(8)

4 185

4 414

4 684

1 335

1 019

458

- 681

538

4 341

5 167

5 191

1 841

280

- 25

567

1 019

m

m

5 218

1 869

464

105

154

1 146

4 758

5 691

5 078

1 728

343

290

203

893

m

m

4 755

1 406

1 708

71

- 280

- 93

m

1 027

1 095

-2 254

-1 001

342

- 985

- 610

m

m

1 633

-1 716

-2 106

- 90

287

193

4 343

4 806

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

2 937

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

1 332

1 350

-2 000

-2 721

- 237

285

673

4 179

4 566

4 749

1 400

- 71

- 283

638

1 115

2 722

2 518

2 374

- 975

- 503

260

197

- 929

4 081

4 534

5 047

1 698

1 885

- 187

- 339

339

4 426

m

3 515

166

-1 895

- 513

1 849

724

1 857

1 415

1 252

-2 098

-2 669

- 579

354

796

3 108

3 246

2 970

- 380

-1 075

- 245

341

599

3 350

4 149

4 063

713

968

120

- 213

- 162

1 800

2 072

2 131

-1 218

-1 132

284

208

- 578

3 802

3 243

3 100

- 250

- 604

290

389

- 324

3 430

3 339

3 491

141

367

- 39

455

- 642

2 554

2 513

2 941

- 408

533

- 235

710

-1 416

10 692

11 780

12 821

9 471

6 502

- 537

- 491

3 998

923

986

1 057

-2 293

- 514

552

- 842

-1 488

m

m

4 176

826

1 619

380

- 297

- 875

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

3 785

4 145

4 525

1 176

81

- 166

179

1 082

m

1 823

2 519

- 830

-1 666

- 335

677

493

5 763

5 350

3 516

166

- 601

- 51

452

366

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

1 056

1 254

-2 096

-2 198

- 206

170

138

3 447

5 243

4 661

1 312

- 538

- 678

413

2 114

4 062

5 345

4 052

702

267

586

- 99

- 52

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

1 459

-1 891

-1 029

- 180

787

-1 470

m

m

3 967

617

1 240

410

-1 296

262

~

3 185

3 215

~

~

~

~

~

Source: OECD. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/education/education-at-a-glance-19991487.htm).
Please refer to the Reader’s Guide for information concerning symbols for missing data and abbreviations.
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933285709

Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

305

chapter B FINANCIAL AND HUMAN RESOURCES INVESTED IN EDUCATION

Table B7.5. Contribution of various factors to salary cost of teachers per student

in upper secondary education (2013)

In equivalent USD, converted using PPPs for private consumption

B7

OECD

Contribution of the underlying factors to the difference from the OECD average

Australia
Austria
Belgium (Fl.)
Belgium (Fr.)
Canada
Chile
Czech Republic
Denmark
England
Estonia
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Iceland
Ireland
Israel
Italy
Japan
Korea
Luxembourg
Mexico
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Scotland
Slovak Republic
Slovenia
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Turkey
United States

Salary cost
of teacher
per student

Difference from
the OECD average
of
USD 3 749

Effect (in USD)
of teachers’ salary
below/above
the OECD average
of
USD 48 248

(1)

(2) = (3) + (4) + (5) + (6)

Effect (in USD)
of instruction time
(for students)
below/above
the OECD average
of
921 hours

Effect (in USD)
of teaching time
(for teachers)
below/above
the OECD average
of
674 hours

Effect (in USD)
of estimated class
size below/above
the OECD average
of
17.6 students
per class
(6)

(3)

(4)

(5)

m

m

m

m

m

m

5 093

1 344

173

73

595

503

6 344

2 596

1 283

40

378

895

6 167

2 419

1 130

- 397

562

1 124

4 839

1 091

1 408

- 61

- 430

173

1 124

-2 624

-1 183

557

-1 136

- 863

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

3 643

- 105

- 998

440

147

305

5 573

1 824

1 948

63

- 274

88

m

m

m

m

m

m

1 287

-2 462

-2 638

- 256

312

120

m

m

m

m

m

m

4 063

315

629

62

- 337

- 39

2 391

-1 358

-1 929

294

530

- 253

2 963

- 786

- 868

- 60

306

- 164

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

12 821

9 073

6 108

- 692

- 744

4 400

m

m

m

m

m

m

3 593

- 156

1 216

19

- 397

- 994

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

4 366

618

-1 145

- 560

424

1 899

m

m

m

m

m

m

1 152

-2 596

-2 470

- 112

217

- 231

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

1 800

-1 949

-1 452

- 259

821

-1 059

m

m

m

m

m

m

Source: OECD. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/education/education-at-a-glance-19991487.htm).
Please refer to the Reader’s Guide for information concerning symbols for missing data and abbreviations.
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933285712

306 Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

Chapter

C

ACCESS TO EDUCATION,
PARTICIPATION
AND PROGRESSION

Indicator C1 Who participates in education?
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933285737

Indicator C2 How do early childhood education systems differ around the world?
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933285801

Indicator C3 How many students are expected to enter tertiary education?
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933285864

Indicator C4 Who studies abroad and where?
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933285911

Indicator C5 Transition from school to work: Where are the 15-29 year-olds?
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933285971

Indicator C6 How many adults participate in education and learning?
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933286024

Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

307

WHO PARTICIPATES IN EDUCATION?
• Access to education for 5-14 year-olds is universal in all OECD and most partner countries with
available data.

INDICATOR C1

• In 2013, enrolment rates among 15-19 year-olds were greater than 70% in 32 of the 37 OECD and
partner countries with available data.

• In almost all OECD countries, more than one in five 20-29 year-olds participated in education in
2013.

Chart C1.1. Enrolment rates of 15-19 and 20-29 year-olds (2013)
Ages 15-19

Ages 20-29

Ireland
Latvia
Slovenia
Belgium
Netherlands
Poland
Czech Republic
Germany
Portugal
Iceland
Denmark
Hungary
Estonia
Spain
Korea
Norway
EU21 Average
Australia
Finland
Sweden
Switzerland
France
Slovak Republic
Russian Federation
New Zealand
OECD average
United Kingdom
United States
Austria
Chile
Italy
Luxembourg1
Canada2, 3
Indonesia
Brazil4
Turkey
Israel
Colombia
Mexico

%

100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0

1. Underestimated because many resident students go to school in the neighbouring countries.
2. Excludes post-secondary non-tertiary education.
3. Year of reference 2012.
4. Excludes enrolments in ISCED 7 and 8.
Countries are ranked in descending order of the enrolment rates of 15-19 year-olds.
Source: OECD. Table C1.1a. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/education/education-at-a-glance- 19991487.htm).
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933284155

Context
In times of economic hardship, the advantage of education for labour-market prospects becomes even
clearer. Education systems in OECD and most G20 countries now provide universal access to basic
education, such that both pre-primary and upper secondary education are becoming universal in most
countries (see also Indicator C2). The expansion of upper secondary education is both a response to
increasing demand and a result of various policy changes, ranging from more flexible curricula and
a reshaping of vocational studies, to efforts to expand access to education to the entire population.
While the same changes have been made to tertiary education, participation rates at the higher level
of education are significantly lower.
Upper secondary education has become the minimum qualification for a smooth and successful
transition into the labour market; attainment of this level of education reduces the risk of
unemployment (see Indicator A5). Successful completion of upper secondary programmes is vital for
addressing equity issues (OECD, 2010a; OECD, 2011), but graduation rates vary widely among OECD
countries (see Indicator A2). To help ensure good returns for individuals, education systems must be
able to help students acquire the skills they need both to make them employable in the short term, and
to enable them to pursue learning throughout their working lives (OECD, 2010b). The deep structural
changes that have occurred in the global labour market over the past decades suggest that bettereducated individuals will continue to have an advantage as the labour market becomes increasingly
more knowledge-based.

308 Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

Other findings

• Based on 2013 enrolment patterns, a 5-year-old in an OECD country can expect to participate in
more than 17 years of full-time and part-time education, on average, before reaching the age of 40.
The expected duration of education ranged from 13 years in Saudi Arabia to 19 years or more in
Australia, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, Iceland and Sweden.

• Across OECD countries in 2013, at least 90% of the school-age population participated in an
average of 13 years of formal education. Twenty-eight out of the 40 countries with available data
were equal or above this OECD average, while 12 countries were below the average.

INDICATOR C1

Trends
Between 2005 and 2013, enrolment rates for 15-19 year-olds in OECD countries increased, on average,
from 82% to 84%. While the rates increased by nearly 30 percentage points during this period in Turkey,
they remained virtually unchanged in France, Hungary, Israel and the Slovak Republic (Table C1.6,
available on line). In 2013, enrolment rates for 15-19 year-olds were still 70% or lower in Brazil,
Colombia, Israel, Mexico and Turkey. Among 20-29 year-olds, enrolment rates in OECD countries
increased, on average, 4 percentage points, from 24% in 2005 to 28% in 2013.

Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

309

chapter C Access to Education, Participation and Progression

Analysis

C1

In 20 of the 40 OECD and partner countries with available data in 2013, full enrolment in education (defined here
as enrolment rates exceeding 90% of the population of the age range covering a certain level of studies) begins
between the ages of 3 and 4 (age 2 in Denmark, Iceland and Norway); in the other 17 countries, full enrolment starts
between the ages of 5 and 6, except in the Russian Federation and Saudi Arabia, where it starts at 7. In most OECD
and partner countries, at least 75% of 3-4 year-olds were enrolled in either pre-primary or primary programmes
(Table C1.1a and Indicator C2). In Belgium, Denmark, France, Iceland, Israel, Italy, New Zealand, Norway, Spain and
the United Kingdom, enrolment rates among 3-4 year-olds reached at least 96% in 2013.

Box C1.1. Expected years in education
The estimation of expected years in education includes enrolment in all forms of formal education, including
non-continuous and incomplete participation. Thus, based on 2013 enrolment patterns, a 5-year-old in an
OECD country can expect to participate in education for more than 17 years, on average, before reaching
the age of 40. More specifically, this person can expect to be enrolled for around one year in early childhood
education, nearly 6 years in primary education, 3 years in lower secondary education, 4 years in upper secondary
education, 0.3 years in post-secondary non-tertiary education, and 3 years in tertiary education. This same
student can expect to participate in full-time studies for 16 years and in part-time studies for around one year.
Women can expect to be enrolled in full-time education for about 17 years while men can expect to be enrolled
for 16 years, on average.
Among countries with available data, the expected number of years in education ranges from 15 years or less in
Colombia, Indonesia, Japan, Luxembourg, Mexico and Saudi Arabia, to 19 years or more in Australia, Belgium,
Denmark, Finland, Iceland and Sweden. (Table C1.5).
Enrolment in an education programme is not limited to a particular age range. Based on 2013 data, Australia,
Belgium, Finland, Iceland, New Zealand and Sweden show significant shares of their adult populations –
particularly adults who are between 40 and 64 – participating in education. This is explained by larger parttime enrolments and/or by lifelong learning programmes in these countries. For instance, credit-based systems
in Sweden allow adults to study selected parts of a programme in formal education as a way to upgrade their
skills in a specific area.
Expected years in education is only an estimate of the potential number of years an individual may expect to be
in education. This estimation is not comparable to educational attainment, and may also differ from projections
of future attainment, because the time spent in a given programme may change within the population.

Participation in compulsory education
Compulsory education varies across countries. In 2013, the starting age of compulsory education ranged from age
4 in Brazil, Luxembourg and Mexico, to age 7 in Estonia, Finland, Indonesia, the Russian Federation, South Africa
and Sweden. In the United Kingdom and the United States, the starting age ranged between ages 4 and 5 and ages 4
and 6, respectively; in Switzerland, the age range was from 5 to 7 (as the reference date for the data collection is
1 January, children could be a year younger when they enter compulsory education).
Compulsory education comprises primary and lower secondary programmes in all OECD countries, and upper
secondary education in most of them, according to the theoretical age ranges associated with the different levels of
education in each country. Enrolment rates among 5-14 year-olds are higher than 90%, i.e. there is universal coverage
of basic education, in nearly all OECD and partner countries with available data. In 2013, enrolment rates in 34 out of
the 39 countries with available data for this age range were around 95% or higher (Table C1.1a and Table X1.3).
Participation in upper secondary education
In recent years, countries have increased the diversity of their upper secondary programmes. This diversification is both
a response to the growing demand for upper secondary education and a result of changes in curricula. Curricula have
gradually evolved from separating general and vocational programmes to offering more comprehensive programmes
that include both types of learning, leading to more flexible pathways into further education or the labour market.

310 Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators   © OECD 2015

Who participates in education? – INDICATOR C1

chapter C

Based on 2013 data, enrolment rates among 15-19 year-olds, i.e. those typically in upper secondary programmes
or in transition to upper levels of education, reached at least 80% in 26 of the 37 OECD and partner countries with
available data. In Belgium, Ireland, Latvia, the Netherlands, Poland, and Slovenia, these rates were higher than 90%
(Table C1.1a). By contrast, the proportion of people of this age group who were not enrolled in education exceeded
20% in Austria, Canada, Chile, Italy and Luxembourg, and exceeded 30% in Brazil and Turkey. In Israel, more than
35% of the age group were not enrolled in education, largely due to conscription, while in Colombia and Mexico this
proportion exceeded 40% (Table C1.1a and Chart C1.2).

Chart C1.2. Distribution of 15-19 year-olds enrolled in upper secondary education,
by programme orientation (2013)
General programmes

Vocational programmes

Ireland
Saudi Arabia
Brazil
New Zealand
Korea
Iceland
Australia
Spain
Japan
Denmark
Hungary
Colombia
Estonia
Chile
United Kingdom
Germany
China
Latvia
Mexico
Portugal
France
OECD average
Israel
Indonesia
EU21 Average
Sweden
Turkey
Norway
Finland
Poland
Netherlands
Luxembourg
Belgium
Italy
Slovenia
Switzerland
Slovak Republic
Austria
Czech Republic

%

100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0

Countries are ranked in descending order of the share of students in general programmes.
Source: OECD. Table C1.2. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/education/education-at-a-glance- 19991487.htm).
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933284162

In 2013, at least 85% of 15-year-olds in 36 of the 38 countries with available data were enrolled in secondary
education (Table C1.1b, available on line).
The variation in upper secondary enrolment rates reflects different completion requirements or age limits. For
example, in the Netherlands, students aged 20 years and older represent 42% of total enrolments in upper secondary
vocational programmes (Table C1.2). Education policies, combined with other factors, such as longer programmes,
grade repetition, and late entry into the labour market or participation in education while employed, among others,
have resulted in larger numbers of older students participating in upper secondary education (see Indicator A2).
Consequently, in some OECD countries, around one in five to one in three 20-year-olds is still enrolled in upper
secondary education. This is the case in Denmark (33%), Germany (23%), Luxembourg (25%), the Netherlands
(27%) and Switzerland (25%) (Table C1.1b, available on line).
Vocational education and training (VET) programmes
Many countries have recently renewed their interest in vocational education and training (VET) programmes, as
these programmes are seen as effective in developing skills among those who would otherwise lack qualifications to
ensure a smooth and successful transition into the labour market (OECD, 2010a). Countries with well-established
vocational and apprenticeship programmes have been more effective in holding the line on youth unemployment
(see Indicator C5). At the same time, some consider vocational education a less-attractive option than academic
education; and some research suggests that participation in vocational education increases the risk of unemployment
at later ages (Hanushek et al., 2011).
In most countries, a student who successfully completes an apprenticeship programme is usually awarded an upper
secondary or post-secondary qualification. In some countries, it is possible to earn higher qualifications, like the
Advanced Diploma awarded in Australia. Vocational programmes in OECD countries offer different combinations
of vocational studies along with apprenticeship programmes. Upper secondary students in many education systems
can enrol in vocational programmes, but some OECD countries delay vocational training until students graduate
from upper secondary education. For instance, while vocational programmes are offered as upper secondary
education in Austria, Hungary and Spain, similar programmes are typically offered as post-secondary education in
Canada (see Indicator A2).
Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

311

C1

chapter C ACCESS TO EDUCATION, PARTICIPATION AND PROGRESSION

C1

In more than one-third of the countries for which 2013 data are available, the percentage of students who participated
in vocational programmes exceeded 50% of all students enrolled in upper secondary education – and this proportion
was at least 70% in Austria, the Czech Republic and Finland. In the other two-thirds of countries, more than 50% of
upper secondary students were enrolled in general programmes rather than in VET. This proportion was larger than
80% in Brazil, Ireland, Korea, Saudi Arabia and South Africa (Table C1.2).
In most countries, vocational education at the upper secondary level is school-based only. However, some countries
offer programmes that combine both school and work. Some 60% of all upper secondary students in Switzerland are
enrolled in these combined vocational programmes as are more than 30% of all upper secondary students in Austria,
China, Denmark, Germany and Latvia (Table C1.2).
Participation of young adults in education
In 2013, an average of 28% of 20-29 year-olds in OECD countries were enrolled in some type of education. The
largest proportions of this age group enrolled in education (more than 40%) were found in Denmark and Finland.
Meanwhile, in Indonesia, Luxembourg and Mexico less than 15% of young adults in this age group were enrolled
(Table C1.1a and Chart C1.1).
In most of the countries analysed, 20-year-olds are typically enrolled in tertiary education. In 2013, nearly 37% of
20-year-olds in OECD countries were enrolled in tertiary education, on average. In Korea, seven in ten 20-year-olds
were enrolled in this level of education, whereas in Belgium, Ireland and Slovenia, at least one in two people of this
age were enrolled. By contrast, fewer than one in four 20-year-olds in Brazil, China, Colombia, Denmark, Germany,
Iceland, Israel, Luxembourg, Mexico, Sweden and Switzerland were enrolled in tertiary education (Table C1.1b,
available on line).
Returning to or continuing studies is an option for adults who want to improve and diversify their skills and
make themselves more adaptable to the changing demands of the labour market. In the current context of high
unemployment and changing skills needs in the labour market, some countries, such as Chile, have established
specific policies to encourage adults to pursue vocational studies.
Gender differences
Recent studies have emphasised the importance of having a more balanced approach to gender, given that half of
the economic growth in OECD countries over the past 50 years can be attributed to higher educational attainment,
which, in turn, has been achieved mainly because more girls and women are participating in all levels of education
(OECD, 2012).
The gender gap in enrolment is relatively narrow for people younger than 20, but it increases among older individuals.
On average across OECD countries, 30% of 20-29 year-old women and 27% of men the same age participated in
education in 2013. There were important differences within countries. In Poland, for instance, 38% of women
were enrolled while only 27% of men were. In Poland, Slovenia and Sweden, the enrolment rate for women was
at least 11 percentage points higher than that for men. In Korea, the 14 percentage-point difference in favour of
men’s enrolment rates compared with women’s enrolment rates in 2013 is linked to delayed graduation among men
completing their mandatory military service.
In most countries, enrolment rates among 30-39 year-olds were also higher among women than men. Australia,
Finland, Iceland, New Zealand and Sweden had the highest rates of women of this age participating in education,
with Sweden showing the widest gender gap, of almost eight percentage points (Table C1.1a).
Part-time studies
The new International Standard Classification of Education 2011 (ISCED 2011), used for the first time in this edition
of Education at a Glance, allows for more disaggregated data for the tertiary level of education, among others. Instead
of the ISCED-97 tertiary type A and type B programmes discussed in previous editions, tertiary education is now
broken down into short-cycle tertiary programmes, bachelor’s, master’s and doctoral or equivalent programmes.
Students in tertiary education are more likely to enrol full time rather than part time, regardless of their choice of
programme. In 2013, more than 77% of tertiary students, on average across OECD countries with available data,
were enrolled full time, and in Austria, Colombia, the Czech Republic, Mexico, Portugal and Turkey, more than 95% of
students were. Students are more likely to be enrolled full time in bachelor’s or equivalent programmes (OECD average
of 80%). Although most of the students enrolled in short-cycle tertiary programmes are also enrolled full time
(OECD average of 73%), the proportion of these students is the smallest among all tertiary students.

312 Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

Who participates in education? – INDICATOR C1

chapter C

In 2013, 27% of students in short-cycle tertiary programmes were enrolled part time, on average across
OECD countries. In Australia and the United States, more than 50% of enrolments in these programmes were part
time, in New Zealand, more than 60% were, in Belgium, 72% were, and in the United Kingdom, 89% of enrolments
in short-cycle tertiary programmes were part time. There are, however, significant gender differences in some
countries. In the Netherlands, for example, 37% of women were enrolled part time compared to 27% of men. In
Germany, Ireland and New Zealand, the gender difference in these proportions is around eight percentage points
(Table C1.3).
Part-time enrolments in bachelor’s or equivalent programmes did not exceed full-time enrolments in any country
except Sweden, where 55% of students in these programmes study part time. In Poland, 47% of students at this level
of education are enrolled part time. In 17 of the 31 countries with available data, more than 20% of enrolments in
bachelor’s or equivalent programmes were part time (Table C1.3).
Twenty-nine of the 33 OECD and partner countries with available data offered part-time enrolments in master’s
or equivalent programmes in 2013. More than 50% of students in master’s or equivalent programmes in Finland,
New Zealand and the Russian Federation chose to enrol part time – far more than the OECD average of 26%. In
Australia, Ireland, Luxembourg, Poland, the United Kingdom and the United States, more than 40% of students at
this level of education also chose part-time enrolment (Table C1.3).
The relative size of the public and private sectors
In most OECD and partner countries, most students, from primary through tertiary education, are enrolled in public
institutions. On average across OECD countries in 2013, around 90% of primary students, 86% of lower secondary
students and 81% of upper secondary students were enrolled in public schools. At least 90% of all lower secondary
students in 35 of the 39 countries with available data attended either public or government-dependent private
institutions; and the same percentage was observed among upper secondary students in 31 of the 39 countries with
data available. (Table C1.4a)
Based on the new ISCED 2011 classification, 69% of tertiary students were enrolled in public institutions in 2013,
on average across OECD countries. At least 90% of students in tertiary education were enrolled in public institutions
in Australia, Denmark, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, Sweden and Turkey. In contrast, less
than 20% of tertiary students were enrolled in public institutions in Chile, Estonia, Israel, Korea, Latvia and the
United Kingdom (where 100% of students were enrolled in government-dependent private institutions) (Table C1.4b
and Chart C1.3).

Chart C1.3. Distribution of students in tertiary education,
by type of institutions (2013)
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0

Public institutions

Private institutions

Ireland
Denmark
South Africa1
Saudi Arabia
Turkey
Germany
Australia
Sweden
Italy
New Zealand
Russian Federation
Czech Republic
Slovenia
China
Austria
Spain
Norway
Hungary
Slovak Republic
Switzerland
Portugal
Iceland
France
EU21 Average
Finland
United States
Poland
OECD average
Mexico
Colombia
Belgium
Japan
Korea
Estonia
Chile
Israel
Latvia
United Kingdom

%

1. Year of reference 2012.
Countries are ranked in descending order of the share of students in public institutions.
Source: OECD. Table C1.4b. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/education/education-at-a-glance- 19991487.htm).
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933284178

Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

313

C1

chapter C ACCESS TO EDUCATION, PARTICIPATION AND PROGRESSION

C1

Public institutions provide 100% of short-cycle tertiary education in Finland, Luxembourg and Saudi Arabia, while
in Denmark, Mexico, the Russian Federation, South Africa, Turkey and the United States, at least 90% of enrolments
in these programmes are in public institutions (see Indicator C3 for details on the different fields of education that
students choose for this level of education in these countries). Similarly, 95% or more of enrolments in master’s
or equivalent programmes in Australia, China, Denmark, Germany, Ireland, New Zealand, Norway, Saudi Arabia,
South Africa and Switzerland are in public institutions. All enrolments in doctoral or equivalent programmes in
China, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, Germany, the Netherlands, New Zealand, the Russian Federation,
Saudi Arabia, South Africa and Switzerland are in public institutions (Table C1.4b).

Definitions
Intensity of participation refers to students’ commitment of time to their studies. A full-time student is one
whose commitment to study (both inside and outside of an educational institution) represents 75% or more of the
school week, as it applies locally at that level of education, and if the student would normally be expected to be in
the programme for the entire school academic year. A part-time student is one whose commitment is less that 75%
of the school week, or one who is expected to be in the programme for less that the full school year.
Secondary programmes 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:
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 education
authorities or institutions and include apprenticeship programmes that involve concurrent school-based and workbased training, and programmes that involve alternating periods of attendance at educational institutions and
participation in work-based training (sometimes referred to as “sandwich” programmes).
In school-based programmes, instruction takes place (either partially or exclusively) in educational institutions.
These 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 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.
General education programmes are not explicitly designed 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).
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.
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. Vocational programmes are further divided into two categories (school-based
and combined school- and work-based programmes), based on the amount of training provided in school as opposed
to the workplace.

Methodology
Data on enrolments are for the school year 2012/13 and are based on the UOE data collection on education 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 C1.1a, 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 C1.6 (available on line), data on trends in enrolment rates for the years 2005 and 2013 are based on a special
survey carried out in March 2015 among OECD countries, Brazil and the Russian Federation.
Expected years in education are calculated as the proportion of the population enrolled at specific ages over an
age range. The main assumption is that every year of full enrolment would correspond to a full year of expected
education for an individual below that age.

314 Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

Who participates in education? – INDICATOR C1

chapter C

Note regarding data from Israel
The statistical data for Israel are supplied by and are under the responsibility of the relevant Israeli authorities. The use of
such data by the OECD is without prejudice to the status of the Golan Heights, East Jerusalem and Israeli settlements in the
West Bank under the terms of international law.

C1

References

Hanushek, E., L. Woessmann and L. Zhang (2011), “General Education, Vocational Education, and Labor-Market Outcomes over
the Life-Cycle”, IZA Discussion Paper, No. 6083, Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA), Bonn, October 2011.
OECD (2012), Closing the Gender Gap: Act Now, OECD Publishing, Paris, http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264179370-en.
OECD (2011), “Access to education, participation and progression”, in Equity and Quality in Education: Supporting Disadvantaged
Students and Schools, OECD Publishing, Paris, http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264130852-en.
OECD (2010a), PISA 2009 Results: Overcoming Social Background: Equity in Learning Opportunities and Outcomes (Volume II), PISA,
OECD Publishing, Paris, http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264091504-en.
OECD (2010b), Learning for Jobs, OECD Reviews of Vocational Education and Training, OECD Publishing, Paris, http://dx.doi.
org/10.1787/9789264087460-en.

Indicator C1 Tables
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933285737

Table C1.1a
WEB Table C1.1b

Enrolment rates, by age group (2013)
Percentage of students between the ages of 15 and 20 enrolled by level of education (2013)

Table C1.2

Percentage of students in upper secondary and post-secondary non-tertiary education,
by programme orientation and age group (2013)

Table C1.3

Percentage of students in tertiary ISCED levels and total tertiary, by intensity of study
and gender (2013)

Table C1.4a

Percentage of students in primary and secondary education, by type of institution (2013)

Table C1.4b

Percentage of students in tertiary ISCED level and total tertiary, by type of institution (2013)

Table C1.5

Expected years in education from age 5 through 39, by level of education, intensity of study
and gender (2013)

WEB Table C1.6

Trends in enrolment rates of 15-19 and 20-29 year-olds (2005-2013)

Cut-off date for the data: 23 October 2015. Updates can be found on line at http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/eag-data-en.

Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

315

chapter C ACCESS TO EDUCATION, PARTICIPATION AND PROGRESSION

Table C1.1a. Enrolment rates, by age group (2013)
Students in full-time and part-time programmes, in both public and private institutions
Age range
Number of
years at which at which at
least 90%
at least 90%
of the
of the
population Age 2
population
of school age of school age and
are enrolled are enrolled under1

Partners

OECD

C1

Students as a percentage of the population of a specific age group
Ages 20 to 29

Ages 30 to 39
Enrolment
rate of total
population

Men Women M + W

Ages
Men Women 40-64

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7)

(8)

(9)

(10)

(11)

(12)

(13)

(14)

Australia
Austria
Belgium
Canada2, 3
Chile
Czech Republic
Denmark
Estonia
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Iceland
Ireland
Israel
Italy
Japan4
Korea
Luxembourg
Mexico
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Slovak Republic
Slovenia
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Turkey
United Kingdom
United States

13
13
15
12
13
13
16
14
13
15
15
m
14
16
15
15
15
14
14
12
9
14
15
17
13
14
12
15
15
16
13
9
15
12

5 - 17
4 - 16
3 - 17
5 - 16
5 - 17
6 - 18
2 - 17
4 - 17
6 - 18
3 - 17
3 - 17
m
4 - 17
2 - 17
4 - 18
3 - 17
3 - 17
4 - 17
3 - 17
4 - 15
5 - 13
4 - 17
3 - 17
2 - 18
5 - 18
4 - 17
6 - 17
4 - 18
3 - 17
3 - 18
5 - 17
6 - 14
3 - 17
5 - 16

36
15
17
m
18
6
61
30
28
4
33
m
3
44
0
31
5
0
63
2
2
0
41
55
2
0
4
37
32
46
0
m
11
m

72
81
98
m
67
71
97
89
71
100
94
m
84
96
70
100
96
88
92
85
66
91
98
96
60
84
68
87
96
94
22
22
96
54

100
98
98
100
97
98
99
96
97
99
99
m
97
99
100
98
100
100
98
97
100
100
100
100
96
100
94
97
97
98
100
96
98
97

86
79
92
73
79
90
88
87
86
85
89
m
87
88
97
65
78
m
87
78
54
91
84
87
90
88
85
92
87
86
86
69
81
81

34
27
34
22
28
26
45
30
41
21
34
m
27
40
22
22
25
m
31
13
14
31
28
30
32
24
21
33
29
35
26
31
21
26

33
25
30
20
27
23
42
26
38
19
34
m
26
37
22
19
22
m
38
13
15
32
25
27
27
24
17
27
28
29
27
33
20
23

35
28
39
24
29
29
48
34
44
23
33
m
29
44
22
25
28
m
24
12
13
31
30
33
38
24
24
39
31
41
26
29
22
29

13
6
10
5
6
3
9
7
16
1
4
m
4
14
4
6
2
m
2
2
3
3
10
7
3
4
3
3
5
14
4
8
6
8

13
6
8
4
6
3
8
5
15
1
5
m
3
11
4
7
2
m
2
2
3
3
8
6
2
4
2
3
5
10
5
8
5
6

14
6
11
5
6
4
10
9
18
1
4
m
5
17
4
6
3
m
2
1
3
3
12
9
4
4
4
4
5
18
4
7
8
9

7
1
5
1
1
1
2
1
5
1
0
m
1
5
1
2
0
m
1
0
2
1
5
2
2
1
1
1
2
4
1
1
3
2

30
21
27
18
28
20
29
23
27
23
20
m
21
33
26
33
18
16
24
20
30
24
30
28
22
20
20
21
22
27
19
29
24
26

OECD average

13

4 - 16

21

81

98

84

28

27

30

6

5

7

2

24

EU21 average

14

4 - 16

17

86

98

87

29

26

31

6

5

6

2

23

Argentina2
Brazil5
China
Colombia
India
Indonesia
Latvia
Russian Federation
Saudi Arabia
South Africa2

12
10
m
7
m
8
15
11
5
m

5 - 16
6 - 15
m
5 - 13
m
6 - 15
4 - 18
7 - 17
7 - 11
m

m
16
m
19
m
2
0
18
0
m

m
65
m
62
m
27
86
76
17
m

m
95
m
93
m
90
98
93
88
m

m
70
m
57
m
71
94
84
m
m

m
20
m
17
m
12
28
20
m
m

m
18
m
16
m
12
25
18
m
m

m
21
m
18
m
13
32
22
m
m

m
7
m
6
m
0
5
3
1
0

m
6
m
6
m
0
4
3
1
0

m
8
m
7
m
0
6
4
1
0

m
2
m
2
m
0
1
0
1
0

m
28
m
30
m
27
21
20
30
27

G20 average

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

Ages
3-4

Ages
5-14

Ages
15-19 M + W

Notes: 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. Rates above 100% in the calculation are shown in italics.
1. Includes only institution-based early childhood programmes that have an intentional education component. These are not the only form of effective education
available below the age of 3, therefore inferences about access to and quality of early childhood education and care should be made with caution. In countries where
an integrated system of pre-primary and care exists enrolment rate is noted as not applicable for children aged 2 and under.
2. Year of reference 2012.
3. Excludes post-secondary non-tertiary education.
4. Excludes students aged 17 and older enrolled in tertiary education.
5. Excludes enrolments in ISCED 7 and 8.
Source: OECD. Argentina, China, Colombia, India, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia and South Africa: UNESCO Institute for Statistics. Latvia: Eurostat. See Annex 3 for notes
(www.oecd.org/education/education-at-a-glance-19991487.htm).
Please refer to the Reader’s Guide for information concerning symbols for missing data and abbreviations.
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933285743

316 Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

Who participates in education? – INDICATOR C1

chapter C

Table C1.2. Percentage of students in upper secondary and post-secondary non-tertiary education,

by programme orientation and age group (2013)

Vocational

General

Of which, enrolled
part-time

Vocational, in combined
school- and work-based
programmes only

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7)

(8)

(9)

(10)

(11)

(12)

50
70
60
m
31
74
43
34
70
43
48
m
26
31
1
40
59
23
18
60
39
67
33
52
49
46
68
66
34
47
66
45
44
m

79
10
41
m
3
17
66
20
61
14
43
m
17
65
83
0
6
m
0
23
5
42
71
25
6
29
6
23
50
33
23
5
53
m

78
a
39
m
m
0
0
0
a
m
a
m
8
31
a
a
m
2
m
1
a
1
75
4
5
a
2
23
24
20
0
a
66
m

m
34
4
m
m
7
43
0
11
12
41
m
19
13
a
4
m
a
a
14
a
m
m
15
7
a
5
a
m
1
60
a
25
m

82
29
43
m
67
29
75
68
51
60
65
m
74
82
100
59
41
77
82
44
61
45
87
53
47
61
32
39
79
54
37
53
66
m

18
71
57
m
33
71
25
32
49
40
35
m
26
18
0
41
59
23
18
56
39
55
13
47
53
39
68
61
21
46
63
47
34
m

a
a
8
m
a
79
a
a
a
49
10
m
a
2
a
100
a
m
m
a
a
a
x(9)
a
a
a
a
a
m
29
100
a
a
a

100
100
92
m
a
21
a
100
100
51
90
m
100
98
100
a
100
m
m
100
a
100
100d
100
100
100
100
a
m
71
0
a
a
100

73
42
54
m
a
m
a
48
97
10
15
m
17
82
24
a
0
m
m
58
a
85
52d
75
36
27
36
a
m
69
50
a
a
54

75
a
72
m
a
100
a
2
a
m
2
m
28
61
18
a
m
m
m
a
a
0
66d
72
88
0
31
a
m
8
0
a
a
42

m
61
a
m
a
13
a
4
70
a
49
m
100
14
m
a
m
a
m
100
a
97
m
a
a
a
13
a
m
44
0
a
a
m

OECD average
EU21 average

54
50

46
50

31
32

20
15

17
15

59
55

41
45

13
11

87
89

48
41

39
32

47
55

Argentina
Brazil
China
Colombia
India
Indonesia
Latvia
Russian Federation1
Saudi Arabia
South Africa2

m
92
54
74
m
56
61
m
95
88

m
8
46
26
m
44
39
m
5
12

m
21
16
1
m
3
19
m
68
71

m
a
0
a
m
a
0
m
m
m

m
a
46
m
m
a
39
m
m
m

m
92
63
72
m
56
62
m
99
m

m
8
37
28
m
44
38
m
1
m

m
a
67
100
m
a
a
a
a
a

m
100
33
a
m
a
100
100d
a
100

m
48
m
a
m
a
27
9d
a
27

m
a
100
a
m
a
14
0d
a
a

m
a
a
m
m
a
100
m
a
a

G20 average

65

35

30

37

25

69

31

14

86

m

44

49

Of which,
25 years old
and older

Vocational

Total

Of which, enrolled
part-time

Of which,
20 years old
and older

Total

General

(1)

50
30
40
m
69
26
57
66
30
57
52
m
74
69
99
60
41
77
82
40
61
33
67
48
51
54
32
34
66
53
34
55
56
m

General
OECD

Distribution
of 15-19 year-olds

Australia
Austria
Belgium
Canada
Chile
Czech Republic
Denmark
Estonia
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Iceland
Ireland
Israel
Italy
Japan
Korea
Luxembourg
Mexico
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Slovak Republic
Slovenia
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Turkey
United Kingdom
United States

Vocational

Partners

Post-secondary non-tertiary

Vocational, in combined
school- and work-based
programmes only

Upper secondary

1. Upper secondary vocational programmes are partially included in post-secondary non-tertiary and tertiary programmes.
2. Year of reference 2012.
Source: OECD. Argentina, China, Colombia, India, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia and South Africa: UNESCO Institute for Statistics. Latvia: Eurostat. See Annex 3 for notes
(www.oecd.org/education/education-at-a-glance-19991487.htm).
Please refer to the Reader’s Guide for information concerning symbols for missing data and abbreviations.
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933285759

Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

317

C1

chapter C ACCESS TO EDUCATION, PARTICIPATION AND PROGRESSION

Table C1.3. Percentage of students in tertiary ISCED levels and total tertiary,

by intensity of study and gender (2013)

Short-cycle tertiary

Partners

OECD average
EU21 average
Argentina
Brazil
China
Colombia
India
Indonesia
Latvia
Russian Federation2
Saudi Arabia
South Africa1
G20 average

Full-time
M+W

M+W

Men

Women

Full-time
M+W

M+W

Men

Women

Full-time
M+W

M+W

Men

Women

Part-time

Women

Part-time

Men

Part-time

Total tertiary

M+W

Australia
Austria
Belgium
Canada1
Chile
Czech Republic
Denmark
Estonia
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Iceland
Ireland
Israel
Italy
Japan
Korea
Luxembourg
Mexico
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Slovak Republic
Slovenia
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Turkey
United Kingdom
United States

Part-time

Master’s or equivalent

Full-time
M+W
OECD

C1

Bachelor’s or equivalent

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7)

(8)

(9)

(10)

(11)

(12)

(13)

(14)

(15)

(16)

46

54

51

57

75

25

23

27

54

46

44

48

67

33

31

35

100

a

a

a

100

a

a

a

100

a

a

a

100

a

a

a

28

72

90

60

73

27

28

26

64

36

41

32

70

30

32

29

88

12

11

13

79

21

20

22

69

31

28

34

80

20

18

21

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

100

0

0

0

99

1

1

2

94

6

4

7

97

3

2

3

71

29

26

33

89

11

10

12

94

6

7

6

m

m

m

m

a

a

a

a

85

15

18

13

85

15

17

14

85

15

17

13

100

a

a

a

65

35

41

29

41

59

59

59

56

44

48

40

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

68

32

25

33

90

10

10

9

95

5

6

3

86

14

16

12

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

71

29

26

30

67

33

28

37

71

29

25

31

69

31

28

34

52

48

55

39

75

25

23

26

60

40

37

41

71

29

27

30

72

28

24

32

95

5

5

4

59

41

42

40

85

15

15

15

100

a

a

a

80

20

19

21

94

6

7

5

86

14

13

15

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

97

3

2

3

90

10

8

12

98

2

2

3

92

8

6

9

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

100

0

0

0

99

1

0

1

57

43

49

38

83

17

18

15

100

a

a

a

100

a

a

a

100

a

a

a

100

a

a

a

69

31

27

37

92

8

8

9

86

14

11

17

91

9

8

10

38

62

57

66

63

37

34

39

36

64

63

65

56

44

42

46

60

40

46

24

63

37

32

40

71

29

25

31

63

37

34

40

67

33

32

33

53

47

45

49

52

48

45

50

53

47

45

48

a

a

a

a

95

5

6

4

96

4

5

3

95

5

6

4

82

18

15

19

69d

31d

26d

34d

x(5)

x(6)

x(7)

x(8)

69

31

27

34

54

46

46

45

81

19

17

20

89

11

10

12

77

23

23

22

92

8

5

11

71

29

31

27

64

36

39

34

73

27

28

26

91

9

11

7

45

55

55

55

61

39

34

43

53

47

44

49

73

27

32

23

71

29

35

23

86

14

16

12

76

24

28

19

100

a

a

a

100

a

a

a

100

a

a

a

100

a

a

a

11

89

87

91

86

14

13

15

51

49

47

50

69

31

28

33

46

54

52

55

77

23

22

24

54

46

42

48

62

38

35

39

73

27

27

26

80

20

19

20

74

26

25

26

77

23

22

23

74

26

26

27

81

19

19

19

74

26

26

26

77

23

23

23
m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

100

a

a

a

100

a

a

a

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

69

31

32

30

80

20

20

20

72

28

33

21

75

25

26

24

100

a

a

a

100

a

a

a

100

a

a

a

100

a

a

a

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

a

a

a

100

a

a

a

100

a

a

a

m

m

m

m

51

49

51

48

76

24

24

25

84

16

15

16

73

27

27

27

79d

21d

22d

19d

x(9)

x(10)

x(11)

x(12)

49d

51d

51d

52d

57d

43d

42d

44d

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

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

27

26

27

89

11

11

12

77

23

23

24

79

21

20

22

1. Year of reference 2012.
2. Upper secondary vocational programmes are partially included in post-secondary non-tertiary and tertiary programmes.
Source: OECD. Argentina, China, Colombia, India, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia and South Africa: UNESCO Institute for Statistics. Latvia: Eurostat. See Annex 3 for notes
(www.oecd.org/education/education-at-a-glance-19991487.htm).
Please refer to the Reader’s Guide for information concerning symbols for missing data and abbreviations.
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933285765

318 Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

chapter C

Who participates in education? – INDICATOR C1

Table C1.4a. Percentage of students in primary and secondary education, by type of institution (2013)
Primary

Lower Secondary

Partners

Upper Secondary

Governmentdependent

Independent

Public

Total

Governmentdependent

Independent

Public

Total

Governmentdependent

Independent

Private, of which

Total

Private, of which

Public
OECD

Private, of which

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7)

(8)

(9)

(10)

(11)

(12)

Australia
Austria
Belgium
Canada1
Chile
Czech Republic
Denmark
Estonia
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Iceland
Ireland
Israel
Italy
Japan
Korea
Luxembourg
Mexico
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Slovak Republic
Slovenia
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Turkey
United Kingdom
United States

69

31

31

a

63

37

37

m

63

37

37

m

94

6

6d

x(3)

91

9

9d

x(7)

90

10

10d

x(11)

46

54

54

m

42

58

58

m

41

59

59

m

94

6

6d

x(3)

91

9

9d

x(7)

94

6

6d

x(11)
m

OECD average
EU21 average
Argentina
Brazil
China
Colombia
India
Indonesia
Latvia
Russian Federation
Saudi Arabia
South Africa1
G20 average

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

98

2

2

a

97

3

3

a

85

15

15

a

85

15

15

0

73

27

26

1

98

2

2

0

95

5

a

5

96

4

a

4

97

3

a

3

98

2

2

a

95

5

5

a

81

19

19

a

85

15

14

0

78

22

22

0

68

32

31

1

95

5

5d

x(3)

90

10

10d

x(7)

92

8

8d

x(11)

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

86

14

14

a

85

15

15

a

73

27

27

a

97

3

3

0

99

1

1

0

80

20

19

1
2

99

1

0

1

100

0

0

0

98

2

0

77

23

23

a

84

16

16

a

94

6

6

a

93

7

a

7

96

4

a

4

91

9

5

4

99

1

a

1

93

7

a

7

68

32

a

32

98

2

a

2

82

18

18

a

56

44

44

a

90

10

0

9

81

19

10

9

83

17

7

10

91

9

a

9

89

11

a

11

83

17

a

17

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

98

2

0

2

95

5

0

5

85

15

10

5

97

3

2

0

97

3

3

0

89

11

11

0

96

4

1

3

94

6

2

4

84

16

1

15

88

12

4

8

87

13

7

6

79

21

5

16

94

6

6

a

93

7

7

a

85

15

15

a

99

1

1

0

100

0

0

0

96

4

2

2

68

32

28

4

71

29

27

3

75

25

17

8

90

10

10

0

85

15

15

0

82

18

18

0

94

6

1

4

91

9

3

6

85

15

9

5
3

97

3

a

3

97

3

a

3

97

3

a

89

11

6

4

48

52

47

6

26

74

69

5

92

8

a

8

92

8

a

8

92

8

a

8

90

10

~

~

86

14

~

~

81

19

~

~

89

11

~

~

84

16

~

~

80

20

~

~

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

84

16

a

16

88

12

a

12

86

14

a

14

94

6

6d

x(3)

91

9

9d

x(7)

90

10

10d

x(11)

82

18

0

18

81

19

0

19

75

25

0

25

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

82

18

a

18

64

36

a

36

50

50

a

50

99

1

a

1

99

1

a

1

98

2

a

2

99

1

a

1

99

1

a

1

98

2

a

2

90

10

x(2)

x(2)

92

8

x(6)

x(6)

80

20

x(10)

x(10)

96

4

x(2)

x(2)

96

4

x(6)

x(6)

94

6

x(10)

x(10)

91

9

~

~

85

15

~

~

78

22

~

~

1. Year of reference 2012.
Source: OECD. Argentina, China, Colombia, India, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia and South Africa: UNESCO Institute for Statistics. Latvia: Eurostat. See Annex 3 for notes
(www.oecd.org/education/education-at-a-glance-19991487.htm).
Please refer to the Reader’s Guide for information concerning symbols for missing data and abbreviations.
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933285770

Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

319

C1

chapter C ACCESS TO EDUCATION, PARTICIPATION AND PROGRESSION

Table C1.4b. Percentage of students in tertiary ISCED level and total tertiary, by type of institution (2013)
Total Tertiary

Short-cycle tertiary

Partners

OECD average
EU21 average
Argentina
Brazil
China
Colombia
India
Indonesia
Latvia
Russian Federation
Saudi Arabia
South Africa1
G20 average

Doctoral or equivalent

Private, of which

Private, of which

Governmentdependent

Independent

Public

Total

Governmentdependent

Independent

Public

Total

Governmentdependent

Independent

Public

Total

Governmentdependent

Independent

Public

Total

Governmentdependent

Independent

Australia
Austria
Belgium
Canada
Chile
Czech Republic
Denmark
Estonia
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Iceland
Ireland
Israel
Italy
Japan
Korea
Luxembourg
Mexico
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Slovak Republic
Slovenia
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Turkey
United Kingdom
United States

Master’s or equivalent

Private, of which

Total

OECD

C1

Bachelor’s or equivalent

Private, of which

Public

Private, of which

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7)

(8)

(9)

(10)

(11)

(12)

(13)

(14)

(15)

(16)

(17)

(18)

(19)

(20)

92

8

3

6

74

26

16

10

95

5

0

5

95

5

a

5

99

1

a

1

84

16

16d

x(3)

82

18

18d

x(7)

79

21

21d x(11)

89

11

11d x(15)

99

1

1d x(19)

42

58

57

m

37

63

63

m

43

57

57

0

40

60

60

1

58

42

42

0

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

16

84

12

72

3

97

2

94

20

80

15

65

26

74

16

58

44

56

44

11

87

13

2

11

86

14

14

a

84

16

3

13

90

10

a

10

100

0

a

0

98

2

2

0

97

3

3

0

97

3

3

0

100

0

0

0

100

0

0

0

16

84

74

10

a

a

a

a

23

77

64

13

1

99

95

4

0

100

99

1

72

28

28

a

100

0

0

a

65

35

35

a

92

8

8

a

100

0

0

a

79

21

3

18

67

33

12

21

86

14

2

13

78

22

0

22

99

1

0

1

100

0

0

0

m

m

m

m

92

8

8d

x(3)

80

20

20d

x(7)

88

12

12d x(11)

97

3

3d x(15)

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

83

17

17

a

44

56

56

a

87

13

13

a

89

11

11

a

94

6

6

a

81

19

19

0

45

55

55

0

81

19

19

0

83

17

17

0

95

5

5

0

m

m

98

2

m

m

m

m

m

m

98

2

0

2

97

3

0

3

99

1

0

1

15

85

73

12

38

62

62

0

12

88

73

16

7

93

79

14

0

100

100

0

91

9

a

9

0

100

0

100

90

10

a

10

92

8

a

8

95

5

0

5

21

79

a

79

8

92

a

92

20

80

a

80

47

53

a

53

75

25

a

25

19

81

a

81

2

98

a

98

24

76

a

76

31

69

a

69

36

64

a

64

m

m

m

m

100

0

0

0

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

69

31

a

31

96

4

a

4

69

31

a

31

47

53

a

53

67

33

a

33

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

100

a

a

a

88

12

11

1

57

43

40

4

96

4

4

0

97

3

3

0

100

0

0

0

83

17

7

9

60

40

40

0

81

19

7

12

95

5

2

3

98

2

1

1

72

28

a

28

89

11

a

11

70

30

a

30

74

26

a

26

93

7

a

7

82

18

0

18

a

a

a

a

79

21

0

21

85

15

0

15

93

7

0

7

82

18

0

17

74

26

26

a

81

19

0

19

83

17

0

17

94

6

0

6

86

14

6

8

76

24

2

21

85

15

7

8

92

8

5

2

87

13

4

10

84

16

2

14

80

20

13

7

84

16

0

16

85

15

0

15

92

8

0

8

91

9

9

0

51

49

49

0

95

5

5

0

92

8

8

0

93

7

7

0

82

18

9

9

8

92

19

73

80

20

11

9

95

5

3

2

100

0

0

0

94

6

a

6

97

3

a

3

94

6

a

6

85

15

a

15

94

6

a

6

a

100

100

a

a

100

100

a

a

100

100

a

a

100

100

a

a

100

100

a

72

28

a

28

90

10

a

10

66

34

a

34

46

54

a

54

62

38

a

38

69

31

~

~

59

41

~

~

69

31

~

~

71

29

~

~

80

20

~

~

74

26

~

~

66

34

~

~

74

26

~

~

76

24

~

~

84

16

~

~

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

58

42

a

42

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

85

15

15

a

87

13

13

a

81

19

19

a

100

a

a

a

100

a

a

a

52

48

0

48

76

24

0

24

42

58

0

58

28

72

0

72

68

32

0

32

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

32

68

a

68

50

50

a

50

79

21

a

21

8

92

65

27

41

59

18

41

a

100

72

28

a

100

92

8

a

100

93

7

87

13

a

13

95

5

a

5

83

17

a

17

86

14

a

14

100

0

a

0

94

6

x(2)

x(2)

100

0

x(6)

x(6)

94

6

x(10) x(10)

82

18

x(14) x(14)

100

0

0

0

95

5

x(2)

x(2)

90

10

x(6)

x(6)

97

3

x(10) x(10)

95

5

x(14) x(14)

100

0

0

0

71

29

~

~

63

37

~

~

68

32

69

31

80

20

~

~

~

~

~

~

1. Year of reference 2012.
Source: OECD. Argentina, China, Colombia, India, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia and South Africa: UNESCO Institute for Statistics. Latvia: Eurostat. See Annex 3 for notes
(www.oecd.org/education/education-at-a-glance-19991487.htm).
Please refer to the Reader’s Guide for information concerning symbols for missing data and abbreviations.
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933285780

320 Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

Who participates in education? – INDICATOR C1

chapter C

Table C1.5. Expected years in education from age 5 through 39, by level of education,

Partners

M+W

Men

Men

Women

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7)

(8)

(9)

(10)

(11)

(12)

(13)

(14)

(15)

16
17
16
16
m
17
19
17
18
m
18
m
16
18
17
15
17
16
m
15
14
18
15
17
16
17
15
17
16
16
17
17
15
15

16
17
16
16
m
17
19
16
18
m
18
m
16
17
17
15
16
15
m
15
14
18
15
17
15
17
15
16
16
16
17
17
15
15

16
17
16
16
m
18
19
18
19
m
18
m
16
18
17
16
17
15
m
15
14
18
16
17
16
17
16
18
17
17
17
17
15
16

3
a
3
1
m
0
1
1
2
m
0
m
1
2
1
0
0
0
m
0
a
0
3
1
2
0
1
1
1
3
1
a
2
2

3
a
2
0
m
0
0
1
2
m
0
m
1
2
0
0
0
0
m
0
a
0
2
1
2
0
1
1
1
2
1
a
2
2

3
a
3
1
m
0
1
1
2
m
0
m
1
2
1
0
0
0
m
0
a
0
3
1
3
0
1
1
1
3
1
a
2
2

19
17
19
16
17
17
20
18
20
16
18
m
17
20
18
16
17
16
17
15
14
18
18
18
18
17
16
18
18
19
17
17
17
17

19
17
18
16
17
17
19
17
19
16
18
m
17
19
18
16
16
16
18
15
14
18
17
18
17
17
16
18
17
18
17
17
16
17

19
17
19
17
17
18
20
18
20
17
18
m
17
20
18
16
17
15
17
15
14
18
19
19
19
18
17
19
18
20
17
17
17
18

0
1
1
m
1
1
1
2
2
1
1
m
m
1
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
2
1
1
1
1
2
2
0
0
1

7
4
6
6
6
5
7
6
6
5
4
m
4
7
8
6
5
6
6
6
7
6
6
7
6
7
4
6
6
7
6
5
6
6

4
4
3
3
2
4
4
3
3
4
6
m
4
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
3
3
3
5
3
4
3
3
4
3
3

3
4
5
3
4
4
4
3
5
3
3
m
4
5
3
3
5
3
3
4
2
3
4
4
3
3
4
5
4
4
4
4
5
3

1
0
0
m
a
m
a
1
0
0
1
m
1
0
1
0
0
0
m
0
a
0
1
0
1
0
0
a
m
0
0
a
a
m

4
4
3
3
4
3
4
3
4
3
3
m
3
3
3
3
3
m
5
1
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
3
3
4
3
4

Women M + W

Men

All levels
of education combined

Women M + W

Upper secondary

Tertiary

All levels
of education combined

Post-secondary
non-tertiary

All levels
of education combined

Lower secondary

Full-time + Part-time1

Primary

Australia
Austria
Belgium
Canada2
Chile
Czech Republic
Denmark
Estonia
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Iceland
Ireland
Israel
Italy
Japan
Korea
Luxembourg3
Mexico
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Slovak Republic
Slovenia
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Turkey
United Kingdom
United States

Part-Time1

Early childhood

OECD

intensity of study and gender (2013)

Full-time

Men + Women

OECD average

16

16

17

1

1

1

17

17

18

1

6

3

4

0

3

EU21 average

17

16

17

1

1

1

18

17

18

1

6

4

4

0

3

Argentina
Brazil4
China
Colombia
India
Indonesia
Latvia
Russian Federation
Saudi Arabia
South Africa2

m
16
m
14
m
14
17
14
m
m

m
15
m
14
m
14
16
14
m
m

m
16
m
15
m
14
17
15
m
m

m
a
m
a
m
a
1
2
m
m

m
a
m
a
m
a
1
1
m
m

m
a
m
a
m
a
1
2
m
m

m
16
m
14
m
14
18
16
13
m

m
15
m
14
m
14
17
16
14
m

m
16
m
15
m
14
18
16
12
m

m
1
m
1
m
1
2
2
m
m

m
5
m
5
m
6
6
4
m
m

m
4
3
4
m
3
3
5
m
m

m
3
2
2
m
2
3
1
m
m

m
0
m
0
m
a
0
1
a
m

m
2
1
2
m
2
3
4
m
m

G20 average

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

4

3

m

3

1. Expected years in part-time education must be interpreted with caution since they may reflect variations due to different intensities of participation among
countries, levels and individuals of different ages.
2. Year of reference 2012.
3. High levels of enrolment abroad and immigration may affect expected years in education.
4. Excludes enrolments in ISCED 7 and 8.
Source: OECD. Argentina, China, Colombia, India, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia and South Africa: UNESCO Institute for Statistics. Latvia: EUROSTAT. See Annex 3 for notes
(www.oecd.org/education/education-at-a-glance-19991487.htm).
Please refer to the Reader’s Guide for information concerning symbols for missing data and abbreviations.
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933285796

Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

321

C1

HOW DO EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION SYSTEMS DIFFER
AROUND THE WORLD?
• Fifteen-year-old students who had attended at least one year of pre-primary education perform

INDICATOR C2

better on the OECD Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) test than those who
did not, even after accounting for their socio-economic backgrounds.

• Early childhood education is particularly beneficial for students with an immigrant background.
Among 15-year-old immigrant students who arrived in their OECD host country before the age of 6,
the gap in performance between those who had attended pre-primary education and those who had
not is equivalent to around two years of schooling.

• In a majority of OECD countries, education now begins for most children well before they are
5 years old. Some 74% of 3-year-olds are enrolled in early childhood education across OECD countries;
among OECD countries that are part of the European Union, 80% of 3-year-olds are enrolled.

Chart C2.1. Enrolment rates at age 3 and 4 in early childhood education (2013)

Israel
France
Belgium
United Kingdom
New Zealand
Iceland
Spain
Norway
Italy
Sweden
Germany
Denmark
Korea
Estonia
Slovenia
Netherlands
Latvia
Japan
EU21 average
Portugal
Hungary
Russian Federation
OECD average
Luxembourg
Finland
Slovak Republic
Austria
Czech Republic
Poland
Ireland
Chile
United States
Mexico
Australia
Indonesia
Colombia
Brazil
Turkey
Switzerland
Saudi Arabia1

%

100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0

Enrolment rates at age 3 in early childhood educational programmes (ISC 01)
Enrolment rates at age 3 in pre-primary education (ISC 02)
Enrolment rates at age 4 (ISC 02 +ISC 1)

1. Year of reference 2014.
Countries are ranked in descending order of the enrolment rates of 3 year-olds in pre-primary programmes.
Source: OECD. Table C2.1. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/education/education-at-a-glance- 19991487.htm).
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933284184

Context
As family structures change, so do the relative ages of parents. More women and men are waiting
until later in life to begin their families. They do so for a number of reasons, including planning for
greater financial security and emotional maturity, taking more time to find a stable relationship, and
committing to their careers before turning their attention to having children. As younger and older
parents are also more likely to be in the workforce today, there is a growing need for early childhood
education. In addition, there is increasing awareness of the key role that early childhood education
plays in the cognitive and emotional development of the young. As a result, ensuring the quality of
early childhood education and care (ECEC) has become a policy priority in many countries.
Enrolling children in early childhood education can also mitigate social inequalities and promote
better student outcomes overall. Many of the inequalities found in education systems are already
evident when children enter formal schooling and persist as they progress through the school system.
Because inequalities tend to grow when school is not compulsory, earlier entrance into the school
system may reduce these inequalities. In addition, pre-primary education helps to prepare children to
enter and succeed in formal schooling.
There are many different ECEC systems and structures within OECD countries. Consequently, there
is also a range of different approaches to identifying the boundary between early childhood education
and childcare (Box C2.1 and see the Definitions section). These differences should be taken into account
when drawing conclusions from international comparisons.

322 Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

Other findings

• Almost nine out of ten 4-year-olds (88%) are enrolled in early childhood or primary education
across OECD countries.

• Some 84% of funding of pre-primary educational institutions in European OECD countries come
from public sources compared to 80% on average across OECD countries.

• Expenditure on pre-primary education accounts for an average of 0.6% of GDP while expenditure

INDICATOR C2

on early childhood education development accounts for an average of 0.4% of GDP.

• In most countries, the proportions of children enrolled in private early childhood education are
considerably larger than those enrolled in private primary and secondary educational institutions.
Thus, more than 50% of children enrolled in early childhood development programmes attend
private institutions, on average. This can result in heavy financial burdens for parents, even when
government subsidies are provided.

• The ratio of children to teaching staff is an indicator of the resources devoted to early childhood
education. The child-teacher ratio at the pre-primary level, excluding non-teaching staff (e.g. teachers’
aides), ranges from more than 20 children per teacher in Chile, China, Colombia, France, Indonesia
and Mexico, to fewer than 10 in Estonia, Iceland, New Zealand, the Russian Federation, Slovenia,
Sweden and the United Kingdom.

• Some countries make extensive use of teachers’ aides in pre-primary education. Twelve countries
reported smaller ratios of children to contact staff than of children to teaching staff. As a result,
the ratios of children to contact staff in pre-primary education are substantially lower than the
ratios of children to teaching staff (more than two fewer children) in Austria, Chile, China, France,
Norway and the Russian Federation.
Trends
Over the past decade, many countries have expanded early childhood education. This increased focus
has resulted in the extension of compulsory education to lower ages in some countries, free early
childhood education, universal provision of early childhood education, and the creation of programmes
that integrate care with formal pre-primary education.
On average among those OECD countries with 2005 and 2013 data, enrolments in pre-primary
education rose from 52% of 3-year-olds in 2005 to 72% in 2013, and from 69% of 4-year-olds in
2005 to 85% in 2013. The enrolment rates of 4-year-olds in pre-primary education increased by
20 percentage points or more in Australia, Chile, Korea, Mexico, Poland, Russian Federation and
Turkey between 2005 and 2013.
Note
ISCED level 0 refers to early childhood programmes that have an intentional education component.
ISCED level 0 programmes target children below the age of entry into primary education (ISCED
level 1). These programmes aim to develop cognitive, physical and socio-emotional skills necessary for
participation and well-being in school and society.
Thanks to the new ISCED classification, level 0 covers now early childhood education for all ages,
including very young children. Programmes are sub-classified into two categories, depending on the
level of complexity of the educational content: early childhood educational development (code 01) and
pre-primary education (code 02). Early childhood educational development programmes (code 01) are
generally designed for children younger than 3. They are introduced as a new category in ISCED 2011
and were not covered by ISCED-97. Pre-primary education (code 02) corresponds exactly to level 0
in ISCED-97. Early childhood educational development programmes are not provided in Belgium
(except in the Flemish Community), the Czech Republic, France, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Luxembourg,
Poland, Portugal, the Slovak Republic and Switzerland. In these countries, other structures exist, but
the programmes providing ECEC are outside the scope of ISCED 2011 or outside the scope of the UOE
data collection (see more details in Box C2.1 and in the Definitions section).

Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

323

chapter C ACCESS TO EDUCATION, PARTICIPATION AND PROGRESSION

Analysis

C2

In a majority of OECD countries, ECEC policy has paralleled the evolution of women’s participation in the labour
force. More and more women have become salaried employees since the 1970s, as the service- and knowledge-based
economies expanded. Because economic prosperity depends on maintaining a high employment-to-population
ratio, encouraging more women to enter the labour market has prompted greater government interest in expanding
ECEC services. In the 1970s and 1980s, European governments, in particular, put family and childcare policies into
place to encourage couples to have children and ensure that it is feasible for women to combine work and family
responsibilities (OECD, 2013a; 2011a).
There is a growing body of evidence that children who start strong in their learning and well-being will have better
outcomes when they grow older. Such evidence has prompted policy makers to design early interventions and
re-think their education spending patterns to gain “value for money”.
Enrolment in early childhood education
Early childhood education, as defined in the ISCED 2011 classification, is the initial stage of organised instruction for
many children and can play a significant role in their development. While primary and lower secondary enrolment
patterns are fairly similar throughout OECD countries, there is significant variation in early childhood education
programmes among OECD and other G20 countries. This includes the overall level of participation in programmes,
the typical starting age for children, financing and the duration of the programme (Table C2.5).
In most OECD countries, education now begins for most children well before they are 5 years old. Almost nine
out of ten 4-year-olds (88%) are enrolled in pre-primary and primary education across OECD countries. In the
OECD countries that are part of the European Union, 91% of 4-year-olds are enrolled. Enrolment rates for pre-primary
and primary education at this age vary from 95% or more in Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, Iceland, Ireland,
Israel, Italy, Japan, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Spain and the United Kingdom, to less
than 60% in Colombia, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia and Turkey. Switzerland also falls into this group, but because
enrolment in integrated programmes is not reported for those countries (see the Definitions section), the true
enrolment rate cannot be calculated and is likely to be higher than that reported here. In Switzerland, the enrolment
rate in early childhood education is highest among 5-year-old children (Table C2.1).
Enrolment in early childhood education and PISA performance at age 15
On average across OECD countries, 74% of the 15-year-old students assessed by the OECD Programme for
International Student Assessment (PISA) reported that they had attended more than one year of pre-primary
education. According to students’ responses, enrolment in more than one year of pre-primary education was nearly
universal about ten years ago in Belgium, France, Hungary, Iceland, Japan and the Netherlands, where over 90% of
15-year-olds reported that they had attended pre-primary education for more than one year. Pre-primary education
is rare in Turkey, where fewer than 30% of 15-year-olds had attended pre-primary education for any period of time.
More than one year of pre-primary education is uncommon in Australia, Chile, Ireland and Poland, where fewer than
52% of students reported that they had attended pre-primary education for that length of time (see OECD, 2013b,
Table IV.3.33).

Box C2.1. Coverage of early childhood education programmes (ISCED 01 and ISCED 02) in Indicator C2
In ISCED 2011 (and now for the first time in Education at a Glance 2015), level 0 covers early childhood
education for all ages, including very young children. Programmes are sub-classified into two categories
depending on age and the level of complexity of the educational content: early childhood educational
development (code 010) and pre-primary education (code 020). Early childhood educational development
programmes (code 010) are generally designed for children younger than 3. They are introduced as a new
category in ISCED 2011 and were not covered by ISCED 1997. Pre-primary education (code 020) corresponds
exactly to level 0 in ISCED 1997.
Data from age-integrated programmes designed to include children both younger and older than 3 should be
allocated to 010 and 020, according to the age of the children, as indicated above. This may involve estimation
of expenditures and personnel at levels 010 and 020, respectively.
…

324 Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

How do early childhood education systems differ around the world? – INDICATOR C2

chapter C

However, some countries internally define early childhood education more broadly than others. Thus, the
comparability of international statistics on programmes at ISCED level 0 depends on each country’s willingness
and ability to report data for this level according to a standard international definition, even if that definition
diverges from the one that the country uses in compiling its own national statistics. In this regard, the data
reported in Education at a Glance as ISCED level 0 programmes may differ from national reporting of early
childhood education.
To ensure international comparability of data, several criteria need to be met to determine whether or not a
programme should be classified as ISCED level 0 and included in reporting. For a programme to be reported
as ISCED level 0, it must:

• Have adequate intentional educational properties; and
• Be institutionalised; and
• Be targeted at children within the age range starting from age 0 up to the age of entry into ISCED level 1
education; and also

• Meet the minimum intensity/duration (an intensity of at least 2 hours per day; and a duration of at least
100 days a year).
Programmes should wherever possible also:

• Have a regulatory framework recognised by the relevant national authorities; and
• Have trained or accredited staff as per the appropriate regulatory framework.Programmes that provide
childcare only (i.e. supervision, nutrition and health) are excluded from this Indicator. Where both
educational and non-educational programmes exist and it is possible to enrol in each independently, only the
educational programmes are reported in Indicator C2. For example, in an institution that offers a daytime
educational programme as well as extended afternoon or evening childcare programmes, and where parents
may choose to enrol their child in either or both programmes, only the daytime educational programme is
reported in Indicator C2. Integrated programmes in which the non-educational portion is greater than the
educational portion may be included as long as the educational portion meets certain criteria.
ISCED level 0 also excludes purely family-based arrangements that may be purposeful but do not meet the
UOE definition of a “programme” (e.g. informal learning by children from their parents, other relatives or
friends is not included under ISCED level 0). Also excluded are learning activities delivered from private homes
or other institutionalised centres that are outside the jurisdiction of an appropriate national early childhood
education authority or regulatory body, regardless of whether the activities are organised in the style of an
approved early childhood education programme. An example of this would be a private citizen who, of his or
her own volition, provides learning opportunities for young children that nominally meet the ISCED level
criteria around intentional education, intensity/duration and staff qualification requirements, but who is not
recognised by an authorising body.
Examples of programmes to be excluded from reporting include:

• Programmes where attendance can be ad-hoc or of a drop-in style where individual children will not
experience a continuity of structured learning opportunities.

• Short-duration programmes, such as vacation care, which may have an educational curriculum but not a
sustained period of instruction or learning opportunities.

• Programmes with intentional educational properties but with no minimum level of attendance, such as
when parents are free to choose an intensity and duration of their child’s attendance that does not meet the
ISCED level 0 criteria.

• Early childhood services that are open for extended hours and provide intentional educational activities
during these hours, but do not require a minimum intensity/duration of attendance or enrolment.
OECD countries will continue working together to improve methods of reporting statistics on early childhood
education. Country-specific information can be found in Annex 3 of this publication and in Table C2.5.

Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

325

C2

chapter C ACCESS TO EDUCATION, PARTICIPATION AND PROGRESSION

Participation in early childhood education is particularly beneficial for children with an immigrant background.
Across OECD countries, an average of 69% of 3-6 year-old immigrant children were enrolled in pre-primary
education in 2012 – an attendance rate that was 7 percentage points lower than among their native-born peers.
In the European Union, immigrant children are only marginally less likely than native-born children to attend
pre-primary education. There are, however, some exceptions: in the Czech Republic, Italy and Norway, for example,
attendance rates are 10 percentage points lower among immigrant children (see Figure 13.5 in Indicators of Immigrant
Integration 2015: Settling In [OECD/European Union, 2015]).
Among immigrant children of comparable socio-economic backgrounds who had arrived in their OECD host country
before the age of 6, those who had attended pre-primary education scored better in the PISA reading assessment,
when they were 15 years old, than those who had not attended pre-primary education in their OECD host country.
The performance gap between the two groups is 75 score points, equivalent to around two years of schooling
(the performance gap related to pre-school attendance is narrower, but still considerable, among non-immigrant
15-year-old students). The benefits of early childhood education for immigrant children are particularly significant
in France, Finland, Israel and the United States. This finding has special resonance in the United States, where
proportion of immigrant children who are enrolled in early childhood education is relatively small (Chart C2.2).
In addition, early arrival in the host country (e.g. before the age of six) contributes to better results among immigrant
children. Thus, those who arrived in their OECD host country between the ages of 6 and 10 earn PISA reading scores
that are, on average, 19 points lower compared to those who had arrived in their host country before the age of 6. The
gap exceeds 39 score points (the equivalent of around one year of schooling) in Belgium, Finland, France, Germany,
Iceland and Israel (see Table 13.A1.6 in Indicators of Immigrant Integration 2015: Settling In [OECD/European Union,
2015]).

Chart C2.2. Mean PISA scores of 15-year-old students who did or did not attend preschool
in the host country (2012)
Differences in PISA reading scores after accounting for socio-economic background
Native-born offspring of native-born

%

Foreign-born who arrived before the age of 6

200
150
100
50

United States

Israel

France

Finland

United Kingdom

Lithuania

OECD total (34)

Sweden

Germany

EU total (26)

Italy

Switzerland

Netherlands

Spain

Mexico

Canada

Turkey

New Zealand

Ireland

Austria

Australia

Luxembourg

Norway

Estonia

Denmark

Belgium

Chile

Slovenia

Greece

Latvia

Bulgaria

Croatia

-50

Hungary

0
Portugal

C2

PISA analyses find that in most countries, students who had attended at least one year of pre-primary education tend
to perform better than those who had not, even after accounting for students’ socio-economic background. PISA
research also shows that the relationship between pre-primary attendance and performance tends to be stronger
in school systems with longer duration pre-primary education, smaller child-to-teacher ratios in pre-primary
education, and higher public expenditure per child at the pre-primary level (OECD 2013b, Table IV.3.33).

Note: White bars and markers indicate differences which are not statistically significant (with a probability of 0.05). Positive figures means that those
who had attended preschool scored better in the PISA reading assessment than those who had not attended preschool.
Countries are ranked in ascending order of the difference in PISA reading scores between the immigrants who arrived in their OECD host country before the age
of 6 and who had attended pre-primary education and those who had not attended pre-primary education.
Source: OECD Programme of International Student Assessment (PISA). Indicators of Immigrant Integration 2015: Settling In (http://dx.doi.org/
10.1787/9789264234024-en), Figure 13.6. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/education/education-at-a-glance- 19991487.htm).
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933284199

Early childhood education programmes for even younger children are not as extensive. In some countries, demand
for early childhood education for children aged 3 and under far outstrips supply, even in countries that provide for
long parental leave. Four out of ten 2-year-olds are enrolled in early childhood education across OECD countries, as a
whole, growing to almost three out of four (74%) for 3-year-olds. The highest enrolment rates of 3-year-olds in early

326 Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

How do early childhood education systems differ around the world? – INDICATOR C2

chapter C

childhood education are found in Belgium, Denmark, France, Iceland, Italy, New Zealand, Norway, Spain and the
United Kingdom. In countries where public funding for parental leave is limited, many working parents must either
look to the private market, where parents’ ability to pay significantly influences access to quality services, or else
rely on informal arrangements with family, friends and neighbours (Table C2.1, Chart C2.1 and Starting Strong III
[OECD, 2011b]).
Some countries have made access to pre-primary education almost universal for children by the time they are three.
The availability of early childhood education is growing quickly in most countries. On average among OECD countries
with 2005 and 2013 data, enrolments in pre-primary education rose from 52% of 3-year-olds in 2005 to 72% in
2013, and from 69% of 4-year-olds in 2005 to 85% in 2013 (Table C2.1).
Early childhood education, by type of institutions
As countries continue to expand their early childhood education programmes, it will be important to consider
parents’ needs and expectations regarding accessibility, cost, programme and staff quality and accountability. When
parents’ needs for quality, accessibility or accountability are not met in public institutions, some parents may be
more inclined to send their children to private pre-primary institutions, childcare programmes, or extracurricular
activities. (Shin et al., 2009).

Chart C2.3. Percentage of pupils enrolled in public institutions
in early childhood education (2013)
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0

Percentage of pupils enrolled in public institutions in early childhood educational development programmes
Percentage of pupils enrolled in public institutions in pre-primary education

Russian Federation
Czech Republic
Slovenia
Estonia
Slovak Republic
Latvia
Switzerland
South Africa1
Canada
Hungary
Finland
Luxembourg
Turkey
France
Iceland
Mexico
Sweden
Poland
Denmark
Brazil
Austria
Italy
Netherlands
Spain
EU21 average
Colombia
OECD average
United States
Israel
Saudi Arabia2
Norway
Portugal
China
Belgium
United Kingdom
G20 average
Australia
Germany
Japan
Korea
Indonesia
Ireland
New Zealand

%

1. Year of reference 2012.
2. Year of reference 2014.
Countries are ranked in descending order of the percentage of pupils enrolled in public institutions in pre-primary education.
Source: OECD. Table C2.2. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/education/education-at-a-glance- 19991487.htm).
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933284204

In most countries, a minority of students attends private schools at the primary through upper secondary levels.
However, the proportions of children enrolled in private pre-primary schools are considerably larger: some 15% of
children in pre-primary education are enrolled in independent private schools on average across OECD countries.
When considering pre-primary independent private and government-dependent private schools together, 39%
of children are enrolled in private pre-primary programmes. This proportion exceeds 50% in Australia, Belgium,
Germany, Indonesia, Ireland, Japan, Korea, New Zealand and the United Kingdom (Table C2.2 and Chart C2.3).
Moreover, in 12 out of 13 OECD countries with available data, except New Zealand, the share of children enrolled
in private (both independent and government-dependent) early childhood education development programmes
(ISCED 01) is larger than the share enrolled in private pre-primary (ISCED 02) schools. In New Zealand, almost
all early childhood education institutions are private government-dependent, and these cover 98% of enrolled
children at both ISCED 01 and ISCED 02 levels. On average, about 58% of all children enrolled in early childhood
development programmes are in independent or government-dependent private schools while only 39% of preprimary children are. In most of these countries, the proportion of private funding is also larger for early childhood
education development programmes (ISCED 01) than for pre-primary programmes (ISCED 02). This can result in
heavy financial burdens for parents, even when government subsidies are provided (Table C2.2 and Chart C2.3).
Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

327

C2

chapter C ACCESS TO EDUCATION, PARTICIPATION AND PROGRESSION

Public expenditure on pre-primary education is mainly used to support public institutions, but in some countries it
also funds private institutions, to varying degrees. At the pre-primary level, annual expenditure, from both public
and private sources, per child for both public and private institutions averages USD 8 008 in OECD countries.
However, expenditure varies from USD 4 000 or less in Israel, Latvia and South Africa, to more than USD 10 000 in
Australia, Iceland, Luxembourg, Sweden, the United Kingdom and the United States (Table C2.3, and see Table B1.1a
in Indicator B1).
At the early childhood educational development level, annual expenditure, from both public and private sources, per
child, for both public and private institutions averages USD 12 324 in OECD countries with available data.

Chart C2.4. Expenditure on pre-primary educational institutions (2012)
As a percentage of GDP, by funding source
Private expenditure on educational institutions in percentage of GDP
Public expenditure on educational institutions in percentage of GDP

%

1.2
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4

Indonesia3

South Africa2, 4

Australia1

Switzerland2, 4

Korea

Japan

Netherlands

Italy2

Austria

United States1

United Kingdom

Slovak Republic

Germany

Czech Republic

New Zealand

OECD average

Spain

Portugal2

Luxembourg

EU21 average

Belgium

Hungary1

Israel1

France

Poland2

Latvia

Slovenia1

Iceland

0

Finland

0.2
Norway

C2

Financing early childhood education
Sustained public funding is critical for supporting the growth and quality of early childhood education programmes.
Appropriate funding helps to recruit professional staff who are qualified to support children’s cognitive, social and
emotional development. Investment in early childhood facilities and materials also helps support the development
of child-centred environments for learning. In countries that do not channel sufficient public funding to cover
both quantity and quality, some parents may be more inclined to send their children to private ECEC services,
which implies heavy financial burdens (OECD, 2011b); others may prefer to stay home, which can hinder a parent’s
participation in the labour force (OECD, 2011a).

1. Includes some expenditure on childcare.
2. Public institutions only.
3. Year of reference 2013.
4. Public expenditure only.
Countries are ranked in descending order of the total public and private expenditure on pre-primary educational institutions as a percentage of GDP.
Source: OECD. Table C2.3. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/education/education-at-a-glance- 19991487.htm).
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933291276

Expenditure on pre-primary education accounts for an average of 0.6% of the collective GDP. Differences between
countries are significant. For example, while 0.1% or less of GDP is spent on pre-primary education in Indonesia
and South Africa, 0.8% or more is spent in Finland, Iceland, Latvia, Norway, Slovenia, and Sweden (Table C2.3
and Chart C2.4). These differences are largely explained by enrolment rates, legal entitlements and costs, and the
different starting age for primary education; they are also influenced by the extent to which this indicator covers
private early childhood education. In Switzerland, the absence of data on integrated programmes at this level is
also likely to understate the true level of expenditure and enrolments in early childhood education programmes
(see more details in Box C2.1), and may affect the comparability of the data to that of other countries. Inferences
on access to and quality of ECEC should therefore be made with caution (Table C2.3 and Box C2.1). Differences
in expenditure as a percentage of GDP could be influenced by the duration of programmes. In some countries,
like New Zealand, pre-primary education spans two years, while in other countries it spans three or even four
years (see Table C2.5). The duration of a programme has an impact on the level of expenditure devoted to early
childhood education.

328 Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

How do early childhood education systems differ around the world? – INDICATOR C2

chapter C

Publicly funded pre-primary education tends to be more strongly developed in the European than the non-European
countries of the OECD. In Europe, the concept of universal access to education for 3-6 year-olds is generally accepted.
Most countries in this region provide all children with at least two years of free, publicly funded pre-primary
education in schools before they begin primary education. With the exception of Ireland and the Netherlands, such
access is generally a statutory right from the age of 3, and in some countries, even before then. Compared to primary,
secondary and post-secondary non-tertiary education, pre-primary institutions receive the largest proportion of
funds (20%) from private sources. However, this proportion varies widely, ranging from 5% or less in Belgium,
Latvia and Luxembourg, to 50% or more in Australia and Japan (Table C2.3 and Starting Strong II [OECD, 2006]).
The child-teacher ratio varies considerably across OECD countries
Research demonstrates that enriched, stimulating environments and high-quality pedagogy are fostered by betterqualified practitioners, and that better-quality staff-child interactions facilitate better learning outcomes. While
qualifications are one of the strongest predictors of staff quality, the level of qualification tells only part of the
story. Qualifications indicate how much specialised and practical training is included in initial staff education, what
types of professional development and education are available to, and taken up by, staff, and how many years of
experience staff have accumulated. In addition, working conditions can influence professional satisfaction, which
is likely to affect the ability and willingness of professionals to build relationships and interact attentively with
children (Shin et al., 2009). High turnover disrupts the continuity of care, undermines professional development
efforts, lowers overall quality, and adversely affects child outcomes.
The ratio of children to teaching staff is also an important indicator of the resources devoted to education. That
ratio is obtained by dividing the number of full-time equivalent children 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 for students, nor how much time teachers spend teaching. Therefore, it cannot be
interpreted in terms of class size. The number of children per class summarises different factors, but distinguishing
between these factors helps to identify differences in the quality of education systems (see Indicator D2).
Table C2.2 shows the ratio of children to teaching staff and also the ratio of children to contact staff (e.g. teachers and
non-professional staff [teachers’ aides]) in early childhood education. Some countries make extensive use of teachers’
aides at the pre-primary level. Twelve out of 24 OECD and G20 countries reported smaller ratios of children to contact
staff (Column 10 of Table C2.2) than of children to teaching staff. The ratios of children to contact staff are substantially
lower in Austria, Chile, China, France, Norway and the Russia Federation. On average across OECD countries, there are
14 children for every teacher in pre-primary education. The child-teacher ratio, excluding teachers’ aides, ranges from
more than 20 children per teacher in Chile, China, Colombia, France, Indonesia and Mexico, to fewer than 10 in Estonia,
Iceland, New Zealand, the Russian Federation, Slovenia, Sweden and the United Kingdom (Table C2.2 and Chart C2.5).

Chart C2.5. Ratio of pupils to teaching staff in early childhood education (2013)
Public and private institutions, calculation based on full-time equivalents
Ratio

83

Pre-primary education

Early childhood educational development

30
25
20
15
10
0

Chile
Mexico
China
France
Indonesia
Colombia
Turkey
Brazil
Portugal
Poland
Netherlands
G20 average
Switzerland
Belgium
Japan
Spain
Korea
Czech Republic
Latvia
Austria
OECD average
Italy
EU21 average
Slovak Republic
United States
Greece
Norway
Hungary
Luxembourg
Finland
Germany
United Kingdom
Russian Federation
Slovenia
Estonia
New Zealand
Sweden
Iceland

5

Note: The figures should be interpreted with some caution because the indicator compares the teacher/student ratios in countries with “education-only”
and “integrated education and daycare” programmes. In some countries, the staff requirements in these two types of provision are very different.
Countries are ranked in descending order of students to teaching staff ratios in pre-primary education.
Source: OECD. Table C2.2. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/education/education-at-a-glance- 19991487.htm).
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933291280

Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

329

C2

chapter C ACCESS TO EDUCATION, PARTICIPATION AND PROGRESSION

Definitions
Education-only programmes in early childhood education are those that primarily offer education services for a short
period of the day. Working parents usually have to use additional care services in the morning and/or afternoon.

C2

Integrated programmes in early childhood education are those that provide both early childhood education and
care in the same programme.
Some variations at the national level cannot be presented, and information on the “characteristics of programmes”
has been simplified in some cases. For example, in some countries, the starting age of early childhood education
programmes differs among jurisdictions or regions. In these instances, the information that is the most common
or typical is reported.
ISCED level 0 refers to early childhood programmes that have an intentional education component. ISCED level 0
programmes target children below the age of entry into primary education (ISCED level 1).
Programmes at ISCED level 0 are typically designed with a holistic approach to support children’s early cognitive,
language, physical, social and emotional development and to introduce young children to organised instruction in
an institutionalised setting. At this level, programmes are not necessarily highly structured, but they are designed
to provide an organised and purposeful set of learning activities in a safe environment. They allow children to
learn through interaction with other children under the guidance of staff/educators, typically through creative and
play-based activities.
ISCED level 0 refers to those early childhood programmes that have an intentional education component. These
programmes aim to develop the socio-emotional skills necessary for participation in school and society, to develop
some of the skills needed for academic readiness, and to prepare children for entry into primary education.
Along with an intentional child-development and education focus, a key defining factor of ISCED level 0 programmes
is the sustained intensity and duration of delivery of intentional educational activities. These are what differentiate
ISCED level 0 from other programmes, such as childcare and occasional, after hours or vacation care.
ISCED level 0 programmes target children below the age of entry into ISCED level 1. There are two categories of
ISCED level 0 programmes: ISCED 010 - early childhood educational development, and ISCED 020 - pre-primary
education. ISCED 010 has intentional educational content designed for younger children (typically in the age range
of 0 to 2 years), while ISCED 020 is typically designed for children from age 3 to the start of primary education
(ISCED level 1).
Programmes classified at ISCED level 0 may be referred to in many ways nationally, for example: early childhood
education and development, play school, reception, pre-primary, pre-school, Kindergarten, Kita, Krippe, or educación
inicial. For programmes provided in crèches, daycare centres, private homes, nurseries, Tagespflege or guarderías, it
is important to ensure that they meet the ISCED level 0 classification criteria specified below. For international
comparability purposes, the term “early childhood education” is used to label ISCED level 0 (see also Box C2.1 and
ISCED 2011 Operational Manual: Guidelines for Classifying National Education Programmes and Related Qualifications
(OECD/Eurostat/UNESCO Institute for Statistics [2015]).
In addition to the above, the educational properties of ISCED level 0 programmes can be further described as follows:

• ISCED 010 - Early childhood educational development
The learning environment is visually stimulating and language rich, and fosters self-expression with an emphasis on
language acquisition and the use of language for meaningful communication. There are opportunities for active play
so that children can exercise their co-ordination and motor skills under supervision and in interaction with staff.
Typically aimed at very young children aged 0-2.

• ISCED 020 - Pre-primary education
Through interaction with peers and educators, children improve their use of language and their social skills, start
to develop logical and reasoning skills, and talk through their thought processes. They are also introduced to
alphabetical and mathematical concepts, understanding and use of language, and are encouraged to explore their
surrounding world and environment. Supervised gross motor activities (i.e. physical exercise through games and
other activities) and play-based activities can be used as learning opportunities to promote social interactions with
peers and to develop skills, autonomy and school readiness. Aimed at children in the years immediately prior to
starting compulsory schooling, typically aged 3-5.

330 Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

How do early childhood education systems differ around the world? – INDICATOR C2

chapter C

Methodology
ISCED level 0 programmes are usually school-based or otherwise institutionalised for a group of children. As
the institutions authorised to provide ISCED level 0 programmes vary between jurisdictions (e.g. centre-based,
community-based, home-based), to be reported in the UOE collection both the programme and the mode or institution
of delivery should be recognised within the respective early childhood education system. Particular care is given
to programmes delivered from home-based settings: if the programme meets the criteria as set out above and is
recognised under the respective regulations, it is included in reporting.
To further ensure international comparability of data, once a programme has been identified as an ISCED level 0
early childhood education programme by meeting the criteria above, the following rules apply when collecting data
on the programmes for UOE purposes. These rules are applied to programmes in their entirety (not just to the
intentional education component):
Full-time equivalents for enrolments
The concepts used to define full-time and part-time participation at other ISCED levels, such as study load, student
participation, and the academic value or progress that the study represents, are not easily applicable to ISCED level 0.
In addition, the daily or weekly hours that represent a typical full-time enrolment in an education programme
at ISCED level 0 varies widely between countries. Because of this, full-time-equivalents cannot be calculated for
ISCED level 0 programmes in the same way as for other ISCED levels.
A consensus has not been reached on a methodology for calculating FTE for enrolments at ISCED 0 level but it
is recommended in UOE reporting to estimate children enrolled in full-time equivalents by ISCED 0 enrolment
headcount (i.e. all enrolments counted as full-time). Headcount is not a satisfying criterion for full-time equivalent
for indicators, such as expenditure per student (even if it is accepted for enrolment comparisons), but most countries
are in favour of this solution; the same guarantee was not offered by other estimation methods.
Institutions that provide both education programmes and childcare programmes
In some countries, institutions providing early childhood education also provide extended day or evening
childcare programmes. Education programmes traditionally provided during the day may now be provided outside
these hours to offer further flexibility to parents and carers of children. These are given special consideration in
reporting.
Where the childcare components are distinctly separate from early childhood education components (for example,
the two components are offered as individual programmes in which children must enrol separately), the childcare
components are excluded from reporting. If the programme is in the form of extended day or evening programmes
that meet all of the criteria listed above, they are included in reporting as educational programmes.
Where both education and noneducation programmes exist and it is possible to enrol in each independently, only
the education programmes are reported. Integrated programmes are included when the non-education portion is
greater than the education portion, only when the education portion meets the criteria listed above. For example,
in an institution that offers a daytime education programme as well as extended afternoon or evening childcare
programmes, and parents may choose to enrol their child in either or both programmes, only the daytime educational
programme is reported in the UOE data collection.
Note regarding data from Israel
The statistical data for Israel are supplied by and are under the responsibility of the relevant Israeli authorities. The use of
such data by the OECD is without prejudice to the status of the Golan Heights, East Jerusalem and Israeli settlements in the
West Bank under the terms of international law.

References
OECD (2013a), “How Do Early Childhood Education and Care (ECEC) Policies, Systems and Quality Vary Across OECD Countries?”,
Education Indicators in Focus, No. 11, OECD Publishing, Paris, http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/5k49czkz4bq2-en.
OECD (2013b), PISA 2012 Results: What Makes Schools Successful (Volume IV): Resources, Policies and Practices, PISA, OECD Publishing,
Paris, http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264201156-en.
OECD (2011a), How’s Life?: Measuring Well-being, OECD Publishing, Paris, http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264121164-en.
Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

331

C2

chapter C ACCESS TO EDUCATION, PARTICIPATION AND PROGRESSION

OECD (2011b), Starting Strong III: A Quality Toolbox for Early Childhood Education and Care, OECD Publishing, Paris, http://dx.doi.
org/10.1787/9789264123564-en.
OECD (2006), Starting Strong II: Early Childhood Education and Care, OECD Publishing, Paris, http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/
9789264035461-en.

C2

OECD/European Union (2015), Indicators of Immigrant Integration 2015: Settling In, OECD Publishing, Paris, http://dx.doi.org/
10.1787/9789264234024-en.
OECD/Eurostat/UNESCO Institute for Statistics (2015), ISCED 2011 Operational Manual: Guidelines for Classifying National
Education Programmes and Related Qualifications, OECD Publishing, Paris, http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264228368-en.
Shin, E., M. Jung and E. Park (2009), “A Survey on the Development of the Pre-school Free Service Model”, Research Report of
the Korean Educational Development Institute, Seoul.

Indicator C2 Tables
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933285801

Table C2.1

Enrolment rates in early childhood education and primary education, by age (2005, 2013)

Table C2.2

Profile of early childhood educational development programmes and pre-primary education (2013)

Table C2.3

Expenditure on early childhood educational institutions (2012)

Table C2.4

Profile of education-only and integrated pre-primary programmes (2013)

Table C2.5

Coverage of early childhood education programmes in OECD and partner countries

Cut-off date for the data: 23 October 2015. Updates can be found on line at http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/eag-data-en.

332 Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

chapter C

How do early childhood education systems differ around the world? – INDICATOR C2

Table C2.1. Enrolment rates in early childhood education and primary education, by age (2005, 2013)
Enrolment rates (2013)

Partners

Enrolment rates (2005)

ISCED 02

ISCED 1

(5)

(6)

(7)

(8)

(9)

(10)

(11)

(12)

(13)

(14)

(15)

(16)

55

0

55

47

15

62

80

2

82

16

85

27

7

34

9

62

71

91

0

91

96

0

100

0

100

100

17

96

40

58

98

m

a

51

51

a

98

98

98

0

98

97

1

98

4

93

98

m

Total

Total

(4)

ISCED 1

ISCED 1

(3)

Age 4
ISCED 02

ISCED 02

ISCED 02

Total

Total

ISCED 02

ISCED 1

ISCED 01

(2)

Age 3

ISCED 02

Total

(1)

Age 6

Total

Age 5

Age 4

ISCED 02

Australia
Austria
Belgium
Canada
Chile
Czech Republic
Denmark
Estonia
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Iceland
Ireland
Israel
Italy
Japan
Korea
Luxembourg
Mexico
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Slovak Republic
Slovenia
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Turkey
United Kingdom
United States

Age 3

ISCED 01
OECD

Age 2

(17)

(18)

(19)

51

2

53

m

m

m

m

0

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

0

m

92

0

92

m

99

m

m

m

m

m

27

2

29

6

45

51

83

0

83

93

0

93

13

84

97

23

30

12

42
91

a

18

18

a

59

59

83

0

83

89

0

89

48

48

97

66

91

0

91

1

92

5

91

96

97

0

97

97

2

99

8

92

99

m

m

m

m

x(2)

67d

67

x(5)

87d

87

91d

0

91

90d

0

90

79d

14

92

80

84

0

84

52

0

52

0

68

68

75

0

75

80

0

80

97

0

98

62

69

0

69

a

11

11

a

100

100

100

0

100

100

1

100

2

99

100

101

101

0

101

59

0

59

0

92

92

96

0

96

97

0

98

34

62

96

80

89

0

89

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

a

56

0

56
91

m

9

m

m

75

m

93

0

93

96

0

96

69

23

92

73

91

0

95

0

95

0

96

96

97

0

97

95

0

96

0

99

99

m

m

m

m

a

0

0

a

46

46

57

37

95

3

99

100

0

100

100

m

m

44

m

45

0

45

0

100

100

100

0

100

99

0

99

15

83

98

66

84

0

84

a

16

16

a

94

94

98

a

98

90

9

99

1

99

100

99

102

0

102
95

a

a

a

a

81

81

95

a

95

97

a

97

a

100

100

69

95

a

83

0

83

0

90

90

93

0

93

91

1

91

0

93

93

14

30

0

30

a

5

5

a

71

71

99

0

99

95

5

100

5

91

96

62

95

a

95

5

0

5

3

40

44

89

0

89

84

28

100

1

100

100

23

69

0

69

a

0

0

a

83

83

100

0

100

99

0

99

0

100

100

m

98

0

98

65

0

65

0

96

96

100

0

100

4

97

100

0

100

100

m

m

0

m

90

0

90

0

95

95

97

0

97

98

0

98

1

100

100

m

m

0

m

a

6

6

a

52

52

66

a

66

92

8

100

78

9

86

28

38

0

38
84

a

0

0

a

78

78

90

0

90

97

0

98

6

96

100

61

84

0

a

12

12

a

63

63

74

0

74

81

0

81

41

50

90

m

m

0

m

68

0

68

0

84

84

89

0

89

91

0

91

5

92

98

67

76

0

76

52

0

52

0

96

96

97

0

97

97

0

97

1

96

97

94

99

0

99

88

0

88

0

93

93

94

0

94

95

0

95

96

1

97

m

m

m

m

a

0

0

a

3

3

41

0

41

96

0

97

58

42

100

9

39

0

39

m

m

m

a

7

7

36

a

36

41

32

74

a

99

99

2

5

0

5

32

0

32

0

97

97

62

34

96

0

97

97

0

97

97

m

m

32

m

m

m

m

a

41

41

66

0

66

85

5

90

21

76

97

39

68

0

68

OECD average
EU21 average

33
26

6
10

39
35

2
1

72
79

74
80

85
88

2
4

88
91

81
84

14
11

95
95

22
31

75
66

97
97

52
67

69
84

3
4

72
84

Argentina
Brazil
China
Colombia
India
Indonesia
Latvia
Russian Federation
Saudi Arabia1
South Africa2

m
31
a
31
m
7
a
51
a
a

m
1
m
2
m
0
0
0
m
m

m
32
m
33
m
7
0
51
m
m

m
44
a
37
m
9
a
0
a
a

m
9
m
10
m
11
83
73
2
m

m
53
m
47
m
21
83
73
2
m

m
70
m
34
m
19
89
79
32
m

m
0
m
1
m
0
0
a
0
m

m
70
m
35
m
19
89
79
32
m

m
81
m
60
m
23
96
80
15
m

m
7
m
19
m
4
0
1
0
m

m
88
m
79
m
27
96
81
15
m

m
10
m
8
m
50
93
75
0
m

m
85
m
78
m
70
4
13
83
m

m
95
m
86
m
100
97
88
83
m

m
m
m
m
m
m
66
55
m
m

m
m
m
m
m
m
73
55
m
m

m
m
m
m
m
m
0
0
m
m

m
m
m
m
m
m
73
55
m
m

G20 average

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

Note: In cases where a category is not applicable (code “a”) in a country, the value zero has been imputed for the purpose of calculating the OECD and EU21 averages.
Early childhood education target children aged below the age of entry into ISCED level 1. There are two categories of ISCED level 0 programmes: early childhood
educational development (ISCED 01) and pre-primary education (ISCED 02). Enrolment rates at young ages should be interpreted with care; 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. Year of reference 2014.
2. Year of reference 2012.
Source: OECD. Argentina, China, Colombia, Indonesia: UNESCO Institute for Statistics. Latvia: Eurostat. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/education/educationat-a-glance-19991487.htm).
Please refer to the Reader’s Guide for information concerning symbols for missing data and abbreviations.
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933285815

Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

333

C2

chapter C ACCESS TO EDUCATION, PARTICIPATION AND PROGRESSION

Table C2.2. Profile of early childhood educational development programmes

and pre-primary education (2013)

Early childhood educational development programmes=ISCED 01, pre-primary education=ISCED 02
Pupils enrolled in pre-primary education
(ISCED 02) as a percentage of total enrolment
in early childhood education (ISCED 01+
ISCED 02)

Public

Government-dependent
private

Independent private

Public

Government-dependent
private

Independent private

Pupils to contact staff
(teachers and teachers aides)

Pupils to teaching staff

Pupils to contact staff
(teachers and teachers aides)

Pupils to teaching staff

Earliest starting age

Usual starting age

Usual duration
(in years)

Usual starting age in ISCED 1

Entry age for compulsory
programmes (if applicable)

Length of compulsory
programmes (if applicable)
(in years)

Full-time (FT) /
Part-time (PT)

OECD

Distribution
of pupils in
ISCED 02,
by type of
institution
(2013)

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7)

(8)

(9)

(10)

(11)

(12)

(13)

(14)

(15)

(16)

(17)

(18)

Australia
Austria
Belgium
Canada
Chile
Czech Republic
Denmark
Estonia
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Iceland
Ireland
Israel
Italy
Japan
Korea
Luxembourg
Mexico
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Slovak Republic
Slovenia
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Turkey
United Kingdom
United States

42
87
m
m
80
100
63
m
79
100
77
m
m
69
m
76
m
100
59
100
95
100
62
64
100
m
100
70
77
73
m
m
83
m

m
34
a
m
m
a
43
x(5)
87
a
27
m
m
81
a
a
a
a
7
a
37
a
2
50
a
a
a
96
52
81
a
m
28
m

m
a
66d x(3)
a
a
m
m
m
m
a
a
12
45
a x(6)
13
a
a
a
73d x(3)
m
m
m
m
19
0
a
a
73
27
a
a
a
a
93
a
a
a
a
63
a
a
98
0
50
0
a
a
a
a
a
a
3
0
16
32
19
0
a
a
m
m
42
30
a
m

37
72
47
93
m
98
80
96d
91
87
35
m
91
87
2
58
70
28
19
90
86
70
2
54
82
54
95
97
69
83
95
88
47
59

63
a
28d x(6)
53
m
7d x(6)
m
m
2
a
20
0
a
4d
9
a
12
0
65d x(6)
m
m
9
a
13
0
0
98
29
12
a
30
a
72
81
a
0
10
a
14
a
30
98
0
46
0
2
17
30
16
5
a
3
0
27
4
17
0
1
4
a
12
44
9
a
41

m
6
a
m
9
a
m
m
m
a
5
m
m
3
a
m
a
a
6
a
26
a
m
x(10)
a
a
a
6
m
m
a
m
m
a

m
9
a
m
13
a
m
x(11)
m
a
5
m
m
3
a
m
a
a
6
a
83
a
4
x(11)
a
a
a
6
9
5
a
m
m
a

m
9
m
m
19
14d
m
m
m
15
9
12
11
6
m
m
14
14
14
11
25
14
m
5d
m
m
13
9
m
6
m
m
m
10

m
14
16
m
27
14
m
9d
10
22
10
12
11
6
m
m
14
15
14
11
25
16
8
11d
16
17
13
9
15
6
16
17
10
12

3
3
3
m
0
3
0
0
0
2
3
4
3
0
3
3
m
3
3
3
3
3
0
0
3
3
2
3
0
1
4
3
3
3

4
3
3
m
4
3
1
3
1
2 to 3
3
4
3
2
3
3
m
3
3 to 5
3
4 to 5
3 to 4
3
1
2 to 3
3
3
3
2 to 3
1 to 2
5
4 to 5
3
4

1
3
3 to 4
m
2
3
5
4
5 to 6
3
3
1 to 2
3
4
1
3
m
3
3
3
3
2 to 3
2
5
4
3
3
3
3 to 4
4 to 5
2
1 to 3
2
1

5
6
6
6
m
6
6
7
7
6
6
6
7
6
4 to 5
6
m
6
6
6
6
6
5
6
7
6
6
6
6
7
6
6
5
6

a
5
a
m
a
a
m
m
a
a
a
5
5
a
a
3
a
a
m
4
3
5
a
a
6
a
a
a
a
a
4
a
a
a

a
1
a
m
a
a
m
m
a
a
a
1
1
a
a
3
a
a
m
2
3
1
a
a
1
a
a
a
a
a
2
a
a
a

PT
FT
FT
m
FT/PT
FT
FT
FT
FT
FT
FT
FT
FT
FT/PT
FT/PT
FT
FT
FT
FT
FT
FT
FT
FT/PT
FT/PT
FT
FT
FT
FT
FT
FT/PT
FT
FT
FT/PT
FT/PT

OECD average
EU21 average

81
86

43
52

40
28

18
20

61
67

24
18

15
15

9
6

14
7

12
11

14
13

Argentina
Brazil
China
Colombia
India
Indonesia
Latvia
Russian Federation
Saudi Arabia1
South Africa2

m
64
100
42
m
61
100
84
100
100

m
63
a
100
m
0
a
100
a
a

m
a
a
0
m
a
a
a
a
a

m
37
a
m
m
100
a
a
a
a

m
75
50
64
m
10
95
100
58
94

m
m
a
25
50d x(6)
0
36
m
m
a
90
a
5
a
a
m
m
m
m

m
8
a
m
m
m
m
x(10)
m
m

m
13
a
16
m
20
a
x(11)
m
m

m
15
17
20
m
19
m
4d
m
m

m
17
22
20
m
21
14
10d
m
m

m
0
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m

m
1
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m

m
5
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m

m
6
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m

m
4
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m

m
2
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m

FT
FT
FT
m
m
FT
m
m

G20 average

82

23

42

35

44

33

11

23

14

16

C2

Partners

Distribution
of pupils in
ISCED 01,
by type of
institution
(2013)

Ratio of pupils
Ratio of pupils
to teaching staff to teaching staff
in full-time
in full-time
equivalents in
equivalents in
ISCED 01 (2013) ISCED 02 (2013)

23

Characteristics of early childhood education
programmes

m
m

1. Year of reference 2014.
2. Year of reference 2012.
Source: OECD. Argentina, China, Colombia, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia, South Africa: UNESCO Institute for Statistics. Latvia: Eurostat. See Annex 3 for notes
(www.oecd.org/education/education-at-a-glance-19991487.htm).
Please refer to the Reader’s Guide for information concerning symbols for missing data and abbreviations.
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933285821

334 Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

How do early childhood education systems differ around the world? – INDICATOR C2

chapter C

Table C2.3. Expenditure on early childhood educational institutions (2012)

Partners

OECD

Expenditure on educational institutions
as a percentage of GDP

Proportions of total expenditure
from public sources

Pre-primary

All early
childhood
education

Early
childhood
educational
development

Pre-primary

All early
childhood
education

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7)

(8)

(9)

0.4
0.6
m
m
0.9
0.5
1.4
0.4
1.2
0.7
0.8
m
m
1.7
m
m
0.4
0.2
m
m
0.6
0.4
1.0
2.1
0.7
m
0.5
1.3
0.9
1.8
0.2
m
0.6
m

4
69
m
m
x(6)
a
x(6)
x(6)
90
a
70
m
m
88
m
m
a
a
m
m
x(6)
a
72
86
a
m
a
75
62
m
a
m
64
m

47
87
96
m
x(6)
92
x(6)
x(6)
89
93
79
m
92
85
m
85
91
44
62
99
x(6)
87
87
86
76
61
83
79
73
m
m
m
63
75

21
84
m
m
82
92
81
99
89
93
76
m
m
86
m
m
91
44
m
m
83
87
80
86
76
m
83
78
70
m
m
m
63
m

10 054
9 434
m
m
x(9)
a
x(9)
x(9)
17 860
a
13 720
m
m
12 969
m
m
a
a
m
m
x(9)
a
12 656
15 604
a
m
a
11 665
7 924
14 180
a
m
9 495
m

10 298
7 716
6 975
m
x(9)
4 447
x(9)
x(9)
9 998
6 969
8 568
m
4 539
10 250
m
3 416
7 892
5 872
5 674
19 719
x(9)
8 176
9 670
9 050
6 505
5 713
4 694
7 472
6 182
12 212
5 457
m
10 699
10 042

10 146
7 954
m
m
4 599
4 447
10 911
2 193
11 559
6 969
9 744
m
m
11 096
m
m
7 892
5 872
m
m
2 445
8 176
10 726
11 383
6 505
m
4 694
8 726
6 588
12 752
5 457
m
10 548
m

0.6
0.7

0.8
0.8

68
72

80
84

78
83

12 324
12 040

8 008
8 146

7 886
7 977

m
x(3)
m
x(3)
m
m
a
x(3)
m
a

m
x(3)
m
x(3)
m
0.1
0.8
x(3)
m
0.1

m
0.6
m
0.5
m
m
0.8
0.8
m
0.1

m
m
m
x(6)
m
m
a
x(6)
m
a

m
m
m
x(6)
m
88
98
x(6)
m
m

m
m
m
57
m
m
98
89
m
m

m
x(9)
m
x(9)
m
m
a
x(9)
m
a

m
x(9)
m
x(9)
m
m
3 067
x(9)
m
806

m
2 939
m
1 236
m
m
3 067
4 887
m
806

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

Pre-primary

All early
childhood
education

Early
childhood
educational
development

(1)

(2)

(3)

Austria
Belgium
Canada
Chile2
Czech Republic
Denmark1
Estonia
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary1
Iceland
Ireland
Israel1
Italy3
Japan
Korea
Luxembourg
Mexico
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Poland3
Portugal3
Slovak Republic
Slovenia1
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland3
Turkey
United Kingdom
United States1

0.3
0.1
m
m
x(3)
a
x(3)
x(3)
0.4
a
0.3
m
m
0.6
m
m
a
a
m
m
x(3)
a
0.4
1.0
a
m
a
0.4
0.2
0.5
a
m
0.1
m

0.2
0.5
0.7
m
x(3)
0.5
x(3)
x(3)
0.8
0.7
0.5
m
0.7
1.1
m
0.7
0.4
0.2
0.3
0.7
x(3)
0.4
0.6
1.1
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.8
0.7
1.2
0.2
m
0.5
0.5

OECD average
EU21 average

0.4
0.3

Argentina
Brazil1, 3
China
Colombia2
India
Indonesia2
Latvia
Russian Federation
Saudi Arabia
South Africa3
G20 average

Australia1

Annual expenditure per student
by educational institutions for all services

Early
childhood
educational
development

1. Includes some expenditure on childcare.
2. Year of reference 2013.
3. Public institutions only.
Source: OECD. Argentina, China, Colombia, India, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia, South Africa: UNESCO Institute for Statistics. Latvia: Eurostat. See Annex 3 for notes
(www.oecd.org/education/education-at-a-glance-19991487.htm).
Please refer to the Reader’s Guide for information concerning symbols for missing data and abbreviations.
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933285830

Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

335

C2

chapter C ACCESS TO EDUCATION, PARTICIPATION AND PROGRESSION

Table C2.4. Profile of education-only and integrated pre-primary programmes (2013)
Relative proportion of enrolments
reported in Education at a Glance (%)

Exist
nationally

Delivered
by qualified
teacher

Have a formal
curriculum

Exist
nationally

Delivered
by qualified
teacher

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7)

(8)

(9)

OECD

C2

Integrated programmes
(includes education and childcare services)

Australia
Austria
Belgium
Canada
Chile
Czech Republic
Denmark
Estonia
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Iceland
Ireland
Israel
Italy
Japan
Korea
Luxembourg
Mexico
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Slovak Republic
Slovenia
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Turkey
United Kingdom
United States

Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes

Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
a
a
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
a
Yes
a
Yes
a
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
a
a
Yes
a
Yes
a
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Varies

Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
a
a
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
a
Yes
a
Yes
a
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
a
a
Yes
a
Yes
a
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Varies

Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes

Yes
Yes
a
Yes
Yes
a
Yes
Yes
Yes
a
a
m
Yes
Yes
a
Yes
m
Varies
Yes
a
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
a
Yes
a
Yes
a
Yes
Yes
a
Varies
Varies

Yes
No
a
Yes
Yes
a
Yes
Yes
Yes
a
a
m
Yes
Yes
a
Yes
m
Varies
Yes
a
Yes
Varies
Yes
Yes
a
Yes
a
Yes
a
Yes
m
a
Yes
Varies

x(9)
3
100
m
x(9)
100
a
a
31
100
100
100
a
1
a
98
a
x(9)
x(9)
100
99
70
a
a
100
a
100
a
100
17
100
100
x(9)
x(9)

x(9)
97
a
m
x(9)
a
100
100
69
a
a
m
100
99
100
2
100
x(9)
x(9)
a
1
30
100
100
a
100
a
100
a
83
m
a
x(9)
x(9)

100
100
100
m
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
m
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100

Partners

Education-only programmes

Argentina
Brazil
China
Colombia
India
Indonesia
Latvia
Russian Federation
Saudi Arabia
South Africa

m
Yes
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m

m
Yes
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m

m
No
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m

m
Yes
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m

m
Yes
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m

m
No
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m

m
x(9)
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m

m
x(9)
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m

m
100
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m

Have a formal Education-only Integrated
curriculum programmes programmes

Total

Source: OECD, INES Working Party special data collection on early childhood education programmes. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/education/education-ata-glance-19991487.htm).
Please refer to the Reader’s Guide for information concerning symbols for missing data and abbreviations.
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933285840

336 Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

How do early childhood education systems differ around the world? – INDICATOR C2

chapter C

Table C2.5. [1/3] Coverage of early childhood education programmes in OECD and partner countries
ISCED 01 and ISCED 02, based on ISCED 2011 classifications

Name
of the programme
in national language

Early childhood
education

0

2-4

Pre-primary, preschool

Austria

Kinderkrippe

Crèche

0

3

Belgium (Fl.)

Kinderopvang

Childcare

Belgium (Fr.)

0

2.5 - 3

a

Theoretical duration
of the programme
(years)

Theoretical duration
of the programme
(years)

Early childhood
education

Theoretical
starting age

Theoretical
starting age

Australia

Preschool programs
delivered in educational
institution settings or
educational
long-day care settings.

4

1

Name
of the programme
in English

Name of
the programme
in English

020 – Pre-primary education

Name of
the programme
in national language
OECD

ISCED 010 – Early childhood development programmes

Kindergarten

Kindergarten

3

3

Vorschulstufe

Pre-primary stage
(of primary school)

6

1

Gewoon kleuteronderwijs

Regular nursery education

2.5 - 3

3

Buitengewoon
kleuteronderwijs

Special nursery education

2.5 - 3

3

Enseignement maternel
ordinaire

Regular pre-primary
education

2.5 - 3

3

Enseignement maternel
spécialisé

Special pre-primary
education

2.5 - 3

3

Canada

Early childhood
development or
equivalent

Pre-elementary education
or equivalent – Early
childhood development

3-4

1-2

Kindergarten

Pre-elementary education
or equivalent –
Kindergarten

4-5

1

Chile

Educación Parvularia
(Sala Cuna y Nivel
Medio Menor)

Pre-primary education
(Day care and Lower
Middle Level)

0-2

3

Educación Parvularia
(Nivel Medio Mayor,
Nivel de Transición 1
y Nivel de Transición 2)

Pre-primary education
(Upper middle level,
1st transition level
and 2nd transition level)

3-5

3

Czech Republic

Denmark

a

Vuggestue

Estonia
Finland

0-2

3

Kindergarten

3

3

Preparatory classes for
socially disadvantaged
children

6

1

Přípravný stupeň základní
školy speciální

Preparatory stage
of special basic school

6

3

Børnehave

Kindergarten

3-5

2

Alusharidus
(alushariduse
raamõppekava)

Pre-primary education
(general study programme of
pre-primary education)

0

6

0-2-v. lapset
päiväkodeissa

Kindergartens
(0 to 2-year-old children),
including special
education programmes

0-2

1-3

3-5-v. lapset päiväkodeissa

Kindergartens
(3 to 5-year-old children),
including special education
programmes

3-5

1-3

0-2-v. lapset
perhepäivähoidossa

Family day care
(0 to 2-year-old children),
including special
education programmes

0-2

1-3

6-v. lasten esiopetus

Pre-primary education
for 6-year-old children
in kindergartens and
comprehensive schools,
including special education
programmes

6

1

3-5-v. lapset
perhepäivähoidossa

Family day care
(3 to 5-year-old children),
including special education
programmes

3-5

1-3

Enseignement
préélémentaire

Pre-elementary education

2-3

3

France
Germany

Nursery school
Included with ISCED-02

Mateřská škola
Přípravné třídy pro děti se
sociálním znevýhodněním

a
Krippen

Crèche, Day nursery

0

2-3

01 Kindergärten

Kindergarten

3

3

02 Schulkindergärten

School kindergarten

6

1

03 Vorklassen

Pre-school classes

5

1

Greece

Vrefonipiakos
stathmos

Kindergarten
Early childhood

0

1-3

Nipiagogio

Pre-primary

4-5

1-2

Hungary

Bölcsőde
(2 évestől)

Créche

2

1

Óvoda

Kindergarten (of which one
year pre-school education)

3

3

Iceland

Leikskóli I

Pre-primary schools I

0

1-3

Leikskóli II

Pre-primary schools II

3

0 to
3 years,
variable

5 ára bekkur

0 grade for 5-year-olds

5

1

Source: ISCED 2011 mappings. For more details, see Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/education/education-at-a-glance-19991487.htm).
Please refer to the Reader’s Guide for information concerning symbols for missing data and abbreviations.
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933285850

Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators   © OECD 2015

337

C2

chapter C ACCESS TO EDUCATION, PARTICIPATION AND PROGRESSION

Table C2.5. [2/3] Coverage of early childhood education programmes in OECD and partner countries
ISCED 01 and ISCED 02, based on ISCED 2011 classifications

OECD

Ireland

Israel

a

Hinuh be ganey
misrad ha kalkala
or harevacha

Early childhood education
supervised by Ministry
of Economy or by
Ministry of Welfare

0

3

Theoretical duration
of the programme
(years)

Theoretical
starting age

Name
of the programme
in English

020 – Pre-primary education
Name
of the programme
in national language

Theoretical duration
of the programme
(years)

Theoretical
starting age

C2

Name of
the programme
in English

Name of
the programme
in national language

ISCED 010 – Early childhood development programmes

Early start

Early start

3-4

1

Traveller Pre-School
Programmes

Traveller Pre-School
Programmes

3-4

1

Privately provided
Pre-Primary education –
Early Childhood Care and
Education (ECCE) Scheme
and the Community
Childcare Subvention
(CCS) Programme

Privately provided
Pre-Primary education –
Early Childhood Care and
Education (ECCE) Scheme
and the Community
Childcare Subvention
(CCS) Programme

3 years
2 months
to
4 years
6 months

1

Hinuh kdam yesody-ganey
yeladim-ziburi
(misrad ha kalkala,
misrad ha revacha
ve misrad ha hinuh)

Pre-primary
education-public
(supervised by Ministry
of Economy, Ministry
of Welfare or by MoE)

3

3

Hinuh kdam yesody-ganey
yeladim-prati

Pre-primary
education-independent
private

3

3

Italy

a

Scuola dell’infanzia

Pre-primary school

3

3

Japan

a

Yochien

Kindergarte

3-5

1-3

Tokubetsu-shien-gakko
Yochi-bu

School for special needs
education, kindergarten
department

3-5

1-3

Korea

어린이집 (0 - 2세)
(Eorinyijip, age 0 - 2)

Infant course,
Childcare centre

0-2

1-3

특수학교
(Teuksu-hakgyo),
영아과정
(Younga kwajeong)

Infant course,
Special school

0-2

1-3

Luxembourg

a

Hoikusho

Day nursery

3-5

1-3

어린이집 (3 - 5세)
(Eorinyijip, age 3 - 5)

Kindergarten course,
Childcare centre

3-5

1-3

유치원 (Yuchiwon)

Kindergarten

3-5

1-3

특수학교 (Teuksu-hakgyo),
유치원과정
(Yuchiwon-kwajeong)

Kindergarten course,
Special school

3-5

1-3

Enseignement fondamental/
cycle 1-éducation précoce

Early maturity education

3

1

Éducation précoce

Early maturity education
(independent private
institutions)

<4

1

Enseignement
fondamental/cycle 1 –
éducation préscolaire
(Spillschoul)

Pre-primary education

4

2

Éducation préscolaire

Pre-primary education
(independent private
institutions)

4

2

Mexico

Educación Inicial

Early Childhood
Education

0

3

Educación Preescolar

Pre-primary Education

3

2-3

Netherlands

Early childhood
education

Early childhood
education

0

<= 3

Voorschools onderwijs

Pre-school education in day
care centres and play groups

3

1

Barnehage,
0 - 2 åringer

Kindergarten

0

2

Basisonderwijs en speciaal
basisonderwijs, groep
1 en 2

Pre-primary education in
school settings, including
pre-primary special needs
education group
(class) 1 and 2

4

2

Early childhood
education

Early childhood
education

0

<= 3

Early childhood education

Early childhood education

3

2

Barnehage, 0 - 2 åringer

Kindergarten

0

2

New Zealand
Norway
Poland

Portugal

a

a

Barnehage, 3 - 5 åringer

Kindergarten

3

3

Wychowanie przedszkolne

Pre-school education

3

4

Wychowanie przedszkolne
specjalne

Special pre-school education

3

4

Educação pré-escolar

Pre-primary education

3-5

3

Source: ISCED-2011 mappings. For more details, see Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/education/education-at-a-glance-19991487.htm).
Please refer to the Reader’s Guide for information concerning symbols for missing data and abbreviations.
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933285850

338 Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

How do early childhood education systems differ around the world? – INDICATOR C2

chapter C

Table C2.5. [3/3] Coverage of early childhood education programmes in OECD and partner countries
ISCED 01 and ISCED 02, based on ISCED 2011 classifications

OECD

Slovak Republic

a

Slovenia

Pedšolska vzgoja
(1.starostno obdobje)

Spain

Educación Infantil
Early childhood education
Primer ciclo (0-2 años)

Sweden

Förskola
för barn/elever
under 3 år

Switzerland

Pre-school education
(1st age period)

Pre-school,
for children/pupils
younger than 3 years

Theoretical duration
of the programme
(years)

Theoretical
starting age

Name
of the programme
in English

Name
of the programme
in national language

020 – Pre-primary education

Materská škola

Kindergarten

3

3

Špeciálna materská škola

Special Kindergarten

3

3

Prípravné triedy na
základnej škole

Preparatory classes
in basic school

6

1

Prípravné triedy v
špeciálnej škole

Preparatory classes
in special school

6

1

1

2

Predšolska vzgoja
(2. starostno obdobje)

Pre-school education
(2nd age period)

3

3

0

3

Educación infantil segundo
ciclo (3+ años)

Pre-primary education

3

3

0

0-2

Förskola för barn/
elever 3 år eller äldre

Pre-school, for children/
pupils 3 years of age or older

3

3

a

Förskoleklass

Pre-school classes

6

1

Vorschule, préscolarité,
prescolarità

Kindergarten

4-6

2

Besonderer Lehrplan,
programme d’enseignement
spécial, programma
scolastico speciale

Special needs education
programmes

4-6

2

Turkey

Erken çocukluk dönemi
Early childhood care
eğitimi (0-2 yaş)
and education (ages 0-2)

0-2

1-2

Okul öncesi eğitimi
(3-5 yaş)

Pre-primary education
(ages 3-5)

3-5

1-3

United Kingdom

Children’s Centres
(including Sure Start
centres)

Children’s Centres
(including Sure Start
centres)

1

2

Reception and nursery
classes in schools

Reception and nursery
classes in schools

3

1-2

Registered
childminders

Registered
childminders

1

2

Preschool or
pre-kindergarten

Preschool or
pre-kindergarten

2-4

1-2

Day nurseries

Day nurseries

1

2

Kindergarten

Kindergarten

4-6

1

Preschool or
pre-kindergarten

Preschool or
pre-kindergarten

2-4

1-2

Kindergarten

Kindergarten

4-6

1

United States

Partners

Name
of the programme
in English

Theoretical duration
of the programme
(years)

Name
of the programme
in national language

Theoretical
starting age

ISCED 010 – Early childhood development programmes

m

Brazil

Educação Infantil –
creche

Nursery schools/
daycare centres

0

3

Educação Infantil –
pré-escola

Pre-school

4

2

Colombia

Atención integral
a la primera infnacia

Early childhood
educational development

0

3

Pre-jardin (3 year-olds) ,
Jardin (4 year-olds), and
Transicicón (5-year-olds)

Pre-primary education

3-5

1-3

Latvia

Pirmskolas izglitibas
programmas
(līdz 2 gadu vecumam)

Pre-primary education
programmes
(part of the programme
up until the age
of 2 years)
(early childhood
education)
Программы развития
Early childhood
детей младшего
educational development
возраста

0

1-2

Pirmskolas izglitibas
programmas
(no 3 gadu vecuma)

Pre-primary education
programmes
(part of the programme from
the age of 3 years on)

3

1-4

0

2

Дошкольное образование

Pre-primary education

3

3

Russian Federation

Source: ISCED-2011 mappings. For more details, see Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/education/education-at-a-glance-19991487.htm).
Please refer to the Reader’s Guide for information concerning symbols for missing data and abbreviations.
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933285850

Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

339

C2

HOW MANY STUDENTS ARE EXPECTED TO ENTER
TERTIARY EDUCATION?
• Some 57% of young adults in OECD countries are expected to enter a bachelor’s degree or equivalent

INDICATOR C3

programme over their lifetime, and 22% are expected to enter a master’s degree or equivalent
programme over their lifetime.

• In all OECD countries except Korea, the most popular fields of education chosen by new entrants
into tertiary programmes are social sciences, business and law.

• On average across OECD countries, 54% of new entrants into tertiary education are women, and
82% are under the age of 25. Some 13% of all entrants are international students.

Chart C3.1. First-time tertiary entry rates (2013)
First-time entry rates at tertiary level
Excluding international students
Younger than 25 years old (excluding international students)

%

100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20

Luxembourg

South Africa1

Italy

Mexico

United States

Sweden

Finland

Germany

United Kingdom

Colombia

Slovak Republic

EU21 average

Portugal

Netherlands

Belgium

OECD average

Czech Republic

Spain

Turkey

Israel

Austria

Slovenia

Japan

Switzerland

Poland

Iceland

Chile

Denmark

0

New Zealand

10

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. Please refer to Annex 3 for further specific information by country.
1. Year of reference 2012.
Countries are ranked in descending order of entry rate at tertiary level.
Source: OECD. Table C3.1. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/education/education-at-a-glance- 19991487.htm).
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933284214

Context
Entry rates estimate the proportion of people who are expected to enter a specific type of tertiary
education programme during their lifetime. They provide some indication of the accessibility of
tertiary education, the perceived value of attending tertiary programmes, and the degree to which a
population is acquiring the high-level skills and knowledge that can create and fuel knowledge-based
economies. High entry and enrolment rates in tertiary education imply that a highly educated labour
force is being developed and maintained.
In OECD countries, the belief that skills acquired through higher education are valued more than
those held by people with lower educational attainment stems from the perception, both real and
feared, that “routine” jobs can be mechanised or performed in low-wage countries. There is also a
common understanding that knowledge and innovation are key to sustaining economic growth.
Tertiary institutions not only have to meet growing demand by expanding the number of places they
offer, they also have to adapt their programmes and teaching methods to match the diverse needs of
a new generation of students.

340 Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

Other findings

• At least one in 25 students in Austria, Germany, Switzerland and the United Kingdom is expected
to enter a doctoral programme over their lifetime, but fewer than one in 200 students in Chile,
China, Colombia, Indonesia, Mexico and Saudi Arabia is expected to do so.

• Based on current patterns, it is estimated that an average of 18% of today’s young adults in
OECD countries will enter a short tertiary programme over their lifetime, and 57% will enter a
bachelor’s degree or equivalent programme.

INDICATOR C3

• In Austria, Luxembourg and New Zealand, more than one in five entrants into a bachelor’s
programme are international students, well above the OECD average of 9%.

• On average, 23% of students entering master’s-level tertiary education do so as part of a long firstdegree programme; in Sweden, more than 90% of these students do.
Note
Entry rates represent the percentage of an age cohort that is expected to enter a tertiary programme
over a lifetime. This estimate is based on the number of new entrants in 2013 and the age distribution
of this group. Therefore, the entry rates are based on a “synthetic cohort” assumption, according to
which the current pattern of entry constitutes the best estimate of the behaviour of today’s young
adults over their lifetime.
Entry rates are sensitive to changes in the education system, such as the introduction of new
programmes. For example, during the implementation of the Bologna Process, some students in
European countries stayed for longer than expected in tertiary education, while others postponed
their entrance to be given a degree adaptable to the new classification. Entry rates can be very high, and
even greater than 100% (thus clearly indicating that the synthetic cohort assumption is implausible),
during a period when there is an unexpectedly high number of entrants.
In some countries, high entry rates may reflect a temporary phenomenon – namely the effects of
economic cycles and crises, when prospective students align their expectations to the realities of the
job market, or government incentives. Second-chance programmes, through which the government
encourages older students to re-join education, can also boost entry rates.
A surge in the number of international students can temporarily inflate entry rates. The percentage
of expected new entrants into tertiary programmes changes dramatically when international
students are excluded from the calculation. Together with older students, international students are a
significant share of the total student population in some countries, and their numbers can artificially
inflate the proportion of today’s young adults who are expected to enter a tertiary programme. When
international and older students are not counted, some countries are notable for their high tertiary
entry rates.

Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

341

chapter C ACCESS TO EDUCATION, PARTICIPATION AND PROGRESSION

Analysis
Overall access to tertiary education
The transition to ISCED 2011 helps to distinguish between the various levels of tertiary education – including
short-cycle tertiary, bachelor’s degrees, master’s degrees and doctoral programmes – in Education at a Glance 2015.

C3

It is estimated that 67% of young adults in OECD countries will enter tertiary education at least once during their
lifetime if current patterns of entry continue. This average drops to 60% when international students are excluded
and to 51% if only domestic students younger than 25 are considered (Chart C3.1). Some countries have very high
tertiary entry rates largely because of popular short-cycle programmes. In Chile, for example, around 89% of young
people are expected to enter tertiary education at least once in their lifetime – with 45% of them entering shortcycle programmes (Tables C3.1 and C3.2).
Some 18% of tertiary students across OECD countries enter short-cycle programmes as do 12% of tertiary students
in the 21 members of the European Union that are also part of the OECD. In some countries, such as Chile, more
than 40% of students are expected to enter short-cycle tertiary education, while in 6 out of 30 countries, 1% or less
are. These programmes do not exist in Estonia, Finland, Greece and Portugal (Tables C3.1 and C3.2).
In most countries, the largest proportion of tertiary students enters bachelor’s degree programmes (ISCED 6).
Across OECD countries, 57% of young people will enter one of these programmes during their lifetime, although
this rate varies widely across countries. In Luxembourg, for example, given the large proportion of its citizens who
study abroad, first-time entry rates stand at only 22% at the bachelor’s level. Conversely, Australia, which has a large
population of international tertiary students, has a first-time entry rate of 91%. When international entrants are
excluded from the calculation, Australia’s entry rate falls to 76%.
Many OECD countries invest heavily to provide education beyond the bachelor’s level. Some countries have entry
rates as high as 46% for master’s programmes (Poland) and around 5% for doctoral programmes (Germany and
Switzerland).
Around 22% of students across OECD countries are expected to enter a master’s programme over their lifetime, and
14% of domestic students are expected to enter those programmes before the age of 30. After excluding international
students from the calculation, entry rates into master’s programmes vary from 35% and 37% in Iceland and the
Slovak Republic, respectively, to 3% in China.
Only 2% of young people will enter a doctoral programme over their lifetime, and only 1% of all domestic students
are expected to do so before the age of 30.

International students
As previously discussed, international students are of great relevance in understanding how entry rates describe
a country’s education system. Many of those entering a certain level of education may come from abroad or may
have attained the previous level of their education in a foreign country, which substantially alters the indicators.
For example, when international students are excluded, the entry rates for bachelor’s degree programmes decrease
by an average of 2 percentage points.
At the master’s and doctoral levels, the change in rates is also relevant after accounting for international students.
The first-time entry rate for master’s programmes, calculated only for domestic students, is 3 percentage points
lower than that for all students, on average. First-time entry rates at the doctoral level decreases from 2.5% to 1.8%,
which is also a relatively large difference. Indicator C4 discusses in greater detail students’ motivation for pursuing
higher education, particularly master’s and doctoral programmes, in other countries.

Students above the typical age
The “typical age” is the age at which most students enter a given education level. After excluding students above the
typical age at entry, there are substantial differences in the estimates for first-time tertiary entry rates for domestic
students, ranging from 60% to 50%, on average. This means that half of all young people across OECD countries
are expected to enter a tertiary-level programme before the age of 25 (Table C3.1). But in some countries, students
first entering this level of education are older. In Iceland, Israel and Switzerland, for example, at least 30% of those
entering tertiary education are older than 25 (Table C3.2).
Doctoral entry rates are also affected by this adjustment in the calculations. Although 1.8% of all domestic youth are
expected to enter a PhD programme, only 1.1% will do so before they turn 30.

342 Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

How many students are expected to enter tertiary education? – INDICATOR C3

chapter C

Profile of first-time entrants into tertiary education

By level of education
Knowing the level at which students enter tertiary education helps to determine the depth and length of the studies
in which they engage. Most education systems begin tertiary education at the bachelor’s-degree level.
Chart C3.2. shows that across OECD countries, 72% of new entrants at the tertiary level start at the bachelor’s level
and about 10% begin at the master’s level or equivalent, essentially corresponding to long first degrees. Some 18%
of new entrants, on average, enter short tertiary programmes, although in Turkey, 50% or more of new entrants
do. In Luxembourg, Portugal, Sweden and Switzerland, more than one out of five new entrants enter master’s
programmes (Table C3.2).

Chart C3.2. Distribution of first-time new entrants, by level of education (2013)

Austria

Turkey

Chile

Russian Federation

Spain

United States

Luxembourg

South Africa2

Japan

New Zealand

Denmark

Switzerland

Short tertiary (2-3 years)

OECD average

Sweden

Colombia

EU21 average

Israel

Portugal

Master’s or equivalent

Slovenia

Germany

United Kingdom

Italy

Iceland

Saudi Arabia

Czech Republic

Finland

Netherlands

Belgium

Slovak Republic1

100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0

Mexico

Bachelor’s or equivalent

%

1. Master’s degrees are included with Bachelor’s degrees.
2. Year of reference 2012.
Countries are ranked in decreasing order of the percentage of first-time entrants in bachelor’s degrees or equivalent.
Source: OECD. Table C3.2. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/education/education-at-a-glance- 19991487.htm).
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933284224

Women’s participation in tertiary education
Women make up the majority of entrants into tertiary education in all countries except Mexico, Saudi Arabia,
Switzerland and Turkey. On average across OECD countries, 54% of new entrants are women. The largest shares of
female new entrants (58%) are found in the Czech Republic, Iceland and Sweden. Nevertheless, equal participation
of men and women at a given education level does not imply evenly balanced distribution across fields of study.
Women are over-represented in programmes that will lead to relatively lower-paying jobs, namely teaching and
nursing, while men are over-represented in science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) fields.
Table C3.3. shows the gender gaps in fields of study at the bachelor’s level (see section below).

Proportion of new entrants above the typical age
The age of new entrants into tertiary education varies across OECD countries because of differences in the typical
age at which students graduate from upper secondary education, the intake capacity of institutions (admissions
with numerus clausus, one of many methods used to limit the number of students who may study at a tertiary
institution), the opportunity cost of entering the labour market before enrolling in tertiary education, and cultural
expectations.
During the recent economic crisis, some young people postponed entry into the labour market and remained in
education. Some governments have also developed second-chance programmes, aimed at people who left school
early, to raise the level of skills available in the workforce and increase opportunities for people to acquire practical
education and competencies. Nevertheless, entering tertiary education at a later stage is more costly from both public
and personal perspectives. It means that for a period of time, the productive potential of individuals is untapped.
Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

343

C3

chapter C ACCESS TO EDUCATION, PARTICIPATION AND PROGRESSION

As a result, tax revenues are lower and public expenditures may be higher (see Indicator B7). Older students may
face more difficulties combining work and study and thus may be unable to complete the programmes on time.
Understanding that delays in completing education are costly to the education system, governments are introducing
measures to foster timely completion.

C3

The proportion of older first-time entrants into tertiary programmes may reflect the flexibility of the programmes
and their suitability to students outside the typical age group. It may also reveal the value placed on work experience
before entering higher education, which is a characteristic of countries with small proportions of entrants below
the typical age (less than 75%), namely Colombia, Denmark, Iceland, Israel, Luxembourg and Switzerland. Older
entrants can also reflect a response to policies aimed at expanding lifelong learning and more flexible access to
tertiary education. The reasons differ substantially from one country to another. For instance, in Australia, taking
a gap year before entering tertiary education has become a trend. In 2009/10, almost one in four students took a
gap year, and 51% of them declared “work” as their main reason for taking the year off from education (Lumsden
and Stanwick, 2012).

Share of international students
In most countries, all international students enrolling for the first time in a country are counted as new entrants,
regardless of their previous education in other countries. To highlight the impact of international students on entry
rates, Chart C3.1 shows both unadjusted and adjusted entry rates (i.e. the entry rate when international students
are excluded from consideration).
The total share of international students entering a tertiary programme for the first time ranges from close to zero
in Chile to over 40% in Luxembourg. It is also high (around 25%) in Austria and New Zealand. On average, however,
13% of all new entrants in OECD countries come from abroad (Table C3.2).

Share of new entrants, by field of education
In all countries with available data, except Korea, more students pursue tertiary programmes in the fields of
social sciences, business and law than in any other subject. In Korea, 25% of new entrants pursue their studies in
engineering, manufacturing and construction.
Science-related fields, which include science and engineering, manufacturing and construction, are comparatively
less popular. On average, the least popular fields are agriculture (2%) and services (6%) (Table C3.2).
Bachelor’s programmes
Bachelor’s degrees are the most popular diplomas of tertiary education in all countries, meaning that students are
more likely to enter this level of education than any other level of tertiary education. Almost three out of four people
who enter tertiary education for the first time will enrol in a bachelor’s degree programme (Table C3.2). Some 57%
of young people across OECD countries are expected to enter a bachelor’s degree programme at some point in their
lifetime (Table C3.1).
In 31 of the 35 countries for which data are available, women are more likely than men to enter a bachelor’s
programme. In Sweden, 61% of all entrants at that level are women as are 44% of all entrants into bachelor’s
programmes in Japan (Table C3.3).
Traditionally, students enter a bachelor’s programme immediately after having completed upper secondary
education, and this remains true in many countries. On average, 83% of new entrants into a bachelor’s programme
are younger than 25. In 6 of the 26 countries for which these proportions are calculated, 90% or more of new
entrants are below the typical age of 25. However, in some countries, the transition from upper secondary to
tertiary education may occur at a later age because of time spent in the labour force or the military. The fact that
some countries require young people to serve in the armed forces postpones their entry into tertiary education. For
example, Israel and Switzerland, where 68% and 67%, respectively, of new entrants to bachelor’s programmes are
under the age of 25, both have mandatory conscription.
Over half (54%) of those who enter a bachelor’s programme do so in education, humanities or social sciences and
27%, on average, enter an engineering or science programme. Some 12% of new entrants choose to pursue health
and welfare studies. The largest proportions of entrants into a bachelor’s programme in education, humanities or
social sciences (70% or more) are observed in Israel and Luxembourg, while in Germany, 40% of all entrants into
bachelor’s programmes choose the field of science and engineering (Table C3.3).

344 Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

How many students are expected to enter tertiary education? – INDICATOR C3

chapter C

Although more women than men choose education, humanities or social sciences to study at the bachelor’s level
(except in Japan, where only 15% of new entrants into these fields are women), a larger share of men than women
chooses engineering and science. Meanwhile, 78% of all entrants into bachelor’s-level health and welfare studies are
women, on average (Table C3.3).
The share of international entrants at the bachelor’s level varies widely across OECD countries, from 25% in
Luxembourg and 24% in Austria to less than 1% in Chile and China (Table C3.3). The countries with the largest
shares of international students see a steep drop in their entry rates when international students are excluded
from the calculations. In Australia, first-time entry rates into bachelor’s programmes drop from 91% to 76% when
international students are excluded from the calculation (Table C3.1).
Short-cycle programmes
Compared to other education levels, short tertiary programmes have the most diverse profile of entrants. Although
54% of new entrants into short tertiary programmes are women, on average, this proportion varies from less than
25% in Italy and Saudi Arabia to 81% in Poland.
On average across OECD countries, 68% of those entering a short-cycle programme (ISCED 5) are younger than 25;
in seven countries, more than 80% are. By contrast, in Denmark, Iceland, Sweden and the United Kingdom, fewer
than one in two new entrants is under 25.
A small proportion of international students enters short-cycle tertiary programmes, although around 20% of
international students in New Zealand, the United Kingdom and 30% in Iceland do.
Master’s programmes
This year, thanks to the new data collection, Education at a Glance can provide analysis on bachelor’s and master’s
programmes separately. Both programmes are increasingly popular, particularly in OECD countries.
Master’s programmes attract a larger share of international students than bachelor’s programmes (see Indicator C4).
On average, 21% of all first-time entrants at the master’s level are international students.
Of all new entrants, 27% are older than 30, the typical age for earning a master’s degree. The percentage range
from more than 50% in Chile and Colombia to less than 5% in Belgium and Indonesia.

Chart C3.3. Percentage of entrants below typical age (2013)

Iceland

Colombia

Portugal

Israel

Mexico

Chile

Korea

Greece

Finland

Australia

New Zealand

Italy

Latvia

Sweden

OECD average

Japan

Austria

Denmark

EU21 average

United Kingdom

Turkey

Hungary

France

Slovenia

Slovak Republic

Estonia

Luxembourg

Germany

Switzerland

Belgium

Poland

Czech Republic

Indonesia

Netherlands

100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0

United States

Percentage of new entrants in tertiary education younger than 25 years old
Percentage of new entrants at doctoral level younger than 30 years old

%

Countries are ranked in descending order of the percentage of new entrants at doctoral level younger than 30 years old.
Source: OECD. Tables C3.2 and C3.4. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/education/education-at-a-glance- 19991487.htm).
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933284233

The proportion of students entering a long first-degree programme out of the total of those entering a master’s
degree or equivalent programme varies across countries. In Sweden, over 94% of entrants into a master’s programme
(ISCED 7) do so as part of a long first degree. By contrast, in Denmark, Mexico and Switzerland, long first-degree
programmes are rare; and in Indonesia, Korea and the Netherlands there is no such programme.
Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

345

C3

chapter C ACCESS TO EDUCATION, PARTICIPATION AND PROGRESSION

On average across OECD countries, 56% of those entering master’s programmes are women. Below-average
proportions of women entering master’s programmes are observed in China (47%), Indonesia (48%), Japan (33%),
Saudi Arabia (43%), Switzerland (48%) and Turkey (44%).

C3

Doctoral programmes
Graduate-level research, particularly at the doctoral level, plays a crucial role in innovation and economic growth,
and contributes significantly to the national and international knowledge base. Businesses are attracted to countries
that make this level of research readily available (Halse and Mowbray, 2011; Smith, 2010), while individuals who
attain this level of education benefit from higher wages and higher employment rates (see Indicators A5 and A6).
Several countries are developing doctoral programmes or changing the funding policy to attract international
students. Attracting the best students from around the world helps to ensure that a country plays a leading role in
research and innovation (Smith, 2010). Not surprisingly, in 8 of the 22 countries for which data are available, more
than 40% of students entering doctoral programmes are international students – as are more than 90% of students
entering these programmes in Luxembourg.
On average across OECD countries, 61% of entrants at the doctoral level are younger than 30 (Table C3.4). A larger
share of younger entrants may reflect lower dropout rates and greater emphasis on acquiring specialised skills with
a first degree in tertiary education. Some countries offer incentives, such as grants, scholarships, international
mobility programmes, part-time jobs and distance learning, to encourage students to pursue advanced studies
straight after completion of their first degree in tertiary education. By contrast, tuition fees, availability of
scholarships, and / or cultural expectations, such as being expected to enter the labour force by a certain age or to
gain professional experience prior to entering advanced education may explain why some new entrants are older.

Definitions
Entry rate is the sum of age-specific entry rates, calculated by dividing the number of entrants of a certain age into
a certain education level by the total population of that age.
Entry rate adjusted for international students is the entry rate when calculated excluding international students
in the numerator of each age-specific entry rate.
Entry rate below typical age is the sum of age-specific entry rates for age groups below the typical age.
International students are those students who left their country of origin and moved to another country for
the purpose of study. International students enrolling for the first time in a programme are considered first-time
entrants.
New entrants are students who enrol at the relevant level of education for the first time.
Tertiary-level entry rate is an estimated probability, based on current entry patterns, that a young adult will enter
tertiary education during his or her lifetime.

Methodology
Data refer to the academic year 2012/13 and are based on the UOE data collection on education statistics administered
by the OECD in 2014 (for details, see Annex 3 at www.oecd.org/education/education-at-a-glance-19991487.htm).
The fields of education used in the UOE data collection instruments follow the revised ISCED 11 classification by
field of education. The same classification is used for all levels of education.
Table C3.1, and Table C3.5, available on line, show the sum of net entry rates for all ages. Tables C3.2, C3.3 and C3.4
present the share of entrants with different profiles.
The net entry rate for a specific age is obtained by dividing the number of first-time entrants of that age for 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 if current age-specific entry rates continue.
Note regarding data from Israel
The statistical data for Israel are supplied by and are under the responsibility of the relevant Israeli authorities. The use of
such data by the OECD is without prejudice to the status of the Golan Heights, East Jerusalem and Israeli settlements in the
West Bank under the terms of international law.

346 Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

How many students are expected to enter tertiary education? – INDICATOR C3

chapter C

References
Halse C. and S. Mowbray (2011), “The Impact of the Doctorate”, Studies in Higher Education, 36:5, pp. 513-525, http://dx.doi.org/
10.1080/03075079.2011.594590.
Lumsden, M. and J. Stanwick (2012), “Who Takes A Gap Year And Why?” Longitudinal Surveys of Australian Youth, Briefing
Paper 28. National Centre for Vocational Education Research (NCVER), Adelaide, Australia.
OECD (2013), Education at a Glance 2013: OECD Indicators, OECD Publishing, Paris, http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/eag-2013-en.
Smith, A. (2010), One Step Beyond: Making the Most of Postgraduate Education, Report for the UK Department for Business,
Innovation and Skills.

Indicator C3 Tables
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933285864

Table C3.1

First-time entry rates, by tertiary ISCED level (2013)

Table C3.2

Profile of first-time new entrants into tertiary education (2013)

Table C3.3

Profile of first-time new entrants into bachelor’s programmes (2013)

Table C3.4

Profile of first-time new entrants, by level of education (2013)

WEB Table C3.5

Tertiary entry rates, by ISCED level and year (2005, 2013)

Cut-off date for the data: 23 October 2015. Updates can be found on line at http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/eag-data-en.

Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

347

C3

chapter C ACCESS TO EDUCATION, PARTICIPATION AND PROGRESSION

Table C3.1. First-time entry rates, by tertiary ISCED level (2013)
Sum of age-specific entry rates, by demographic group
Short tertiary (2-3 years)
ISCED 5

Bachelor’s or equivalent
ISCED 6

Master’s or equivalent
ISCED 7

Doctoral or equivalent
ISCED 8

Excluding
international
students

Excluding
international
students

Excluding
international
students

Excluding
international
students

Partners

OECD

C3
Total

Total

Younger
than 25

Total

Total

Younger
than 25

Total

First-time tertiary
Excluding
international
students

Total

Younger
than 30

Total

Total

Younger
than 30

Total

Total

Younger
than 25

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7)

(8)

(9)

(10)

(11)

(12)

(13)

(14)

(15)

Australia
Austria
Belgium
Canada
Chile
Czech Republic
Denmark
Estonia
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Iceland
Ireland
Israel
Italy
Japan
Korea
Luxembourg
Mexico
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Slovak Republic
Slovenia
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Turkey
United Kingdom
United States

m
35
m
m
49
0
32
a
a
m
0
a
13
6
20
23
0
28
34
4
3
1
38
m
1
a
1
28
26
9
5
35
9
39

m
35
m
m
49
0
29
a
a
m
0
a
m
4
20
m
m
m
m
3
m
1
30
m
1
a
1
28
m
9
m
m
7
38

m
29
m
m
34
0
11
a
a
m
0
a
m
1
17
m
m
m
m
3
m
0
13
m
1
a
1
19
m
4
m
m
3
27

91
45
69
m
58
64
71
70
55
m
48
66
41
80
59
57
37
48
55
22
35
60
74
m
73
52
56
79
46
47
60
34
58
m

76
34
62
m
58
58
66
68
51
m
46
m
m
68
57
55
m
m
m
17
m
54
58
m
m
51
54
77
46
45
m
m
48
m

60
26
60
m
45
49
50
55
41
m
38
m
m
48
53
37
m
m
m
16
m
51
43
m
m
45
m
71
42
33
m
m
40
m

28
28
26
m
13
31
32
25
11
m
25
11
14
39
m
21
23
9
14
30
4
17
9
m
46
36
39
28
10
29
21
8
28
13

15
20
21
m
12
27
25
24
8
m
18
m
m
35
m
20
m
8
m
10
m
13
7
m
m
34
37
27
8
24
m
m
15
12

7
17
20
m
6
24
21
19
4
m
17
m
m
17
m
9
m
7
m
7
m
12
3
m
m
27
m
23
7
18
m
m
8
7

3.6
4.0
1.0
m
0.4
3.5
3.7
2.0
2.6
2.5
5.4
2.1
1.7
2.5
m
1.8
1.7
1.2
3.3
0.7
0.4
1.2
2.7
m
3.0
3.3
2.9
2.7
m
2.7
4.9
1.5
4.0
1.2

2.2
2.6
0.5
m
0.4
3.0
2.5
1.8
1.9
m
3.9
m
m
1.8
m
1.7
m
1.0
m
0.1
m
0.7
1.3
m
m
2.7
2.7
2.5
m
1.6
m
m
2.2
0.7

0.9
1.7
0.5
m
0.2
2.4
1.4
1.2
0.9
m
4.0
m
m
0.5
m
0.6
m
m
m
0.0
m
0.7
0.5
m
m
1.2
2.0
1.8
m
0.7
m
m
1.4
0.4

m
74
67
m
89
67
87
m
55
m
59
m
m
86
m
71
42
78
m
36
38
65
92
m
79
64
60
75
70
56
76
70
58
52

m
57
56
m
89
59
75
m
48
m
53
m
m
70
m
m
m
m
m
22
m
55
68
m
78
63
57
72
m
51
m
m
51
51

m
47
54
m
68
51
56
m
41
m
45
m
m
49
m
m
m
m
m
19
m
52
51
m
70
56
50
68
m
40
m
m
42
47

OECD average
EU21 average

18
12

m
m

m
m

57
56

55
52

45
45

22
26

20
21

14
16

2.5
2.7

1.8
2.0

1.1
1.4

67
63

60
57

50
49

Argentina
Brazil
China
Colombia
India
Indonesia
Latvia
Russian Federation
Saudi Arabia
South Africa1

m
m
25
16
m
m
26
38
12
m

m
m
25
m
m
m
m
m
m
m

m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m

m
m
25
46
m
29
77
72
72
m

m
m
25
m
m
m
m
m
m
m

m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m

m
m
3
11
m
2
18
11
3
m

m
m
3
m
m
m
m
m
m
m

m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m

m
m
0.3
0.1
0.1
2.3
2.0
0.2
m

m
m
0.3
m
m
m
m
m
m
m

m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m

m
m
m
62
m
m
m
m
m
19

m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m

m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m

G20 average

20

m

m

50

m

m

13

m

m

2

m

m

m

m

m

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. Please refer to Annex 3
for further specific information by country.
1. Year of reference 2012.
Source: OECD. Argentina, China, Colombia, India, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia, South Africa: UNESCO Institute for Statistics. Latvia: Eurostat. See Annex 3 for notes
(www.oecd.org/education/education-at-a-glance-19991487.htm).
Please refer to the Reader’s Guide for information concerning symbols for missing data and abbreviations.
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933285873

348 Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

How many students are expected to enter tertiary education? – INDICATOR C3

chapter C

Percentage of new entrants
younger than 25 years old

Percentage of international
new entrants

Short tertiary
(2-3 years)

Bachelor’s or
equivalent

Master’s or
equivalent

Education

Humanities
and arts

Social sciences,
business and law

Sciences

Engineering,
manufacturing
and construction

Agriculture

Health and welfare

Services

Percentage of first-time new
entrants by level
of education

Percentage of women new
entrants
Partners

OECD

Table C3.2. Profile of first-time new entrants into tertiary education (2013)

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7)

(8)

(9)

(10)

(11)

(12)

(13)

(14)

Australia
Austria
Belgium
Canada
Chile
Czech Republic
Denmark
Estonia
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Iceland
Ireland
Israel
Italy
Japan
Korea
Luxembourg
Mexico
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Slovak Republic
Slovenia
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Turkey
United Kingdom
United States

m
54
56
m
52
58
54
m
55
m
50
m
m
58
m
56
56
50
m
53
49
52
55
m
56
56
57
53
53
58
49
49
55
53

m
79
94
m
78
83
74
m
82
m
83
m
m
69
m
69
90
m
m
71
94
91
76
m
88
86
85
93
84
76
64
87
82
92

m
23
17
m
0
12
14
m
12
m
10
m
m
18
m
m
m
m
m
41
m
16
26
m
2
2
5
4
m
9
m
m
13
2

m
44
m
m
45
1
24
m
a
m
0
m
m
5
m
24
1
36
m
10
9
1
30
m
a
a
2
15
37
2
4
50
15
45

m
37
97
m
52
91
70
m
94
m
81
m
m
89
m
76
84
62
m
60
91
93
68
m
m
80
98d
80
55
74
70
48
82
55

m
19
3
m
3
8
6
m
6
m
18
m
m
6
m
a
15
2
m
29
m
6
2
m
m
20
x(6)
5
8
24
26
2
2
a

m
13
m
m
10
9
7
7
4
m
10
8
6
11
m
18
4
9
7
16
10
9
8
m
10
8
13
6
m
11
8
7
10
m

m
10
m
m
4
9
11
13
10
m
11
14
11
16
m
9
17
15
18
11
5
8
16
m
10
11
7
8
m
14
9
13
16
m

m
33
m
m
25
32
42
29
23
m
30
29
37
36
m
35
33
27
20
49
41
40
34
m
34
34
31
33
m
28
37
39
29
m

m
11
m
m
6
13
9
15
9
m
16
14
10
12
m
9
11
3
7
10
5
8
17
m
9
8
10
11
m
10
9
7
18
m

m
19
m
m
20
15
11
16
23
m
22
19
14
10
m
20
19
17
25
5
26
9
8
m
17
18
16
21
m
18
16
16
9
m

m
2
m
m
2
5
1
2
2
m
2
4
3
1
m
0
3
3
1
1
2
1
1
m
2
2
2
4
m
1
1
3
1
m

m
6
m
m
19
12
17
10
20
m
6
11
9
12
m
8
10
16
14
9
10
18
12
m
8
13
14
7
m
16
12
9
15
m

m
7
m
m
14
6
2
8
8
m
3
2
11
3
m
0
3
9
7
0
1
6
5
m
9
7
7
11
m
3
6
5
1
m

OECD average
EU21 average

54
55

82
84

13
13

18
12

72
75

10
13

9
9

11
11

33
33

10
11

17
16

2
2

12
12

6
5

Argentina
Brazil
China
Colombia
India
Indonesia
Latvia
Russian Federation
Saudi Arabia
South Africa1

m
m
m
51
m
m
m
m
45
57

m
m
m
74
m
m
m
m
m
78

m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m

m
m
m
26
m
m
m
40
14
42

m
m
m
74
m
m
m
51
85
58

m
m
m
a
m
m
m
8
1
a

m
m
m
9
m
m
6
8
m
m

m
m
m
4
m
m
9
4
m
m

m
m
m
48
m
m
40
38
m
m

m
m
m
4
m
m
8
8
m
m

m
m
m
24
m
m
16
27
m
m

m
m
m
2
m
m
2
2
m
m

m
m
m
7
m
m
12
7
m
m

m
m
m
3
m
m
7
7
m
m

G20 average

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

Percentage of new entrants by field of education
(for all tertiary levels)

Note: Columns 1 to 6 refer to students entering tertiary education for the first time, while columns 7 to 14 refer to the sum of all students entering a given tertiary
level for the first time.
1. Year of reference 2012.
Source: OECD. Argentina, China, Colombia, India, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia, South Africa: UNESCO Institute for Statistics. Latvia: Eurostat. See Annex 3 for notes
(www.oecd.org/education/education-at-a-glance-19991487.htm).
Please refer to the Reader’s Guide for information concerning symbols for missing data and abbreviations.
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933285889

Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

349

C3

chapter C ACCESS TO EDUCATION, PARTICIPATION AND PROGRESSION

Table C3.3. Profile of first-time new entrants into bachelor’s programmes (2013)
Percentage
of women
new entrants

Percentage
of new entrants
younger than
25 years old

Percentage
of international
new entrants

OECD

Percentage of female new entrants in bachelor's
programmes by field of education

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7)

(8)

(9)

(10)

(11)

Australia
Austria
Belgium
Canada
Chile
Czech Republic
Denmark
Estonia
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Iceland
Ireland
Israel
Italy
Japan
Korea
Luxembourg
Mexico
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Slovak Republic
Slovenia
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Turkey
United Kingdom
United States

57
55
55
m
51
58
56
55
56
m
47
54
50
59
53
58
55
44
47
51
50
52
59
m
55
57
56
54
55
61
48
50
55
m

78
76
96
m
79
82
76
78
80
m
81
90
84
71
91
68
89
m
98
90
94
94
75
m
88
84
m
90
87
73
67
92
84
m

16
24
11
m
0
9
8
4
8
m
5
m
m
14
4
4
m
m
m
25
m
12
22
m
m
2
4
3
1
4
m
m
16
m

57
61
53
m
44
47
50
47
38
m
51
52
49
59
49
70
53
67
48
72
55
56
58
m
47
56
51
50
60
58
54
67
53
m

19
33
16
m
27
29
20
31
32
m
40
33
32
25
26
24
31
20
35
20
31
16
27
m
32
21
27
31
24
23
25
23
31
m

18
3
26
m
18
12
26
11
20
m
4
10
6
12
21
6
8
7
9
8
10
20
13
m
8
13
13
7
10
15
14
5
14
m

5
3
5
m
11
12
4
11
11
m
5
5
13
4
4
1
8
6
7
0
4
8
2
m
13
9
9
12
5
4
7
5
2
m

60
65
59
m
60
68
57
67
67
m
63
65
64
64
56
64
63
48
57
57
59
54
63
m
65
61
67
66
62
65
55
54
59
m

31
35
19
m
23
33
31
29
23
m
24
34
23
36
30
34
38
15
30
22
29
21
41
m
34
34
31
30
30
36
20
37
37
m

73
81
74
m
77
86
78
90
87
m
79
72
84
85
75
79
72
70
68
70
66
75
78
m
82
82
78
78
75
84
77
75
79
m

57
45
52
m
47
48
29
43
63
m
41
47
51
64
48
44
46
69
37
a
33
48
49
m
50
46
39
53
45
50
45
36
66
m

OECD average
EU21 average

54
55

83
85

9
9

54
53

27
27

12
13

7
7

61
62

30
30

78
79

48
48

Argentina
Brazil
China
Colombia
India
Indonesia
Latvia
Russian Federation
Saudi Arabia
South Africa

m
m
54
54
m
51
55
m
48
m

m
m
m
75
m
100
73
m
m
m

m
m
0
m
m
m
m
m
m
m

m
m
m
60
m
61
56
63
m
m

m
m
m
29
m
21
25
29
m
m

m
m
m
8
m
12
11
1
m
m

m
m
m
2
m
6
9
7
m
m

m
m
m
61
m
54
65
m
m
m

m
m
m
34
m
36
23
m
m
m

m
m
m
74
m
71
78
m
m
m

m
m
m
43
m
36
54
m
m
m

G20 average

51

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

C3

Partners

Percentage of new entrants in bachelor's
programmes by field of education
Education,
humanities Sciences
and
and social
sciences engineering

Health
and
welfare

Other

Education,
humanities Sciences
and
and social
sciences engineering

Health
and
welfare

Other

Source: OECD. Argentina, China, Colombia, India, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia, South Africa: UNESCO Institute for Statistics. Latvia: Eurostat. See Annex 3 for notes
(www.oecd.org/education/education-at-a-glance-19991487.htm).
Please refer to the Reader’s Guide for information concerning symbols for missing data and abbreviations.
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933285893

350 Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

How many students are expected to enter tertiary education? – INDICATOR C3

chapter C

Table C3.4. Profile of first-time new entrants, by level of education (2013)
Descriptive indicators for first-time entrants into ISCED 5, 7 and 8
Short tertiary (2-3 years)
ISCED 5

Master’s or equivalent
ISCED 7

Doctoral or equivalent
ISCED 8

Partners

OECD

Percentage
Percentage
Percentage
of new
of new
of new
Percentage
Percentage entrants
Percentage
Percentage Percentage entrants
Percentage entrants
of
younger
of
women
Percentage
of
younger
of
women
of
younger
of women
international
than
new
international of long first
than
new
international
than
new
entrants 30 years old new entrants
degree
entrants 25 years old new entrants entrants 30 years old new entrants
(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7)

(8)

(9)

(10)

Australia
Austria
Belgium
Canada
Chile
Czech Republic
Denmark
Estonia
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Iceland
Ireland
Israel
Italy
Japan
Korea
Luxembourg
Mexico
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Slovak Republic
Slovenia
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Turkey
United Kingdom
United States

m
53
m
m
50
62
51
a
a
m
77
a
63
50
38
51
23
61
51
65
38
53
53
m
81
a
68
46
49
49
60
47
57
54

m
82
m
m
70
82
41
a
a
m
50
a
77
24
83
63
75
m
91
90
93
62
53
m
75
a
77
62
79
49
53
82
49
71

m
2
m
m
0
4
11
a
a
m
a
a
m
30
2
m
m
m
m
10
m
0
21
m
a
a
1
1
m
0
m
m
19
1

54
54
53
m
58
59
56
61
57
m
53
58
59
67
m
61
59
33
50
51
53
54
58
m
65
56
61
61
55
58
48
44
59
62

66
83
95
m
48
85
84
79
56
m
91
53
82
52
m
51
92
m
57
61
65
94
56
m
88
75
m
86
78
76
80
78
70
66

47
28
21
m
6
12
20
5
30
m
25
m
m
9
m
5
m
m
m
66
m
24
26
m
m
6
5
5
19
15
m
m
47
13

m
41
65
m
10
14
0
15
10
m
42
m
m
2
m
m
29
21
a
a
a
a
m
m
12
27
7
12
45
94
0
20
m
m

50
48
48
m
46
46
49
53
54
46
42
50
49
55
m
50
51
31
40
47
48
49
53
m
53
54
48
54
m
48
47
44
47
53

49
64
77
m
44
79
61
71
47
70
73
46
68
34
m
40
55
m
40
72
38
86
50
m
85
38
70
69
m
58
73
68
64
72

38
36
48
m
10
15
32
13
27
m
28
m
m
29
m
6
m
14
m
91
m
40
52
m
m
21
8
7
m
43
m
m
44
42

OECD average
EU21 average

54
56

68
69

m
m

56
57

73
79

21
22

23
29

48
49

61
66

31
32

Argentina
Brazil
China
Colombia
India
Indonesia
Latvia
Russian Federation
Saudi Arabia
South Africa

m
m
49
44
m
m
60
m
24
m

m
m
m
72
m
m
64
m
m
m

m
m
0
m
m
m
m
m
m
m

m
m
47
56
m
48
62
m
43
m

m
m
m
36
m
100
87
m
m
m

m
m
13
m
m
m
m
m
m
m

m
m
m
m
m
a
4
m
m
m

m
m
38
35
m
41
57
42
33
m

m
m
m
21
m
89
50
m
m
m

m
m
3
m
m
m
m
m
m
m

G20 average

48

m

m

50

m

m

m

43

m

m

Source: OECD. Argentina, China, Colombia, India, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia, South Africa: UNESCO Institute for Statistics. Latvia: Eurostat. See Annex 3 for notes
(www.oecd.org/education/education-at-a-glance-19991487.htm).
Please refer to the Reader’s Guide for information concerning symbols for missing data and abbreviations.
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933285907

Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

351

C3

WHO STUDIES ABROAD AND WHERE?
• In 2013, more than 4 million students were enrolled in tertiary education outside their country of
citizenship. Australia, Austria, Luxembourg, New Zealand, Switzerland and the United Kingdom have
the largest proportion of international students as a percentage of their total tertiary enrolments.

INDICATOR C4

• Students from Asia represent 53% of international students enrolled worldwide. China is the
country with the largest numbers of citizens enrolled abroad, followed by India and Germany.

• The proportion of international students among total enrolments tends to be much larger at the
most advanced levels of tertiary education. On average across OECD countries 24% of students
enrolled in doctoral or equivalent programmes are international students, against an average of 9%
in all levels of tertiary education.

Chart C4.1. Student mobility in tertiary education (2013)
International or foreign student enrolments as a percentage of total tertiary education
%

International students

Foreign students2

Czech Republic
Italy
Russian Federation
Korea
Turkey
China

OECD average

Luxembourg
Australia
United Kingdom
Switzerland
Austria
New Zealand
Netherlands
Denmark
Belgium
France
Canada¹
Finland
Germany
Iceland
Ireland
Sweden
Hungary
Slovak Republic
Portugal
United States
Latvia
Norway
Japan
Estonia
Spain
Slovenia
Poland
Chile
Mexico

45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0

1.Year of reference 2012.
2. 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 chart.
Countries are ranked in descending order of the percentage of international or foreign students in total tertiary education.
Source: OECD. Table C4.1. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/education/education-at-a-glance- 19991487.htm).
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933284241

Context
As national economies become more interconnected and participation in education expands, tertiary
education emerges as a means to broaden students’ horizons and help them to better understand the
world’s languages, cultures and business methods. Tertiary education is becoming more international
through a number of means, for example distance education, international education-related internships
and training experiences, crossborder delivery of academic programmes and offshore satellite campuses.
Among the phenomena related to the internationalisation of tertiary education, enrolling in a study
programme abroad is receiving considerable attention from students and policy-makers. By providing
an opportunity to expand knowledge of other societies and languages, studying abroad is an important
cultural and personal experience for students as well as a way to improve their employability in the
globalised sectors of the labour market.
Student mobility has increased dramatically over the recent past, due to a range of factors. The exploding
demand for tertiary education worldwide and the perceived value of studying at prestigious postsecondary institutions abroad contribute to an increasing and diversified flow of international students,
ranging from those who cannot find a place to study in post-secondary education at home to students
of high academic achievement studying at high-quality programmes and institutions. In addition, the
educational value associated with a diverse student body, the substantial revenues that can be earned
by expanding education for international students, and economic and political considerations prompted
some governments and institutions make major efforts to attract students from outside their national
borders (Altbach and Knight, 2007; Knight, 2008).

352 Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

One key economic consideration for countries hosting international students is that these students
can later become high-skilled workers. Countries that “export” students to other countries for
studying purposes risk losing, permanently, many of their talented citizens (what is commonly known
as “brain drain”); but the fact that many developing countries sponsor a number of international
students suggests that at least some of these students will return to their home country or establish
social and business links between their home and host countries, developing what some authors
(e.g. Solimano, 2002) call “brain circulation”.

INDICATOR C4

In the current economic climate, shrinking support for scholarships and grants, as well as tighter
budgets for individuals, may slow the pace of student mobility. But limited labour market opportunities
in students’ countries of origin may increase the attractiveness of studying abroad as a way to gain a
competitive edge, and thus boost student mobility.
Throughout this indicator, the terms “international students” refers to students who have moved
from their country of origin with the purpose of studying (according to the criterion of country of
prior education or the criterion of usual residence, see the Definitions section within this Indicator).
The term “foreign students” refers to students who are not citizens of the countries in which they
are enrolled, but may be long-term residents or were born in that country. In general, international
students are a subset of foreign students (see the Definitions section at the end of this indicator).
Other findings

• Australia, Canada, France, Germany, Japan, the United Kingdom and the United States together
receive more than 50% of all international students worldwide.

• In 2013, the number of international students enrolled in tertiary education in OECD countries
was, on average, three times the number of students from OECD countries studying abroad.

• In some countries, international students are concentrated in some particular fields of study. For
example, 53% of the international students in the Slovak Republic study health and welfare, 40% of
those in Iceland are enrolled in the humanities and arts, and 23% of those in Chile study education.
Trends
Estimates for 2013 of the number of individuals worldwide who moved abroad with the purpose of
study (i.e. international students) are not comparable with previous years, because too few countries
were providing this information in the past. However, time series of the total number of students
enrolled abroad (foreign students) can be constructed until 2012 (Box C4.3). These time series show
that during 2005-12 the number of foreign tertiary students enrolled worldwide increased by 50%.

Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

353

chapter C ACCESS TO EDUCATION, PARTICIPATION AND PROGRESSION

Analysis

Among countries using the definition of international students based on country of citizenship, the Czech Republic
had the largest proportion of foreign students (9%) of the total enrolled at the tertiary level. In contrast, foreign
enrolments represented less than 2% of total tertiary enrolments in China, Korea, the Russian Federation and
Turkey (Table C4.1 and Chart C4.1).
Proportion of international students at different levels of tertiary education
The proportion of international students is different at different levels of tertiary education. It is highest for the
most advanced tertiary education programmes, at the master’s or doctoral level, or equivalent. This could be because
capacity constraints in the countries of origin may be particularly severe at these levels of education; the returns
to study abroad, and in more prestigious institutions, may be higher for master’s or doctoral programmes than at
lower levels of tertiary education; and students in these programmes may be a particular subgroup of the population
that is more likely to travel and live abroad, independently from their educational choices. Attracting international
students in doctoral or equivalent programmes is particularly appealing to host countries because of their potential
contribution to research and development, either as students or later as highly qualified immigrants.
Comparing the distribution of international and foreign students across countries by level of tertiary education
gives a fair indication of which programmes are relatively more attractive in each country.

Chart C4.2. Student mobility in tertiary education, by ISCED level (2013)
International or foreign student enrolments as a percentage of total tertiary education
Doctoral or equivalent
Master’s or equivalent
Bachelor’s or equivalent
Short-cycle tertiary

China

Russian Federation

Israel

Turkey

Korea

Poland

Chile

Mexico

Latvia

Estonia

Germany

Slovenia

Hungary

Foreign students2

Slovak Republic

Spain

Portugal

Japan

Finland

Iceland

Ireland

Norway

Austria

Canada¹

Sweden

Denmark

United States

Belgium

Australia

France

Netherlands

United Kingdom

Switzerland

International students

New Zealand

50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0

Italy

52% Doctoral

%

Czech Republic

84% Doctoral
67% Masters

Luxembourg

C4

Extent of international student mobility in tertiary education
Among countries for which data on international students are available, Australia, Austria, Luxembourg,
New Zealand, Switzerland and the United Kingdom show the highest levels of incoming student mobility, measured
as the proportion of international students among total tertiary enrolment. In Luxembourg, 44% of students
enrolled in tertiary education are from another country. Similarly, international students represent 16% or more
of total tertiary enrolments in Australia, Austria, New Zealand, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom. In contrast,
international students account for 3% or less of total tertiary enrolments in Chile, Estonia, Mexico, Poland, Slovenia
and Spain (Table C4.1 and Chart C4.1).

1.Year of reference 2012.
2. 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 chart.
Countries are ranked in descending order of the percentage of international or foreign students in doctoral or equivalent programmes.
Source: OECD. Table C4.1. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/education/education-at-a-glance- 19991487.htm).
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933284253

354 Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

Who studies abroad and where? – INDICATOR C4

chapter C

In 2013, on average across OECD countries, the share of international students in short-cycle (typically vocational)
tertiary programmes (5%) was smaller than at any other level of tertiary education. However, in some countries,
international students were more represented in short-cycle programmes than at the bachelor’s or master’s
(or equivalent) level. This is the case in Iceland and New Zealand, in which international students represent 21% of
the total number of students enrolled in these programmes, Spain (6%) and, among countries with data on foreign
students, Italy (5%) (Table C4.1 and Chart C4.2).
International enrolments at the bachelor’s level were also relatively low (6%) on average across OECD countries.
Among the countries for which data are available, they exceeded enrolments at the master’s level only in Austria and
Latvia, where international students represented 20% and 4% of total enrolments at the bachelor’s or equivalent
level, respectively.
The proportion of international students was much higher at the most advanced levels of education: on average
across OECD countries, 14% of students in master’s programmes or the equivalent were international students as
were 24% of students at the doctoral level. Luxembourg had the largest proportion of international students at the
master’s or equivalent level (67%) followed by Australia (38%), the United Kingdom (36%) and Switzerland (27%)
(Table C4.1 and Chart C4.2).
For all reporting countries, except Australia, Germany, Hungary and Poland, the largest proportion of international
students is found in doctoral or equivalent programmes. In Luxembourg and Switzerland, the majority of the students
enrolled at this level are international. The proportion of international students enrolled in programmes at the doctoral
or equivalent level is also large (exceeding 35%) in Belgium, France, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Switzerland and
the United Kingdom. In contrast, this proportion is 5% or smaller in Chile, Mexico, Poland and, among the countries
that reported data based on the criteria of citizenship, China, Israel, the Russian Federation and Turkey.
Proportion of international students in different fields of study
On average across the OECD countries with data on international students, more than one-third of international
students enroll in the field of social sciences, business and law. Other popular fields are engineering, manufacturing
and construction (14%), health and welfare (13%), the humanities and arts (13%) and the sciences (11%). The
fields enrolling the smallest proportions of international students, on average, are agriculture (2%), education and
services (both 4%) (Table C4.2).
However, there are appreciable differences between countries. In Australia, Estonia and Luxembourg, for example,
the majority of international students is enrolled in the field of social sciences, business and law, whereas in the
Slovak Republic the majority of international students study health and welfare. Other countries have a particularly
large share of international students concentrated in one of the other fields: in Chile, 23% of international students
are enrolled in education; in Iceland, 40% are enrolled in the humanities and arts; in Sweden, 20% are enrolled in
the sciences; and in Finland, 31% are enrolled in engineering. A relatively large proportion of international students
studying a particular subject in a particular country may indicate a comparative advantage of this country in this
field of education, good work opportunities in related fields of work, or that admission policies for this field of
education are less restrictive in this country than in others.
Indicator A3 extends this analysis by showing the number of international students in each field of study relative to
the total number of students in that field of study, by level of tertiary education.
Major destinations of international students
OECD countries attract 73% of all students enrolled abroad in countries reporting data to the OECD or the
UNESCO Institute for Statistics. Within the OECD area, EU21 countries host the largest proportion (35%) of
international students. Some 71% of international students enrolled in EU21 countries come from another
EU21 country, which may be partly an effect of EU mobility policies. North America is also an attractive region
for international students, as the United States and Canada combined account for 23% of the total. The profile
of international students in this region is more diverse than that observed in the European Union. For instance,
although 55% of Canadians studying abroad are in the United States, they account for only 3% of the international
students studying in the United States. Similarly, 11% of Americans studying abroad chose Canada, but they
account for only 6% of all international students enrolled in tertiary education in Canada (Tables C4.3 and C4.4,
and Table C4.6, available on line).
Among the countries providing data on international students, Australia, Canada, France, Germany, Japan, the
United Kingdom and the United States enrolled more than one in two international students in 2013. In absolute
Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

355

C4

chapter C ACCESS TO EDUCATION, PARTICIPATION AND PROGRESSION

C4

terms, the United States hosted the largest number of all international students (19% of the total), followed by the
United Kingdom (10%), Australia and France (6%), Germany (5%), Canada and Japan (both 3%) and, among the
countries with data on foreign students only, the Russian Federation (3%). Although these destinations account for
more than half of all tertiary students pursuing their studies abroad, other countries play a substantial role in the
international education market (Chart C4.3, and Table C4.6, available on line). Besides the eight major destinations,
significant numbers of students from abroad were enrolled in Austria, China, Italy, the Netherlands and Saudi Arabia
(2%) in 2013 (Table C4.6). Notice that, since the statistics displayed in Chart C4.3, and in Table C4.6 (available
on line) relate to international students, they are not directly comparable with the statistics on the distribution of
foreign students by country of destination presented in the previous edition of Education at a Glance (OECD, 2014a).

Chart C4.3. Distribution of foreign and international students in tertiary education,
by country of destination (2013)
Percentage of foreign and international tertiary students reported to the OECD
who are enrolled in each country of destination
Other non-OECD countries
20%

United States 19%

Other OECD countries 10%
Turkey2 1%
Korea2 1%
Spain 1%
South Arabia2 2%
Netherlands 2%
Austria 2%
Italy2 2%
China2 2%
Canada1 3%
Japan 3%
Russian Federation2 3%
Germany 5%

United Kingdom 10%

Australia 6%
France 6%

1.Year of reference 2012.
2. Data refer to foreign instead of international students.
Source: OECD. Table C4.4, and Table C4.6, available on line. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/education/education-at-a-glance- 19991487.htm).
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933284267

Underlying factors in students’ choice of a country of study

Language of instruction
The language spoken and used in instruction is likely to affect international students’ choices over their potential
destination countries. Countries whose language of instruction is widely spoken and read, such as English, French,
German, Russian and Spanish, can be particularly attractive to international students, both in absolute and relative
terms. Japan is a notable exception: despite a language of instruction that is not widely used around the world, it
enrols large numbers of international students, 93% of whom are from Asia (Table C4.3).
The prevalence of predominantly English-speaking destinations, such as Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the
United Kingdom and the United States, in part reflects the progressive adoption of English as a global language.
It may also reflect the fact that students intending to study abroad are likely to have learned English in their
home country or wish to improve their English-language skills through immersion in a native English-speaking
context.
English-taught tertiary education programmes are offered in an increasing number of institutions in non-Englishspeaking countries. The diffusion of English as a medium of instruction is especially noticeable in the Nordic
countries (Box C4.1).

356 Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

Who studies abroad and where? – INDICATOR C4

chapter C

Box C4.1. European countries offering tertiary education programmes in English
The proportion of tertiary education institutions offering English-Taught Programmes (ETPs) at ISCED
level 5 or 6 in 2013/2014 varied greatly across European countries. Within the sample for which the Academic
Cooperation Association (ACA) collected data (Wächter and Maiworm, 2014), the three countries in which
a majority of insitutions offer at least one programme entirely taught in English are Finland (83%), Sweden
(81%) and the Netherlands (65%). These countries also score well in terms of international student enrolment
(Chart C4.3). In general, the proportion of institutions offering ETPs tends to be above average in the the
groups of countries that Wächter and Maiworm (2014) define as “Nordic” and “Central-West Europe”, and
below average in Southern and East European countries, with Slovenia (9%) and Croatia (7%) showing the
lowest values.
The proportion of institutions offering ETPs may not be the best indicator for measuring the diffusion of
ETPs across tertiary education systems. When this indicator is compared with an alternative, such as the
proportion of students enrolled in ETPs, it turns out that the two measures are far from perfectly correlated
(r=0.54). However, international data on the proportion of institutions offering ETPs are, for the moment,
more reliable (Wächter and Maiworm, 2014, p. 36).

Chart C4.a. Percentage of tertiary education education institutions offering ETPs
at ISCED level 5 or 6, academic year 2013/2014

Croatia

Slovenia

Portugal

France

Bulgaria

Romania

Turkey

Greece

Poland

Italy

Spain

Slovak Republic

Czech Republic

Sample average

Belgium

Estonia

Latvia

Hungary

Norway

Austria

Denmark

Switzerland

Lithuania

Iceland

Netherlands

Sweden

Finland

Germany

Total tertiary education

%

90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0

Countries are ranked in descending order of the percentage of tertiary education education institutions offering ETPs at ISCED level 5 or 6.
Source: Wächter and Maiworm (2014), Table 1.4, www.aca-secretariat.be/index.php?id=792.
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933284288

Quality of programmes
International students select their study destination based, at least in part, on the quality of education offered, as
perceived from a wide array of information on, and rankings of, higher education programmes now available, both
in print and on line. The large proportion of top-ranked higher education institutions in the principal destination
countries, and the growing number of institutions in these rankings that are based in fast-growing student
destinations draw attention to the increasing importance of quality in attracting students. There seems to be a
correlation between the position of universities in international university rankings and their attractiveness to
international students (e.g. Marconi, 2013). Besides rankings, other sources of information and the overall academic
reputation of particular institutions or programmes are likely to play a large role.

Tuition fees
Tuition fees make up a substantial part of the cost of studying (see Indicator A7), and it is reasonable to expect
that students take them into consideration when deciding where to study abroad. The cost of education differs
substantially across countries, as well as the level of public subsidies and support (see Indicators B3 and B5).
Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

357

C4

chapter C ACCESS TO EDUCATION, PARTICIPATION AND PROGRESSION

C4

Furthermore, in some countries public subsidies and support can be mostly directed towards national students,
so that tuition fees are differentiated for national and international students (Box C4.2). In other cases, the same
tuition fees apply to students coming from a specific sub-group of countries as to national students. For example,
among EU countries, international students from other EU countries are treated as domestic students with respect
to tuition fee charges (European Commission, 2010). Finally, some countries make no difference between national
and international students from any country of origin in terms of tuition fees. All these factors create a large
variation in the tuition fees that international students have to pay (Box C4.2).
Box C4.2. Tuition fees for international students
The tuition fees that international students have to pay to enrol in tertiary education in different countries
can be very different. For example, in 2013 international students paid no tuition fees for enrolling in
Finland, Iceland, Norway, the Slovak Republic or Slovenia at the bachelor’s or equivalent level in a public
institution. Conversely, at this type of institution and this level of education the average annual tuition fees
for international students were on average around 15 000 USD PPP or higher in Australia, Canada, Estonia (for
some educational programmes only), New Zealand and the United States (Indicator B5). In many countries,
the tuition fees paid by international students are higher than for nationals (Table C.4a).
Table C4.a. Differentiation in tuition fees between domestic and international students
Tuition fee structure

OECD and other G20 countries

Different tuition fees for international
students than for domestic students

Australia,1 Austria,2 Belgium,2,3 Canada, Chile, the Czech Republic,2
Denmark,2 Estonia,2 Greece, Ireland, Luxembourg, the Netherlands,2
New Zealand,4 Poland,2 the Russian Federation, Sweden,5 Turkey, the
United Kingdom,2 the United States.6

Same tuition fees for international
and domestic students

Brazil, Colombia, France, Germany, Hungary, Israel, Italy, Japan,7 Korea,
Mexico,8 Portugal, Spain, Switzerland.

No tuition fees neither for international
nor domestic students

Finland, Iceland, Norway, Slovak Republic, Slovenia.9

1. International students (excepting students from New Zealand) are not eligible for government-subsidised places in Australia and
therefore pay the full fee. While this typically results in international students having higher tuition fees than domestic students, who
are usually given subsidised places, some domestic students in public universities and all students in independent-private universities are
full-fee paying and pay the same tuition fees as international students.
2. For non-European Union or non-European Economic Area students. For the other EU countries for which information is missing, the
EU regulation according to which international students from other EU countries are treated as domestic students with respect to tuition
fee charges (European Commission, 2010) is relevant.
3. In Belgium (Flemish Community), for non-EEA students, the institutions have the autonomy to fix the amount of the tuition fee,
except for some categories of students (for example, refugees, asylum seekers).
4. Except for students in advanced research programmes, or for students from Australia.
5. There are no tuition fees for national students in Sweden. Fees apply only for students from outside the EEA and Switzerland.
6. In public institutions, 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. In private
universities, the fees are the same for national and international students.
7. This information applies only to public institutions.
8. Some institutions charge higher tuition fees for international students.
9. No tuition fees in bachelor’s and master’s programmes for EU students and for citizens of countries outside the EU that signed bilateral
or multilateral agreements on educational co-operation with Slovenia, and for students who are themselves, or their parents, residents
of the Republic of Slovenia (residence for tax purposes); others pay the same tuition fees as part-time students. International students in
doctoral programmes pay similar amounts of tuition fees as other students.
Source: OECD. Indicator B5. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/education/education-at-a-glance-19991487.htm).

Countries that charge international students the full cost of education reap significant economic benefits. Several
countries in the Asia-Pacific region have actually made international education an explicit part of their socio-economic
development strategy and have initiated policies to attract international students on a revenue-generating or at least
a cost-recovery basis. New Zealand has successfully adopted differentiated tuition fees for international students
(except those enrolling in PhDs), and it continues to attract a large number of international students (Table C4.1).

358 Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

Who studies abroad and where? – INDICATOR C4

chapter C

This suggests that tuition fees do not necessarily discourage prospective international students, as long as the quality
of education provided is high and its potential returns make the investment worthwhile.

Immigration policy
In recent years, several OECD countries have eased their immigration policies to encourage the temporary or
permanent immigration of international students (OECD, 2014b). This makes these countries more attractive to
students by improving their job prospects and increases the pool of talent from which their economies can draw. For
example, Canada and Australia allow international students to stay in the country after their studies to look for a job
for a maximum of three and four years, respectively. Most other OECD countries issue similar job-search permits
for international students for a shorter duration. Students are issued a work permit only if, within the duration of
their job-search permit, they find a job matching their qualifications according to some criteria. Some countries in
which these criteria were particularly strict, such as France, have recently relaxed them (OECD, 2014b), which will
presumably help them to attract and retain international students.

Other factors
The decision if and where to study abroad is often a complex one, and students base it on a number of other factors
such as: recognition of foreign degrees and of workload carried out abroad, including government policies to facilitate
the transfer of credits between home and host institutions; the quality and admission policies of tertiary education
in the home country; future opportunities to come back to work in the home country; and cultural aspirations.
In addition, geographical, trade or migration links between countries can play a large role. This is true both for
current geopolitical areas such as the European Union and the North American Free Trade Agreement area, and
those related to historical links, such as the former Soviet Union, the Commonwealth or the Francophonie.
Profile of international student intake in different destinations

Global balance of student mobility in OECD countries
OECD countries receive more international students than they send to study abroad for tertiary education. In 2013,
OECD countries hosted three international students for every citizen who was studying outside his or her country
of origin. In absolute terms, this represents 2.9 million international students in OECD countries, compared to less
than 1 million students studying outside their OECD country of citizenship. As 89% of OECD citizens studying
abroad study in another OECD country, about seven out of ten international students in the OECD area come from
a country that is not an OECD member (Tables C4.4 and C4.5).
At the country level, the balance varies greatly. While in Australia there are more than 20 international students
for each Australian student abroad, the ratio is less than 1 in Chile, Estonia, Iceland, Ireland, Latvia, Luxembourg,
Mexico, Norway, the Slovak Republic, Slovenia and, among countries with data on foreign students, Brazil, Israel,
Korea and Saudi Arabia. In addition to Australia, all the other countries among the five with the highest ratio
of incoming international students per national student abroad (equal or above 6:1) have English as an official
language (either legally or de facto): New Zealand, South Africa, the United Kingdom and the United States
(Table C4.5).

Main regions of origin
Students from Asia form the largest group of international students enrolled in countries reporting data to the OECD
or the UNESCO Institute for Statistics: 53% of the total in all reporting destinations (Chart C4.4). In particular,
students from China account for 22% of all international students enrolled in tertiary education in the OECD area,
the highest share among all reporting countries (Table C4.3). Some 31% of all Chinese students studying abroad
are enrolled in the United States, while more than 45% choose either Australia, Canada, Japan, Korea, or the
United Kingdom (Table C4.4). The second-largest proportion of international students within the OECD comes
from India (6%), almost half of which goes to the United States.
Within OECD countries, the largest sender is Germany, accounting for 3.9% of all international students in tertiary
education in the OECD area, followed by Korea (3.6%), France (2.4%) and the United States (1.7%).
Across OECD countries in 2013, an average of 19% of all international students came from neighbouring countries
that share land or maritime borders with the host country (Table C4.5, and Table C4.6, available on line). Among
OECD and partner countries, more than 60% of international or foreign students came from neighbouring countries
in the Czech Republic, Estonia, Japan, Korea, Luxembourg, Poland, the Slovak Republic and the Russian Federation.
Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

359

C4

chapter C ACCESS TO EDUCATION, PARTICIPATION AND PROGRESSION

Chart C4.4. Distribution of foreign and international students in tertiary education,
by region of origin (2013)
Percentage of foreign and international tertiary students enrolled worldwide
Not specified 5%

C4

Oceania 1%
North America 3%
Latin America and
the Caribbean 5%
Asia 53%
Africa 8%

Europe 25%
Source: OECD. Table C4.3. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/education/education-at-a-glance- 19991487.htm).
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933284277

In some cases, mobility from neighbouring countries reflects local patterns of mobility – students in border regions
studying abroad but also relatively close to home. For example, although data are not available, many Belgian,
French and German students in Luxembourg could have family living within a few hundred kilometres from the
location where they study. In some other cases, mobility from neighbouring countries could reflect historic patterns
of mobility developed within a formerly unified country which divided into two or more countries. For example,
74% of foreign students in the Czech Republic come from the Slovak Republic (Table C4.4).
Box C4.3. Long-term trends in the global number of foreign students
Comparable data on the global number of foreign students are available only until 2012, because since this year
many countries started supplying data on international students only. As a result, trends in the global number
of foreign students are based on the data until 2012 published in the previous edition of this publication
(OECD, 2014a). These data show that, 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 4.5 million in 2012,
a more than fivefold increase (Chart C4.b). The increase in global demand for tertiary education, reduced
transportation and communication costs, and the internationalisation of labour markets for highly skilled
people has given students stronger incentives to study abroad as part of their tertiary education. In addition,
many governments and supra-national institutions have shown interest in promoting academic, cultural,
social and political ties among countries. This is most evident in the European Union, which, in 2011, set the
ambitious goal that, by 2020, 20% of its graduates from higher education would have experience of tertiarylevel study or training abroad (Council of the European Union, 2011).

Chart C4.b. Long-term growth in the number of students enrolled
outside their country of citizenship (1975-2012)
Growth in internationalisation of tertiary education (in millions)

1975
0.8 m

1980
1.1 m

1985
1.1 m

1990
1.3 m

1995
1.7 m

2005
3.0 m

2010
4.2 m

2011
4.4 m

2012
4.5 m

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 1975-95 and most of the non-OECD countries for 2000, 2005, 2010, 2011 and 2012. The OECD provided the
data on OECD countries and other non-OECD economies in 2000 and 2012. 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.
Source: OECD (2014a) Education at a Glance 2014.
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933291298

360 Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

Who studies abroad and where? – INDICATOR C4

chapter C

Definitions
The country of prior education is the country in which students obtained the qualification required to enrol in
their current level of education. Country-specific operational definitions of international students are indicated in
the tables as well as in Annex 3 (www.oecd.org/education/education-at-a-glance-19991487.htm).
Foreign students are those who 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, Australia has a greater propensity to grant permanent
residence to its immigrant populations than Switzerland. This implies that even when the proportion of foreign
students in tertiary enrolment is similar for both countries, the proportion of international students in tertiary
education is smaller in Switzerland than in Australia. Therefore, for student mobility and bilateral comparisons,
interpretations of data based on the concept of foreign students should be made with caution.
International students are those who left their country of origin and moved to another country for the purpose
of study. Depending on country-specific immigration legislation, mobility arrangements, such as the free mobility
of individuals within the EU and the EEA, 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.
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 the data.

Methodology
Data on international and foreign students refer to the academic year 2012/13 unless otherwise indicated and are
based on the UOE data collection on education statistics administered by the OECD in 2013.
The fields of education used in the UOE data collection instruments follow the revised ISCED classification by field of
education. The same classification is used for all levels of education (for details see Annex 3 at www.oecd.org/education/
education-at-a-glance-19991487.htm). Additional data from the UNESCO Institute for Statistics are also included.
Data on international and foreign students are obtained from enrolments in their countries of destination. The
method used for 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 education 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, such as inter-university exchanges or
short-term advanced research programmes.
Trends are based on data until 2012, because since this year a considerable number of countries supply data only on
international students, and not on foreign students. This enhances the cross-country comparisons, but it introduces
a break in the time series. The data do not include students enrolled in countries that did not report international or
foreign students to the OECD or to the UNESCO Institute for Statistics. All statements on students enrolled abroad
may therefore underestimate the actual number of citizens studying abroad (Table C4.3), especially in cases where
many citizens study in countries that did not report their foreign students to the OECD or UNESCO Institute for
Statistics, such as India.
Data on the total number of students enrolled abroad are based on the number of international students counts
and, for the countries for which these are not available, on foreign students counts. The data do not include students
enrolled in countries that did not report international or foreign students to the OECD or to the UNESCO Institute
for Statistics. Aggregates, market shares and proportions of international students coming from particular countries
rely on this estimate of the total (Tables C4.4, C4.5, and Table C4.6, available on line, Charts C4.3 and C4.4).
Note regarding data from Israel
The statistical data for Israel are supplied by and are under the responsibility of the relevant Israeli authorities. The use of
such data by the OECD is without prejudice to the status of the Golan Heights, East Jerusalem and Israeli settlements in the
West Bank under the terms of international law.

Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

361

C4

chapter C ACCESS TO EDUCATION, PARTICIPATION AND PROGRESSION

References
Altbach, P.G. and J. Knight (2007), “The Internationalization of Higher Education: Motivations and Realities”, Journal of Studies
in International Education, Vol. 11, pp. 290-305.

C4

Council of the European Union (2011), “Council Conclusions on the Modernisation of Higher Education”, 3128th Education,
Youth, Culture and Sport Council Meeting, Brussels, 28 and 29 November 2011, Council of the European Union, Brussels.
European Commission (2010), A Guide to the Rights of Mobile Students in the European Union, European Commission, Brussels.
Knight, J. (2008), Higher Education in Turmoil: The Changing World of Internationalization, Sense Publishers, Rotterdam.
Marconi, G. (2013), “Rankings, Accreditations and International Exchange Students”, IZA Journal of European Labor Studies,
Vol. 2, No. 5, http://www.izajoels.com/content/2/1/5.
OECD (2014a), Education at a Glance 2014: OECD Indicators, OECD Publishing, Paris, http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/eag-2014-en.
OECD (2014b), International Migration Outlook 2014, OECD Publishing, Paris, http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/migr_outlook-2014-en.
Solimano, A. (2002), Globalizing Talent and Human Capital: Implications for Developing Countries, United Nations, Santiago.
Wächter, B. and F. Maiworm (eds.) (2014), English-Taught Programmes in European Higher Education: The State of Play in 2014,
ACA Papers on International Cooperation in Education, Lemmens, Bonn.

Indicator C4 Tables
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933285911

Table C4.1

International student mobility and foreign students in tertiary education (2013)

Table C4.2

Distribution of international and foreign students enrolled in tertiary programmes,
by field of education (2013)

Table C4.3

Distribution of international and foreign students in tertiary education, by country of origin (2013)

Table C4.4

Students abroad in tertiary education, by country of destination (2013)

Table C4.5

Mobility patterns of foreign and international students (2013)

WEB Table C4.6

Number of foreign and international students in tertiary education, by country of origin
and destination, and market shares in international education (2013)

Cut-off date for the data: 23 October 2015. Updates can be found on line at http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/eag-data-en.

362 Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

Who studies abroad and where? – INDICATOR C4

chapter C

Table C4.1. International student mobility and foreign students in tertiary education (2013)
International and foreign students enrolled as a percentage of all students (international plus domestic)
Reading the first column of the upper section of the table (international): 18% of all students in tertiary education in Australia are international students and
17% of all students in tertiary education in Switzerland are international students. The data presented in this table on international student mobility represent
the best available proxy of student mobility for each country.
Reading the first column of the lower section of the table (foreign): 9% of all students in tertiary education in the Czech Republic are not Czech citizens, and
2% of all students in tertiary education in Korea are not Korean citizens.
Share of international or foreign students by level of tertiary education
Total tertiary education

Short-cycle tertiary
programmes

(1)

(2)

Bachelor’s
or equivalent level

Master’s
or equivalent level

Doctoral
or equivalent level

(3)

(4)

(5)

18
17
10
9
0
10
3
7
10
7
6
7
6
4
44
0
10
16
4
1
4
5
3
3
6
17
17
4

12
1
6
9
0
13
a
0
4
0
0
21
2
4
16
0
1
21
5
0
a
0
1
6
0
a
5
2

14
20
8
7
0
6
2
5
8
4
4
6
6
3
24
0
8
13
2
1
3
4
2
1
2
10
13
3

38
19
16
13
2
18
4
11
13
12
14
6
10
8
67
1
17
20
7
2
5
6
4
5
9
27
36
8

33
28
38
26
3
30
7
17
40
7
7
20
25
19
84
3
38
43
21
2
15
9
8
16
32
52
41
32

OECD average

9

5

6

14

24

Partners

Latvia

4

1

4

3

6

Czech Republic
Greece
Israel
Italy
Korea
Turkey

9

4

8

11

13

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

3

4

5

4

5

4

4

12

2

0

1

6

8

1

0

1

4

4
m

Partners

OECD

Australia
Austria
Belgium
Canada1
Chile
Denmark
Estonia
Finland
France
Germany
Hungary
Iceland
Ireland
Japan
Luxembourg
Mexico
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Slovak Republic
Slovenia
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
United Kingdom
United States

OECD

International students

Foreign students2

Argentina

m

m

m

m

India

m

m

m

m

m

Brazil

m

0

0

m

m

China

0

0

0

1

2

Colombia

m

m

m

m

m
m

Indonesia

m

m

m

m

Russian Federation

2

1

x(4)

3d

4

Saudi Arabia

m

m

m

m

m

South Africa

m

m

m

m

m

Note: Countries using the “foreign students” definition are not taken into account in the OECD average.
1. Year of reference 2012.
2. 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. Argentina, China, Colombia, India, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia and South Africa: UNESCO Institute for Statistics. Latvia: Eurostat. See Annex 3 for notes
(www.oecd.org/education/education-at-a-glance-19991487.htm).
Please refer to the Reader’s Guide for information concerning symbols for missing data and abbreviations.
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933285923

Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

363

C4

chapter C ACCESS TO EDUCATION, PARTICIPATION AND PROGRESSION

Table C4.2. Distribution of international and foreign students enrolled in tertiary programmes,

by field of education (2013)

Engineering,
manufacturing
and construction

Agriculture

Health
and welfare

Services

Not known
or unspecified

Total – all fields
of education

13
15
11
18
14
20
7
31
14
25
9
6
m
17
5
m
11
9
12
7
18
6
15
15
27
17
15
16

1
2
5
1
2
3
8
2
0
2
8
2
m
2
1
m
2
1
2
1
1
2
3
1
1
1
1
1

10
8
34
5
7
11
5
10
7
6
40
5
m
2
3
m
13
7
10
22
10
53
7
26
11
7
8
9

2
2
2
2
13
1
1
6
2
2
4
1
m
2
0
m
8
7
5
8
6
2
5
7
2
2
2
3

0
0
1
10
0
0
0
0
2
1
0
0
m
13
3
m
2
6
10
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
4

100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
m
100
100
m
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100

1

5

14

2

13

4

2

100

0

4

5

0

27

12

0

100

11

3

17

4

0

100

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

1

2

21

2

15

2

0

100

1

0

2

16

1

4

4

0

100

3

1

3

16

2

12

5

0

100

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

Russian Federation

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

Saudi Arabia

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

South Africa

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

Mathematics
and statistics

7
4
1
5
1
7
6
6
6
m
2
2
m
m
5
m
m
9
6
5
2
1
6
5
6
3
5
6

Physical
sciences

(14)

Life sciences

(13)

All sciences

(12)

Social sciences,
business and law

(11)

Humanities
and arts

(10)

Education

(9)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7)

Australia
Austria
Belgium
Canada1
Chile
Denmark
Estonia
Finland
France
Germany2
Hungary
Iceland
Ireland
Japan
Luxembourg
Mexico
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Slovak Republic
Slovenia
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
United Kingdom
United States

2
6
4
1
23
3
0
2
1
5
3
7
m
2
6
m
3
4
5
2
6
11
5
4
3
5
2
2

6
17
14
6
6
10
16
11
17
19
11
40
m
21
9
m
12
9
17
11
13
5
13
9
11
16
13
13

52
38
23
41
32
41
55
27
38
26
21
25
m
38
62
m
43
39
26
42
35
18
39
30
25
33
45
33

12
12
7
15
4
11
9
11
18
15
4
14
m
2
12
m
7
18
14
7
11
2
13
8
20
18
15
18

3
4
2
4
1
1
1
2
3
m
1
5
m
m
4
m
m
4
3
1
4
1
3
1
6
5
5
6

2
3
3
3
1
1
1
2
5
m
1
7
m
m
2
m
m
3
4
1
4
0
2
1
6
7
3
4

OECD average

4

13

36

11

3

3

Partners

(8)

(1)

Latvia

1

8

42

4

0

0

OECD

Computing

Sciences

Czech Republic
Greece
Israel
Italy
Korea
Turkey

2

10

38

16

3

3

1

9

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

2

21

31

7

2

2

2

22

45

5

2

6

13

38

9

2

Argentina1

m

m

m

m

India

m

m

m

m

Brazil

m

m

m

China

m

m

Colombia

m

Indonesia

C4

Partners

OECD

International students
1
1
1
3
0
2
0
0
3
m
0
0
m
m
1
m
m
3
1
0
1
0
1
0
2
2
2
2

Foreign students2

Note: Countries using the “foreign students” definition are not taken into account in the OECD average.
1. Year of reference 2012.
2. 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. Argentina, China, Colombia, India, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia and South Africa: UNESCO Institute for Statistics. Latvia: Eurostat. See Annex 3 for notes
(www.oecd.org/education/education-at-a-glance-19991487.htm).
Please refer to the Reader’s Guide for information concerning symbols for missing data and abbreviations.
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933285934

364 Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

Who studies abroad and where? – INDICATOR C4

chapter C

Table C4.3. [1/2] Distribution of international and foreign students in tertiary education,

by country of origin (2013)

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 first column: 2.7% of international tertiary students in Australia come from Korea, 1.2% of international tertiary students in Australia come from the United States, etc.
Reading the seventh column: 49.3% of international tertiary students in Estonia come from Finland, 3.0% of international tertiary students in Estonia come from Turkey, etc.
Reading column 29: 60.5% of foreign tertiary students in the Czech Republic are Slovak citizens, 0.8% of foreign tertiary students in the Czech Republic are Norwegian citizens, etc.

Partners

OECD

Total from all countries

Austria

Belgium

Canada1

Chile

Denmark

Estonia

Finland

France

Germany2

Hungary

Iceland

Ireland

Japan

Luxembourg

Mexico

Netherlands

New Zealand

Norway

Poland

Countries of origin
Australia
Austria
Belgium
Canada
Chile
Czech Republic
Denmark
Estonia
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Iceland
Ireland
Israel
Italy
Japan
Korea
Luxembourg
Mexico
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Slovak Republic
Slovenia
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Turkey
United Kingdom
United States
Total from OECD
Argentina
Brazil
China
Colombia
India
Indonesia
Latvia
Russian Federation
Saudi Arabia
South Africa
Total from other G20 and
partner countries
Main geographic regions
Total from Africa
Total from Asia
Total from Europe
of which, from EU21 countries
Total from North America
Total from Oceania
Total from Latin America
and the Caribbean
Not specified

Australia

OECD destination countries
International students

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7)

(8)

(9)

(10)

(11)

(12)

(13)

(14)

(15)

(16)

(17)

(18)

(19)

(20)

a 0.2 0.1
0.1
a 0.1
0.0 0.3
a
1.5 0.2 0.3
0.3 0.1 0.2
0.0 0.9 0.1
0.1 0.1 0.1
0.0 0.1 0.1
0.0 0.3 0.1
0.5 0.9 34.9
0.6 39.8 1.5
0.0 0.6 0.7
0.0 2.3 0.2
0.0 0.0 0.0
0.1 0.1 0.1
0.1 0.2 0.1
0.2 11.0 1.7
0.7 0.4 0.1
2.7 0.3 0.1
0.0 1.2 3.6
0.2 0.2 0.2
0.1 0.4 7.7
1.1 0.0 0.0
0.5 0.1 0.1
0.1 1.6 0.7
0.0 0.2 0.4
0.0 1.9 0.1
0.0 0.9 0.0
0.1 0.9 1.0
0.3 0.3 0.1
0.1 1.1 0.3
0.2 4.4 0.4
0.7 0.9 0.5
1.2 1.1 0.5

0.3
0.1
0.2
a
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.0
0.1
7.2
0.7
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.7
0.3
0.6
1.3
0.0
1.0
0.1
0.1
0.0
0.2
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.5
0.8
5.5

0.0 0.5 0.2
0.0 0.5 0.1
0.1 0.6 0.2
0.1 0.5 0.4
a 0.1 0.1
0.0 0.6 1.6
0.0
a 0.3
0.0 1.5
a
0.0 0.9 49.3
0.6 1.7 0.4
0.4 11.0 1.8
0.0 1.6 0.2
0.0 1.9 0.4
0.0 4.0 0.2
0.0 0.3 0.2
0.0 0.2 0.1
0.2 2.7 1.1
0.0 0.2 0.4
0.2 0.0 0.4
0.0 0.3 0.0
2.3 0.4 0.2
0.0 1.2 0.4
0.0 0.1 0.1
0.0 12.1 0.3
0.0 3.7 0.4
0.1 0.7 0.2
0.0 1.2 0.2
0.0 0.2 0.1
0.4 2.3 0.8
0.1 8.5 0.5
0.0 0.4 0.1
0.0 0.5 3.0
0.0 2.2 0.6
0.5 2.1 1.8

0.2
0.3
0.2
0.6
0.1
0.3
0.2
2.5
a
0.9
2.5
0.5
0.8
0.1
0.2
0.1
1.2
0.6
0.5
0.0
0.7
0.5
0.1
0.3
1.1
0.3
0.2
0.1
1.0
2.0
0.1
0.8
1.0
1.5

0.1
0.2
0.9
0.6
0.3
0.3
0.1
0.0
0.1
a
2.8
0.9
0.2
0.0
0.2
0.1
2.7
0.6
0.8
0.6
0.9
0.2
0.0
0.1
0.8
0.7
0.2
0.0
1.9
0.2
0.5
0.8
0.9
1.4

0.2 0.1 0.2 0.5 0.2 0.1
4.2 0.8 2.3 0.4 0.0 0.5
0.6 0.2 1.0 0.7 0.0 14.9
0.3 1.0 2.6 7.5 0.2 0.4
0.3 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.1
0.7 0.2 1.8 0.1 0.0 0.5
0.2 0.1 6.0 0.1 0.0 0.1
0.2 0.1 0.5 0.1 0.0 0.1
0.4 0.4 2.5 0.2 0.1 0.2
2.9 1.6 5.4 3.5 0.5 31.6
a 12.2 12.7 4.0 0.4 16.2
1.2 0.8 0.4 0.6 0.0 1.7
0.8
a 1.2 0.2 0.1 0.5
0.0 0.6
a 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.2 1.1 0.4
a 0.0 0.1
0.8 3.6 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.1
2.2 1.2 3.8 1.8 0.1 2.7
0.8 1.3 1.5 0.2
a 0.1
1.8 0.1 0.2 0.4 12.2 0.0
1.6 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0
a
0.9 0.4 0.6 0.2 0.1 0.4
0.4 0.3 1.4 0.8 0.1 0.7
0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.0
0.2 4.1 2.9 0.3 0.1 0.0
2.9 0.5 7.0 1.3 0.1 1.4
0.2 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.0 1.7
0.4 11.8 1.0 0.2 0.0 0.2
0.1 0.1 0.6 0.1 0.0 0.1
2.7 2.2 4.6 1.4 0.1 1.0
0.3 2.2 5.4 0.2 0.2 0.2
1.2 0.2 0.6 0.3 0.0 0.3
2.8 2.8 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.6
0.8 1.6 4.0 16.4 0.3 0.7
2.0 2.2 6.5 9.0 1.5 1.2

m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
a
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m

0.1
0.5
3.4
0.3
0.1
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.5
1.7
35.8
2.8
0.7
0.2
0.3
0.1
2.2
0.2
0.4
0.2
0.5
a
0.0
0.6
1.4
0.6
0.4
0.2
1.4
0.4
0.4
0.8
1.9
0.9

6.4
0.1
0.0
0.9
0.3
0.0
0.3
0.0
0.1
0.9
1.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.2
1.8
3.4
0.0
0.2
0.3
a
0.5
0.1
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.3
0.1
0.1
1.3
5.4

0.4
0.4
0.2
0.5
0.2
0.5
2.3
0.4
0.9
1.1
5.2
0.6
0.4
1.4
0.1
0.1
1.4
0.8
0.0
0.0
0.6
0.9
0.1
a
2.2
0.4
0.5
0.1
1.6
8.2
0.4
0.6
1.1
2.2

0.1
0.2
0.1
1.6
0.0
2.9
0.2
0.0
0.1
1.1
2.2
0.1
0.2
0.0
0.3
0.2
1.0
0.2
0.2
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.0
4.9
a
0.6
0.4
0.1
3.5
3.8
0.1
2.0
0.7
3.1

11.6 73.1 56.2 20.7

4.9 64.8 65.8 21.4 20.1

34.4 54.2 78.2 52.0 16.9 78.2

m

59.9 24.4 35.7 30.2

0.1
0.4
35.2
0.6
6.5
3.8
0.0
0.4
2.0
0.3

0.1
0.3
1.1
0.2
0.5
0.1
0.1
1.4
0.1
0.1

0.1
0.3
1.1
0.3
0.5
0.2
0.1
0.6
0.0
0.1

0.1
0.5
25.6
0.5
7.1
0.4
0.0
0.4
3.4
0.2

2.2
9.5
0.1
44.6
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

0.1
0.5
4.1
0.2
0.9
0.1
2.8
0.6
0.0
0.2

0.0
0.4
3.4
0.2
1.0
0.3
5.9
9.0
0.1
0.1

0.1
0.4
9.8
0.2
2.9
0.2
0.6
10.1
0.0
0.1

0.3
1.7
11.0
1.1
0.8
0.3
0.1
1.6
0.2
0.0

0.2
1.3
9.9
0.7
2.9
0.8
0.3
4.8
0.1
0.1

0.0
0.1
1.8
0.0
0.4
0.0
0.1
1.0
1.1
0.0

0.2
0.2
2.6
0.6
1.3
0.2
1.4
2.2
0.0
0.1

0.0
0.3
12.6
0.1
4.2
0.1
0.2
0.5
3.9
0.4

0.0
0.2
66.1
0.0
0.4
1.7
0.0
0.2
0.2
0.0

0.2
0.2
2.0
0.3
0.9
0.1
0.2
1.3
0.0
0.1

m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m

0.0
0.3
7.0
0.3
1.3
1.4
0.7
0.9
0.1
0.2

0.1
0.3
29.5
0.2
16.6
1.0
0.0
0.8
2.4
0.2

0.2
1.0
7.9
0.5
2.6
0.8
0.7
6.8
0.1
0.3

0.0
0.1
2.2
0.1
0.8
0.1
0.2
2.1
1.7
0.1

49.1

3.9

3.4

38.1

56.5

9.5

20.3

24.3

17.1

21.1

4.6

8.7

22.3

68.9

5.2

m

12.2

51.1

20.9

7.5

2.9
85.2
4.3
3.1
2.6
2.0

1.3
10.8
82.0
64.9
1.3
0.2

12.0
5.6
57.4
57.5
0.8
0.1

9.5
56.7
11.9
10.2
5.8
0.5

0.2
0.5
2.0
1.8
0.6
0.0

2.5
11.2
81.4
43.7
2.6
0.6

1.4
15.5
79.1
58.6
2.2
0.3

11.9
35.2
30.0
15.7
2.1
0.3

40.9
23.2
20.1
13.8
2.0
0.2

8.3
32.7
43.6
23.1
2.4
0.3

4.6
22.0
69.5
37.8
3.2
0.2

1.7
10.7
75.2
62.4
9.2
0.3

4.6
41.2
35.7
32.8
16.5
0.7

0.8
93.5
2.9
2.3
1.8
0.4

8.0
6.9
82.1
74.9
1.6
0.1

m
m
m
m
m
m

1.6
14.5
64.2
55.3
1.2
0.1

1.0
69.5
7.0
5.4
6.3
9.2

12.6
34.7
46.1
28.6
2.7
0.4

2.2
16.2
76.0
17.5
4.8
0.1

2.0

1.2

2.0

6.0

95.4

1.8

1.4

2.1

6.0

5.1

0.6

2.8

1.3

0.7

1.3

m

2.5

1.2

3.4

0.6

0.8

3.2

22.2

9.6

1.3

0.0

0.1

18.4

7.6

7.6

0.0

0.1

0.0

0.0

0.0

m

15.7

5.9

0.0

0.1

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

m

100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

1. Year of reference 2012.
2. Excludes doctoral or equivalent programmes (for Germany, these programmes are included only in main geographic regions).
3. 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.
4. Excludes students in short-cycle tertiary programmes.
Source: OECD. Argentina, China, Colombia, India, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia and South Africa: UNESCO Institute for Statistics. Latvia: Eurostat. See Annex 3 for notes
(www.oecd.org/education/education-at-a-glance-19991487.htm).
Please refer to the Reader’s Guide for information concerning symbols for missing data and abbreviations.
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933285949

Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

365

C4

chapter C ACCESS TO EDUCATION, PARTICIPATION AND PROGRESSION

Table C4.3. [2/2] Distribution of international and foreign students in tertiary education,

by country of origin (2013)

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 first column: 2.7% of international tertiary students in Australia come from Korea, 1.2% of international tertiary students in Australia come from the United States, etc.
Reading the seventh column: 49.3% of international tertiary students in Estonia come from Finland, 3.0% of international tertiary students in Estonia come from Turkey, etc.
Reading column 29: 60.5% of foreign tertiary students in the Czech Republic are Slovak citizens, 0.8% of foreign tertiary students in the Czech Republic are Norwegian citizens, etc.

C4

Countries of destination

Slovak
Republic

Slovenia

Spain

Sweden

Switzerland

United
Kingdom
United
States
Czech
Republic

Greece

Israel4

Italy

Korea

Turkey

Total OECD
destinations

Latvia

Brazil

Russian
Federation

Total non-OECD
destinations

Total all reporting
destinations

(21)

(22)

(23)

(24)

(25)

(26)

(27)

(30)

(31)

(32)

(33)

(34)

(36)

(37)

(37)

(38)

(39)

(40)

Foreign students3

Partners

OECD

International students

Countries of origin
Australia
Austria
Belgium
Canada
Chile
Czech Republic
Denmark
Estonia
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Iceland
Ireland
Israel
Italy
Japan
Korea
Luxembourg
Mexico
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Slovak Republic
Slovenia
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Turkey
United Kingdom
United States
Total from OECD
Argentina
Brazil
China
Colombia
India
Indonesia
Latvia
Russian Federation
Saudi Arabia
South Africa
Total from other G20 and
partner countries
Main geographic regions
Total from Africa
Total from Asia
Total from Europe
of which, from EU21 countries
Total from North America
Total from Oceania
Total from Latin America
and the Caribbean
Not specified
Total from all countries

Other G20
Inter. st. Foreign3

Portugal

OECD

0.1 0.0
0.1 0.9
1.2 0.0
0.3 0.1
0.1 0.0
0.2 54.0
0.1 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.1 0.2
2.5 0.3
1.8 4.3
0.2 10.4
0.1 0.9
0.0 0.1
0.1 0.5
0.0 1.1
2.3 0.5
0.1 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.5 0.0
0.3 0.1
0.9 0.1
0.0 0.0
0.1 4.4
1.1 2.6
a 0.7
0.1
a
0.1 0.1
5.8 1.1
0.2 0.6
0.4 0.1
0.4 0.2
2.6 1.2
1.9 0.2

0.0
1.7
0.2
0.2
0.0
0.4
0.5
0.0
0.3
0.5
1.0
0.2
0.4
0.0
0.1
0.0
6.9
0.1
0.0
0.1
0.1
0.3
0.0
0.1
0.6
0.1
0.3
a
0.5
0.2
0.2
0.3
0.3
0.5

0.1
0.3
0.6
0.2
2.3
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.2
5.0
2.7
0.3
0.2
0.0
0.2
0.1
8.4
0.2
0.1
0.1
4.4
0.5
0.0
0.2
1.0
3.2
0.2
0.1
a
0.2
0.4
0.4
1.0
1.5

0.2 0.3
0.5 2.6
0.3 0.7
0.5 0.9
0.1 0.3
0.3 0.4
1.1 0.2
0.5 0.1
6.0 0.2
2.1 17.4
6.4 25.5
2.3 1.4
0.3 0.5
1.1 0.1
0.3 0.1
0.1 0.2
1.9 8.8
0.3 0.6
0.2 0.3
0.0 1.0
0.5 0.6
1.1 0.6
0.0 0.1
1.7 0.2
1.2 1.1
0.5 0.5
0.2 0.2
0.1 0.1
1.4 1.5
a 0.4
0.3
a
1.1 1.3
1.3 1.0
1.8 1.9

0.4
0.4
0.7
1.5
0.2
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.4
2.8
3.4
2.6
0.3
0.1
3.0
0.1
2.0
0.7
1.1
0.3
0.4
0.8
0.1
1.2
1.3
0.6
0.3
0.1
1.4
0.8
0.7
0.8
a
3.5

(28)

(29)

0.5 0.0
0.1 0.2
0.1 0.0
3.3 0.1
0.3 0.0
0.1
a
0.2 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.1 0.0
1.0 0.3
1.2 1.0
0.2 0.9
0.1 0.1
0.0 0.0
0.1 0.1
0.3 0.3
0.5 0.4
2.4 0.1
8.6 0.1
0.0 0.0
1.7 0.1
0.2 0.1
0.2 0.0
0.3 0.8
0.2 1.0
0.1 1.1
0.0 60.5
0.0 0.0
0.6 0.1
0.5 0.4
0.2 0.0
1.4 0.2
1.2 1.1
a 0.5

m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
a
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m

0.6
0.2
0.7
2.2
0.2
0.1
0.2
0.0
0.2
6.8
1.8
0.1
0.4
0.0
0.1
a
1.2
0.2
1.3
0.0
0.5
0.7
0.1
0.2
0.4
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.4
0.3
0.7
0.3
2.4
19.5

0.1
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.4
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.1
1.4
1.7
3.7
0.4
0.0
0.0
1.8
a
0.4
0.7
0.0
0.4
0.2
0.0
0.1
1.7
0.2
0.3
0.3
0.9
0.2
1.0
1.1
0.4
0.7

0.1
0.0
0.0
0.9
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
2.1
a
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.2
0.2
2.6

0.2
0.3
0.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.4
3.0
2.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.0
0.3
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.1
a
0.2
0.5

0.4
0.5
0.4
1.5
0.3
0.4
0.2
0.1
0.3
2.4
3.9
1.0
0.3
0.1
0.5
0.3
1.6
1.1
3.6
0.3
0.9
0.4
0.2
0.6
0.8
0.3
1.1
0.1
1.0
0.6
0.4
1.0
0.9
1.7

0.1
0.9
0.3
0.2
0.0
0.4
0.3
2.0
1.6
1.9
16.2
0.2
0.5
0.1
0.1
0.2
1.6
0.1
0.4
0.0
0.0
0.7
0.0
3.8
1.7
0.8
0.5
0.0
2.8
4.7
0.3
3.3
1.2
0.8

m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m

7.0

9.2 28.9

47.5

m

1.9 0.4 0.1
1.3 1.1 0.1
0.6 11.9 68.6
0.4 1.0 0.1
0.7 1.2 1.1
0.0 0.2 1.3
0.2 0.1 0.0
8.4 2.6 0.6
0.0 0.0 0.3
0.9 0.0 0.1

0.0
0.2
0.0
1.0
0.6 21.9
0.0
0.8
0.6
5.6
2.1
0.9
0.0
0.2
0.1
1.3
0.1
2.2
0.0
0.2

0.0
0.1
0.3
0.0
2.7
0.1
a
11.0
0.0
0.0

m
a
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m

3.6 34.2

14.2

m

12.6 2.2 5.0
8.2
27.5 91.5 48.6 52.5
50.1 1.7 16.6 25.2
12.3 0.8 7.8 17.1
0.8 3.5 0.5
3.2
0.1 0.3 0.2
0.7
8.9 0.8 0.1
5.5
0.0 0.0 29.0
4.7

2.7
25.8
70.3
38.3
1.0
0.1
0.1
0.0

100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

100.0

23.5 84.8 15.8 34.5 35.6 71.1 32.7 25.9 70.0

m

42.1 19.3

0.2
32.8
1.7
0.3
0.4
0.2
0.0
0.7
0.0
0.4

0.0
0.1
0.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.6
0.9
0.0

0.2 2.4 0.1
0.1 2.4 0.4
0.8 2.2 10.0
0.0 10.2 0.4
0.5 0.5 4.2
0.1 0.1 0.2
0.1 0.1 0.5
1.5 1.3 1.7
0.0 0.1 0.1
0.1 0.0 0.1

0.4 0.0 0.2
1.2 0.4 1.3
2.6 19.6 28.7
0.7 0.2 0.8
1.5 5.3 11.8
0.1 0.4 0.9
0.1 0.5 0.0
2.0 0.9 0.6
0.1 2.2 5.4
0.2 0.3 0.2

0.0
0.1
0.3
0.1
0.4
0.0
0.0
8.6
0.2
0.0

m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m

36.9

2.0

3.4 19.3 17.6

8.8 29.9 50.1

9.9

m

14.3 18.5 72.2

29.1 1.1 0.8 8.2 4.5 4.6 8.2 4.4 1.3
8.0 6.0 3.2 5.6 33.5 10.8 53.6 74.4 11.4
24.2 92.1 94.7 35.3 37.6 73.1 30.6 8.9 85.4
19.7 78.5 14.4 24.5 27.6 64.3 22.0 6.7 67.6
2.3 0.3 0.6 1.8 2.3 2.9 5.1 3.4 0.6
0.3 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.3 0.4 0.6 0.7 0.0
36.0 0.4 0.6 48.9 2.2 4.6 2.0 8.1 0.6
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 19.6 3.5 0.0 0.0 0.0

m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m

2.7
8.5
49.7
16.3
21.7
0.6
6.3
10.4

100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

m

0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.2
0.0
0.0
0.3
0.0
0.2
0.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.2
0.3
0.1
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.4
0.0
0.0
0.2
0.1
0.0
0.1
0.1
0.3

0.4
0.5
0.4
1.4
0.3
0.4
0.2
0.1
0.3
2.3
3.8
0.9
0.3
0.1
0.5
0.3
1.5
1.0
3.4
0.3
0.8
0.4
0.2
0.6
0.8
0.3
1.1
0.1
0.9
0.5
0.4
1.0
0.8
1.6

0.3

3.8

27.7

0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.5
a
0.0
0.0

0.5
0.0
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.0
0.4
0.3
0.0
0.2

0.2
1.0
20.8
0.7
5.3
0.9
0.2
1.3
2.1
0.2

0.5

1.8

32.6

m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m

0.0
59.9
30.6
0.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
9.4

2.7
55.1
30.4
2.4
0.4
0.0
3.0
8.4

8.0
52.6
25.4
16.4
3.0
0.7
5.4
4.9

m

100.0 100.0 100.0

1. Year of reference 2012.
2. Excludes doctoral or equivalent programmes (for Germany, these programmes are included only in main geographic regions).
3. 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.
4. Excludes students in short-cycle tertiary programmes.
Source: OECD. Argentina, China, Colombia, India, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia and South Africa: UNESCO Institute for Statistics. Latvia: Eurostat. See Annex 3 for notes
(www.oecd.org/education/education-at-a-glance-19991487.htm).
Please refer to the Reader’s Guide for information concerning symbols for missing data and abbreviations.
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933285949

366 Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

Who studies abroad and where? – INDICATOR C4

chapter C

Table C4.4. [1/2] Students abroad in tertiary education, by country of destination (2013)
Number of foreign and international students enrolled in tertiary education in a given country of destination as a percentage
of all students enrolled abroad in reporting destinations, 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: 4.9% of Czech citizens enrolled in tertiary education abroad study in Austria, 15.9% of Italian citizens enrolled in tertiary education abroad study
in Austria, etc.
Reading the first row: 2.4% of Australian citizens enrolled in tertiary education abroad study in France, 21.8% of Australian citizens enrolled in tertiary education abroad
study in New Zealand, etc.

Countries of destination

Australia

Austria

Belgium

Canada1

Chile

Czech
Republic2

Denmark

Estonia

Finland

France

Germany3

Greece2

Hungary

Iceland

Ireland

Israel2

Italy2

Japan

Korea2

Luxembourg

Mexico

Netherlands

Partners

OECD

OECD

Country of origin

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7)

(8)

(9)

(10)

(11)

(12)

(13)

(14)

(15)

(16)

(17)

(18)

(19)

(20)

(21)

(22)

Australia
Austria
Belgium
Canada
Chile
Czech Republic
Denmark
Estonia
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Iceland
Ireland
Israel
Italy
Japan
Korea
Luxembourg
Mexico
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Slovak Republic
Slovenia
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Turkey
United Kingdom
United States

a
1.4
0.8
7.6
6.4
0.9
3.3
0.8
1.3
1.5
1.2
0.3
1.2
1.1
1.6
1.8
1.2
5.2
6.1
0.1
2.1
1.8
50.6
6.4
0.8
1.1
0.3
1.0
0.8
3.9
3.1
0.9
5.7
4.3

1.1 0.3 2.8
a 0.2 0.7
1.4
a 1.7
0.3 0.2
a
0.6 0.8 2.4
4.9 0.3 0.6
1.5 0.4 1.4
1.7 0.5 0.2
2.6 0.5 0.9
0.9 20.7 12.9
23.4 0.6 0.8
1.2 0.8 0.3
18.6 1.2 0.6
0.8 0.3 1.9
0.6 0.2 0.7
0.6 0.2 5.6
15.9 1.5 0.8
0.8 0.2 2.5
0.2 0.0 1.6
9.3 17.7 0.3
0.5 0.4 4.8
2.1 24.4 0.7
0.6 0.1 2.0
0.4 0.2 0.2
4.9 1.3 1.2
1.3 1.7 1.5
4.0 0.2 0.1
24.9 0.7 1.0
2.2 1.5 0.4
1.1 0.4 0.8
6.6 1.3 1.9
6.1 0.4 1.4
2.1 0.8 3.6
1.2 0.3 11.3

0.0 0.1 1.2 0.0 0.3 2.4 3.8
0.0 0.5 0.9 0.0 0.5 2.6 51.8
0.0 0.1 1.5 0.0 0.4 17.0 8.6
0.0 0.1 0.3 0.0 0.3 2.8 1.3
a 0.1 0.4 0.0 0.3 7.6 6.2
0.0
a 1.4 0.2 0.5 5.2 10.9
0.0 0.1
a 0.1 0.8 3.0 8.4
0.0 0.2 10.1
a 12.1 2.4 11.0
0.0 0.1 3.2 10.9
a 3.3 9.0
0.0 0.2 0.7 0.0 0.3
a 7.5
0.0 0.3 2.7 0.0 0.5 5.3
a
0.0 1.0 1.3 0.0 0.3 5.4 6.4
0.0 0.6 6.3 0.1 1.9 5.7 18.1
0.0 0.2 41.6 0.1 0.6 1.5 3.3
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.0 0.2 2.5 2.1
0.0 0.7 0.3 0.0 0.1 1.1 9.1
0.0 0.3 1.6 0.0 0.5 12.4 8.8
0.0 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.4 4.1 5.0
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 1.7 3.1
0.0 0.0 0.9 0.0 0.1 14.5 35.2
0.2 0.1 0.4 0.0 0.5 7.4 6.6
0.0 0.2 2.6 0.0 0.7 3.5 5.6
0.0 0.1 0.7 0.0 0.3 1.1 2.0
0.0 1.8 19.8 0.0 0.3 1.8 2.0
0.0 1.6 4.6 0.0 1.0 7.7 24.3
0.0 3.9 1.7 0.0 0.5 13.4 4.1
0.0 73.8 1.1 0.0 0.1 1.1 2.6
0.0 0.7 2.3 0.0 0.7 2.8 9.9
0.0 0.2 2.3 0.0 0.8 14.4 17.6
0.0 1.0 14.0 0.1 2.4 2.3 3.1
0.0 0.1 0.9 0.0 0.3 9.3 18.8
0.0 0.2 0.3 0.1 0.3 3.5 10.5
0.0 1.5 2.2 0.0 0.8 6.9 5.1
0.0 0.3 0.9 0.1 0.5 4.8 5.9

m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
a
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m

0.1
1.1
0.3
0.4
0.1
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.9
0.4
2.1
0.5
a
4.4
1.4
4.3
0.5
0.8
0.0
0.0
0.3
0.5
0.3
4.7
0.5
0.9
7.4
0.8
1.5
2.5
0.3
1.1
1.1
0.7

0.0
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.0
0.2
1.4
0.1
0.4
0.1
0.1
0.0
0.2
a
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.0
0.0
0.3
0.2
0.4
0.1
0.0
0.2
0.1

0.6
0.3
0.7
2.0
0.1
0.1
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.3
0.2
a
0.1
0.5
0.1
0.0
0.2
0.1
0.8
0.4
0.2
0.7
0.4
0.1
0.4
0.6
0.2
0.4
0.1
7.2
1.7

0.5 0.5 2.8
0.1 1.2 0.4
0.6 1.4 0.4
0.5 0.2 0.6
0.2 3.5 0.3
0.1 1.0 0.4
0.4 0.8 1.0
0.1 1.3 0.5
0.2 0.9 1.6
0.9 1.6 1.0
0.2 1.2 0.5
0.0 8.2 0.1
0.4 4.0 1.1
0.0 0.9 0.7
0.0 0.2 0.1
a 8.7 0.2
0.2
a 0.4
0.1 1.0
a
0.1 0.5 14.8
0.0 0.1 0.0
0.2 1.3 0.6
0.5 1.2 0.9
0.1 0.2 1.5
0.1 0.6 0.5
0.2 5.9 0.4
0.0 1.7 0.3
0.0 0.6 0.1
0.1 10.0 0.5
0.1 2.5 0.5
0.2 0.7 1.3
0.6 7.1 0.5
0.1 1.8 0.3
0.9 1.0 1.4
3.0 0.8 3.2

0.6
0.1
0.1
1.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.0
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.0
3.5
a
0.0
0.2
0.1
1.2
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.3
2.2

0.0
0.1
3.4
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.1
0.0
0.1
1.2
0.4
0.1
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.2
0.0
0.0
a
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.0
0.1
0.1
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.1
0.1

m 0.6
m 2.3
m 18.7
m 0.5
m 0.6
m 1.9
m 3.7
m 4.2
m 3.9
m 1.5
m 20.5
a 5.3
m 5.1
m 4.1
m 1.2
m 0.6
m 3.0
m 0.4
m 0.2
m 1.5
a 1.2
m
a
m 0.4
m 2.1
m 4.0
m 3.7
m 0.9
m 4.9
m 3.2
m 1.7
m 2.2
m 1.1
m 4.5
m 0.9

Total from OECD countries
of which, from EU21 countries

3.1
1.4

5.4
8.5

2.6
4.5

2.9
2.6

0.0
0.0

2.9
5.0

2.0
2.4

0.1
0.2

0.5
0.6

7.1
8.4

m
m

1.2
1.5

0.1
0.1

0.7
0.8

0.5
0.3

1.7
1.9

2.4
0.6

0.4
0.1

0.2
0.4

m
m

4.3
7.1

Argentina
Brazil
China
Colombia
India
Indonesia
Latvia
Russian Federation
Saudi Arabia
South Africa

1.6
2.8
12.1
5.3
8.4
21.7
0.4
1.7
6.4
10.4

0.5
0.6
0.1
0.5
0.2
0.2
1.4
1.8
0.1
0.7

0.3
0.5
0.1
0.5
0.1
0.2
0.6
0.5
0.0
0.8

1.4
2.0
4.7
2.5
5.0
1.4
0.3
0.9
5.9
2.7

0.8
0.9
0.0
5.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

0.0 0.4
0.1 0.5
0.0 0.2
0.1 0.2
0.1 0.1
0.0 0.1
0.1 12.1
6.2 0.3
0.1 0.0
0.2 0.7

0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.6
0.3
0.0
0.0

0.2 8.2 4.2
0.3 11.7 7.7
0.3 3.5 2.7
0.2 9.3 5.2
0.3 1.0 2.9
0.1 1.5 3.6
1.8 2.5 9.9
4.0 6.5 17.0
0.0 0.6 0.3
0.3 1.3 2.8

m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m

0.0
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.3
0.4
0.3
0.1

0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.3
0.0
0.0
0.0

0.0
0.1
0.2
0.0
0.3
0.0
0.4
0.1
0.6
0.7

2.5
0.4
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.2
1.6
0.0
1.2

4.1 0.7
2.7 0.8
1.3 12.3
3.2 0.2
0.5 0.3
0.3 5.1
1.8 0.4
3.8 0.6
0.0 0.4
0.3 0.2

0.4
0.1
5.2
0.1
0.3
1.7
0.0
0.6
0.2
0.7

0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.1
0.0
0.0

m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m

0.4
0.6
0.7
0.9
0.5
2.2
7.3
1.1
0.1
1.5

10.7

0.2

0.1

4.5

0.1

0.3

0.2

0.0

0.5

3.4

3.6

m

0.1

0.0

0.2

0.1

1.3

8.2

3.5

0.0

m

0.7

6.2

1.8

1.1

3.4

0.1

1.0

0.7

0.0

0.5

5.7

4.9

0.7

0.5

0.0

0.3

0.3

2.0

3.4

1.4

0.1

0.2

1.7

Total from other G20
countries
Total from all countrie

4.8
5.9

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. Year of reference 2012.
2. Data refer to foreign instead of international students.
3. Excludes doctoral or equivalent programmes.
Source: OECD. Argentina, China, Colombia, India, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia and South Africa: UNESCO Institute for Statistics. Latvia: Eurostat. See Annex 3 for notes
(www.oecd.org/education/education-at-a-glance-19991487.htm).
Please refer to the Reader’s Guide for information concerning symbols for missing data and abbreviations.
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933285958

Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

367

C4

chapter C ACCESS TO EDUCATION, PARTICIPATION AND PROGRESSION

Table C4.4. [2/2] Students abroad in tertiary education, by country of destination (2013)
Number of foreign and international students enrolled in tertiary education in a given country of destination as a percentage
of all students enrolled abroad in reporting destinations, 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: 4.9% of Czech citizens enrolled in tertiary education abroad study in Austria, 15.9% of Italian citizens enrolled in tertiary education abroad
study in Austria, etc.
Reading the first row: 2.4% of Australian citizens enrolled in tertiary education abroad study in France, 21.8% of Australian citizens enrolled in tertiary education abroad
study in New Zealand, etc.

C4

Other G20 and
partner countries

Portugal

Slovak
Republic

Slovenia

Spain

Sweden

Switzerland

Turkey2

Total EU21
destinations

Brazil2

Latvia2

Russian
Federation2

Total non-OECD
destinations

(24)

(25)

(26)

(27)

(28)

(29)

(30)

(31)

(32)

(33)

(34)

(35)

(36)

(37)

(38)

(39)

(40)

(41)

0.3
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.4
4.0
0.8
1.0
0.1
0.4
0.2
0.4
4.5
0.0
0.1
0.3
0.2
0.0
0.0
0.2
0.6
0.1
a
0.9
0.4
0.1
0.4
0.5
4.2
0.3
0.1
0.3
0.3

0.1
0.3
0.2
1.0
0.0
6.4
0.9
0.2
0.4
0.4
0.5
0.1
0.7
0.2
0.4
0.4
0.5
0.1
0.1
0.0
0.1
0.1
0.1
7.6
a
1.3
0.4
0.9
3.3
5.9
0.1
1.1
0.7
1.3

0.1
0.1
1.4
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.5
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.0
0.7
0.0
0.0
0.8
0.1
0.9
0.1
0.1
0.6
a
0.0
0.4
2.8
0.2
0.5
0.1
1.3
0.4

0.0
0.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
43.8
0.1
0.0
0.2
0.0
0.4
2.9
1.0
0.3
0.3
0.6
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
2.5
1.1
0.7
a
0.3
0.4
0.4
0.1
0.0
0.4
0.0

0.0
0.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.0
a
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

0.4
1.0
2.6
0.3
13.4
0.9
1.2
0.9
1.4
3.7
1.3
0.5
1.3
0.8
0.6
0.3
9.7
0.3
0.1
0.5
8.9
2.0
0.1
0.5
2.4
15.5
0.3
1.2
a
0.8
1.9
0.4
1.9
1.3

0.5
0.8
0.6
0.3
0.2
0.5
5.2
3.0
18.0
0.7
1.3
1.6
0.9
9.5
0.4
0.1
1.0
0.3
0.0
0.1
0.4
1.9
0.2
2.4
1.3
1.1
0.1
0.7
1.2
a
0.6
0.5
1.1
0.7

1.1
7.8
2.5
0.9
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.0
1.1
10.9
10.0
1.8
2.5
1.3
0.3
0.5
8.4
0.8
0.1
5.3
1.1
2.1
0.9
0.5
2.1
2.0
0.4
1.9
2.4
1.2
a
1.2
1.6
1.4

0.7
1.2
0.8
0.1
0.0
0.1
0.7
0.1
0.1
0.3
1.3
3.8
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.1
0.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.7
1.0
0.1
0.5
0.4
0.0
0.2
0.4
a
0.4
0.4

15.3
11.2
22.8
12.9
6.7
9.8
26.0
25.9
21.4
15.2
11.8
29.5
13.6
7.5
76.4
2.9
16.8
9.3
4.1
11.7
5.6
23.3
8.9
26.8
22.0
20.7
4.2
12.7
19.7
18.3
23.5
6.4
a
22.1

32.6
6.2
6.8
54.9
22.9
5.9
24.3
4.7
7.8
10.5
7.8
5.3
7.4
12.9
6.7
13.6
8.3
56.4
60.8
0.9
49.0
13.2
22.9
11.1
6.4
7.9
1.1
8.1
16.0
22.9
11.3
21.0
31.0
a

90.8
94.4
95.2
89.7
75.7
98.5
93.9
82.7
92.2
95.0
95.6
77.2
94.2
99.0
97.5
52.2
94.5
94.4
95.1
99.5
92.8
91.1
94.9
94.8
97.7
86.6
99.6
88.4
95.5
90.6
92.8
59.6
86.0
73.6

27.6
75.8
81.2
23.0
40.8
88.4
53.4
74.4
77.4
56.2
72.8
65.4
79.8
76.5
87.6
30.1
74.5
23.1
10.3
92.7
34.1
70.3
15.5
73.9
84.1
72.9
97.0
74.5
74.2
54.9
74.1
34.3
38.8
44.0

m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m

0.0
0.2
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.2
1.6
0.7
0.1
0.5
0.0
0.2
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.2
0.0
0.7
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.0
0.3
0.9
0.1
0.2
0.1
0.0

0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
8.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

9.2
5.6
4.8
10.3
24.3
1.5
6.1
17.3
7.8
5.0
4.4
22.8
5.8
1.0
2.5
47.8
5.5
5.6
4.9
0.5
7.2
8.9
5.1
5.2
2.3
13.4
0.4
11.6
4.5
9.4
7.2
40.4
14.0
26.4

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
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0

Total from OECD countries
of which, from EU21 countries

1.1
0.4

0.3
0.5

0.9
0.9

0.4
0.5

0.9
1.5

0.0
0.1

2.0
2.6

0.9
1.3

3.5
5.6

0.5
0.8

14.3
17.1

21.3
9.8

89.3
93.4

53.2
71.1

m
m

0.2
0.2

0.0
0.1

10.7 100.0
6.6 100.0

Argentina
Brazil
China
Colombia
India
Indonesia
Latvia
Russian Federation
Saudi Arabia
South Africa

0.3
0.4
1.7
0.2
3.6
1.0
0.0
0.6
1.3
1.3

0.2
0.3
0.1
0.2
0.1
0.2
1.0
1.1
0.0
0.3

0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
1.0
1.0
0.6
0.2

0.4
14.6
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.0
0.8

0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.0

0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.0

17.1
4.1
0.2
21.5
0.2
0.1
0.6
1.3
0.1
0.3

0.2
0.3
0.3
0.4
0.6
0.1
1.8
0.8
0.0
0.4

2.1
1.7
0.2
1.2
0.4
0.1
0.7
1.7
0.0
1.3

0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.2
2.6
0.0
0.1
0.1
0.3

2.3
4.8
11.2
3.5
11.5
3.8
30.6
6.5
12.0
16.3

22.0
31.9
30.9
23.4
48.2
16.8
4.1
8.4
54.8
23.2

70.4
90.2
88.2
84.1
84.9
63.0
81.6
69.3
84.0
69.0

38.6
48.8
20.9
45.7
18.5
12.4
74.1
52.0
15.0
27.4

m
a
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m

0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
a
0.7
0.0
0.0

0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
9.7
a
0.0
0.0

29.6
9.8
11.8
15.9
15.1
37.0
18.4
30.7
16.0
31.0

1.8

0.2

0.2

0.5

0.0

0.0

0.9

0.4

0.4

0.2

10.9

34.3

85.3

23.8

m

0.0

0.1

14.7 100.0

1.0

0.2

0.7

0.4

0.3

0.1

1.4

0.6

1.2

1.3

10.3

19.4

72.9

34.8

0.4

0.1

3.4

27.1 100.0

Total from other G20
countries
Total from all countrie

Total OECD
destinations

Poland

(23)

21.8
0.4
0.1
0.8
1.1
0.1
2.6
0.0
0.4
0.5
0.5
0.0
0.2
0.1
0.3
0.1
0.2
2.2
1.3
0.0
0.3
0.7
a
1.1
0.1
0.2
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.6
0.5
0.1
1.8
3.4

United States

Norway

Country of origin
Australia
Austria
Belgium
Canada
Chile
Czech Republic
Denmark
Estonia
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Iceland
Ireland
Israel
Italy
Japan
Korea
Luxembourg
Mexico
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Slovak Republic
Slovenia
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Turkey
United Kingdom
United States

United
Kingdom

New Zealand
Partners

OECD

OECD

Total all reporting
destinations

Countries of destination

100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0

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. Year of reference 2012.
2. Data refer to foreign instead of international (mobile) students.
3. Excludes doctoral or equivalent programmes.
Source: OECD. Argentina, China, Colombia, India, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia and South Africa: UNESCO Institute for Statistics. Latvia: Eurostat. See Annex 3 for notes
(www.oecd.org/education/education-at-a-glance-19991487.htm).
Please refer to the Reader’s Guide for information concerning symbols for missing data and abbreviations.
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933285958

368 Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

chapter C

Who studies abroad and where? – INDICATOR C4

Table C4.5. Mobility patterns of foreign and international students (2013)
Regional and cross-border mobility, balance on mobility and use of the official language
of the host country in countries of origin

Partners

OECD

Percentage of national tertiary
students enrolled abroad

Number
of international students
per national student abroad

Percentage
of international students
from neighbouring countries1

Percentage of students
from countries with
the same official language

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

Australia

1

21

34

21

Austria

4

4

58

54

Belgium

3

3

48

58

Canada2

3

3

6

32

Chile

1

0

18

84

Czech Republic3

3

3

63

0

Denmark

2

6

43

0

Estonia

7

0

65

0

Finland

3

3

15

2

France

3

3

15

27

Germany

4

2

16

10

Greece

m

m

m

m

Hungary

3

2

38

0

Iceland

14

0

9

0

Ireland

8

1

16

45

Israel3

4

1

1

0

Italy3

3

2

25

4

Japan

1

4

79

0

Korea3

3

0

71

0

Luxembourg

68

0

63

35

Mexico

1

0

m

m

Netherlands

2

5

41

4

New Zealand

2

8

9

36

Norway

7

1

21

0

Poland

1

1

62

0

Portugal

3

1

6

62

Slovak Republic

14

0

61

0

Slovenia

3

1

40

7

Spain

2

2

24

43

Sweden

4

1

20

6

Switzerland

5

4

56

61

Turkey3

1

1

20

11

United Kingdom

1

14

12

25

United States4

0

12

6

22

OECD total

2

3

19

21

EU21 total

3

3

23

21

Argentina

m

m

m

m

Brazil3

0

0

m

m

China3

2

m

m

m

Colombia3

1

m

m

m

India

m

m

m

m

Indonesia3

1

m

m

m

Latvia

7

1

m

m

Russian Federation3, 5

1

3

87

46

Saudi Arabia3

6

1

32

44

South Africa2, 3

1

6

48

70

1. The neighbouring countries considered have land or maritime borders with the host country.
2. Year of reference 2012.
3. Data refer to foreign instead of international students.
4. Even though there is no official language in the United States, English has been used for Column (4).
5. The percentage of foreign students coming from neighbouring countries includes those from former Soviet Union countries, mostly of central Asia.
Source: OECD and UNESCO Institute for Statistics for most data on non-OECD countries. Latvia: Eurostat. CIA World Factbook 2014 for worldwide official
languages. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/education/education-at-a-glance-19991487.htm).
Please refer to the Reader’s Guide for information concerning symbols for missing data and abbreviations.
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933285960

Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

369

C4

TRANSITION FROM SCHOOL TO WORK: WHERE ARE
THE 15-29 YEAR-OLDS?
• The percentage of 20-24 year-olds not in education ranges from less than 40% in Denmark and
Slovenia to over 70% in Brazil, Colombia, Israel and Mexico.

INDICATOR C5

• On average across OECD countries, 18% of 20-24 year-olds are neither employed nor in education
or training (NEET).

• Countries in which a large share of 15-29 year-olds are employed and study at the same time usually
show small proportions of students who work 35 hours or more per week. In the Czech Republic,
Denmark, Iceland, the Netherlands and Norway, more than 25% of adults study and work the same
time, but less than 30% of them work 35 or more hours per week.

Chart C5.1. NEET population among 20-24 year-olds, by gender (2014)
Men

%

Women

Men and Women

60
50
40
30
20

0

Luxembourg
Iceland
Norway
Germany
Netherlands
Austria
Sweden
Czech Republic
Switzerland
Denmark
Australia
Slovenia
New Zealand
Canada
Finland
Estonia
Lithuania
Latvia
United Kingdom
United States
OECD average
France
Israel
Slovak Republic
Belgium
Poland
Hungary
Ireland
Chile1
Costa Rica
Korea1
Portugal
Brazil1
Colombia
Mexico
Spain
Greece
Italy
Turkey

10

Note: NEET refer to young people neither in employment nor in education or training
1. Brazil, Chile, Korea: Year of reference 2013.
Countries are ranked in ascending order of the percentage of the 20-24 year-old NEET population of men and women.
Source: OECD. Table C5.2a. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/education/education-at-a-glance- 19991487.htm).
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933284290

Context
The length and the quality of the schooling that individuals receive have an impact on students’
transition from education to work, as do labour market conditions, the economic environment and
demographics. For example, in some countries, young people traditionally complete schooling before
they look for work; in others, education and employment are concurrent. In some countries, there
is little difference between how young women and men experience their transitions from school to
work, while in other countries, significant proportions of young women raise families full time after
leaving the education system and do not enter the labour force.
The ageing of the population in OECD countries should favour employment among young people as,
theoretically, when older people leave the labour market their jobs are made available to the young.
However, during recessionary periods, fewer job vacancies make the transition from school to work
substantially more difficult for young people, as those with more work experience are favoured over
new entrants into the labour market. When labour market conditions are unfavourable, young people
often tend to stay in education longer, because high unemployment rates drive down the opportunity
costs of education. At the same time, most countries are adopting policies that raise the age of
retirement. Delaying retirement slows job rotation, which tends to lead to a decrease in job vacancies.
This may account for differences in the number of young people (entrants) and older people (leavers)
in the labour market.

370 Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

To improve the transition from school to work, regardless of the economic climate, education systems
should aim to ensure that individuals have the skills that are needed in the labour market. During
recessions, public investment in education could be a sensible way to counterbalance unemployment
and invest in future economic growth by building the needed skills. In addition, public investment
could be directed towards potential employers in the form of incentives to hire young people.
Other findings
• On average across OECD countries, 48% of 15-29 year-olds were in education in 2014. Of the
remaining 52%, 36% held a job, 7% were unemployed, and 9% were outside of the labour force.

INDICATOR C5

• Women are more often neither in employment nor in education or training (NEET) than men.
Among 20-24 year-olds, 19.4% of women and 16.4% of men were NEET in 2014, on average across
OECD countries. In Mexico and Turkey, the gender difference in the shares of 20-24 year-olds who
were NEET was around 30 percentage points.

• Across OECD countries, and among all young people who are employed and no longer in school,
men are more likely to find a full-time job than women. On average, 82% of young men work full
time compared with 67% of young women.
Trends
Most countries have encouraged students to continue their studies beyond compulsory schooling.
As a result, the average number of years of formal education expected after compulsory schooling has
increased considerably. On average across OECD countries, since 2000, about one year has been added
to the duration of formal education; in the Czech Republic, the Netherlands, the Slovak Republic and
Turkey, two years or more have been added (Table C5.1b, available on line).
Governments’ efforts to improve educational attainment among their populations have resulted
in significant changes in participation in education over the years. In 2000, an average of 35% of
20-24 year-olds in OECD countries were in education; by 2014, that proportion had grown to 46%
(Table C5.2b, available on line).
During the same period, the proportion of 20-24 year-olds not in education but employed fell from
42% to 36%. While the percentage of individuals in education increased steadily between 2000 and
2014, trends in the proportion of 20-24 year-olds who were neither in employment nor in education
or training (NEET) remained stable at around 17-19% between 2000 and 2014 (Table C5.2b, available
on line).

Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

371

chapter C ACCESS TO EDUCATION, PARTICIPATION AND PROGRESSION

Analysis

C5

Young people in education or not, and their labour market status
Young people tend to make the transition from education to the labour market between the ages of 15 and 29.
As expected, the older individuals in this age band are less likely to be enrolled in educational institutions than the
younger individuals. In 2014, on average across OECD countries, 86% of 15-19 year-olds, 46% of 20-24 year-olds and
17% of 25-29 year-olds were in education. In some countries, relatively large shares young people study and work at
the same time. For example, in Australia, Denmark, Germany, Iceland, the Netherlands, Norway and Switzerland,
more than one in four 20-24 year-olds study and work concurrently (Table C5.2a).
Among those who were not in education in 2014 (i.e. 14% of 15-19 year-olds, 54% of 20-24 year-olds and 83%
of 25-29 year-olds), what was their status in the labour market? Chart C5.2 shows that, on average, among all
20-24 year-olds, 36% were not in education and employed, about 9% were not in education and unemployed, and 9%
were not in education and inactive (i.e. not employed and not looking for a job). The percentage of 20-24 year-olds
not in education ranged from less than 40% in Denmark and Slovenia to over 70% in Brazil, Colombia, Israel and
Mexico (Table C5.2a).

Chart C5.2. Percentage of 20-24 year-olds in education/not in education,
by work status (2014)
Employed

20-24 year-olds in education

Unemployed

Inactive

20-24 year-olds not in education
Slovenia
Denmark
Luxembourg
Netherlands
Germany
Norway
Finland
Lithuania
Iceland
Spain
Greece
Czech Republic
Slovak Republic
Poland
Latvia
Belgium
France
Estonia
Sweden
OECD average
Ireland
Switzerland
Korea
Chile1
Portugal
Australia
Hungary
Costa Rica
Italy
Canada
New Zealand
Austria
United States
United Kingdom
Turkey
Israel
Mexico
Colombia
Brazil1

% 80

60

40

20

0

0

20

40

1. Brazil, Chile: Year of reference 2013.
Countries are ranked in ascending order of the percentage of 20-24 year-olds not in education.
Source: OECD. Table C5.2a. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/education/education-at-a-glance- 19991487.htm).
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933284300

372 Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

60

80 %

Transition from school to work: where are the 15-29 year-olds? – INDICATOR C5

chapter C

Participation in education and the labour market also differs according to educational attainment. Those who
have completed tertiary education (which represents the highest level of education) and are no longer in education
are usually employed, whereas individuals who are not in education and who did not complete upper secondary
education are distributed almost evenly among employment, unemployment or inactivity. In Mexico and Turkey, less
than 40% of 15-29 year-olds with only lower secondary education who did not complete upper secondary education
are still in school. In the Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Poland, the Slovak Republic,
Slovenia, Sweden and Switzerland, 80% or more of young people who did not finish upper secondary education are
still in school (Table C5.3a).
Young people who are neither in employment nor in education or training (NEET)
Unemployment and employment rates are useful indicators of how people engage in the labour market. Young
individuals are particularly likely to delay their entry into the labour market or drop out of the labour force and
become inactive. While increasing numbers of young people tend to stay in education beyond the age of compulsory
schooling without being active in the labour market, it would be inappropriate to consider them as a high-risk group.
Consequently, the proportion of young people who are neither in employment nor in education or training (NEET)
is a better measure of the difficulties young people face when they are searching for a job, as it includes not only
those who do not manage to find a job (unemployed) but also those who do not actively seek employment (inactive).
On average across OECD countries in 2014, 15.5% of 15-29 year-olds, 7.2% of 15-19 year-olds, 17.9% of
20-24 year-olds and 20.5% of 25-29 year-olds were NEET (Table C5.2a).
The most important ages to study when analysing the NEET population are 20-24 year-olds. At this age, compulsory
education does not affect the proportion of inactive or unemployed. However, when analysing the proportion of
NEET, it is important to remember that a significant proportion of 20-24 year-olds are continuing their studies after
compulsory education.
In 2014, Greece, Italy and Turkey were the only countries where more than 30% of 20-24 year-olds were NEET. Turkey
has the highest proportion of NEET, but it is also the only country among these three to show a decrease in the
percentage of NEET between 2005 and 2014, from 49.7% in 2005 to 36.3% in 2014 (Table C5.2b, available on line).
Germany’s share of 20-24 year-old NEET (18.7%) was above the OECD average (17.4%) in 2005, but by 2014, that
share fell back to 10.1%, well below the OECD average of 17.9%. In fact, the proportion of 20-24 year-old NEET in
Germany is one of the smallest among OECD countries along with those in Iceland (9.4%), Luxembourg (9.0%), the
Netherlands (10.4%) and Norway (10.0%) (Table C5.2a).
Women are more often NEET than men. Some 16.4% of 20-24 year-old men were NEET in 2014 compared with
19.4% of women that age, on average across OECD countries. In Mexico and Turkey, the gender difference in the
shares of 20-24 year-olds who were NEET in 2014 is around 30 percentage points. The greatest difference in favour
of women is observed in Luxembourg, where 6.3% of women but 11.8% of men were NEET. Chart C5.1 shows that
there is no direct association between a country’s overall proportion of NEET and the gender gap in shares of NEET.
In Italy and Turkey, more than 30% of 20-24 year-olds were NEET; but while the gender gap among NEET of those
ages is large in Turkey, it is almost non-existent in Italy (Table C5.2a).
Working hours
The extent to which 15-29 year-olds participate in the labour market not only varies in terms of employment, but
it also varies in intensity of work. As the transition between school and work will most likely occur during this
period in a young person’s life, work intensity should be analysed separately between students and non-students.
The latter are largely young people who recently finished their education and are available to work full time, while
students have to divide their time between work and school. The participation levels between these two groups are
therefore very different. Students show lower levels of employment and fewer hours worked, while non-students
show higher employment rates and dedicate more hours to work.

Working and studying at the same time: Finding a good balance
The varying levels of employment among 15-29 year-old students can be explained by cultural, economic or social
differences across countries. For instance, in some countries, students may wait until they finish their studies
before looking for a job, while in other countries, young people may be more inclined to work during their studies
to gain some experience on the labour market or to finance their studies (and/or other expenses). In the latter case,
when work and education/learning are pursued simultaneously, it becomes important to consider how much time
students are devoting to work to determine whether those working hours are becoming an obstacle to education.
Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

373

C5

chapter C ACCESS TO EDUCATION, PARTICIPATION AND PROGRESSION

Countries in which a large share of 15-29 year-olds are employed and study at the same time usually show small
proportions of students working 35 hours or more per week. In the Czech Republic, Denmark, the Netherlands,
Norway and Sweden, more than 25% of young adults study and work the same time, but less than 30% of them
work 35 or more hours per week. The picture in Austria and Germany is different because of the prevalence of
work-study programmes. In these two countries, about one in five young adults studied and worked at the same
time in 2014, and about one in two of them worked 35 hours per week or more. Thus, in a number of countries, the
large proportion of students working long hours is part of an arrangement between school and future employers.
By contrast, in countries where less than 10% of young adults study and work simultaneously, about 50% of students
work full time, on average (Table C5.4b).

Chart C5.3. Percentage of 15-29 not in education,
by number of hours worked in a reference week (2014)
35 hours or more

%

10 to 34 hours

1 to 9 hours

50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10

Israel

Latvia3

Colombia

Czech Republic

Austria

Hungary3

Iceland

Estonia3

Poland

Mexico

Australia

Lithuania3

United Kingdom

Germany

United States

Switzerland

Slovak Republic

Korea2

Canada

Costa Rica

Luxembourg

France

OECD average

Chile2

Turkey

Belgium

Sweden

Portugal

Finland

Slovenia

Spain1

Ireland

Norway

Denmark

Netherlands

0

Italy

5
Greece

C5

While there is no clear international recommendation for the appropriate number of hours a student should work,
studies have shown that the skills and the work experience students gain in the labour market can be beneficial
for both the academic and the professional spheres. The combination of work and study can provide students with
the opportunity to try different jobs before fully entering the world of work. Employment can help students to
gain financial independence from their parents, develop a sense of responsibility, enhance self-accomplishment and
social integration, and develop knowledge and skills that will help them find work after their studies (Dundes and
Marx, 2006; Murier, 2006; OECD, 2010).

Note: Hours worked represent the actual number of hours worked per week, including overtime. When actual hours worked per week were equal
to zero, the usual hours worked were used instead. When a country could not provide the actual number of hours worked per week, the usual hours
worked were used.
1. Spain: Data refer to 16-29 year-olds.
2. Chile, Korea: Year of reference 2013.
3. Estonia, Hungary, Latvia and Lithuania: Category “1 to 9 hours” is not shown because there are too few observations to provide reliable estimates.
Countries are ranked in ascending order of the percentage of 15-29 year-olds not in education and working 35 hours or more in a reference week.
Source: OECD. Tables C5.4b. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/education/education-at-a-glance- 19991487.htm).
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933284314

Seeking a full-time job when leaving school
Across OECD countries, one in three 15-29 year-olds is no longer in education, but is employed. Chart C5.3 shows
that most young people who are working take up a full-time job after finishing their studies. In some countries, such
as the Netherlands and Norway, there are significant proportions of 15-29 year-olds who are not in education but
are employed and working less than 35 hours per week (47% and 43%, respectively). Young people who work part
time without being in education do so for different reasons. Some may decide to work part time to accommodate
family-related tasks, such as taking care of children or other family members; others may want to work full time but
are unable to find a position (Table C5.4b).

374 Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

Transition from school to work: where are the 15-29 year-olds? – INDICATOR C5

chapter C

Chart C5.4 shows that across OECD countries, among all young people who are employed and no longer in education,
men are more likely to find a full-time job than women. On average, 82% of young men work full time compared
with 67% of young women. The largest gender gaps – more than 20 percentage points – are found in Belgium, Italy,
Luxembourg and the Netherlands. For example, in the Netherlands, among all employed people who are no longer in
education, 67% of men work full time compared to 37% of women. The smallest gender gap, less than 5 percentage
points, is observed in the Czech Republic, Hungary, Korea, Latvia, Lithuania and the Slovak Republic (Table C5.4b).

Chart C5.4. Percentage of 15-29 year-olds who work 35 hours or more per week
among all employed young adults not in education, by gender (2014)

Norway

Sweden

Netherlands

Denmark

Ireland

Canada

Italy

Finland

Greece

United States

United Kingdom

OECD average

Spain2

Australia

France

Mexico

Portugal

Switzerland

Austria

Women

Slovak Republic

Iceland

Costa Rica

Czech Republic

Israel

Belgium

Poland

Slovenia

Estonia

Germany

Korea1

Chile1

Turkey

Hungary

Luxembourg

Latvia

Lithuania

Colombia

Men

%

100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0

Note: Hours worked represent the actual number of hours worked per week, including overtime. When actual hours worked per week were equal
to zero, the usual hours worked were used instead. When a country could not provide the actual number of hours worked per week, the usual hours
worked were used.
1. Chile, Korea: Year of reference 2013.
2. Spain: Data refer to 16-29 year-olds.
Countries are ranked in descending order of the percentage of 15-29 year-old men not in education and working 35 hours or more in a reference week.
Source: OECD. Tables C5.4b. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/education/education-at-a-glance- 19991487.htm).
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933284323

Expected years in education
In 2014, a typical 15-year-old in an OECD country could expect to spend about 7 additional years in formal education
during the subsequent 15 years of his or her life. During these seven years in education, he/she could expect to hold
a job for two years (including work-study programmes) and be unemployed or inactive for 5 years. Then, almost
eight years will be spent not in education, during which he/she could expect to be employed for roughly five and a
half years, to be unemployed for just over one year, and to be out of the labour force – that is, neither in education
nor seeking work – for just over one year. There are large differences among countries: in Brazil, Colombia, Mexico
and Turkey, a 15-year-old student could expect to spend an average of about five more years in education, while in
Denmark and Slovenia, he or she could expect to spend an average of nine more years in education (Table C5.1a,
available on line).
In most countries, years spent in education are normally not combined with work; the only exceptions are Denmark,
Iceland, the Netherlands and Switzerland, where young people spend an average of four years or more working
(including work-study programmes) while studying. On average across OECD countries, students spend nearly two
out of seven years in education working while studying (Table C5.1a, available on line).
There are no large gender differences in expected years in education, but women tend to spend more time in education
than men, except in Austria, Chile, Colombia, France, Germany, Israel, Japan, Luxembourg, the Netherlands,
New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, Switzerland and the United Kingdom where the number of expected years in
education for men and women are similar. In Korea and Turkey, the number of expected years in education is higher
for men than for women. In some other countries, gender differences in employment among those who have left
education are large. For example, in Mexico and Turkey, men work over three years more than women (Table C5.1a,
available on line).
Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

375

C5

chapter C ACCESS TO EDUCATION, PARTICIPATION AND PROGRESSION

Definitions
Employed individuals are those who, during the survey reference week: work for pay (employees) or profit
(self-employed and unpaid family workers) for at least one hour; or 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.).

C5

Hours worked are the number of hours actually worked, defined as the sum of all periods spent on direct and
ancillary activities to produce goods and services. The number of hours actually worked covers all hours including
extra hours regardless of whether they were paid or not. The reference period for the actual work would be the
week of reference. Data on usual number of hours worked were used in the cases where the number of actual hours
worked could not be collected.
Inactive individuals are those who are, during the survey’s reference week, neither employed nor unemployed,
i.e. individuals who are not looking for a job. The number of inactive individuals is calculated by subtracting the
number of active people (labour force) from the number of all working-age people.
Levels of education: In this Indicator two ISCED (International Standard Classification of Education) classifications
are used: ISCED 2011 and ISCED-97.
When it is specified that ISCED 2011 is used, the levels of education are defined as: below upper secondary
corresponds to ISCED 2011 Levels 0, 1 and 2, and includes recognised qualifications from ISCED 2011 Level 3
programmes, which are not considered as sufficient for ISCED 2011 Level 3 completion, and without direct access
to post-secondary non-tertiary education or tertiary education; upper secondary or post-secondary non-tertiary
corresponds to ISCED 2011 Levels 3 and 4; and tertiary corresponds to ISCED 2011 Levels 5, 6, 7 and 8 (UNESCO
Institute for Statistics, 2012).
When it is specified that ISCED-97 is used, the levels of education are defined as: below upper secondary corresponds
to ISCED-97 Levels 0, 1, 2 and 3C short programmes; upper secondary or post-secondary non-tertiary corresponds
to ISCED-97 Levels 3A, 3B, 3C long programmes, and Level 4; and tertiary corresponds to ISCED-97 Levels 5A, 5B
and 6.
See in the section About the new ISCED 2011 classification at the beginning of this publication for a presentation of
all ISCED 2011 levels and Annex 3 for a presentation of all ISCED-97 levels.
NEET: Neither in employment nor in education or training.
Unemployed individuals are those who are, during the survey reference week, without work (i.e. neither had a
job nor were at work for one hour or more in paid employment or self-employment), actively seeking employment
(i.e. had taken specific steps during the four weeks prior to the reference week to seek paid employment or
self-employment), and currently available to start work (i.e. were available for paid employment or self-employment
before the end of the two weeks following the reference week).

Methodology
Data on population, educational attainment and labour market status for most countries are taken from OECD and
Eurostat databases, which are compiled from National Labour Force Surveys by the OECD LSO (Labour Market,
Economic and Social Outcomes of Learning) Network, and usually refer to the first quarter, or the average of the first
three months of the calendar year. Some discrepancies may exist in the data collected. For example some countries
may refer to all jobs instead of main job. See Annex 3 (www.oecd.org/education/education-at-a-glance-19991487.
htm) for additional information.
For Israel, the proportion of NEETs in 2013 is not comparable with data from 2011 and previous years. Conscripts
into the army are considered to be employed in 2013, as opposed to 2011 and the previous year, when they were
counted as not in the labour force.
Note regarding data from Israel
The statistical data for Israel are supplied by and are under the responsibility of the relevant Israeli authorities. The use of
such data by the OECD is without prejudice to the status of the Golan Heights, East Jerusalem and Israeli settlements in the
West Bank under the terms of international law.

376 Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

Transition from school to work: where are the 15-29 year-olds? – INDICATOR C5

chapter C

References
Dundes, L. and J. Marx (2006), “Balancing Work and Academics in College: Why Do Students Working 10 to 19 Hours per Week
Excel?”, Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory and Practice, Vol. 8, No. 1.
Murier, T. (2006), “L’activité professionnelle des élèves et des étudiants : Une étude basée sur les résultats de l’enquête suisse sur
la population active 1996-2005”, Actualité OFS, No. 3, Neuchâtel.
OECD (2010), “How good is part-time work?”, in OECD Employment Outlook 2010: Moving beyond the Jobs Crisis, OECD Publishing,
Paris, http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/empl_outlook-2010-5-en.
UNESCO Institute for Statistics (2012), International Standard Classification of Education: ISCED 2011, UNESCO-UIS, Montreal,
Canada, www.uis.unesco.org/Education/Documents/isced-2011-en.pdf.

Indicator C5 Tables
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933285971

WEB Table C5.1a

Expected years in education/not in education from age 15 through 29, by work status
and gender (2014)

WEB Table C5.1b

Trends in expected years in education/not in education from age 15 through 29,
by gender (2000, 2005, 2010 and 2014)

Table C5.2a
WEB Table C5.2b
Table C5.3a
WEB Table C5.3b
Table C5.4a
Table C5.4b

Percentage of 15-29 year-olds in education/not in education, by work status, age group
and gender (2014)
Trends in the percentage of 15-29 year-olds in education/not in education, employed or not,
by age group and gender (2000, 2005, 2010 and 2014)
Percentage of 15-29 year-olds in education/not in education, by educational attainment,
work status and gender (2014)
Trends in the percentage of 15-29 year-olds in education/not in education, employed or not,
by educational attainment and gender (2006, 2010 and 2014)
Percentage of 15-29 year-olds in education/not in education, by number of hours worked
and age group (2014)
Percentage of 15-29 year-olds in education/not in education, by number of hours worked
and gender (2014)

Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

377

C5

chapter C ACCESS TO EDUCATION, PARTICIPATION AND PROGRESSION

Table C5.2a. [1/2] Percentage of 15-29 year-olds in education/not in education,

by work status, age group and gender (2014)
20-24 year-olds
Young men

C5

Not in education

Unemployed

Sub-total
(employed +
unemployed +
inactive)

Employed

NEET

Unemployed

Inactive

(86)

(87)

(88)

(89)

(90)

(91)

(92)

(93)

(94)

(95)

(96)

24.2
15.9
3.8
15.7
10.7
10.3
31.8
12.6
14.2
12.4
26.6
2.6
2.2
30.9
12.5
8.4
1.7
m
9.4
3.7r
9.2
34.9
20.2
30.5
9.4
4.3
1.9
13.5
4.8
9.9
24.1
17.1
14.1
16.7

7.2
3.5
c
x(87)
x(87)
6.7
x(87)
x(87)
x(87)
x(87)
15.3
a
a
a
a
x(87)
a
m
a
a
a
x(87)
a
19.5
a
a
c
x(87)
x(87)
a
10.2
a
3.8
x(87)

17.0
12.4
2.6
15.7
10.7
3.6
31.8
12.6
14.2
12.4
11.4
2.6
2.2
30.9
12.5
8.4
1.7
m
9.4
3.7r
9.2
34.9
20.2
10.9
9.4
4.3
c
13.5
4.8
9.9
13.9
17.1
10.3
16.7

2.8
1.8
c
1.5
2.2
c
4.9
c
4.9
1.0
0.9
2.4
c
c
2.0r
1.2
1.3
m
0.7
c
0.8
3.6
1.4
1.6
1.7
3.1
c
3.2r
8.0
7.4
c
2.9
2.0
1.1

15.0
19.3
39.4
19.4
29.2
31.8
21.3
26.6
25.5
31.1
25.7
41.1
37.1
13.3
31.5
15.8
34.0
m
38.5
53.3
18.1
18.4
19.6
19.3
29.0
34.8
37.1
43.8
34.2
23.7
16.7
16.8
18.5
18.8

41.9
37.0
43.9
36.6
42.1
42.6
58.0
40.8
44.6
44.5
53.2
46.1
39.8
47.2
46.0
25.4
37.0
m
48.6
57.7
28.1
56.8
41.2
51.4
40.1
42.2
39.8
60.5
46.9
41.0
42.0
36.8
34.6
36.6

46.4
50.4
37.3
47.9
42.6
48.3
29.2
43.3
37.8
37.5
37.8
23.4
43.1
42.7
33.2
59.4
28.0
m
28.7
30.6
61.6
33.6
48.8
39.1
41.0
34.1
42.3
25.3
22.9
45.8
43.1
42.7
50.5
48.7

11.7
12.5
18.8
15.5
15.4
9.1
12.8
16.0
17.5
18.0
9.0
30.5
17.2
10.1
20.5
15.2
34.6
m
22.7
11.8
10.3
9.6
9.8
9.5
18.9
23.7
17.9
14.2
30.2
13.1
14.6
20.5
14.9
14.7

6.2
7.1
12.9
8.6
6.7
6.9
5.6
9.0
10.5
13.5
5.4
24.1
9.1
5.5
15.4
5.7
20.0
m
3.3
11.0
6.1
3.9
5.5
3.3
12.1
17.4
16.7
9.3
24.1
8.4
8.6
9.5
10.6
6.2

5.4
5.4
5.9
6.8
8.6
2.2
7.2
7.0
7.0
4.5
3.6
6.3
8.1
4.6
5.1
9.5
14.6
m
19.3
c
4.2
5.6
4.2
6.2
6.7
6.3
1.2r
4.8r
6.1
4.7
6.0
11.1
4.2
8.4

58.1
63.0
56.1
63.4
57.9
57.4
42.0
59.2
55.3
55.5
46.8
53.9
60.2
52.8
53.7
74.6
62.5
m
51.4
42.3
71.9
43.2
58.5
48.6
59.9
57.8
60.2
39.5
53.1
59.0
57.7
63.2
65.4
63.4

100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
m
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100

OECD average (excluding Japan)
EU21 average

13.9
11.6

m
m

12.2
10.5

2.6
3.2

27.2
31.3

43.4
45.4

40.2
36.9

16.3
17.6

10.0
12.0

6.6
5.8

56.5
54.6

100
100

Argentina
Brazil2
China
Colombia
Costa Rica
India
Indonesia
Latvia
Lithuania
Russian Federation
Saudi Arabia
South Africa

m
13.6
m
12.1
21.8
m
m
17.0
12.1
m
m
m

m
a
m
a
a
m
m
a
a
m
m
m

m
13.6
m
12.1
21.8
m
m
17.0
c
m
m
m

m
1.7
m
2.7
6.1
m
m
3.0r
c
m
m
m

m
6.2
m
10.0
11.1
m
m
22.4
32.0
m
m
m

m
21.6
m
24.7
39.0
m
m
42.4
46.0
m
m
m

m
63.2
m
62.4
49.1
m
m
40.8
39.2
m
m
m

m
15.2
m
12.9
11.9
m
m
16.9
14.8
m
m
m

m
6.3
m
8.6
9.2
m
m
10.7
10.1
m
m
m

m
9.0
m
4.3
2.7
m
m
6.1
c
m
m
m

m
78.4
m
75.3
61.0
m
m
57.6
54.0
m
m
m

m
100
m
100
100
m
m
100
100
m
m
m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

G20 average

Sub-total
(employed +
unemployed +
inactive)

Other employed

(85)

Australia
Austria
Belgium
Canada
Chile2
Czech Republic
Denmark
Estonia
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Iceland
Ireland
Israel
Italy
Japan
Korea2
Luxembourg
Mexico
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Slovak Republic
Slovenia
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Turkey
United Kingdom
United States

Inactive

Students in
work-study
programmes1

NEET

Employed
Partners

OECD

Employed

Total in education
and not in education

In education

Notes: NEET refer to young people neither in employment nor in education or training. Columns showing data for total population and/or other age groups are
available for consultation on line (see StatLink below).
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.
2. Brazil, Chile, Korea: Data for 2014 refer to year 2013.
Source: OECD. Latvia, Lithuania: Eurostat. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/education/education-at-a-glance-19991487.htm).
Please refer to the Reader’s Guide for information concerning symbols for missing data and abbreviations.
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933285989

378 Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

Transition from school to work: where are the 15-29 year-olds? – INDICATOR C5

chapter C

Table C5.2a. [2/2] Percentage of 15-29 year-olds in education/not in education,

by work status, age group and gender (2014)
20-24 year-olds
Young women
In education

Not in education

Unemployed

Inactive

Sub-total
(employed +
unemployed +
inactive)

Employed

NEET

Unemployed

Inactive

Sub-total
(employed +
unemployed +
inactive)

Total in education
and not in education

(98)

(99)

(100)

(101)

(102)

(103)

(104)

(105)

(106)

(107)

(108)

27.5
16.8
4.9
24.4
9.2
10.1
35.0
20.0
25.6
10.3
28.5
2.4
2.6
39.4
12.0
16.6
2.5
m
10.1
11.4
6.6
33.8
20.1
31.1
12.9
4.6
3.1
22.5
7.4
16.6
27.5
7.0
15.1
21.7

0.5r
2.9
c
x(99)
x(99)
4.9
x(99)
x(99)
x(99)
x(99)
13.3
a
a
a
a
x(99)
a
m
a
a
a
x(99)
a
8.2
a
a
c
x(99)
x(99)
a
7.4
a
1.9
x(99)

27.0
13.9
3.8
24.4
9.2
5.2
35.0
20.0
25.6
10.3
15.2
2.4
2.6
39.4
12.0
16.6
2.5
m
10.1
11.4
6.6
33.8
20.1
22.9
12.9
4.6
c
22.5
7.4
16.6
20.0
7.0
13.2
21.7

2.9
2.5
1.5
1.9
3.4
c
4.0
c
4.9
1.2
0.7
2.6
c
c
1.6r
1.4
1.4
m
0.8
3.9r
0.9
4.1
2.9
1.7
3.0
4.2
c
2.7r
8.7
7.1
2.7
2.1
1.6
1.2

13.6
21.9
44.4
19.4
33.3
44.6
25.3
31.0
27.1
36.7
25.9
47.2
43.0
11.8
31.0
15.6
42.0
m
29.9
43.7
19.4
18.5
17.2
21.0
41.1
35.3
53.5
52.7
37.0
27.8
17.7
17.5
17.8
16.6

43.9
41.3
50.8
45.7
46.0
55.3
64.3
52.2
57.6
48.2
55.0
52.2
46.2
53.0
44.5
33.6
45.9
m
40.8
59.0
26.8
56.4
40.1
53.7
57.0
44.2
57.4
77.9
53.1
51.6
47.8
26.6
34.5
39.4

41.2
47.3
30.4
40.3
27.4
29.2
23.1
31.5
28.4
33.1
33.6
15.7
29.7
38.4
33.5
44.5
18.7
m
37.5
34.7
33.8
32.5
40.6
35.8
23.4
31.8
23.4
9.5
19.0
37.6
42.1
22.4
46.3
40.2

14.9
11.5
18.9
14.0
26.7
15.5
12.7
16.3
13.6
18.7
11.4
32.1
24.1
8.7
21.7
21.9
35.1
m
21.7
6.3r
39.4
11.2
19.2
10.4
19.6
24.1
19.2
12.6
27.9
10.8
10.1
51.0
19.2
20.3

4.1
4.8
9.2
4.9
5.4
5.4
4.5
3.9
4.1
10.1
4.0
23.8
8.6
c
9.7
5.4
16.3
m
3.9
c
3.8
4.2
6.0
1.8
8.8
16.9
10.3
7.3r
19.9
5.2
5.0
5.1
6.5
6.2

10.7
6.7
9.6
9.1
21.2
10.1
8.2
12.4
9.5
8.6
7.3
8.2
15.5
6.6
12.0
16.6
18.8
m
17.8
4.1r
35.7
7.0
13.2
8.6
10.8
7.2
8.9
5.3r
7.9
5.6
5.1
45.9
12.7
14.2

56.1
58.7
49.2
54.3
54.0
44.7
35.7
47.8
42.0
51.8
45.0
47.8
53.8
47.0
55.2
66.4
53.7
m
59.2
41.0
73.2
43.6
59.8
46.3
43.0
55.8
42.6
22.1
46.9
48.4
52.2
73.4
65.5
60.6

100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
m
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100

OECD average (excluding Japan)
EU21 average

16.3
14.2

m
m

15.5
13.5

2.8
3.3

29.7
35.6

48.5
52.6

32.0
29.2

19.4
18.2

7.6
9.2

12.2
9.4

51.4
47.4

100
100

Argentina
Brazil2
China
Colombia
Costa Rica
India
Indonesia
Latvia
Lithuania
Russian Federation
Saudi Arabia
South Africa

m
14.0
m
11.8
16.7
m
m
14.6
13.3
m
m
m

m
a
m
a
a
m
m
a
a
m
m
m

m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
c
m
m
m

m
2.2
m
3.2
8.4
m
m
c
c
m
m
m

m
9.8
m
12.0
19.9
m
m
36.7
40.1
m
m
m

m
26.0
m
27.1
45.0
m
m
52.5
55.7
m
m
m

m
41.4
m
36.8
22.3
m
m
31.2
26.2
m
m
m

m
32.6
m
36.1
32.7
m
m
16.3
18.1
m
m
m

m
7.7
m
10.9
10.1
m
m
7.0
8.9
m
m
m

m
24.9
m
25.2
22.6
m
m
9.3
9.2
m
m
m

m
74.0
m
72.9
55.0
m
m
47.5
44.3
m
m
m

m
100
m
100
100
m
m
100
100
m
m
m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

G20 average

Students in
work-study
programmes1

(97)

Australia
Austria
Belgium
Canada
Chile2
Czech Republic
Denmark
Estonia
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Iceland
Ireland
Israel
Italy
Japan
Korea2
Luxembourg
Mexico
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Slovak Republic
Slovenia
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Turkey
United Kingdom
United States

Employed
OECD
Partners

NEET

Other employed

Employed

Notes: NEET refer to young people neither in employment nor in education or training. Columns showing data for total population and/or other age groups are
available for consultation on line (see StatLink below).
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.
2. Brazil, Chile, Korea: Data for 2014 refer to year 2013.
Source: OECD. Latvia, Lithuania: Eurostat. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/education/education-at-a-glance-19991487.htm).
Please refer to the Reader’s Guide for information concerning symbols for missing data and abbreviations.
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933285989

Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

379

C5

chapter C ACCESS TO EDUCATION, PARTICIPATION AND PROGRESSION

Table C5.3a. Percentage of 15-29 year-olds in education/not in education,

by educational attainment, work status and gender (2014)
Tertiary
In education

Employed

Students in
work-study
programmes1

Other
employed

Unemployed

Inactive

Sub-total
(employed +
unemployed +
inactive)

Employed

NEET

Unemployed

Inactive

OECD
Partners

NEET

(73)

(74)

(75)

(76)

(77)

(78)

(79)

(80)

(81)

(82)

(83)

(84)

Australia
Austria
Belgium
Canada
Chile2
Czech Republic
Denmark
Estonia
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Iceland
Ireland
Israel
Italy
Japan
Korea2
Luxembourg
Mexico
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Slovak Republic
Slovenia
Spain3
Sweden
Switzerland
Turkey
United Kingdom
United States

15.2
20.8
5.5
13.4
5.8
11.0
27.4
16.6
17.7
10.6
14.5
2.2
3.6
14.8
7.7
15.2
4.5
m
1.4
11.5
8.0
21.4
12.8
12.3
10.6
8.8
4.5
17.2
10.9
17.7
15.8
18.9
11.8
13.6

c

c
c
x(75)
a
m
x(75)
x(75)
x(75)
x(75)
1.1
a
a
a
a
x(75)
a
m
a
a
a
x(75)
a
m
a
a
c
x(75)
x(75)
a
c
a
0.9
x(75)

15.0
20.5
5.2
13.4
5.8
10.9
27.4
16.6
17.7
10.6
13.3
2.2
3.6
14.8
7.7
15.2
4.5
m
1.4
11.5
8.0
21.4
12.8
12.3
10.6
8.8
c
17.2
10.9
17.7
15.3
18.9
10.8
13.6

1.4
2.4
c
1.0
1.0
c
2.4r
c
1.8r
0.5
1.3
1.5r
c
c
1.2r
0.7
1.7
m
0.0
m
0.7
1.6
0.7
0.8
1.6
3.1
c
4.0r
7.4
4.4
1.2
3.1
1.3
0.4

8.7
15.0
16.0
9.8
7.0
20.0
9.6
8.2
6.9
16.2
9.7
5.4
9.8
c
11.7
4.2
29.4
m
1.6
19.9
12.1
8.7
6.9
13.0
12.2
18.1
26.8
12.4
14.3
17.3
7.6
6.2
8.9
8.4

25.3
38.2
22.2
24.2
13.8
31.8
39.4
26.3
26.4
27.4
25.5
9.1
13.7
21.6
20.7
20.0
35.5
m
3.0
31.3
20.7
31.7
20.4
26.2
24.5
30.0
31.6
33.6
32.6
39.5
24.7
28.2
21.9
22.4

66.1
55.9
68.3
65.0
68.2
56.4
49.3
60.0
60.4
60.9
68.9
50.6
71.8
73.1
67.4
67.6
34.5
m
72.2
59.5
63.0
62.4
70.9
68.5
63.0
51.8
52.3
50.5
46.7
55.0
67.8
46.3
69.8
66.5

8.6
5.9
9.5
10.8
18.0
11.8
11.3
13.7
13.2
11.7
5.6
40.3
14.5
c
11.9
12.3
29.2
m
24.8
9.1
16.2
5.9
8.7
5.2
12.5
18.1
16.1
15.9
20.7
5.5
7.2
25.6
8.3
11.1

2.5
3.1
6.0
5.2
8.6
4.4
7.6
4.8
5.6
8.1
2.3
35.8
5.7
c
7.4
5.3
14.0
m
5.8
7.3
7.4
3.1
3.8
2.4
7.1
13.9
9.1
11.6
16.7
3.0
4.3
10.2
4.1
3.7

6.1
2.9
3.5
5.6
9.4
7.4
3.6
8.9
7.5
3.6
3.2
4.5
8.8
c
4.5
7.1
15.2
m
18.9
c
8.8
2.9
4.9
2.8
5.4
4.2
7.0
4.3r
4.0
2.5
3.0
15.4
4.2
7.4

74.7
61.8
77.8
75.8
86.2
68.2
60.6
73.7
73.6
72.6
74.5
90.9
86.3
78.4
79.3
80.0
63.7
m
97.0
68.7
79.3
68.3
79.6
73.8
75.5
70.0
68.4
66.4
67.4
60.5
75.1
71.8
78.1
77.6

100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
m
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100

OECD average (excluding Japan)
EU21 average

12.2
12.2

m
m

12.4
12.5

1.8
2.4

11.9
14.1

25.6
28.2

60.9
57.9

13.7
13.8

7.5
8.6

6.4
5.4

74.4
71.7

100
100

Argentina
Brazil2
China
Colombia
Costa Rica
India
Indonesia
Latvia
Lithuania
Russian Federation
Saudi Arabia
South Africa

m
3.1
m
15.5
28.7
m
m
12.3
c
m
m
m

m
a
m
a
a
m
m
a
a
m
m
m

m
3.1
m
15.5
29.0
m
m
12.3
c
m
m
m

m
0.3
m
2.5
7.0
m
m
c
c
m
m
m

m
1.2
m
4.2
6.7
m
m
4.7
c
m
m
m

m
4.7
m
22.3
42.4
m
m
17.8
9.1
m
m
m

m
82.1
m
61.2
47.8
m
m
69.8
78.9
m
m
m

m
13.3
m
16.5
9.8
m
m
12.4
12.0
m
m
m

m
5.6
m
10.7
7.5
m
m
3.4r
7.0
m
m
m

m
7.7
m
5.9
2.3
m
m
9.0
c
m
m
m

m
95.3
m
77.7
57.6
m
m
82.2
90.9
m
m
m

m
100
m
100
100
m
m
100
100
m
m
m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

G20 average

Sub-total
(employed +
unemployed +
inactive)

C5

Not in education

Employed

Total in education
and not in education

Total (young men + young women)

Notes: NEET refer to young people neither in employment nor in education or training. Data refer to ISCED 2011. In Brazil data refer to ISCED-97. See the description
of the levels of education in the Definitions section. Columns showing data broken down by gender and/or other educational attainment groups are available for
consultation on line (see StatLink below).
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.
2. Brazil, Chile, Korea: Data for 2014 refer to year 2013.
3. Spain: Data refer to 16-29 year-olds.
Source: OECD. Latvia, Lithuania: Eurostat. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/education/education-at-a-glance-19991487.htm).
Please refer to the Reader’s Guide for information concerning symbols for missing data and abbreviations.
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933285997

380 Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

Transition from school to work: where are the 15-29 year-olds? – INDICATOR C5

chapter C

Table C5.4a. Percentage of 15-29 year-olds in education/not in education,

by number of hours worked and age group (2014)
20-24 year-olds

Not in education

10-19

20-34

35+

Unemployed
or inactive

1-9

10-19

20-34

35+

Unknown

(15)

(16)

(17)

(18)

(19)

(20)

(21)

(22)

(23)

(24)

(25)

(26)

(27)

(28)

Australia
Austria
Belgium
Canada
Chile1
Czech Republic
Denmark
Estonia
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Iceland
Ireland
Israel
Italy
Japan
Korea1
Luxembourg
Mexico
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Slovak Republic
Slovenia
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Turkey
United Kingdom
United States

3.6
3.9
1.3
4.4
1.1
c
12.4
c
5.5
1.4
4.4
c
c
7.4
1.9
1.9
0.4
m
1.6
c
0.7
14.3
x(19)
9.9
0.3
c
0.0
2.3r
1.2
4.8
4.6
0.2
2.2
1.6

x(17)
4.2
c
8.3
1.1
0.8
8.9
1.5
5.7
2.0
3.8
0.5r
c
9.2
4.9
2.7
0.4
m
x(17)
c
1.1
8.0
x(19)
5.8
0.7
c
c
3.2r
x(17)
3.5
3.1
0.6
3.9
4.3

14.0d
2.7
0.8
5.2
1.9
1.8
3.3
7.1
4.7
1.5
2.1
0.9r
1.0
7.0
2.8
4.6
0.7
m
5.2d
2.2r
2.0
6.3
x(19)
5.0
2.9
0.8
0.7r
7.2
3.1d
2.9
3.4
1.0
2.7
7.9

8.2
5.5
1.2
2.2
5.6
1.9
8.6
5.9
3.4
6.4
17.2
1.1
1.0
11.4
2.6
3.3
0.5
m
2.9
3.7
3.9
4.8
x(19)
7.9
7.3
1.8
1.2
5.0
1.7
1.9
4.2
10.0
4.7
5.3

0.0
16.4
c
0.0
0.3
5.3
c
c
c
0.1
0.0
0.0
c
0.0
c
0.0
c
m
0.0
c
0.2
0.9
20.1d
0.0
0.0
c
0.0
0.0
0.0
c
10.5
0.0
1.2
0.1

25.8
16.4
4.3
20.0
9.9
10.2
33.4
16.2
19.7
11.3
27.5
2.5
2.4
35.1
12.2
12.4
2.1
m
9.8
7.6
7.9
34.3
20.1
30.8
11.1
4.4
2.5
17.8
6.1
13.2
25.7
11.8
14.6
19.2

17.1
22.8
43.0
21.0
34.1
38.6
27.7
30.1
31.2
35.0
26.6
46.7
40.5
14.9
33.0
17.0
39.3
m
34.6
50.8
19.6
22.3
20.5
21.7
37.2
38.8
45.9
51.1
43.9
33.0
19.1
19.7
19.9
18.9

1.2
0.8
c
1.2
0.7
c
1.5
c
1.3
0.9
0.6
0.4r
c
c
0.9r
0.9
0.6
m
0.4
c
1.0
4.4
x(26)
6.2
0.0
c
c
c
0.9
1.7
0.9
0.4
1.2
0.7

x(24)
1.2
2.2
3.1
1.3
0.9
2.5
c
2.2
1.9
1.7
1.1
c
c
2.3
2.3
1.2
m
x(24)
3.3r
2.5
2.6
x(26)
3.0
0.7
1.8
1.2
1.2r
x(24)
3.3
0.9
1.6
4.2
2.0

10.7d
7.6
7.5
12.5
3.1
5.0
6.4
4.2
8.5
6.6
3.9
4.7
3.6
5.2
9.2
7.7
6.1
m
4.8d
4.1
5.8
9.1
x(26)
7.4
4.1
4.6
4.2
1.5r
5.7d
11.7d
5.5
2.5
8.1
9.2

31.9
39.3
23.8
27.4
29.1
32.6
15.7
29.8
21.1
25.8
29.6
13.4
32.1
32.8
20.7
41.1
15.3
m
28.0
21.9
37.2
15.8
x(26)
21.0
27.6
24.3
27.2
15.0
14.4
25.0
30.7
27.7
33.4
32.6

0.0
0.0
c
0.0
0.7
c
0.0
2.4
c
0.1
0.0
0.0
c
0.0
c
0.0
0.3
m
0.3
1.9r
1.0
1.1
44.7d
0.0
0.0
1.5
c
0.0
0.0
c
4.5
0.0
1.5
0.0

43.8
48.8
33.9
44.2
34.9
38.9
26.1
37.6
33.3
35.3
35.8
19.5
36.5
40.5
33.4
52.0
23.4
m
33.5
32.6
47.6
33.0
44.7
37.5
32.5
32.9
33.1
17.7
21.0
41.8
42.6
32.2
48.4
44.5

13.2
12.0
18.9
14.8
21.1
12.3
12.7
16.1
15.6
18.3
10.1
31.3
20.6
9.4
21.1
18.5
34.8
m
22.2
9.0
24.9
10.4
14.4
10.0
19.2
23.9
18.6
13.4
29.0
12.0
12.4
36.3
17.0
17.5

OECD average (excluding Japan)

3.6

3.7

3.6

4.8

2.4

15.1

30.8

1.3

2.0

6.3

26.4

2.3

36.2

17.9

EU21 average

3.8

3.5

2.8

4.2

2.2

12.9

36.1

1.2

2.0

6.0

24.0

0.6

33.1

17.9

Argentina
Brazil1
China
Colombia
Costa Rica
India
Indonesia
Latvia
Lithuania
Russian Federation
Saudi Arabia
South Africa

m
x(19)
m
1.1
1.4
m
m
c
c
m
m
m

m
x(19)
m
1.3
1.5
m
m
c
c
m
m
m

m
x(19)
m
2.3
2.1
m
m
5.2
4.1
m
m
m

m
x(19)
m
7.3
14.4
m
m
10.0
8.1
m
m
m

m
13.8d
m
0.0
0.0
m
m
0.0
c
m
m
m

m
13.8
m
11.9
19.4
m
m
15.8
12.7
m
m
m

m
10.0
m
14.0
22.4
m
m
31.5
38.0
m
m
m

m
x(26)
m
1.6
1.9
m
m
0.0
c
m
m
m

m
x(26)
m
2.5
2.0
m
m
c
c
m
m
m

m
x(26)
m
6.2
2.9
m
m
1.3r
c
m
m
m

m
x(26)
m
38.8
29.8
m
m
33.2
28.9
m
m
m

m
52.2d
m
0.0
0.0
m
m
c
c
m
m
m

m
52.2
m
49.1
36.6
m
m
36.1
32.9
m
m
m

m
24.0
m
24.9
21.6
m
m
16.6
16.4
m
m
m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

G20 average

Employed

1-9

Employed

Employed - Number of hours
worked per week

Unknown

Partners

OECD

Employed - Number of hours
worked per week

Unemployed
or inactive

In education

Notes: Hours worked represent the actual number of hours worked per week, including overtime. When actual hours worked per week were equal to zero, the usual
hours worked were used instead. When a country could not provide the actual number of hours worked per week, the usual hours worked were used. Columns
showing data for other age groups are available for consultation on line (see StatLink below).
1. Brazil, Chile, Korea: Data for 2014 refer to year 2013.
Source: OECD. Latvia, Lithuania: Eurostat. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/education/education-at-a-glance-19991487.htm).
Please refer to the Reader’s Guide for information concerning symbols for missing data and abbreviations.
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933286000

Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

381

C5

chapter C ACCESS TO EDUCATION, PARTICIPATION AND PROGRESSION

Table C5.4b. Percentage of 15-29 year-olds in education/not in education, by number of hours worked

and gender (2014)

Total (young men + young women)
Not in education

Employed - Number of hours
worked per week

10-19

20-34

35+

Employed

Unemployed
or inactive

1-9

10-19

20-34

35+

Unknown

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7)

(8)

(9)

(10)

(11)

(12)

(13)

(14)

Australia
Austria
Belgium
Canada
Chile1
Czech Republic
Denmark
Estonia
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Iceland
Ireland
Israel
Italy
Japan2
Korea1
Luxembourg
Mexico
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Slovak Republic
Slovenia
Spain3
Sweden
Switzerland
Turkey
United Kingdom
United States

5.5
3.3
0.9
5.1
0.7
0.2
13.5
0.7
4.7
0.8
3.5
c
c
7.7
1.5
2.2
0.2
x(5)
0.7
1.5
1.0
14.4
x(5)
10.0
0.1
0.5
0.0
1.5
0.8
4.6
3.3
0.2
3.0
1.7

x(3)
2.6
c
7.1
0.8
0.6
8.1
1.2
3.7
1.0
2.6
0.3r
c
7.7
2.5
2.5
0.3
x(5)
x(3)
0.7r
1.4
6.5
x(5)
4.4
0.5
0.3
0.3
1.8
x(3)
2.7
1.9
0.6
3.1
3.7

10.6d
2.7
0.8
3.6
1.4
1.4
2.2
3.7
3.1
0.9
1.8
0.6
0.5
6.3
1.7
4.1
0.6
x(5)
2.9d
1.9
1.9
4.7
x(5)
3.6
1.5
0.7
0.5
3.5
2.2d
2.3
2.4
1.4
2.1
5.4

7.3
9.2
1.3
1.8
4.6
2.0
6.2
5.3
3.9
4.5
12.4
1.0
1.0
9.9
1.7
3.9
0.6
x(5)
1.8
2.9
3.1
3.9
x(5)
6.4
4.3
1.7
1.1
5.6
2.2
2.2
3.4
7.1
4.1
3.8

0.0
0.0
0.5
0.0
0.2
21.3
c
c
0.3r
0.0
0.0
0.0
c
0.0
c
0.0
0.0
10.8d
0.0
0.7r
0.2
1.2
16.6d
0.0
0.0
0.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
c
16.2
0.0
1.1
0.1

23.5
17.9
3.8
17.6
7.6
25.5
30.0
11.1
15.7
7.2
20.3
1.8
1.7
31.6
7.5
12.6
1.8
10.8
5.5
7.6
7.5
30.7
16.6
25.8
6.5
3.6
2.0
12.3
5.1
11.9
27.2
9.2
13.3
14.6

23.0
27.5
44.3
26.6
41.0
20.5
32.1
34.2
38.6
40.5
33.4
45.9
43.4
18.4
40.4
30.2
44.9
53.5
42.2
48.0
28.7
24.5
28.5
30.0
39.9
44.4
43.1
45.2
40.4
39.4
21.7
28.0
28.2
30.1

0.9
1.0
0.5
1.1
0.7
0.4
0.9
c
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.5
c
1.2
0.8
0.7
0.6
x(12)
0.3
0.8r
1.0
4.9
x(12)
6.6
0.2
0.7
0.3
0.2r
0.9
1.3
1.5
0.5
1.1
0.6

x(10)
1.8
2.1
2.6
1.1
0.9
1.9
1.3
1.9
1.7
1.7
1.2
0.5
2.3
2.4
1.9
1.3
x(12)
x(10)
1.2
2.2
2.4
x(12)
2.4
0.8
1.3
1.3
0.9r
x(10)
2.6
1.8
1.3
3.6
1.6

8.7d
7.4
7.2
10.2
3.0
5.6
6.2
4.7
7.7
6.2
4.7
4.9
3.6
5.7
8.3
5.9
5.9
x(12)
4.4d
4.5
5.4
9.1
x(12)
6.3
4.8
4.2
4.6
3.0
6.5d
9.8
5.2
2.6
7.2
7.6

31.2
32.9
26.9
28.5
27.1
34.5
18.1
32.5
22.0
27.2
30.0
17.3
33.0
32.0
21.9
34.8
17.1
x(12)
29.0
27.9
31.7
18.2
x(12)
20.5
32.0
26.4
29.7
24.7
21.3
25.4
29.1
26.7
30.9
30.4

0.0
0.0
c
0.0
0.7
c
0.0
1.2
c
0.0
0.0
0.0
c
0.0
0.4
0.0
0.3
29.2d
0.5
1.8
1.0
1.0
41.8d
0.0
0.0
1.7
0.3
0.0
0.0
0.1r
3.6
0.0
1.3
0.0

40.9
43.1
36.9
42.4
32.7
41.5
27.1
40.1
32.6
36.0
37.2
23.9
37.4
41.2
34.0
43.3
25.3
29.2
34.3
36.2
41.4
35.5
41.8
35.7
37.7
34.3
36.2
28.8
28.6
39.3
41.2
31.2
44.1
40.3

12.6
11.6
15.0
13.4
18.8
12.5
10.7
14.6
12.9
16.3
9.2
28.3
17.5
8.8
18.0
13.8
27.6
6.6
18.0
8.2
22.4
9.2
12.9
8.5
15.8
17.7
18.7
13.7
25.8
9.4
9.9
31.6
14.4
15.0

OECD average (excluding Japan)

3.1

2.5

2.6

4.1

2.1

13.2

34.8

1.1

1.7

6.0

27.2

1.9

36.4

15.5

EU21 average

2.9

2.1

1.9

3.7

1.6

11.3

38.1

0.9

1.6

6.0

26.2

0.5

35.0

15.6

Argentina
Brazil1
China
Colombia
Costa Rica
India
Indonesia
Latvia
Lithuania
Russian Federation
Saudi Arabia
South Africa

m
x(5)
m
1.3
1.1
m
m
c
c
m
m
m

m
x(5)
m
1.6
1.4
m
m
c
c
m
m
m

m
x(5)
m
2.1
2.0
m
m
2.0
2.0
m
m
m

m
x(5)
m
5.8
10.8
m
m
6.5
4.7
m
m
m

m
13.0d
m
0.0
0.0
m
m
0.0
c
m
m
m

m
13.0
m
10.9
15.3
m
m
8.9
7.0
m
m
m

m
22.7
m
24.7
31.7
m
m
35.2
44.0
m
m
m

m
x(12)
m
1.5
1.9
m
m
0.0
c
m
m
m

m
x(12)
m
2.3
1.7
m
m
0.6r
c
m
m
m

m
x(12)
m
5.5
3.3
m
m
1.7
3.2
m
m
m

m
x(12)
m
33.7
27.3
m
m
38.4
30.4
m
m
m

m
44.0d
m
0.0
0.0
m
m
0.6r
c
m
m
m

m
44.0
m
43.0
34.2
m
m
41.3
34.8
m
m
m

m
20.3
m
21.4
18.8
m
m
14.5
14.2
m
m
m

G20 average

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

Employed

1-9

Unknown

Partners

OECD

C5

Employed - Number of hours
worked per week

Unemployed
or inactive

In education

Notes: Hours worked represent the actual number of hours worked per week, including overtime. When actual hours worked per week were equal to zero, the usual
hours worked were used instead. When a country could not provide the actual number of hours worked per week, the usual hours worked were used. Columns
showing data broken down by gender are available for consultation on line (see StatLink below).
1. Brazil, Chile, Korea: Data for 2014 refer to year 2013.
2. Japan: Data for 15-29 year-olds refer to 15-24 year-olds.
3. Spain: Data for 15-29 year-olds refer to 16-19 year-olds.
Source: OECD. Latvia, Lithuania: Eurostat. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/education/education-at-a-glance-19991487.htm).
Please refer to the Reader’s Guide for information concerning symbols for missing data and abbreviations.
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933286011

382 Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

HOW MANY ADULTS PARTICIPATE IN EDUCATION AND
LEARNING?
• Across OECD countries and sub-national entities that participated in the Survey of Adult Skills
(PIAAC) in 2012, about 50% of all employed adults participate in employer-sponsored formal
and /or non-formal education in a given year. The proportion ranges from more than 60% in
Denmark, Finland, the Netherlands and Norway, to less than 40% in France, Italy, Poland, the
Russian Federation and the Slovak Republic.

INDICATOR C6

• About 60% of employed adults with good skills in information and communication technology (ICT)
and in problem solving participate in employer-sponsored formal and/or non-formal education,
while only 18% of adults who have no computer experience do.

• About 60% of workers in the most skilled occupations participate in employer-sponsored formal
and/or non-formal education, while about 25% of workers in elementary occupations do.

Chart C6.1. Participation in employer-sponsored formal and/or
non-formal education, by skills and readiness to use information
and communication technologies for problem solving (2012)
Survey of Adult Skills, employed 25-64 year-olds

Russian Federation*

Poland

Japan

Slovak Republic

Austria

Korea

Flanders (Belgium)

Czech Republic

Germany

Ireland

Average

Estonia

Canada

Australia

Sweden

United States

Netherlands

Finland

Norway

Denmark

%

80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0

England/
N. Ireland (UK)

Group 4 (Good ICT and problem-solving skills)
Group 3 (Moderate ICT and problem-solving skills)
Group 2 (Failed ICT core test or minimal problem-solving skills)
Group 1 (Refused the computer-based assessment)
Group 0 (No computer experience)

* See note on data for the Russian Federation in the Methodology section.
Countries are ranked in descending order of participation in employer-sponsored formal and/or non-formal education among people in
Group 4 (Good ICT and problem-solving skills).
Source: OECD. Table C6.1 (P). See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/education/education-at-a-glance- 19991487.htm).
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933284339

Context
Adult learning can play an important role in helping adults to develop and maintain key informationprocessing skills, and acquire other knowledge and skills, throughout life. It is crucial to provide,
and ensure access to, organised learning opportunities for adults beyond initial formal education,
especially for workers who need to adapt to changes throughout their careers. The relevance of
continued learning opportunities now extends to workers in both high- and low-skilled occupations.
In high-technology sectors, workers need to update their competencies and keep pace with rapidly
changing techniques. Workers in low-technology sectors and those performing low-skilled tasks
must learn to be adaptable, since they are at higher risk of losing their job, as routine tasks are
increasingly performed by machines, and companies may relocate to countries with lower labour costs
(OECD, 2013). In general, the higher the productivity of a worker, the more interested an employer
might be in investing in his or her human capital.

384 Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

Other findings

• Participation in employer-sponsored formal and/or non-formal education in all countries is
strongly related to proficiency levels in key skills such as literacy and numeracy as well as to
educational attainment. These factors combine to create a virtuous circle for persons with high
skills proficiency and educational attainment who tend to acquire yet more skills through attending
adult education activities. The factors also combine to establish a vicious circle of low educational
attainment, low skills proficiency, and lack of support for institutionalised learning to redress
skills deficiencies.

INDICATOR C6

• Participation rates in employer-sponsored formal and/or non-formal education are highest among
workers who most frequently use reading, writing and numeracy skills at work.

• Across OECD countries and sub-national entities that participated in the Survey of Adult Skills,
57% of full-time workers with indefinite contracts participate in employer-sponsored formal
and /or non-formal education while 33% of part-time workers with limited contracts do.

• In all countries, 25-34 year-old workers are more likely to participate in employer-sponsored
formal and/or non-formal education than 55-64 year-old workers.

Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

385

chapter C ACCESS TO EDUCATION, PARTICIPATION AND PROGRESSION

Analysis

C6

Employer-sponsored formal and/or non-formal education
Employers support their employees’ participation in education and training activities when they have an interest in
investing in their employees’ human capital. Employer support can take the form of time, i.e. providing educational
activities that take place fully or partly during paid working hours, or financial support, i.e. giving grants to
employees to participate in educational activities.
Across OECD countries and sub-national entities that participated in the Survey of Adult Skills, about 50% of
all employed adults participate in employer-sponsored formal and/or non-formal education in a given year. The
proportion ranges from more than 60% in Denmark, Finland, the Netherlands and Norway, to less than 40%
in France, Italy, Poland, the Russian Federation and the Slovak Republic (Table C6.1 [P]).
The large variation in participation in adult learning activities suggests that there are significant differences in
learning cultures, learning opportunities at work, and adult education structures. Results from the Survey of Adult
Skills, a product of the OECD Programme for the International Assessment of Adult Competencies (PIAAC), show a
clear relationship between the extent of participation in organised adult learning activities and the average level of
key information-processing skills in a given country.

Participation as related to ICT skills and educational attainment
The 2012 Survey of Adult Skills measured adults’ proficiency in using ICT to solve problems. Chart C6.1 shows that,
across OECD countries and sub-national entities that participated in the Survey of Adult Skills, 63% of adults with
good ICT and problem-solving skills participate in employer-sponsored formal and/or non-formal education, while
only 18% of those who have no computer experience do. The most highly skilled adults are thus about three times
more likely to participate in employer-sponsored formal and/or non-formal education than are the least skilled
adults (Table C6.1 [P]).
All participating OECD countries and sub-national entities show increasing participation as the level of proficiency
increases. The most skilled adults are more than three times more likely to participate in employer-sponsored formal
and/or non-formal education than those with no skills, except in Australia, the Czech Republic, England (UK), Ireland,
Northern Ireland (UK) and the Russian Federation, where the most-skilled adults are two or less than three times
more likely to participate in such activities than adults with no skills. In the Czech Republic, England (UK), Ireland
and Northern Ireland (UK) at least 25% of those with no computer experience participate in employer-sponsored
formal and/or non-formal education. In Australia, Denmark, England (UK), Finland, the Netherlands, Norway,
Sweden and the United States, about two out of three (67% or more) workers with good ICT and problem-solving
skills receive support for further learning from their employers (Table C6.1 [P]).
The frequency with which adults use ICT and problem-solving skills at work is also related to participation in
employer-sponsored formal and/or non-formal education. The ICT activities surveyed include: using e-mail,
Internet, spreadsheets, word processors, programming languages; conducting transactions on line; and participating
in online discussions (conferences, chats). The respondents indicated how often they engage in each activity: never;
less than once a month; less than once a week, but at least once a month; at least once a week but not every day; or
every day. The index created to measure frequency of use compares the frequency of the respondent’s activities to
the frequency of activities of all adults assessed.
Across OECD countries and sub-national entities that participated in the Survey of Adult Skills, the rate of
participation in employer-sponsored formal and/or non-formal education increases from 36% among those who
never engage in the ICT activities cited, to 67% among those who engage in these activities most often, on average.
Meanwhile, at least 60% of adults who engage in these activities moderately or often (i.e. less than once a week
but at least once a month, at least once a week but not every day, or every day) participate in employer-sponsored
formal and/or non-formal education programmes, which suggests that there might be a ceiling effect (Table C6.3e,
available on line).
Workers’ educational attainment is also closely related to participation in employer-sponsored formal and/or
non-formal education. Across OECD countries and sub-national entities that participated in the Survey of Adult
Skills, workers with high educational attainment are about twice as likely to participate than are workers with low
education (62% among those with tertiary education compared with 29% among those with below upper secondary
education as their highest level of attainment). This difference is larger in countries with lower participation rates,
in general (correlation coefficient = 0.86) (Table C6.2a).

386 Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

How many adults participate in education and learning? – INDICATOR C6

chapter C

Participation as related to the work environment
The demands of the job also affect workers’ need and wish for education and training. One indication of the level of
skills demanded in a job is the occupation of the worker. The Survey of Adult Skills distinguishes among four groups
of occupations: skilled occupations (managers, professionals, technicians and associate professionals); semi-skilled
white-collar occupations (clerical support workers, service and sales workers); semi-skilled blue-collar occupations
(skilled manual workers); and elementary occupations.
Chart C6.2 includes both information from the Survey of Adult Skills and information from the Adult Education
Survey (AES) for countries that did not participate in the Survey of Adult Skills. The results are presented in separated
sections as they are not directly comparable. On the left side of the chart, data from the Survey of Adult Skills are
presenting data for year 2012 on formal and/or non-formal education while on the right side of the chart data from
the AES are for year 2011 and refer to employer-sponsored, job-related, non-formal education and training.
On average, across OECD countries and sub-national entities that participated in the Survey of Adult Skills, 62%
of workers in the most skilled occupations participate in employer-sponsored formal and/or non-formal education,
while 26% of workers in elementary occupations do. The former group is thus more than twice as likely to participate
than the latter group (Table 6.2c). The results support the thesis that participation in employer-sponsored
formal and/or non-formal education is more likely among adults in occupations that require more skills. Workers’
occupations have been identified as the single most important factor in determining the frequency with which
adults use their skills in the workplace (OECD, 2013, p. 181).

Chart C6.2. Participation in employer-sponsored education, by occupation (2011, 2012)
Survey of Adult Skills and Adult Education Survey, employed 25-64 year-olds
Skilled occupations
Semi-skilled white-collar occupations
Semi-skilled blue-collar occupations
Elementary occupations

% Source: Survey of Adult Skills (2012)

Source: Adult Education Survey (2011) %

80

80

Greece

Hungary

Slovenia

Portugal

Switzerland

Luxembourg

Italy

Russian Federation*

Slovak Republic

France

Poland

Spain

Austria

Korea

Japan

Czech Republic

Average

Flanders (Belgium)

Ireland

Canada

0

Germany

10

0

Estonia

10
Australia

20

United States

30

20

England/N. Ireland (UK)

40

30

Netherlands

50

40

Sweden

50

Norway

60

Finland

70

60

Denmark

70

Notes: The data for the countries having participated in the Survey of Adult Skills refer to “employer-sponsored formal and/or non-formal education”.
The data for the countries having participated in the Eurostat Adult Education Survey (AES) refer to “employer-sponsored”, job-related, non-formal
education and training”.
* See note on data for the Russian Federation in the Methodology section.
Countries are ranked in descending order of participation in employer-sponsored formal and/or non-formal education among people in skilled occupations.
Source: OECD. Table C6.2c. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/education/education-at-a-glance- 19991487.htm).
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933284342

Workers in skilled occupations participate most often in employer-sponsored formal and/or non-formal education;
workers in elementary occupations participate the least. For countries and sub-national entities that participated
in the Survey of Adult Skills, in Italy and Poland, all workers who are not in skilled occupations participate at
the same, relatively low, rate. Austria, Canada, the Czech Republic, Germany, Norway and the Slovak Republic
show small differences between semi-skilled blue-collar and white-collar workers, while in most other countries
Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

387

C6

chapter C ACCESS TO EDUCATION, PARTICIPATION AND PROGRESSION

Participation as related to type of employment contract and industry
Perhaps not surprising, part-time workers, those who work up to 30 hours per week, are less likely to participate in
formal and/or non-formal education, especially employer-sponsored participation, than full-time workers. Across
OECD countries and sub-national entities that participated in the Survey of Adult Skills, 52% of full-time workers,
those who work 30 hours per week or more, participate in such education, while 35% of part-time workers do.
Workers on limited contracts also tend to participate less (43%) than workers with unlimited contracts (55%)
(Table C6.2d).

Chart C6.3. Participation in employer-sponsored formal and/or non-formal education,
by working hours and contract type (2012)
Survey of Adult Skills, employed 25-64 year-olds
Full time, indefinite
Full time, fixed term
Part time, indenfinite
Part time, fixed term

%

80
70
60
50
40
30
20

Russian Federation*

Italy

Slovak Republic

France

Poland

Japan

Austria

Spain

Flanders (Belgium)

Estonia

Czech Republic

Germany

Average

Korea

Canada

Ireland

Sweden

United States

Australia1

England/N. Ireland (UK)

Norway

Finland

0

Denmark

10
Netherlands

C6

white-collar workers participate more in employer-sponsored formal and/or non-formal education. In Denmark,
Finland and Norway, more than 35% of workers in elementary occupations participate in employer-sponsored
formal and/or non-formal education, while more than 70% workers in skilled occupations do. Countries with
the lowest participation for workers in skilled occupations are Austria, France, Italy, Japan, Korea, Poland, the
Russian Federation, the Slovak Republic and Spain, where less than 60% of workers in skilled occupations participate
in such learning activities. For countries that participated in the AES, the highest participation from workers
in elementary occupation is found in Hungary, where 40% of workers in elementary occupations participate in
employer-sponsored, job-related, non-formal education and training; for workers in skilled occupations, the highest
proportion is found in Luxembourg, where about 67% of workers in skilled occupations participate in such learning
activities (Table C6.2c).

1. For Australia, data based on full time/part time are using a variable which is topped at 60 hours per week while there is no upper limit for other
countries.
* See note on data for the Russian Federation in the Methodology section.
Countries are ranked in descending order of participation in employer-sponsored formal and/or non-formal education among people who work full time and have
an indefinite contract.
Source: OECD. Table C6.2d. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/education/education-at-a-glance- 19991487.htm).
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933284355

Chart C6.3 shows the effect on participation of the two variables above combined. Employers see less of a risk
investing in full-time workers with unlimited contracts, since they will probably stay longer in the firm and repay
the investment with greater productivity. The opposite is true for part-time workers with limited contracts. The
results confirm this: across OECD countries and sub-national entities that participated in the Survey of Adult Skills,
57% of full-time workers with unlimited contracts participate in employer-sponsored formal and/or non-formal
education, while only 33% of part-time workers with limited contracts do (Table 6.2d).

388 Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

How many adults participate in education and learning? – INDICATOR C6

chapter C

The classification of industries used in the Survey of Adult Skills (i.e. resource industries, goods-producing industries,
lower-tier services and upper-tier services) reflects the skills demands of the broad categories. As may be expected,
workers in upper-tier service industries have the highest participation rates in all countries, while employees in
resource industries have the lowest participation rates in most countries. Across participating OECD countries
and sub-national entities, 59% of workers in upper-tier services participate in such education, while 36% of
workers in resource industries do. Participation rates in the goods-producing industries and the lower-tier services
vary, presumably reflecting the skills demands of the goods-producing industries in the countries (Table C6.2e,
available on line). See Annex 3 for more details on the type of industries (www.oecd.org/education/education-at-aglance-19991487.htm).

Participation as related to other types of learning at work
A further indication of the degree in which the working environment is also a learning environment is the availability
of other learning activities at the workplace. The index that measures this includes learning new things from
supervisors or co-workers; learning-by-doing; and keeping up-to-date with new products or services. Chart C6.4
shows that workers who learn more at work through other activities participate most in employer-sponsored
education. It also shows that there is a ceiling effect: while the participation rate rises steeply between those who
never learn at work to those who occationally learn at work, it tends to level off among those who frequently learn
at work through other activities. This ceiling effect can also be observed in the three single variables that constitute
the index, i.e. it is not due to the construction of the index (Table C6.3a).

Chart C6.4. Participation in employer-sponsored formal and/or non-formal education,
by use of learning at work (2012)
Never

Less than 20%

Australia

%

Denmark

Survey of Adult Skills, employed 25-64 year-olds
20% to less than 40%

60% to less than 80%

40% to less than 60%

80% or more

80
70
60
50
40
30
20

Italy

Russian Federation*

Slovak Republic

France

Poland

Japan

Spain

Austria

Korea

Estonia

Czech Republic

Average

Germany

Ireland

Canada

Flanders (Belgium)

United States

Sweden

Norway

Finland

England/N. Ireland (UK)

0

Netherlands

10

* See note on data for the Russian Federation in the Methodology section.
Countries are ranked in descending order of participation in employer-sponsored formal and/or non-formal education among people who have an index of learning
at work of 80% or more.
Source: OECD. Table C6.3a. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/education/education-at-a-glance- 19991487.htm).
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933284364

Across OECD countries and sub-national entities that participated in the Survey of Adult Skills, 13% of the
workers who indicated that they never engage in any of the learning activities participate in employer-sponsored
formal and/or non-formal education, while 59% of workers who engage in other learning activities the most often
do. The latter group is four times more likely to participate than the former group. In France, Germany, Japan,
the Russian Federation and Sweden, workers’ participation in employer-sponsored formal and/or non-formal
education differs by a magnitude of more than seven times, depending on their engagement in other learning
activities at work. These countries show low rates of participation among workers who never engage in such
learning activities. Conversely, many countries with relatively high rates of participation in employer-sponsored
Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

389

C6

chapter C ACCESS TO EDUCATION, PARTICIPATION AND PROGRESSION

formal and/or non-formal education (over 16%) among workers who never engage in other learning activities
at work show relatively small differences (less than four times) in participation in other learning activities at
work. These countries and sub-national entities are Canada, the Czech Republic, England (UK), Ireland, Korea,
Northern Ireland (UK) and Poland (Table C6.3a).

Participation as related to the use of information-processing skills at work
The Survey of Adult Skills asked adults to indicate the frequence with which they use various skills at work. These
skills were then grouped into indicies as information-processing skills (including reading, writing, numeracy, ICT
and problem-solving skills) and other generic skills (including task discretion, learning at work, influencing skills,
co-operative skills, self-organising skills, dexterity, and physical skills) (OECD, 2013).
All of the information-processing skills measured show a fairly strong relationship with participation in employersponsored formal and/or non-formal education. The results confirm the general hypothesis of higher participation
in employer-sponsored formal and/or non-formal education of adults with higher skills use (Tables C6.3b to C6.3e,
available on line).
The index of reading at work that was created to measure that activity includes eight different tasks. Chart C6.5
shows that across OECD countries and sub-national entities that participated in the Survey of Adult Skills,
67% of adults who read most frequently at work participate in employer-sponsored formal and/or non-formal
education. By contrast, only 14% of those who reported that they never read at work participate. Participation in
employer-sponsored formal and/or non-formal education rises steadily the more frequently people read at work
(Table C6.3b, available on line).

Chart C6.5. Participation in employer-sponsored formal and/or non-formal education,
by use of reading skills at work (2012)
Survey of Adult Skills, employed 25-64 year-olds
Never

%

20% to less than 40%

Less than 20%

60% to less than 80%

40% to less than 60%

80% or more

90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20

Russian Federation*

Italy

France

Slovak Republic

Austria

Poland

Spain

Czech Republic

Japan

Korea

Flanders (Belgium)

Average

Germany

Ireland

Canada

Estonia

Australia

Norway

United States

England/N. Ireland (UK)

Sweden

Netherlands

0

Finland

10
Denmark

C6

* See note on data for the Russian Federation in the Methodology section.
Countries are ranked in descending order of participation in employer-sponsored formal and/or non-formal education among people who have an index of use of
reading skills at work of 80% or more.
Source: OECD. Table C6.3b, available on line. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/education/education-at-a-glance- 19991487.htm).
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933284377

In Denmark, Finland, the Netherlands and Sweden more than three out of four workers who read frequently
at work participate in employer-sponsored formal and/or non-formal education (75% or more). At the other
extreme, in Austria, Estonia, Germany, Japan, the Russian Federation and the Slovak Republic, fewer than one
in ten (less than 10%) of the workers who never read at the workplace participate in such learning activities
(Table C6.3b, available on line).

390 Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

How many adults participate in education and learning? – INDICATOR C6

chapter C

Across OECD countries and sub-national entities that participated in the Survey of Adult Skills, 19% of the workers
who never write at work participate in employer-sponsored formal and/or non-formal education, compared to 67%
of those who write the mostly frequently at work. Participation rates tend to rise as adults write more at work (Table
C6.3c, available on line).
Similar results are found when considering the use of numeracy skills at work. On average across OECD countries
and sub-national entities that participated in the Survey of Adult Skills, 63% of workers who use their numeracy
skills most frequently at work participate in employer-sponsored formal and/or non-formal education, compared to
33% of those who never use such skills (Table C6.3d, available on line).

Participation as related to the use of certain generic skills at work
Chart C6.6 shows that using influencing skills at work are strongly related to participation in employer-sponsored
formal and/or non-formal education. Participation rates rise steadily as the use of these skills at work increases –
from 33% among workers who never use influencing skills at work to 63% among workers who use these skills
most frequently. The latter are thus twice as likely to participate in employer-sponsored education as the former
(Table C6.3f, available on line).

Chart C6.6. Participation in employer-sponsored formal and/or non-formal education,
by use of influencing skills at work (2012)
Never

Less than 20%

Norway

%

Netherlands

Survey of Adult Skills, employed 25-64 year-olds
20% to less than 40%

60% to less than 80%

40% to less than 60%

80% or more

80
70
60
50
40
30
20

Russian Federation*

Italy

Slovak Republic

France

Poland

Spain

Czech Republic

Austria

Japan

Korea

Flanders (Belgium)

Average

Germany

Ireland

Estonia

Canada

Australia

United States

England/N. Ireland (UK)

Sweden

Finland

0

Denmark

10

* See note on data for the Russian Federation in the Methodology section.
Countries are ranked in descending order of participation in employer-sponsored formal and/or non-formal education among people who have an index of use of
influencing skills at work of 80% or more.
Source: OECD. Table C6.3f, available on line. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/education/education-at-a-glance-19991487.htm).
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933284386

For most countries participation in employer-sponsored formal and/or non-formal education rises steadily with
the frequency of the workers’ use of influencing skills at work. In Austria, the Czech Republic, Flanders (Belgium),
Germany and Poland the participation rates of the two groups with the highest frequency of use of influencing skills
are close together (5 percentage-point difference or less), suggesting a mild ceiling effect (Table C6.3f, available
on line).
Workers who never use task-discretion skills (choosing or changing the sequence of job tasks, the speed of work,
working hours; and deciding how to do the job) at work participate least in employer-sponsored formal and/or
non-formal education. Across OECD countries and sub-national entities that participated in the Survey of Adult
Skills, only 29% of such workers participate, on average. In most countries, the participation rate rises steeply
between those who never use task-discretion skills at work and those who use those skills occationally at work, but
falls for those who use those skills the most (Table C6.3g, available on line).
Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

391

C6

chapter C ACCESS TO EDUCATION, PARTICIPATION AND PROGRESSION

Definitions
Adults refers to 25-64 year-olds.

C6

Education and training: Formal education is planned education provided in the system of schools, colleges,
universities and other formal educational institutions that normally constitutes a continuous “ladder” of full-time
education for children and young people. The providers may be public or private. Non-formal education is sustained
educational activity that does not correspond exactly to the definition of formal education. Non-formal education
may take place both within and outside educational institutions and cater to individuals of all ages. Depending on
country contexts, it may cover education programmes in adult literacy, basic education for out-of-school children,
life skills, work skills, and general culture. The Survey of Adult Skills uses a list of possible non-formal education
activities, including open or distance-learning courses, private lessons, organised sessions for on-the-job training,
and workshops or seminars to prompt respondents to list all of their learning activities during the previous
12 months. Some of these learning activities might be of short duration.
Employer-sponsored formal and/or non-formal education: Employer support can be offered in the form of
time (i.e. educational activities that take place fully or partly during paid working hours), or financial support
(giving grants to employees to participate in educational activities).
Generic skills at work: Learning at work corresponds to learning new things from supervisors or co-workers;
learning-by-doing; and keeping up-to-date with new products or services; influencing skills corresponds to
instructing, teaching or training people; making speeches or presentations; selling products or services; advising
people; planning others’ activities; persuading or influencing others; and negotiating; task discretion corresponds
to choosing or changing the sequence of job tasks, the speed of work, working hours; and deciding how to do the job;
and co-operative skills corresponds to co-operating or collaborating with co-workers.
Index of: use of learning at work, use of reading skills at work, use of writing skills at work, use of numeracy
skills at work, use of ICT skills at work, use of influencing skills at work, use of task discretion at work, and
use of co-operative skills at work: The indices are categorised as Warm’s mean weighted likelihood estimation
(WLE). It is derived from variables that are based on a Likert scale from “Never” to “Every day”. For these skills-use
variables, numerical comparisons between the use of different skills are possible: a value of 0 indicates that the skill
is never used; a value of 1 indicates that it is used less than once a month; a value of 2 indicates that the skill is used
less than once a week but at least once a month; a value of 3 indicates that it is used at least once a week but not
every day; and a value of 4 indicates that it is used every day. The categories should therefore be interpreted based
on the frequency of the activity, with “Never” being the least frequent and “80% or more” being the most frequent.
For more details on the index, see page 143 of OECD Skills Outlook 2013: First Results from the Survey of Adult Skills
(OECD, 2013).
Industry type: resource industries; goods-producing industries; lower-tier services; and upper-tier services are
defined by the variable ISIC2C. See Annex 3 for the detailed list of industries included in each group.
Information-processing skills: Reading corresponds to reading documents (directions, instructions, letters,
memos, e-mails, articles, books, manuals, bills, invoices, diagrams, maps); writing corresponds to writing documents
(letters, memos, e-mails, articles, reports, forms); numeracy corresponds to calculating prices, costs or budgets;
use of fractions, decimals or percentages; use of calculators; preparing graphs or tables; algebra or formulas; use
of advanced mathematics or statistics (calculus, trigonometry, regressions); and ICT skills corresponds to using
e-mail, Internet, spreadsheets, word processors, programming languages; conducting transactions on line; and
participating in online discussions (conferences, chats).
Levels of education: Below upper secondary corresponds to ISCED-97 Levels 0, 1, 2 and 3C short programmes;
upper secondary or post-secondary non-tertiary corresponds to ISCED-97 Levels 3A, 3B, 3C long programmes,
and Level 4; and tertiary corresponds to ISCED-97 Levels 5A, 5B and 6.
Occupation: Skilled occupations include legislators, senior officials and managers (ISCO 1), professionals (ISCO 2),
technicians and associate professionals (ISCO 3); semi-skilled white-collar occupations include clerks (ISCO 4),
service workers, and shop and market sales workers (ISCO 5); semi-skilled blue-collar occupations include skilled
agricultural and fishery workers (ISCO 6), craft and related trades workers (ISCO 7), and plant and machine operators
and assemblers (ISCO 8), and elementary occupations include low-skilled occupations (ISCO 9).
Skill groups refer to skills and readiness to use information and communication technologies (ICT) for problem
solving in technology-rich environments. Each group is described in terms of the characteristics of the types of

392 Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

How many adults participate in education and learning? – INDICATOR C6

chapter C

tasks that can be successfully completed by adults and the related scores in the assessment of problem solving in
technology-rich environments in the Survey of Adult Skills.
• Group 0 (no computer experience)
• Group 1 (refused the computer-based assessment)
• Group 2 (failed ICT core test or minimal problem-solving skills – scored below Level 1 in the problem solving in
technology-rich environments assessment)
• Group 3 (moderate ICT and problem-solving skills – scored at Level 1 in the problem solving in technology-rich
environments assessment)
• Group 4 (good ICT and problem-solving skills – scored at Level 2 or Level 3 in the problem solving in technologyrich environments assessment)
Working hours and contract type: Full time refers to more than 30 hours per week and fixed-term contract
includes fixed-term contract, temporary employment agency contract, and an apprenticeship or other training
scheme.

Methodology
All data are based on the Survey of Adult Skills (PIAAC) (2012). PIAAC is the OECD Programme for the International
Assessment of Adult Competencies.
A number of skills-use variables are taken directly from questions asked in the background questionnaire of the Survey
of Adult Skills. Other variables have been derived based on more than one question from the background questionnaire.
These variables have been transformed so that they have a mean of 2 and a standard deviation of 1 across the pooled
sample of all participating countries, thus allowing for meaningful comparisons across countries (OECD, 2013, p. 143).
For more detailed information, see the Technical Report of the Survey of Adult Skills (OECD, 2014, Chapter 20) and
see Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/education/education-at-a-glance-19991487.htm).
Note regarding data from the Russian Federation in the Survey of Adult Skills (PIAAC)
Readers should note that the sample for the Russian Federation does not include the population of the Moscow municipal
area. The data published, therefore, do not represent the entire resident population aged 16-65 in Russia but rather the
population of Russia excluding the population residing in the Moscow municipal area. More detailed information regarding
the data from the Russian Federation as well as that of other countries can be found in the Technical Report of the Survey
of Adult Skills (OECD, 2014).

References
OECD (2014), Technical Report of the Survey of Adult Skills, www.oecd.org/site/piaac/_Technical%20Report_17OCT13.pdf,
pre-publication copy.
OECD (2013), OECD Skills Outlook 2013: First Results from the Survey of Adult Skills, OECD Publishing, Paris, http://dx.doi.
org/10.1787/9789264204256-en.

Indicator C6 Tables
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933286024

WEB Table C6.1 (L) Participation in employer-sponsored formal and/or non-formal education, by literacy proficiency
level (2012)
WEB Table C6.1 (N) Participation in employer-sponsored formal and/or non-formal education, by numeracy
proficiency level (2012)
Table C6.1 (P) Participation in employer-sponsored formal and/or non-formal education, by skills and readiness
to use information and communication technologies for problem solving (2012)
Table C6.2a

Participation in employer-sponsored education, by educational attainment (2011, 2012)

WEB Table C6.2b
Table C6.2c
Table C6.2d

Participation in employer-sponsored education, by gender and age group (2011, 2012)
Participation in employer-sponsored education, by occupation (2011, 2012)
Participation in employer-sponsored formal and/or non-formal education, by working hours
and contract type (2012)

WEB Table C6.2e

Participation in employer-sponsored formal and/or non-formal education, by industry (2012)

…

Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

393

C6

chapter C ACCESS TO EDUCATION, PARTICIPATION AND PROGRESSION

C6

Table C6.3a

Participation in employer-sponsored formal and/or non-formal education,
by use of learning at work (2012)

WEB Table C6.3b

Participation in employer-sponsored formal and/or non-formal education,
by use of reading skills at work (2012)

WEB Table C6.3c

Participation in employer-sponsored formal and/or non-formal education,
by use of writing skills at work (2012)

WEB Table C6.3d

Participation in employer-sponsored formal and/or non-formal education,
by use of numeracy skills at work (2012)

WEB Table C6.3e

Participation in employer-sponsored formal and/or non-formal education,
by use of ICT skills at work (2012)

WEB Table C6.3f

Participation in employer-sponsored formal and/or non-formal education,
by use of influencing skills at work (2012)

WEB Table C6.3g

Participation in employer-sponsored formal and/or non-formal education,
by use of task discretion at work (2012)

394 Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

How many adults participate in education and learning? – INDICATOR C6

chapter C

Table C6.1 (P). Participation in employer-sponsored formal and/or non-formal education,

by skills and readiness to use information and communication technologies
for problem solving (2012)

OECD

Survey of Adult Skills, employed 25-64 year-olds
Group 2
Group 4
Group 3
(Failed ICT core test
(Good ICT
(Moderate ICT
or minimal
problem-solving and problem-solving and problem-solving
skills)
skills)
skills)
%
S.E.
%
S.E.
%
S.E.

Group 0
(No computer
experience)
%
S.E.

Group 1
(Refused the
computer-based
assessment)
%
S.E.

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7)

(8)

(9)

(10)

(11)

(12)

Australia

23

(5.6)

37

(2.3)

46

(2.7)

55

(1.8)

68

(1.5)

56

(1.0)

Austria

11

(2.6)

33

(2.6)

34

(2.6)

44

(2.0)

55

(1.9)

43

(0.8)

Canada

20

(2.7)

35

(2.6)

42

(1.4)

55

(1.2)

67

(1.1)

54

(0.6)

Czech Republic

35

(5.6)

40

(3.3)

45

(3.5)

54

(2.7)

59

(2.5)

51

(1.4)

Denmark

16

(5.3)

39

(3.1)

53

(2.3)

66

(1.5)

74

(1.2)

65

(0.8)

Estonia

15

(2.1)

39

(1.8)

45

(2.1)

53

(1.5)

66

(1.5)

50

(0.8)

Finland

20

(6.2)

46

(2.8)

53

(2.4)

67

(1.6)

70

(1.2)

64

(0.8)

France

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

37

(0.7)

Germany

14

(2.4)

32

(3.7)

39

(2.3)

50

(2.0)

61

(1.6)

48

(1.1)

Ireland

26

(3.3)

38

(2.3)

41

(2.7)

55

(2.0)

63

(2.0)

50

(0.9)

Italy

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

26

(1.1)

Japan

12

(1.9)

27

(2.2)

37

(2.4)

44

(2.4)

53

(1.6)

41

(0.9)

Korea

16

(1.6)

28

(2.7)

36

(2.1)

46

(1.9)

58

(2.5)

41

(0.9)

Netherlands

17

(5.3)

40

(5.0)

46

(3.0)

61

(1.6)

70

(1.4)

62

(0.9)

Norway

21

(8.5)

33

(3.1)

47

(2.7)

61

(1.9)

71

(1.3)

61

(0.9)

Poland

12

(1.8)

26

(1.9)

37

(2.4)

45

(2.5)

52

(2.5)

35

(1.0)

Slovak Republic

18

(2.0)

27

(2.7)

31

(3.0)

38

(2.0)

54

(2.1)

37

(1.0)

Spain

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

41

(0.9)

Sweden

16

(7.8)

36

(3.8)

41

(2.4)

58

(2.1)

68

(1.3)

58

(0.8)

United States

19

(4.5)

35

(3.8)

46

(3.0)

59

(2.1)

69

(1.6)

56

(1.3)

Flanders (Belgium)

10

(2.6)

22

(3.4)

33

(2.3)

49

(1.7)

59

(1.5)

47

(0.9)

England (UK)

27

(5.9)

45

(4.0)

46

(2.4)

56

(2.1)

67

(1.6)

57

(1.1)

Northern Ireland (UK)

25

(4.5)

42

(9.4)

43

(3.1)

57

(2.4)

64

(2.7)

53

(1.3)

England/N. Ireland (UK)

26

(5.4)

45

(3.9)

46

(2.4)

56

(2.0)

67

(1.6)

57

(1.1)

Average

18

(1.0)

35

(0.7)

42

(0.6)

53

(0.4)

63

(0.4)

49

(0.2)

Russian Federation*

8

(1.8)

18

(6.7)

18

(2.8)

23

(2.0)

23

(2.3)

19

(1.5)

C6
All skills groups
%
S.E.

National entities

Partners

Sub-national entities

Notes: Participation in education or training during previous 12 months. The category “All skills groups” corresponds to the average participation in employersponsored formal and/or non-formal education for the adults across all skills groups.
* See note on data for the Russian Federation in the Methodology section.
Source: OECD. Survey of Adult Skills (PIAAC) (2012). See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/education/education-at-a-glance-19991487.htm).
Please refer to the Reader’s Guide for information concerning symbols for missing data and abbreviations.
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933286032

Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

395

chapter C ACCESS TO EDUCATION, PARTICIPATION AND PROGRESSION

Table C6.2a. Participation in employer-sponsored education,

by educational attainment (2011, 2012)
Employed 25-64 year-olds

Formal and/or non-formal education, Survey of Adult Skills (2012)

C6
OECD

Below upper secondary
%
S.E.

Upper secondary
or post-secondary non-tertiary
%
S.E.

Tertiary
%

S.E.

All levels of education
%
S.E.

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7)

(8)

Australia

37

(1.9)

52

(1.4)

70

(1.2)

56

(1.0)

Austria

25

(2.1)

42

(1.1)

57

(2.1)

43

(0.8)

Canada

30

(1.9)

48

(1.0)

62

(0.8)

54

(0.6)

Czech Republic

33

(3.8)

50

(1.6)

59

(3.2)

51

(1.4)

Denmark

46

(2.2)

61

(1.3)

76

(1.0)

65

(0.8)

Estonia

30

(2.2)

41

(1.2)

63

(1.0)

50

(0.8)

Finland

39

(3.0)

57

(1.3)

74

(1.1)

64

(0.8)

France

21

(1.4)

34

(1.1)

51

(1.2)

37

(0.7)

Germany

20

(2.9)

43

(1.4)

61

(1.6)

48

(1.1)

Ireland

32

(2.2)

43

(1.4)

64

(1.5)

50

(0.9)

Italy

15

(1.8)

28

(1.4)

48

(2.4)

26

(1.1)

Japan

22

(2.5)

32

(1.4)

52

(1.2)

41

(0.9)

Korea

18

(1.4)

33

(1.3)

58

(1.4)

41

(0.9)

Netherlands

44

(1.7)

60

(1.5)

74

(1.2)

62

(0.9)

Norway

43

(2.2)

58

(1.7)

72

(1.1)

61

(0.9)

Poland

18

(3.2)

25

(1.2)

53

(1.8)

35

(1.0)

Slovak Republic

12

(2.1)

33

(1.4)

55

(1.7)

37

(1.0)

Spain

25

(1.4)

40

(2.4)

56

(1.3)

41

(0.9)

Sweden

38

(2.9)

56

(1.2)

69

(1.2)

58

(0.8)

United States

25

(3.2)

49

(1.7)

70

(1.3)

56

(1.3)

Flanders (Belgium)

24

(2.5)

38

(1.5)

61

(1.5)

47

(0.9)

England (UK)

41

(2.6)

55

(1.5)

67

(1.6)

57

(1.1)

Northern Ireland (UK)

31

(2.5)

54

(2.4)

67

(1.8)

53

(1.3)

England/N. Ireland (UK)

41

(2.5)

55

(1.5)

67

(1.5)

57

(1.1)

Average

29

(0.5)

44

(0.3)

62

(0.3)

49

(0.2)

Russian Federation*

11

(7.6)

9

(1.6)

23

(1.5)

19

(1.5)

National entities

Partners

Sub-national entities

Job-related non-formal education, Adult Education Survey (2011)

OECD

Below upper secondary
%
S.E.

Upper secondary
or post-secondary non-tertiary
%
S.E.

Tertiary
%

S.E.

All levels of education
%
S.E.

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7)

(8)

Greece

0

m

3

m

12

m

5

m

Hungary

17

m

29

m

40

m

29

m

Luxembourg

36

m

49

m

55

m

48

m

Portugal

21

m

41

m

50

m

29

m

Slovenia

6

m

20

m

46

m

23

m

Switzerland

17

m

42

m

60

m

45

m

Notes: Participation in education or training during previous 12 months. The category “All levels of education” corresponds to the average participation in employersponsored formal and/or non-formal education for the adults across all education levels.
* See note on data for the Russian Federation in the Methodology section.
Source: OECD. Survey of Adult Skills (PIAAC) (2012) and Adult Education Survey (AES) (2011). See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/education/education-ata-glance-19991487.htm).
Please refer to the Reader’s Guide for information concerning symbols for missing data and abbreviations.
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933286042

396 Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

How many adults participate in education and learning? – INDICATOR C6

chapter C

Table C6.2c. Participation in employer-sponsored education, by occupation (2011, 2012)
Survey of Adult Skills, employed 25-64 year-olds
Formal and/or non-formal education, Survey of Adult Skills (2012)

OECD

Skilled
occupations

Semi-skilled white-collar
occupations

Semi-skilled blue-collar
occupations

Elementary
occupations

%

S.E.

%

S.E.

%

S.E.

%

S.E.

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7)

(8)

Australia

69

(1.3)

52

(2.1)

41

(2.0)

32

(2.8)

Austria

53

(1.4)

39

(1.6)

34

(2.2)

16

(2.7)

Canada

63

(0.8)

46

(1.4)

43

(1.5)

32

(2.7)

Czech Republic

61

(2.4)

49

(3.2)

45

(2.3)

29

(5.6)

Denmark

76

(0.9)

59

(1.7)

50

(2.2)

40

(3.0)

Estonia

67

(1.0)

50

(2.0)

30

(1.2)

23

(2.2)

Finland

76

(1.0)

59

(1.7)

47

(1.6)

46

(4.4)

France

50

(1.1)

34

(1.3)

25

(1.4)

18

(1.7)

Germany

64

(1.5)

43

(1.8)

38

(2.0)

9

(1.9)

Ireland

64

(1.3)

44

(1.8)

37

(2.5)

35

(3.6)

Italy

41

(1.8)

19

(2.1)

18

(2.3)

16

(3.2)

Japan

57

(1.4)

36

(1.5)

27

(2.0)

14

(3.3)

Korea

57

(1.8)

43

(1.6)

29

(1.7)

17

(2.0)

Netherlands

71

(0.9)

55

(1.9)

47

(2.6)

30

(3.6)

Norway

71

(1.2)

52

(2.1)

48

(2.5)

36

(4.7)

Poland

53

(1.6)

28

(2.1)

20

(1.5)

22

(3.8)

Slovak Republic

49

(1.3)

31

(2.2)

28

(1.7)

14

(2.4)

Spain

55

(1.6)

38

(1.7)

32

(1.6)

24

(2.6)

Sweden

71

(1.2)

50

(1.7)

41

(2.2)

34

(5.5)

United States

69

(1.4)

50

(2.1)

38

(2.7)

28

(3.9)

Flanders (Belgium)

61

(1.4)

38

(1.8)

30

(2.3)

20

(2.7)

England (UK)

70

(1.5)

53

(1.8)

48

(2.7)

31

(3.5)

Northern Ireland (UK)

66

(2.2)

55

(2.0)

34

(3.5)

34

(4.1)

England/N. Ireland (UK)

70

(1.5)

53

(1.8)

47

(2.6)

32

(3.4)

Average

62

(0.3)

44

(0.4)

36

(0.4)

26

(0.7)

Russian Federation*

29

(2.9)

13

(2.0)

10

(2.2)

6

(4.6)

National entities

Partners

Sub-national entities

Job-related non-formal education, Adult Education Survey (2011)

OECD

Skilled
occupations

Semi-skilled white-collar
occupations

Semi-skilled blue-collar
occupations

Elementary
occupations

%

S.E.

%

S.E.

%

S.E.

%

S.E.

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7)

(8)

Greece

14

m

7

m

0

m

0

m

Hungary

47

m

41

m

45

m

40

m

Luxembourg

67

m

57

m

56

m

0

m

Portugal

54

m

46

m

31

m

22

m

Slovenia

49

m

34

m

20

m

12

m

Switzerland

64

m

44

m

40

m

24

m

Note: Participation in education or training during previous 12 months.
* See note on data for the Russian Federation in the Methodology section.
Source: OECD. Survey of Adult Skills (PIAAC) (2012) and Adult Education Survey (AES) (2011). See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/education/education-ata-glance-19991487.htm).
Please refer to the Reader’s Guide for information concerning symbols for missing data and abbreviations.
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933286050

Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

397

C6

chapter C ACCESS TO EDUCATION, PARTICIPATION AND PROGRESSION

Table C6.2d. Participation in employer-sponsored formal and/or non-formal education,

by working hours and contract type (2012)
Survey of Adult Skills, employed 25-64 year-olds
Working hours by contract type

Full time, indefinite

Full time, fixed term

Part time, indefinite

%

S.E.

%

S.E.

%

S.E.

%

S.E.

(9)

(10)

(11)

(12)

(13)

(14)

(15)

(16)

Australia1

67

(1.3)

58

(1.9)

50

(2.5)

48

(3.0)

Austria

50

(1.1)

40

(3.8)

32

(2.4)

31

(5.4)

Canada

63

(0.9)

53

(2.2)

46

(2.9)

43

(3.9)

Czech Republic

56

(1.8)

49

(4.7)

45

(7.7)

28

(7.3)

Denmark

72

(0.9)

61

(2.9)

49

(2.8)

42

(6.8)

Estonia

54

(1.0)

43

(2.4)

46

(3.2)

37

(4.4)

Finland

69

(0.8)

63

(2.6)

47

(3.7)

42

(5.8)

France

44

(0.9)

37

(3.1)

29

(2.0)

25

(4.0)

Germany

57

(1.3)

48

(3.7)

34

(2.5)

21

(3.3)

Ireland

63

(1.5)

51

(2.9)

45

(3.3)

30

(3.0)

Italy

30

(1.5)

18

(3.0)

25

(3.4)

14

(4.9)

Japan

47

(1.2)

39

(3.2)

21

(2.1)

27

(3.0)

Korea

58

(1.4)

35

(1.6)

48

(5.2)

23

(3.3)

Netherlands

73

(1.2)

60

(3.5)

57

(1.8)

39

(3.8)

Norway

68

(1.1)

57

(3.7)

48

(3.0)

38

(4.9)

Poland

45

(1.5)

32

(2.0)

34

(4.7)

31

(4.7)

Slovak Republic

43

(1.2)

32

(2.9)

36

(6.7)

23

(7.5)

Spain

52

(1.1)

37

(2.5)

36

(4.0)

18

(3.5)

Sweden

64

(0.9)

51

(3.8)

46

(4.1)

33

(5.1)

United States

64

(1.8)

61

(1.8)

46

(6.6)

51

(3.7)

Flanders (Belgium)

52

(1.3)

51

(5.4)

39

(2.3)

36

(8.9)

England (UK)

68

(1.4)

63

(3.4)

50

(2.7)

53

(5.2)

Northern Ireland (UK)

65

(1.9)

49

(3.7)

48

(3.1)

40

(5.3)

England/N. Ireland (UK)

68

(1.3)

62

(3.3)

50

(2.6)

53

(5.0)

Average

57

(0.3)

47

(0.7)

41

(0.8)

33

(1.1)

Russian Federation*

21

(1.8)

16

(2.7)

36

(5.2)

26

(2.8)

OECD

C6

Part time, fixed term

National entities

Partners

Sub-national entities

Notes: Participation in education or training during previous 12 months. Additional columns on working hours and contract type are available for consultation on
line (see StatLink below).
1. For Australia, data based on full time/part time are using a variable which is topped at 60 hours per week while there is no upper limit for other countries.
* See note on data for the Russian Federation in the Methodology section.
Source: OECD. Survey of Adult Skills (PIAAC) (2012). See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/education/education-at-a-glance-19991487.htm).
Please refer to the Reader’s Guide for information concerning symbols for missing data and abbreviations.
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933286060

398 Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

How many adults participate in education and learning? – INDICATOR C6

chapter C

Table C6.3a. Participation in employer-sponsored formal and/or non-formal education,

by use of learning at work (2012)

Survey of Adult Skills, employed 25-64 year-olds
Index of learning at work1

OECD

Never
%

S.E.

Less than 20%
%
S.E.

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

20% to
less than 40%
%
S.E.

40% to
less than 60%
%
S.E.

60% to
less than 80%
%
S.E.

80% or more
%
S.E.

(5)

(7)

(9)

(11)

(6)

(8)

(10)

(12)

National entities

Australia

14

(4.3)

41

(2.6)

59

(2.5)

64

(1.8)

63

(2.2)

69

(2.1)

Austria

8

(4.4)

30

(1.9)

44

(1.8)

50

(1.9)

52

(2.3)

53

(3.1)

Canada

19

(3.3)

42

(1.9)

54

(1.5)

62

(1.2)

62

(1.3)

62

(1.4)

Czech Republic

25

(7.0)

46

(2.8)

55

(3.2)

56

(2.9)

63

(3.6)

59

(4.3)

Denmark

16

(6.1)

46

(2.2)

67

(1.6)

70

(1.7)

75

(1.6)

72

(1.8)

Estonia

13

(3.0)

39

(1.8)

49

(1.7)

59

(1.5)

59

(2.1)

57

(1.8)

Finland

c

c

49

(2.4)

64

(2.1)

71

(1.6)

68

(1.9)

67

(2.0)

France

6

(1.9)

26

(1.7)

36

(1.7)

44

(1.8)

46

(1.7)

46

(1.6)

Germany

5

(2.8)

37

(2.1)

47

(2.0)

57

(1.9)

57

(2.6)

60

(3.1)

Ireland

19

(4.6)

43

(2.1)

53

(2.5)

55

(2.5)

61

(2.2)

62

(2.1)

Italy

7

(3.1)

20

(2.2)

26

(2.2)

31

(2.6)

34

(3.0)

30

(2.9)

Japan

6

(2.2)

29

(1.7)

41

(2.0)

50

(1.7)

51

(2.1)

52

(3.5)

Korea

18

(2.1)

39

(1.6)

53

(2.0)

51

(2.4)

50

(2.9)

56

(4.1)

Netherlands

13

(4.0)

50

(2.1)

64

(2.0)

69

(1.9)

71

(2.0)

74

(2.5)

Norway

c

c

42

(3.0)

59

(2.0)

67

(1.4)

68

(1.7)

66

(1.9)

Poland

16

(3.6)

27

(1.7)

42

(2.4)

46

(3.3)

48

(2.4)

50

(2.8)

Slovak Republic

8

(2.8)

26

(1.9)

35

(2.4)

46

(2.2)

46

(2.4)

46

(2.6)

Spain

14

(3.4)

34

(2.7)

37

(2.6)

41

(2.8)

49

(2.5)

52

(1.5)

Sweden

9

(5.8)

41

(2.6)

57

(2.2)

64

(1.7)

66

(1.9)

66

(2.1)

United States

10

(4.4)

46

(3.1)

55

(2.7)

61

(2.2)

65

(2.1)

65

(1.7)

Flanders (Belgium)

12

(4.1)

34

(2.1)

47

(1.8)

53

(1.7)

52

(2.6)

64

(2.4)

England (UK)

29

(5.9)

46

(2.4)

64

(2.6)

67

(2.1)

68

(2.3)

70

(2.5)

Northern Ireland (UK)

20

(5.5)

44

(2.8)

60

(2.9)

65

(3.1)

66

(3.5)

62

(3.9)

England/N. Ireland (UK)

29

(5.6)

46

(2.4)

64

(2.5)

67

(2.0)

68

(2.2)

70

(2.4)

Average

13

(0.9)

38

(0.5)

50

(0.5)

56

(0.4)

58

(0.5)

59

(0.5)

Russian Federation*

4

(2.0)

12

(2.3)

19

(2.2)

27

(3.3)

31

(3.4)

37

(4.1)

Partners

Sub-national entities

Note: Participation in education or training during previous 12 months.
1. The index of learning at work is categorised as Warm’s mean weighted likelihood estimation (WLE). It is derived from variables that are based on a Likert scale
from “Never” to “Every day”. The categories should therefore be interpreted based on the frequency of the activity, with “Never” being the least frequent and “80% or
more” being the most frequent. For more details on the index, see page 143 of the OECD Skills Outlook 2013: First Results from the Survey of Adult Skills. (http://dx.doi.
org/10.1787/9789264204256-en).
* See note on data for the Russian Federation in the Methodology section.
Source: OECD. Survey of Adult Skills (PIAAC) (2012). See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/education/education-at-a-glance-19991487.htm).
Please refer to the Reader’s Guide for information concerning symbols for missing data and abbreviations.
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933286070

Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

399

C6

Chapter

D

THE LEARNING ENVIRONMENT
AND ORGANISATION
OF SCHOOLS

Indicator D1 How much time do students spend in the classroom?
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933286089

Indicator D2 What is the student-teacher ratio and how big are classes?
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933286136

Indicator D3 How much are teachers paid?
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933286177

Indicator D4 How much time do teachers spend teaching?
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933286246

Indicator D5 Who are the teachers?
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933286275

Indicator D6 What evaluation and assessment mechanisms are in place?
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933286339

Indicator D7 What teacher and school leader appraisal systems are in place?
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933286387

Indicator D8 To what extent is information and communication technology
used in teaching and learning?
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933286444

Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

401

HOW MUCH TIME DO STUDENTS SPEND IN THE CLASSROOM?
• Students in OECD countries receive an average of 7 570 hours of compulsory instruction during
their primary and lower secondary education.

• On average across OECD countries, instruction in reading, writing and literature, mathematics, and

INDICATOR D1

the arts represents 46% of compulsory instruction time for primary school students; instruction
in reading, writing and literature, second and other languages, and mathematics represents 38% of
compulsory instruction time for lower secondary school students.

Chart D1.1. Compulsory instruction time in general education (2015)
In primary and lower secondary education
Duration of primary
and lower secondary
education, in years

Hungary
Latvia
Poland
Turkey
Slovenia
Finland1
Korea
Austria
Estonia
Russian Federation
Sweden1
Slovak Republic
Belgium (Fl.)
Czech Republic
Belgium (Fr.)
Greece
Japan
Germany2, 3
Italy
Portugal
OECD average
Iceland
Switzerland
Norway
Luxembourg
France
Canada
Ireland4
Chile2
Netherlands5
United States6
Mexico
Israel
Spain
Colombia
Australia
Denmark

Primary

Lower secondary

8
9
9
8
9
9
9
8
9
9
9
9
8
9
8
9
9
9
8
9
9
10
9
10
9
9
9
9
8
9
9
9
9
10
9
10
10

0

2 000

4 000

6 000

8 000

10 000

12 000

Total number of compulsory
instruction hours
1. Estimated number of hours by level of education based on the average number of hours per year, as the allocation of instruction time across multiple
grades is flexible.
2. Year of reference 2014.
3. Excludes the last year of compulsory education, which can be classified at either the lower secondary or the upper secondary level.
4. Actual instruction time for lower secondary education.
5. The number of grades in lower secondary education is three or four, depending on the track. The 4th year of pre-vocational secondary education
(VMBO) was excluded from the calculation.
6. Year of reference 2012.
Countries are ranked in ascending order of the total number of compulsory instruction hours.
Source: OECD. Table D1.1. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/education/education-at-a-glance-19991487.htm).
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933284394

402 Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

Context
Providing instruction in formal classroom settings accounts for a large portion of public investment
in education. Countries make various choices concerning the overall amount of time devoted to
instruction and which subjects are compulsory. These choices reflect national and/or regional priorities
and preferences concerning what material students should be taught and at what age. 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, and are based
on the understanding that sufficient time is required for good learning outcomes. Matching resources
with students’ needs and making optimal use of time are central to education policy. Teachers’ salaries,
institutional maintenance and provision of other educational resources constitute the main costs of
education. The length of time during which these resources are made available to students (as partly
shown in this Indicator) is an important factor in determining how funds for education are allocated
(see Indicator B7, which shows the factors influencing the salary cost of teachers per student).

INDICATOR D1

Other findings

• In OECD countries, compulsory instruction time for primary students averages 804 hours per
year; lower secondary students receive an average of 112 more hours of compulsory education per
year than primary students do.

• The proportion of the compulsory curriculum for primary students that is devoted to reading,
writing and literature ranges from 18% in Poland to 37% in France; for lower secondary students,
it ranges from 12% in Australia, the Czech Republic, Finland, Ireland and Japan to 33% in Italy.

• The proportion of the compulsory curriculum devoted to mathematics at primary level ranges
from 13% in Denmark and Greece to 27% in Portugal; at the lower secondary level it ranges from
11% in Greece to 20% in Italy.

• In OECD countries, an average of 12% (for primary students) and 6% (for lower secondary students)
of compulsory instruction time is devoted to compulsory subjects with a flexible timetable. An
average of 5% of compulsory instruction time for both groups of students is devoted to compulsory
flexible subjects chosen by schools.

• In about one-third of countries with available data, the allocation of instruction time across grades
is flexible, i.e. instruction time for a specific subject is defined for a certain number of grades, or
even the whole of compulsory education, without specifying the time to be allocated to each grade.

Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

403

chapter D THE LEARNING ENVIRONMENT AND ORGANISATION OF SCHOOLS

Analysis
Compulsory general education
Annual instruction time should be examined together with the length of compulsory education. In some countries,
the duration of compulsory education is shorter and students bear a heavier workload; in other countries, the
workload is distributed evenly over more years, which ultimately means a larger number of total instruction hours
for all.

D1

In three out of four countries with available data, students start primary education at the age of 6. However, in
Estonia, Finland, Latvia, the Russian Federation and Sweden, students do not start until age 7. In Poland, primary
education is compulsory for 7-year-olds and for 6-year-old children born in the first semester of 2008. Only in
Australia, England, New Zealand and Scotland does primary education start at age 5. There is also substantial
variation in the duration of primary education. On average, primary education lasts six years, but ranges from four
years in Austria, Germany, Hungary, the Slovak Republic and Turkey, to seven years in Denmark, Iceland, Norway
and Scotland. Lower secondary education averages three years but ranges from two years in Belgium (Flemish and
French Communities) and Chile to five years in the Russian Federation and the Slovak Republic. In around two out
of three countries with available data, at least one year of upper secondary education is part of compulsory full-time
education (Table D1.2).
Countries also allocate annual instruction time differently over the year. On average across OECD countries, primary
and lower secondary students attend 185 and 183 instruction days per year, respectively. However, students in
France (primary and lower secondary), Greece (lower secondary), Iceland (primary and lower secondary), Ireland
(lower secondary), Latvia (primary), Luxembourg (lower secondary) and the Russian Federation (primary) attend
170 instruction days, or fewer, per year. In contrast, primary and lower secondary school students in Brazil,
Colombia, Israel, Italy, Japan and Mexico attend at least 200 instruction days per year (Table D1.2).
Compulsory instruction time
Compulsory instruction time refers to the amount and allocation of instruction time that has to be provided in
almost every public school and must be attended by almost all public sector students, as per public regulations.
Students in OECD countries attend an average of 4 614 hours of instruction during primary school and an average
of 2 957 hours during lower secondary education. While the average total compulsory instruction time for primary
and lower secondary students in OECD countries is 7 570 hours, formal instruction-time requirements range from
5 553 hours in Hungary to 10 040 hours in Denmark (Table D1.1).
In England and Scotland regulations do not prescribe compulsory instruction time in schools. However, schools are
required to allow sufficient instruction time to deliver a broad and balanced curriculum that includes all statutory
requirements.
Compulsory instruction time can differ from actual instruction time, as it only captures the time spent by students
in formal classroom settings. This is only a part of the total time students spend receiving instruction. Instruction
also occurs outside the classroom and/or school. In some countries, secondary school students are encouraged to
take after-school classes in subjects already taught in school to help them improve their performance. Students can
participate in after-school lessons in the form of remedial “catch-up” classes or enrichment courses, with individual
tutors or in group lessons provided by school teachers, or in other independent courses. These lessons can be
financed through public funds or by students and their families (see Box D1.1 in OECD, 2011).
This indicator captures intended instruction time, as established in public regulations, as a measure of learning in
formal classroom settings. It does not show the actual number of hours of instruction that students receive and
does not cover learning outside of the formal classroom setting.
Intended instruction time
Total intended instruction time is the estimated number of hours during which schools are obliged to offer
instruction in compulsory, and if applicable, non-compulsory subjects.
Intended and compulsory instruction time are of the same length (i.e. intended instruction time is fully compulsory),
for primary and lower secondary students in about three out of four countries with available data. However in
Denmark, Finland, France (lower secondary), Greece (Primary), Poland, Portugal and Slovenia, the intended
instruction time is at least 4% longer than the compulsory instruction time.

404 Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

chapter D

How much time do students spend in the classroom? – INDICATOR D1

Instruction time per subject
Primary students spend an average of 46% of the compulsory instruction time on three subjects: reading, writing
and literature (22%), mathematics (15%) and the arts (9%). Together with physical education and health (8%),
natural sciences (7%) and social studies (6%), these six study areas form the major part of the curriculum in all
OECD countries where instruction time per subject is specified. Second and other languages, religion, information
and communication technologies (ICT), technology, practical and vocational skills, and other subjects make up the
remainder (15%) of the non-flexible compulsory curriculum at the primary level (Table D1.3a and Chart D1.2a).

D1

Chart D1.2a. Instruction time per subject in primary education (2015)
As a percentage of total compulsory instruction time
Reading, writing and literature
Second and other languages

%

Mathematics
Other compulsory curriculum

Natural sciences
Compulsory flexible curriculum

100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20

Netherlands

England

Italy

Belgium (Fl.)

Belgium (Fr.)

Ireland

Poland2

Iceland

Korea

Chile1

OECD average

Estonia

Israel

Denmark

Australia

Latvia

Slovenia

Russian Federation

Finland

Spain

Japan

Greece

Norway

Germany1

Luxembourg

Portugal

Czech Republic

Slovak Republic

Turkey

Austria

Hungary

Canada

France

0

Mexico

10

1. Year of reference 2014.
2. Excludes the first three years of primary education for which a large proportion of the time allocated to compulsory subjects is flexible.
Countries are ranked in descending order of the proportion of instruction hours devoted to reading, writing and literature.
Source: OECD. Table D1.3a. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/education/education-at-a-glance-19991487.htm).
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933284408

At the lower secondary level, an average of 38% of the compulsory curriculum is composed of three subjects: reading,
writing and literature (14%), second and other languages (13%) and mathematics (12%). On average, an additional
11% of the compulsory curriculum is devoted to natural sciences and 10% to social studies. Together with physical
education and health (7%) and the arts (6%), these seven study areas form the major part of the curriculum for this
level of education in all OECD countries where instruction time per subject is specified. Religion, ICT, technology,
practical and vocational skills, and other subjects make up the remainder (11%) of the non-flexible compulsory
curriculum for students at this level of education (Table D1.3b and Chart D1.2b).
This is a significant shift in the allocation of time from primary schooling. Instruction in reading, writing and
literature drops from 22% of the compulsory instruction time to 14%. Instruction in mathematics drops from 15%
to 12% of compulsory instruction time. Conversely, instruction in both natural science and social studies climbs
from 7% and 6% of the compulsory curriculum to 11% and 10%, respectively, while instruction in other languages
(second and others) climbs from 6% to 13%. At the national level, instruction in second and other languages
accounts for the largest share of the compulsory core curriculum at the lower secondary level in Finland (together
with natural sciences), France, Germany, Israel, Japan, Latvia, Luxembourg, Norway and Poland (together with
reading, writing and literature) (Tables D1.3a and b).
At the lower secondary level, there is substantial variation in how countries allocate time among the different subjects
within the compulsory curriculum. For example, reading, writing and literature accounts for 12% of compulsory
instruction time in Australia, the Czech Republic, Finland and Japan, while it accounts for more than 25% of compulsory
instruction time in Greece and Italy. In Ireland, reading, writing and literature is taught in two national languages and
Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

405

chapter D THE LEARNING ENVIRONMENT AND ORGANISATION OF SCHOOLS

therefore the actual estimation of the combined percentage can reach about 24% of the total compulsory instruction
time. In Canada and Greece, instruction in second language accounts for 7% or less of compulsory instruction time
while it accounts for 17% in Luxembourg. In addition, in slightly less than half of countries with available data, studying
other language in addition to a second language is compulsory for lower secondary students.

Chart D1.2b. Instruction time per subject in general lower secondary education (2015)
As a percentage of total compulsory instruction time

England

Netherlands

Belgium (Fl.)

Finland

Australia

Ireland3

Japan

Czech Republic

Korea

Estonia

Portugal

Slovenia

Austria

Natural sciences
Compulsory flexible curriculum

Germany2

Poland

Iceland

Mexico

Latvia

Hungary

Luxembourg

Mathematics
Other compulsory curriculum

France

Turkey

Russian Federation

Spain

Slovak Republic

Chile2

Israel

Denmark

Greece

Canada

Italy1

%

100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0

Belgium (Fr.)

Reading, writing and literature
Second and other languages

Norway

D1

1. Natural sciences included in mathematics.
2. Year of reference 2014.
3. Actual instruction time.
Countries are ranked in descending order of the proportion of instruction hours devoted to reading, writing and literature.
Source: OECD. Table D1.3b. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/education/education-at-a-glance-19991487.htm).
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933284418

As seen at the primary and lower secondary levels, there are significant differences in how time is allocated to school
subjects as students grow older. On average across OECD countries, 25% of instruction time for 7-year-olds is devoted
to reading, writing and literature; for 11-year-olds, 17% of instruction time is devoted to those subjects, while 12% of
instruction time for 15-year-olds is devoted to those subjects. By contrast, whereas an average of 3% of instruction
time for 7-year-olds is devoted to the teaching of second language, 9% of instruction time for 11-year-olds is spent
studying a second language and 2% studying other languages, and 9% and 4% of instruction time for 15-year-olds is
devoted to the second and other languages, respectively. The share of instruction time dedicated to natural sciences
increases from 6% (for 7-year-olds) to 8% (for 11-year-olds) to 11% (for 15-year-olds), while instruction time in social
studies increases from 5% (for 7-year-olds) to 8% (for 11-year-olds) to 9% (for 15-year-olds). The portion of instruction
time dedicated to arts slips from 9% and 8% for 7- and 11-year-old students, respectively, to 4% for 15-year-olds, while
time dedicated to physical education remains constant at 9% and 8% for 7- and 11-year-old students, respectively, and
drops to 6% for 15-year-old students (Tables D1.5b, f and j, available on line).

Box D1.1. Recess and breaks during the school day
Learning in the classroom demands that students be focused and concentrated for long periods of time. Research
has found that some time spent outside the classroom during the school day, in activities other than instruction
itself can help improve students’ performance in the classroom. In primary education, breaks in instruction allow
pupils to play, rest and freely interact with their peers to further develop cognitive, emotional and social skills.
Research suggests that students may then apply those skills in the classroom, thus improving their learning
(Pellegrini and Bohn, 2005; Pellegrini et al., 2002). OECD countries increasingly consider recess and breaks as an
important component of the school day.
…

406 Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

How much time do students spend in the classroom? – INDICATOR D1

chapter D

How breaks are organised in OECD countries depends on how education systems are governed and the degree of
autonomy that individual schools enjoy. Decisions on the length of breaks, or even on the moment of the day in
which they should occur, are generally taken by the decision making body responsible for the entire instruction
time. In countries where responsibility is largely left to the schools or schools’ governing bodies, as in Australia,
Canada, England (UK), Italy, the Netherlands and Switzerland, schools have the liberty to take decisions about
the organisation of breaks too. In other countries, such as Colombia, the decision is left to school principals and
head teachers.
In some countries, although regulations on breaks have been established centrally, their implementation is
left to schools and/or their governing bodies. In the Flemish Community of Belgium, for instance, legislation
stipulates the amount of time that students should devote to breaks at primary (at least a one-hour lunch break)
and secondary (at least a 50-minute lunch break) levels. However, schools and school associations or networks are
granted the authority to take the final decision and determine the length of the breaks as they see fit.
In most OECD countries, breaks are generally organised in accordance with daily compulsory instruction time.
The time students spend in school is most often defined by the amount of instruction they are supposed to receive
daily and weekly. In most countries, the school day is divided into lessons that last 45 to 50 minutes, allowing
for short breaks between them to make up an entire hour. Across OECD countries, 10- to 15-minute breaks are
generally long enough to allow students to change classrooms and visit the restroom. These short breaks are
different in length and purpose to longer breaks also observed in the majority of countries. During longer breaks,
students can have breakfast or lunch and are commonly supervised by a teacher or group of teachers.
In primary education, long breaks are common, and in some cases are even compulsory. In Spain, for example,
breaks in primary school are considered as part of compulsory instruction time. Primary students in Spain have a
half-hour break every day in the middle of the morning session that is considered part of the five daily instruction
hours. In several countries, a lunch break is set as part of the learning process, where students learn about hygiene,
healthy eating habits and/or recycling waste.
In several countries, long breaks can be found at all levels of education. In Australia, schools at all levels of
education tend to have one morning recess that lasts about 20 minutes, then a longer lunch break. In Canada,
there is a midday break for lunch in primary through upper secondary education. In both countries, long breaks
can last around 40 to 60 minutes. Breaks can also occur throughout the day. In Switzerland, for example, schools
usually organise two long breaks, one in the morning and a second in the afternoon. In Chile, schools with a large
number of students may divide students up into two or more groups, by grade or age, for their breaks.
Schools can use recess and breaks for different purposes. They can use breaks as a way of helping students who
have to commute a long distance to school or to harmonise the end of classes when the duration of lesson periods
are different across grades, as in the Czech Republic, where 10-minute breaks can be shortened to five minutes.
In Denmark, municipalities often propose to use breaks and recess as an integrated part of daily exercise and
physical activities for students, at all grade levels. This is also the case in Slovenia, where schools sometimes
organise a long break intended for students to practice sports in the gym and on school’s outdoor playing fields.
Flexibility in the curriculum
In most countries, central and state authorities establish regulations or recommendations regarding instruction
time and the curriculum. However, local authorities, schools, teachers and/or students also have varying degrees of
freedom in organising instruction time or in choosing subjects.
In about one in three countries with available data, the allocation of instruction time across grades is flexible,
i.e. instruction time for a specific subject is defined for a certain number of grades, or even the whole of compulsory
education, without specifying the time to be allocated to each grade. In such cases, schools/local authorities are free
to decide how much time should be allocated for each grade (Table D1.2).
Setting compulsory subjects within a flexible timetable is more common at the primary level where, on average
across OECD countries, it accounts for 12% of the compulsory instruction time. In this case, compulsory subjects and
total instruction time are specified, but not the time to be allocated to each subject. Local authorities, schools and/
or teachers are free to decide how much time should be allocated to each compulsory subject. In Belgium (Flemish
and French Communities) and Italy, compulsory subjects within a flexible timetable account for 80% or more of
instruction time at the primary level. At the primary and lower secondary levels, England and the Netherlands
Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

407

D1

chapter D THE LEARNING ENVIRONMENT AND ORGANISATION OF SCHOOLS

allow complete flexibility in allocating instruction time across compulsory subjects. In Scotland, at both primary
and lower secondary levels, some compulsory subjects are specified, but there is no regulation on total instruction
time, which is the responsibility of local authorities and schools themselves.

D1

Flexibility in the choice of subjects is less common across OECD countries. On average, 5% of compulsory instruction
time is allocated to subjects chosen by schools at the primary level. At the lower secondary level, 5% of compulsory
instruction time is allocated to subjects chosen by schools and another 5% to subjects chosen by the students.
However, some countries allocate a substantial part of the compulsory instruction time to flexible subjects.
For example, in Australia (primary level), Belgium (French and Flemish communities, lower secondary), Canada
(lower secondary), Chile, the Czech Republic, Estonia (primary level), and Poland, at least 10% of compulsory
instruction time is allocated to subjects chosen by schools; up to 21% of compulsory instruction time is so allocated
in the Slovak Republic. In Australia, Iceland, Ireland, Spain and Turkey, at least 17% of compulsory instruction time
is allocated to subjects chosen by lower secondary students (Tables D1.3a and b).
Non-compulsory instruction time
Non-compulsory instruction time is rare across OECD countries. Only about six countries devote some time to noncompulsory instruction at primary level and the number rises to seven at the lower secondary level. Across these
countries, non-compulsory instruction time is equivalent to an average of 3% of the total compulsory instruction
time for primary students, and 2% for lower secondary students. Nevertheless, a considerable amount of additional
non-compulsory instruction time is provided in some countries. At the primary level, additional non-compulsory
time accounts for 35% in Greece and 23% in Portugal. At the lower secondary level, non-compulsory instruction
time accounts for 19% of the total compulsory instruction time in Slovenia and 10% in France (Tables D1.3a and b).
Box D1.2. Extracurricular activities at school
In addition to formal instruction time, students may participate in extracurricular activities before and/or
after the school day or during school holidays, on school premises.
In OECD and partner countries, extracurricular activities are more commonly offered during the school year
(before and/or after classes) than during school holidays. Although schools often have the autonomy to decide
whether they provide these activities or not, it is sometimes compulsory for all schools to offer extracurricular
activities. This is the case, for example, in Poland and Slovenia. In Hungary, not only do primary and lower
secondary schools have to organise extracurricular activities until 4 pm, but students are required to attend them.
These activities can be organised by schools, as in Brazil and Hungary, by municipalities, as in Israel, or by
volunteer school staff, as in Ireland. External public partners are also often involved in organising extracurricular
activities on school premises as are private stakeholders, though less commonly so. For example, in Portugal, these
activities can be organised by parent associations and non-governmental organisations. In the Czech Republic,
Estonia, Iceland, Italy, Japan and Slovenia, occasional additional payments are offered to teachers in primary to
upper secondary education, to participate in these extracurricular activities (see Indicator D3).
Before- and/or after-school activities typically include childcare (at the primary level), tutoring or remedial
courses, sports and/or artistic and cultural activities. In Hungary (upper secondary level) and Turkey, these
activities also include community service; in Spain, classes in foreign languages, ICT and reading and writing
workshops are offered.

Definitions
Compulsory curriculum refers to the amount and allocation of instruction time that has to be provided in almost
every public school and must be attended by almost all public sector students. The compulsory curriculum may
be flexible as local authorities, schools, teachers and/or pupils may have varying degrees of freedom to choose the
subjects and/or the allocation of compulsory instruction time.
Compulsory flexible subjects chosen by schools refers to the total amount of compulsory instruction time
indicated by the central authorities, which regional authorities, local authorities, schools or teachers allocate to
subjects of their choice (or subjects they chose from a list defined by central education authorities). It is compulsory
for the school to offer one of these subjects and students must attend it.

408 Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

How much time do students spend in the classroom? – INDICATOR D1

chapter D

Compulsory options chosen by the students refers to the total amount of instruction time in one or more subjects
that pupils have to select (from a set of subjects that are compulsory for schools to offer) in order to cover part of
their compulsory instruction time.
Compulsory subjects with a flexible timetable refers to the total amount of instruction time indicated by the
central authorities for a given group of subjects, which regional authorities, local authorities, schools or teachers
allocate to individual subjects. There is flexibility in the time spent on a subject, but not in the subjects to be taught.
Flexible allocation of instruction time across multiple grades refers to the case when the curriculum only indicates
the total instruction time for a specific subject for a certain number of grades, or even the whole of compulsory
education, without specifying the time to be allocated to each grade. In such cases, schools/local authorities are free
to decide how much time should be assigned for each grade.
Instruction time refers to the time a public school is expected to provide instruction to students on all the subjects
integrated into the compulsory and non-compulsory curriculum, on school premises or in before-/after-school
activities, that are formal parts of the compulsory programme. Instruction time excludes breaks between classes or
other types of interruptions, non-compulsory time outside the school day, time dedicated to homework activities,
and individual tutoring or private study.
Intended instruction time refers to the number of hours per year of the compulsory and non-compulsory part of the
curriculum that students are entitled to receive in public schools. The intended curriculum can based on regulations
or standards of the central (or top level) education authorities or may be established as a set of recommendations
at the regional level.
The non-compulsory part of the curriculum refers to the total amount of instruction time to which students are
entitled beyond the compulsory hours of instruction and that almost every public school is expected to provide.
Subjects can vary from school to school or from region to region and take the form of elective subjects. Students
are not required to choose one of the elective subjects, but all public schools are expected to offer this possibility.

Methodology
Data on instruction time are from the 2014 Joint Eurydice-OECD Instruction time data collection and refer to
instruction time during compulsory primary and full-time (lower and upper) secondary general education for the
school year 2014/15.
In editions of Education at a Glance prior to 2014, data on instruction time was collected through another survey
using a different scope, methodology and definitions than the 2013 Joint Eurydice-OECD instruction time data
collection first published in Education at a Glance 2014. As a result, data on instruction time are not comparable with
those published in previous editions of Education at a Glance.
This indicator captures intended instruction time, as established in public regulations, as a measure of learning in
formal classroom settings. It does not show the actual number of hours of instruction that students receive and
does not cover learning outside of the formal classroom setting. Differences may exist across countries between
the regulatory minimum hours of instruction and the actual hours of instruction received by students. A study
conducted by Regioplan Beleidsonderzoek in the Netherlands showed that, given such factors as school timetables,
lesson cancellations and teacher absenteeism, schools may not consistently attain the regulatory minimum
instruction time (see Box D1.1 in OECD, 2007).
The indicator also illustrates how minimum instruction hours are allocated across different curricular areas.
It shows the intended net hours of instruction for those grades that are part of compulsory full-time general
education. Although the data are difficult to compare among countries because of different curricular policies, they
nevertheless provide an indication of how much formal instruction time is considered necessary for students to
achieve the desired educational goals.
When the allocation of instruction time across grades is flexible, i.e. instruction time for a specific subject is defined
for a certain number of grades, or even the whole of compulsory education, without specifying the time to be
allocated to each grade, instruction time per age or level of education was estimated by dividing the total number of
instruction hours per the number of grades.
Notes on definitions and methodologies for each country related to this indicator are provided in Annex 3, available
at www.oecd.org/education/education-at-a-glance-19991487.htm.
Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

409

D1

chapter D THE LEARNING ENVIRONMENT AND ORGANISATION OF SCHOOLS

Note regarding data from Israel
The statistical data for Israel are supplied by and are under the responsibility of the relevant Israeli authorities. The use of
such data by the OECD is without prejudice to the status of the Golan Heights, East Jerusalem and Israeli settlements in the
West Bank under the terms of international law.

References

D1

OECD (2011), Education at a Glance 2011: OECD Indicators, OECD Publishing, Paris, http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/eag-2011-en.
OECD (2007), Education at a Glance 2007: OECD Indicators, OECD Publishing, Paris, http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/eag-2007-en.
Pellegrini, A.D. and C. Bohn (2005), “The role of recess in children’s cognitive performance and school adjustment”, Educational
Researcher, Vol. 34/1, pp. 13-19.
Pellegrini, A.D., K. Kato, P. Blatchford and E. Baines (2002), “A short-term longitudinal study of children’s playground games
across the first year of school: Implications for social competence and adjustment to school”, American Educational Research
Journal, Vol. 39/4, pp. 991-1015.

Indicator D1 Tables
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933286089

Table D1.1

Instruction time in compulsory general education (2015)

Table D1.2

Organisation of compulsory general education (2015)

Table D1.3a

Instruction time per subject in primary education (2015)

Table D1.3b

Instruction time per subject in general lower secondary education (2015)

WEB Table D1.4

Instruction time in compulsory general education, by age (2015)

WEB Table D1.5a

Instruction time per subject for 6-year-olds (2015)

WEB Table D1.5b

Instruction time per subject for 7-year-olds (2015)

WEB Table D1.5c

Instruction time per subject for 8-year-olds (2015)

WEB Table D1.5d

Instruction time per subject for 9-year-olds (2015)

WEB Table D1.5e

Instruction time per subject for 10-year-olds (2015)

WEB Table D1.5f

Instruction time per subject for 11-year-olds (2015)

WEB Table D1.5g

Instruction time per subject for 12-year-olds (2015)

WEB Table D1.5h

Instruction time per subject for 13-year-olds (2015)

WEB Table D1.5i

Instruction time per subject for 14-year-olds (2015)

WEB Table D1.5j

Instruction time per subject for 15-year-olds (2015)

WEB Table D1.5k

Instruction time per subject for 16-year-olds (2015)

WEB Table D1.5l

Instruction time per subject for 17-year-olds (2015)

410 Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

chapter D

How much time do students spend in the classroom? – INDICATOR D1

Table D1.1. [1/2] Instruction time in compulsory general education1 (2015)
By level of education, in public institutions
Primary

Lower secondary
Average hours per year

Intended
instruction
time

Compulsory
instruction
time

Noncompulsory
instruction
time

Intended
instruction
time

(7)=(5)+(6)

(8)

(9)

(10)

(11)=(9)+(10)

m
m
a
m
a
a
m
680
a
a
171
a
a
1 672
a
a
a
n
a
a
a
a
a
m
m
a
349
1 133
a
a
683
a
m
m
a
m

m
m
4 928
m
5 516
6 231
m
7 360
a
3 964
3 965
4 320
2 814
6 387
2 583
5 100
5 490
5 831
4 455
4 575
3 885
5 544
5 400
m
m
5 234
4 156
5 971
a
2 693
4 669
4 757
m
m
2 880
m

4
4
2
2
3
2
4
3
3
3
3
4
5
3
4
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
3
3
3
3
5
3
4
3
3
4
3

1 000
899
947
971
924
1 067
888
1 120
a
823
844
991
906
785
743
839
935
1 023
990
895
842
845
1 167
1 000
m
874
810
892
a
819
766
1 059
754
963
840
1 011

m
m
a
m
6
a
m
80
a
a
57
99
a
n
a
a
a
n
a
a
a
a
a
m
m
a
65
27
a
a
145
a
m
m
a
m

m
m
947
m
930
1 067
m
1 200
a
823
901
1 090
906
785
743
839
935
1 023
990
895
842
845
1 167
m
m
874
875
919
a
819
911
1 059
m
m
840
m

4 614
4 328

188
293

~
~

3
3

916
895

19
30

~
~

m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m

m
m
m
5 000
m
m
3 566
2 068
m
m

m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m

m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m

m
4
m
4
m
m
3
5
m
m

m
m
m
1 200
m
m
794
877
m
m

m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m

m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

Compulsory
instruction
time

(6)

Intended
instruction
time

Number
of grades
that are part
of compulsory
education

Number
of grades
that are part
of compulsory
education

Noncompulsory
instruction
time

Noncompulsory
instruction
time

Total number of hours

Compulsory
instruction
time

Partners

OECD

Average hours per year

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)=(2)+(3)

(5)

Australia
Austria
Belgium (Fl.)2
Belgium (Fr.)2
Canada
Chile3
Czech Republic
Denmark
England4
Estonia
Finland5
France
Germany3, 6
Greece
Hungary
Iceland
Ireland7
Israel
Italy
Japan
Korea
Luxembourg
Mexico
Netherlands8
New Zealand
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Scotland4
Slovak Republic
Slovenia
Spain
Sweden5
Switzerland
Turkey
United States9

6
4
6
6
6
6
5
7
6
6
6
5
4
6
4
7
6
6
5
6
6
6
6
6
6
7
6
6
7
4
6
6
6
6
4
6

1 000
705
821
849
919
1 039
687
954
a
661
632
864
703
786
646
729
915
972
891
763
648
924
900
940
m
748
635
806
a
673
664
793
754
819
720
967

m
m
a
m
a
a
m
97
a
a
29
a
a
279
a
a
a
n
a
a
a
a
a
m
m
a
58
189
a
a
114
a
m
m
a
m

m
m
821
m
919
1 039
m
1 051
a
661
661
864
703
1 065
646
729
915
972
891
763
648
924
900
m
m
748
693
995
a
673
778
793
m
m
720
m

6 000
2 820
4 928
5 096
5 516
6 231
3 434
6 680
a
3 964
3 794
4 320
2 814
4 715
2 583
5 100
5 490
5 831
4 455
4 575
3 885
5 544
5 400
5 640
m
5 234
3 807
4 838
a
2 693
3 986
4 757
4 523
4 912
2 880
5 802

OECD average4
EU21 average4

6
6

804
776

31
48

~
~

Argentina
Brazil
China
Colombia
India
Indonesia
Latvia
Russian Federation
Saudi Arabia
South Africa

m
5
m
5
m
m
6
4
m
m

m
m
m
1 000
m
m
594
517
m
m

m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m

G20 average

m

m

m

Note: Columns showing instruction time in compulsory upper secondary education (i.e. columns 19-25) are available for consultation on line (see StatLink below).
1. Refers to full-time compulsory education and excludes pre-primary education, even if compulsory.
2. It is compulsory for students to attend full-time education up to the age of 15 or 16. However, those in general education must continue until they are 18.
3. Year of reference 2014.
4. England and Scotland are not included in the averages.
5. Estimated number of hours by level of education based on the average number of hours per year, as the allocation of instruction time across multiple grades is flexible.
6. Excludes the last year of compulsory education, which can be classified at either the lower secondary or the upper secondary level.
7. Actual instruction time for lower and upper secondary education.
8. The number of grades in lower secondary education is three or four, depending on the track. The 4th year of pre-vocational secondary education (VMBO) was excluded
from the calculation.
9. Year of reference 2012.
Source: OECD. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/education/education-at-a-glance-19991487.htm).
Please refer to the Reader’s Guide for information concerning symbols for missing data and abbreviations.
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933286093

Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

411

D1

chapter D THE LEARNING ENVIRONMENT AND ORGANISATION OF SCHOOLS

Table D1.1. [2/2] Instruction time in compulsory general education1 (2015)
By level of education, in public institutions
Lower secondary

Primary and lower secondary

Noncompulsory
instruction
time

Intended
instruction
time

Theoretical
duration in years

Compulsory
instruction
time

Noncompulsory
instruction
time

Intended
instruction
time

(12)

(13)

(14)=(12)+(13)

(15)

(16)

(17)

(18)

Australia
Austria
Belgium (Fl.)2
Belgium (Fr.)2
Canada
Chile3
Czech Republic
Denmark
England4
Estonia
Finland5
France
Germany3, 6
Greece
Hungary
Iceland
Ireland7
Israel
Italy
Japan
Korea
Luxembourg
Mexico
Netherlands8
New Zealand
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Scotland4
Slovak Republic
Slovenia
Spain
Sweden5
Switzerland
Turkey
United States9

4 000
3 597
1 893
1 941
2 773
2 134
3 550
3 360
a
2 468
2 533
3 964
4 531
2 356
2 970
2 516
2 806
3 070
2 970
2 684
2 525
2 535
3 500
3 000
m
2 622
2 430
2 675
a
4 095
2 298
4 234
2 262
2 888
3 360
3 033

m
m
a
m
17
a
m
240
a
a
171
396
a
n
a
a
a
n
a
a
a
a
a
m
m
a
194
80
a
a
435
a
m
m
a
m

m
m
1 893
m
2 790
2 134
m
3 600
a
2 468
2 704
4 360
4 531
2 356
2 970
2 516
2 806
3 070
2 970
2 684
2 525
2 535
3 500
m
m
2 622
2 624
2 756
a
4 095
2 733
4 234
m
m
3 360
m

10
8
8
8
9
8
9
10
9
9
9
9
9
9
8
10
9
9
8
9
9
9
9
9
10
10
9
9
10
9
9
10
9
9
8
9

10 000
6 417
6 821
7 037
8 289
8 365
6 984
10 040
a
6 431
6 327
8 284
7 345
7 071
5 553
7 616
8 296
8 901
7 425
7 260
6 410
8 079
8 900
8 640
m
7 856
6 237
7 513
a
6 788
6 284
8 991
6 785
7 800
6 240
8 835

m
m
a
m
17
a
m
920
a
a
342
396
a
1 672
a
a
a
n
a
a
a
a
a
m
m
a
542
1 214
a
a
1 118
a
m
m
a
m

m
m
6 821
m
8 306
8 365
m
10 960
a
6 431
6 669
8 680
7 345
8 744
5 553
7 616
8 296
8 901
7 425
7 260
6 410
8 079
8 900
m
m
7 856
6 779
8 726
a
6 788
7 401
8 991
m
m
6 240
m

OECD average4
EU21 average4

2 957
2 975

61
95

~
~

9
9

7 570
7 302

249
388

~
~

Argentina
Brazil
China
Colombia
India
Indonesia
Latvia
Russian Federation
Saudi Arabia
South Africa

m
m
m
4 800
m
m
2 381
4 384
m
m

m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m

m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m

m
9
m
9
m
m
9
9
m
m

m
m
m
9 800
m
m
5 947
6 452
m
m

m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m

m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

OECD

D1

Partners

Total number of hours

Compulsory
instruction
time

Total number of hours

G20 average

Note: Columns showing instruction time in compulsory upper secondary education (i.e. columns 19-25) are available for consultation on line (see StatLink below).
1. Refers to full-time compulsory education and excludes pre-primary education, even if compulsory.
2. It is compulsory for students to attend full-time education up to the age of 15 or 16. However, those in general education must continue until they are 18.
3. Year of reference 2014.
4. England and Scotland are not included in the averages.
5. Estimated number of hours by level of education based on the average number of hours per year, as the allocation of instruction time across multiple grades is flexible.
6. Excludes the last year of compulsory education, which can be classified at either the lower secondary or the upper secondary level.
7. Actual instruction time for lower and upper secondary education.
8. The number of grades in lower secondary education is three or four, depending on the track. The 4th year of pre-vocational secondary education (VMBO) was excluded
from the calculation.
9. Year of reference 2012.
Source: OECD. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/education/education-at-a-glance-19991487.htm).
Please refer to the Reader’s Guide for information concerning symbols for missing data and abbreviations.
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933286093

412 Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

How much time do students spend in the classroom? – INDICATOR D1

chapter D

Table D1.2. Organisation of compulsory general education1 (2015)
By level of education, in public institutions
Primary

Partners

OECD

Average
Number of
number of
grades that
instruction
are part of
days
compulsory Theoretical
per year
education starting age

Lower secondary
Flexible
Average
Average
number of allocation of Number of
number of
instruction instruction grades that
instruction
time across are part of
days
days
compulsory Theoretical
multiple
per school
per year
education starting age
grades
week

Flexible
Average
number of allocation of
instruction instruction
time across
days
multiple
per school
grades
week

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7)

(8)

(9)

(10)

Australia
Austria
Belgium (Fl.)2
Belgium (Fr.)2
Canada
Chile3
Czech Republic
Denmark
England4
Estonia
Finland
France
Germany3, 5
Greece
Hungary
Iceland
Ireland
Israel
Italy
Japan
Korea
Luxembourg
Mexico
Netherlands6
New Zealand
Norway
Poland7
Portugal
Scotland4
Slovak Republic
Slovenia
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Turkey
United States

6
4
6
6
6
6
5
7
6
6
6
5
4
6
4
7
6
6
5
6
6
6
6
6
6
7
6
6
7
4
6
6
6
6
4
6

5
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
5
7
7
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
5
6
7
6
5
6
6
6
7
6
6
6

196
180
176
182
183
182
194
a
190
175
187
162
188
171
181
170
183
223
200
201
190
180
200
m
193
190
182
179
190
187
190
175
178
189
180
180

5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
6
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5

No
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
m
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No
No
Yes
m
No
m

4
4
2
2
3
2
4
3
3
3
3
4
5
3
4
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
3
3
3
3
5
3
4
3
3
4
3

11
10
12
12
12
12
11
13
11
13
13
11
10
12
10
13
12
12
11
12
12
12
12
12
11
13
13
12
12
10
12
12
13
12
10
12

196
180
178
182
183
182
194
a
190
175
187
162
188
152
181
170
167
214
200
202
190
169
200
m
192
190
180
178
190
187
185
175
178
189
180
180

5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
6
6
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5

No
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
No
Yes
No
No
Yes
m
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No
No
Yes
m
No
m

OECD average4
EU21 average4

6
6

6
6

185
182

5
5

~
~

3
3

12
12

183
179

5
5

~
~

Argentina
Brazil
China
Colombia
India
Indonesia
Latvia
Russian Federation
Saudi Arabia
South Africa

m
5
m
5
m
m
6
4
m
m

m
6
m
6
m
m
7
7
m
m

m
200
m
200
m
m
169
169
m
m

m
5
m
5
m
m
5
5
m
m

m
m
m
m
m
m
No
No
m
m

m
4
m
4
m
m
3
5
m
m

m
11
m
11
m
m
13
11
m
m

m
200
m
200
m
m
173
175
m
m

m
5
m
5
m
m
5
5
m
m

m
m
m
m
m
m
No
No
m
m

G20 average

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

Note: Columns showing the organisation of compulsory upper secondary education (i.e. columns 11-15) are available for consultation on line (see StatLink below).
1. Refers to full-time compulsory education and excludes pre-primary education, even if compulsory.
2. It is compulsory for students to attend full-time education up to the age of 15 or 16. However, those in general education must continue until they are 18.
3. Year of reference 2014.
4. England and Scotland are not included in the averages.
5. Excludes the last year of compulsory education, which can be classified at either the lower secondary or the upper secondary level.
6. The number of grades in lower secondary education is three or four, depending on the track. The 4th year of pre-vocational secondary education (VMBO) was
excluded from the calculation.
7. In the 2014/15 school year, primary education was compulsory for 6-year-old children born in the first semester of 2008.
Source: OECD. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/education/education-at-a-glance-19991487.htm).
Please refer to the Reader’s Guide for information concerning symbols for missing data and abbreviations.
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933286104

Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

413

D1

chapter D THE LEARNING ENVIRONMENT AND ORGANISATION OF SCHOOLS

Physical education and
health

Arts

Information and
communication
technologies (ICT)

Technology

Compulsory subjects
with flexible timetable

Compulsory options
chosen by the students

Compulsory flexible
subjects chosen by
schools

(6)

(7)

(8)

(9)

(10)

(11)

(12)

(13)

(14)

(15)

(16)

(17)

(18)

x(16)
2
n
2
1
3
8
5
x(14)
8
6
6
5
8
3
x(14)
14
6
9
1
6
x(1)
11
x(14)
m
7
10
3
x(14)
6
6
10
m
m
5
m

x(16)
n
a
a
a
x(16)
a
1
a
2
n
a
n
2
a
x(14)
a
2
a
a
a
18
a
a
m
a
a
a
x(14)
x(16)
x(18)
n
m
m
a
m

8
11
x(14)
7
10
9
8
7
x(14)
11
10
13
11
8
19
9
4
6
x(14)
10
7
10
4
x(14)
m
11
14
8
x(14)
8
15
9
m
m
14
m

5
9
x(14)
x(14)
6
10
10
9
x(14)
15
13
9
14
10
15
19
12
5
x(14)
12
9
11
4
x(14)
m
15
7
9
x(14)
8
16
9
m
m
7
m

x(4)
9
7
7
n
5
x(13)
4
x(14)
x(16)
5
x(17)
7
4
2
x(4)
10
11
7
3
x(4)
7
4
x(14)
m
8
x(18)
x(18)
x(14)
4
x(4)
x(15)
m
m
2
m

x(11)
x(17)
a
a
a
x(16)
1
a
x(14)
x(16)
a
x(3)
n
3
1
3
x(17)
a
a
a
x(13)
a
a
x(14)
m
a
3
x(18)
x(14)
3
x(17)
a
m
m
a
m

4
x(3)
x(3)
x(14)
n
3
4
a
x(14)
3
a
n
1
a
4
a
x(3)
x(3)
x(14)
a
x(12)
a
a
x(14)
m
a
3
2
x(14)
a
6
a
m
m
a
m

x(11)
6
a
a
n
x(16)
x(11)
5
a
a
a
a
n
a
a
x(8)
a
4
a
a
x(3)
a
a
x(14)
m
2
a
a
x(14)
1
2
a
m
m
1
m

x(16)
4
a
a
1
2
x(16)
16
a
a
n
a
3
a
a
x(15)
11
n
a
10
24
a
a
a
m
a
3
4
a
x(16)
1
n
m
m
7
m

x(16)
a
93
83
17
a
a
9
100
a
6
n
a
a
a
5
a
n
84
7
a
a
a
100
m
a
n
a
a
a
a
a
m
m
a
m

m
n
n
a
a
a
x(16)
n
a
a
a
a
2
a
a
5
a
n
a
a
a
a
a
a
m
a
a
a
a
x(16)
a
7
m
m
a
m

28
a
x(14)
n
4
14
12
n
a
12
7
n
a
8
4
a
m
7
x(17)
a
a
a
a
a
m
1
13
5
a
21
a
9
m
m
a
m

100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
a
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
m
100
100
100
a
100
100
100
m
m
100
m

m
m
a
m
a
a
m
10
a
a
5
a
a
35
a
a
a
n
a
a
a
a
a
m
m
a
9
23
a
a
17
a
m
m
a
m

OECD average3
EU21 average3

22
21

15
14

7
6

6
4

5
5

1
1

8
8

9
9

5
5

1
1

1
1

1
1

3
2

12
16

n
n

5
4

100
100

3
5

Argentina
Brazil
China
Colombia
India
Indonesia
Latvia
Russian Federation
Saudi Arabia
South Africa

m
m
m
m
m
m
23
23
m
m

m
m
m
m
m
m
17
19
m
m

m
m
m
m
m
m
5
9
m
m

m
m
m
m
m
m
6
a
m
m

m
m
m
m
m
m
8
7
m
m

m
a
m
m
m
m
1
a
m
m

m
m
m
m
m
m
8
9
m
m

m
m
m
m
m
m
13
9
m
m

m
m
m
m
m
m
2
a
m
m

m
m
m
m
m
m
1
a
m
m

m
a
m
m
m
m
a
7
m
m

m
a
m
m
m
m
4
a
m
m

m
m
m
m
m
m
4
a
m
m

m
m
m
m
m
m
a
16
m
m

m
m
m
m
m
m
a
a
m
m

m
m
m
m
m
m
7
m
m
m

m
m
m
m
m
m
100
100
m
m

m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m

G20 average

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

Notes: Please refer to Tables D1.5a to D1.5l, available on line, for instruction time per subject for each age (see StatLink below).
The averages were adjusted to 100% and do not correspond exactly to the average of each column.
1. It is compulsory for students to attend full-time education up to the age of 15 or 16. However, those in general education must continue until they are 18.
2. Year of reference 2014.
3 England and Scotland are not included in the averages.
4. The second language of instruction includes other national languages taught.
5. Excludes the first three years of primary education for which a large proportion of the time allocated to compulsory subjects is flexible.
Source: OECD. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/education/education-at-a-glance-19991487.htm).
Please refer to the Reader’s Guide for information concerning symbols for missing data and abbreviations.
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933286110

414 Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

OECD

Non-compulsory
curriculum

Other languages

(5)

9
x(3)
x(3)
x(14)
5
9
x(3)
3
x(14)
5
2
5
6
7
a
13
8
8
x(14)
8
9
2
9
x(14)
m
7
5
8
x(14)
3
7
7
m
m
13
m

Total compulsory
curriculum

Social studies
(4)

6
13
x(14)
x(14)
6
9
10
5
x(14)
7
11
9
4
10
6
8
4
9
x(14)
8
9
7
12
x(14)
m
6
10
7
x(14)
3
8
7
m
m
5
m

Other subjects

Natural sciences
(3)

17
17
x(14)
x(14)
19
16
17
13
x(14)
15
16
21
20
13
15
16
17
18
x(14)
17
14
19
24
x(14)
m
17
14
27
x(14)
15
17
17
m
m
17
m

Practical and
vocational skills

Mathematics
(2)

23
30
x(14)
x(14)
31
20
30
23
x(14)
23
24
37
26
25
30
20
20
23
x(14)
24
22
26
31
x(14)
m
26
18
27
x(14)
27
23
25
m
m
30
m

Second language

Reading, writing
and literature
(1)

Australia
Austria
Belgium (Fl.)1
Belgium (Fr.)1
Canada
Chile2
Czech Republic
Denmark
England3
Estonia
Finland
France
Germany2
Greece
Hungary
Iceland
Ireland4
Israel
Italy
Japan
Korea
Luxembourg4
Mexico
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Poland5
Portugal
Scotland3
Slovak Republic
Slovenia
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Turkey
United States

D1

Partners

Religion/ Ethics/ Moral
education

Table D1.3a. Instruction time per subject in primary education (2015)
As a percentage of total compulsory instruction time

How much time do students spend in the classroom? – INDICATOR D1

chapter D

Reading, writing
and literature

Mathematics

Natural sciences

Social studies

Second language

Other languages

Physical education and
health

Arts

Religion/ Ethics/ Moral
education

Information and
communication
technologies (ICT)

Technology

Practical and
vocational skills

Other subjects

Compulsory subjects
with flexible timetable

Compulsory options
chosen by the students

Compulsory flexible
subjects chosen by
schools

Total compulsory
curriculum

Non-compulsory
curriculum

Partners

OECD

Table D1.3b. Instruction time per subject in general lower secondary education (2015)
As a percentage of total compulsory instruction time

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7)

(8)

(9)

(10)

(11)

(12)

(13)

(14)

(15)

(16)

(17)

(18)

Austria
Belgium (Fl.)2
Belgium (Fr.)2
Canada
Chile3
Czech Republic
Denmark
England4
Estonia
Finland
France
Germany3
Greece
Hungary
Iceland
Ireland5, 6
Israel
Italy
Japan
Korea
Luxembourg6
Mexico
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Scotland4
Slovak Republic
Slovenia
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Turkey
United States

12
14
x(14)
17
20
16
12
19
x(14)
13
12
15
13
26
14
14
12
17
33
12
13
15
14
x(14)
m
15
14
13
x(14)
16
13
16
m
m
16
m

12
13
x(14)
14
15
16
12
13
x(14)
14
12
14
12
11
12
14
12
14
20
12
11
13
14
x(14)
m
12
12
13
x(14)
13
13
12
m
m
14
m

11
12
x(14)
9
9
11
17
14
x(14)
21
16
10
11
10
12
8
x(15)
14
x(2)
12
19
8
17
x(14)
m
9
12
18
x(14)
10
17
8
m
m
11
m

10
11
x(14)
13
13
11
9
8
x(14)
11
8
11
11
12
11
8
17
15
x(1)
11
15
11
12
x(14)
m
9
12
14
x(14)
10
15
11
m
m
8
m

x(16)
12
x(14)
13
6
8
10
8
x(14)
10
9
12
12
6
11
x(14)
x(15)
11
10
13
10
17
9
x(14)
m
8
14
8
x(14)
10
11
11
m
m
10
m

x(16)
n
x(14)
a
a
x(16)
5
8
a
10
7
5
6
6
a
x(14)
x(15)
9
7
a
a
13
a
x(14)
m
8
x(5)
8
x(14)
3
x(15)
n
m
m
a
m

8
11
x(14)
9
10
5
8
5
x(14)
6
9
12
9
7
16
8
7
5
7
10
8
8
6
x(14)
m
9
12
7
x(14)
7
9
7
m
m
6
m

4
12
x(14)
3
6
8
8
x(15)
x(14)
6
9
7
9
6
7
8
x(15)
x(16)
13
7
8
9
6
x(14)
m
9
4
7
x(14)
5
8
7
m
m
6
m

x(4)
7
6
6
2
5
x(13)
2
x(14)
x(16)
4
x(4)
5
6
3
x(4)
2
9
3
3
x(4)
7
8
x(14)
m
6
x(18)
x(18)
x(14)
3
x(4)
x(15)
m
m
6
m

x(11)
x(17)
a
m
a
x(16)
1
x(15)
x(14)
x(16)
a
x(11)
1
3
3
2
x(15)
x(3)
a
a
x(12)
a
a
x(14)
m
a
2
2
x(14)
1
x(17)
x(11)
m
m
3
m

4
n
x(14)
3
3
3
2
x(15)
x(14)
5
a
6
2
2
3
a
x(15)
x(3)
7
3
x(12)
a
11
x(14)
m
a
2
n
x(14)
x(16)
4
5
m
m
3
m

x(11)
8
a
m
1
x(16)
x(11)
2
x(15)
a
a
x(15)
2
5
a
x(8)
x(15)
1
a
a
x(3)
a
a
x(14)
m
7
a
a
x(14)
1
a
a
m
m
1
m

x(16)
n
a
x(15)
1
3
x(16)
15
a
a
6
3
1
a
3
x(15)
x(14)
n
a
12
9
a
3
a
m
a
4
n
a
x(16)
2
3
m
m
a
m

x(16)
a
73
n
2
a
a
a
100
a
4
n
a
a
a
19
10
3
n
5
a
a
a
100
m
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
m
m
a
m

18
n
n
x(16)
1
a
x(16)
5
x(14)
a
a
4
7
a
a
20
40
n
a
a
x(16)
a
a
a
m
7
a
a
a
x(16)
7
18
m
m
17
m

22
a
20
13
11
15
15
n
a
4
5
1
a
1
5
a
m
2
x(17)
a
6
a
a
a
m
a
13
9
a
21
a
a
m
m
a
m

100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
a
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
m
100
100
100
a
100
100
100
m
m
100
m

m
m
a
m
1
a
m
7
a
a
7
10
a
n
a
a
a
n
a
a
a
a
a
m
m
a
8
3
a
a
19
a
m
m
a
m

OECD average4
EU21 average4

14
14

12
11

11
11

10
10

9
9

4
4

7
7

6
6

4
4

1
1

3
2

1
1

2
2

6
8

5
4

5
5

100
100

2
3

Argentina
Brazil
China
Colombia
India
Indonesia
Latvia
Russian Federation
Saudi Arabia
South Africa

m
m
m
m
m
m
15
15
m
m

m
m
m
m
m
m
16
15
m
m

m
m
m
m
m
m
10
16
m
m

m
m
m
m
m
m
14
8
m
m

m
m
m
m
m
m
9
9
m
m

m
a
m
m
m
m
9
a
m
m

m
m
m
m
m
m
6
6
m
m

m
m
m
m
m
m
6
5
m
m

m
m
m
m
m
m
a
a
m
m

m
m
m
m
m
m
1
2
m
m

m
a
m
m
m
m
a
4
m
m

m
m
m
m
m
m
4
1
m
m

m
m
m
m
m
m
3
a
m
m

m
m
m
m
m
m
a
20
m
m

m
m
m
m
m
m
a
m
m
m

m
m
m
m
m
m
10
m
m
m

m
m
m
m
m
m
100
100
m
m

m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m

G20 average

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

Australia1

Notes: Please refer to Tables D1.5a to D1.5l, available on line, for instruction time per subject for each age (see StatLink below).
The averages were adjusted to 100% and do not correspond exactly to the average of each column.
1. The intended instruction times derived from the Australian Curriculum assumes that certain subjects, which may be considered compulsory in years 7 and 8, could
be delivered to students as electives in years 9 and 10.
2. It is compulsory for students to attend full-time education up to the age of 15 or 16. However, those in general education must continue until they are 18.
3. Year of reference 2014.
4. England and Scotland are not included in the averages.
5. Actual instruction time.
6. The second language of instruction includes other national languages taught.
Source: OECD. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/education/education-at-a-glance-19991487.htm).
Please refer to the Reader’s Guide for information concerning symbols for missing data and abbreviations.
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933286121

Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

415

D1

WHAT IS THE STUDENT-TEACHER RATIO
AND HOW BIG ARE CLASSES?
• The average primary school class in OECD countries has 21 students, and this average increases to
24 in lower secondary education.

• The difference in average class size between public and private institutions in primary education
varies substantially across OECD countries, but is considerably larger in partner countries.

INDICATOR D2

• There are 15 students per teacher in primary education, on average across OECD countries.
Chart D2.1. Average class size in educational institutions,
by level of education (2013)
Number of students
per classroom

Lower secondary education

Primary education

60
50
40
30
20

0

China
Korea
Japan
Indonesia
Chile
Colombia
Israel
Turkey
Brazil
Mexico
United States
Spain
France
Germany
Australia
OECD average
Portugal
Poland
Greece
Italy
Czech Republic
EU21 average
Austria
Hungary
Iceland
Slovenia
Finland
United Kingdom
Slovak Republic
Luxembourg
Russian Federation
Estonia
Latvia
Belgium (Fr.)
Netherlands

10

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/education/education-at-a-glance-19991487.htm).
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933284429

Context
Class size and student-teacher ratios are much-discussed aspects of education and, along with
students’ instruction time (see Indicator D1), teachers’ working time (see Indicator D4), and the
division of teachers’ time between teaching and other duties, are among the determinants of the
demand for teachers. Together with teachers’ salaries (see Indicator D3) and the age distribution of
teachers (see Indicator D5), class size and student-teacher ratios also have a considerable impact on
the level of current expenditure on education (see Indicators B6 and B7).
Smaller classes are often seen as beneficial because they allow teachers to focus more on the needs
of individual students and reduce the amount of class time needed to deal with disruptions. Yet,
while there is some evidence that smaller classes may benefit specific groups of students, such as
those from disadvantaged backgrounds (Finn, 1998; Krueger, 2002; Piketty and Valdenaire, 2006),
overall, evidence of the effect of differences in class size on student performance is weak. Given recent
findings from the 2013 OECD Teaching and Learning International Survey (TALIS), however, larger
classes seem to be associated with a higher percentage of students with behavioural problems and
with more class time spent keeping order as opposed to teaching and learning (see Box D2.1).
The ratio of students to teaching staff indicates how resources for education are allocated. Smaller
student-teacher ratios often have to be weighed against higher salaries for teachers, investing in their
professional development, 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. As larger numbers of children with special needs are integrated into mainstream
classes, more use of specialised personnel and support services may limit the resources available for
reducing student-teacher ratios.

416 Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

Other findings

• With the exceptions of Chile, Colombia, Korea, Luxembourg and Mexico, the student-teacher
ratio decreases or stays the same in all countries with available data between primary and lower
secondary level, despite a general increase in class size between these levels.

• On average across OECD countries, the student-teacher ratio in secondary education is slightly
lower in private than in public institutions. This is most striking in Mexico where, at the secondary
level, there are at least 17 students more per teacher in public than in private institutions.

• Class size varies significantly across countries. The biggest classes in primary education are

INDICATOR D2

observed in Chile and China, with 30 and 38 students per classroom, respectively, whereas in
Latvia and Luxembourg classes have fewer than 17 students, on average.

Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

417

chapter D THE LEARNING ENVIRONMENT AND ORGANISATION OF SCHOOLS

Analysis
Average class size in primary and lower secondary education
The average primary class in OECD countries had more than 21 pupils in 2013. There are fewer than 26 pupils per
primary classroom in nearly all of the countries with available data, with the exception of Chile, China, Israel and
Japan.

D2

At the lower secondary level, the average class in OECD countries has 24 students. Among all countries with available
data on this level of education, that number varies from fewer than 20 students in Estonia, Latvia, Luxembourg,
the Russian Federation, the Slovak Republic and the United Kingdom, to around 33 students per class in Japan and
Korea and 50 students in China (Table D2.1).
The number of students per class tends to increase between primary and lower secondary education. In China and
Korea, the increase in average class size exceeds seven students. Meanwhile, the United Kingdom and, to a lesser
extent, Estonia and Latvia show a drop in the number of students per class between these two levels of education
(Chart D2.1).
The Indicator on class size is limited to primary and lower secondary education because class size is difficult to define
and compare at higher levels, where students often attend several different classes, depending on the subject area.

Box D2.1. Relationship between average class size and classroom environment
Despite the extensive literature on the effects of class size on education, evidence of the impact of class size is
mixed in research. The often-cited relationship between class size and student performance, for example, has
been found to be beneficial only to specific groups and in certain contexts, such as in schools considered at-risk,
or for struggling students. Overall, there is little evidence that class size, by itself, determines achievement.
Indeed, results from the OECD Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) do not provide evidence
of a relationship between class size and the performance of 15-year-olds. Instead, PISA finds that countries
should prioritise policies to improve teacher quality – e.g. by raising salaries to attract good candidates and retain
effective teachers – even if the trade-off is larger classes. The 2013 OECD Teaching and Learning International
Survey (TALIS) also reports that class size is not a strong determinant of teachers’ job satisfaction, or even of
whether they use pedagogies involving small groups, project-based tasks or information and communication
technologies. Nevertheless, one relationship merits further investigation: class size and classroom environment.
Generally speaking, smaller class sizes are perceived as allowing teachers to spend less time managing the class
and more time with each student (OECD, 2012). Evidence from TALIS can help shed light on this relationship.
After asking teachers how much class time they devote to teaching and learning activities versus administrative
tasks and keeping order (or behaviour management), TALIS found that teachers spend 79% of their time, on
average, on teaching and learning. But that proportion varies widely – from 87% in Bulgaria to 67% in Brazil –
and class size could explain part of that difference.
Chart D2.a shows that larger classes are correlated with less time spent on actual teaching and learning and
with more time spent on keeping order in the classroom (although not shown, larger classes are also correlated
with more class time spent on administrative tasks). Specifically, one additional student added to an averagesize class is associated with a 0.5 percentage-point decrease in time spent on teaching and learning activities.
The charts also highlight an important mechanism through which class size may influence the percentage
of time devoted to teaching and learning. The size of each bubble represents the proportion of lower
secondary teachers who reported having more than 10% of students with behaviour problems in their classes
(OECD, 2014). So the larger the bubble, the higher the share of teachers who reported that more than 10%
of their students have behaviour problems. There is a positive correlation between average class size and the
reported proportion of students with behaviour problems. This correlation is important because teachers who
teach classes where more than one in ten students have behaviour problems spend almost twice as much time
keeping order in the classroom as their peers with less than 10% of such students in their class (OECD, 2015).
In other words, larger classes are associated with a higher proportion of students with behavioural problems,
which, in turn, is associated with less time spent on teaching and learning activities.

…

418 Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

What is the student-teacher ratio and how big are classes? – INDICATOR D2

chapter D

Time spent on teaching and learning is an essential component of effective education environments. That
is especially true given that time spent keeping order in the classroom and on administrative tasks are both
associated with lower levels of teacher self-efficacy and job satisfaction. Therefore, these findings suggest that
teachers in countries and schools with larger classes and more challenging classroom compositions may be in
greater need of interventions to help them use class time more effectively.

Chart D2.a. Relationship between average class size and time spent teaching/learning
and time spent keeping order in the classroom in lower secondary education (2013)
Percentage
of time spent

Percentage
of time spent

Teaching and learning

90
85

Brazil

Finland
Slovak
Republic
Italy
Australia

80
75

19

Czech Republic

Estonia

Iceland

Keeping order in classroom

21

Russian
Federation
Latvia

17

Poland

Portugal

OECD average
Spain
Israel
France

Portugal

Japan

Finland

13

Mexico

11

Latvia

Brazil

R2 = 0.42354

65
19

24

29

Italy

Japan
Israel

OECD
average

Mexico

Poland
Russian Federation

R2 = 0.30841

5
34

Average class size

14

Korea

Czech Republic

Estonia

7

Chile

Spain

Slovak Republic

9

Chile

France

Iceland

15

Korea

70

14

D2

19

24

29

34

Average class size

Note: The size of each bubble represents the proportion of lower secondary teachers who reported having more than 10% of students with behaviour problems
in their classes (OECD, 2014).
Source: OECD. Data on average class size: Table D2.1. Data on use of class time: (OECD, 2014), TALIS 2013 Results: An International Perspective on Teaching and
Learning, TALIS, http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264196261-en.
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933284447

Class size in public and private institutions
Class size is one factor that parents may consider when deciding on a school for their children; and the difference
in average class size between public and private schools (and between different types of private institutions) could
influence enrolment.
In most OECD countries, average class size does not differ between public and private institutions by more than two
students per class in both primary and lower secondary education (Table D2.1). However, there are marked differences
among countries. For example, in Brazil, Colombia, the Czech Republic, Latvia, Poland, the Russian Federation and
the United Kingdom, the average primary school class in public institutions is larger than the average class in a private
school by more than four students. However, with the exception of Brazil, Colombia and the United Kingdom, the
private sector is relatively small in all of these countries, representing 5% of students, at most, at the primary level
(see Table C1.4a). In contrast, in China and Luxembourg, the average class in private institutions is larger than that in
public institutions by four or more students.
The comparison of class size between public and private institutions shows a mixed picture at the lower secondary
level, where private institutions are more prevalent. The average class in lower secondary private institutions is
larger than in public institutions in 8 countries, smaller in 18 countries and the same in 4 countries. The differences,
however, tend to be smaller than in primary education.
In countries where private (including both government-dependent and independent) institutions are more
prevalent at the primary level (i.e. countries where more than 15% of students are enrolled in these institutions),
such as Australia, Brazil, Colombia, Indonesia, Israel and Spain, there may be large differences in class size between
public and private institutions. In Australia and Spain private institutions tend to have more students per class than
public schools (see Tables C1.4a and D2.1). This suggests that in some countries, where a substantial proportion of
students and families choose private schools, class size is not a determining factor in their decision.
Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

419

chapter D THE LEARNING ENVIRONMENT AND ORGANISATION OF SCHOOLS

Student-teacher ratios
The ratio of students to teaching staff compares the number of students (full-time equivalent) to the number
of teachers (full-time equivalent) at a given level of education and in similar types of institutions. However, this
ratio does not take into account the amount of instruction time for students compared to the length of a teacher’s
working day, nor how much time teachers spend teaching. Therefore, it cannot be interpreted in terms of class size
(Box D2.2).
At the primary level, there are 15 students for every teacher, on average across OECD countries. The studentteacher ratio ranges from 28 students per teacher in Mexico to 10 or fewer in Greece, Iceland, Luxembourg and
Norway (Chart D2.2).
Student-teacher ratios also vary, and to a larger extent, at the secondary school level, ranging from 30 students per
full-time equivalent teacher in Mexico to fewer than 10 in Austria, Greece, Latvia, Luxembourg, Portugal and the
Russian Federation. On average across OECD countries, there are about 13 students per teacher at the secondary
level (Table D2.2).
As the differences in student-teacher ratios indicate, there are fewer full-time equivalent students per full-time
equivalent teacher at the secondary level than at the primary level of education. In most countries, the studentteacher ratio decreases between primary and lower secondary school despite an increase in class size. This is true
in all but five countries: Chile, Colombia, Korea, Luxembourg and Mexico. However, the student-teacher ratio in
Luxembourg is very low in both levels of education.

Chart D2.2. Ratio of students to teaching staff in educational institutions,
by level of education (2013)
Ratio

Lower secondary education

Primary education

Upper secondary education

35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0

Mexico
Colombia
Chile
Turkey
United Kingdom
Brazil
Indonesia
Korea
New Zealand
Netherlands1
France
United States
Japan2
Germany
Israel1
China
OECD average
Slovak Republic
Switzerland1
Sweden
Italy
Spain
Czech Republic
Luxembourg
EU21 average
Iceland
Hungary3
Portugal
Poland
Norway2
Estonia2
Belgium1
Finland
Austria
Russian Federation2
Slovenia
Latvia
Greece
Ireland1, 2
Australia2, 4
Canada2, 5

D2

1. Public institutions only. For Israel, public institutions only for upper secondary education. For Belgium, data does not include independent private institutions.
2. Some levels of education are included with others. Please refer to “x” code in Table D2.2 for details.
3. Includes data on management personnel.
4. Includes only general programmes in upper secondary education.
5. Year of reference 2012.
Countries are ranked in descending order of ratio of students to teaching staff in lower secondary education in 2013.
Source: OECD. Table D2.2. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/education/education-at-a-glance-19991487.htm).
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933284432

This reduction in the student-teacher ratio reflects differences in annual instruction time: since annual instruction
time tends to increase with the level of education (see Indicator D1), so does the number of teachers. 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 of education (the number of teaching hours tends to decrease with the level of education,
as teacher specialisation increases). The general trend is consistent among countries, but evidence is mixed as
to whether smaller student-teacher ratios are more desirable, from an education perspective, at higher levels of
education.

420 Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

What is the student-teacher ratio and how big are classes? – INDICATOR D2

chapter D

At the tertiary level, the student-teacher ratio ranges from over 20 students per teacher in Belgium, Brazil, Colombia,
the Czech Republic, Indonesia and Turkey to 10 in Norway (Table D2.2). However, comparisons at this level should
be made with caution since it is difficult to calculate full-time equivalent students and teachers on a comparable
basis. In 6 of the 18 countries with comparable data at the tertiary level, the ratio of students to teaching staff is
lower in short-cycle tertiary education than in bachelor’s, master’s, doctoral or equivalent levels. Among countries in
which the ratio of students to teaching staff is higher in short-cycle tertiary education than in bachelor’s, master’s,
doctoral or equivalent levels, Turkey displays the largest difference: 55 to 1 in short-cycle tertiary education and
17 to 1 in bachelor’s, master’s, doctoral or equivalent levels (Table D2.2).
Differences between public and private institutions in student-teacher ratios are similar to those observed in
class size. On average among the countries for which data are available, the ratios of students to teaching staff are
slightly lower in private institutions than in public institutions at the lower and upper secondary levels (Table D2.3).
The largest differences between public and private institutions are in Brazil, Colombia, Mexico, Turkey and the
United Kingdom, where, at the lower secondary level, there are at least seven more students per teacher in public
institutions than in private institutions. At the upper secondary level in Mexico, the difference in student-teacher
ratios between public and private institutions (a difference of 18 students per teacher) is even larger than that at the
lower secondary level (16 students per teacher).
However, in some countries, the student-teacher ratio is lower in public institutions than in private institutions.
At the lower secondary level, this difference is most pronounced in Luxembourg, which has some 24 students per
teacher in private institutions, compared to 10 students per teacher in public institutions.
Box D2.2. What is the relationship between class size and the student-teacher ratio?
The student-teacher ratio is calculated by dividing the number of full-time equivalent students by the number
of full-time equivalent teachers at a given level of education and type of institution. Class size, on the other
hand, takes into account 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 amount of instruction time compared to the length
of teachers’ working days, the proportion of time teachers spend teaching, how students are grouped within
classes, and team-teaching arrangements.
For example, in a school of 100 full-time students and 10 full-time teachers, the student-teacher ratio is 10 to 1.
If teachers’ work week is estimated to include 20 hours of teaching, and if instruction time for each student is
30 hours per week, then regardless of how students are grouped in the school, one way to estimate average class
size is as follows:
Estimated class size = 10 students per teacher * (30 hours of instruction time per student/20 hours of teaching
per teacher) = 15 students.

Using a different approach, the class size presented in Table D2.1 is defined as the number of students who
are following a common course of study, based on the highest number of common courses (usually compulsory
studies), and excluding teaching in subgroups. The estimated class size will be close to the average class size in
Table D2.1 where teaching in subgroups is less frequent, such as in primary and lower secondary education.
Given the difference between student-teacher ratio and average class size, it is possible for countries with
similar student-teacher ratios to have different class sizes. For example, at the primary level, Israel and the
United States have similar ratios of student to teaching staff (15 students per teacher – Table D2.2), but the
average class size differs substantially (21 students in the United States and 27 in Israel – Table D2.1).

Definitions
Instructional personnel (teaching staff) includes two categories:
• Teachers’ aides and teaching/research assistants include non-professional personnel or students who support
teachers in providing instruction to students.
• 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.
Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

421

D2

chapter D THE LEARNING ENVIRONMENT AND ORGANISATION OF SCHOOLS

Methodology
Data refer to the academic year 2012/13 and are based on the UOE data collection on education statistics administered
by the OECD in 2013 (for details see Annex 3 at www.oecd.org/education/education-at-a-glance-19991487.htm).

D2

Class size is calculated by dividing the number of students enrolled by the number of classes. In order to ensure
comparability among countries, special-needs programmes are 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.
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.
Notes on definitions and methodologies regarding this indicator for each country are presented in Annex 3 at
www.oecd.org/education/education-at-a-glance-19991487.htm.
Note regarding data from Israel
The statistical data for Israel are supplied by and are under the responsibility of the relevant Israeli authorities. The use of
such data by the OECD is without prejudice to the status of the Golan Heights, East Jerusalem and Israeli settlements in the
West Bank under the terms of international law.

References
Finn, J. (1998), Class Size and Students at Risk: What is Known? What is Next?, US Department of Education, Office of Educational
Research and Improvement, National Institute on the Education of At-Risk Students, Washington, DC.
Krueger, A.B. (2002), “Economic Considerations and Class Size”, National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper, No. 8875.
OECD (2015), “Improving School Climate and Students’ Opportunities to Learn”, Teaching in Focus, No. 9, OECD Publishing,
Paris, http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/5js7sf14gd7b-en.
OECD (2014), TALIS 2013 Results: An International Perspective on Teaching and Learning, OECD Publishing, Paris, http://dx.doi.
org/10.1787/9789264196261-en.
OECD (2012), “How Does Class Size Vary Around the World?”, Education Indicators in Focus, No. 9, OECD Publishing, Paris,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/5k8x7gvpr9jc-en.
Piketty, T. and M. Valdenaire (2006), L’Impact de la taille des classes sur la réussite scolaire dans les écoles, collèges et lycées français :
Estimations à partir du panel primaire 1997 et du panel secondaire 1995, Ministère de l’Éducation nationale, de l’Enseignement
supérieur et de la Recherche, Direction de l’évaluation et de la prospective, Paris.

Indicator D2 Tables
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933286136

Table D2.1

Average class size, by type of institution and level of education (2013)

Table D2.2

Ratio of students to teaching staff in educational institutions (2013)

Table D2.3

Ratio of students to teaching staff, by type of institution (2013)

Cut-off date for the data: 23 October 2015. Updates can be found on line at http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/eag-data-en.

422 Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

What is the student-teacher ratio and how big are classes? – INDICATOR D2

chapter D

Partners

Total
Public and private
institutions

Public institutions

Total
private
institutions

Governmentdependent
private
institutions

Independent
private
institutions

Total
Public and private
institutions

Private institutions

Independent
private
institutions

Private institutions
Governmentdependent
private
institutions

Lower secondary education
(general programmes)

Total
private
institutions

Primary education
Public institutions
OECD

Table D2.1. Average class size, by type of institution and level of education (2013)
Calculations based on number of students and number of classes

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7)

(8)

(9)

(10)

Australia
Austria
Belgium (Fr.)
Canada
Chile
Czech Republic
Denmark
Estonia
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Iceland
Ireland
Israel
Italy
Japan
Korea
Luxembourg
Mexico
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway1
Poland
Portugal
Slovak Republic
Slovenia
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Turkey
United Kingdom
United States

23

25

25

a

24

23

25

25

a

24

18

19

19d

x(3)

18

21

22

22d

x(8)

21

20

22

22

a

21

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

29

31

32

24

30

31

31

33

25

31

20

15

15

a

20

22

19

19

a

22

21

m

19

m

m

21

m

20

m

m

17

16

x(4)

16d

17

15

12

x(9)

12d

15

19

17

17

a

19

20

20

20

a

20

23

23

23d

x(3)

23

25

26

26

14

25

21

21

x(2)

x(2)

21

24

24

x(7)

x(7)

24

17

19

a

19

17

22

23

a

23

22

21

20

20

a

21

21

20

20

a

21

19

16

16

a

18

20

13

13

a

20

25

m

a

m

m

m

m

a

m

m

28

24

24

a

27

29

24

24

a

28

19

20

a

20

19

22

22

a

22

22

27

30

a

30

27

32

34

a

34

33

24

29

a

29

24

33

32

32

a

33

15

19

16

19

15

19

18

20

17

19

20

19

a

19

20

28

24

a

24

27

23d

m

x(1)

m

23

m

m

a

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

19

11

10

12

18

23

17

23

16

22

21

21

23

20

21

22

23

25

22

22

18

17

17

a

18

19

18

18

a

19

19

22

22

a

19

20

19

19

a

20

21

24

25

22

22

25

26

27

22

25

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

23

20

a

20

23

28

20

a

20

28

27

18

27

12

25

20

19

21

12

19

22

18

a

18

21

28

20

a

20

27

OECD average

21

21

21

20

21

24

22

23

20

24

EU21 average

20

19

20

17

20

21

21

21

18

21

Argentina
Brazil
China
Colombia
India
Indonesia
Latvia
Russian Federation
Saudi Arabia
South Africa
G20 average

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

25

18

a

18

23

28

24

a

24

28

37

44

44d

x(3)

38

50

52

52d

x(8)

50

24

19

a

19

22

30

25

a

25

29

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

26

22

a

22

25

31

31

a

31

31

16

8

a

8

16

15

9

a

9

14

18

13

a

13

18

19

11

a

11

18

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

24

23

30

20

24

28

26

31

21

28

1. Students are organised in groups that vary in size during the school day.
Sources: OECD. Argentina, China, Colombia, India, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia, South Africa: UNESCO Institute for Statistics. Latvia: Eurostat. See Annex 3 for notes
(www.oecd.org/education/education-at-a-glance-19991487.htm).
Please refer to the Reader’s Guide for information concerning symbols for missing data and abbreviations.
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933286142

Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

423

D2

chapter D THE LEARNING ENVIRONMENT AND ORGANISATION OF SCHOOLS

Table D2.2. Ratio of students to teaching staff in educational institutions (2013)
By level of education, calculations based on full-time equivalents
Tertiary education

Secondary education

All secondary
education

Post-secondary
non-tertiary
education

Short-cycle
tertiary
education

Bachelor’s,
master’s,
doctoral or
equivalent level

All tertiary
education

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7)

(8)

12d

12

m

m

14

14

9

10

9

10

9

17

15

13

9

10

10

15

x(7)

21d

21

14d

x(1)

14

14

m

m

m

m

23

24

25

25

a

m

m

m

19

11

11

11

31

13

22

22

Lower
secondary
education

Upper
secondary
education

(1)

(2)

16

x(3)

12

Partners

D2

OECD

Primary
education
Australia1
Austria
Belgium2
Canada3, 4
Chile
Czech Republic
Denmark
Estonia
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary5
Iceland
Ireland2
Israel2
Italy
Japan6
Korea
Luxembourg
Mexico
Netherlands2
New Zealand
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Slovak Republic
Slovenia
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland2
Turkey
United Kingdom
United States

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

13

10

11d

11d

x(3)

m

m

m

13

9

16

13

17

a

14

14

19

15

10

13

x(6, 7)

17d

17d

17d

16

14

13

13

13

15

12

12

9

7

8

8

m

a

m

m

11

10

12

11

13

19

14

15

10

10

m

m

m

m

m

m

16

x(3)

14d

14

m

x(8)

20d

20

15

13

11

12

m

m

m

m

12

12

13

12

m

a

19

19

17

14

12d

13d

m

m

m

m

17

18

15

16

m

m

m

m

9

11

7

9

m

m

m

m

28

32

27

30

a

17

14

14

17

16

19

17

20

15

15

15

16

16

13

15

21

16

17

17

10

10

10d

10d

x(3)

x(3)

10

10

11

10

11

10

16

8

15

15

13

10

8d

9d

x(3, 7)

a

14d

14d

17

12

14

13

13

9

14

14

16

8

13

11

a

21

18

18

14

12

11

11

m

12

12

12

13

12

13

12

11

10

11

11

15

12

m

m

m

m

m

m

20

19

16

17

a

55

17

22

21

18

19

18

a

20

18

18

15

15

15

15

x(8)

x(8)

x(8)

15d

OECD average

15

13

13

13

16

17

16

16

EU21 average

14

11

12

12

16

14

16

16

Argentina
Brazil
China
Colombia
India
Indonesia
Latvia
Russian Federation
Saudi Arabia
South Africa

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

21

18

16

17

17

57

27

27

G20 average

17

13

17

15

m

m

m

m

25

27

23

25

12

x(7)

24d

35

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

21

18

23

20

a

x(7)

31d

31

11

8

10

9

16

25

19

20

20

9d

x(2)

9

17

11

11

11

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

18

17

16

16

m

m

m

m

1. Includes only general programmes in lower and upper secondary education.
2. Public institutions only. For Israel, public institutions only for upper secondary education. For Belgium, data does not include independent private institutions.
3. Year of reference 2012.
4. Primary includes pre-primary.
5. Includes data on management personnel.
6. Upper secondary includes programmes from post-secondary non-tertiary education.
Source: OECD. Argentina, China, Colombia, India, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia, South Africa: UNESCO Institute for Statistics. Latvia: Eurostat. See Annex 3 for notes
(www.oecd.org/education/education-at-a-glance-19991487.htm).
Please refer to the Reader’s Guide for information concerning symbols for missing data and abbreviations.
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933286152

424 Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

What is the student-teacher ratio and how big are classes? – INDICATOR D2

chapter D

Table D2.3. Ratio of students to teaching staff, by type of institution (2013)
By level of education,calculations based on full-time equivalents
Upper secondary education

All secondary programmes

Independent
private
institutions

Public institutions

Total private
institutions

Governmentdependent
private
institutions

Independent
private
institutions

Public institutions

Total private
institutions

Governmentdependent
private
institutions

Independent
private
institutions

Private institutions

Governmentdependent
private
institutions

Private institutions

Total private
institutions

Private institutions

Public institutions
Partners

OECD

Lower secondary education

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7)

(8)

(9)

(10)

(11)

(12)

Australia1
Austria
Belgium
Canada2
Chile
Czech Republic
Denmark
Estonia3
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary4
Iceland
Ireland
Israel
Italy
Japan3
Korea
Luxembourg
Mexico
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway5
Poland
Portugal3
Slovak Republic
Slovenia
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Turkey
United Kingdom
United States

x(5)
9
9
m
21
11
m
10
9
15
14
7
10
11
x(5)
14
12
14
17
10
35
16
17
10
10
10
13
8
10
11
12
20
27
16

x(6)
11
m
m
27
10
m
8
9
m
13
7
10
3
m
7
11
12
18
24
19
m
13
9
9
12
12
8
15
17
m
9
14
11

x(7)
11d
9
m
29
10
m
a
9
18
x(2)
m
10
3
m
7
a
a
18
12
a
a
a
9d
11
14
12
8
15
17
m
a
16
a

a
x(3)
m
m
22
a
m
8
a
m
x(2)
7
a
a
m
a
11
12
a
a
19
m
13
x(3)
8
10
a
a
14
a
m
9
7
11

12d
10
10
14
24
11
m
11d
16
10
13
8
12
m
14d
11
13
11d
14
9
33
19
14
10d
11
8d
14
14
10
12
m
16
22
16

12d
9
m
12
26
12
m
8d
16
m
12
8
12
m
m
m
7
13d
16
4
15
m
12
16d
11
9d
12
13
14
14
m
7
18
11

12d
9d
10
12d
28
12
m
a
16
11
x(6)
m
12
m
a
m
a
a
16
12
a
a
13
16d
13
16d
12
10
15
14
m
a
19
a

a
x(7)
m
x(7)
16
a
m
8d
a
m
x(6)
8
a
m
m
a
7
13d
a
2
15
m
10
x(7)
11
8d
a
32
13
a
m
7
9
11

12
9
10
14
23
11
m
11d
12
12
14
8
11
m
14
12
12
13d
16
9
34
17
15
10d
10
9d
13
11
10
12
m
18
24
16

12
10
m
12
26
12
m
8d
15
m
13
8
11
m
m
m
8
13d
17
6
17
m
12
14d
10
10d
12
13
14
15
m
8
16
11

12
10d
10
12d
28
12
m
a
15
14
x(11)
m
11
m
m
m
a
a
17
12
a
a
13
14d
12
15d
12
10
15
15
m
a
18
a

a
x(11)
m
x(11)
18
a
m
8d
a
m
x(11)
8
a
m
m
a
8
13d
a
4
17
m
11
x(11)
10
8d
a
32
13
a
m
8
8
11

OECD average
EU21 average

14
12

12
12

13
12

12
9

14
12

12
11

14
13

11
11

14
12

12
11

14
13

12
11

Argentina
Brazil
China
Colombia
India
Indonesia
Latvia
Russian Federation
Saudi Arabia
South Africa

m
20
13
31
m
20
8

m
12
18
17
m
16
4

m
a
18d
a
m
a
a

m
12
x(3)
17
m
16
4

m
17
18
27
m
18
10

m
10
10
16
m
28
7

m
a
10d
a
m
a
a

m
10
x(3)
16
m
28
7

m
19
15
30
m
19
9

m
11
13
17
m
21
6

m
a
13d
a
m
a
a

m
11
x(11)
17
m
21
6

G20 average

9d

4d

a

4d

x(1)

x(2)

a

x(4)

9

4

a

4

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

18

13

18

11

16

13

13

13

17

13

14

11

1. Includes only general programmes in lower and upper secondary education.
2. Year of reference 2012.
3. Upper secondary includes programmes from post-secondary education.
4. Includes data on management personnel.
5. Upper secondary includes programmes from post-secondary non-tertiary and short-cycle tertiary education.
Source: OECD. Argentina, China, Colombia, India, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia, South Africa: UNESCO Institute for Statistics. Latvia: Eurostat. See Annex 3 for notes
(www.oecd.org/education/education-at-a-glance-19991487.htm).
Please refer to the Reader’s Guide for information concerning symbols for missing data and abbreviations.
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933286160

Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

425

D2

HOW MUCH ARE TEACHERS PAID?
• On average across OECD countries, pre-primary and primary teachers earn 78% of the salary of
a similarly-educated, 25-64 year-old full-time, full-year worker, lower secondary teachers are paid
80%, and upper secondary teachers are paid 82% of that benchmark salary.

• The statutory salaries of teachers with 15 years of experience and typical qualifications average

INDICATOR D3

USD 38 653 at the pre-primary level, USD 41 245 at the primary level, USD 42 825 at the lower
secondary level, and USD 44 600 at the upper secondary level.

Chart D3.1. Teachers’ salaries relative to earnings
for similarly educated workers (2013)
Salaries of lower secondary teachers teaching general programmes in public institutions
Ratio

Ratio of actual salaries of teachers aged 25-64
Ratio of statutory salaries of teachers with 15 years of experience and typical qualifications

2.0
1.5
1.0

0

Korea
Luxembourg
Spain
Canada
Portugal
Turkey
Denmark
France
New Zealand
Israel
Switzerland1
Belgium (Fl.)2
Austria
Slovenia
Greece
Belgium (Fr.)2
Poland
Netherlands
Estonia
Sweden
Australia
Scotland3
England3
Finland
OECD average
Norway
Ireland
United States
Italy
Hungary
Chile
Slovak Republic
Czech Republic

0.5

Notes: The definition of teachers’ typical qualification is based on a broad concept including the typical ISCED level of attainment and other criteria,
as discussed in Box D3.2. For further details on the different metrics used to calculate these ratios, please refer to the Methodology section.
1. Statutory salaries of teachers with 11 years of experience and minimum qualification instead of 15 years of experience and typical qualifications.
2. Data on earnings for full-time, full-year workers with tertiary education refer to Belgium.
3. Data on earnings for full-time, full-year workers with tertiary education refer to the United Kingdom.
Countries are ranked in descending order of the ratio of teachers’ salaries to earnings for full-time, full-year workers with tertiary education aged 25-64.
Source: OECD. Table D3.2a, and Table D3.2b, available on line. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/education/education-at-a-glance-19991487.htm).
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933284456

Context
Teachers’ salaries represent the largest single cost in formal education and have a direct impact on
the attractiveness of the teaching profession. They influence decisions to enrol in teacher education,
become a teacher after graduation (as graduates’ career choices are associated with relative earnings
in teaching and non-teaching occupations, and their likely growth over time), return to the teaching
profession after a career interruption, and/or remain a teacher (as, in general, the higher the salaries,
the fewer the people who choose to leave the profession) (OECD, 2005). Burgeoning national debt,
spurred by governments’ responses to the financial crisis of late 2008, have put pressure on policy
makers to reduce government expenditure – particularly on public payrolls. Since compensation and
working conditions are important for attracting, developing and retaining skilled and high-quality
teachers, policy makers should carefully consider teachers’ salaries as they try to ensure both quality
teaching and sustainable education budgets (see Indicators B6 and B7).

426 Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

Other findings

• In most OECD countries, teachers’ salaries increase with the level of education they teach. For
example, the salary of an upper secondary school teacher with 15 years of experience and typical
qualification in Belgium, Finland, Hungary and the Slovak Republic is at least 25% higher than that
of a pre-primary school teacher with the same experience and typical qualification.

• Salaries at the top of the scale for teachers with typical qualifications are, on average, 64%, 66%,
65% and 66% higher, respectively, than starting salaries in pre-primary, primary, lower secondary
and upper secondary education. The difference tends to be greatest when it takes many years to
progress through the scale. In countries where it takes 30 years or more to reach the top of the
salary scale, salaries at that level can be more than 90% higher, on average, than starting salaries.

INDICATOR D3

• Teachers with maximum qualifications at the top of their salary scales are paid, on average,
USD 49 176 at the pre-primary level, USD 51 177 at the primary level, USD 53 786 at the lower
secondary level, and USD 54 666 at the upper secondary level.

• In 11 out of 28 countries with available data, the average annual salaries of upper secondary
teachers, including bonuses and allowances, are at least 10% higher than statutory salaries for
upper secondary teachers with 15 years of experience and typical qualifications.

• In the 17 countries with available data, the average annual salary for full-time equivalent tertiary
academic instructional faculty members varies across countries, ranging from USD 13 348 in
Latvia to USD 74 305 in Germany. For the 12 countries with available data, the average salaries for
men are consistently higher than those for women.
Trends
Between 2000 and 2013, teachers’ salaries rose, in real terms, in all countries with available data,
except Denmark (upper secondary), England, France and Italy. However, in most countries, salaries
increased less since 2005 than between 2000 and 2005. The economic downturn in 2008 also had a
direct impact on teachers’ salaries, which were either frozen or cut in some countries. As a consequence,
the number of countries showing an increase in salaries, in real terms, between 2008 and 2013 shrank
to about one in two OECD countries.

Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

427

chapter D THE LEARNING ENVIRONMENT AND ORGANISATION OF SCHOOLS

Analysis

D3

Statutory teachers’ salaries
Teachers’ salaries are one component of teachers’ total compensation. Other benefits, such as regional allowances
for teaching in remote areas, family allowances, reduced rates on public transport and tax allowances on the purchase
of instructional materials, may also form part of teachers’ total remuneration. There are also large differences in
taxation and social-benefits systems in OECD countries. All this should be borne in mind when comparing statutory
salaries across countries.
Teachers’ salaries vary widely across countries. The salaries of lower secondary school teachers with 15 years
of experience and typical qualification range from less than USD 15 000 in Estonia and Hungary, to more than
USD 60 000 in Canada, Germany, the Netherlands and the United States and exceed USD 100 000 in Luxembourg
(Table D3.1a and Chart D3.2).
In most countries, teachers’ salaries increase with the level of education taught. In Belgium, Denmark, Hungary,
the Netherlands, Norway and the Slovak Republic, upper secondary teachers with 15 years of experience and typical
qualification earn between 20% and 40% more than pre-primary teachers with the same experience; they earn around
55% more in Finland. In Finland and the Slovak Republic, the difference is mainly explained by the gap between
pre-primary and primary teachers’ salaries. In Belgium, teachers’ salaries at the upper secondary level are significantly
higher than at the other levels of education. In Hungary, the main differences are found between upper secondary and
lower secondary teachers’ salaries, while there is no difference between the salaries of lower secondary and primary
teachers. The differences between salaries at each level of education should be interpreted in light of the requirements
to enter the teaching profession (see Education at a Glance 2014 [OECD, 2014], Indicator D6).
In Australia, Korea, Slovenia, Turkey and the United States, there is less than a 5% difference between salaries for
upper secondary and pre-primary teachers with 15 years of experience and typical qualification; in England, Greece,
Poland, Portugal, Scotland, teachers receive the same salary irrespective of the level of education taught. This is also
true in the Czech Republic, Estonia, Japan, Slovenia and the Slovak Republic at the primary, lower secondary and
upper secondary levels. In Israel, there is a 17% difference between the salaries of an upper secondary teacher and a
pre-primary teacher in favour of the latter. This difference is the result of the “New Horizon” reform, begun in 2008 and
partially implemented by 2013, that increased salaries for pre-primary, primary and lower secondary teachers. Another
reform, launched in 2012, aims to raise salaries for upper secondary teachers. In Luxembourg, primary teachers with
15 years of experience earned around 50% less than secondary teachers with the same amount of experience prior to a
reform in 2009. Now, the difference between primary and secondary school teachers’ salaries is less than 10%.
Differences in teachers’ salaries at different education levels may influence how schools and school systems attract
and retain teachers and may also influence the extent to which teachers move among education levels.
Box D3.1. Tertiary faculty salaries
There have been substantial increases in enrolment rates in tertiary education programmes over the past
two decades. These have been accompanied by growth in spending on tertiary education and an expansion
of the facilities and staffing to meet the needs of these new students. Policy makers and the public across
OECD countries have become increasingly concerned about the capacity for tertiary education institutions to
continue to recruit sufficient numbers of high-quality instructors.
One way to attract and maintain high-quality instructional staff is to offer competitive salaries. In a 2015
survey, preliminary data were gathered about the structures for determining faculty salaries and the average
salaries offered by public and government-dependent private tertiary institutions (details available in Annex 3).
The survey found that the structures for determining tertiary faculty salaries were markedly different in many
countries compared to those structures for determining primary and secondary teachers’ salaries. Most countries
use national salary schedules as a basis for determining tertiary faculty salaries, as they do for determining
primary and secondary teachers’ salaries. However, in most countries, individual institutions have discretion in
modifying these payment levels, which primary and secondary schools do not have. The criteria used for setting
faculty salaries include educational attainment and length of experience, which are also used for teachers at the
primary and secondary levels, but in addition they included academic rank, field(s) of instruction and research
experience, which are not commonly considered for primary and secondary teachers. For example, in 25 out of
32 reporting countries, research experience was cited as a relevant factor in determining faculty salaries.

…

428 Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

How much are teachers paid? – INDICATOR D3

chapter D

The 2015 survey also obtained estimates of the actual average annual salary for all full-time equivalent (FTE)
tertiary academic instructors for a recent year (2012/13 for most reporting countries). Though preliminary,
these results reveal some interesting findings. Seventeen OECD and partner countries reported salary averages
for FTE tertiary faculty, ranging from USD 13 348 in Latvia to USD 74 305 in Germany (tertiary faculty salaries
were converted using PPPs for private consumption from the OECD National Accounts database). Among the
12 countries that provided separate data on men and women, the average salaries for men were consistently
higher than the average salaries for women. Twelve countries also provided actual average annual salaries for
full-time full professors. Average salaries for these senior faculty were consistently higher among OECD and
partner countries, averaging 18% (Norway) to 105% (the Czech Republic) higher than the averages for all FTE
tertiary faculty in their countries. Salaries for full-time full professors were highest in Germany (USD 107 889),
the United States (USD 101 685) and the United Kingdom (USD 97 079) among all reporting countries. Similar
to the pattern observed for faculty salaries overall, salaries for male professors were higher than salaries for
female professors in all reporting countries except Portugal. However, the salary differential between male
and female professors was smaller than those reported for all faculty, with Iceland and Norway reporting
a differential of less than 2%.
Minimum and typical qualifications
Differences in statutory salaries across countries should be interpreted in light of the concepts of typical and minimum
qualifications. The minimum qualifications required to teach at a given education level refers to the typical duration
and type of training required to enter the profession (see Education at a Glance 2014 [OECD, 2014], Indicator D6) and
does not include other requirements to become a licensed teacher in the public school system, such as probation years.
The definition of teachers’ typical qualifications varies by country (Box D3.1). The typical level of qualifications refers
to the level of qualifications and training teachers typically have, and may include certificates and qualifications
obtained while in the teaching profession. The qualifications of teachers are “typical” in that they represent the
qualifications held by the largest proportion of teachers in the system, in a given year.
However, differences between the minimum and typical qualifications of teachers are by no means the general rule.
In 17 of the 36 countries with available data, there are no differences between minimum and typical qualifications
throughout a teacher’s career. In the remaining 19 countries, differences in teachers’ statutory salaries may reflect
differences in whether teachers hold the typical or the minimum qualifications, at least in one education level and at
least at one point in their career; at starting salary, after ten years of experience, after 15 years of experience, or at
the top of the salary scale. Yet the salary difference related to having qualifications other than the minimum varies
across countries.
In Chile, England, Iceland, Israel and Mexico, starting salaries are the same among all teachers. It is only after teachers
have spent some time in the school system that the salaries of teachers with minimum and typical qualifications start
to diverge. In Belgium (French Community), Colombia, Canada, the Czech Republic, Ireland and the United States,
teachers with typical qualifications have higher statutory salaries than teachers with minimum qualifications at all
points of a teacher’s career, including starting salaries, at all levels of education for which information is available. This
is true in Australia as well, except at the top of the salary scale, where salaries do not generally depend on teachers’
qualifications. In Norway, statutory salaries are higher for teachers with typical qualifications at all stages of their career
and all education levels except pre-primary, as there is no difference between minimum and typical qualifications at
that level of education. Conversely, in Poland, the statutory salaries of teachers with typical qualifications are higher
than those of teachers with minimum qualifications at all levels of education except upper secondary, since most
teachers in Poland have a master’s degree or the equivalent (ISCED 7), which is the qualification required to teach
upper secondary but not other levels of education (Table D3.1a, and Table D3.1b, available on line).
In Poland, the difference in statutory salaries can be substantial between teachers with the minimum and typical
qualifications and 15 years of experience, ranging from about 13% among lower secondary teachers, to about 26%
among pre-primary and primary teachers. In Mexico, the differences are also large – about 24% or more at all levels
of education for which information is available. In Belgium (French Community), the differences among teachers
with 15 years of experience are about 5% among teachers in pre-primary through lower secondary education, yet the
difference is about 30% among upper secondary teachers. Conversely, in the Czech Republic, the difference in statutory
salaries among teachers with 15 years of experience but who have different qualifications is about 4% from primary
through upper secondary education, but 24% at the pre-primary level (Table D3.1a, and Table D3.1b, available on line).
Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

429

D3

chapter D THE LEARNING ENVIRONMENT AND ORGANISATION OF SCHOOLS

Box D3.2. Typical qualifications of teachers

D3

In most OECD countries, teachers are required to have a specific level of attainment or type of diploma to enter
the teaching profession, or even a combination of qualifications. Typical qualifications generally involve the
completion of requirements beyond teachers’ typical educational attainment (Tables D3.2a, and Table D3.2b,
available on line). Very often, teachers have to undergo training, gain practical experience and/or demonstrate
their skills over probation periods to become fully qualified teachers. Sometimes they have to satisfy additional
criteria, such as passing competitive examinations, to be able to teach or to reach higher levels in pay scales and
degrees of responsibility in the school system. Criteria may also change depending on the level of education at
which they teach (for further information see Education at a Glance 2014 [OECD, 2014], Indicator D6).
As a result, the minimum qualifications required to enter the teaching profession may not be the most commonly
held qualifications in the teaching force. In several education systems, the “typical” teacher has most likely
undergone certification and qualification processes beyond the minimum requirements, and has reached a given
position in a salary scale. This is what is referred to as the typical qualification of teachers, and it varies depending
on the country and the school system.
Variations between the minimum and the typical qualifications of teachers currently teaching are often seen
in countries where policy or legislation has recently changed and the requirements for entering the teaching
profession have been raised or lowered. In some countries, differences between the minimum and typical
qualifications of teachers are not seen at the starting point of teachers’ careers but among teachers who have
spent a few years in the education system.
In Chile, Iceland and Israel, teachers’ professional development activities have an effect on the definition of
teachers’ qualifications and on their salaries. In Iceland, for example, even if most practicing teachers hold a
master’s degree or equivalent (ISCED 7), they are required to spend 150 hours of each school year in professional
development activities, which may include formal education with equivalences in the European Credits Transfer
System (ECTS). Therefore, the typical qualification of a teacher with 15 years of experience in Iceland includes
all additional ECTS attained through professional development activities during the course of his or her years
as a teacher.
Difference between the minimum and typical qualifications can also arise in systems where several types of
qualifications (types of diploma and/or ISCED levels of attainment) are accepted for entrance into the teaching
profession or where there are alternative pathways. In Australia, for example, starting in 2013, the minimum
qualifications for new teachers are four years (or equivalent) of tertiary education (ISCED 6). Graduate teachers
must have completed a qualification that meets the requirements of a nationally accredited programme of initial
teacher education. Yet, the level of initial teacher education courses varies across a series of four-year or longer
full-time equivalent higher education qualifications (at either ISCED 6 or ISCED 7), that enable alternative or
flexible pathways into the teaching profession and that meet the requirements of the Australian Qualifications
Framework (AQF). The differences in qualifications may entail differences in salaries even at the starting point
of a teaching career, as the number of years of training may have an effect on the teacher’s entry salary step.
By contrast, in the French Community of Belgium, minimum and typical qualifications are generally associated
with the diploma awarded to a teacher at the end of initial teacher education, which is required for teaching at
a given ISCED level. Yet teacher shortages at some education levels have led to the reallocation of teachers with
different qualifications. For example, lower secondary teachers have been reallocated to make up for shortages of
upper secondary teachers, resulting in a modification of the typical qualifications at the upper secondary level.
Differences between minimum and typical qualifications can be indicators of teachers’ progression throughout
their careers or of the changes in an education system over time. These examples show that across OECD countries
the teaching force is in constant development, and that the criteria for teachers to enter the teaching profession
and to move forward within it are far from static.

Across OECD countries with available information, in almost two-thirds of countries, the typical attainment of
teachers is a bachelor’s degree or the equivalent (ISCED 6), and in over a third of countries, it is a master’s degree or
the equivalent (ISCED 7). However, in a small handful of countries, the typical attainment of pre-primary teachers is
lower than a bachelor’s degree (ISCED 6). In Australia, Chile, England, France, Greece, Iceland, Israel, Korea, Mexico

430 Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

How much are teachers paid? – INDICATOR D3

chapter D

and Scotland, the typical attainment of teachers is the same across education levels from pre-primary through
upper secondary education. Yet in some countries, the typical attainment of teachers varies for one level only, such
as in pre-primary education in the Czech Republic, Finland, Germany, Japan and the Slovak Republic, or in upper
secondary education in Belgium, Denmark, Hungary and Norway (Table D3.2a, and Table D3.2b, available on line).
Starting and maximum teachers’ salaries
Education systems compete with other sectors of the economy to attract high-quality graduates as teachers. Research
shows that salaries and alternative employment opportunities are important influences on the attractiveness of
teaching (Santiago, 2004). Teachers’ starting salaries relative to other non-teaching occupations and the likely
growth in earnings have a huge influence over a graduate’s decision to become a teacher. Countries that are looking
to increase the supply of teachers, especially those with an ageing teacher workforce and/or a growing school-age
population, might consider offering more attractive starting wages and career prospects. However, to ensure a
well-qualified teaching workforce, efforts must be made not only to recruit and select only the most competent and
qualified teachers, but also to retain effective teachers.
At the lower secondary level, new teachers entering the profession with the typical qualifications earn, on average,
USD 31 013. This starting salary ranges from below USD 15 000 in Estonia, Hungary and the Slovak Republic, to
more than USD 40 000 in Denmark, Germany, Luxembourg, Norway, Spain and the United States. For teachers at
the top of the salary scale and with the maximum qualifications, salaries average USD 53 786. This maximum salary
ranges from less than USD 20 000 in Estonia, Hungary and the Slovak Republic, to USD 75 000 or more in Austria
and Korea, and more than USD 130 000 in Luxembourg.
Most countries with starting salaries below the OECD average also show lower maximum salaries. At the lower
secondary level, some exceptions are Japan, Korea, and Mexico, where starting salaries are at least 6% lower than
the OECD average, but maximum salaries are significantly higher. In Scotland, although starting salaries are at
least 10% below the OECD average, maximum salaries are very close to the OECD average. The opposite is true for
Denmark, where starting salaries are more than 30% higher than the OECD average while maximum salaries are
closer to the OECD average. In Sweden, the starting salaries are slightly above the OECD average, but the maximum
salaries are more than 20% lower than the OECD average. (Chart D3.2, and Table D3.6a, available on line).

Chart D3.2. Lower secondary teachers’ salaries at different points in teachers’ careers (2013)
Annual statutory salaries of teachers in public institutions, in equivalent USD converted using PPPs
Equivalent USD
converted using PPPs

Salary at top of scale/maximum qualifications
Salary after 15 years of experience/typical qualifications
Starting salary/typical qualifications

140 000
120 000
100 000
80 000
60 000
40 000
0

Luxembourg
Germany
Denmark
United States1
Norway
Spain
Canada
Australia
Netherlands
Ireland
Finland
Belgium (Fl.)2
Austria
Belgium (Fr.)
Sweden1, 3
OECD average
Portugal
France4, 5
Italy
New Zealand
Korea2
England
Japan
Scotland
Turkey
Iceland
Slovenia
Mexico
Israel
Greece
Chile
Czech Republic
Colombia
Poland
Estonia
Slovak Republic
Hungary1

20 000

1. Actual base salaries.
2. Salaries at top of scale and typical qualifications, instead of maximum qualifications.
3. Salaries at top of scale and minimum qualifications, instead of maximum qualifications.
4. Includes average bonuses for overtime hours.
5. The typical qualification of starting teachers differ substantially from the typical qualification of all the current teachers.
Countries are ranked in descending order of starting salaries for lower secondary teachers with typical qualifications.
Source: OECD. Table D3.1a, and Table D3.6a, available on line. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/education/education-at-a-glance-19991487.htm).
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933284469

Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

431

D3

chapter D THE LEARNING ENVIRONMENT AND ORGANISATION OF SCHOOLS

A number of countries have relatively flat/compressed salary scales. The difference between starting and maximum
salaries is less than 30% in the Czech Republic (pre-primary), Denmark, Finland (pre-primary), Norway (pre-primary
and upper secondary) and in Sweden (pre-primary).

D3

Weak financial incentives may make it more difficult to retain teachers as teachers approach the peak of their
earnings. However, there may be some benefits to compressed pay scales. It is often argued, for example, that
organisations in which there are smaller differences in salaries among employees enjoy more trust, freer flows of
information and more collegiality among co-workers.
By contrast, maximum salaries are at least double the starting salaries in Austria, Chile, Greece, Israel and Korea
at all levels of education, in the French community of Belgium at pre-primary, primary and lower secondary levels,
in France at lower and upper secondary levels, in Hungary at the upper secondary level, and in Japan at primary
and secondary levels. Maximum salaries are more than three times higher than starting salaries in Mexico at
pre-primary, primary and lower secondary levels (Chart D3.2, and Table D3.6a, available on line).
When analysing starting and maximum salaries, it is important to bear in mind that “typical” qualifications refer
to the most widely held qualifications across the teaching force in a given year; not all teachers in the system hold
this qualification. Thus, the typical qualification of starting teachers and teachers at the top of the salary scale
(and therefore their salaries) may differ substantially from the typical qualification of all teachers in a school system.
The salary premium for higher qualifications, at the top of the salary scale, also varies across countries. At the lower
secondary level, while there is no difference between salaries at the top of the scale for teachers with minimum
and maximum qualifications in 13 of 36 countries with data for both, teachers at the top of the scale holding the
maximum qualifications in the French community of Belgium, Colombia, the Czech Republic, France, Israel, Norway
and the Slovak Republic earn at least 25% more than teachers with the same experience, but with minimum training.
This salary gap is widest in Mexico, where teachers at the top of the scale holding the maximum qualifications earn
more than twice of those with the same experience, but with minimum qualification. A similar picture is seen at the
upper secondary level (Tables D3.1b and D3.6b, available on line).
When considering the salary structure for teachers, it is important to remember that not all teachers reach the top
of the salary scale, and that only few of them hold the maximum qualifications. For example, in Greece and Italy, less
than 5% of all teachers were at the top of the salary scale in 2013; and in France, only 5% of all teachers were lower
secondary teachers with the maximum qualifications.
Teaching experience and salary scales
Salary structures usually define the salaries paid to teachers at different points in their careers. Deferred
compensation, which rewards employees for staying in organisations or professions and for meeting established
performance criteria, is also used in teachers’ salary structures. OECD data on teachers’ salaries are limited to
information on statutory salaries at four points of the salary scale: starting salaries, salaries after ten years of service,
salaries after 15 years of experience, and salaries at the top of the scale. As mentioned above, further qualifications
can influence differences in starting and maximum salary and lead to wage increases in some countries.
In OECD countries, teachers’ salaries rise during the course of a career, although the rate of change differs across
countries. Statutory salaries for lower secondary school teachers with typical qualifications and ten and 15 years of
experience are, respectively, 26% and 39% higher, on average, than starting salaries. In addition, salaries at the top
of the scale, which is reached after an average of 24 years of experience, are 65% higher, on average, than starting
salaries. In Hungary, Israel, Italy, Korea and Spain, lower secondary school teachers reach the top of the salary scale
only after 35 years of service or more; in Greece, the top of the scale is reached after 45 years of service. By contrast,
lower secondary teachers in Australia, Colombia, Estonia, New Zealand and Scotland reach the highest step on the
salary scale within six to nine years (Tables D3.1a and D3.3a).
Statutory salaries per hour of net teaching time
The average statutory salary per teaching hour after 15 years of experience and with typical qualifications is
USD 53 for primary teachers, USD 63 for lower secondary teachers, and USD 71 for upper secondary teachers
in general education. Chile, the Czech Republic (primary and lower secondary levels), Estonia, Hungary and the
Slovak Republic show the lowest salaries per teaching hour: less than USD 30. By contrast, salaries per teaching
hour are USD 90 or more in Canada, Germany and Korea at the lower and upper secondary levels, and in Belgium,
Denmark, Japan and Norway at the upper secondary level. They exceed USD 115 in Luxembourg at all levels.
For pre-primary teachers with typical qualifications, the average statutory salary per teaching hour after 15 years of
experience is USD 43. However, in about a third of the countries, pre-primary teachers with 15 years of experience
and typical qualifications earn less than USD 30 per teaching hour (Table D3.3a).

432 Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

How much are teachers paid? – INDICATOR D3

chapter D

Because 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 of education, 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 about 34%. In Scotland, there is no difference, while in Denmark upper
secondary teachers earn 87% of the salary of primary teachers per teaching hour (Table D3.3a).
However, the difference in salaries between primary and secondary teachers may disappear when comparing salaries
per hour of working time. In Portugal, for example, there is a 23% difference in salaries per teaching hour between
primary and upper secondary teachers, even though statutory salaries and total working time are actually the same
at these levels. The difference is explained by the fact that primary teachers spend more time in teaching activities
than upper secondary teachers do (see Table D4.1).
Trends since 2000
Comparing salaries of teachers with typical qualifications in 2000 and 2013, teachers’ salaries increased overall in
real terms in most countries with available data. Notable exceptions are Denmark (upper secondary), England and
France, where there was a decline of about 8% to 10%; and Italy (secondary education), where a slight decline in
teachers’ salaries in real terms occurred. In Estonia (primary to upper secondary), Finland (primary), Ireland, Israel
(pre-primary to lower secondary), Mexico (pre-primary to lower secondary) and Scotland (pre-primary), salaries
increased by at least 20% over this period (Table D3.5a).
However, between 2005 and 2013, only slightly more than half of OECD countries with available data showed an
increase in their salaries in real terms. In the French Community of Belgium, Estonia (primary to upper secondary),
Israel and Turkey, most of the increase in teachers’ salaries occurred after 2005. In Poland, salaries increased by at
least 20% since 2005 at all levels of education – the result of a 2007 government programme that aimed to increase
teachers’ salaries successively between 2008 and 2013. The government reform was implemented to improve the
quality of education by providing financial incentives to attract high-quality teachers.
By contrast, in Greece and Hungary, salaries decreased by at least 26% since 2005 (Chart D3.3). However, these
decreases occurred largely between 2008 and 2013. This reflects the impact of the economic downturn in 2008
on teachers’ salaries, which were either frozen or cut in these countries between 2008 and 2013 (Box D3.3). Half
of OECD countries with available data showed an increase in salaries, in real terms, between 2008 and 2013. In
England, Iceland, Portugal, Scotland and Spain, salaries fell by at least 5% between 2008 and 2013 (Table D3.5a).

Chart D3.3. Change in lower secondary teachers’ salaries (2000, 2005, 2013)
Index of change between 2000 and 2013 (2005 = 100, constant prices),
for teachers with 15 years of experience and typical qualifications

Latvia

Hungary1

Greece

England

Portugal

Iceland

Scotland

Spain

Italy

Japan

France

Korea

Slovenia

Austria

OECD average

2000

Finland

Denmark

Belgium (Fl.)

Belgium (Fr.)

Sweden1

Germany

Ireland

Mexico

United States1

Turkey

Australia

Norway

Luxembourg

2013

Israel

Poland

140
130
120
110
100
90
80
70
60
50

Estonia

Index of change
2005 = 100

1. Actual base salaries.
Countries are ranked in descending order of the index of change, between 2005 and 2013, in the salaries of lower secondary teachers with 15 years of experience.
Source: OECD. Table D3.5a. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/education/education-at-a-glance-19991487.htm).
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933284478

Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

433

D3

chapter D THE LEARNING ENVIRONMENT AND ORGANISATION OF SCHOOLS

The above analysis on trends in salaries is based on teachers with 15 years of experience and typical qualifications
(a proxy for mid-career teachers). But teachers at certain stages of their career may experience more rapid pay
increases than teachers at another stage of their career. For example, some countries that have been experiencing
teacher shortages may implement targeted policies to improve the attractiveness of the profession by increasing the
salaries of beginning teachers (OECD, 2005). In France, for example, starting teachers received an increase in pay
in 2010 and 2011.

D3

In most countries, similar increases and decreases in teachers’ salaries were seen at the primary, lower secondary
and upper secondary levels. However, in Israel and Luxembourg, they increased significantly more at the primary
than at the secondary level between 2005 and 2013. In both Israel and Luxembourg, the difference in the index of
change between primary and secondary teachers’ salaries is due to reforms that aimed to increase primary teachers’
salaries. In Israel, this is largely the result of the gradual implementation of the “New Horizon” reform in primary
and lower secondary schools, begun in 2008, following an agreement between the education authorities and the
Israeli Teachers Union (for primary and lower secondary education). This reform includes higher teacher pay in
exchange for more working hours (see Indicator D4). In the academic year 2012/2013 for example, 77% of full-time
equivalent teachers in pre-primary education, 91% in primary education and 49% in lower secondary education were
included in the reform. In this same year, a similar reform (“Oz Letmura”) was introduced at the upper secondary
level, affecting 25% of full-time equivalent teachers.

Box D3.3. Effect of the economic crisis
The financial and economic crisis that hit the world economy in the last months of 2008 significantly affected
the salaries for civil servants and public sector workers in general. On average across OECD countries with
available data, teachers’ salaries decreased, for the first time since 2000, by about 5% at all levels of education
between 2009 and 2013.

Chart D3.a. Change in teachers’ salaries in OECD countries (2005-13)

OECD average index of change, among countries with data for all reference years,
for teachers with 15 years of experience and minimum qualifications (2005 = 100, constant prices)
Primary
Lower secondary, general programmes
Upper secondary, general programmes

Index of change
2005 = 100

107
106
105
104
103
102
101
100
99
2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

Source: OECD. Table D3.5b, available on line. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/education/education-at-a-glance-19991487.htm).
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933284483

In England, Estonia, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Portugal, Scotland and Spain, teachers’ salaries were
significantly affected by the crisis. In Estonia, minimum teachers’ salaries were cut back to their 2008 levels
in 2010 and were frozen at that level. In Greece, various reductions in teachers’ benefits and allowances have
affected teachers’ salaries since 2010. As a result, gross salaries fell by more than 25%, in real terms, between
2009 and 2013. In addition, Greek teachers also saw their net salaries shrink as a tax for solidarity was created.
This tax increased the level of taxation on teachers’ already reduced gross salary; and the insurance coverage
paid by teachers is still calculated based on their earlier, higher salaries. In Hungary, the 13th month of salary

…

434 Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

How much are teachers paid? – INDICATOR D3

chapter D

(a supplemental bonus that was paid to all employees) was suspended in 2009. Although a compensatory bonus
was paid to all public-sector employees whose wages where under a certain threshold, the base salary of teachers
was still considerably affected. The continued decrease in teachers’ salaries is due to a reduction in additional
payments, such as for extra teaching lessons. These additional payments were a significant component of
teachers’ total compensation, paid above base salaries.
In Spain, all civil servants saw their salaries reduced in July 2010. The extent of the decrease depended on
the annual amount earned but it affected both the base salary and bonuses. In Ireland, teachers’ salaries
were reduced as of 1 January 2010 as part of a public service-wide reduction in pay. In addition, teachers
who entered the profession after 1 January 2011 are paid according to a new salary scale that is 10% lower
than the salary scale that applied to those previously recruited. In Portugal in 2011, using a method defined
in a new law and as part of a reform package, salaries higher than EUR 1 500 were reduced. They fell again
in 2012 as civil servants were paid salaries covering 12 months, not 14 months, as had previously been the
case. In England, teachers’ salaries were frozen between 2011 and 2012 at all levels of education, followed by
a below-inflation increase of 1% in the following year for the public sector as a whole, all due to the financial
crisis. As teachers were in a three-year pay settlement, the pay freeze was applied later for teachers than
for other public-sector workers. Similarly, the Scottish Negotiating Committee for Teachers (SNCT) agreed
to freeze teachers’ pay from April 2011 until March 2013. While teachers in Scotland are not classified as
civil servants, this agreement mirrored the freezes applied to the pay of civil servants in Scotland. In Italy,
teachers’ salaries were frozen from 2011. This salary freeze affected all civil servants, including teachers, and
was introduced in response to the international economic situation and in order to meet the public finance
targets set by the EU.
The economic downturn may also have an influence on the supply of teachers. In general, when the general
economy is weak, and there is high unemployment among graduates and low graduate earnings, teaching might
seem to be a more attractive job choice than other occupations (OECD, 2005).

Actual average salaries
Statutory salaries as reported by most of the countries in this indicator must be distinguished from actual expenditures
on wages by governments and from teachers’ actual average salaries, which are influenced by factors such as the
level of experience of the teaching force and the prevalence of bonuses and allowances in the compensation system.
Unlike statutory salaries, actual salaries may include work-related payments, such as annual bonuses, results-related
bonuses, extra pay for holidays, sick-leave pay and other additional payments. This distinction is important, as
bonuses and allowances can represent a significant addition to base salaries.
In the Slovak Republic, for example, most teachers receive bonuses, such as personal valuations/appraisals, on
a monthly basis. Depending on the financial resources of the school and the evaluation of individual teachers,
teachers’ average salaries in that country, including these bonuses, can be double the base statutory salary.
The comparison of actual annual salaries of all teachers aged 25-64 with statutory salaries for teachers with 15 years
of experience and typical qualifications shows that in Austria, the Czech Republic (upper secondary level), Estonia
(primary and secondary levels), France (upper secondary level), Hungary, Iceland (upper secondary level), Israel
(primary and secondary levels), Poland (lower secondary level) and the Slovak Republic, average actual salaries,
including bonuses and allowances, are at least 20% higher than statutory salaries for teachers with 15 years of
experience. By contrast, in Australia, the Netherlands and the United States at all education levels, in Slovenia at
pre-primary, primary and lower secondary levels, and in England and Luxembourg at pre-primary and primary
levels, actual salaries of teachers aged 25-64 are at least 5% lower than statutory salaries for teachers with 15 years
of experience and typical qualifications (Tables D3.1a and D3.4).
In some countries, average actual teachers’ salaries vary more across education levels than do statutory salaries for
teachers with 15 years of experience and typical qualifications. In the Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France and
Israel, the gap between average actual salaries of upper secondary teachers and average actual salaries of pre-primary
teachers is at least 15 percentage points greater than the difference in their statutory salaries. In Poland, there is
a difference of around 15% between average actual salaries at the pre-primary and primary levels, despite similar
statutory salaries at these levels. The variety of bonuses available for different levels of education partly explains
these differences (see Annex 3, available on line).
Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

435

D3

chapter D THE LEARNING ENVIRONMENT AND ORGANISATION OF SCHOOLS

Actual salaries of teachers aged 25-64 average USD 37 798 at pre-primary level, USD 41 248 at primary level,
USD 43 626 at lower secondary level, and USD 47 702 at upper secondary level. The pattern of salary increases
within the level of education is similar for different age groups within the age range of 25-64 year-olds and for both
men and women.
Box D3.4. Actual average salaries, by age group and gender

D3

The actual salaries of older teachers (those aged 55-64) are, on average, 40% (pre-primary level), 41% (primary
level), 41% (lower secondary level) and 43% (upper secondary) higher than actual salaries of younger teachers
(those aged 25-34).
When teachers’ salaries compared to similarly-educated, full-time, full-year 25-64 year-old workers are
disaggregated by age, the ratio differs among age groups. Relative teachers’ salaries are about ten percentage
points higher among the youngest adults (25-34 year-olds) than among the older age groups (55-64 year-olds).
The higher ratio among the youngest adults compared to other age groups indicates the attractiveness of
entering the teaching profession. However, this ratio shrinks as teachers age, indicating that teachers’ salaries
may evolve at a slower rate than for other workers, and that the salaries of other similarly educated professionals
are more attractive as the work force ages.
A comparison of the actual salaries of male and female teachers shows that differences in actual salaries are
very small – less than 3%, on average. Female teachers earn, on average only slightly more than male teachers
at the pre-primary level and slightly less at the primary, lower secondary and upper secondary levels.
Larger gender differences are shown in the ratio of teachers’ salaries to earnings for similarly-educated workers
aged 25-64. On average across all levels of education, male teachers aged 25-64 earn less than 75% of the
salary of a tertiary-educated, 25-64 year-old full time, full-year male worker. Female teachers aged 25-64 are
paid more than 90% to up to 93% (secondary level) of that benchmark salary. This higher ratio among female
teachers reflects the persistent gender gap in earnings in the labour market. It also suggests that the teaching
profession may be more attractive to women than men compared to other professions (Tables D3.2a and D3.4).

Formation of base salary and additional payments: Incentives and allowances
Statutory salaries provide valuable information about the base salaries that are paid to teachers. However, teachers’
statutory salaries, based on pay scales, are only one component of teachers’ total compensation. In addition to base
pay scales, school systems use schemes that offer additional payments, such as allowances, bonuses or other rewards
to teachers. These may take the form of financial remuneration and/or reduction in the number of teaching hours.
Criteria for additional payments vary across countries. These additional payments may explain certain differences
between statutory scheduled salaries and actual average salaries.
New data provides some insights into the conditions and criteria on which teachers’ salaries are based (Table D3.7c,
and Tables D3.7a, b and d, and D3.8a through D3.8d, available on line). These data suggest that in the large majority
of countries, core tasks like teaching, planning or preparing lessons, marking student’s work, participating in
general administrative work, communicating with parents, supervising students, and working with colleagues are
mandatory for teachers (implicitly or explicitly) and rarely considered as meriting bonuses or additional payments.
Shouldering other responsibilities, however, often entails having some sort of extra compensation. In about
half of the countries with information available for lower secondary teachers, teachers who participate in school
management activities in addition to fulfilling their teaching duties receive some sort of compensation, either
reduced teaching time, as in Denmark, Finland, Luxembourg, Portugal and the Slovak Republic, or an annual
additional payment, as in England, France, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Korea, Norway and Spain. It is also
common to see additional payments, either annual or occasional, when teachers teach more classes or hours than
required by their full-time contract, for being a class or form teacher, or for performing special tasks, like training
student teachers (Table D3.7c).
Occasional additional payments are also awarded when teachers show outstanding performance, as is the case for
lower secondary teachers in the Czech Republic, Estonia, Israel, Japan, Korea, Poland, the Slovak Republic, Slovenia
and Turkey. Additional payments can also include bonuses for special teaching conditions; for teaching students
with special needs in regular schools, and for teaching in disadvantaged, remote or high-cost areas.

436 Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

How much are teachers paid? – INDICATOR D3

chapter D

Compensation for teachers’ tasks can be established in several ways. In most countries, central or state authorities
determine whether teachers’ tasks, particularly core tasks like teaching, planning and preparing lessons or marking
students’ work, are mandatory. These authorities generally also decide whether completion of these core tasks is
considered when establishing base salaries or additional payments. In countries where schools have high levels of
autonomy, like the Netherlands, Sweden and the United States, some decisions on core tasks, like teaching, are taken
at the school level, either by the school principal, head teacher or the school board (Table D3.8c, available on line).
Decisions about other teacher responsibilities – like teaching more classes or hours than required by full-time
contract, participating in extracurricular activities, or acting as class or form teacher – are often taken at the school
level. In many countries, school principals, head teachers or school boards determine if these sorts of tasks are
mandatory, and who performs them. Decisions on whether these tasks should be compensated for through base
salary or additional payments, and even decisions on the amount to be paid to teachers who perform such tasks,
are often taken by other authorities. For example, in more than half of the countries with available information,
decisions on teaching more hours, at the lower secondary level, than required by full-time contract are taken at
the school level; but in only seven countries are decisions about whether compensation for completing these tasks
should come from the base salary and/or additional payments decided at the school level, and in only five countries
is the amount to be paid to teachers for performing the task decided at that level. In the remaining countries, these
decisions are taken by central, state, provincial or local authorities.
Teachers’ salaries relative to earnings for tertiary-educated workers
Young people’s decision to undertake teacher training, and graduates’ decision to enter or stay in the profession,
are influenced by the salaries of teachers relative to those of other occupations requiring similar qualifications and
by likely salary increases. In most OECD countries, a tertiary degree is required to become a teacher at all levels
of education (Table D3.2a, and Table D3.2b, available on line), so the likely alternative to teacher education is a
similar tertiary education programme. Thus, to interpret salary levels in different countries and reflect comparative
labour-market conditions, teachers’ salaries are compared to those of other similarly educated professionals:
25-64 year-old full-time, full-year workers with a similar tertiary education (Table D3.2a).
A comparison of the average annual salaries (including bonuses and allowances) of teachers in public institutions
with the wages of similarly educated workers, based on teachers’ typical attainment level shows that, on average,
pre-primary and primary teachers’ salaries amount to 78% of full-time, full-year earnings for 25-64 year-olds with
similar educational attainment, lower secondary teachers are paid 80%, and upper secondary teachers earn 82% of
that benchmark salary.
A second benchmark is based on the actual salaries of all teachers, relative to earnings for full-time, full-year workers
with tertiary education (ISCED 5 to 8). Against this benchmark, pre-primary teachers’ salaries amount to 73% of
full-time, full-year earnings, on average, among 25-64 year-olds with tertiary education, primary teachers earn
80%, lower secondary teachers are paid 86%, and upper secondary teachers earn 91% of the benchmark salary
(Table D3.2a and Chart D3.1).
Upper secondary teachers in only five of the 25 countries with available data earn as much as or more than workers
with a similar educational attainment. In almost all countries with available information, and at almost all levels of
education, teachers earn less than similarly educated workers. Relative salaries for teachers are highest in Belgium
(upper secondary), Luxembourg, Switzerland (upper secondary), where teachers’ salaries are at least 8% higher
than those of comparably educated workers. The lowest relative teachers’ salaries, compared to the salaries of other
professionals with comparable education, are found in the Czech Republic at the primary and lower secondary levels
and in Hungary at the upper secondary level, where teachers’ salaries are less than 55% of what a full-time, full-year
worker with a similar educational attainment earns (Table D3.2a and Chart D3.1).

Definitions
Actual salaries for teachers aged 25-64 refer to the annual average earnings received by full-time teachers
aged 25-64, before taxes. It includes work-related payments, such as annual bonuses, results-related bonuses, extra
pay for holidays and sick-leave pay. Income from other sources, such as government social transfers, investment
income, and any other income that is not directly related to their profession, are not included.
An adjustment to base salary is defined as any difference in salary between what a particular teacher actually
receives for work performed at 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.
Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

437

D3

chapter D THE LEARNING ENVIRONMENT AND ORGANISATION OF SCHOOLS

Earnings for workers with tertiary education are average earnings for full-time, full-year workers aged 25-64
with an education at ISCED 5/6/7 or 8 level. The relative salary indicator is calculated for the latest year with
available earnings data. For countries in which teachers’ salaries and workers’ earnings information are not available
for the same year (e.g. Australia, Canada, Chile, Finland, France, Italy, the Netherlands, Poland, Spain and Sweden),
the indicator is adjusted for inflation using the deflators for private consumption. Reference statistics for earnings
for workers with tertiary education are provided in Annex 3.

D3

Salaries after 15 years of experience refer to the scheduled annual salary of a full-time classroom teacher. Statutory
salaries may refer to the salaries of teachers with the minimum training necessary to be fully qualified, or salaries of
teachers with the typical qualifications, plus 15 years of experience.
Starting salaries refer to the average scheduled gross salary per year for a full-time classroom teacher with the
minimum training necessary to be fully qualified at the beginning of the teaching career; maximum salaries
refer to the maximum annual salary (top of the salary scale) for a full-time classroom teacher with the maximum
qualifications recognised for compensation.
Statutory salaries 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 tax. In Table D3.3a, and Table D3.3b
(available on line), salary per hour of net contact time divides a teacher’s annual statutory salary by the annual net
teaching time in hours (see Table D4.1).
Typical educational attainment refers to teachers’ typical diploma according to the following ISCED 2011Attainment Codes:
• ISCED-A 343/353/344/354: Upper secondary
• ISCED-A 443/453/444/454: Post-secondary non-tertiary
• ISCED-A 540/550: Short cycle tertiary
• ISCED-A 660: Bachelor’s or equivalent
• ISCED-A 760: Master’s or equivalent

Methodology
Data on statutory teachers’ salaries and bonuses are derived from the 2014 OECD-INES Survey on Teachers and the
Curriculum. Data refer to the school year 2012/13 and are reported in accordance with formal policies for public
institutions.
Data on teachers’ salary at upper secondary level refer only to general programmes.
Measuring the statutory salary of a full-time teacher relative to the number of hours per year that a teacher is required
to spend teaching does not adjust salaries for the amount of time that teachers spend in various other teachingrelated activities. Since the proportion of teachers’ working time spent teaching varies across OECD countries,
statutory salaries per hour of net teaching time must be interpreted with caution (see Indicator D4). However, it
can provide an estimate of the cost of the actual time teachers spend in the classroom.
Gross teachers’ salaries were converted using PPPs for private consumption from the OECD National Accounts
database. Prior to the 2012 edition of Education at a Glance (OECD, 2012), salaries used to be converted using
PPPs for GDP. As a consequence, teachers’ salaries in USD (Tables D3.1a, and Table D3.1b, available on line) are
not directly comparable with the figures published prior to the 2012 edition of Education at a Glance. Information
on trends in teachers’ salaries can be found in Table D3.5a, and Table D3.5b, available on line. As a complement
to Table D 3.1a, and Table D3.1b, available on line, which presents teachers’ salaries in equivalent USD, converted
using PPPs, tables with teachers’ salaries in national currency are included in Annex 2. The period of reference for
teachers’ salaries is from 1 July 2012 to 30 June 2013. The reference date for PPPs is 2012-13 except for some
Southern Hemisphere countries (e.g. Australia and New Zealand) where the academic year runs from January to
December. In these countries the reference year is the calendar year (i.e. 2013).
For calculation of changes in teachers’ salaries (Table D3.5a, and Table D3.5b, available on line), the deflator for
private consumption is used to convert salaries to 2005 prices.
In most countries, the criteria to determine the typical qualification and typical attainment of teachers are based on a
principle of absolute majority, i.e. the level of education attained by more than half of all current teachers in the system.
In Table D3.2a, the ratios of teachers’ salaries to earnings for full-time, full-year workers with tertiary education
aged 25-64 are calculated using the annual average salaries (including bonuses and allowances) for teachers

438 Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

How much are teachers paid? – INDICATOR D3

chapter D

aged 25-64, for countries with available data (see Table D3.4). The information on teachers’ typical attainment
level is used to define the denominator for the ratios if data on the wages of workers by ISCED level of attainment
is available (i.e. the earnings for full-time, full-year workers). For countries whose data on the wages of workers
by ISCED level of attainment is not available, information on all tertiary-educated workers was used. The same
procedure was used in Table D3.2b, available on line, but the ratios are calculated using the statutory salaries of
teachers with 15 years of experience instead of their actual salaries. That table shows information for countries with
available information on statutory salaries. Information on the typical attainment level used as a reference for the
calculation of relative teachers’ salaries is indicated in Table D3.2a, and Table D3.2b, available on line. A description
of the ISCED levels can be found in the Definitions section.
Notes on definitions and methodologies for each country are provided in Annex 3 at www.oecd.org/education/
education-at-a-glance-19991487.htm.
Note regarding data from Israel
The statistical data for Israel are supplied by and are under the responsibility of the relevant Israeli authorities. The use of
such data by the OECD is without prejudice to the status of the Golan Heights, East Jerusalem and Israeli settlements in the
West Bank under the terms of international law.

References
OECD (2014), Education at a Glance 2014: OECD Indicators, OECD Publishing, Paris, http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/eag-2014-en.
OECD (2012), Education at a Glance 2012: OECD Indicators, OECD Publishing, Paris, http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/eag-2012-en.
OECD (2005), Teachers Matter: Attracting, Developing and Retaining Effective Teachers, OECD Publishing, Paris, http://dx.doi.
org/10.1787/9789264018044-en.
Santiago, P. (2004), “The Labour Market for Teachers”, in G. Johnes and J. Johnes (eds), International Handbook on the Economics
of Education, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham.

Indicator D3 Tables
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933286177

Table D3.1a Teachers’ statutory salaries, based on typical qualifications, at different points in teachers’ careers (2013)
WEB Table D3.1b Teachers’ statutory salaries, based on minimum qualifications, at different points in teachers’ careers (2013)
Table D3.2a Teachers’ actual salaries relative to wages of similarly educated workers (2013)
WEB Table D3.2b Teachers’ statutory salaries relative to wages of similarly educated workers (2013)
Table D3.3a Comparison of teachers’ statutory salaries, based on typical qualifications (2013)
WEB Table D3.3b Comparison of teachers’ statutory salaries, based on minimum qualifications (2013)
Table D3.4

Average actual teachers’ salaries (2013)

Table D3.5a Trends in teachers’ salaries, based on typical qualifications, between 2000 and 2013
WEB Table D3.5b Trends in teachers’ salaries, based on minimum qualifications, between 2000 and 2013
WEB Table D3.6a Starting/Maximum teachers’ statutory salaries, based on typical/maximum qualifications (2013)
WEB Table D3.6b Starting/Maximum teachers’ statutory salaries, based on minimum/maximum qualifications (2013)
WEB Table D3.7a Teachers’ tasks and other criteria related to teachers’ base salaries and additional payments,
pre-primary level (2013)
WEB Table D3.7b Teachers’ tasks and other criteria related to teachers’ base salaries and additional payments, primary
level (2013)
Table D3.7c Teachers’ tasks and other criteria related to teachers’ base salaries and additional payments,
lower secondary level (2013)
WEB Table D3.7d Teachers’ tasks and other criteria related to teachers’ base salaries and additional payments,
upper secondary (2013)
WEB Table D3.8a Determining teachers’ base salaries and additional payments, pre-primary level (2013)
WEB Table D3.8b Determining teachers’ base salaries and additional payments, primary level (2013)
WEB Table D3.8c Determining teachers’ base salaries and additional payments, lower secondary level (2013)
WEB Table D3.8d Determining teachers’ base salaries and additional payments, upper secondary level (2013)

Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

439

D3

chapter D THE LEARNING ENVIRONMENT AND ORGANISATION OF SCHOOLS

Table D3.1a. [1/2] Teachers’ statutory salaries, based on typical qualifications, at different points

in teachers’ careers (2013)

Annual teachers’ salaries, in public institutions, in equivalent USD converted using PPPs for private consumption
Pre-primary

Partners

D3

OECD

Starting
salary

Salary
after 10 years
of experience

Primary

Salary
after 15 years
of experience

Salary at top
of scale

Starting
salary

Salary
after 10 years
of experience

Salary
after 15 years
of experience

Salary at top
of scale

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7)

(8)

Australia1
Austria2
Belgium (Fl.)
Belgium (Fr.)
Canada
Chile1,3
Czech Republic
Denmark3
England
Estonia
Finland4
France5, 6
Germany
Greece
Hungary7
Iceland3
Ireland
Israel
Italy
Japan3
Korea
Luxembourg
Mexico
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Scotland
Slovak Republic
Slovenia
Spain
Sweden7
Switzerland
Turkey
United States7

39 776
32 610
34 411
33 648
m
17 733
16 537
40 284
27 768
m
27 645
27 254
m
17 760
10 295
24 906
m
22 368
27 509
m
29 357
68 873
15 944
36 456

56 782
38 376
43 219
42 081
m
23 736
16 743
45 724
45 595
m
29 857
31 229
m
22 460
11 498
24 906
m
27 298
30 262
m
44 193
91 203
20 779
45 228

56 782
43 015
48 690
47 381
m
26 610
17 099
45 724
47 279
m
29 857
33 500
m
25 826
12 305
28 459
m
30 960
33 230
m
51 594
102 956
26 533
54 001

57 025
64 014
59 633
57 981
m
37 110
18 232
45 724
47 279
m
29 857
49 398
m
34 901
16 306
28 459
m
57 513
40 437
m
82 002
123 406
34 048
54 001

39 177
32 610
34 411
33 648
39 608
17 733
17 033
45 860
27 768
13 004
32 356
27 254
51 389
17 760
10 647
26 046
34 899
19 806
27 509
27 627
29 357
68 873
15 944
36 456

56 335
38 376
43 219
42 081
63 557
23 736
17 529
50 958
45 595
13 233
37 453
31 229
60 449
22 460
12 177
29 165
50 248
25 732
30 262
41 036
44 193
91 203
20 779
45 228

56 335
43 015
48 690
47 381
66 702
26 610
18 273
52 672
47 279
13 233
39 701
33 500
63 221
25 826
13 061
31 145
56 057
29 869
33 230
48 546
51 594
102 956
26 533
54 001

56 521
64 014
59 633
57 981
66 702
37 110
20 795
52 672
47 279
17 015
42 083
49 398
67 413
34 901
17 362
31 145
63 165
51 855
40 437
60 878
82 002
123 406
34 048
54 001

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

25 295
42 590

26 107
51 275

27 139
58 202

29 342
70 978

25 295
41 606

26 107
53 799

27 139
59 339

29 342
66 938

OECD average
EU21 average

28 730
28 976

35 300
35 387

38 653
38 688

46 564
45 649

29 807
30 032

37 795
36 980

41 245
40 519

48 706
47 662

Argentina
Brazil
China
Colombia
India
Indonesia
Latvia
Russian Federation
Saudi Arabia
South Africa

m
m
m
15 324
m
m
a
m
m
m

m
m
m
19 661
m
m
m
m
m
m

m
m
m
19 661
m
m
m
m
m
m

m
m
m
19 661
m
m
a
m
m
m

m
m
m
15 416
m
m
a
m
m
m

m
m
m
20 807
m
m
m
m
m
m

m
m
m
20 807
m
m
m
m
m
m

m
m
m
20 807
m
m
a
m
m
m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

G20 average

m

m

m

m

29 124

43 292

43 292

43 292

35 685
15 220
30 806
27 576
9 938
25 134
36 422
33 383

40 882
20 402
33 740
43 991
10 936
29 905
39 468
35 822

40 882
24 921
36 663
43 991
11 437
36 818
42 187
36 885

40 882
25 980
57 201
43 991
12 332
42 333
51 265
38 714

41 177
15 220
30 806
27 576
11 116
25 134
36 422
32 991

44 538
20 402
33 740
43 991
13 351
31 077
39 468
36 817

44 538
24 921
36 663
43 991
15 650
38 261
42 187
38 175

48 662
25 980
57 201
43 991
16 869
45 764
51 265
43 595

Note: The definition of teachers’ typical qualification is based on a broad concept, including the typical ISCED level of attainment and other criteria. Please see
Box D3.2 for further details.
1. Statutory salaries do not include the the part of social security contributions and pension-scheme contributions paid by the employees.
2. Figures for the pre-primary level refer to primary teachers (in primary schools only) teaching pre-primary classes.
3. Statutory salaries include the part of social security contributions and pension-scheme contributions paid by the employers.
4. Includes data on the majority, i.e. kindergarten teachers only for pre-primary education.
5. Includes average bonuses for overtime hours for lower and upper secondary teachers.
6. The typical qualification of starting teachers differ substantially from the typical qualification of all the current teachers.
7. Actual base salaries.
Source: OECD. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/education/education-at-a-glance-19991487.htm).
Please refer to the Reader’s Guide for information concerning symbols for missing data and abbreviations.
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933286182

440 Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

How much are teachers paid? – INDICATOR D3

chapter D

Table D3.1a. [2/2] Teachers’ statutory salaries, based on typical qualifications, at different points

in teachers’ careers (2013)

Annual teachers’ salaries, in public institutions, in equivalent USD converted using PPPs for private consumption
Lower secondary, general programmes

Partners

OECD

Starting
salary

Salary
after 10 years
of experience

Salary
after 15 years
of experience

Upper secondary, general programmes
Salary at top
of scale

Starting
salary

Salary
after 10 years
of experience

Salary
after 15 years
of experience

Salary at top
of scale

(9)

(10)

(11)

(12)

(13)

(14)

(15)

(16)

Australia1
Austria2
Belgium (Fl.)
Belgium (Fr.)
Canada
Chile1,3
Czech Republic
Denmark3
England
Estonia
Finland4
France5, 6
Germany
Greece
Hungary7
Iceland3
Ireland
Israel
Italy
Japan3
Korea
Luxembourg
Mexico
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Scotland
Slovak Republic
Slovenia
Spain
Sweden7
Switzerland
Turkey
United States7

39 125
34 143
34 411
33 648
39 608
17 733
17 033
46 144
27 768
13 004
34 945
30 343
56 757
17 760
10 647
26 046
36 612
19 917
29 655
27 627
29 252
79 920
20 492
38 473
29 635
41 177
15 220
30 806
27 576
11 116
25 134
40 752
33 383
m
26 266
43 324

56 315
41 509
43 219
42 081
63 557
23 736
17 529
51 640
45 595
13 233
40 450
34 317
65 843
22 460
12 177
29 165
52 257
25 481
32 851
41 036
44 088
99 900
26 581
55 697
44 509
44 538
20 402
33 740
43 991
13 351
31 077
44 124
37 442
m
26 730
53 758

56 315
46 631
48 690
47 381
66 702
26 610
18 273
53 431
47 279
13 233
42 877
36 589
68 698
25 826
13 061
31 145
56 667
28 715
36 207
48 546
51 489
110 243
34 083
66 831
44 509
44 538
24 921
36 663
43 991
15 650
38 261
46 907
38 852
m
28 110
60 965

56 474
66 378
59 633
57 981
66 702
37 110
20 795
53 431
47 279
17 015
45 449
52 661
74 744
34 901
17 362
31 145
63 774
44 106
44 408
60 878
81 897
138 920
43 506
66 831
44 509
48 662
25 980
57 201
43 991
16 869
45 764
57 398
44 398
m
30 313
66 022

39 125
35 794
42 996
41 866
39 775
18 838
17 033
46 218
27 768
13 004
37 056
30 651
61 317
17 760
11 617
25 181
36 612
19 302
29 655
27 627
29 252
79 920
m
38 473
30 145
45 601
15 220
30 806
27 576
11 116
25 134
40 752
34 692
m
26 266
42 695

56 315
44 029
54 874
53 371
63 878
25 155
17 529
54 979
45 595
13 233
44 504
34 626
70 474
22 460
13 978
28 864
52 257
22 861
33 649
41 036
44 088
99 900
m
55 697
45 726
50 289
20 402
33 740
43 991
13 351
31 077
44 124
38 997
m
26 730
54 843

56 315
50 183
62 614
60 868
67 022
28 179
18 273
54 979
47 279
13 233
46 284
36 897
73 644
25 826
15 491
31 425
56 667
25 681
37 221
48 546
51 489
110 243
m
66 831
45 726
50 289
24 921
36 663
43 991
15 650
38 261
46 907
40 733
m
28 110
59 948

56 474
74 195
75 514
73 365
67 022
39 229
20 795
54 979
47 279
17 015
49 061
53 001
84 648
34 901
21 738
32 840
63 774
40 241
46 425
62 542
81 897
138 920
m
66 831
45 726
56 452
25 980
57 201
43 991
16 869
45 764
57 398
46 566
m
30 313
67 016

OECD average
EU21 average

31 013
31 533

39 268
38 908

42 825
42 485

50 414
50 138

32 260
32 741

41 077
40 732

44 600
44 507

52 822
52 879

Argentina
Brazil
China
Colombia
India
Indonesia
Latvia
Russian Federation
Saudi Arabia
South Africa

m
m
m
15 331
m
m
a
m
m
m

m
m
m
21 499
m
m
m
m
m
m

m
m
m
21 499
m
m
m
m
m
m

m
m
m
21 499
m
m
a
m
m
m

m
m
m
15 331
m
m
a
m
m
m

m
m
m
21 499
m
m
m
m
m
m

m
m
m
21 499
m
m
m
m
m
m

m
m
m
21 499
m
m
a
m
m
m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

G20 average

Note: The definition of teachers’ typical qualification is based on a broad concept, including the typical ISCED level of attainment and other criteria. Please see
Box D3.2 for further details.
1. Statutory salaries do not include the the part of social security contributions and pension-scheme contributions paid by the employees.
2. Figures for the pre-primary level refer to primary teachers (in primary schools only) teaching pre-primary classes.
3. Statutory salaries include the part of social security contributions and pension-scheme contributions paid by the employers.
4. Includes data on the majority, i.e. kindergarten teachers only for pre-primary education.
5. Includes average bonuses for overtime hours for lower and upper secondary teachers.
6. The typical qualification of starting teachers differ substantially from the typical qualification of all the current teachers.
7. Actual base salaries.
Source: OECD. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/education/education-at-a-glance-19991487.htm).
Please refer to the Reader’s Guide for information concerning symbols for missing data and abbreviations.
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933286182

Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

441

D3

chapter D THE LEARNING ENVIRONMENT AND ORGANISATION OF SCHOOLS

Table D3.2a. Teachers’ actual salaries relative to wages of similarly educated workers (2013)
Ratio of salary, by age group and gender, using annual average salaries (including bonuses and allowances) of teachers in public
institutions relative to the wages of workers with similar educational attainment
Typical educational attainment (ISCED 2011-A)

D3

Year of
reference

Pre-primary

Primary

(1)

(2)

(3)

25-64 year-olds

Upper
Lower
secondary,
secondary,
general
general
programmes programmes
(4)

(5)

Pre-primary

Primary

(6)

(7)

Upper
Lower
secondary,
secondary,
general
general
programmes programmes
(8)

(9)

OECD

Actual salaries of all teachers, relative to earnings for full-time, full-year similarly-educated workers
based on teachers’ attainment level (ISCED 2011-A)
Australia
Belgium (Fl.)1
Belgium (Fr.)1
Canada
Chile
Czech Republic
Denmark2
England3
Finland4
France5
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Iceland
Ireland
Israel
Japan
Korea
Mexico
New Zealand
Norway
Scotland3, 6
Slovak Republic7
OECD average

2013
2013
2013
m
2013
2013
2013
2013
2012
2013
m
2013
2013
m
m
2013
m
m
m
m
2013
2013
2013

660
660
660
m
660
354
660
760
660
660
650
660
660
760
m
660
540/660
660
665
m
660
660
354/660

660
660
660
660
660
760
660
760
760
660
740
660
660
760
665
660
660
660
665
m
660
660
760

660
660
660
660
660
760
660
760
760
660
740
660
660
760
667
660
660
660
665
m
660
660
760

660
760
760
660
660
760
760
760
760
660
740
660
760
760
667
660
660
660
665
m
760
660
760

0.80
0.92
0.87
m
0.55
m
0.82
0.75
0.73
0.84
m
0.86
0.57
m
m
0.91
m
m
m
m
0.69
0.82
0.75

0.82
0.93
0.87
m
0.59
0.52
0.99
0.75
0.74
0.84
m
0.86
0.62
m
m
0.96
m
m
m
m
0.78
0.82
0.57

0.83
0.92
0.86
m
0.60
0.52
1.01
0.82
0.81
0.99
m
0.87
0.62
m
m
0.95
m
m
m
m
0.78
0.82
0.57

0.83
1.20
1.10
m
0.63
0.56
0.83
0.82
0.91
1.08
m
0.87
0.48
m
m
0.91
m
m
m
m
0.65
0.82
0.57

~

~

~

~

~

0.78

0.78

0.80

0.82

Partners

OECD

Actual salaries of all teachers, relative to earnings for full-time, full-year workers with tertiary education (ISCED 5 to 8)
Austria8, 9
Estonia
Italy
Luxembourg
Netherlands
Poland
Portugal
Slovenia10
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Turkey
United States

2013
2013
2013
2013
2013
2013
m
2013
m
2013
2013
m
2013

~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~

~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~

~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~

~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~

0.77
0.59
0.63
1.09
0.69
0.74
m
0.65
m
0.76
m
m
0.65

0.77
0.84
0.63
1.09
0.69
0.85
m
0.86
m
0.82
m
m
0.67

0.89
0.84
0.67
1.24
0.85
0.86
m
0.88
m
0.84
m
m
0.68

0.97
0.84
0.73
1.24
0.85
0.84
m
0.94
m
0.88
1.08
m
0.71

OECD average

~

~

~

~

~

0.73

0.80

0.86

0.91

Argentina
Brazil
China
Colombia
India
Indonesia
Latvia
Russian Federation
Saudi Arabia
South Africa

m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m

~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~

~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~

~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~

~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~

m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m

m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m

m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m

m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m

G20 average

~

~

~

~

~

m

m

m

m

Notes: Columns showing actual salaries of all teachers relative to wages of similarly educated workers, broken down by age groups and gender (i.e. columns 10-33)
are available for consultation on line (see StatLink below). Columns on teachers’ typical educational attainment (i.e. columns 2-5) refer to teachers typical diploma,
according to the ISCED 2011 attainment level (descriptions available in the Definitions section).
1. Data on earnings for full-time, full-year workers with tertiary education refer to Belgium.
2. Also includes data on actual salaries of teachers in early childhood educational development programmes for pre-primary education.
3. Data on earnings for full-time, full-year workers with tertiary education refer to the United Kingdom.
4. Includes data on the majority, i.e. kindergarten teachers only for pre-primary education.
5. Ratios are overestimated as a proportion of teachers teaching at the secondary level have a higher attainment (i.e. ISCED 7).
6. Includes all teachers, irrespective of their age.
7. Data refers to the ratio of teachers with the typical ISCED 354 qualification for pre-primary education.
8. Figures for the pre-primary level refer to primary teachers (in primary schools only) teaching pre-primary classes.
9. Also includes data on actual salaries of headmasters, deputies and assistants.
10. Also includes data on actual salaries of pre-school teaching assistants for pre-primary education.
Source: OECD. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/education/education-at-a-glance-19991487.htm).
Please refer to the Reader’s Guide for information concerning symbols for missing data and abbreviations.
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933286198

442 Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

How much are teachers paid? – INDICATOR D3

chapter D

Table D3.3a. Comparison of teachers’ statutory salaries, based on typical qualifications (2013)
Ratio of salaries at different points in teachers’ careers, and salary per hour
in USD converted using PPPs for private consumption
Salary per hour of net contact (teaching)
time after 15 years of experience

Ratio of salary at top of scale to starting salary

Partners

OECD

Preprimary

Years from
Lower
Upper
secondary,
secondary, starting to top
salary
(lower
Pregeneral
general
Primary programmes programmes secondary) primary

Primary

Upper
Lower
secondary,
secondary,
general
general
programmes programmes

Ratio of salary
per teaching
hour of upper
secondary
teachers
to primary
teachers (after
15 years of
experience)

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7)

(8)

(9)

(10)

Australia
Austria1
Belgium (Fl.)
Belgium (Fr.)
Canada
Chile
Czech Republic
Denmark
England
Estonia
Finland2
France3
Germany
Greece
Hungary4
Iceland
Ireland
Israel
Italy
Japan
Korea
Luxembourg
Mexico
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Scotland
Slovak Republic
Slovenia
Spain
Sweden4
Switzerland
Turkey
United States4

1.43
1.96
1.73
1.72
m
2.09
1.10
1.14
1.70
m
1.08
1.81
m
1.97
1.58
1.34
m
2.57
1.47
m
2.79
1.79
2.14
1.48
m
1.15
1.71
1.86
1.60
1.24
1.68
1.41
1.16
m
1.16
1.67

1.44
1.96
1.73
1.72
1.68
2.09
1.22
1.15
1.70
1.31
1.30
1.81
1.31
1.97
1.63
1.20
1.81
2.62
1.47
2.20
2.79
1.79
2.14
1.48
1.49
1.18
1.71
1.86
1.60
1.52
1.82
1.41
1.32
m
1.16
1.61

1.44
1.94
1.73
1.72
1.68
2.09
1.22
1.16
1.70
1.31
1.30
1.74
1.32
1.97
1.63
1.20
1.74
2.21
1.50
2.20
2.80
1.74
2.12
1.74
1.50
1.18
1.71
1.86
1.60
1.52
1.82
1.41
1.33
m
1.15
1.52

1.44
2.07
1.76
1.75
1.69
2.08
1.22
1.19
1.70
1.31
1.32
1.73
1.38
1.97
1.87
1.30
1.74
2.08
1.57
2.26
2.80
1.74
m
1.74
1.52
1.24
1.71
1.86
1.60
1.52
1.82
1.41
1.34
m
1.15
1.57

8
34
27
27
11
30
27
12
12
7
20
29
28
45
40
18
22
36
35
34
37
30
14
13
7
16
20
34
6
32
25
38
a
26
27
m

63
55
66
60
m
24
15
m
65
m
m
36
m
38
11
19
m
30
36
m
90
117
50
58
m
27
23
38
51
10
28
48
m
m
25
m

64
55
65
66
84
24
22
80
65
21
59
36
79
45
22
50
61
36
44
66
77
127
33
58
47
60
43
49
51
19
61
48
m
m
38
m

69
77
73
72
90
24
29
81
63
21
72
56
91
62
22
50
77
45
59
80
92
149
33
89
53
67
51
60
51
24
61
66
m
m
56
62

69
85
100
101
90
25
31
149
63
23
84
57
103
62
26
58
77
45
60
95
94
149
m
89
60
96
52
60
51
25
67
68
m
m
56
m

1.08
1.54
1.55
1.54
1.07
1.06
1.40
1.87
0.97
1.09
1.43
1.57
1.30
1.37
1.19
1.16
1.26
1.27
1.37
1.43
1.21
1.17
m
1.53
1.28
1.60
1.20
1.23
1.00
1.35
1.10
1.41
m
m
1.48
m

OECD average

1.64

1.66

1.65

1.66

24

43

53

63

71

1.32

EU21 average

1.56

1.59

1.60

1.62

26

44

54

64

72

1.34

Argentina
Brazil
China
Colombia
India
Indonesia
Latvia
Russian Federation
Saudi Arabia
South Africa

m
m
m
1.28
m
m
a
m
m
m

m
m
m
1.35
m
m
a
m
m
m

m
m
m
1.40
m
m
a
m
m
m

m
m
m
1.40
m
m
a
m
m
m

m
m
m
9
m
m
10
m
m
m

m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m

m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m

m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m

m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m

m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

G20 average

Note: The definition of teachers’ typical qualification is based on a broad concept, including the typical ISCED level of attainment and other criteria. Please see
Box D3.2 for further details.
1. Figures for the pre-primary level refer to primary teachers (in primary schools only) teaching pre-primary classes.
2. Includes data on the majority, i.e. kindergarten teachers only for pre-primary education.
3. The typical qualification of starting teachers differ substantially from the typical qualification of all the current teachers.
4. Actual base salaries.
Source: OECD. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/education/education-at-a-glance-19991487.htm).
Please refer to the Reader’s Guide for information concerning symbols for missing data and abbreviations.
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933286208

Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

443

D3

chapter D THE LEARNING ENVIRONMENT AND ORGANISATION OF SCHOOLS

Table D3.4. Average actual teachers’ salaries (2013)
Annual average salaries (including bonuses and allowances) of teachers in public institutions,
in equivalent USD converted using PPPs for private consumption, by age group and gender
25-64 year-olds

Partners

D3

OECD

Pre-primary

Primary

Lower secondary,
general programmes

Upper secondary,
general programmes

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

Australia
Austria1, 2
Belgium (Fl.)
Belgium (Fr.)
Canada
Chile
Czech Republic
Denmark3
England
Estonia
Finland4
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Iceland
Ireland
Israel
Italy
Japan
Korea
Luxembourg
Mexico
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Scotland5
Slovak Republic
Slovenia6
Spain
Sweden7
Switzerland
Turkey
United States

49 535
55 346
49 573
46 924
m
26 520
18 557
45 867
42 399
12 009
31 907
36 440
m
26 466
15 674
m
m
34 581
33 379
m
m
96 140
m
49 533
m
43 082
25 681
m
42 012
14 063
26 385
m
35 290
m
m
49 800

50 737
55 346
50 162
46 881
m
28 573
21 479
55 305
42 399
17 141
43 538
36 120
60 618
26 466
17 062
m
m
36 394
33 379
m
m
96 140
m
49 533
m
48 923
29 434
m
42 012
18 918
35 044
m
38 258
m
m
51 334

51 417
63 863
49 268
46 429
m
28 849
21 426
56 025
46 327
17 141
47 898
42 702
66 510
26 717
17 062
m
m
35 949
35 757
m
m
109 420
m
61 078
m
48 923
29 912
m
42 012
18 918
35 688
m
39 026
m
m
52 343

51 457
69 632
64 471
59 375
m
30 512
23 032
62 390
46 327
17 141
54 128
46 864
72 521
26 717
19 327
41 283
m
34 527
38 675
m
m
109 420
m
61 078
m
52 072
29 252
m
42 012
18 859
38 378
m
41 013
83 412
m
54 083

Average

37 798

41 248

43 626

47 702

Argentina
Brazil
China
Colombia
India
Indonesia
Latvia
Russian Federation8
Saudi Arabia
South Africa

m
m
m
m
m
m
m
24 995
m
m

m
m
m
m
m
m
m
25 648
m
m

m
m
m
m
m
m
m
25 648
m
m

m
m
m
m
m
m
m
25 648
m
m

m

m

m

m

Average

Note: Columns showing average actual teachers’ salaries, broken down by age groups and gender (i.e. columns 5-28), are available for consultation on line (see StatLink below).
1. Figures for the pre-primary level refer to primary teachers (in primary schools only) teaching pre-primary classes.
2. Also includes data on actual salaries of headmasters, deputies and assistants.
3. Also includes also data on actual salaries of teachers in early childhood educational development programmes for pre-primary education.
4. Includes data on the majority, i.e. kindergarten teachers only for pre-primary education.
5. Includes all teachers, irrespective of their age.
6. Also includes data on actual salaries of pre-school teaching assistants for pre-primary education.
7. Average actual teachers’ salaries, not including bonuses and allowances.
8. Average actual teachers’ salaries for all teachers, irrespective of the level of education they teach.
Source: OECD. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/education/education-at-a-glance-19991487.htm).
Please refer to the Reader’s Guide for information concerning symbols for missing data and abbreviations.
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933286213

444 Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

How much are teachers paid? – INDICATOR D3

chapter D

Table D3.5a. Trends in teachers’ salaries, based on typical qualifications, between 2000 and 2013
Index of change between 2000 and 2013 in teachers’ statutory salaries after 15 years of experience (2005 = 100),
by level of education, converted to constant prices using deflators for private consumption
Pre-primary

Lower secondary,
general programmes

Primary

Upper secondary,
general programmes

Partners

OECD

2000 2005 2011 2012 2013 2000 2005 2011 2012 2013 2000 2005 2011 2012 2013 2000 2005 2011 2012 2013
(1)

(2)

(8)

(9)

(10)

(11)

(12)

(18)

(19)

(20)

(21)

(22)

(28)

(29)

(30)

(31)

(32)

(38)

(39)

(40)

Australia
Austria1, 2
Belgium (Fl.)
Belgium (Fr.)
Canada
Chile
Czech Republic
Denmark
England
Estonia
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary3
Iceland
Ireland
Israel
Italy
Japan
Korea
Luxembourg
Mexico
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Scotland
Slovak Republic
Slovenia
Spain
Sweden3
Switzerland
Turkey
United States3

m
m
m
94
m
m
m
88
94
m
92
105
m
m
59
m
m
95
m
m
m
m
87
m
m
m
m
m
50
m
m
m
m
m
99
98

100
100
100
100
m
m
m
100
100
m
100
100
m
100
100
100
m
100
100
m
100
100
100
m
m
100
100
100
100
m
m
100
100
m
100
100

105
103
102
105
m
m
m
99
90
m
109
97
m
86
79
93
m
122
98
m
98
134
107
m
m
116
117
100
96
m
m
102
109
m
112
m

106
102
101
104
m
m
m
98
88
m
108
95
m
78
75
97
m
131
96
m
98
138
108
m
m
116
120
86
93
m
m
98
m
m
112
119

112
101
103
107
m
m
m
97
86
m
106
94
m
74
71
89
m
131
94
m
100
140
109
m
m
120
122
85
91
m
m
95
114
m
114
120

m
91
92
94
m
m
m
94
94
85
87
105
m
m
63
m
83
99
94
m
m
m
87
m
m
m
m
m
81
m
86
m
m
m
99
82

100
100
100
100
m
m
m
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
m
m
100
100
100
100
m
100
100
100
m
100
100

106
103
102
105
m
m
m
103
90
132
110
97
106
86
76
92
113
130
98
93
95
134
107
m
m
110
117
100
96
m
109
102
102
m
112
93

107
102
101
104
m
m
m
100
88
126
109
95
107
78
71
89
111
130
96
93
96
138
108
m
m
111
120
86
93
m
105
98
m
m
112
98

111
101
103
107
m
m
m
102
86
131
107
94
108
74
68
89
109
126
94
94
97
140
109
m
m
115
122
85
91
m
100
95
109
m
114
98

m
88
97
99
m
m
m
94
94
85
88
105
m
m
63
m
83
99
95
m
m
m
87
m
m
m
m
m
81
m
86
m
m
m
99
103

100
100
100
100
m
m
m
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
m
m
100
100
100
100
m
100
100
100
m
100
100

107
103
102
103
m
m
m
104
90
132
106
98
108
86
76
92
113
116
99
93
95
110
107
m
m
110
117
100
96
m
109
100
103
m
109
107

107
102
101
103
m
m
m
102
88
126
104
96
108
78
71
89
111
115
96
93
96
113
109
m
m
111
120
86
93
m
105
95
m
m
110
110

111
101
103
105
m
m
m
103
86
131
103
95
108
74
68
89
109
119
94
94
97
115
109
m
m
115
122
85
91
m
100
92
108
m
112
110

m
95
97
99
m
m
m
107
94
85
92
104
m
m
63
m
83
100
95
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
81
m
86
m
m
m
99
98

100
100
100
100
m
m
m
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
m
m
m
100
100
100
100
m
100
100
100
m
100
100

107
109
102
103
m
m
m
101
90
132
106
97
103
86
71
86
113
101
99
93
95
110
m
m
m
112
117
100
96
m
109
100
101
m
109
102

107
108
102
103
m
m
m
98
88
126
107
96
102
78
66
88
111
112
96
93
96
113
m
m
m
112
120
86
93
m
105
95
m
m
110
103

111
107
104
105
m
m
m
97
86
131
105
95
103
74
64
87
109
110
94
94
97
115
m
m
m
117
122
85
91
m
100
92
105
m
112
103

OECD average

87

100

103

103

103

89

100

104

103

103

91

100

103

101

102

93

100

102

100

101

OECD average for
countries with data
available for all
reference years

86

100

101

101

101

89

100

104

103

102

91

100

104

103

102

87

94

96

96

95

EU21 average for
countries with data
available for all
reference years

83

100

96

95

93

89

100

102

100

100

89

100

102

100

99

91

100

102

100

99

Argentina
Brazil
China
Colombia
India
Indonesia
Latvia
Russian Federation
Saudi Arabia
South Africa

m
m
m
m
m
m
74
m
m
m

m
m
m
m
m
m
100
m
m
m

m
m
m
m
m
m
125
m
m
m

m
m
m
m
m
m
128
m
m
m

m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m

m
m
m
m
m
m
74
m
m
m

m
m
m
m
m
m
100
m
m
m

m
m
m
m
m
m
125
m
m
m

m
m
m
m
m
m
128
m
m
m

m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m

m
m
m
m
m
m
74
m
m
m

m
m
m
m
m
m
100
m
m
m

m
m
m
m
m
m
125
m
m
m

m
m
m
m
m
m
128
m
m
m

m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m

m
m
m
m
m
m
74
m
m
m

m
m
m
m
m
m
100
m
m
m

m
m
m
m
m
m
125
m
m
m

m
m
m
m
m
m
128
m
m
m

m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m

G20 average

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

Notes: Years 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010 (i.e. columns 3-7; 13-17; 23-27; 33-37) are available for consultation on line (see StatLink below). The definition of
teachers’ typical qualification is based on a broad concept, including the typical ISCED level of attainment and other criteria. Please see Box D3.2 for further details.
1. Break in time series following methodological changes in 2007 for upper secondary education.
2. Figures for the pre-primary level refer to primary teachers (in primary schools only) teaching pre-primary classes.
3. Actual base salaries.
Source: OECD. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/education/education-at-a-glance-19991487.htm).
Please refer to the Reader’s Guide for information concerning symbols for missing data and abbreviations.
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933286220

Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

445

D3

chapter D THE LEARNING ENVIRONMENT AND ORGANISATION OF SCHOOLS

Table D3.7c. [1/4] Teachers’ tasks and other criteria related to teachers’ base salaries and additional

payments, lower secondary level (2013)

Criteria for base salary and additional payments awarded to teachers in public institutions
Tasks

Individual
planning
or preparation
of lessons
either at school
or elsewhere

D3
Performance mandatory
for teachers

Included as part of base salary
or additional payments

Nature of compensation

Performance mandatory
for teachers

Included as part of base salary
or additional payments

Nature of compensation

Performance mandatory
for teachers

Included as part of base salary
or additional payments

Nature of compensation

Performance mandatory
for teachers

Included as part of base salary
or additional payments

Nature of compensation

Performance mandatory
for teachers

Included as part of base salary
or additional payments

Nature of compensation

Performance mandatory
for teachers

Included as part of base salary
or additional payments

Nature of compensation

Performance mandatory
for teachers

Included as part of base salary
or additional payments

Nature of compensation

Team work
and dialogue
with colleagues
at school or
elsewhere

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7)

(8)

(9)

(10)

(11)

(12)

(13)

(14)

(15)

(16)

(17)

(18)

(19)

(20)

(21)

OECD

Supervision
of students
during breaks

Australia
Austria
Belgium (Fl.)
Belgium (Fr.)
Canada
Chile
Czech Republic
Denmark
England
Estonia
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Iceland
Ireland
Israel
Italy
Japan
Korea
Luxembourg
Mexico
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Scotland
Slovak Republic
Slovenia
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Turkey
United States

m
m
Yes
Yes
m
m
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
m
DoS
m
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes

m
m
Yes
No
m
m
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
a
Yes
Yes
Yes
m
Yes
m
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
a
DoS
m
Yes
Yes

m
m
1
a
m
m
1
a
1
1
1
1
1
1
a
1
1
1
a
1
1
1
m
1
m
a
1
a
1
1
1
a
a
m
1
1

m
m
Yes
Yes
m
m
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
m
DoS
m
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
m
Yes
DoS

m
m
No
No
m
m
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
a
Yes
Yes
Yes
m
Yes
m
No
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
a
DoS
m
Yes
m

m
m
a
a
m
m
a
a
1
1
1
1
1
1
a
1
1
1
a
1
1
1
m
1
m
a
a
a
1
a
1
a
a
m
4
m

m
m
DoS
Yes
m
m
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
DoS
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
m
DoS
m
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
m
Yes
DoS

m
m
No
No
m
m
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
a
Yes
Yes
Yes
m
Yes
m
No
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
a
DoS
m
No
m

m
m
a
a
m
m
a
a
1
1
1
1
1
1
a
1
1
1
a
1
1
1
m
1
m
a
a
a
1
a
1
a
a
m
a
m

m
m
DoS
Yes
m
m
DoS
Yes
DoS
Yes
Yes
Yes
DoS
Yes
DoS
DoS
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
m
DoS
m
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
m
Yes
DoS

m
m
No
No
m
m
Yes
No
DoS
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
DoS
Yes
Yes
a
Yes
Yes
Yes
m
Yes
m
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
a
DoS
m
No
m

m
m
a
a
m
m
5
a
1
1
1
1
1
1
a
5
1
1
a
1
1
1
m
1
m
a
a
a
a
a
1
a
a
m
a
m

m
m
DoS
Yes
m
m
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
DoS
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
m
DoS
m
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
m
Yes
DoS

m
m
No
No
m
m
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
Yes
Yes
a
Yes
Yes
Yes
m
Yes
m
No
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
a
DoS
m
No
m

m
m
a
a
m
m
a
a
1
1
1
1
1
1
a
m
1
1
a
1
1
1
m
1
m
a
a
a
1
a
1
a
a
m
a
m

m
m
DoS
No
m
m
DoS
m
DoS
DoS
DoS
a
DoS
m
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
m
DoS
m
DoS
Yes
No
No
Yes
DoS
a
DoS
m
Yes
DoS

m
m
No
No
m
m
No
No
DoS
Yes
Yes
a
Yes
m
No
No
Yes
Yes
a
Yes
Yes
Yes
m
Yes
m
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
a
DoS
m
No
m

m
m
a
a
m
m
a
a
1
3
1
a
1
1
a
m
1
1
a
1
1
1
m
1
m
a
a
a
a
a
1
a
a
m
a
m

m
m
DoS
No
m
m
DoS
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
Yes
Yes
DoS
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
m
DoS
m
DoS
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
m
Yes
DoS

m
m
No
No
m
m
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
a
Yes
Yes
Yes
m
Yes
m
No
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
a
DoS
m
No
m

m
m
a
a
m
m
a
a
1
1
1
a
1
1
a
2
1
1
a
1
1
1
m
1
m
a
a
a
1
a
1
a
a
m
a
m

Partners

Teaching

Marking/
correcting
of student work

General
administrative
work (including
communication,
Communication
paperwork and
and co-operation
other clerical
with parents
duties undertaken
or guardians
as part of the job)

Argentina
Brazil
China
Colombia
India
Indonesia
Latvia
Russian Federation
Saudi Arabia
South Africa

m
m
m
Yes
m
m
Yes
m
m
m

m
m
m
Yes
m
m
Yes
m
m
m

m
m
m
1
m
m
1
m
m
m

m
m
m
Yes
m
m
Yes
m
m
m

m
m
m
Yes
m
m
Yes
m
m
m

m
m
m
1
m
m
1
m
m
m

m
m
m
Yes
m
m
Yes
m
m
m

m
m
m
Yes
m
m
Yes
m
m
m

m
m
m
1
m
m
1
m
m
m

m
m
m
Yes
m
m
a
m
m
m

m
m
m
Yes
m
m
m
m
m
m

m
m
m
1
m
m
m
m
m
m

m
m
m
Yes
m
m
Yes
m
m
m

m
m
m
Yes
m
m
Yes
m
m
m

m
m
m
1
m
m
1
m
m
m

m
m
m
Yes
m
m
Yes
m
m
m

m
m
m
Yes
m
m
Yes
m
m
m

m
m
m
1
m
m
1
m
m
m

m
m
m
Yes
m
m
Yes
m
m
m

m
m
m
Yes
m
m
No
m
m
m

m
m
m
1
m
m
m
m
m
m

Is the performance mandatory for teachers?

Does this criterion apply for the formation of salaries?

Yes: Yes, it is mandatory
Yes: Yes, included as part of base salary or additional payments
DoS: Yes, at the discretion of individual schools
DoS: At the discretion of individual schools
No: No, it is voluntary at the discretion of individual teachers No: No, not included as part of base salary or additional payments

Source: OECD. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/education/education-at-a-glance-19991487.htm).
Please refer to the Reader’s Guide for information concerning symbols for missing data and abbreviations.
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933286236

446 Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

What is the nature of compensation?

1: Part of statutory base salary paid to teachers
2: Compensated by reduction in teaching time
3: Defined as percentage of statutory base salary paid to teachers
4: Annual additional payments
5: Incidental/occasional additional payments

How much are teachers paid? – INDICATOR D3

chapter D

Table D3.7c. [2/4] Teachers’ tasks and other criteria related to teachers’ base salaries and additional

payments, lower secondary level (2013)

Criteria for base salary and additional payments awarded to teachers in public institutions
Other responsibilities

D3

Performance mandatory
for teachers

Included as part of base salary
or additional payments

Nature of compensation

Performance mandatory
for teachers

Included as part of base salary
or additional payments

Nature of compensation

Performance mandatory
for teachers

Included as part of base salary
or additional payments

Nature of compensation

Performance mandatory
for teachers

Included as part of base salary
or additional payments

Nature of compensation

Performance mandatory
for teachers

Included as part of base salary
or additional payments

Nature of compensation

Performance mandatory
for teachers

Included as part of base salary
or additional payments

Nature of compensation

(22)

(23)

(24)

(25)

(26)

(27)

(28)

(29)

(30)

(31)

(32)

(33)

(34)

(35)

(36)

(37)

(38)

(39)

OECD

Class teacher/
form teacher

Australia
Austria
Belgium (Fl.)
Belgium (Fr.)
Canada
Chile
Czech Republic
Denmark
England
Estonia
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Iceland
Ireland
Israel
Italy
Japan
Korea
Luxembourg
Mexico
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Scotland
Slovak Republic
Slovenia
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Turkey
United States

m
m
No
No
m
m
DoS
No
DoS
DoS
No
No
No
a
Yes
DoS
Yes
No
DoS
Yes
DoS
No
m
DoS
m
DoS
DoS
Yes
a
No
DoS
Yes
No
m
No
DoS

m
m
Yes
No
m
m
DoS
Yes
DoS
DoS
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
DoS
Yes
Yes
DoS
Yes
Yes
No
m
DoS
m
DoS
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
DoS
m
No
m

m
m
1
a
m
m
3
2
4
3
2
4
1
a
4
1
4
3
4
4
4
2
m
m
m
4
a
2
a
2
3
4
a
m
a
m

m
m
No
No
m
m
DoS
No
DoS
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
DoS
a
No
No
Yes
No
No
m
No
m
DoS
DoS
Yes
No
DoS
Yes
a
No
m
Yes
DoS

m
m
Yes
Yes
m
m
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
a
Yes
DoS
Yes
Yes
Yes
m
DoS
m
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
DoS
Yes
a
DoS
m
Yes
m

m
m
3
3
m
m
3
4
a
5
4
4,5
1
5
a
3
a
3
3
1
3
5
m
5
m
3
a
5
a
1,2
3,5
a
a
m
4
m

m
m
a
No
m
m
No
No
DoS
DoS
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
DoS
a
DoS
No
Yes
Yes
DoS
m
DoS
m
DoS
No
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
a
DoS
m
Yes
DoS

m
m
a
No
m
m
DoS
Yes
No
DoS
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
No
No
a
Yes
DoS
Yes
Yes
No
m
DoS
m
Yes
No
No
Yes
DoS
Yes
a
DoS
m
No
m

m
m
a
a
m
m
5
2
a
3
4
4
a
1
a
a
a
3
5
1
1
a
m
1
m
4
a
a
1
2,3
1
a
a
m
a
m

m
m
No
No
m
m
No
No
No
DoS
No
No
No
a
DoS
No
No
a
No
Yes
DoS
No
m
DoS
m
No
Yes
Yes
No
No
Yes
a
No
m
No
DoS

m
m
No
No
m
m
DoS
Yes
No
DoS
Yes
No
No
No
No
DoS
a
a
DoS
Yes
Yes
No
m
DoS
m
m
No
No
No
DoS
Yes
a
DoS
m
Yes
m

m
m
a
a
m
m
5
2
a
5
4
a
a
a
a
5
a
a
5
5
1
a
m
1
m
m
a
a
a
3,4
5
a
a
m
4
m

m
m
No
No
m
m
DoS
No
DoS
DoS
No
No
No
a
DoS
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
No
m
No
m
No
DoS
Yes
DoS
No
Yes
a
No
m
Yes
DoS

m
m
No
Yes
m
m
DoS
Yes
DoS
DoS
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
DoS
a
Yes
a
Yes
No
No
m
DoS
m
DoS
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
a
DoS
m
Yes
m

m
m
a
5
m
m
5
m
4
5
4
4
a
a
a
5
a
5
a
1
a
a
m
1
m
4
5
a
1
3
1
a
a
m
4
m

m
m
No
No
m
m
DoS
DoS
DoS
DoS
DoS
No
DoS
a
DoS
DoS
Yes
DoS
a
Yes
DoS
DoS
m
DoS
m
DoS
Yes
Yes
DoS
Yes
Yes
a
DoS
m
Yes
DoS

m
m
No
No
m
m
DoS
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
a
Yes
Yes
No
m
DoS
m
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
a
DoS
m
Yes
m

m
m
a
a
m
m
5
2
a
3
4
4
a
a
4
a
4
3
a
1
4
a
m
1
m
4
4
a
1
3
2,3
a
a
m
4
m

Partners

Participation
Engaging
Students counselling
in school or other
in extracurricular
(including student
Teaching more
management in
activities
supervising,
addition to teaching classes or hours than
Special tasks
duties (e.g. serving as required by full-time virtual counselling, (e.g. homework clubs,
(e.g. training student
sports and
career guidance,
contract
head of department
teachers,
drama clubs,
and delinquency
(e.g. overtime
or co-ordinator
guidance counselling)
summer school)
prevention)
compensation)
of teachers)

Argentina
Brazil
China
Colombia
India
Indonesia
Latvia
Russian Federation
Saudi Arabia
South Africa

m
m
m
Yes
m
m
a
m
m
m

m
m
m
Yes
m
m
m
m
m
m

m
m
m
3
m
m
m
m
m
m

m
m
m
Yes
m
m
No
m
m
m

m
m
m
Yes
m
m
Yes
m
m
m

m
m
m
5
m
m
5
m
m
m

m
m
m
No
m
m
No
m
m
m

m
m
m
a
m
m
Yes
m
m
m

m
m
m
a
m
m
1
m
m
m

m
m
m
a
m
m
DoS
m
m
m

m
m
m
No
m
m
Yes
m
m
m

m
m
m
a
m
m
1
m
m
m

m
m
m
a
m
m
DoS
m
m
m

m
m
m
No
m
m
Yes
m
m
m

m
m
m
a
m
m
1
m
m
m

m
m
m
a
m
m
No
m
m
m

m
m
m
No
m
m
Yes
m
m
m

m
m
m
a
m
m
1
m
m
m

Is the performance mandatory for teachers?

Does this criterion apply for the formation of salaries?

Yes: Yes, it is mandatory
Yes: Yes, included as part of base salary or additional payments
DoS: Yes, at the discretion of individual schools
DoS: At the discretion of individual schools
No: No, it is voluntary at the discretion of individual teachers No: No, not included as part of base salary or additional payments

What is the nature of compensation?

1: Part of statutory base salary paid to teachers
2: Compensated by reduction in teaching time
3: Defined as percentage of statutory base salary paid to teachers
4: Annual additional payments
5: Incidental/occasional additional payments

Source: OECD. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/education/education-at-a-glance-19991487.htm).
Please refer to the Reader’s Guide for information concerning symbols for missing data and abbreviations.
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933286236

Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

447

chapter D THE LEARNING ENVIRONMENT AND ORGANISATION OF SCHOOLS

Table D3.7c. [3/4] Teachers’ tasks and other criteria related to teachers’ base salaries and additional

payments, lower secondary level (2013)

Criteria for base salary and additional payments awarded to teachers in public institutions
Experience and demographic
characteristics

Qualifications, training and performance

Holding a
Holding an initial
higher than
educational
minimum
qualification
teacher
Holding an
Attaining
higher than
high scores educational Completed certification or
the minimum
Years
qualification professional participating in Outstanding
in the
required to enter
of
qualification in multiple development training during performance
the teaching
activities professional life in teaching experience
subjects
examination
profession
Included as part of base salary
or additional payments

Nature of compensation

Included as part of base salary
or additional payments

Nature of compensation

Included as part of base salary
or additional payments

Nature of compensation

Included as part of base salary
or additional payments

Nature of compensation

Included as part of base salary
or additional payments

Nature of compensation

Included as part of base salary
or additional payments

Nature of compensation

Included as part of base salary
or additional payments

Nature of compensation

Included as part of base salary
or additional payments

Nature of compensation

Included as part of base salary
or additional payments

Nature of compensation

(40)

(41)

(42)

(43)

(44)

(45)

(46)

(47)

(48)

(49)

(50)

(51)

(52)

(53)

(54)

(55)

(56)

(57)

OECD

Australia
Austria
Belgium (Fl.)
Belgium (Fr.)
Canada
Chile
Czech Republic
Denmark
England
Estonia
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Iceland
Ireland
Israel
Italy
Japan
Korea
Luxembourg
Mexico
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Scotland
Slovak Republic
Slovenia
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Turkey
United States

m
m
No
Yes
m
m
DoS
m
DoS
No
a
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
No
a
a
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
DoS
m
Yes
Yes
No
No
DoS
Yes
a
DoS
a
Yes
m

m
m
a
1
m
m
3
m
1
a
a
a
a
a
1
1
a
a
a
1
1
a
1
m
m
1
1
a
a
1
4
a
a
a
4
m

m
m
No
No
m
m
a
m
No
a
a
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
a
a
No
No
Yes
a
m
No
No
No
a
No
a
a
DoS
a
No
m

m
m
a
a
m
m
a
m
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
1
a
m
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
m

m
m
No
No
m
m
DoS
m
DoS
No
a
a
No
No
No
No
No
No
a
a
No
No
a
DoS
m
DoS
No
No
No
No
Yes
a
DoS
a
No
m

m
m
a
a
m
m
3
m
1
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
m
m
4
a
a
a
a
3
a
a
a
a
m

m
m
No
No
m
m
DoS
m
DoS
No
a
No
No
No
No
DoS
No
Yes
a
a
No
Yes
Yes
DoS
m
DoS
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No
DoS
a
Yes
m

m
m
a
a
m
m
5
m
4
a
a
a
a
a
a
3
a
3
a
a
a
1
1
m
m
4
a
a
a
1
1
a
a
a
4
m

m
m
Yes
No
m
m
a
m
DoS
Yes
m
Yes
No
No
No
a
No
Yes
a
a
Yes
Yes
Yes
DoS
m
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No
DoS
a
Yes
m

m
m
4
a
m
m
a
m
1
1
m
1
a
a
a
a
a
3
a
a
1
1
1
m
m
a
a
a
a
3
1
a
a
a
4
m

m
m
No
No
m
m
DoS
m
DoS
DoS
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
m
No
Yes
a
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
DoS
m
DoS
Yes
No
No
DoS
Yes
a
DoS
a
Yes
m

m
m
a
a
m
m
5
m
1
5
4
1
a
a
a
m
a
5
a
5
5
a
1
m
m
4
5
a
a
5
5
a
a
a
5
m

m
m
Yes
Yes
m
m
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
DoS
m
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
DoS
Yes
Yes
m

m
m
1
1
m
m
1
1
1
a
3,4
1
1
m
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
m
1
a
a
1
1
1
4
a
m
1
m

m
m
No
No
m
m
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
a
a
No
m
No
No
Yes
No
No
No
a
No
Yes
Yes
m

m
m
a
a
m
m
a
a
a
a
a
4
1
m
1
a
a
2
4
4
4
a
a
a
m
a
a
4
a
a
a
a
a
m
4
m

m
m
No
No
m
m
No
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
a
No
Yes
a
No
m
No
No
No
No
No
No
a
No
a
No
m

m
m
a
a
m
m
a
a
a
a
a
a
1
a
a
2
a
2
a
a
a
1
a
a
m
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
m

Partners

D3

Age
(independent
of years
Family status
of
(e.g. married,
teaching
number of
experience)
children)

Argentina
Brazil
China
Colombia
India
Indonesia
Latvia
Russian Federation
Saudi Arabia
South Africa

m
m
m
Yes
m
m
No
m
m
m

m
m
m
1
m
m
m
m
m
m

m
m
m
No
m
m
No
m
m
m

m
m
m
a
m
m
m
m
m
m

m
m
m
No
m
m
No
m
m
m

m
m
m
a
m
m
m
m
m
m

m
m
m
No
m
m
No
m
m
m

m
m
m
a
m
m
m
m
m
m

m
m
m
Yes
m
m
No
m
m
m

m
m
m
1
m
m
m
m
m
m

m
m
m
No
m
m
No
m
m
m

m
m
m
a
m
m
m
m
m
m

m
m
m
Yes
m
m
Yes
m
m
m

m
m
m
1
m
m
1
m
m
m

m
m
m
No
m
m
No
m
m
m

m
m
m
a
m
m
m
m
m
m

m
m
m
No
m
m
No
m
m
m

m
m
m
a
m
m
m
m
m
m

Is the performance mandatory for teachers?

Does this criterion apply for the formation of salaries?

Yes: Yes, it is mandatory
Yes: Yes, included as part of base salary or additional payments
DoS: Yes, at the discretion of individual schools
DoS: At the discretion of individual schools
No: No, it is voluntary at the discretion of individual teachers No: No, not included as part of base salary or additional payments

Source: OECD. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/education/education-at-a-glance-19991487.htm).
Please refer to the Reader’s Guide for information concerning symbols for missing data and abbreviations.
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933286236

448 Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

What is the nature of compensation?

1: Part of statutory base salary paid to teachers
2: Compensated by reduction in teaching time
3: Defined as percentage of statutory base salary paid to teachers
4: Annual additional payments
5: Incidental/occasional additional payments

How much are teachers paid? – INDICATOR D3

chapter D

Table D3.7c. [4/4] Teachers’ tasks and other criteria related to teachers’ base salaries and additional

payments, lower secondary level (2013)

Criteria for base salary and additional payments awarded to teachers in public institutions
Teaching conditions

Included as part of base salary
or additional payments

Nature of compensation

Included as part of base salary
or additional payments

Nature of compensation

Included as part of base salary
or additional payments

Nature of compensation

Included as part of base salary
or additional payments

Nature of compensation

Thirteen month benefits

Nature of compensation

Holiday benefits
(e.g. for religious and/or
official holidays)

Included as part of base salary
or additional payments

Teaching in a
disadvantaged,
remote or high cost area
(location allowance)

(58)

(59)

(60)

(61)

(62)

(63)

(64)

(65)

(66)

(67)

OECD

Teaching students with
special educational needs
(in regular schools)

Australia
Austria
Belgium (Fl.)
Belgium (Fr.)
Canada
Chile
Czech Republic
Denmark
England
Estonia
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Iceland
Ireland
Israel
Italy
Japan
Korea
Luxembourg
Mexico
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Scotland
Slovak Republic
Slovenia
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Turkey
United States

m
m
No
No
m
m
No
m
Yes
No
No
a
No
a
No
No
No
No
a
a
Yes
No
a
DoS
m
DoS
No
No
No
Yes
No
a
DoS
a
No
m

m
m
a
a
m
m
a
m
4
a
a
a
a
a
3
a
a
a
a
a
4
a
a
m
m
4
a
a
a
1
a
a
a
a
a
m

m
m
No
No
m
m
Yes
Yes
DoS
Yes
No
Yes
No
a
No
Yes
No
Yes
a
Yes
Yes
No
a
DoS
m
DoS
Yes
No
No
Yes
Yes
a
DoS
Yes
No
m

m
m
a
a
m
m
1
2
4
2
a
4
a
a
3
1
a
4
a
4
4
a
a
m
m
4
4
a
a
1
1
a
a
m
a
m

m
m
No
No
m
m
No
m
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
a
Yes
DoS
m
DoS
Yes
a
Yes
a
No
Yes
DoS
a
Yes
m

m
m
a
a
m
m
a
m
4
a
1
4
a
m
4
a
a
4
a
4
4
a
1
m
m
4
3
a
4
a
a
4
a
a
1
m

m
m
No
Yes
m
m
No
m
No
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
No
a
No
Yes
No
a
Yes
m
No
Yes
No
a
No
Yes
a
No
m
No
m

m
m
a
4
m
m
a
m
a
a
4
a
a
a
a
4
a
a
a
a
3
a
a
1
m
a
1
a
a
a
3
a
a
m
a
m

m
m
No
No
m
m
No
m
a
DoS
m
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
a
Yes
a
Yes
m
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
a
a
m
No
a

m
m
a
a
m
m
a
m
a
5
m
a
4
a
a
a
a
a
4
a
a
4
a
1
m
a
1
a
a
a
a
a
a
m
a
a

Partners

Teaching courses
ina particular field
(e.g. mathematics or
science)

Benefits

Argentina
Brazil
China
Colombia
India
Indonesia
Latvia
Russian Federation
Saudi Arabia
South Africa

m
m
m
No
m
m
No
m
m
m

m
m
m
a
m
m
m
m
m
m

m
m
m
No
m
m
Yes
m
m
m

m
m
m
a
m
m
3
m
m
m

m
m
m
Yes
m
m
Yes
m
m
m

m
m
m
3
m
m
3
m
m
m

m
m
m
No
m
m
Yes
m
m
m

m
m
m
a
m
m
m
m
m
m

m
m
m
No
m
m
No
m
m
m

m
m
m
a
m
m
m
m
m
m

Is the performance mandatory for teachers?

Does this criterion apply for the formation of salaries?

Yes: Yes, it is mandatory
Yes: Yes, included as part of base salary or additional payments
DoS: Yes, at the discretion of individual schools
DoS: At the discretion of individual schools
No: No, it is voluntary at the discretion of individual teachers No: No, not included as part of base salary or additional payments

What is the nature of compensation?

1: Part of statutory base salary paid to teachers
2: Compensated by reduction in teaching time
3: Defined as percentage of statutory base salary paid to teachers
4: Annual additional payments
5: Incidental/occasional additional payments

Source: OECD. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/education/education-at-a-glance-19991487.htm).
Please refer to the Reader’s Guide for information concerning symbols for missing data and abbreviations.
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933286236

Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

449

D3

HOW MUCH TIME DO TEACHERS SPEND TEACHING?
• Public school teachers teach an average of 1 005 hours per year at the pre-primary level, 772 hours
at the primary level, 694 hours at the lower secondary level, and 643 hours at the upper secondary
level of education.

• In the majority of countries with available data, the amount of teaching time in primary, lower

INDICATOR D4

secondary and upper secondary education remained largely unchanged between 2000 and 2013.

Chart D4.1. Number of teaching hours per year in general
lower secondary education, in 2000, 2005 and 2013
Net statutory contact time in public institutions
2013

2005

2000

Colombia
Chile
Mexico
United States1
Scotland (UK)
Latvia
Australia
Germany
Netherlands
England (UK)1
Canada
Luxembourg
Ireland
Spain
OECD average
Belgium (Fl.)
Norway
Denmark1
Belgium (Fr.)
France
Slovak Republic
Israel
Slovenia
Iceland
Czech Republic
Estonia
Italy
Portugal
Japan1
Austria
Hungary
Finland
Korea
Poland1
Turkey
Russian Federation1
Greece

Hours per year

1 500
1 400
1 300
1 200
1 100
1 000
900
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0

1. Actual teaching time.
Countries are ranked in descending order of the number of teaching hours per year in lower secondary education in 2013.
Source: OECD. Table D4.2. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/education/education-at-a-glance-19991487.htm).
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933284491

Context
Although statutory working hours and teaching hours only partly determine teachers’ actual
workload, they do offer valuable insight into the demands placed on teachers in different countries.
Teaching hours and the extent of non-teaching duties may also affect the attractiveness of the teaching
profession. Together with teachers’ salaries (see Indicator D3) and average class size (see Indicator D2),
this indicator presents some key measures regarding the working lives of teachers.
The proportion of statutory working time spent teaching provides information on the amount of
time available for non-teaching activities such as lesson preparation, correction, in-service training
and staff meetings. A large proportion of statutory working time spent teaching may indicate that
less time is devoted to tasks such as assessing students and preparing lessons. It also could indicate
that teachers have to perform these tasks on their own time and to work more hours than required by
statutory working time.
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 also affects the financial resources countries need to allocate to education
(see Indicator B7).

450 Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

Other findings

• At all levels of education, the number of teaching hours per year required of the average public
school teacher varies considerably across countries and tends to decrease as the level of education
increases.

• On average, pre-primary teachers are required to teach about 30% more hours than primary school
teachers, but the time during which teachers are required to be working at school, or their total
working time, is often more similar for these two levels of education.

• Required teaching time at the pre-primary level in public schools varies more across countries than

INDICATOR D4

it does at any other level.

• The average number of teaching hours in public pre-primary schools is 1 005 hours per year, but it
ranges from 532 hours per school year in Mexico to 1 792 hours per school year in Sweden.

• Public primary school teachers teach an average of 772 hours per year, but teaching time ranges
from less than 570 hours in Greece and the Russian Federation to over 1 000 hours in Chile.

• The number of teaching hours in public lower secondary schools averages 694 hours per year, but
ranges from 415 hours in Greece to over 1 000 hours in Chile, Colombia and Mexico.

• Teachers in public upper secondary schools teach an average of 643 hours per year, but ranges from
369 hours in Denmark to over 1 000 hours in Chile and Colombia.

• Most countries regulate the number of working hours per year that teachers are formally required
to work, including teaching and non-teaching activities. Some of these countries regulated the
specific number of hours required at school; others set the overall working time, including hours
at school and elsewhere.
Trends
While there has been little change in average teaching hours over the past decade, some countries
with available data reported an increase or decrease of 10% or more in teaching time in pre-primary,
primary, lower secondary and/or upper secondary education between 2000 and 2013. In Korea,
however, net teaching time at the primary level dropped dramatically by more than 20% between
2000 and 2013.

Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

451

chapter D THE LEARNING ENVIRONMENT AND ORGANISATION OF SCHOOLS

Analysis
Teaching time
At all levels of education, countries vary considerably in the number of teaching hours per year required of the
average public school teacher.

Primary school teachers are required to teach an average of 772 hours per year. In most countries with available
data, teachers are required to teach between 3 and 6 hours a day. The exceptions are Chile and France, where
teachers teach slightly more than 6 hours per day (5 days per week in Chile and 4.5 in France). There is no set rule
on how teaching time is distributed throughout the year. In Spain, for example, primary school teachers must teach
880 hours per year, about 100 hours more than the OECD average. However, those teaching hours are spread over
fewer days of instruction than the OECD average because primary school teachers in Spain teach an average of five
hours per day compared to the OECD average of 4.22 hours.
Lower secondary school teachers in general programmes teach an average of 694 hours per year. The teaching time at
the lower secondary level ranges from less than 600 hours in Finland, Greece, Korea, Poland, the Russian Federation
and Turkey to more than 1 000 hours in Chile, Colombia and Mexico.
A teacher of general subjects in upper secondary education has an average teaching load of 643 hours per year. Teaching
time exceeds 800 hours in only six countries: Australia, Chile, Colombia, Latvia, Mexico and Scotland. However, in Chile
and Scotland, the reported hours refer to the maximum time teachers can be required to teach and not to their typical
teaching load. In contrast, teachers are required to teach less than 500 hours per year in Denmark, Greece and the
Russian Federation. Teachers in Finland, Greece, Japan, Korea, Norway, the Russian Federation, Slovenia and Turkey
teach for three hours or less per day, on average, compared to more than five hours in Chile, Colombia and Latvia.

Chart D4.2. Number of teaching hours per year, by level of education (2013)
Net statutory contact time in public institutions
Hours per year

1 600

Pre-primary education
Primary education

Lower secondary education
Upper secondary education, general programmes

1 400
1 200
1 000
800
600
400
200
0

Colombia
Chile
Latvia
Scotland (UK)
Mexico
Australia
New Zealand
Netherlands
England (UK)1
Canada
Luxembourg
Ireland
Germany
Spain
France
OECD average
Belgium (Fl.)
Slovak Republic
Italy
Portugal
Belgium (Fr.)
Hungary
Czech Republic
Austria
Slovenia
Israel
Estonia
Poland1
Finland
Korea
Iceland
Norway
Japan1
Turkey
Russian Federation1
Greece
Denmark1, 2
United States1

D4

Required teaching time at the pre-primary level in public schools varies more across countries than it does at any
other level. The number of teaching days ranges from 144 days in France to 227 in Iceland; annual teaching hours
range from less than 700 hours in Greece, Korea and Mexico to more than 1 500 in Norway and Sweden. On average
across OECD countries, teachers at this level of education are required to teach 1 005 hours per year, spread over
40 weeks or 191 days of teaching (Table D4.1 and Chart D4.2).

1. Actual teaching time.
2. Year of reference 2011 for upper secondary education.
Countries are ranked in descending order of the number of teaching hours per year in upper secondary education.
Source: OECD. Table D4.1. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/education/education-at-a-glance-19991487.htm).
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933284507

452 Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

How much time do teachers spend teaching? – INDICATOR D4

chapter D

Reported teaching time refers to net contact time, excluding periods of time formally allowed for breaks between
lessons or groups of lesson and preparation time. The exclusion of these breaks in some countries, but not in others,
may explain some of these differences. Variations in how teaching time is reported (minimum, typical or maximum)
across countries, may also explain some of these differences.
Differences in teaching time between levels of education
In most countries, teaching time at the upper secondary level is less than at the pre-primary level. The exceptions
are Chile and Scotland, where the maximum time teachers can be required to teach is the same, irrespective of the
level of education taught, and Colombia, England and Mexico, where secondary school teachers are required to teach
more hours than pre-primary school teachers (Table D4.1 and Chart D4.2).
Teaching time requirements vary the most between the pre-primary and primary levels of education. On average,
pre-primary school teachers are required to spend almost 30% more time in the classroom than primary school
teachers. In Estonia, Iceland, Norway and Slovenia, pre-primary school teachers are required to teach at least twice
the amount of time per year as primary school teachers.
In the Czech Republic, France, Greece, Israel and Turkey, primary school teachers have at least 11% more annual
teaching time than lower secondary school teachers. In contrast, there is no difference in Chile, Denmark, Estonia,
Hungary, Iceland, Latvia, Scotland and Slovenia. Colombia, England and Mexico are the only countries in which the
teaching load for primary school teachers is lighter than for lower secondary school teachers.
Teaching time at the lower and upper secondary levels is similar across most countries. However, in Mexico and
Norway, the annual required teaching time at the lower secondary level is at least 20% more than at the upper
secondary level. This difference amounts to almost 80% in Denmark. In Latvia, the annual required teaching time
for upper secondary teachers is about 15% higher than it is for lower secondary teachers.
Actual teaching time
Statutory teaching time, as reported by most of the countries in this indicator, must be distinguished from actual
teaching time. Actual teaching time is the annual average number of hours that full-time teachers teach a group or a
class of students, including overtime, and thus provides a picture of teachers’ actual teaching load.
Only a few countries could report both statutory and actual teaching time, but these data suggest that actual teaching
time can sometimes differ from statutory requirements. In Slovenia, for example, lower secondary teachers work
around 5% more than the statutory benchmark time, while in Poland, actual teaching time is up to 13% more than
statutory requirements. By contrast, in Estonia, actual teaching time is about 5% less than statutory teaching time
at the lower secondary level (Chart D4.4, available on line).
It is difficult to determine why there are differences between statutory and actual teaching time. Some of these
variations can be the result of overtime due to teacher absenteeism or shortage of teachers. Some may be explained
by the nature of the data, as figures on statutory teaching time refer to official requirements and agreements,
whereas actual teaching time is based on administrative registers, statistical databases, representative sample
surveys or other representative sources.
Trends in teaching time
While there has been little change in average teaching hours over the past decade, some countries with available
data reported an increase or decrease of 10% or more in teaching time in pre-primary, primary, lower secondary
and/or upper secondary education between 2000 and 2013 (Table D4.2 and Chart D4.1).
At the pre-primary level, there was a 11% increase in teaching time between 2000 and 2013 in Germany, while
pre-primary teaching time decreased by 10% in Scotland over the same period.
In Israel and Japan, there was an increase of about 15% in teaching time at the primary level between 2000 and
2013. In Israel, this increase in teaching and working time is part of the “New Horizon” reform that has been
gradually implemented since 2008. One of the key measures of this reform was to lengthen teachers’ workweek
to accommodate small-group teaching in exchange for more generous compensation. Teachers’ working time was
increased from 30 to 36 hours per week and now includes five hours of small-group teaching in primary schools.
To compensate, salaries have been raised substantially (see Indicator D3).
Upper secondary school teachers in Iceland were required to teach 20% more in 2005 than in 2000, then, between
2005 and 2013, their teaching time was reduced slightly from 560 to 544 hours per year. Secondary school teachers
in Luxembourg were required to teach 15% more hours in 2013 than in 2005; and teaching time for secondary
teachers in Japan increased by around 20% during the same period.
Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

453

D4

chapter D THE LEARNING ENVIRONMENT AND ORGANISATION OF SCHOOLS

By contrast, net teaching time dropped by around 25% between 2000 and 2013 in Korea at primary level and by 10% or
more in Mexico (lower secondary level), the Netherlands (lower and upper secondary levels), Scotland (pre-primary and
primary levels) and Turkey (upper secondary level). In Scotland, the decrease in teaching time for primary teachers
was part of the Teachers’ Agreement, “A teaching profession for the 21st century”, which introduced a 35-hour working
week for all teachers and a phased reduction of maximum teaching time to 22.5 hours per week for primary, secondary
and special school teachers in 2001. However, even with this decrease of net contact time, the maximum time teachers
at these levels in Scotland can be required to teach is more than the OECD average teaching time.

D4

In Turkey, the reduction in teaching and working time for upper secondary teachers in 2013 is related to shorter
classes in ISCED 3. General upper secondary classes were cut from 45 to 40 minutes in 2013. As a result, teachers’
total annual teaching time was reduced as compared to previous years.
Teachers’ working time
In most countries, teachers are formally required to work a specified total number of hours per week, including
teaching and non-teaching time, as stipulated in collective agreements or other contractual arrangements, to earn
their full-time salary. Some countries also regulate the time a teacher has to be present in the school. Within this
framework, however, countries differ in how they allocate time for each activity (Chart D4.3).
More than half of OECD countries specify the time during which teachers are required to be available at school, for
both teaching and non-teaching activities, at one or various levels of education. In more than half of these countries,
the difference between the time upper secondary school teachers and pre-primary school teachers are required to be
available at school is less than 10%. In Israel, Norway, Sweden and Turkey, pre-primary teachers are required to be
available at school at least 30% more hours than upper secondary school teachers (Table D4.1).
In Austria (pre-primary, primary and lower secondary education), the French Community of Belgium (pre-primary
and primary education), the Czech Republic, Denmark, France (lower and upper secondary education), Germany,
Japan (primary, lower and upper secondary education), Latvia, the Netherlands and Slovenia, teachers’ total annual
statutory working time, at school and elsewhere, is specified, but the allocation of time spent at school and time
spent elsewhere is not.
In Sweden, although the total working time per year is decided through collective agreements, the school leader
decides on the number of working hours per week and on the use of teachers’ time (teaching or non-teaching
activities).
In addition, workload and teaching load requirements may evolve throughout the career. While in some countries,
such as in Germany, some beginning teachers might have a reduced teaching load as part of their induction
programmes, some countries also encourage older teachers to stay in the teaching profession by diversifying their
duties and reducing their teaching hours. For example, Greece reduces teaching hours according to how many years
a teacher has served. At the secondary level, teachers are required to teach 21 class sessions per week. After 6 years,
this drops to 19 sessions, and after 12 years to 18 sessions. After 20 years of service, teachers are required to teach
16 class sessions a week – more than 25% less than teachers who have just started their careers. However, the
remaining hours of teachers’ working time must be spent at school.
Non-teaching time
Although teaching time is a substantial component of teachers’ workloads, assessing students, preparing lessons,
correcting students’ work, in-service training and staff meetings should also be taken into account when analysing
the demands placed on teachers in different countries. The amount of time available for these non-teaching activities
varies across countries, and a large proportion of statutory working time spent teaching may indicate that less time
is devoted to activities such as assessing students and preparing lessons.
In the majority of countries, teachers’ working time is determined by the statutory teaching time specified in
working regulations. In addition, in most countries, teachers are formally required to work a specific number of
hours per year. This may be specified either as the number of hours teachers must be available at school for teaching
and non-teaching activities, or as the number of total working hours. Both correspond to official working hours as
specified in contractual agreements. In Israel, for example, recent reforms take into account further working hours
at school beyond teaching time. Regulations now specify the working time required at school, including teaching
and non-teaching time, rather than overall working time. All non-teaching tasks that teachers previously performed
at home are now required to be completed at school.

454 Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

How much time do teachers spend teaching? – INDICATOR D4

chapter D

Chart D4.3. Percentage of lower secondary teachers’ working time spent teaching (2013)
Net teaching time as a percentage of total statutory working time and working time required at school
Percentage of total statutory working time spent teaching

%

Percentage of working time required at school spent teaching

Turkey

Japan1

Austria

Hungary

Iceland

Czech Republic

Korea

Greece

Poland1

Norway

Estonia

Denmark1

France

Slovak Republic

Germany

Netherlands

Latvia

Portugal

Spain

United States1

Chile

England1

Canada

Scotland

Israel

New Zealand

Australia

Colombia

Finland

Luxembourg

Ireland

D4

Mexico

100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0

1. Actual teaching time.
Countries are ranked in descending order of the percentage of lower secondary teachers’ total working time spent teaching.
Source: OECD. Table D4.1. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/education/education-at-a-glance-19991487.htm).
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933284511

In the 25 countries with data for both teaching and total working time for lower secondary teachers, the percentage
of teachers’ working time spent teaching ranges from less than 35% in Austria, Hungary, Iceland, Japan and Turkey,
to 65% in Israel (Chart D4.3).
In the 20 countries that specify both teaching time and the amount of time that lower secondary teachers are
required to be available at school, the percentage of teachers’ timetabled or legislated working time at school spent
teaching ranges from less than 40% in Estonia, Greece and Iceland to more than 90% in Ireland.
In Austria (upper secondary level), Belgium (Flemish and French Community, secondary level), Italy and Japan
(pre-primary level), there are no formal requirements regarding time spent on non-teaching activities. However,
this does not mean that teachers are given total freedom to carry out other tasks. In the Flemish Community
of Belgium, although there are no regulations regarding the time devoted to preparing lessons, correcting tests,
marking students’ papers, etc., additional non-teaching hours at school are set at the school level. In Italy, there
is a requirement of up to 80 hours of scheduled non-teaching collegial work at school per year. Of these 80 hours,
up to 40 hours of compulsory working time per year are dedicated to meetings of the teachers’ assembly, staff
planning meetings and meetings with parents; the remaining compulsory 40 hours are dedicated to class councils
(Table D4.1).
Box D4.1. Non-teaching tasks required of teachers in lower secondary education (2013)
Non-teaching tasks are a part of teachers’ workload and working conditions. These non-teaching activities
required by legislation, regulations or agreements between stakeholders (e.g. teachers’ unions, local authorities,
school boards, etc.) do not necessarily reflect the actual participation of teachers in non-teaching activities, but
provide an insight into the breadth and complexity of teachers’ roles.
First findings in Education at a Glance 2014 (OECD, 2014) show that, according to regulations, individual
planning or preparing lessons, teamwork and dialogue with colleagues and communicating and co-operating
with parents are the most common non-teaching tasks required of lower secondary teachers during their
statutory working time at school or statutory total working time. These tasks were required in at least 20 of
the 34 countries with available data. Marking/correcting student work, general administrative communication
and paperwork and professional development activities were also required in around half of the countries with
available data. Lower secondary teachers are required to supervise students during breaks, provide counselling
and guidance to students, or and/or participate in school management in around one-third of the countries,
and only 8 countries require that lower secondary teachers engage in extracurricular activities after school.

…

Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

455

chapter D THE LEARNING ENVIRONMENT AND ORGANISATION OF SCHOOLS

D4

In a recent ad-hoc survey, countries were asked whether completing the required tasks and additional
responsibilities are mandatory or voluntarily for the teacher. Results show that teachers often perform
such tasks as engaging in extracurricular activities, training student teachers, guidance counselling, and
participating in school or other management activities voluntarily. In almost half of the countries, individual
teachers decided whether or not to perform these tasks. Responsibilities such as being class/form teacher or
supervising students during breaks are largely distributed at the school level. In more than half of the countries,
teamwork and dialogue with colleagues as well as general administrative work are mandatory for teachers.
In almost all countries, it is mandatory for teachers to teach, plan lessons, mark and correct students’ work and
communicate with other teachers. Most countries require teachers to perform these tasks through central or
state mandate; four countries reported that school principals determine which tasks are required of teachers.

Chart D4.a. Tasks and responsibilities lower secondary teachers
are required to perform (2013)
For lower secondary teachers teaching general programmes

Mandatory
At the discretion of individual schools
Voluntary at the discretion of individual teachers
Not applicable
Missing

Tasks
Teaching
Individual planning or preparation of lessons
either at school or elsewhere
Marking/correcting of student work
Communication and co-operation with parents or guardians
Team work and dialogue with colleagues at school or elsewhere
General administrative work (including communication, paperwork
and other clerical duties a teacher undertakes as part of his/her job)
Supervision of students during breaks

Other responsibilities
Students counselling (including student supervising,
virtual counselling, career guidance, and delinquency prevention)
Participation in school or other management
in addition to teaching duties
Class teacher/form teacher
Teaching more classes or hours than required by full-time contract
(e.g. overtime compensation)
Engaging in extracurricular activities
(e.g. sports and drama clubs, homework clubs, summer school, etc.)
Special tasks (e.g. training student teachers; guidance counselling)

0

5

10

15

Source: OECD. Table D3.7c. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/education/education-at-a-glance-19991487.htm).
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933284521

20

25

30

35

Number of countries

Definitions
Actual teaching time is the annual average number of hours that full-time teachers teach a group or class of students
including all extra hours such as overtime. The data can be from administrative registers, statistical databases,
representative sample surveys or other representative sources.
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.
The number of teaching weeks refers to the number of weeks of instruction excluding holiday weeks.

456 Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

How much time do teachers spend teaching? – INDICATOR D4

chapter D

Statutory teaching time is defined as the scheduled number of 60-minute hours per year that a full-time teacher
teaches a group or class of students as set by policy, teachers’ contracts of employment or other official documents.
Teaching time can be defined on a weekly or annual basis. Annual teaching time is normally calculated as the
number of teaching days per year multiplied by the number of hours a teacher teaches per day (excluding preparation
time and periods of time formally allowed for breaks between lessons or groups of lessons). At the primary level,
short breaks between lessons are included if the classroom teacher is responsible for the class during these breaks.
Total statutory working time refers to the number of hours that a full-time teacher is expected to work as set by
policy. It can be defined on a weekly or annual basis. It does not include paid overtime. 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; and
• the time directly associated with teaching and hours devoted to other activities related to teaching, such as
preparing lessons, counselling students, correcting assignments and tests, professional development, meetings
with parents, staff meetings, and general school tasks.
Working time required at school refers to the time teachers are required to spend working at school, including
teaching and non-teaching time.

Methodology
Data are from the 2014 OECD-INES Survey on Teachers and the Curriculum and refer to the school year 2012/13.
In interpreting differences in teaching hours among countries, net contact time, as used here, does not necessarily
correspond to the teaching load. Although contact time is a substantial component of teachers’ workloads, preparing
for classes and necessary follow-up, including correcting students’ work, also need to be included when making
comparisons. 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.
Notes on definitions and methodologies for each country are provided in Annex 3 at www.oecd.org/education/
education-at-a-glance-19991487.htm.
Note regarding data from Israel
The statistical data for Israel are supplied by and are under the responsibility of the relevant Israeli authorities. The use of
such data by the OECD is without prejudice to the status of the Golan Heights, East Jerusalem and Israeli settlements in the
West Bank under the terms of international law.

Reference
OECD (2014), Education at a Glance 2014: OECD Indicators, Indicator D4, OECD Publishing, Paris, http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/
eag-2014-en.

Indicator D4 Tables
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933286246

Table D4.1

Organisation of teachers’ working time (2013)

Table D4.2

Number of teaching hours per year (2000, 2005, 2010 and 2013)

Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

457

D4

chapter D THE LEARNING ENVIRONMENT AND ORGANISATION OF SCHOOLS

Table D4.1. Organisation of teachers’ working time (2013)
Number of statutory teaching weeks, teaching days, net teaching hours, and teachers’ working time
in public institutions over the school year

Lower secondary,
general programmes

Upper secondary,
general programmes

Upper secondary,
general programmes

Pre-primary

Primary

Lower secondary,
general programmes

Upper secondary,
general programmes

(5)

(6)

(7)

(8)

(9)

(10)

(11)

(12)

(13)

(14)

(15)

(16)

(17)

(18)

(19)

(20)

40
38
37
37
37
38
39
a
38
35
38
36
40
31
36
35
33
36
39
39
38
36
36
m
38
38
37
36
38
38
40
36
a
m
38
36

196
180
177
181
m
181
188
a
190
220
m
144
193
171
182
227
m
182
186
m
180
176
200
195
m
225
216
192
190
198
219
176
224
m
180
180

196
180
177
181
183
181
188
a
190
172
188
144
193
171
182
180
183
182
171
201
190
176
200
195
192
190
184
166
190
187
190
176
a
m
180
180

196
180
179
181
183
181
188
a
190
172
188
a
193
152
182
180
167
175
171
202
190
176
200
m
191
190
182
166
190
187
190
176
a
m
180
180

194
180
179
181
183
181
188
a
190
172
188
a
193
152
181
170
167
175
171
197
190
176
171
m
190
190
179
166
190
187
190
171
a
m
180
180

904 879 821
812
779 779 607
589
736 752 669
625
784 721 661
601
m 796 743
745
1 129 1 129 1 129 1 129
1 166 827 620
592
a 662 662
369
722 722 745
745
1 320 619 619
568
m 677 592
550
924 924 648
648
834 800 752
715
684 569 415
415
1 158 601 601
597
1 498 624 624
544
m 915 735
735
1 032 840 644
570
930 752 616
616
m 736 608
513
574 667 557
549
880 810 739
739
532 800 1 047
838
930 930 750
750
m 922 841
760
1 508 741 663
523
1 138 629 555
551
960 747 609
609
855 855 855
855
1 109 832 645
617
1 314 627 627
570
880 880 713
693
1 792
a
a
a
m
m
m
m
1 080 720 504
504
m
m 981
m

1 227
a
920
a
m
1 857
a
a
1 265
1 610
m
972
a
1 140
m
1 800
m
1 054
a
a
a
1 060
772
a
m
1 508
m
1 105
1 045
m
a
1 140
1 792
m
1 160
1 365

1 117
a
920
a
1 227
1 857
a
a
1 265
1 540
791
972
a
1 140
m
1 650
1 073
1 225
a
a
a
990
800
a
1 536
1 300
m
1 016
1 045
m
a
1 140
1 360
m
980
1 362

1 133
a
a
a
1 232
1 857
a
a
1 265
1 540
706
a
a
1 170
m
1 650
768
985
a
a
a
828
1 167
a
1 243
1 225
m
917
1 045
m
a
1 140
1 360
m
836
1 366

1 133
a
a
a
1 236
1 857
a
a
1 265
1 540
645
a
a
1 170
m
1 720
768
811
a
a
a
828
971
a
950
1 150
m
917
1 045
m
a
1 140
1 360
m
836
1 365

a
1 776
a
962
m
1 989
1 760
1 680
1 265
1 610
a
1 607
1 768
a
1 864
1 800
a
1 054
m
a
1 520
a
a
1 659
a
a
1 800
1 412
1 365
1 568
m
1 425
a
m
1 576
1 890

a
1 776
a
962
a
1 989
1 760
1 680
1 265
1 540
a
1 607
1 768
a
1 864
1 800
a
1 225
m
1 899
1 520
a
a
1 659
a
1 688
1 504
1 282
1 365
1 568
m
1 425
1 767
m
1 576
1 922

a
1 776
a
a
a
1 989
1 760
1 680
1 265
1 540
a
1 607
1 768
a
1 864
1 800
a
985
m
1 899
1 520
a
a
1 659
a
1 688
1 488
1 282
1 365
1 568
m
1 425
1 767
m
1 576
1 936

a
a
a
a
a
1 989
1 760
1 680
1 265
1 540
a
1 607
1 768
a
1 864
1 800
a
811
m
1 899
1 520
a
a
1 659
a
1 688
1 472
1 282
1 365
1 568
m
1 425
1 767
m
1 576
1 960

OECD average
EU21 average

40
40

38
38

37
37

37
37

191
190

183
180

182
179

181
179

1 005
995

643
625

1 266 1 196 1 172
1 205 1 104 1 074

1 135
1 068

1 588 1 600 1 618
1 568 1 549 1 588

1 603
1 573

Argentina
Brazil1
China
Colombia1
India
Indonesia
Latvia
Russian Federation4
Saudi Arabia
South Africa

m
42
m
40
m
m
44
m
m
m

m
42
m
40
m
m
35
34
m
m

m
42
m
40
m
m
35
35
m
m

m
42
m
40
m
m
35
35
m
m

m
203
m
200
m
m
210
m
m
m

m
203
m
200
m
m
165
170
m
m

m
203
m
200
m
m
165
210
m
m

m
203
m
200
m
m
165
210
m
m

m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
800 1 000 1 200 1 200
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
1 260 825 825
990
m 561 483
483
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m

m
m
m
a
a
a
m
m
m
1 350 1 350 1 350
m
m
m
m
m
m
a
a
a
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m

m
a
m
1 350
m
m
a
m
m
m

m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
1 600 1 600 1 600
m
m
m
m
m
m
1 760 1 760 1 760
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m

m
m
m
1 600
m
m
1 760
m
m
m

G20 average

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

772
756

m

694
656

m

m

m

m

1. Typical teaching time.
2. Figures for the pre-primary level refer to primary teachers (in primary schools only) teaching pre-primary classes.
3. Maximum teaching time.
4. Actual teaching time.
5. Minimum teaching time.
6. Year of reference 2011 for upper secondary education.
Source: OECD. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/education/education-at-a-glance-19991487.htm).
Please refer to the Reader’s Guide for information concerning symbols for missing data and abbreviations.
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933286256

458 Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

Lower secondary,
general programmes

Primary

(4)

40
38
37
37
37
38
39
a
38
35
38
36
40
31
36
37
33
36
39
40
38
36
42
m
38
38
37
36
38
38
40
37
a
m
38
36

Primary

Pre-primary

(3)

40
38
37
37
37
38
39
a
38
35
38
36
40
35
36
37
37
38
39
40
38
36
42
40
38
38
38
36
38
38
40
37
a
m
38
36

Pre-primary

Upper secondary,
general programmes

Lower secondary,
general programmes

(2)

40
38
37
37
m
38
39
a
38
46
m
36
40
35
36
48
m
38
42
39
36
36
42
40
m
45
45
41
38
42
46
37
47
m
38
36

Primary

(1)

Pre-primary

Upper secondary,
general programmes

Total statutory
working time, in hours

Lower secondary,
general programmes

Working time required
at school, in hours

Primary

OECD

Net teaching time,
in hours

Australia1
Austria1, 2
Belgium (Fl.)1
Belgium (Fr.)1
Canada1
Chile3
Czech Republic1
Denmark4, 6
England4
Estonia3
Finland5
France1
Germany1
Greece1
Hungary5
Iceland1
Ireland1
Israel1
Italy1
Japan4
Korea5
Luxembourg1
Mexico1
Netherlands3
New Zealand1
Norway3
Poland4
Portugal3
Scotland3
Slovak Republic1
Slovenia1
Spain1
Sweden1
Switzerland
Turkey1
United States4

D4

Partners

Number of days
of teaching

Pre-primary

Number of weeks
of teaching

m

m

m

m

m

m

How much time do teachers spend teaching? – INDICATOR D4

chapter D

Table D4.2. Number of teaching hours per year (2000, 2005, 2010 and 2013)
Net statutory contact time in public institutions, by level of education

OECD

Primary

Partners

Lower secondary, general programmes

Upper secondary, general programmes

2000

2005

2010

2013

2000

2005

2010

2013

2000

2005

2010

2013

(11)

(12)

(17)

(20)

(21)

(22)

(27)

(30)

(31)

(32)

(37)

(40)

Australia
Austria1
Belgium (Fl.)
Belgium (Fr.)
Canada
Chile
Czech Republic
Denmark2, 3
England2
Estonia
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Iceland
Ireland
Israel
Italy
Japan2
Korea
Luxembourg
Mexico
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Poland2
Portugal
Scotland
Slovak Republic
Slovenia
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Turkey
United States2

882
m
758
722
m
m
m
640
m
630
656
924
783
609
583
629
915
731
744
635
865
m
800
930
m
713
m
779
950
m
m
880
m
884
720
m

888
774
752
722
m
1128
813
640
m
630
677
924
808
604
583
671
915
731
739
578
883
774
800
930
m
741
m
765
893
m
627
880
m
m
720
m

868
779
752
732
799
1105
862
650
684
630
680
924
805
589
604
624
915
820
770
707
807
739
800
930
m
741
644
779
855
841
627
880
m
m
720
m

879
779
752
721
796
1129
827
662
722
619
677
924
800
569
601
624
915
840
752
736
667
810
800
930
922
741
629
747
855
832
627
880
a
m
720
m

811
m
677
662
m
m
650
640
m
630
570
648
732
426
555
629
735
579
608
557
570
m
1182
867
m
633
m
634
893
m
m
713
m
859
504
m

810
607
684
662
m
1128
647
640
m
630
592
648
758
434
555
671
735
579
605
505
621
642
1047
750
m
656
m
623
893
m
627
713
m
m
504
m

819
607
669
671
740
1105
647
650
703
630
595
648
756
415
604
624
735
598
630
602
627
634
1047
750
m
654
572
634
855
652
627
713
m
m
504
m

821
607
669
661
743
1129
620
662
745
619
592
648
752
415
601
624
735
644
616
608
557
739
1047
750
841
663
555
609
855
645
627
713
a
m
504
981

803
m
633
603
m
m
621
m
m
578
527
648
690
429
555
464
735
524
608
478
530
m
m
867
m
505
m
577
893
m
m
693
m
674
567
m

810
589
645
603
m
1128
617
m
m
578
550
648
714
430
555
560
735
524
605
429
605
642
848
750
m
524
m
567
893
m
570
693
m
m
567
m

803
589
625
610
744
1105
617
377
703
578
553
648
713
415
604
544
735
521
630
500
616
634
843
750
m
523
571
634
855
624
570
693
m
m
567
m

812
589
625
601
745
1129
592
369
745
568
550
648
715
415
597
544
735
570
616
513
549
739
838
750
760
523
551
609
855
617
570
693
a
m
504
m

OECD average
OECD average
for countries with
2000, 2005, 2010
and 2013 data

765

771

771

772

679

677

679

694

617

644

640

643

760

760

764

757

671

665

670

666

564

567

572

566

EU21 average for
countries with
2000, 2005, 2010
and 2013 data

677

674

676

671

626

622

624

619

604

599

604

598

Argentina
Brazil
China
Colombia
India
Indonesia
Latvia
Russian Federation2
Saudi Arabia
South Africa

m
m
m
m
m
m
882
m
m
m

m
m
m
1 000
m
m
882
615
m
m

m
m
m
1 000
m
m
882
615
m
m

m
m
m
1 000
m
m
825
561
m
m

m
m
m
m
m
m
882
m
m
m

m
m
m
1 200
m
m
882
507
m
m

m
m
m
1 200
m
m
882
507
m
m

m
m
m
1 200
m
m
825
483
m
m

m
m
m
m
m
m
882
m
m
m

m
m
m
1 200
m
m
882
507
m
m

m
m
m
1 200
m
m
882
507
m
m

m
m
m
1 200
m
m
990
483
m
m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

G20 average

Notes: Data on years 2000 to 2013 for pre-primary education (i.e. columns 1-10) are available for consultation on line. Data on years 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2011
and 2012 for primary education, lower secondary education and upper secondary education (i.e. columns 13-16; 18-19; 23-26; 28-29; 33-36; 38-39) are available for
consultation on line (see StatLink below).
1. Figures for the pre-primary level refer to primary teachers (in primary schools only) teaching pre-primary classes.
2. Actual teaching time.
3. Year of reference 2011 instead of 2012 and 2013 for upper secondary education.
Source: OECD. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/education/education-at-a-glance-19991487.htm).
Please refer to the Reader’s Guide for information concerning symbols for missing data and abbreviations.
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933286263

Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

459

D4

WHO ARE THE TEACHERS?
• On average across OECD countries, 30% of primary school teachers were at least 50 years old in 2013.
The average increases to 34% at the lower secondary level and to 38% at the upper secondary level.

• More than two out of three teachers and academic staff are women, on average across OECD countries;

INDICATOR D5

but the percentage of female teachers decreases as the level of education increases: 96% at the
pre-primary level, 82% at the primary level, 68% at the lower secondary level, 58% at the upper
secondary level, and 42% at the tertiary level.

• On average, 83% of teachers have moderate or good skills in using information and communication
technologies (ICT) to solve problems.

Chart D5.1. Age distribution of teachers in primary education (2013)
Distribution of teachers in educational institutions, by age group
30-39 year-olds

< 30 year-olds

40-49 year-olds

≥ 50 year-olds

Turkey
Brazil
Korea
United Kingdom
China
Luxembourg
Israel
Belgium
Ireland1
Poland
France
Canada2, 3
Slovak Republic
Slovenia
Chile
Finland
Indonesia
OECD average
Czech Republic
United States
Japan
EU21 average
Spain
Norway
Hungary4
Portugal
Switzerland
Iceland
Latvia
Netherlands1
Austria
Estonia
Colombia
Sweden
New Zealand
Germany
Greece
Italy
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100 %

1. Public institutions only.
2. Year of reference 2012.
3. Primary includes pre-primary and lower secondary.
4. Includes data on management personnel.
Countries are ranked in ascending order of the percentage of teachers aged 50 years or older at the primary level.
Source: OECD. Table D5.1. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/education/education-at-a-glance-19991487.htm).
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933284530

Context
The demand for teachers depends on a range of factors, including the age structure of the school-age
population, average class size, the required instruction time for students, the use of teaching assistants
and other “non-classroom” staff in schools, enrolment rates at the different levels of education, and
starting and ending age of compulsory education. With large proportions of teachers in several OECD
countries set to reach retirement age in the next decade, and/or the projected increase in the size of

460 Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

the school-age population, governments will be under pressure to recruit and train new teachers.
Given compelling evidence that the calibre of teachers is the most significant in-school determinant of
student achievement, concerted efforts must be made to attract top talent to the teaching profession
and to provide high-quality training (Hiebert and Stigler, 1999; OECD, 2005).
Teacher-retention policies need to promote work environments that encourage effective teachers to
continue teaching. In addition, as teaching at the pre-primary, primary and lower secondary levels
remains largely dominated by women, this gender imbalance in the teaching profession and its impact
on student learning warrant detailed study.

INDICATOR D5

Other findings

• In nearly all countries except Finland, Latvia and the Russian Federation, most teachers at the
tertiary level are men.

• The United Kingdom has the largest proportion (29%) of primary teachers under the age of 30 of
all countries with available data. By contrast, Greece and Italy have almost no primary teachers in
that age group.

• Teachers in Korea use their ICT skills at work more than adults in any other country or subnational entity that participated in the Survey of Adult Skills, a product of the OECD Programme
for the International Assessment of Adult Competencies (PIAAC). Korea also has one of the largest
proportions of teachers with good skills in using ICT to solve problems.
Trends
Between 2005 and 2013, the proportion of secondary teachers aged 50 or older climbed by 3 percentage
points, on average among countries with comparable data. The increase is 10 percentage points or more
in Greece, Korea, Portugal and Slovenia; Austria saw a 19 percentage-point increase in this proportion
during the period. In countries that stand to lose a significant number of teachers through retirement
and whose school-age population is expected to remain the same or grow, governments will have
to boost the appeal of teaching to upper secondary and tertiary students, expand teacher-training
programmes and, if necessary, provide alternate routes to certification for mid-career professionals
intent on changing careers. Fiscal constraints – particularly those driven by pension obligations
and health-care costs for retirees – are likely to result in greater pressure on governments to reduce
academic offerings, increase class size, integrate more self-paced, online learning, or implement some
combination of these measures (Abrams, 2011; Peterson, 2010).

Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

461

chapter D THE LEARNING ENVIRONMENT AND ORGANISATION OF SCHOOLS

Analysis

D5

Age distribution of teachers
The age distribution of teachers varies considerably across countries and can be affected by a variety of factors,
such as the size and age distribution of the population, the duration of tertiary education, or teachers’ salaries
and working conditions. Declining birth rates, for example, may drive down the demand for new teachers; longer
tertiary education can delay the entrance of teachers to the labour market. Competitive salaries and good working
conditions may, in some countries, attract young people to teaching and, in others, help to retain effective teachers.
The age distribution of teachers is similar for the primary and secondary levels of education: about 82% of teachers
are aged between 30 and 59. At the primary level, 30% of school teachers are at least 50 years old, on average across
OECD countries. The proportion exceeds 40% in Germany, Greece and Italy. At the other end of the spectrum, in
most countries with available data, only 15% or less of primary teachers are under the age of 30. Only in Belgium,
Chile, China, Korea, Luxembourg, Turkey and the United Kingdom does the proportion of primary teachers under
the age of 30 equal or exceed 20% (Chart D5.1).

Chart D5.2. Age distribution of teachers in upper secondary education (2013)
Distribution of teachers in educational institutions, by age group
30-39 year-olds

< 30 year-olds

40-49 year-olds

≥ 50 year-olds

China
Indonesia
Brazil
Canada1
Korea
Portugal2
United Kingdom
Ireland3, 4
Poland
Luxembourg
Chile
Belgium
Hungary5
United States
Japan2
Slovenia
Spain
Israel4
France
OECD average
EU21 average
Colombia
Slovak Republic
Greece
Switzerland2
Austria
Sweden
Finland
New Zealand
Germany
Czech Republic
Norway2
Latvia
Estonia2
Netherlands4
Italy
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

1. Year of reference 2012.
2. Upper secondary includes programmes from post-secondary non-tertiary.
3. Upper secondary includes lower secondary.
4. Public institutions only.
5. Includes data on management personnel.
Countries are ranked in ascending order of the percentage of teachers aged 50 years or older at the secondary level.
Source: OECD. Table D5.1. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/education/education-at-a-glance-19991487.htm).
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933284546

462 Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

70

80

90

100 %

Who are the teachers? – INDICATOR D5

chapter D

At the lower secondary level, on average across OECD countries, 34% of teachers are at least 50 years old, of which
7% are 60 or older. The proportion of lower secondary teachers aged 60 or older varies from 1% or less in China,
Indonesia, Japan, Korea and Turkey, to 19% in Estonia and Italy. At the upper secondary level, the proportion of
teachers aged 50 or older is 4 percentage points larger than it is in lower secondary education, on average across
OECD countries. Only in Brazil (52%) and China (66%) are most upper secondary teachers below the age of 40.
The ageing of the teaching force has a number of implications for countries’ education systems. In addition to
prompting recruitment and training efforts to replace retiring teachers, it may also affect budgetary decisions.
In most school systems, there is a positive link between teachers’ salaries and years of teaching experience. Thus,
the ageing of teachers increases school costs, which, in turn, can limit the resources available to implement other
initiatives (see Indicator D3).
Gender profile of teachers
On average across OECD countries, more than two out of three teachers in all levels of education combined are
women. The highest proportions of female teachers, however, are concentrated in the earlier years of schooling and
shrink at each successive level of education. Indeed, women represent only 42% of the teaching staff at the tertiary
level, on average across OECD countries.
In 33 of the 36 OECD and G20 countries with available data, 93% or more of pre-primary teachers are women.
The exceptions are France, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom where 83%, 87% and 90% of pre-primary
teachers, respectively, are women. In primary education, women occupy 82% of teaching positions, on average across
OECD countries. This percentage varies widely, however, from 58% in Turkey to 99% in the Russian Federation
(Chart D5.3).
Even though female teachers are still the majority in lower and upper secondary education, the proportion of male
teachers is larger at these levels than at the pre-primary and primary levels. On average across OECD countries, 68%
of teachers are women in lower secondary education. Indeed, female teachers comprise over half of the teaching
staff at that level in all but one country with available data, Japan, where women represent 42% of the teaching
staff. At the upper secondary level, the OECD average drops to 58%, and the proportion of female teachers varies
considerably from 28% in Japan to 81% in Latvia.

Chart D5.3. Gender distribution of teachers (2013)
Percentage of women among teaching staff in public and private institutions, by level of education
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0

Pre-primary

Primary

Lower secondary

Upper secondary

All tertiary

Latvia
Russian Federation
Estonia1
Iceland
Israel2
Slovenia
Italy
Hungary3
Sweden
Slovak Republic
Norway1
Czech Republic
Poland
Finland
Austria
Portugal1
Denmark1
Brazil
EU21 average
Korea
Chile
OECD average
United States1
Greece
Germany
New Zealand
France1
Belgium
United Kingdom
Spain
Luxembourg
Colombia
Switzerland1
Indonesia
Mexico
Turkey
China
Netherlands2
Japan1
Canada1, 4
Ireland1, 2

%

1. Some levels of education are included with others. Please refer to “x” code in Table D5.3 for details.
2. Public institutions only. For the Netherlands, private data are available and included for pre-primary education. For Israel, public institutions only for pre-primary and
upper secondary education.
3. Includes data on management personnel.
4. Year of reference 2012.
Countries are ranked in descending order of the percentage of female teachers at the lower secondary level.
Source: OECD. Table D5.3. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/education/education-at-a-glance-19991487.htm).
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933284558

Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

463

D5

chapter D THE LEARNING ENVIRONMENT AND ORGANISATION OF SCHOOLS

At the tertiary level, the gender profile of teachers is reversed. Male teachers represent 58% of the teaching staff at
that level, on average across OECD countries. As at the lower and upper secondary levels, Japan has the smallest
share of female teachers at the tertiary level – 25%. Of the 26 OECD countries with available data, only one –
Finland – has a larger share of female teachers (51%) than male teachers at this level.

D5

The potential impact of gender imbalance in the teaching profession on student achievement, student motivation and
teacher retention is worthy of study, especially in countries where few men are attracted to the profession (Drudy, 2008;
OECD, 2005; 2009). There is little evidence that a teacher’s gender has an impact on student performance (e.g. Antecol,
Eren and Ozbeklik, 2012; Holmlund and Sund, 2008), but some research has shown that female teachers’ attitudes
towards school subjects, such as mathematics, can influence their female students’ achievement (Beilock et al., 2009;
OECD, 2014a).
In addition, school leadership does not reflect the gender balance among teachers (OECD, 2014a). While the
proportion of male teachers in primary schools is relatively small in many countries, there is an over-representation
of male principals, relative to male teachers, especially at that level of education. This suggests that male teachers
tend to be promoted to principal positions more often than female teachers – which is surprising, given that most
principals are former teachers, and most teachers are female.
Change in the age distribution of teachers between 2005 and 2013
The average annual growth rate between 2005 and 2013 in the proportion of secondary teachers aged 50 or older
varied considerably among countries. In Austria, Korea, Portugal and Slovenia, it was more than 4%. The proportion
of secondary teachers aged 50 or older increased the most in Korea, by an average of 8.5% per year. In France,
Germany, Ireland, Luxembourg and the United Kingdom, the proportion of secondary teachers aged 50 or older
decreased by an average of 1% or more per year during the period (Table D5.2).
In all countries, changes in the number of teachers should be balanced against changes in the school-age population. In
countries with an increase in the school-age population over the period (see Indicator C1), new teachers will be needed
to compensate for the significant number of staff hired in the late 1960s and 1970s who will reach retirement age over
the next decade. Teacher-training programmes will likely have to grow in these countries, and incentives for students
to enter the teaching profession may have to increase (see Indicator D6 in Education at a Glance [OECD, 2014b]).
Skills and readiness to use information and communication technologies for problem solving
The 2012 Survey of Adult Skills, a product of the OECD Programme for the International Assessment of Adult
Competencies (PIAAC), measured problem-solving skills in technology-rich environments and estimated the
frequency with which adults use those skills at work and at home. Greater proficiency in problem solving in
technology-rich environments reflects both better problem-solving skills and better skills in using digital technology,
communication tools and networks to acquire and evaluate information, communicate with others and perform
practical tasks (PIAAC Expert Group in Problem Solving in Technology-Rich Environments, 2009).
The information gathered through the Survey of Adult Skills allows for the creation of an indicator that measures
skills and readiness to use ICT for problem solving. This indicator combines data about performance in the problemsolving assessment and information about why some adults did not participate in the computer-based assessment
and thus do not have a score in problem solving (see the Definitions section at the end of this chapter).
Teachers’ skills
Based on data drawn from the Survey of Adult Skills, Chart D5.4 shows that, on average, 47% of teachers (defined
as those who teach both pre-primary and primary school, primary teachers and secondary teachers) have good
ICT and problem-solving skills (Group 4). This proportion ranges from 64% in Korea and 62% in England/
Northern Ireland (UK) to less than 30% in the Russian Federation (29%), Estonia (27%) and Poland (25%). On
average across participating countries and sub-national entities, 83% of teachers have moderate or good ICT and
problem-solving skills (Table D5.4a).
Teachers’ use of information and communication technologies at work
In the Survey of Adult Skills, respondents were asked if they had the computer skills needed to do their job. In all
national and sub-national entities that participated in the survey, 87% of teachers replied that they did. In the
Czech Republic (99%) and Korea (97%) more than 95% of teachers replied affirmatively. In general, the use of
ICT skills at work is around the average (index value of 1.9) in the Czech Republic, while it is the highest recorded
(index value of 2.5) in Korea. By contrast, much lower percentages of teachers in Japan (63%) and Norway (72%)
reported that they had the computer skills needed to do their job (Table D5.4b).

464 Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

Who are the teachers? – INDICATOR D5

chapter D

Chart D5.4. Teachers’ skills and readiness to use information
and communication technologies for problem solving (2012)

Survey of Adult Skills, teachers who teach both pre-primary and primary school,
primary teachers and secondary teachers, 25-64 year-olds

Poland

Russian Federation*

Estonia

D5

Ireland

Slovak Republic

Austria

Denmark

Flanders (Belgium)

Average

Germany

United States

Norway

Canada

Netherlands

Sweden

Czech Republic

England/
N. Ireland (UK)

Korea

%

100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0

Japan

Group 4 (Good ICT and problem-solving skills)
Group 3 (Moderate ICT and problem-solving skills)
Group 2 (Failed ICT core test or minimal problem-solving skills)
Group 1 (Refused the computer-based assessment)
Group 0 (No computer experience)

Notes: Teachers who teach both pre-primary and primary school, primary teachers and secondary teachers refer to teachers who were currently working as teachers at the
moment of the survey. The bars may not add up to 100% because of the presence categories for which there are too few observations to provide reliable estimates.
* See note on data for the Russian Federation in the Methodology section.
Countries are ranked in descending order of the percentage of teachers with good ICT and problem-solving skills (Group 4).
Source: OECD. Table D5.4a. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/education/education-at-a-glance-19991487.htm).
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933284562

Chart D5.5. Relationship between teachers’ use of information
and communication technologies skills at work and proficiency in those skills (2012)
Survey of Adult Skills, teachers who teach both pre-primary and primary school,
primary teachers and secondary teachers, 25-64 year-olds
Index of use of ICT skills at work

2.6
Korea

2.4

R2 = 0.3951

United States

2.2

Estonia

2.0

Russian
Slovak
Federation* Republic

1.8

Sweden

Flanders Average
(Belgium)
Norway

Austria

Poland

1.6

England/N. Ireland (UK)

Canada

Ireland

Denmark

Germany

Czech Republic
Netherlands

Japan

1.4
1.2
1.0
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Proportion of teachers with good ICT
and problem-solving skills
Notes: Teachers who teach both pre-primary and primary school, primary teachers and secondary teachers refer to teachers who were currently working as teachers at the
moment of the survey. The index of use of ICT indicates the frequency of use of ICT skills at work. The higher the index, the more frequent the use of ICT skills at work.
See the Definitions section.
* See note on data for the Russian Federation in the Methodology section.
Source: OECD. Tables D5.4a and D5.4b. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/education/education-at-a-glance-19991487.htm).
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933284572

Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

465

chapter D THE LEARNING ENVIRONMENT AND ORGANISATION OF SCHOOLS

Respondents were also asked about the level of ICT skills required at work. On average, 73% reported that
moderate or complex ICT skills were required. These percentages ranged from below 55% in Poland (50%) and the
Russian Federation (51%) to 85% or more in Korea (85%), the Netherlands (87%), Japan (88%) and Estonia (89%).
Only 1% to 7% of teachers reported that complex ICT skills are required at work; the vast majority of teachers
reported that moderate ICT skills are required (Table D5.4b).

D5

Chart D5.5 shows the positive relationship between teachers’ use of ICT skills at work and the percentage of teachers
with good ICT and problem-solving skills (Group 4). The proportion of teachers with good ICT and problem-solving
skills (Group 4) tends to increase as teachers use those skills more at work. For example, in Poland 21% of teachers
have good ICT and problem-solving skills (Group 4) and they use those skills at work less than the average (1.6 on
the index of skills use at work, while the average is 1.9). By contrast, in Korea, 64% of teachers have good ICT and
problem-solving skills (Group 4) and use their skills at work far more than the average (index value of 2.5) – the
highest values among all countries and sub-national entities that participated in the survey. Estonia and Japan
are the two outliers in this chart. Teachers in Estonia use ICT skills frequently at work (index value of 2.1), yet a
relatively small proportion of teachers (27%) have good ICT and problem-solving skills, while the reverse is observed
in Japan, where teachers use of ICT skills at work is below average (index value of 1.6) while a majority of teachers
(55%) has good ICT and problem-solving skills (Tables D5.4a and D5.4b).

Definitions
ICT Skills required at work refers to the use of computers needed at work. Four levels of use are identified: “ICT
skills not required at work” corresponds to individuals who reported they do not use a computer in their job;
“Straightforward” indicates using a computer for routine tasks, such as data entry or sending and receiving e-mails;
“Moderate” indicates using a computer for word-processing, spreadsheets or database management; and “Complex”
indicates developing software or modifying computer games, programming using languages like java, sql, php or
perl, or maintaining a computer network.
Index of use of ICT skills at work indicates the frequency of use of ICT skills at work. The higher the value on the
index, the more frequent the use of ICT skills at work. The variable was derived from several questions from the
background questionnaire of the Survey of Adult Skills, and has been transformed so that it has a mean of 2 and a
standard deviation of 1 across the pooled sample of all participating countries. For more details, see page 143 of the
OECD Skills Outlook 2013: First Results from the Survey of Adult Skills (OECD, 2013).
ISCED type of final qualification refers to the type of education qualification that a new teacher would be required
to have to teach primary, lower secondary or upper secondary school (general programmes) in the public sector.
Skill groups refer to skills and readiness to use information and communication technologies (ICT) for problem
solving in technology-rich environments. Each group is described in terms of the characteristics of the types of
tasks that can be successfully completed by adults and the related scores in the assessment of problem solving in
technology-rich environments in the Survey of Adult Skills.
• Group 0 (no computer experience)
• Group 1 (refused the computer-based assessment )
• Group 2 (failed ICT core stage 1 or minimal problem-solving skills – scored below Level 1 in the problem solving
in technology-rich environments assessment)
• Group 3 (moderate ICT and problem-solving skills – scored at Level 1 in the problem solving in technology-rich
environments assessment)
• Group 4 (good ICT and problem-solving skills – scored at Level 2 or Level 3 in the problem solving in technologyrich environments assessment)

Methodology
Data refer to the academic year 2012/13 and are based on the UOE data collection on education statistics administered
by the OECD in 2013 (for details, see Annex 3 at www.oecd.org/education/education-at-a-glance-19991487.htm).
Data on teachers by age for 2005 may have been revised in 2015 to ensure consistency with 2013 data.
Data on skills and readiness to use ICT for problem solving are based on data from the Survey of Adult Skills (PIAAC)
(2012), which was not specifically designed for teachers. The sample is smaller than in other indicators that use
the whole population, explaining why standard errors are slightly higher than usual. Data should, therefore, be
interpreted with caution. PIAAC is the OECD Programme for the International Assessment of Adult Competencies.

466 Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

Who are the teachers? – INDICATOR D5

chapter D

Note regarding data from Israel
The statistical data for Israel are supplied by and are under the responsibility of the relevant Israeli authorities. The use of
such data by the OECD is without prejudice to the status of the Golan Heights, East Jerusalem and Israeli settlements in the
West Bank under the terms of international law.
Note regarding data from the Russian Federation in the Survey of Adult Skills (PIAAC)
Readers should note that the sample for the Russian Federation does not include the population of the Moscow municipal
area. The data published, therefore, do not represent the entire resident population aged 16-65 in Russia but rather the
population of Russia excluding the population residing in the Moscow municipal area. More detailed information regarding
the data from the Russian Federation as well as that of other countries can be found in the Technical Report of the Survey
of Adult Skills (OECD, 2014c).

References
Abrams, S.E. (2011), “Technology in Moderation”, The Teachers College Record, www.tcrecord.org/content.asp? contentid=16584.
Antecol, H., O. Eren and S. Ozbeklik (2012), “The Effect of Teacher Gender on Student Achievement in Primary School: Evidence
from a Randomized Experiment”, IZA Discussion Paper, No. 6453, http://ftp.iza.org/dp6453.pdf.
Beilock, S.L. et al. (2009), “Female Teachers’ Math Anxiety Affects Girls’ Math Achievement”, Proceedings of the National
Academy of Science of the United States of America-PNAS, Vol. 107/5, pp .1860-1863.
Drudy, S. (2008), “Gender Balance/Gender Bias: The Teaching Profession and the Impact of Feminisation”, Gender and Education,
Vol. 20/4, pp. 309-323.
Hiebert, J. and J. Stigler (1999), The Teaching Gap: Best Ideas from the World’s Teachers for Improving Education in the Classroom,
Free Press, New York.
Holmlund, H. and K. Sund (2008), “Is the Gender Gap in School Performance Affected by the Sex of the Teacher?”, Labour
Economics, Vol. 15, pp. 37-53.
OECD (2014a), TALIS 2013 Results: An International Perspective on Teaching and Learning, OECD Publishing, Paris, http://dx.doi.
org/10.1787/9789264196261-en.
OECD (2014b), Education at a Glance 2014: OECD Indicators, OECD Publishing, Paris, http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/eag-2014-en.
OECD (2014c), Technical Report of the Survey of Adult Skills, www.oecd.org/site/piaac/_Technical%20Report_17OCT13.pdf,
pre-publication copy.
OECD (2013), OECD Skills Outlook 2013: First Results from the Survey of Adult Skills, OECD Publishing, Paris, http://dx.doi.
org/10.1787/9789264204256-en.
OECD (2009), Creating Effective Teaching and Learning Environments: First Results from TALIS, OECD Publishing, Paris, http://
dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264068780-en.
OECD (2005), Teachers Matter: Attracting, Developing and Retaining Effective Teachers, Education and Training Policy, OECD
Publishing, Paris, http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264018044-en.
Peterson, P. (2010), Saving Schools: From Horace Mann to Virtual Learning, Harvard University Press, Cambridge.
PIAAC Expert Group in Problem Solving in Technology-Rich Environments (2009), “PIAAC problem solving in technologyrich environments: a conceptual framework”, OECD Education Working Papers, No. 36, OECD Publishing, Paris, http://dx.doi.
org/10.1787/220262483674.

Indicator D5 Tables
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933286275

Table D5.1

Age distribution of teachers (2013)

Table D5.2

Age distribution of teachers (2005, 2013)

Table D5.3

Gender distribution of teachers (2013)

Table D5.4a Teachers’ skills and readiness to use information and communication technologies for problem solving
(2012)
Table D5.4b Teachers’ use of information and communication technologies at work, ICT skills required at work,
and teachers’ confidence in their computer skills (2012)
Cut-off date for the data: 23 October 2015. Updates can be found on line at http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/eag-data-en.

Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

467

D5

chapter D THE LEARNING ENVIRONMENT AND ORGANISATION OF SCHOOLS

Table D5.1. Age distribution of teachers (2013)
Percentage of teachers in public and private institutions, by level of education and age group, based on head counts

Partners

D5

OECD

Primary

Australia
Austria
Belgium
Canada1, 2
Chile
Czech Republic
Denmark
Estonia3
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary4
Iceland
Ireland5
Israel5
Italy
Japan3
Korea
Luxembourg
Mexico
Netherlands5
New Zealand
Norway3
Poland
Portugal3
Slovak Republic
Slovenia
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland3
Turkey
United Kingdom
United States

Lower secondary

Upper secondary

< 30
years

30-39
years

40-49
years

50-59
years

>= 60
years

< 30
years

30-39
years

40-49
years

50-59
years

>= 60
years

< 30
years

30-39
years

40-49
years

50-59
years

>= 60
years

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7)

(8)

(9)

(10)

(11)

(12)

(13)

(14)

(15)

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

12

20

31

34

3

7

17

27

45

4

6

20

32

37

5

23

30

25

21

1

18

28

25

26

3

15

27

26

28

3

13d

32d

29d

22d

5d

x(1)

x(2)

x(3)

x(4)

x(5)

13

32

29

22

5

22

30

20

20

7

21

28

19

21

9

20

29

20

22

9

9

22

38

27

4

9

25

35

27

5

6

21

28

35

10

x(6)

x(7)

x(8)

x(9)

x(10)

5d

30d

29d

25d

11d

m

m

m

m

m

9

20

33

27

11

8

17

26

31

19

8d

18d

24d

31d

19d

9

29

32

26

4

9

31

31

25

5

5

21

31

31

12

8

36

32

23

1

9

33

31

23

5

4

22

36

29

8

7

22

26

31

14

7

19

23

35

15

4

22

29

32

13

0

25

27

46

3

1

20

41

34

3

1

18

41

36

4

7

23

36

33

1

6

23

33

36

2

7

31

30

28

5

7

28

30

24

12

7

28

30

24

12

m

m

m

m

m

18

42

17

19

3

x(11)

x(12)

x(13)

x(14)

x(15)

8d

36d

27d

24d

5d

16

36

27

18

3

11

31

31

22

6

10

29

27

23

12

0

9

35

43

13

0

8

29

44

19

0

3

24

57

16

15

23

30

30

1

13

25

34

26

1

9d

24d

33d

30d

4d

21

39

24

13

2

13

33

32

22

1

12

32

28

27

1

25

33

23

18

1

22

39

22

15

2

11

30

30

25

4

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

18

26

20

29

8

14

23

21

31

11

9

18

22

37

14

12

23

26

27

13

11

23

24

28

14

10

22

25

29

15

12

28

27

21

12

12

28

27

21

12

6d

20d

28d

27d

18d

10

26

41

22

2

10

36

33

20

2

8

33

30

23

7

2

31

33

31

3

1

25

41

30

3

3d

30d

38d

25d

3d

9

30

34

23

4

14

28

22

29

7

10

25

25

32

9

7

31

35

27

1

6

34

28

30

2

4

24

38

28

6

10

33

25

28

5

3

26

37

29

5

3

26

37

30

5

6

25

29

24

15

6

25

29

24

16

6

23

27

27

17

16

25

24

29

6

11

28

25

28

8

6d

23d

30d

31d

10d

24

37

27

11

1

35

41

16

7

0

m

m

m

m

m

29

32

23

13

3

22

33

24

18

4

17

29

25

21

7

15

29

25

24

8

17

29

25

22

8

14

27

26

23

10

OECD average

13

28

28

25

5

11

27

28

27

7

8

25

29

29

9

EU21 average

11

27

30

27

5

9

26

29

29

7

7

24

30

31

9
m

Argentina
Brazil
China
Colombia
India
Indonesia
Latvia
Russian Federation
Saudi Arabia
South Africa
G20 average

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

17

36

33

13

2

18

35

30

15

3

18

34

30

16

3

21

35

27

17

0

22

42

28

8

0

26

40

28

6

0

6

21

34

30

9

5

24

32

30

9

5

24

32

29

9

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

19

25

26

30

0

14

26

41

19

0

14

32

36

18

0

9

21

34

28

8

6

18

32

34

10

7

17

29

33

13

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

16

29

28

23

4

16

30

28

22

5

12

27

30

25

6

1. Year of reference 2012.
2. Primary includes pre-primary.
3. Upper secondary includes programmes from post-secondary non-tertiary.
4. Includes data on management personnel.
5. Public institutions only. For Israel, public institutions only for upper secondary education.
Source: OECD. Argentina, China, Colombia, India, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia, South Africa: UNESCO Institute for Statistics. Latvia: Eurostat. See Annex 3 for notes
(www.oecd.org/education/education-at-a-glance-19991487.htm).
Please refer to the Reader’s Guide for information concerning symbols for missing data and abbreviations.
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933286280

468 Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

chapter D

Who are the teachers? – INDICATOR D5

Table D5.2. Age distribution of teachers (2005, 2013)
Percentage of teachers in public and private institutions, by level of education and age group, based on head counts

Partners

OECD

Secondary (2013)

Percentage of teachers
aged 50 years or older

Secondary (2005)

< 30
years

30-39
years

40-49
years

50-59
years

>= 60
years

< 30
years

30-39
years

40-49
years

50-59
years

>= 60
years

Average annual growth rate
(2005-2013)

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7)

(8)

(9)

(10)

(11)

Australia
Austria
Belgium
Canada1
Chile
Czech Republic
Denmark
Estonia2
Finland
France
Germany3
Greece
Hungary4
Iceland5
Ireland6
Israel6
Italy
Japan2, 7
Korea
Luxembourg8
Mexico
Netherlands6, 8
New Zealand
Norway2
Poland
Portugal2
Slovak Republic
Slovenia
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland2
Turkey
United Kingdom
United States

m
7
17
13
21
7
m
8d
7
6
6
1
6
m
8
10
0
11d
13
15
m
12
10
9d
9
2d
12
5
3
6
9d
35
19
16

m
18
28
32
29
23
m
17d
25
28
20
19
27
m
36
30
5
24d
32
33
m
21
22
24d
34
28d
27
29
26
24
26d
41
30
28

m
30
26
29
20
31
m
25d
31
34
25
41
31
m
27
28
26
34d
30
27
m
21
25
27d
31
39d
23
33
37
28
27d
16
25
25

m
41
28
22
22
31
m
31d
28
26
34
35
32
m
24
23
51
28d
24
22
m
34
28
25d
21
27d
30
29
29
26
29d
7
20
23

m
4
3
5
9
8
m
19d
9
7
14
4
3
m
5
10
18
3d
1
3
m
12
15
15d
5
3d
8
4
5
16
9d
0
6
9

m
7
17
m
12
m
m
m
8
12
3
6
15
11d
11
10
0
9
17
18
m
10
14
m
16
16
16
11
8
10
13
m
15
17

m
22
23
m
25
m
m
m
25
29
18
24
26
27d
25
29
6
28
30
25
m
17
21
m
33
35
21
33
32
24
24
m
24
26

m
45
31
m
30
m
m
m
30
24
26
41
30
30d
27
30
32
40
40
26
m
31
29
m
29
31
25
34
35
24
30
m
28
23

m
25
27
m
25
m
m
m
32
34
44
27
24
25d
29
26
55
21
12
29
m
37
29
m
19
16
30
20
21
30
28
m
31
26

m
1
2
m
7
m
m
m
5
1
9
2
4
8d
7
5
8
2
1
2
m
5
8
m
3
2
7
2
4
13
5
m
2
8

m
7.2
0.2
m
-0.8
m
m
m
0.1
-1.0
-1.0
3.8
2.6
m
-2.8
0.6
1.3
3.7
8.5
-2.6
m
1.1
2.0
m
2.1
6.2
0.1
5.0
3.8
-0.3
1.7
m
-2.9
-0.8

OECD average
Average for countries
with available data for
both reference years
EU21 average

10

26

28

28

8

12

25

31

27

5

~

9

26

29

28

7

12

25

30

28

5

1.5

8

25

30

30

8

11

25

30

29

4

~

Argentina
Brazil
China
Colombia
India
Indonesia
Latvia
Russian Federation
Saudi Arabia
South Africa

m
18
24
5
m
14
7
m
m
m

m
34
41
24
m
29
18
m
m
m

m
30
28
32
m
39
30
m
m
m

m
15
7
30
m
18
34
m
m
m

m
3
0
9
m
0
12
m
m
m

m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m

m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m

m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m

m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m

m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m

m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m

G20 average

15

29

28

23

5

m

m

m

m

m

m

D5

1. Year of reference 2012.
2. Upper secondary includes programmes from post-secondary non-tertiary.
3. Year of reference 2006 instead of 2005.
4. Includes data on management personnel.
5. Secondary includes primary education.
6. Public institutions only. For Israel, public institutions only for upper secondary education.
7. Year of reference 2004 instead of 2005.
8. Secondary in 2005 only includes upper secondary education.
Source: OECD. Argentina, China, Colombia, India, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia, South Africa: UNESCO Institute for Statistics. Latvia: Eurostat. See Annex 3 for notes
(www.oecd.org/education/education-at-a-glance-19991487.htm).
Please refer to the Reader’s Guide for information concerning symbols for missing data and abbreviations.
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933286291

Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

469

chapter D THE LEARNING ENVIRONMENT AND ORGANISATION OF SCHOOLS

Table D5.3. Gender distribution of teachers (2013)
Percentage of women among teaching staff in public and private institutions by level of education, based on head counts
Tertiary

Primary

Vocational
programmes

All programmes

Postsecondary
nontertiary

Short-cycle
tertiary

Bachelor’s,
master’s,
doctoral or
equivalent level

All tertiary

Partners

OECD

D5

Lower
secondary

General
programmes

Upper secondary

All levels
of
education

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7)

(8)

(9)

(10)

(11)

m
91
82
73d
81
97
x(3)
92
79
83
86
70
96
82
86
85
96
65
79
76
67
86
83
75
85
79
90
97
76
77
82
58
87
87

m
72
63
x(2)
68
74
71d
82
72
65
66
66
78
82
x(4)
79
78
42
69
57
52
51
65
75
74
71
76
79
58
77
54
52
63
67

m
62
62
73d
57
59
m
78
69
56
54
54
68
m
71d
70d
74
m
50
57
48
51
60
x(6)
71
68d
74
70
55
52
45
45
63
57d

m
49
62
x(4)
50
59
m
64d
54
52
47
47
49
m
m
x(4)
62
m
43
45
45
51
54
x(6)
62
x(4)
71
64
47
54
42d
44
59
x(4)

m
54
62
73
55
59
m
72d
59
54
52
51
64
m
71d
70
67
28d
49
52
47
51
59
52d
66
68
72
67
52
53
43d
44
62
57

m
68
46
m
a
96
m
x(5)
53
x(10)
56
56
53
m
m
m
m
x(6, 10)
m
m
a
51
54
x(6)
65
x(4, 9)
67
a
m
43
x(5)
a
a
x(10)

m
53
x(10)
54
m
81
m
m
a
39d
43
a
50
m
x(9)
m
a
47d
43
m
m
(9)
49
x(6)
69
a
64
47
45
43
m
34
48
x(10)

44
40
x(10)
43
m
38
m
m
51
37d
38
33
37
m
44d
m
37
19d
32
m
m
43d
49
45
44
44d
44
38
40
44
33
43
44
x(10)

44
42
47
49
m
38
m
m
51
37d
38
33
39
m
44
m
37
25d
35
m
m
43
49
45
44
44d
45
40
41
44
33
42
44
49d

m
65
70
m
m
75
m
m
71
66
65
63
76
m
m
m
m
48
60
m
m
66
70
69
74
70
76
75
m
74
60
53
69
70

96

82

68

61

53

58

59

51

40

42

67

96

86

70

63

55

60

60

53

41

42

70

Argentina
Brazil
China
Colombia
India
Indonesia
Latvia
Russian Federation
Saudi Arabia
South Africa

m
96
97
96
m
95
99
99
m
m

m
90
60
77
m
62
93
99
m
m

m
70
51
54
m
53
84
83d
m
m

m
62
49
46d
m
52
85
x(3)
m
m

m
51
49
x(4)
m
49
70
x(7, 8)
m
m

m
60
49
46
m
51
81
x(3, 7, 8)
m
m

m
46
x(10)
64
m
a
70
63d
m
m

m
43
47d
x(9)
m
(9)
68
73d
m
m

m
45
44d
36d
m
39d
54
52
m
m

m
45
45d
36
m
39
56
58d
m
m

m
72
58
61
m
60
83
82
m
m

G20 average

95

78

62

57

50

53

55

47

40

42

64

Preprimary
education
(1)

Australia
Austria
Belgium
Canada1
Chile
Czech Republic
Denmark
Estonia2
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary3
Iceland
Ireland4
Israel4
Italy
Japan5
Korea
Luxembourg
Mexico
Netherlands4
New Zealand
Norway2
Poland
Portugal
Slovak Republic
Slovenia
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Turkey
United Kingdom
United States

m
99
97
x(2)
99
100
m
100d
97
83
97
99
100
94
m
99
98
97
99
97
96
87
98
93d
98
99
100
98
95
96
97
94
90
94

OECD average
EU21 average

Note: The data in “All levels of education” does not include early childhood educational development (ISCED 01).
1. Year of reference 2012.
2. Pre-primary includes early childhood education.
3. Includes data on management personnel.
4. Public institutions only. For the Netherlands, private data are available and included for pre-primary education. For Israel, public institutions only for pre-primary
and upper secondary education.
5. Upper secondary includes programmes from post-secondary non-tertiary.
Source: OECD. Argentina, China, Colombia, India, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia, South Africa: UNESCO Institute for Statistics. Latvia: Eurostat. See Annex 3 for notes
(www.oecd.org/education/education-at-a-glance-19991487.htm).
Please refer to the Reader’s Guide for information concerning symbols for missing data and abbreviations.
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933286309

470 Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

Who are the teachers? – INDICATOR D5

chapter D

Table D5.4a. Teachers’ skills and readiness to use information and communication technologies

for problem solving (2012)

Teachers who teach both pre-primary and primary school, primary teachers and secondary teachers, 25-64 year-olds

OECD

Group 0
(No computer
experience)

Group 1
(Refused
the computer-based
assessment)

Group 2
(Failed ICT core test
or minimal
problem-solving skills

Group 3
(Moderate ICT and
problem-solving skills)

Group 4
(Good ICT and
problem-solving skills)

%

S.E.

%

S.E.

%

S.E.

%

S.E.

%

S.E.

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7)

(8)

(9)

(10)

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

National entities

Australia
Austria

c

c

8

(2.7)

8

(2.9)

43

(5.6)

41

(5.7)

Canada

c

c

2

(1.2)

11

(3.0)

33

(4.7)

55

(5.2)

Czech Republic

c

c

4

(2.5)

5

(3.0)

32

(10.4)

59

(11.0)

Denmark

c

c

1

(0.5)

15

(2.7)

42

(4.1)

42

(4.1)

Estonia

c

c

17

(3.5)

18

(4.3)

38

(5.2)

27

(4.5)

Finland

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

France

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

Germany

c

c

c

c

16

(5.4)

34

(6.6)

48

(7.3)

Ireland

c

c

12

(2.9)

13

(3.6)

43

(5.5)

33

(5.7)

Italy

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

Japan

c

c

6

(3.0)

9

(4.1)

30

(7.4)

55

(7.5)

Korea

c

c

c

c

4

(2.9)

32

(8.3)

64

(8.3)

Netherlands

c

c

c

c

5

(2.6)

39

(6.7)

55

(7.0)
(4.5)

Norway

c

c

2

(0.8)

8

(2.6)

39

(4.1)

50

Poland

c

c

27

(5.0)

21

(4.4)

27

(5.3)

25

(5.1)

Slovak Republic

c

c

14

(4.8)

11

(4.4)

41

(8.6)

33

(7.8)

Spain

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

Sweden

c

c

5

(2.2)

11

(3.3)

27

(5.9)

57

(6.1)

United States

c

c

c

c

7

(3.8)

41

(7.9)

50

(7.3)

Flanders (Belgium)

c

c

c

c

17

(3.7)

38

(5.3)

44

(5.3)

England (UK)

c

c

c

c

6

(2.8)

31

(5.8)

63

(6.2)

Partners

Sub-national entities

Northern Ireland (UK)

c

c

c

c

6

(3.4)

36

(6.4)

57

(6.6)

England/N. Ireland (UK)

c

c

c

c

6

(2.7)

31

(5.6)

62

(5.9)

Average

m

m

m

m

11

(0.9)

36

(1.6)

47

(1.6)

Russian Federation*

2

(1.4)

12

(6.1)

23

(7.4)

33

(9.6)

29

(8.3)

Note: Teachers who teach both pre-primary and primary school, primary teachers and secondary teachers refer to teachers who were currently working as teachers
at the moment of the survey.
* See note on data for the Russian Federation in the Methodology section.
Source: OECD. Survey of Adult Skills (PIAAC) (2012). See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/education/education-at-a-glance-19991487.htm).
Please refer to the Reader’s Guide for information concerning symbols for missing data and abbreviations.
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933286310

Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

471

D5

chapter D THE LEARNING ENVIRONMENT AND ORGANISATION OF SCHOOLS

Table D5.4b. Teachers’ use of information and communication technologies at work,
ICT skills required at work, and teachers’ confidence in their computer skills (2012)
Teachers who teach both pre-primary and primary school, primary teachers and secondary teachers, 25-64 year-olds
Moderate or complex ICT skills
required at work2

I have the computer skills
needed to do my job

Index

S.E.

%

S.E.

%

S.E.

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

National entities

Australia

m

m

m

m

m

m

Austria

1.7

(0.1)

56

(4.5)

90

(3.0)

Canada

2.0

(0.1)

73

(3.3)

94

(2.0)

Czech Republic

1.9

(0.1)

72

(6.5)

99

(0.8)

Denmark

1.7

(0.0)

63

(3.3)

83

(2.1)

Estonia

2.1

(0.1)

89

(2.6)

86

(3.0)

Finland

m

m

m

m

m

m

France

m

m

m

m

m

m

Germany

1.6

(0.1)

66

(5.1)

93

(2.7)

Ireland

1.6

(0.1)

55

(4.2)

85

(3.3)

Italy

m

m

m

m

m

m

Japan

1.6

(0.1)

88

(4.0)

63

(6.4)

Korea

2.5

(0.1)

85

(4.4)

97

(2.0)

Netherlands

1.9

(0.1)

87

(3.8)

91

(3.0)

Norway

1.8

(0.0)

83

(2.6)

72

(2.7)

Poland

1.6

(0.1)

50

(5.2)

85

(3.5)

Slovak Republic

1.8

(0.1)

74

(4.9)

93

(3.4)

Spain

m

m

m

m

m

m

Sweden

1.9

(0.0)

70

(3.9)

91

(2.5)

United States

2.3

(0.1)

75

(5.3)

89

(4.5)

Flanders (Belgium)

1.8

(0.0)

80

(3.6)

88

(2.6)

England (UK)

2.2

(0.1)

79

(5.0)

89

(2.9)

Northern Ireland (UK)

2.2

(0.1)

85

(3.9)

94

(2.5)

England/N. Ireland (UK)

2.2

(0.1)

80

(4.8)

89

(2.8)

Average

1.9

(0.0)

73

(1.1)

87

(0.8)

Russian Federation*

1.9

(0.1)

51

(8.6)

88

(5.4)

Sub-national entities

Partners

D5

OECD

Index of use of ICT skills at work1

Note: Teachers who teach both pre-primary and primary school, primary teachers and secondary teachers refer to teachers who were currently working as teachers
at the moment of the survey.
* See note on data for the Russian Federation in the Methodology section.
1. The index of use of ICT indicates the frequency of use of ICT skills at work. The higher the index, the more frequent the use of ICT skills at work. See the Definitions
section.
2. Other categories are: “ICT skills not required at work” and “Straightforward ICT skills required at work”.
Source: OECD. Survey of Adult Skills (PIAAC) (2012). See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/education/education-at-a-glance-19991487.htm).
Please refer to the Reader’s Guide for information concerning symbols for missing data and abbreviations.
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933286328

472 Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

WHAT EVALUATION AND ASSESSMENT MECHANISMS
ARE IN PLACE?
• National examinations are most prevalent at the upper secondary level (31 countries), while national
assessments are more common at the primary (32 countries) and lower secondary (28 countries)
levels.

• Evaluation of schools is the area most frequently reported to be highly influenced by school

INDICATOR D6

inspection, in spite of the fact that school inspection practices vary considerably across countries.

• Although teacher appraisals are legislated in 30 countries, and school leader appraisals are legislated
in 22 countries, some countries with no such legislation use similar evaluation practices.

Chart D6.1. Evaluation and assessment mechanisms in public schools (2015)
In general programmes
Five or more subjects covered
Three or four subjects covered
One or two subjects covered
Existence
of national
examinations

Primary

Existence
of national
assessments1

Primary

Exist, but number of subjects covered is unavailable
No examination or no assessment

Lower
secondary
Upper
secondary

AUS
AUT
BFL
BFR
CAN
CHL
CZE
DNK
ENG
EST
FIN
FRA
DEU
GRC
HUN
ISL
IRL
ISR
ITA
JPN
KOR
LUX
MEX
NLD
NZL
NOR
POL
PRT
SCO
SVK
SVN
ESP
SWE
CHE
TUR
USA
BRA
COL
LVA

Lower
secondary
Upper
secondary

Once a year or more often
Once every two years or three years
Once every 3+ years
No requirement for the frequency of inspections or self-evaluations
School
inspections
required as part
of accountability
system

Primary

School selfevaluations
required as part
of accountability
system

Primary

Inspections or self-evaluations required, but frequency unknown
Have self-evaluations that are not part of accountability system
No required inspections or self-evaluations
Missing

Lower
secondary
Upper
secondary

AUS
AUT
BFL
BFR
CAN
CHL
CZE
DNK
ENG
EST
FIN
FRA
DEU
GRC
HUN
ISL
IRL
ISR
ITA
JPN
KOR
LUX
MEX
NLD
NZL
NOR
POL
PRT
SCO
SVK
SVN
ESP
SWE
CHE
TUR
USA
BRA
COL
LVA

Lower
secondary
Upper
secondary

Legislated
No appraisal, but have similar practices
Existence of
teacher appraisal

Primary

Existence of
school leader
apprraisal

Primary

No appraisal
Missing

Lower
secondary
Upper
secondary

AUS
AUT
BFL
BFR
CAN
CHL
CZE
DNK
ENG
EST
FIN
FRA
DEU
GRC
HUN
ISL
IRL
ISR
ITA
JPN
KOR
LUX
MEX
NLD
NZL
NOR
POL
PRT
SCO
SVK
SVN
ESP
SWE
CHE
TUR
USA
BRA
COL
LVA

Lower
secondary
Upper
secondary

1. Number of subjects covered in the assessment framework (subjects may be tested on a rotation basis).
Source: OECD. Tables D6.2a, b, and c, D6.6a, b, and c, D6.10a, b, and c, D6.12a, b, and c, D7.2 and D7.7, available on line. See Annex 3 for notes
(www.oecd.org/education/education-at-a-glance-19991487.htm).
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933284582

474 Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

Context
Initially, evaluations in the education sector focused on specific programmes. As the field of evaluation
developed, more and more components of the education system became targets for evaluation. Today,
evaluation in education, based on data that is systematically and regularly collected, encompasses
assessing the quality and effectiveness of programmes or projects, educators, including teachers and
school leaders, and schools, school districts and school systems.
In education systems, data for evaluations are collected in a variety of ways: through student
examinations and assessments, school inspections, school self-evaluations and reports of schools’
compliance with regional or national rules and regulations. Most countries use a combination of these
mechanisms, sometimes as part of a larger system of accountability.

INDICATOR D6

Other findings

• Three countries reported conducting national examinations at the primary level, 14 countries
reported conducting national examinations at the lower secondary level, and 31 countries reported
conducting such examinations at the upper secondary level.

• The two most common purposes for national examinations at the upper secondary level are to
determine student entry into tertiary education (27 countries) and for student certification,
graduation or grade completion (24 countries).

• Twenty-eight countries reported having national or central-level assessments at the lower
secondary level, while 11 countries reported that they had no national assessment at this level.
National assessments are more common at the primary level (32 countries), although the number
of subjects covered is larger at the lower secondary level.

• The two subjects most commonly covered in national assessments are reading, writing and
literature, and mathematics.

• The three main uses of national assessments at the lower secondary level are to provide teachers
with student diagnostic information (17 countries), to evaluate school performance (16 countries),
and to provide parents with formative feedback (14 countries).

• In 30 countries, school inspections are a component of lower secondary school accountability
systems.

• School self-evaluation is reported to be a component of accountability systems in 27 countries.
Seven countries reported that their schools engage in self-evaluations which are not part of the
formal accountability system.

• While it is common for countries to report that examinations, assessments, school inspections and
school self-evaluations play a significant role in evaluating school performance, these activities are
less commonly used to evaluate teachers and school administrators.
Trends
Between 2009 and 2015, there were only modest changes in the proportion of countries that reported
having national examinations at the primary and lower secondary levels, while more countries
reported using national examinations at the upper secondary level in 2015 than in 2009.
During the same period, there was a small increase in the number of countries that reported having
national assessments at the lower secondary level and only minor changes in the proportion of schools
that had national assessments at the primary and upper secondary levels.
The proportion of countries reporting that they require school inspections has not changed in recent
years, although there was a slight increase in the proportion of countries that reported that school
self-evaluations had become mandatory.

Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

475

chapter D THE LEARNING ENVIRONMENT AND ORGANISATION OF SCHOOLS

Analysis

D6

This Indicator presents data on the various mechanisms that countries may use for the evaluation and assessment
of their education system. It builds upon earlier work in Education at a Glance 2011 (OECD, 2011), Indicator D5,
which focused on accountability mechanisms. The scope of this Indicator was guided by the conceptual framework
elaborated in the OECD Reviews of Evaluation and Assessment in Education (OECD, 2013) and by the INES Network
for the Collection and Adjudication of System-Level Descriptive Information on Educational Structures, Policies
and Practices (NESLI), part of the OECD Indicators of Education Systems (INES) programme. Teacher appraisal
and school leader appraisal, which are discussed in Indicator D7, are also seen as activities that fit into the OECD
framework for evaluation and assessment.
National examinations
National/Central examinations, which apply to nearly all students, are standardised tests of what students are expected
to know or be able to do that have a formal consequence for students, such as an impact on a student’s eligibility to
progress to a higher level of education or to complete an officially recognised degree. National examinations are
most prevalent at the upper secondary level, while national assessments are most prevalent at the primary level
(see Chart D6.1). While the data collected for this Indicator covers primary, lower secondary and upper secondary
levels, the following discussion focuses on examinations at the upper secondary level.
Three out of 39 countries with available data reported having national examinations at the primary level, 14 countries
reported having national examinations at the lower secondary level, and 31 countries reported having national
examinations at the upper secondary level. Only eight countries reported that they had no national examination at
the upper secondary level.
Twenty-three countries reported that it is compulsory for public schools to participate in national examinations
at the upper secondary level, and 17 countries reported that government-dependent private schools are required
to participate in the examinations at that level. Twenty-four countries reported that 100% of all public schools
participate in national examinations, and five other countries reported that between 76% and 99% of schools
participate. Seventeen countries reported that all government-dependent private schools participate in national
examinations and another three countries reported that between 76% and 99% of their government-dependent
private schools participate. Even if it is not mandatory for schools and/or students to participate in national
examinations – for example in England, Finland and Poland – the vast majority of schools and students tend to do so
(Table D6.1c).
National examinations are standardised at various levels, although most (26 countries) are standardised at the
central level. In five countries examinations are standardised at the state level.
Most countries develop their examinations at the national level or, in the case of federations, at the state or provincial
level. England reported that private companies are involved in developing national examinations. By contrast, the
responsibility for grading examinations usually includes or lies at the intermediate or local level.
National examinations cover a wide array of subjects or subject areas. At the upper secondary level, the most
common exam subjects are reading, writing, and literature (all 30 countries with available data reported that
they test this subject); mathematics (29 countries; Belgium [French Community] is the only subnational entity
that does not test this subject); other languages (27 countries); natural sciences (26 countries); and social studies
(26 countries). Arts (17 countries), information and communication technology (ICT) and technology (14 countries
each) are also commonly covered. Religion (10 countries), physical education, and practical and vocational skills
(9 countries each), and other subjects (6 countries) are less common.
The number of subjects covered by national examinations ranges widely, from 9 to 12 subjects in Denmark, England,
France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Luxembourg, New Zealand, Scotland, the Slovak Republic and
Slovenia, to two or three in Austria, Belgium (French Community), the Czech Republic, Estonia and the United States
(Chart D6.1, Table D6.1c, and Table D6.2c, available on line).
Although all students are tested in reading, writing and literature in 22 of the 30 countries with available data, in six
of the remaining countries students can choose to be tested in these subjects, while in Norway, only a selection of
students are tested in these subjects. By contrast, 16 of the 26 countries that cover natural science in the examination
allow students to decide whether or not to take the test. In six countries, all students are tested, while in Denmark,
Italy and Norway, only selected students are tested. Twelve of 29 countries test all students in mathematics, while
12 countries give students a choice, and four countries test only selected students (Table D6.2c, available on line).

476 Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

What evaluation and assessment mechanisms are in place? – INDICATOR D6

chapter D

Chart D6.2. Main purposes and uses of national/central examinations and assessments (2015)
In general programmes
Yes

No

Missing

National/central examinations (upper secondary education)
Student entry to tertiary education
Student certification/graduation/grade completion

D6

Student access to selective tertiary institutions
Student selection for programme/faculty/discipline/
field/specialisation at tertiary level
Student promotion/entry to higher grade
Decisions about scholarships/financial assistance for students
Student expulsion from school
National/central assessments (lower secondary education)
To provide teachers with student diagnostic information
Other
To evaluate school performance
To provide formative feedback to parents
To actively engage students in their own learning process
To select or group students according to their achievement levels
To evaluate teacher performance
0

5

10

15

20

Purposes and decisions are ranked in descending order of the number of countries reporting that they use examinations/assessments for these.
Source: OECD. Tables D6.1c and D6.5b. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/education/education-at-a-glance-19991487.htm).
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933284598

25

30

35

Number of countries

National examinations at the upper secondary level are most often used to determine entry into tertiary education
(27 countries) and student certification, graduation or grade completion (24 countries) (Chart D6.2 and Table D6.1c).
Countries report results of national examinations in different ways. In many countries, results are not reported
in isolation. They often include some type of contextual information since school performance outcomes and
the characteristics of the student population are often correlated (OECD, 2013). This allows for comparisons
at aggregate levels or by the characteristics of schools and of the student population. Specifically, ten countries
indicate that results are context sensitive; in 27 countries, the results show the level of performance attained in the
most recent year; 16 countries compare results with other groups or populations of students. No country, with the
exception of Finland and the Slovak Republic (upper secondary level), indicated reporting the ranking of schools
when communicating results. In fact, in a few countries steps are taken by the government/education authorities
to prohibit or prevent the ranking of schools. However, 18 of 29 countries indicated that the media or other groups
report upper secondary school rankings (Table D6.1c, and Table D6.4, available on line).
Thirty countries reported that results from national examinations are shared directly with others (i.e. information
is received without having requested it) in addition to education authorities. “Others” include school administrators
(28 countries), classroom teachers (22 countries), parents (20 countries) and students (29 countries). Twenty-five
countries reported that they share results directly with the media and general public (Table D6.3, available on line).
Between 2009 and 2015, there were no significant changes in the number of countries that reported conducting
national examinations at the primary level (data from 2009 were reported in Education at a Glance 2011 [OECD, 2011]).
The French Community of Belgium reported that it established examinations at the lower secondary level in 2011,
but they did not become compulsory until 2013.
More countries reported that they conduct national examinations at the upper secondary level in 2015 than what was
reported for 2009 in Education at a Glance 2011 (OECD, 2011). National examinations were introduced at this level
in Austria in 2014/15 for general programmes, and in 2015/16, Austria will introduce examinations for vocational
Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

477

chapter D THE LEARNING ENVIRONMENT AND ORGANISATION OF SCHOOLS

programmes. The French Community of Belgium and the Czech Republic introduced examinations at this level in
2011. Spain and Turkey reported changes in their national examinations either because the examinations are now
considered compulsory for all schools or because the purpose of the examinations had changed (see Annex 3 for
more details).
National assessments

D6

Like national examinations, national assessments are based on standardised student achievement tests. However,
results from assessments do not have an impact on students’ progression through schooling or on certification.
Twenty-eight countries reported having national or central-level assessments at the lower secondary level, while
11 countries reported that they have no national assessments at this level. National assessments are more common
at the primary level (32 countries), although the number of subjects covered appears to be larger at the lower
secondary level. National assessments are less common in upper secondary school (13 countries) where national
examinations are more prevalent. The findings in this section focus on assessments at the lower secondary level
unless otherwise indicated.
In most countries that conduct national assessments, all schools are required to participate. Seventeen countries
reported that it is compulsory for all public schools to participate in national assessments; 14 countries reported
that all government-dependent private schools are required to participate. In a handful of countries, only a sampling
of schools was required to participate. Seven countries sample public schools and five countries sample governmentdependent private schools. In Finland and the United States, national sample-based assessments are used to allow
central authorities to evaluate the performance of the school system more broadly. The National Assessment of
Educational Progress in the United States is administered by the federal government and is based on a sample of
schools, allowing policy makers to monitor the relative performance of the school system and conduct extensive
research (Chart D6.1, Table D6.5b, and Tables D6.5a and c, available on line).
National assessments are commonly standardised at the central level (22 countries), although in four countries
the assessments are standardised at the state level, and in Canada the assessments are standardised at the level
of provinces and territories. In most (23) countries, national assessments are developed at the national level or,
in the case of federations, at the state or provincial level (three countries). Twenty-one countries reported that
assessments are graded at the central or state level, while four countries reported that assessments are graded
locally, often within the school itself. Two countries reported that the responsibility for grading includes both the
central and school level.
National assessments cover a wide array of subjects, but the two most commonly covered at all levels of education
are reading, writing and literature, and mathematics. All countries which have national assessments cover these two
subjects at the primary level, while they are covered in nine out of ten countries at the lower and upper secondary
levels. Other subjects commonly covered in assessments are natural sciences (by two out of three countries at the
lower secondary level) and other languages (by three out of five countries at the lower, and half of the countries at
upper secondary levels) (Table D6.5b, and Tables D6.5a and c, D6.6a, b and c, available on line).
At the lower secondary level, while around three-quarters of countries with national assessments test all students in
reading, writing and literature (19 of 25 countries) and mathematics (18 of 25 countries), the other quarter of the
countries test only a selection/sample of students. The opposite is seen in natural sciences, where around a third of
countries test all students (7 of 19 countries) (Table D6.6b, available on line).
At the lower secondary level, many countries reported that reading, writing and literature (16 of 25 countries) and
mathematics (15 of 25 countries) are tested annually, while eight in 25 countries reported that these subjects are
tested on a rotation basis. In nine of 16 countries, other languages are tested annually; in four of those 16 countries,
they are tested on a rotation basis and in three countries they are tested on some other basis. The remaining subjects
are mostly tested in rotation.
The three most commonly reported main purposes of national assessments at the lower secondary level are to
provide teachers with student diagnostic information (17 countries), to evaluate school performance (16 countries),
and to provide parents with formative feedback (14 countries) (Chart D6.2 and Table D6.5b).
Countries report results of lower secondary assessments in different ways. In twenty-five countries, the results
show the level of performance for the most recent year; 26 countries compare the results with other groups or
populations of students; and 11 countries report the results with other indicators of school quality (Table D6.5b).

478 Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

What evaluation and assessment mechanisms are in place? – INDICATOR D6

chapter D

In 26 of 27 countries, results from national assessments are shared with external audiences in addition to education
authorities. In all 26 countries, the results are shared directly with school administrators, and in 22 countries results
are shared directly with classroom teachers. School administrators and teachers receive aggregated results; in a
third of the countries, they also receive the results of individual students. In 23 countries, results from national
assessments are shared directly with parents and/or students. In 24 countries, only aggregated results are shared
directly with the media (Table D6.7, available on line).
Although education authorities do not report school rankings, 10 of 25 countries with available data indicated that
the media or other groups prepare and publicise rankings of schools based on mean student performance in the
national assessment (Table D6.8, available on line).
Only a few countries reported changes in their national assessments between 2011 and 2015. Austria introduced
a national assessment at the primary and lower secondary levels in 2013, and the Czech Republic established an
assessment in 2011/12 for their primary and lower secondary schools. Germany also expanded its national assessment
(Ländervergleich) at the primary and lower secondary levels. The Slovak Republic reported that a national assessment
was established in 2012 at the primary level, but only a small proportion of schools participate. Korea reported a
number of changes in its primary school assessments over the years, including broadening the assessment to include all
students in 1993, then opting for only sampling in 1998, and then reverting to all students in 2008. Since 2013, Korea
has stopped administering an assessment at the primary level. In Mexico, the primary and lower secondary assessments
were discontinued for the school year 2013/14, and resumed in the school year 2014/15 under a new scheme called
PLANEA, which is currently underway. See Annex 3 for more details about recent changes in national assessments.
School inspection
A school inspection is a mandated, formal process of external evaluation that aims to hold schools accountable. It
involves one or more trained inspectors who evaluate quality based on a standard procedure. The results of a school
inspection are given to the school in a formal report and are used to identify strengths and weaknesses. The reports
are often also shared with higher-level education authorities who use this information to evaluate schools and hold
them accountable for the public resources they receive. In some countries, the inspectors’ reports are also made
available to parents and the public.
School inspection practices vary considerably in how they are conducted, who controls the process and the areas
that are inspected (see Tables D6.9, and Tables D6.10a, b, and c, available on line). Inspections may focus on such
areas as compliance with rules and regulations, student achievement, staff, administration, curriculum and the
school environment. Schools may be rewarded or sanctioned based on results from these inspections.
In 30 countries, lower secondary school inspections are a component of the school-accountability system
(Chart D6.1). In nine countries, school inspections are a component of the school-accreditation process through
which schools are granted recognition or credentials if they meet or exceed minimum standards. While school
inspections commonly involve all schools, in 13 countries school inspections are targeted at low-performing schools.
Hungary is developing a school-inspection system to be put in place in 2014/15.
Twelve countries reported that public lower secondary schools are inspected at least once every three years. Six countries
reported the same frequency of inspections in government-dependent private schools. Eight countries reported that
public schools are inspected every two or three years; and four countries reported that they occur more frequently.
Fifteen countries reported that public schools are inspected once every three of more years. In the Netherlands,
although school inspections take place every four years, annual risk analysis can trigger more frequent inspections.
In 20 countries, school inspections are reported to be highly structured, while in six countries inspections are
partially structured, and in two countries inspections are unstructured. Sixteen countries reported that inspections
are organised exclusively at the national level and six countries reported that they are organised only at the state
level. Most school inspections are conducted by teams of inspectors (19 countries), but in six countries, inspections
are conducted by a single person. School inspections cover a wide array of topics, most commonly compliance with
rules and regulations, and quality of instruction, and least frequently, financial management (Chart D6.3, and
Table D6.10b, available on line).
Results from school inspections are most commonly used to evaluate school performance, although they are also
used to evaluate school administration and to determine whether or not to close schools or evaluate individual
teachers. School inspections rarely affect decisions about remuneration and bonuses for teachers or school budgets
(Chart D6.4, and Table D6.16, available on line).
Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

479

D6

chapter D THE LEARNING ENVIRONMENT AND ORGANISATION OF SCHOOLS

Chart D6.3. Distribution of areas addressed during school inspections
and school self-evaluations (2015)
In general programmes, lower secondary education
Always

School inspections

Sometimes

Never

Missing

Compliance with rules and regulations

D6

Quality of instruction
Curriculum is aligned with established standards or guidelines
Student performance
Quality of curriculum and instructional materials
Satisfaction and perceptions of staff
Satisfaction and perceptions of students
Satisfaction and perceptions of parents
Other areas
Financial management
School self-evaluations
Compliance with rules and regulations
Quality of instruction
Curriculum is aligned with established standards or guidelines
Student performance
Quality of curriculum and instructional materials
Satisfaction and perceptions of staff
Satisfaction and perceptions of students
Satisfaction and perceptions of parents
Other areas
Financial management
0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Number of countries
Areas are ranked in descending order of the number of countries reporting that these areas are always addressed during school inspections.
Source: OECD. Tables D6.10b and D6.12b, available on line. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/education/education-at-a-glance-19991487.htm).
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933284602

Twenty-six countries reported that results of school inspections at the lower secondary level are shared with external
audiences; only two countries reported that these results are not shared. Table D6.10b, available on line, shows the
external audiences that have direct or indirect access to school-inspection findings.
School self-evaluation
In a self-evaluation, a school systematically reviews the quality of the instruction and education services provided
and school outcomes. Formal self-evaluation activities are mandated by higher-level authorities. When schools are
required to conduct self-evaluations, a set of questionnaires or tools usually structures the activity. Results from
self-evaluations can be used to inform internal audiences, or they could be used to inform school inspectors or
accreditation teams. In fact, self-evaluations are often designed in connection with an external evaluation activity,
such as a school inspection or a school accreditation visit. The results are more suitable for use as the basis for
improvement. Some of the advantages of self-evaluations are that they are less costly and results can be more easily
interpreted in light of the local context. The main disadvantage is that results are often seen by external groups as
less credible and less suitable for accountability purposes.
Twenty-seven countries reported that school self-evaluation at the lower secondary level is a component of their
accountability systems, and three countries reported that their schools engage in self-evaluation practices which are
not part of the formal accountability system. Four countries reported practicing school self-evaluation both as part
of the accountability system and outside of it. Because school self-evaluations are less frequently overseen by central
authorities, some countries were not able to report on how frequently schools conduct self-evaluations (Chart D6.1,
Table D6.9, and Table D6.12b, available on line).

480 Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

What evaluation and assessment mechanisms are in place? – INDICATOR D6

chapter D

School self-evaluations are required or regulated more often in public schools than in government-dependent
private schools. Fifteen countries reported that their public schools conduct self-evaluations at least once a year,
while eight countries reported that government-dependent private schools conduct these activities annually. While
most schools use self-evaluations as the basis for improvement activities, 14 countries reported that school selfevaluations are a component of the school-inspection process, and two countries reported that they are a component
of an accreditation process. Chart D6.3 shows that the most common areas covered by school self-evaluations
are student performance, quality of instruction, student satisfaction, and compliance with rules and regulations
(Table D6.12b, available on line).
The number of countries reporting that school self-evaluation is a required part of the accountability system
increased slightly in recent years. Self-evaluations are required in schools in the Flemish Community of Belgium
since 2009; since 2013/14, self-evaluations have been conducted in lower secondary schools in Austria and Greece.
They became mandatory in Ireland in 2012 and in Italy in 2014/15. In England, all schools are encouraged to
conduct self-evaluations, although the statutory requirement to complete a standardised self-evaluation form
was removed in 2010. In Scotland, local authorities are obliged by law to ensure continuous improvement in their
schools. All schools are expected to evaluate their own work, but these procedures are not considered to be formal
school self-evaluations. In Sweden, as in many other countries, school self-evaluations are expected or are required
to be conducted regularly, although results are not systematically collected or analysed centrally.
In Finland, the municipalities have a statutory duty to participate in national evaluations as well as evaluate the
education they provide. Forms and procedures of local evaluation can be decided locally. Self-evaluation of schools
and education providers as well as national sample-based evaluations of learning outcomes play a key role in the
Finnish evaluation system (or quality assurance system).
Nineteen of 22 countries reported that results from school self-evaluations are shared with external audiences, such
as higher-level education authorities, school inspectors, parents or the general public. In 12 countries the results
are shared directly with higher-level authorities, but 7 countries reported that results from self-evaluations are not
shared with these authorities (Table D6.12b, available on line).
Compliance reporting
A large part of accountability involves schools submitting data and information to higher levels of authority. To
a lesser extent, parents and students, as well as the general public, also need to know about the extent to which
their schools comply with established laws and regulations. Compliance reporting aims to confirm that schools are
adhering to these laws and regulations.
Given the nature of internal reporting, a considerable portion of regulatory accountability is not available for public
scrutiny, although some of the information that schools submit may appear in reports released to parents, students
or the general public.
Countries were asked whether they report data on eight specific domains to education authorities (Table D6.13, and
Tables D6.13a and b, available on line). Nearly all (34) countries indicated that public schools report data on student
populations to regional or national authorities. Public schools also report data to regional or national authorities on
facilities and grounds (27 countries), teacher qualifications/credentials (25 countries), curriculum (24 countries),
closing budget or financial audit from previous year (23 countries), safety issues (23 countries), issues related to
governance (20 countries), and proposed budget for the subsequent year (19 countries).
The local school board is another common recipient of the data and information schools provide as part of reporting;
parents, students and the general public are least likely to receive this information. This is not surprising, given
that compliance reporting is all about demonstrating accountability to higher-level authorities. While national
and regional education authorities typically receive data on students and teachers, they are less likely to request
data on school governance and future budgets, which are more important for local authorities or school boards.
Data concerning safety issues is more commonly reported to lower-level education authorities than to regional or
national authorities.
Government-dependent private schools are more likely to report compliance data to their school boards compared
with public schools, which also report to local, regional and national education authorities.
Although a number of countries still file “hard copy” compliance reports on paper, most countries now use Internetbased forms to submit compliance-related data. Thirty-one of 32 countries indicated that they use Internet-based
reporting for at least some student data, and 20 countries reported that they use Internet reporting to submit data on
teacher qualifications, curriculum, and facilities and grounds in public schools (Tables D6.14a and b, available on line).
Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

481

D6

chapter D THE LEARNING ENVIRONMENT AND ORGANISATION OF SCHOOLS

School influence or control over evaluation and assessment activities
Generally, schools have little or no influence on national examinations and, in some countries, only marginal influence
on national assessments. Schools have little or no influence in designing or controlling school inspections. These
inspections are devised by higher-level authorities and are conducted by external inspectors. By definition, school
self-evaluations are largely controlled by individual schools. The influence of local schools on teacher and school leader
appraisals varies considerably from country to country (see Indicator D7) (Table D6.17, available on line).

D6

Influence and use of evaluation and assessment mechanisms
Chart D6.4 shows the relative influence of four key evaluation activities and how these activities affect five general
decisions. Country responses on how evaluation activities are related to decisions concerning school budgets and
teachers’ salaries are shown in Table D6.16 (available on line).
While it is common for countries to report that examinations, assessments, school inspections and school selfevaluation have considerable influence on the evaluation of school performance, these mechanisms and activities
are less frequently conducted to evaluate administrators and teachers.
School inspection is the activity most directly linked to evaluation of school performance: 13 countries reported that
school inspections have a high influence on the evaluation of schools. Examinations and assessment results were each
reported to have no influence in 10 countries. While seven countries reported that results from school inspections have
a high influence on decisions about school closure, the other evaluation activities seem to have little or no influence on
such decisions. Evaluation of individual teachers is not highly influenced by any of the mechanisms.

Chart D6.4. Level of influence of various evaluation and assessment mechanisms (2015)
In general programmes, all levels of education
High

National/central examinations

Moderate

Low

Varies

No

Missing

10

15

20

25

30

Evaluation of school performance
Evaluation of school administration
Provision of assistance to teachers to improve their teaching skills
Likelihood of school closure
Evaluation of individual teachers
National/central assessments
Evaluation of school performance
Evaluation of school administration
Provision of assistance to teachers to improve their teaching skills
Likelihood of school closure
Evaluation of individual teachers
School inspections
Evaluation of school performance
Evaluation of school administration
Provision of assistance to teachers to improve their teaching skills
Likelihood of school closure
Evaluation of individual teachers
School self-evaluations
Evaluation of school performance
Evaluation of school administration
Provision of assistance to teachers to improve their teaching skills
Likelihood of school closure
Evaluation of individual teachers
0

5

35

Number of countries

Actions/Rewards/Sanctions are ranked in descending order of the number of countries reporting that national/central examinations have a high level of influence on these decisions.
Source: OECD. Table D6.16, available on line. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/education/education-at-a-glance-19991487.htm).
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933284612

482 Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

What evaluation and assessment mechanisms are in place? – INDICATOR D6

chapter D

Summative and/or formative
Chart D6.5 contrasts the extent to which countries see four general evaluation activities as either formative
or summative in nature. The purpose of formative evaluation is to “improve”, while the purpose of summative
evaluation is to “prove”. Formative evaluations examine implementation and aim to obtain information that
can be used to help improve the effectiveness of a teacher, a programme or a school. They are more relevant for
internal audiences. Summative evaluations are often conducted at the end of a programme or at least at a time
when long-term outcomes are available. Summative evaluations are closely linked to accountability to higher-level
education authorities and audiences outside the school.
National examinations are predominantly seen as summative, in that they inform decisions about student
matriculation, advancement or placement. National assessments are seen as both formative and summative.
School inspections are frequently used for both formative (18 countries) and summative (14 countries) purposes.
Meanwhile, 20 countries indicated that they use school self-evaluations for formative purposes; only 7 countries
reported using school self-evaluations for summative purposes (Table D6.18, available on line).

Chart D6.5. Extent to which evaluation and assessment activities are used for formative
and/or summative purposes (2015)
In general programmes, all levels of education
High level of use
Moderate level of use
Low level of use
Not used

Number
of countries

30
25
20
15

BFR, DNK,
DEU, GRC,
HUN, KOR,
LUX, NOR,
SCO, SVK,
SVN
IRL

10
5
0

CZE, ENG,
ISR, ITA,
NZL, POL,
PRT, ESP,
TUR, COL

DEU, GRC,
LUX

BFL, MEX,
SVK

CZE, ISR,
ITA, NLD,
NZL, COL

DEU, ISL,
LUX, ESP

BFR, DNK,
ENG, EST,
FRA, HUN,
IRL, KOR,
NOR, POL,
PRT, SCO,
SVK, SVN,
ESP, TUR

AUS, IRL,
ISR, ITA,
KOR, NZL,
COL

BFL, BFR,
MEX
DNK, HUN,
ITA, KOR,
LUX, NOR,
SVN, ESP
ISR, NLD,
NZL, COL

BFR, CZE,
DNK, ENG,
EST, FRA,
HUN, JPN,
NOR, POL,
SVN

AUS, CZE,
ENG, EST,
FRA, DEU,
ISL, IRL,
POL, SVK

Formative

Summative

MEX
DEU
EST, HUN,
ISR, ESP,
COL

BFL, BFR,
CZE, ENG,
FRA, GRC,
ISL, IRL,
KOR, NLD,
NZL, NOR,
POL, PRT,
SCO, SVK,
SVN, TUR

MEX
FRA, ISL,
IRL, KOR

DEU, HUN,
ISR

CZE, EST,
HUN, PRT,
ESP, COL

BFL, BFR,
ENG, DEU,
GRC, ISR,
NLD, NZL,
NOR, POL,
SCO, SVK,
SVN, TUR

CZE, DNK,
ENG, EST,
FRA, GRC,
ISL, IRL,
ITA, JPN,
KOR, NLD,
NZL, POL,
PRT, SVK,
SVN, ESP,
TUR, COL

EST, FRA

Formative

Summative

National/
central examinations

National/central
assessments

Formative

Summative

School
inspection

Formative

DNK, EST,
IRL, NLD,
ESP
CZE, FRA,
DEU, ISL,
KOR, PRT,
SVN, TUR,
COL
HUN, ISR
ENG, GRC,
ITA, JPN,
NZL, POL,
SVK

Summative

School
self-evaluation

Source: OECD. Table D6.18, available on line. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/education/education-at-a-glance-19991487.htm).
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933284624

Definitions
Accountability means “to take account of”. It refers to the interaction, in a hierarchical relationship, between those
who have power and those who are delegated authority. Those who are delegated authority have to report on what
they are doing with this authority or responsibility. In its simplest sense, accountability can refer to information and
transparency in operations and outcomes. Regulatory (compliance) accountability concerns adherence to relevant
laws and regulations.
Evaluation refers to the process of determining the merit, worth, value or performance of something.
National assessments are based on standardised student achievement tests. However, national assessments do not
affect students’ progression through school or certification.
National examinations are standardised student tests that have a formal consequence for students, such as an impact
on a student’s eligibility to progress to a higher level of education or to complete an officially-recognised degree.
Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

483

D6

chapter D THE LEARNING ENVIRONMENT AND ORGANISATION OF SCHOOLS

School inspection is defined as a mandated, formal process of external evaluation with the aim of holding schools
accountable. Formal school inspection is not conducted by internal staff, parents, the community or the media.
School self-evaluation refers to an activity in which schools systematically review the quality of the instruction and
education services provided, as well as school outcomes. This activity involves internal evaluation that is formative
in nature.

Methodology

D6

Data are from the 2014 OECD-INES Survey on Evaluation and Assessment and refer to the school year 2014/15.
Notes on definitions and methodologies for each country are provided in Annex 3 at www.oecd.org/education/
education-at-a-glance-19991487.htm.
Note regarding data from Israel
The statistical data for Israel are supplied by and are under the responsibility of the relevant Israeli authorities. The use of
such data by the OECD is without prejudice to the status of the Golan Heights, East Jerusalem and Israeli settlements in the
West Bank under the terms of international law.

References
OECD (2013), Synergies for Better Learning: An International Perspective on Evaluation and Assessment, OECD Reviews of Evaluation
and Assessment in Education, OECD Publishing, Paris, http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264190658-en.
OECD (2011), Education at a Glance 2011: OECD Indicators, OECD Publishing, Paris, http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/eag-2011-en.
Scriven, M. (1991), Evaluation Thesaurus, 4th edition, Sage Publications, Inc., Newbury Park, California.
Worthen, B.R., J. Sanders and J. Fitzpatrick (1997), Program Evaluation: Alternative Approaches and Practical Guidelines, Longman
Publishers, White Plains, New York.

Indicator D6 Tables
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933286339

WEB Table D6.1a
WEB Table D6.1b
Table D6.1c

National/central examinations at the primary level (2015)
National/central examinations at the lower secondary level (2015)
National/central examinations at the upper secondary level (2015)

WEB Table D6.2a
WEB Table D6.2b
WEB Table D6.2c

Subjects tested in national/central examinations in primary education (2015)
Subjects tested in national/central examinations in lower secondary education (2015)
Subjects tested in national/central examinations in upper secondary education (2015)

WEB Table D6.3

Sharing results from national/central examinations (2015)

WEB Table D6.4

Ranking of schools based on results from national/central examinations (2015)

WEB Table D6.5a
Table D6.5b
WEB Table D6.5c

National/central assessments at the primary level (2015)
National/central assessments at the lower secondary level (2015)
National/central assessments at the upper secondary level (2015)

WEB Table D6.6a
WEB Table D6.6b
WEB Table D6.6c

Subjects tested in national/central assessments in primary education (2015)
Subjects tested in national/central assessments in lower secondary education (2015)
Subjects tested in national/central assessments in upper secondary education (2015)

WEB Table D6.7

Sharing results from national/central assessments (2015)

WEB Table D6.8

Ranking of schools based on results from national/central assessments (2015)

Table D6.9

School inspection and school self-evaluation at the lower secondary level (2015)

WEB Table D6.10a
WEB Table D6.10b
WEB Table D6.10c

School inspection at the primary level (2015)
School inspection at the lower secondary level (2015)
School inspection at the upper secondary level (2015)

WEB Table D6.11

Diverse models of school inspection (2015)

…

484 Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

What evaluation and assessment mechanisms are in place? – INDICATOR D6

WEB Table D6.12a
WEB Table D6.12b
WEB Table D6.12c
Table D6.13

School self-evaluation at the primary level (2015)
School self-evaluation at the lower secondary level (2015)
School self-evaluation at the upper secondary level (2015)
Public school compliance-oriented reports, by domains and receiving groups (2015)

WEB Table D6.13a
WEB Table D6.13b

Public school compliance-oriented reports, by domains and receiving groups (2015)
Government-dependent private school compliance-oriented reports, by domains
and receiving groups (2015)

WEB Table D6.14a

Means and methods for collecting and reporting regulatory accountability data,
public schools (2015)
Means and methods for collecting and reporting regulatory accountability data,
government-dependent private schools (2015)

WEB Table D6.14b

chapter D

D6

WEB Table D6.15

Existence and use of other forms or measures of evaluation and assessment mechanisms (2015)

WEB Table D6.16

Level of influence of various evaluation and assessment mechanisms (2015)

WEB Table D6.17

Extent of school influence or control over various evaluation and assessment mechanisms (2015)

WEB Table D6.18

Extent to which evaluation and assessment activities are used for formative
and/or summative purposes (2015)

Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

485

chapter D THE LEARNING ENVIRONMENT AND ORGANISATION OF SCHOOLS

(6)

a
G
a
G
a
a
M
a
G, M
a
G, M
G
G, M
a
a
a
a
G
O
a
a
G
a
G
G, M
a
a
a

m
C
a
C
a
N
C
N
C
C
N
C
C
N
C
a
C
C
C
a
N
C
a
N
C
C
N
C

Scotland

Yes

C

2

2, 5

G, M

Slovak Republic
Slovenia
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Turkey
United States

Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
Yes
Yes

C
C
S
a
a
C
S

1, 2
2
3
a
a
2
3

1, 5
2
12
a
a
2
3

Brazil
Colombia
Latvia

No
Yes

a
C

a
2

Yes

C

2

OECD
Partners

Percentage of students exempted
from taking them (%)

Based on norm-reference (N)
or criterion-reference (C) test

(5)

m
6, 12
a
12
a
12
2, 5
1
2, 10
2
2, 6
1, 8
5, 6, 7, 8
12
1
a
2
1, 8
5, 8
a
1, 2
6, 7
a
11
2, 5, 6, 7
1
1, 4
1, 2

Governmentdependent private

Mechanisms to ensure reliability
of marking across students if marking
is undertaken at the school level

(4)

m
2
a
3
a
12
2
1
1, 2, 10
2
2
1
3
1
1
a
2
1
1, 12
a
1, 2
1
a
1
2
1
1, 4
2

Public

Locus of authority at which
they are graded/marked

(3)

S
C
a
S
a
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
S
C
C
a
C
C
C
a
C
C
a
C
C
C
C
C

Governmentdependent private

Locus of authority at which
they are devised/developed

(2)

Yes
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes

Public

Standardised at the central (C), state
(S) or school (SC) level of government

(1)

Australia
Austria
Belgium (Fl.)
Belgium (Fr.)
Canada
Chile
Czech Republic
Denmark
England
Estonia
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Iceland
Ireland
Israel
Italy
Japan
Korea
Luxembourg
Mexico
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Poland
Portugal

D6

Year first established

Existence

Table D6.1c. National/central examinations at the upper secondary level (2015)
In general programmes
Subjects covered:
Mathematics (MAT) ,
Natural sciences (NS),
Reading, writing and literature (RWL),
Social studies (SS),
Other languages (OL),
Physical education and health (PE),
Information & communication technology (ICT),
Technology (TEC),
Arts (ART),
Religion/Ethics/Moral education (REL),
Practical and vocational skills (PVS) or
Other subject (OTH)

(7)

(8)

(9)

(10)

(11)

(12)

(13)

m
Yes
a
Yes
a
No
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
a
Yes
No
Yes
a
No
Yes
a
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes

m
Yes
a
Yes
a
No
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
a
Yes
a
a
No
a
a
No
Yes
a
Yes
a
No
Yes
Yes

m
1
a
1
a
m
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
a
1
2
1
a
2
1
a
1
2
1
2
1

m
1
a
1
a
m
1
1
1
1
1
m
1
a
1
a
a
m
a
a
2
1
a
1
a
2
2
1

m
m
0
MAT, RWL, OL
a
a
0
RWL, SS
a
a
m
MAT, NS, RWL, SS
0
MAT, RWL, OL
0
MAT, NS, RWL, SS, OL, PE, ICT, TEC, ART, REL
a
MAT, NS, RWL, SS, OL, PE, ICT, TEC, ART, REL, PVS
0
MAT, RWL, OL
a
MAT, NS, RWL, SS, OL, PE, REL
0
MAT, NS, RWL, SS, OL, PE, ICT, TEC, ART, PVS, OTH
0
MAT, NS, RWL, SS, OL, PE, ICT, ART, REL
18
MAT, NS, RWL, SS, OL, PE, ICT, TEC, ART
0
MAT, NS, RWL, SS, OL
a
a
1
MAT, NS, RWL, SS, OL, TEC, ART, REL, PVS
a
MAT, NS, RWL, SS, OL, TEC, ART, REL, PVS, OTH
m
MAT, NS, RWL, SS, OL, PE, ICT, TEC, ART
a
a
m
MAT, NS, RWL, SS, OL, TEC, REL
0
MAT, NS, RWL, SS, OL, ICT, TEC, ART, PVS
a
a
0
MAT, NS, RWL, SS, OL, ART
0 MAT, NS, RWL, SS, OL, PE, ICT, TEC, ART, REL, PVS, OTH
m
MAT, NS, RWL, SS, OL, ICT, TEC
a
MAT, NS, RWL, SS, OL, ICT, ART, OTH
0.07
MAT, NS, RWL, SS, OL, ART, OTH

No

a

1

a

0

MAT, NS, RWL, SS, OL, PE, ICT, TEC, ART, REL, PVS

M
a
O
a
a
a
a

m
2014/15
a
2011
a
1966
2011
m
1988
1996/97
1852
1808
m
2000
2005
a
1924
1948
1923
a
1994
1848
a
1968
2002
2007
2005
1996
1999/
C
2000
N
1868
N, C
1995
C
1975
a
a
a
a
N
1974
m
2001

Yes
Yes
Yes
a
a
No
Yes

Yes
Yes
Yes
a
a
a
a

1
1
1
a
a
2
1

1
1
1
a
a
a
a

0
0
m
a
a
0
0-5

MAT, NS, RWL, SS, OL, ICT, ART, REL, OTH
MAT, NS, RWL, SS, OL, ICT, TEC, ART, PVS
MAT, NS, RWL, SS, OL, TEC, ART
a
a
MAT, NS, RWL, SS, OL
MAT, NS, RWL

a
2

a
a

a
C

a
1968

a
Yes

a
Yes

a
1

a
1

a
0

a
MAT, NS, RWL, SS, OL

2

a

N

1999

Yes

Yes

1

1

10

MAT, NS, RWL, SS, OL, ICT, PVS

Locus of authority for developing/marking/grading examinations
1: Central authority or government
2: Central agency responsible for assessment or certification
3: State education authorities or governments
4: Provincial/regional education authorities or governments
5: School, school board or committee
6: The students’ own teacher
7: Another teacher from within the school
8: A teacher from another school
9: Subject/discipline association
10: Private company
11: Depends on the subject
12: Other

Compulsory Percentage
that
for all
schools to administer
them
administer

Mechanisms to ensure reliability of marking across students
G: Availability of national guidance materials for marking student performance
on the examination
M: Moderation of marking
O: Other
Percentage of schools administering examinations
1: All schools
2: Between 76% and 99% of schools
3: Between 51% and 75% of schools
4: Between 26% and 50% of schools
5: Between 11% and 25% of schools
6: 10% or less of schools

Notes: Federal states or countries with highly decentralised school systems may have different regulations in states, provinces or regions. Please refer to Annex 3

for additional information.
Columns showing the main purposes and uses of national/central examinations (i.e. columns 14-21), as well as the features used when reporting results
(i.e. columns 22-28) are available for consultation on line (see StatLink below).
Source: OECD. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/education/education-at-a-glance-19991487.htm).
Please refer to the Reader’s Guide for information concerning symbols for missing data and abbreviations.
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933286347

486 Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

What evaluation and assessment mechanisms are in place? – INDICATOR D6

chapter D

1
1
x(10)
1
6
1
4
2
a
a
6
6
m
a
1
1
a
4
a
a
1
1
m
a
a
1
a
a
a
1
1
m
1
a
a
a

2
3.5
m
0
3
8
2
m
a
a
a
2
<1
a
0
8
a
5
0
0
m
0
m
a
0
3
a
a
a
5
0
0
m
a
a
a

MAT, NS, RWL, SS, ICT
MAT, RWL, OL
MAT, NS, OL, ICT, OTH
SS
MAT, NS, RWL
MAT, NS, RWL, SS, PE, TEC
MAT, NS, RWL, SS, OL
NS, RWL, OL
a
a
MAT, NS, RWL, SS, OL, PE, ART, REL, PVS, OTH
MAT, NS, RWL, SS, OL
MAT, NS, RWL, OL
a
MAT, RWL
MAT, RWL, OL
a
MAT, NS, RWL, OL
MAT, RWL
MAT, NS, RWL
MAT, NS, RWL, SS, OL
MAT, NS, RWL, OL
m
a
MAT, RWL
MAT, NS, RWL, SS, OL
a
a
a
MAT, RWL
MAT, NS, RWL, SS, OL, PE, TEC, ART, REL
MAT, NS, RWL, SS, OL, TEC, ART, OTH
MAT, NS, RWL, SS, OL
a
a
MAT, NS, RWL, SS, ICT, TEC, ART

Brazil
Colombia
Latvia

Yes
Yes

C
C

1
2

1
2

a
a

C
C

a
All

3
1

a
1

20
0

MAT, RWL
MAT, NS, RWL, SS, OL

No

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

Percentage of students exempted from
taking them (%)

OECD

1
1
5
1
5
1
4
1
a
a
6
6
6
a
1
1
a
4
1
1
1
1
m
a
1
1
a
a
a
1
1
m
1
a
a
5

Governmentdependent private

(13)

C
2004
All
All
C
2012
All
All
C
2004
Sample* Sample*
C
2009
All
All
C
2007
Sample Sample
C
1988
All
All
C
2011/12 Sample Sample
C
2010
All
Not all
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
C
1998
Sample Sample
C 2003, 2007 Sample Sample
C
2009
Sample Not all
a
a
a
a
C
2001
All
All
N
2009
All
All
a
a
a
a
N
2001/02
All
All
N
2007
All
a
N
2007
Not all
a
C
1986
All
All
C
2007
All
All
m
m
m
m
a
a
a
a
C
2010
All
a
N
2004
All
All
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
N
2003
All
All
N, C
2006
All
All
C
2008
Not all Not all
C
1998
All
All
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
C
1969
Sample
a

Public

(6)

a
a
a
G
a
a
a
a
a
a
G
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
m
a
G, M
G
a
a
a
a
O
G
G
a
a
a

Governmentdependent private

(5)

2, 10
2
3, 11
11
1
2
2
1
a
a
7
1
4
a
1
2
a
1
2
1
1, 2
1, 11
m
a
7, 8
1, 7
a
a
a
2
2, 6
3
7, 8, 9
a
a
1, 2

Public

(4)

11
2
3, 11
3
1
2
2
1
a
a
2
1
2
a
1
2
a
1
2
1
1, 2
1, 11
m
a
1
1
a
a
a
2
2
3
2
a
a
1, 2

Year first established

Locus of authority at which
they are devised/developed
(3)

C
C
S
S
C, S
C
C
C
a
a
C
C
S
a
C
C
a
C
C
C
C
C
m
a
C
C
a
a
a
C
C
S
C
a
a
C

Mechanisms to ensure reliability
of marking across students if marking
undertaken at the school level
Based on norm-reference (N) or
criterion-reference (C) test

Standardised at the central (C), state (S),
regional (R), school (SC) or other (O)
level of government
(2)

Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
Yes

Locus of authority at which
they are graded/marked

Existence
(1)

Australia
Austria
Belgium (Fl.)
Belgium (Fr.)
Canada
Chile
Czech Republic
Denmark
England
Estonia
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Iceland
Ireland
Israel
Italy
Japan
Korea
Luxembourg
Mexico
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Scotland
Slovak Republic
Slovenia
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Turkey
United States

Partners

Table D6.5b. National/central assessments at the lower secondary level (2015)
In general programmes

(7)

(8)

(9)

(10)

(11)

(12)

Compulsory
for schools to
administer

1990, 2005 Not all
2009
All
a

a

Percentage
that
administer
them

Subjects covered:
Mathematics (MAT) ,
Natural sciences (NS),
Reading, writing and literature (RWL),
Social studies (SS),
Other languages (OL),
Physical education and health (PE),
Information & communication technology (ICT),
Technology (TEC),
Arts (ART),
Religion/Ethics/Moral education (REL),
Practical and vocational skills (PVS) or
Other subject (OTH)

Locus of authority for developing/marking/grading national assessments
Compulsory for schools to administer
Yes, for all schools
1: Central authority or government
All:
2: Central agency responsible for assessment or certification
Sample: Yes, for the schools in the representative sample used
Not all: No, not for all schools
3: State education authorities or governments
Sample*: No, not for all schools in the representative sample used
4: State agency responsible for assessment or certification
5: Provincial/regional education authorities or governments
Percentage of schools administering assessments
6: School, school board or committee
1: All schools
7: The students’ own teacher
2: Between 76% and 99% of schools
8: Another teacher from within the school
3: Between 51% and 75% of schools
9: A teacher from another school
4: Between 26% and 50% of schools
10: Private company
5: Between 11% and 25% of schools
11: Other
6: 10% or less of schools
Mechanisms to ensure reliability of marking across students
G: Availability of national guidance materials for marking student performance on the assessments
M: Moderation of marking
O: Other

Notes: Federal states or countries with highly decentralised school systems may have different regulations in states, provinces or regions. Please refer to Annex 3
for additional information.
Columns showing the main purposes and uses of national/central assessments (i.e. columns 14-20), as well as the features used when reporting results
(i.e. columns 21-27) are available for consultation on line (see StatLink below).
Source: OECD. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/education/education-at-a-glance-19991487.htm).
Please refer to the Reader’s Guide for information concerning symbols for missing data and abbreviations.
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933286352

Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

487

D6

chapter D THE LEARNING ENVIRONMENT AND ORGANISATION OF SCHOOLS

Table D6.9. [1/2] School inspection and school self-evaluation at the lower secondary level (2015)
In general programmes

School inspections
required as part of
accountability system

Public

Governmentdependent
private

Public

Governmentdependent
private

Component of school
accreditation process

Extent to which
they are structured

Target low-performing
schools

Level of government at
which school inspections
are devised and organised

Composition of school
inspection teams

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7)

(8)

(9)

(10)

OECD

Australia
Austria
Belgium (Fl.)
Belgium (Fr.)
Canada
Chile
Czech Republic
Denmark
England
Estonia
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Iceland
Ireland
Israel
Italy
Japan
Korea
Luxembourg
Mexico
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Scotland
Slovak Republic
Slovenia
Spain
Sweden1
Switzerland
Turkey
United States

m
No
Yes
Yes
m
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes

m
a
6
5
m
4
6
a
6
6
a
6
4
4
6
6
4
2
a
a
5
a
2
6
5
6
6
6
6
6
6
2
6
m
5
m

m
a
6
5
m
4
6
a
6
6
a
6
1
a
6
6
a
3
a
a
5
a
a
6
a
6
6
1
a
6
6
2
6
m
a
a

m
a
12.5
33
m
m
25
a
25
m
a
m
50
m
m
7
81
100
a
a
33
a
50
100
33
15-20
20
25
10
20
35
100
33
m
33
m

m
a
12.5
33
m
m
25
a
25
m
a
m
m
a
m
m
a
100
a
a
33
a
a
100
a
5
20
a
a
20
m
100
33
m
a
a

m
a
Yes
Yes
m
No
Yes
a
No
No
a
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
a
a
No
a
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
m
No
Yes

m
a
H
H
m
H
H
a
H
H
a
P
H
U
H
H
H
H
a
a
P
a
U
P
P
P
H
H
H
H
H
H
P
m
H
m

m
a
Yes
No
m
Yes
Yes
a
Yes
No
a
No
No
Yes
No
No
Yes
Yes
a
a
No
a
No
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
m
No
Yes

m
a
2
2
m
1
1
a
1
1
a
1
2
3
1
5
1
1
a
a
1, 3
a
2
1
1
1
1, 3
1
1
1
1
2
1
m
3
2, 5, 6

m
a
Team
Single
m
Team
Team
a
Team
Single
a
Single
Team
Team
Team
Team
Mixed
Single
a
a
Team
a
Single
Team
Team
Team
Team
Team
Team
Team
Mixed
Single
Mixed
m
Team
Team

Partners

School inspection

Brazil
Colombia
Latvia

No
Yes
Yes

a
3
1

a
3
1

a
25
a

a
100
a

a
Yes
Yes

a
H
H

a
Yes
No

a
3
2

a
Team
Mixed

D6

Percentage of schools
that have inspections
conducted each year (%)

Frequency
of school inspections

Frequency of school inspections /self-evaluations
1: There is no requirement for school inspections /self-evaluations
2: More often than once a year
3: Once a year
4: Once every two years
5: Once every three years
6: Once every three or more years

Levels of government
1: Central authority or government
2: State authorities or governments
3: Provincial/regional authorities or governments
4: Sub-regional or inter-municipal authorities or governments
5: Local authorities or governments
6: School, school board or committee

Extent to which structured
H: Highly structured
P: Partially structured
U: Unstructured

Note: Federal states or countries with highly decentralised school systems may have different regulations in states, provinces or regions. Please refer to Annex 3 for

additional information.
1. Year of reference for school inspection is 2014.
Source: OECD. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/education/education-at-a-glance-19991487.htm).
Please refer to the Reader’s Guide for information concerning symbols for missing data and abbreviations.
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933286369

488 Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

What evaluation and assessment mechanisms are in place? – INDICATOR D6

chapter D

Table D6.9. [2/2] School inspection and school self-evaluation at the lower secondary level (2015)
In general programmes

School self-evaluations
required as part of
accountability system

Have school selfevaluations which are
not part of accountability
system

Public

Governmentdependent
private

Public

Governmentdependent
private

Component of school
inspections

Component of school
accreditation process

Extent to which
they are structured

Target low-performance
schools

Level of the government
at which school
self-evaluations
are devised and organised

(11)

(12)

(13)

(14)

(15)

(16)

(17)

(18)

(19)

(20)

(21)

OECD

Australia
Austria
Belgium (Fl.)
Belgium (Fr.)
Canada
Chile
Czech Republic
Denmark
England
Estonia
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Iceland
Ireland
Israel
Italy
Japan
Korea
Luxembourg
Mexico
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Scotland
Slovak Republic
Slovenia
Spain
Sweden1
Switzerland
Turkey
United States

m
Yes
Yes
No
m
No
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes

m
No
Yes
No
m
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
m
No
No
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
m
No
No
No
Yes
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
No
No
Yes

m
3
m
a
m
a
3
5
a
5
a
3
1
3
6
3
3
3
3
2
5
a
a
1
1
3
3
m
a
3
3
a
a
m
3
m

m
3
m
a
m
a
3
5
a
5
a
6
1
3
4
3
a
3
a
a
5
a
a
1
a
3
3
m
a
3
m
a
a
m
a
a

m
100
m
a
m
a
100
33
a
33
a
100
m
100
0
100
100
100
100
100
33
a
a
a
100
100
100
m
a
100
100
a
a
m
100
m

m
100
m
a
m
a
100
33
a
33
a
m
m
100
0
100
a
100
a
a
33
a
a
a
a
100
100
m
a
100
m
a
a
m
a
a

m
No
Yes
a
m
a
No
No
a
No
a
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
a
a
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
a
Yes
Yes
a
a
m
No
m

m
No
No
a
m
a
No
No
a
No
a
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
a
a
No
No
No
No
No
a
No
No
a
a
m
No
Yes

m
P
U
a
m
a
P
P
a
U
a
P
m
H
H
U
P
P
P
m
P
a
a
U
U
P
U
P
a
P
U
a
a
m
H
m

m
No
No
a
m
a
No
No
a
No
a
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
a
a
No
No
No
Yes
No
a
No
No
a
a
m
No
m

m
1
6
a
m
a
6
5
a
6
a
1
m
1
6
6
1
1, 4, 6
1
6
1, 3
a
a
6
6
1, 5, 6
6
6
a
1
6
a
a
m
1
2, 5, 6

Partners

School self-evaluation

Brazil
Colombia
Latvia

No

m

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

Yes

No

3

m

100

m

Yes

No

H

No

6

Yes

No

6

6

100

100

No

Yes

H

No

6

Frequency of school
self-evaluations

Frequency of school inspections /self-evaluations
1: There is no requirement for school inspections /self-evaluations
2: More often than once a year
3: Once a year
4: Once every two years
5: Once every three years
6: Once every three or more years

Percentage of schools
required to conduct
self-evaluation each year (%)

Levels of government
1: Central authority or government
2: State authorities or governments
3: Provincial/regional authorities or governments
4: Sub-regional or inter-municipal authorities or governments
5: Local authorities or governments
6: School, school board or committee

Extent to which structured
H: Highly structured
P: Partially structured
U: Unstructured

Note: Federal states or countries with highly decentralised school systems may have different regulations in states, provinces or regions. Please refer to Annex 3 for

additional information.
1. Year of reference for school inspection is 2014.
Source: OECD. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/education/education-at-a-glance-19991487.htm).
Please refer to the Reader’s Guide for information concerning symbols for missing data and abbreviations.
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933286369

Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

489

D6

chapter D THE LEARNING ENVIRONMENT AND ORGANISATION OF SCHOOLS

Table D6.13. Public school compliance-oriented reports, by domains and receiving groups (2015)
In general programmes
The table shows for each country the group(s) to which public schools are expected to submit compliance-oriented reports on a given domain.
Reading columns 1, 9 and 17: In Israel, public schools are expected to submit student data reports to the school board (S), to the municipal or local government/education
authority (L), to the regional and national government/education authority (R, N) as well as parents, students (P) and the general public (G).
Regional government/
education authority (R) or
National government/
education authority (N)

Partners

Student data

Teachers’ qualifications/
credentials

Curriculum

Safety issues

Facilities and grounds

Proposed budget for
subsequent year
Closing budget or financial
audit from previous year

Issues related to governance

Student data

Teachers’ qualifications/
credentials

Curriculum

Safety issues

Facilities and grounds

Proposed budget for
subsequent year
Closing budget or financial
audit from previous year

Issues related to governance

Student data

Teachers’ qualifications/
credentials

Curriculum

Safety issues

Facilities and grounds

Proposed budget for
subsequent year
Closing budget or financial
audit from previous year

OECD

D6

Parents and students (P)
or General public (G)
Issues related to governance

School board (S) or
Municipal or local government/
education authority (L)

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7)

(8)

(9)

(10)

(11)

(12)

(13)

(14)

(15)

(16)

(17)

(18)

(19)

(20)

(21)

(22)

Australia

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

Austria

L

L

S, L

No

L

L

L

No

R, N R, N R, N

No

R, N R, N R, N

No

m

m

m

No

m

m

m

No

N

(23) (24)

Belgium (Fl.)

S

S

S

S, L

S, L

S

S

S

N

N

N

N

N

N

No

No

P

No

No

P

No

P, G

Belgium (Fr.)

S, L

L

No

S, L

S, L

S, L

S, L

No

R, N R, N

No

R, N R, N R, N R, N

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

Canada

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

Chile

L

L

L

L

L

L

L

L

N

N

N

N

N

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

Czech Republic

S, L

S, L

S, L

S, L

S, L

S, L

S, L

S, L

R

R

R

R

R

R

R

R

P, G

No

P, G

No

No

P

P

No

Denmark

S, L

L

S, L

m

m

S, L

S, L

S, L

R, N

No

N

No

N

N

N

N

G

No

P, G

No

No

No

No

No

England

S, L

S

S

S, L

S, L

S, L

S, L

S, L

N

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

Estonia

L

S

S

S

S

S, L

S

S

N

No

N

No

No

No

No

No

G

G

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

Finland

L

L

m

m

m

m

m

m

No

No

No

No

No

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

France

No

No

L

S, L

No

No

No

No

R, N R, N R, N

R

R, N R, N R, N R, N

No

No

P, G

No

No

No

No

No

Germany

S, L

S, L

S, L

S, L

S, L

S, L

S, L

m

R

R

R

R

No

m

P, G

No

P, G

P, G

No

No

No

m

Greece

L

S, L

S, L

S, L

S, L

No

S, L

S, L

R, N R, N R, N R, N R, N

No

R, N R, N

No

No

P

P, G

P, G

No

No

No

R

R

Hungary

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

N

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

Iceland

S, L

S, L

S, L

S, L

S, L

S, L

S, L

S, L

N

N

N

No

No

No

No

N

No

No

P, G

No

No

No

No

No

R

R

R

R, N R, N

Ireland

S

S

S

S

S

S

S

S

R, N R, N R, N

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

P

Israel

S, L

S, L

S, L

L

S, L

S, L

S, L

No

R, N R, N R, N R, N R, N R, N R, N

No

P, G

No

P

P

P

No

P

No

Italy

L

No

S

S, L

L

S

S

No

R, N R, N R, N

N

R

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

Japan

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

N

N

N

No

No

No

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

Korea

L

L

S, L

S, L

L

S, L

S, L

S, L

R, N R, N R, N R, N R, N R, N R, N R, N

G

G

G

G

G

G

G

G

Luxembourg

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

N

N

N

N

N

N

No

N

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

Mexico

S

S

No

No

S

No

No

No

R, N R, N

No

No

R, N

No

No

No

G

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

Netherlands

S

S

S

S

S

S

S

S

N

No

No

N

N

No

N

N

No

No

P

P

No

No

No

No

New Zealand

S

S

S

S

S

No

S

S

N

N

No

No

No

No

N

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

Norway

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

Poland

L

L

No

L

L

L

L

L

N

N

No

N

N

No

N

N

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

No

No

Portugal

S

No

S, L

S, L

S

S

S

S, L

R, N R, N R, N R, N R, N R, N R, N R, N

No

No

P

P

No

No

No

P

Scotland

L

No

L

L

No

No

L

No

N

No

No

G

No

P, G

No

No

No

No

No

Slovak Republic

S, L

No

S, L

S, L

S, L

S, L

S, L

S, L

R, N

N

R, N R, N R, N R, N R, N R, N

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

Slovenia

S, L

S, L

S, L

S

S, L

S, L

S

S, L

N

N

N

N

P, G

No

P, G

P

P, G

No

G

G

Spain

S, L

S, L

S, L

S, L

S, L

S, L

S, L

S, L

R, N R, N R, N R, N R, N R, N R, N R, N

P

P

P

P

P

P

P

P

Sweden

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

N

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

Switzerland

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

Turkey

L

No

L

L

L

L

L

L

R, N

United States

S, L

S, L

S, L

S, L

S, L

S, L

S, L

S, L

R, N

R

No

No
No

No
N

No
N

No
N

No

m

No

No

No

N

No

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

No

R, N R, N R, N R, N R, N R, N

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

R, N R, N

R

R

R

R

P, G

No

No

P

No

P, G

P, G

No

R

R, N

R

R

Brazil

L

L

L

L

L

L

L

L

R, N R, N

R

No

No

No

No

No

P

P

No

Colombia

S, L

S, L

S, L

S, L

S, L

S, L

S, L

S, L

R, N R, N R, N R, N R, N R, N R, N R, N

No

P

P, G

P, G

P

No

P, G

No

Latvia

S, L

S, L

S, L

S, L

S, L

S, L

S, L

S, L

R, N R, N R, N R, N R, N R, N R, N R, N

No

No

P, G

P, G

No

No

No

No

R

Note: Federal states or countries with highly decentralised school systems may have different regulations in states, provinces or regions. Please refer to Annex 3 for
additional information.

Source: OECD. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/education/education-at-a-glance-19991487.htm).
Please refer to the Reader’s Guide for information concerning symbols for missing data and abbreviations.
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933286378

490 Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

WHAT TEACHER AND SCHOOL LEADER APPRAISAL SYSTEMS
ARE IN PLACE?
• Teacher appraisal is legislated/required by policy or regulation in 30 of 37 OECD and partner
countries with available data.

• School leader appraisal at the lower secondary level is legislated and covered by a policy framework

INDICATOR D7

in 21 of 37 countries. School leader appraisal is mandatory in all countries for which data are
available except Poland, where it is voluntary.

Chart D7.1. Frequency of various types of teacher and school leader appraisals
covered by policy framework (2015)
In general programmes, lower secondary education

Teachers

Mandatory periodic
Mandatory non periodic
Not mandatory/voluntary

No legislated appraisal
Missing

Completion of probation
Regular appraisal
Teacher registration
Appraisal for promotion
Reward schemes

School leaders
Australia
Austria
Belgium (Fl.)
Belgium (Fr.)
Canada
Chile
Czech Republic
Denmark
England
Estonia
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Iceland
Ireland
Israel
Italy
Japan
Korea
Luxembourg
Mexico
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Scotland
Slovak Republic
Slovenia
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Turkey
United States
Brazil
Colombia
Latvia

School leader appraisal

Source: OECD. Tables D7.3b and D7.8b. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/education/education-at-a-glance-19991487.htm).
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933284638

Context
Monitoring and appraising teachers is central to improving schools and learning environments. If well
designed, teacher appraisal and feedback systems can be used as tools to increase teacher effectiveness
and achieve better learning outcomes. Appraisal can help to increase the focus on instruction and
teachers’ professional learning. Appraisal and feedback systems can also help to create better
school organisation by allowing teachers to progress in their career and to take on new roles and
responsibilities based on a solid evaluation of their performance. They also offer an opportunity to
recognise and reward effective teaching (OECD, 2013).
Backed by a growing research base, policy makers have become increasingly aware of the significance of
school leadership for effective teaching and learning. A growing number of countries have developed
initiatives to strengthen the leadership capacity of their schools. While research on the effects of
different appraisal schemes is limited, some evidence suggests potential benefits of the appraisal of
individual school leaders as a means of communicating a vision of effective leadership and improving
school leaders’ practices and behaviours.

492 Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

Other findings

• While regular appraisal, appraisal for the completion of probation, and appraisal for teacher
registration is mandatory in the majority of countries for which data are available, appraisal for
promotion and reward schemes are usually voluntary.

• Most countries use two or more different types of teacher appraisal, depending on the purpose of
the appraisal.

• Lower secondary teachers eligible and included in the policy framework for teacher appraisal
include public school teachers (in at least 9 of 10 countries) and teachers in government-dependent
private schools (in at least 7 of 10 countries with available data) and independent private schools
(in around half of countries with available data).

INDICATOR D7

• Teachers are usually appraised in relation to decisions on employment status. In the case of regular
appraisal and appraisal upon completion of probation, the next most common purpose for teacher
appraisal is in relation to concerns about performance.

• In 24 of 28 countries, central education authorities (19 countries) or state education authorities
(7 countries) determine the procedures for regular teacher appraisal.

• A combination of actors is responsible for evaluating teachers, but the most common evaluator is
the school principal or director.

• Teacher appraisals generally focus on planning and preparation, instruction and classroom
environment.

• In at least four out of five countries, classroom observations and interviews with teachers are used
in regular teacher appraisals and in teacher appraisal at the completion of probation. Although
student outcomes are used in 8 of 19 countries for regular appraisals, they are infrequently used
for teacher registration and at the completion of probation.

• Nineteen of the 37 countries with available data reported that school leader appraisal is required
by government policy or regulation and is implemented across the country.

• In all but two countries with available data, central or state education authorities determine the
procedures for school leader appraisal.

• All countries with available data reported that school leaders are appraised on general leadership
and pedagogical/instructional leadership, and all but one country also appraise school leaders on
organisation of development and resource management. At least four in five countries also focus
on school climate, community relations, interpersonal skills, and evaluation and accountability.

• Eleven out of 18 countries with available data reported that school leader appraisal is used for
decisions about career advancement and 11 out of 19 countries indicated that school leader
appraisal is used to inform decisions on school leaders’ professional development activities.

• Rewards or incentives for good performance by school leaders was reported by 11 of 15 countries
with available data.

• All but a few countries reported that they use teacher and school leader appraisal for both formative
and summative purposes.

Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

493

chapter D THE LEARNING ENVIRONMENT AND ORGANISATION OF SCHOOLS

Analysis

D7

Teacher appraisal
Teacher appraisal is the evaluation of individual teachers resulting in judgements about their competencies and
performance. Traditionally, teacher appraisal focused on formative feedback. In recent years, a number of countries
have been working to reform teacher-appraisal systems and are considering summative judgements that can inform
decisions about tenure, advancement and pay incentives. In the United States, several models that aim to incorporate
improvements in students’ scores on standardised assessments as a source of evidence of teacher effectiveness are
under consideration. Data systems and current practices, however, do not easily lend themselves to such ends.
The following discussion focuses on teacher appraisal at the lower secondary level.
Prevalence and nature of teacher appraisal
Some 30 of the 37 countries with available data reported having policy frameworks (national or state laws or
regulations) in place to regulate one or more types of teacher appraisal. While 26 of those 30 countries implement these
policy frameworks countrywide, they are implemented at the provincial/territorial level in Canada and only in some
states in the United States. While teacher appraisal is required only in public institutions in England, it is also widely
practiced in government-dependent and independent private institutions. Although there is no government policy
for teacher appraisal in Denmark, Estonia and Norway, these countries have similar practices. Only Germany, Iceland,
Luxembourg and Scotland reported that teachers are not appraised (see Chart D6.1). Eight countries reported that
all teachers (100%) are appraised, and four additional countries reported that between 80% and 99% of teachers are
appraised. In the Netherlands and Spain, around 70% of teachers are appraised, while in Belgium (French Community),
Hungary and Israel, less than 30% of teachers are appraised each year (Table D7.1, and Table D7.2, available on line).
Countries use a range of different approaches for appraisal, depending on the purpose of the appraisal. Countries
were asked to describe and respond to questions related to each of five different types of teacher appraisal:
i) Teachers on probation: This involves a teacher’s entry into the profession.
ii) Regular appraisal: This typically involves a process internal to the school regulated by general labour-law
provisions requiring the employers of teachers to regularly appraise the performance and results of their
employees.
iii) Teacher registration: This is the process designed to determine and officially confirm a teacher as competent for
teaching.
iv) Appraisal for promotion: This is often voluntary and takes place in relation to decisions on employment status
(most countries integrate this activity with regular appraisal).
v) Appraisal for rewards: This involves teacher appraisal explicitly designed to identify a select number of highperforming teachers to reward and acknowledge.
In order to have a comprehensive and coherent framework of teacher appraisal that will support continuous learning
for individual teachers throughout their career and for the profession as a whole (Darling-Hammond, 2012),
countries often combine two or more types of appraisal in their policy framework. Although the regular appraisal
category is most commonly cited, most countries reported the existence of two or most types of teacher appraisal.
The most common type of teacher appraisal regulated by existing policy frameworks is regular teacher appraisal
(24 of 28 countries). Here, 20 countries reported that regular appraisal is mandatory; 18 countries conduct this
appraisal at regular intervals/on a set cycle, most commonly, every year. Although regular appraisal is legislated in
Belgium (French Community), the Czech Republic and Poland, it is voluntary and needs to be requested by teachers
themselves (Table D7.3b).
Two other types of appraisal used for performance management, appraisal for teacher registration and appraisal
for promotion, are less frequently used (used in 11 and 12 countries, respectively). While in 8 of 10 countries with
available data it is mandatory for teachers to be appraised for teacher registration, in only 4 of 11 countries with
available data are it mandatory for teachers to be appraised for promotion.
Another common approach to teacher appraisal is the appraisal of individual teachers upon completion of a
probationary period (21 of 28 countries). Of the 19 countries with available data, 17 reported that this type of
appraisal is mandatory and 2 reported that it is voluntary. Of those countries where it is mandatory, 10 reported
that appraisals are carried out periodically at regular intervals, usually annually. Only 9 of 27 countries with available
data had policy frameworks for teacher reward schemes.

494 Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

What teacher and school leader appraisal systems are in place? – INDICATOR D7

chapter D

Governance and responsibilities for teacher appraisal
The lower secondary teachers eligible and included in the policy framework for teacher appraisal include public
school teachers (in at least 9 of 10 countries) and teachers in government-dependent schools (in at least 7 of
10 countries with available data) and independent private schools (in around half of countries with available
data). The type of teachers included in the policy framework depends on the type of appraisal undertaken. For
regular appraisal, the framework most commonly includes public school teachers (all 24 countries), permanent
teachers (22 of 23 countries), teachers on fixed-term contracts (18 of 22 countries) and all teachers regardless of
contract status (16 of 21 countries). By definition, appraisal for the completion of probation focuses on teachers
on probation (18 of 20 countries). Appraisal for teacher registration focuses on teachers on fixed-term contracts
(8 of 10 countries), permanent teachers (6 of 10 countries) and provisionally registered teachers (6 of 10 countries).
Permanent teachers are the focus of appraisal for promotion in 10 of 11 countries, and of appraisal for reward
schemes in all 8 countries for which data are available (Table D7.3b).
The circumstances under which teachers are appraised vary considerably among countries. Most commonly, teachers
are appraised in relation to decisions on employment status. In the case of regular appraisal and appraisal upon
completion of probation, the next most common reasons for appraisal are as a result of performance problems,
at the discretion of the school principal, the teacher volunteers or requests to be appraised and in response to a
complaint. Appraisals for teacher registration are usually conducted in relation to decisions on employment, at the
initiative of the teacher, or in response to a complaint or performance problems. Appraisals for promotion are most
frequently related to decisions on employment status and are usually conducted at the initiative of the teacher.
Similarly, most often teachers volunteer for reward schemes appraisals.
The obligation for teachers to undertake appraisals varies according to the type of appraisal. While regular appraisal,
appraisal for the completion of probation, and appraisal for teacher registration are mandatory in the majority
of countries, appraisals for promotion and reward schemes are usually voluntary. Although regular appraisal is
mandatory in 20 countries, it is voluntary in 3 countries. Some 18 of 20 countries reported that regular appraisal is
carried out periodically at regular intervals. Appraisal for the completion of probation is mandatory in 17 countries
(it is periodic in 10 of these countries), and voluntary in 2 countries. Similarly, appraisal for teacher registration
is mandatory in 8 countries (it is periodic in 5 countries) and voluntary in 2 countries. By contrast, appraisal for
promotion is voluntary in 7 countries and mandatory in 4 countries, and appraisal for reward schemes is voluntary
in 5 countries and mandatory in 2 countries. Although the frequency of appraisal varies, most countries with
periodic appraisals reported that they are conducted annually.
In most countries (24 of 28 countries), central education authorities (19 countries) and/or state education
authorities (7 countries) determine the procedures for teacher appraisal. The central and state education authorities
also share this responsibility with regional (Korea), sub-regional (2 countries) and local (4 countries) education
authorities. In Japan, regional and local education authorities are in charge of determining the procedures. Together
with education authorities, the school principal (7 countries), the school board (7 countries), school organising
bodies (4 countries), teachers’ professional organisations (3 countries) and the deputy school principal (2 countries)
also play a role in determining the procedures. The procedures for determining teacher appraisal are determined
primarily by teachers’ professional organisations in Ireland and by school boards in the Netherlands.
In teacher appraisal, a combination of actors is responsible for evaluating teachers. For all the different types of
appraisal, the most common evaluator is the school principal and education authorities from various levels. Another
common evaluator for the completion of probation and for teacher registration is the supervisor (10 of 20 countries
and 4 of 10 countries, respectively). For regular appraisal, other school leaders (8 of 23 countries) and supervisors
(6 of 22 countries) are also common evaluators. External accredited evaluators and peer evaluators at the same
school are also involved in appraisals in a few countries.
Common procedures used and sources of information
In at least 75% of countries, the main standards against which teachers are appraised are national or state teaching
standards. A description of the general and professional duties of teachers is also frequently used for all types
of appraisal, except appraisal for teacher registration (reported to be used by 20% of countries). Other common
references/standards used by a handful of countries are the teacher code of conduct, school development plan or
school project, and the school’s internal regulations (Table D7.4b).
The key domains and aspects of the job covered in teacher appraisal are planning and preparation, instruction and
classroom environment. This is followed by professional development, contribution to school development and
links to the community. All five types of teacher appraisal cover these aspects.
Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

495

D7

chapter D THE LEARNING ENVIRONMENT AND ORGANISATION OF SCHOOLS

D7

A range of methods, instruments and information sources is used to appraise teachers; countries draw from a mix
of these to appraise different aspects of a teacher’s performance. The most frequently used methods in regular
appraisal, appraisal at the completion of probation and teacher registration are classroom observation and
interviews of teachers (at least 4 in 5 countries). Teacher portfolio and teacher self-appraisal are also often used,
while parent and/or student surveys are less often used as sources of information for regular appraisal, appraisal at
the completion of probation and teacher registration. Although student outcomes are used in 8 of 19 countries in
regular appraisals, they are less often used in appraisals for teacher registration and at completion of probation. The
most frequently used sources of information in appraisal for promotion and reward schemes are teacher portfolio
and classroom observation, followed by teacher self-appraisal and interviews of teachers.
Teacher appraisal results in a rating, i.e. a category on a scale of teacher performance, in 15 of 18 countries for
appraisal at the completion of probation, in 9 of 11 countries for appraisal for promotion, in 13 of 20 countries for
regular appraisal, in 6 of 10 countries for appraisal for teacher registration, and in 3 of 6 countries for appraisal for
reward schemes. All countries reported having mechanisms to appeal teacher-registration appraisal results, while
4 in 5 countries reported having these mechanisms for appraisal at the completion of probation and for appraisal
for promotion. Appeal mechanisms for regular appraisal are in place in 2 out of 3 countries.

Chart D7.2. Use of results from regular teacher appraisals (2015)
For lower secondary teachers teaching general programmes
Yes

Influence on professional development and career advancement

Other

No

Informs teacher’s professional development activities
Affects pay levels
Affects career advancement
Rewards/incentives for positive performance
Other incentives
Extra opportunities for in-service professional development
Changes in work responsibilities
Public recognition or award
Promotion
Support for post-graduate study
Sabbatical periods or time allowances
Employment opportunities
Opportunities for school-based research
Responses/disincentives to underperformance
Further appraisal
Compulsory training
Dismissal
Deferral of promotion or career advancement
Salary increment withheld
Transfer
Permanent contract not granted
Suspension
Failure to pass probation period
Other disincentives
Failure to progress to registered or certified teacher status
Registration/certification suspended or withdrawn
0

5

10

15

20

Actions/Rewards/Sanctions are ranked in descending order of the number of countries reporting that they use teacher appraisal results for these purposes and decisions.
Source: OECD. Table D7.5b, available on line. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/education/education-at-a-glance-19991487.htm).
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933284648

496 Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

25

Number of countries

What teacher and school leader appraisal systems are in place? – INDICATOR D7

chapter D

Use of results from teacher appraisal
In 14 of 20 countries, results from regular teacher appraisal inform decisions about teachers’ professional
development activities. These results can also affect teachers’ pay (11 countries) and career advancement
(10 countries). In 9 of 19 countries, positive performance in a regular appraisal may not result in any reward, but
10 countries reported that results could be used for rewards or incentives. The most common rewards include more
opportunities for in-service professional development, public recognition and changes in work responsibility.
Underperformance in regular appraisal has consequences for teachers, the most common being the need for
further appraisal (16 countries) and compulsory training (10 countries). Other responses to underperformance
include dismissal (9 countries), deferral of promotion or career advancement (8 countries), withholding of
pay raise (5 countries), transfer to another school (5 countries) and suspension (4 countries) (Chart D7.2, and
Table D7.5b, available on line).
In 12 of 20 countries, appraisals for teachers in probation influence decisions on access to contracts. While these
results also affect teachers’ pay in 9 countries, they have no effect in 9 other countries. In 11 countries, results are
also used to inform teachers’ professional development activities. While the successful completion of the probation
period may lead to rewards or incentives (e.g. employment opportunities) in 9 countries, it does not in 10 other
countries. Not surprisingly, in all 19 countries, underperformance in this appraisal will result in a failure to pass
the probation period. Other common sanctions or responses to underperformance include dismissal (12 countries),
permanent contract not granted (11 countries), further appraisal (11 countries), failure to progress to registered or
certified teacher status (7 countries) and compulsory training (6 countries).
Results of appraisal for promotion are used to determine teachers’ professional development activities in 5 of
9 countries. These results may also affect teachers’ career advancement (8 of 11 countries) and pay (7 of 11 countries).
Outstanding performance may lead to a promotion (8 of 10 countries), while underperformance can cause deferral
of promotion or career advancement (7 of 10 countries) or withholding of a pay raise (4 of 10 countries). In 6 of
8 countries, results of appraisal for rewards schemes affect teachers’ pay.
Results of appraisals for teacher registration influence decisions on access to contracts, renewal of fixed-term
contracts or access to a permanent position (5 of 10 countries). While outstanding performance can also lead to
promotions in 2 of 9 countries, it leads to no such reward in the other 7 countries. However, underperformance
can lead to a failure to progress to registered or certified teacher status (8 of 9 countries), a permanent contract
not being granted (6 of 9 countries), further appraisal (4 of 8 countries), registration or certification suspended or
withheld and even dismissal (4 of 9 countries).
Although teacher appraisals may play a role in influencing salaries and career progression, other factors or criteria
are also used. Chart D7.6 and Table D7.6 (available on line) explore the relative level of influence of these other
factors.
School leader appraisal
School leader appraisal is not as well developed and practiced as teacher appraisal. Even though the importance of
effective school leadership is widely recognised, many countries lack the tools and mechanisms for appraising their
school leaders. However, since school leadership is critical to ensure effective teaching and learning, an increasing
number of countries are developing initiatives to strengthen the leadership capacity of their schools.
School leaders are primarily responsible for school management and administration. The school leader holds the
highest leadership position within the school, such as the headmaster, head teacher or principal, or a middle-level
position in a leadership capacity, such as deputy school directors or department heads. Generally, there is no more
than one director per school.
The following discussion focuses on school leader appraisal at the lower secondary level.

Prevalence and nature of school leader appraisal
Some 19 of 37 countries with available data reported that school leader appraisal is required by government
policy or regulation and is implemented across the country. Although school leader appraisal is required only in
public institutions in England, it is widely practiced in private institutions as well. In Canada, the requirement for
school leader appraisal varies by province or territory, while in the United States, school leader appraisal is only
implemented in some states. In Israel, it is required only at the primary and lower secondary levels, but it is also
widely practiced at the upper secondary level. Similarly, in the Netherlands, it is only required at the primary level,
although it is widely practiced at the secondary level.
Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

497

D7

chapter D THE LEARNING ENVIRONMENT AND ORGANISATION OF SCHOOLS

D7

Australia, Denmark and Latvia do not require school leader appraisals, but they do have similar practices. Finland
grants extensive local autonomy in the evaluation of education, including school leader appraisal. In Latvia, school
leaders are appraised in the context of accreditation of schools and programmes. In the remaining countries with
available data, appraisal of school leaders is not required (see Chart D6.1, and Table D7.7, available on line). Nine
countries reported that all school leaders (100%) are appraised. The Slovak Republic reported that at least 99% of
its school leaders are appraised, while England reported that all public school leaders and a large majority of private
school leaders are appraised. In Spain, 70% of school leaders are appraised, whereas in Colombia, only around 20%
of school leaders are appraised.

Governance and responsibilities for school leader appraisal
In all 19 countries with available data, school principals are eligible and included in the policy framework for school
leader appraisal. In 7 of these countries, only school principals are eligible/included. In 11 of the 19 countries, deputy
school principals and, in England, assistant head teachers are also included. In Mexico, New Zealand and Portugal
school principals, deputy principals, middle leaders and department heads are included in the policy framework.
The circumstances in which school leaders are appraised vary considerably. The most common circumstance under
which school leaders are appraised is in relation to decisions on employment status (13 countries). School leaders
are also appraised at the discretion of the school board (6 countries) or school director (5 countries). In 4 countries,
school leaders can also be appraised as a result of a complaint, and in 6 countries, school leader appraisal is voluntary
(Table D7.8b).
In all countries with available data, school leader appraisal is mandatory except in Poland where it is voluntary,
i.e. the school leader initiates the appraisal him/herself. With the exception of the Czech Republic and France (at the
primary level), all countries that reported having mandatory school leader appraisal indicated that the appraisal is
carried out periodically at regular intervals. The frequency with which school leaders are appraised varies greatly
across countries. Among the 16 countries that require periodic appraisals of their school leaders, these appraisals
take place annually in Colombia, England, Korea, New Zealand, the Slovak Republic, Slovenia and Spain; in France
(secondary level) and Israel (primary and lower secondary levels), these appraisals take place once every three years.
The interval between appraisals ranges from once every four years in Belgium (Flemish Community), Greece, Mexico,
Portugal and Turkey (primary and lower secondary levels), to up to every five years in Belgium (French Community)
and Hungary (Table D7.8b, and Tables D7.8a and c, available on line).
The procedures for school leader appraisal are determined at various levels of government, or by an education authority,
alone or together with other education bodies. In all countries with available data except the Czech Republic and the
Slovak Republic, central or state education authorities determine the procedures for school leader appraisals. In the
Czech Republic, regional education authorities determine the procedures for appraisal; in the United States, state and
local education authorities do. In Korea, there are different kinds of school leader appraisal and central, regional and
local education authorities all play a role in determining the procedures for all or some kinds of appraisal. In addition
to education authorities, school organising bodies (5 countries), school board (3 countries), and central agencies
(3 countries) also play a role in determining the procedures. In the Slovak Republic, the entity that established the
school determines the procedures for appraising the school principal (rather than the central education authority),
and the school principal determines the procedures for appraising the deputy principal (Table D7.8b).
A combination of actors is responsible for evaluating school leaders. The most common scenario is a combination
of evaluators, which includes education authorities from various levels, the school principal, an external accredited
evaluator, members of the school organising body, the school board and/or intermediate agencies.

Common procedures used and sources of information
All countries appraise school leaders against one or multiple reference standards that state clearly what school
leaders are expected to know and do. All countries with available data, except Belgium (Flemish Community), the
Czech Republic and Portugal appraise school leaders against national or state and/or regional standards for school
leadership. The second most common standard used is a description of the general and professional duties of school
leaders (12 countries), which is used by both Belgium (Flemish Community) and the Czech Republic. Although
less common, codes of conduct (5 countries), school development plans or school projects (5 countries) and school
internal regulations (4 countries) are also used by some countries (Table D7.9b).
School leader appraisals focus on a variety of areas, competencies and responsibilities. All countries with available
data reported that school leaders are appraised on general leadership and pedagogical/instructional leadership.

498 Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

What teacher and school leader appraisal systems are in place? – INDICATOR D7

chapter D

These countries (except Hungary) also appraise school leaders on organisation/planning of development and
resource management. In at least 4 of 5 countries, school leader appraisals also focus on school climate, community
relations, interpersonal skills, and evaluation and accountability.
To get an accurate, fair and reliable picture of school leaders’ performance, countries use a mixture/range of
instruments and information sources. Among the 18 countries with available data, the most common instruments
or information sources are interviews of the school leader by an evaluator (15 countries), school leader portfolio
(13 countries), and school leader self-appraisal (12 countries). Other common sources include school visits
(10 countries) and student outcomes (9 countries). Around one in three countries also considers the views of
stakeholders through student, parent and teacher surveys.
In 2 out of 3 countries, the appraisal of a school leader results in a rating, i.e. a category on a scale of school-leader
performance. Four out of 5 countries have mechanisms or procedures in place through which school leaders can
appeal their appraisal results.

Use of results from school leader appraisal
Eleven out of 18 countries with available data reported that school leader appraisal is used for decisions about career
advancement. Half (9 out of 18) of the countries with available data use school leader appraisals to inform school
leaders’ professional development activities, while 6 countries reported that they do not do so (Chart D7.3, and
Table D7.10b, available on line).
Seven countries reported that school leader appraisal results influence decisions about promotion, and 3 countries
reported that these results influence the speed with which a school leader progresses in the career structure or
salary scale. In Colombia, results influence both. Of the remaining 7 countries with available data, 4 reported that
results influence other career advancement, while 3 reported that results have no influence at all.

Chart D7.3. Use of results from school leader appraisals (2015)
In general programmes, lower secondary education
Yes

Influence on professional development and career advancement
Affects career advancement

Other

No

Informs school leader’s professional development activities
Rewards/incentives for positive performance
Permanent salary increment
One-off financial bonus
Extra professional development opportunities
Other incentives
Salary increment for a fixed period of time
Financial bonus for school budget
Responses/disincentives to underperformance
Further appraisal
Deferral of promotion
Dismissal
Transfer
Compulsory training
Salary increment withheld
Failure to pass probation period
Permanent contract not granted
Suspension
Other disincentives
0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

Number of countries

Actions/Rewards/Sanctions are ranked in descending order of the number of countries reporting that they use school leader appraisal results for these purposes and decisions.
Source: OECD. Table D7.10b, available on line. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/education/education-at-a-glance-19991487.htm).
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933284655

Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

499

D7

chapter D THE LEARNING ENVIRONMENT AND ORGANISATION OF SCHOOLS

While 11 of the 15 countries with available data may reward lower secondary school leaders for positive performance
in their appraisal, 4 countries do not. These rewards may take the form of one or a combination of financial
rewards / incentives for the school leaders. School leaders may be rewarded with a permanent pay raise (8 countries),
a one-off financial bonus (5 countries), and/or a pay raise for a fixed period of time (1 country). In Korea and Mexico,
school leaders may be rewarded with additional professional development opportunities. In the Czech Republic,
the school and organising bodies determine the reward offered.

D7

The most common response to school leaders’ underperformance is further appraisal (10 of 17 countries), followed
by deferral of promotion (8 countries). In some countries, underperformance may lead to dismissal (6 countries),
transfer to another school (5 countries), failure to pass a probation period (4 countries) or suspension (3 countries).
While England, the Slovak Republic and Spain may reward outstanding school leaders financially, they may also
sanction underperforming school leaders financially by withholding pay raises. Colombia, Greece, Korea, Mexico
and Portugal require school leaders to participate in training.
Although school leader appraisals may play a role in influencing salaries and career progression, other factors or
criteria are also used. Chart D7.6 and Table D7.11 (available on line) explore the relative level of influence of these
other factors.
School influence or control over teacher and school leader appraisal activities
The influence of local schools on teacher and school leader appraisal varies considerably from country to country.
At the lower secondary level, schools have a high or moderate level of influence or control over teacher appraisal in
16 of the 22 countries with available data, and little or no influence in the remaining 6 countries. By contrast, 10 of
the 18 countries with available data reported schools as having little or no influence over school leader appraisal,
while 5 countries reported schools as having a high level of influence and another 3 countries reported that schools
have a moderate level of influence (Table D7.13, available on line).
Influence of teacher and school leader appraisal over various decisions
As expected, teacher appraisal has a high-to-moderate level of influence over the evaluation of individual teachers
(15 of 24 countries) and on providing assistance to teachers to improve their teaching skills (14 of 23 countries).
By contrast, it has no influence over the likelihood of school closure (22 of 23 countries) and little to no influence over
the size of the school budget (21 of 22 countries), the evaluation of the school administration (21 of 25 countries) or
the evaluation of the school’s performance (19 of 25 countries). In most countries, teacher appraisal has little or no
influence on teachers’ salaries or bonuses. However, in a few countries, outstanding performance can lead to a pay
raise and/or one-time bonus (Chart D7.4, and Table D7.12, available on line).
While school leader appraisal has high influence over the evaluation of school administration in seven of the
19 countries with available data, it has no influence in nine countries. Its influence on the evaluation of the school
or individual teachers is also non-existent or low, except in Colombia, Czech Republic, Mexico, Poland, Portugal, the
Slovak Republic and Turkey. In most countries with available data, school leader appraisal has no influence on the
school budget, the likelihood of school closure, or teachers’ salaries or bonuses; in a handful of countries, it has a
low influence on these outcomes.
Use of teacher and school leader appraisal for formative and summative purposes
Teacher and school leader appraisal are useful in themselves and as part of a broader system of evaluation within
schools. The overall purpose of teacher and school leader appraisals is to provide formative feedback to teachers and
school leaders. For example, teachers need feedback on their performance to help them identify how to improve their
teaching practice and, with the support of effective school leadership, to create professional learning communities
within schools. The summative purpose of teacher and school leader appraisal is to judge their effectiveness so that
a variety of employment decisions and actions (like career advancement or salary progression, and the allocation of
financial rewards or sanctions) can be made.
Sixteen countries reported using teacher appraisal for both formative and summative purposes. Eight of these
countries reported this activity as having a high level of use, 3 reported a moderate level of use, and 2 reported a low
level of use for both formative and summative purposes. Korea and Turkey reported that this activity has a moderate
level of use for formative purposes, but a low level of use for summative purposes. By contrast, the Czech Republic
reported a high level of use for summative purposes and a low level of use for formative purposes. Three countries
reported using teacher appraisal for formative purposes only: Belgium (French Community) and Italy where it is highly
used, and Australia where it is moderately used (Chart D7.5, and Table D7.14, available on line).

500 Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

What teacher and school leader appraisal systems are in place? – INDICATOR D7

chapter D

Chart D7.4. Level of influence of teacher and school leader appraisals
over various decisions (2015)
In general programmes
High

Teacher appraisal

Moderate

Low

Varies

No

Missing

Evaluation of individual teachers
Provision of assistance to teachers to improve their teaching skills

D7

Increased salary for teachers based on merit/performance
One-time bonus based on merit/performance
Evaluation of school performance
Evaluation of school administration
Decreased salary for teachers based on merit/performance
Likelihood of school closure
School leader appraisal
Evaluation of individual teachers
Provision of assistance to teachers to improve their teaching skills
Increased salary for teachers based on merit/performance
One-time bonus based on merit/performance
Evaluation of school performance
Evaluation of school administration
Decreased salary for teachers based on merit/performance
Likelihood of school closure
0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Number of countries

Actions/Rewards/Sanctions are ranked in descending order of the number of countries reporting that teacher appraisal has a high level of influence on these decisions.
Source: OECD. Table D7.12, available on line. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/education/education-at-a-glance-19991487.htm).
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933284666

Chart D7.5. Extent to which teacher and school leader appraisals are used for formative
and/or summative purposes (2015)
In general programmes
High level of use
Moderate level of use
Low level of use
Not used

Number
of countries

25
20

IRL, MEX,
ESP
CHL, CZE,
ISR

15

AUS, DNK,
HUN, KOR,
TUR, COL

10
5
0

BFL, BFR,
ENG, FRA,
GRC, ITA,
NZL, PRT,
SVK, SVN

Formative

AUS, BFR,
IRL, MEX,
ESP
CHL, ISR,
KOR, TUR
DNK, HUN,
COL
BFL, CZE,
ENG, FRA,
GRC, NZL,
PRT, SVK,
SVN

Summative

Teacher appraisal

MEX, ESP
CZE, ISR,
KOR, TUR

BFR, MEX,
ESP
ISR

HUN, COL

CZE, HUN,
KOR, COL

AUS, BFL,
BFR, DNK,
ENG, FRA,
GRC, NZL,
PRT, SVK,
SVN

AUS, BFL,
DNK, ENG,
FRA, GRC,
NZL, PRT,
SVK, SVN,
TUR

Formative

Summative

School leader appraisal

Source: OECD. Table D7.14, available on line. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/education/education-at-a-glance-19991487.htm).
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933284674

Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

501

chapter D THE LEARNING ENVIRONMENT AND ORGANISATION OF SCHOOLS

A similar picture can be seen for school leader appraisal. All countries with available data, except Mexico and Spain,
use school leader appraisal for both formative and summative purposes, or for only one of these purposes. Half of
these countries (10 countries) reported that school leader appraisal has a high level of use for both formative and
summative purposes, 2 countries reported a medium level of use, and another 2 countries reported a low level of use
for both. In addition, Turkey reported that school leader appraisal has a high level of use for summative purposes,
but a low level of use for formative purposes. By contrast, Belgium (French Community) reported that school leader
appraisal has a high level of use for formative purposes only.

D7

Definitions
Professional development refers to in-service training that aims to update, develop and broaden the knowledge of
teachers and school leaders. This includes any activity that develops an individual’s skills, knowledge, expertise and
other characteristics, through personal study and reflection as well as through formal courses.
References/standards refers to documents that provide the basis for appraisal criteria by defining what teachers
and school leaders should know and be able to do, the tasks they should perform, and the regulations with which
they should comply.
School leader/administrator appraisal (i.e. evaluation) refers to the external evaluation of individual school
leaders to make a judgement about their work and performance using objective criteria. Results of school leadership
evaluations may be used to inform professional development activities, career advancement, and rewards.
Teacher appraisal, also referred to as teacher evaluation, refers to the evaluation of individual teachers to make
a judgement about their work and performance using objective criteria. Results of teacher appraisals may be used
to inform professional development activities, certification, career advancement and rewards. The term “teachers”
covers all professional personnel directly involved in teaching students, including classroom teachers and other
teachers who work with students as a whole class in a classroom, in small groups in a resource room, or in one-to-one
teaching inside or outside a regular classroom.

Methodology
Data are from the 2014 OECD-INES Survey on Evaluation and Assessment and refer to the school year 2014/15.
Notes on definitions and methodologies for each country are provided in Annex 3 at www.oecd.org/education/
education-at-a-glance-19991487.htm.
Note regarding data from Israel
The statistical data for Israel are supplied by and are under the responsibility of the relevant Israeli authorities. The use of
such data by the OECD is without prejudice to the status of the Golan Heights, East Jerusalem and Israeli settlements in the
West Bank under the terms of international law.

References
Darling-Hammond, L. (2012), “The right start: Creating a strong foundation for teaching career”, Phi Delta Kappan, Vol. 94,
No. 3, pp. 8-13.
OECD (2013), Synergies for Better Learning: An International Perspective on Evaluation and Assessment, OECD Reviews of Evaluation
and Assessment in Education, OECD Publishing, Paris, http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264190658-en.

Indicator D7 Tables
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933286387

Table D7.1
WEB Table D7.2

Teacher appraisal and school leader appraisal at the lower secondary level (2015)
Teacher appraisal (2015)

WEB Table D7.3a Teacher appraisal at the primary level: Eligibility, governance and responsibilities (2015)
Table D7.3b Teacher appraisal at the lower secondary level: Eligibility, governance and responsibilities (2015)
WEB Table D7.3c Teacher appraisal at the upper secondary level: Eligibility, governance and responsibilities (2015)
WEB Table D7.4a Features of teacher appraisal at the primary level (2015)

502 Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

…

What teacher and school leader appraisal systems are in place? – INDICATOR D7

chapter D

Table D7.4b Features of teacher appraisal at the lower secondary level (2015)
WEB Table D7.4c Features of teacher appraisal at the upper secondary level (2015)
WEB Table D7.5a Use of results from teacher appraisal at the primary level (2015)
WEB Table D7.5b Use of results from teacher appraisal at the lower secondary level (2015)
WEB Table D7.5c Use of results from teacher appraisal at the upper secondary level (2015)
WEB Table D7.6

Factors that influence teachers’ salaries and career progression (2015)

WEB Table D7.7

School leader appraisal (2015)

D7

WEB Table D7.8a School leader appraisal at the primary level: Eligibility, governance and responsibilities (2015)
Table D7.8b School leader appraisal at the lower secondary level: Eligibility, governance and responsibilities (2015)
WEB Table D7.8c School leader appraisal at the upper secondary level: Eligibility, governance and responsibilities (2015)
WEB Table D7.9a Features of school leader appraisal at the primary level (2015)
Table D7.9b Features of school leader appraisal at the lower secondary level (2015)
WEB Table D7.9c Features of school leader appraisal at the upper secondary level (2015)
WEB Table D7.10a Use of results from school leader appraisal at the primary level (2015)
WEB Table D7.10b Use of results from school leader appraisal at the lower secondary level (2015)
WEB Table D7.10c Use of results from school leader appraisal at the upper secondary level (2015)
WEB Table D7.11 Factors that influence school leaders’ salaries and career progression (2015)
WEB Table D7.12 Level of influence of teacher and school leader appraisal over various decisions (2015)
WEB Table D7.13 Extent of school influence or control over teacher and school leader appraisal activities (2015)
WEB Table D7.14 Extent to which teacher and school leader appraisal are used for formative and/or summative
purposes (2015)

Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

503

chapter D THE LEARNING ENVIRONMENT AND ORGANISATION OF SCHOOLS

Table D7.1. Teacher appraisal and school leader appraisal at the lower secondary level (2015)
In general programmes
Teacher appraisal
Policy implementation
or practice
(if not legislated)

School leader appraisal
Policy implementation
or practice
(if not legislated)

Percentage
of teachers
appraised

Teacher
registration

Appraisal for
promotion

Reward schemes

Breadth

Percentage
of school leaders
appraised

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7)

(8)

(9)

(10)

(11)

OECD

Australia
Austria
Belgium (Fl.)
Belgium (Fr.)
Canada
Chile
Czech Republic
Denmark
England1
Estonia
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Iceland
Ireland
Israel
Italy
Japan
Korea
Luxembourg
Mexico
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Scotland
Slovak Republic
Slovenia
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Turkey
United States

L
L
L
L
L
L
L
P
L
P
m
L
N
L
L
N
L
L
L
L
L
N
L
L
L
P
L
L
N
L
L
L
L
L
L
L

Countrywide
Countrywide
Countrywide
Countrywide
Some states
Countrywide
Countrywide
Countrywide
Some schools
Countrywide
m
Countrywide
a
Countrywide
Countrywide
a
Countrywide
Countrywide
Countrywide
Countrywide
Countrywide
a
Countrywide
Countrywide
Countrywide
m
Countrywide
Countrywide
a
Countrywide
Countrywide
Countrywide
Countrywide
Countrywide
Countrywide
Some states

m
m
m
5
m
82.5
100
95
90
80
m
100
a
100
15
a
m
25
5
m
m
a
m
68
100
m
m
m
a
100
100
74
100
m
100
m

Yes
Yes
No
No
m
No
Yes
a
Yes
a
m
Yes
a
Yes
Yes
a
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
a
Yes
Yes
Yes
a
Yes
Yes
a
Yes
Yes
No
No
m
Yes
Yes

Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
m
Yes
Yes
a
Yes
a
m
Yes
a
Yes
Yes
a
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
a
Yes
Yes
Yes
a
Yes
Yes
a
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
m
Yes
Yes

Yes
Yes
No
No
m
No
No
a
No
a
m
No
a
Yes
No
a
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
a
No
Yes
Yes
a
No
No
a
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
m
No
Yes

m
Yes
No
No
m
No
Yes
a
No
a
m
No
a
Yes
Yes
a
No
Yes
No
No
Yes
a
Yes
Yes
No
a
Yes
No
a
No
Yes
No
No
m
No
Yes

No
No
No
No
m
Yes
No
a
No
a
m
No
a
No
Yes
a
No
No
No
No
Yes
a
Yes
Yes
No
a
No
No
a
No
Yes
No
Yes
m
Yes
Yes

P
N
L
L
L
N
L
P
L
N
m
L
N
L
L
N
N
L
N
N
L
N
L
P
L
N
L
L
N
L
L
L
N
L
L
L

Countrywide
a
Countrywide
Countrywide
Some states
a
Countrywide
Countrywide
Some schools
a
m
Countrywide
a
Countrywide
Countrywide
a
a
Countrywide
a
a
Countrywide
a
Countrywide
m
Countrywide
a
Countrywide
Countrywide
a
Countrywide
Countrywide
Countrywide
a
Countrywide
Countrywide
Some states

m
a
m
100
m
a
100
100
90
a
m
m
a
100
m
a
a
100
a
a
m
a
m
m
100
a
m
100
a
99
100
70
a
m
100
m

Brazil
Colombia
Latvia

L
L
m

m
Countrywide
m

m
48
m

Yes
Yes
m

Yes
Yes
m

No
No
m

m
Yes
m

m
No
m

m
L
P

m
Countrywide
Countrywide

m
20
m

D7

Existence
of teacher
appraisal

Completion
of probation

Breadth

Existence
of school
leader
appraisal

Partners

Regular appraisal

Types of teacher appraisal
covered by policy framework

Existence of teacher/school leader appraisal
L: Legislated
P: No teacher/school leader appraisal, but have similar practices
N: No teacher/school leader appraisal or similar practices

Note: Federal states or countries with highly decentralised school systems may have different regulations in states, provinces or regions. Please refer to Annex 3 for
additional information.
1. Teacher appraisal is legislated in public institutions, and not legislated (but widely practised) in private institutions.
Source: OECD. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/education/education-at-a-glance-19991487.htm).
Please refer to the Reader’s Guide for information concerning symbols for missing data and abbreviations.
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933286394

504 Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

What teacher and school leader appraisal systems are in place? – INDICATOR D7

chapter D

Table D7.3b. [1/4] Teacher appraisal at the lower secondary level:

Eligibility, governance and responsibilities (2015)
For teachers teaching general programmes

Luxembourg
Mexico

Frequency
of appraisal

Italy
Japan
Korea

Obligation to
undertake appraisal

Israel

Other

Iceland
Ireland

Teachers on
probation

Hungary

Teachers on
fixed-term
contracts

Germany
Greece

Permanent
teachers

Estonia
Finland
France

All provisionally
registered
teachers

Denmark
England

All registered
teachers

Czech Republic

All teachers
regardless of
contract status

Belgium (Fl.)
Belgium (Fr.)
Canada
Chile

Teachers in
independent
private schools

Austria

Teachers in
governmentdependent
private schools

Australia

Types of teacher
appraisal covered
by policy framework

Teachers in
public schools

OECD

Teachers eligible and included in the policy framework

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7)

(8)

(9)

(10)

(11)

(12)

(13)

Completion of probation
Regular appraisal
Teacher registration
Appraisal for promotion
Completion of probation
Regular appraisal
Teacher registration
Appraisal for promotion
Regular appraisal
Regular appraisal
m
Regular appraisal
Reward schemes
Completion of probation
Regular appraisal
Appraisal for promotion
a
Completion of probation
Regular appraisal
a
m
Completion of probation
Regular appraisal
a
Completion of probation
Regular appraisal
Teacher registration
Appraisal for promotion
Completion of probation
Regular appraisal
Appraisal for promotion
Reward schemes
a
Completion of probation
Teacher registration
Completion of probation
Teacher registration
Appraisal for promotion
Completion of probation
Regular appraisal
Regular appraisal
Appraisal for promotion
Reward schemes
a
Completion of probation
Regular appraisal
Appraisal for promotion
Reward schemes

Yes
Yes
Yes
m
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
m
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
a
Yes
Yes
a
m
Yes
Yes
a
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
a
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
a
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes

m
m
Yes
m
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
m
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
a
m
m
a
m
Yes
Yes
a
a
a
a
a
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
a
a
a
Yes
Yes
No
a
a
Yes
Yes
Yes
a
a
a
a
a

m
m
Yes
m
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
No
m
Yes
No
a
a
a
a
m
m
a
m
No
No
a
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
a
a
a
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
a
No
No
No
No

m
m
Yes
m
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
m
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
a
m
m
a
m
No
No
a
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
a
Yes
Yes
No
No
Yes
No
No
Yes
No
No
a
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes

No
No
Yes
m
No
Yes
No
Yes
a
Yes
m
a
a
a
a
a
a
m
m
a
m
No
No
a
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
a
a
a
a
a
No
No
No
No
No
No
a
a
a
a
a
No
Yes
No
No

m
m
Yes
m
No
Yes
No
Yes
a
Yes
m
a
a
a
a
a
a
m
m
a
m
No
No
a
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
a
a
a
a
a
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
a
a
a
a
a
Yes
No
No
No

Yes
Yes
Yes
m
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
m
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
a
Yes
Yes
a
m
No
Yes
a
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
a
Yes
Yes
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
a
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes

m
m
Yes
m
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
m
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
a
Yes
Yes
a
m
No
No
a
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
a
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
No
a
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes

Yes
No
Yes
m
Yes
No
No
No
a
Yes
m
a
a
Yes
Yes
Yes
a
Yes
Yes
a
m
Yes
No
a
Yes
No
No
No
Yes
No
No
No
a
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
a
a
a
a
a
No
No
No
Yes

No
No
No
m
No
No
No
No
No
No
m
No
No
No
No
No
a
No
No
a
m
No
No
a
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
a
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
a
No
No
No
No

MP
MP
MP
m
MP
MN
MP
MN
MP
VO
m
MP
VO
MN
VO
VO
a
MP
MP
a
m
MN
MN
a
MN
MP
MP
MP
MN
MP
VO
VO
a
VO
VO
MP
MP
MP
MN
MP
MP
MP
MP
a
MP
MP
VO
VO

m
4
m
m
1
a
4
a
7
a
m
7
a
a
a
a
a
2
4
a
m
a
a
a
a
7
7
7
a
5
a
a
a
a
a
6
m
6
a
m
4
4
4
a
4
7
7
a

Obligation to undertake teacher appraisal

Frequency of appraisal

Who determines the procedures and who evaluates

MP: Mandatory periodic
MN: Mandatory non-periodic
VO: Not mandatory/voluntary

1:
2:
3:
4:
5:
6:
7:

C: Central education authorities or government
S: State education authorities or government
R: Provincial or regional education authorities or government
SR: Sub-regional education authorities or government
L: Local education authorities or government
CA: Central agency
SB: School board
SO: School organising body
P: School principal
DP: Deputy school principal
SL: Member of school leadership other than school principal/director
TP: Teacher professional organisation
SU: Supervisor
PS: Peer evaluator at the same school
PE: Peer evaluator from another school
IA: Intermediate agency
EE: External accredited evaluator
O: Other

More than once per month
Three or more times per year
Twice per year
Once per year
Once every two years
Once every three years
Once every four years

Notes: Federal states or countries with highly decentralised school systems may have different regulations in states, provinces or regions. Please refer to Annex 3
for additional information.
Individual columns for who determines the procedures for appraisal (i.e. columns 22-33) and who evaluates (i.e. columns 35-50) are available for consultation on line
(see StatLink below).
Source: OECD. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/education/education-at-a-glance-19991487.htm).
Please refer to the Reader’s Guide for information concerning symbols for missing data and abbreviations.
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933286404

Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

505

D7

chapter D THE LEARNING ENVIRONMENT AND ORGANISATION OF SCHOOLS

Table D7.3b. [2/4] Teacher appraisal at the lower secondary level:

Eligibility, governance and responsibilities (2015)
For teachers teaching general programmes

Czech Republic
Denmark
England
Estonia
Finland
France
Germany
Greece

Hungary

Iceland
Ireland
Israel
Italy
Japan
Korea
Luxembourg
Mexico

Other

Belgium (Fl.)
Belgium (Fr.)
Canada
Chile

Voluntary

Austria

As the result
of a complaint

Australia

Types of teacher
appraisal covered
by policy framework

In relation to
decision on
employment
status

OECD

D7

As the result
of performance
problems
At the discretion
of the school
board or
committee
At the discretion
of the school
director

Circumstances under which appraised

(1)

(14)

(15)

(16)

(17)

(18)

(19)

(20)

(21)

(34)

Completion of probation
Regular appraisal
Teacher registration
Appraisal for promotion
Completion of probation
Regular appraisal
Teacher registration
Appraisal for promotion
Regular appraisal
Regular appraisal
m
Regular appraisal
Reward schemes
Completion of probation
Regular appraisal
Appraisal for promotion
a
Completion of probation
Regular appraisal
a
m
Completion of probation
Regular appraisal
a
Completion of probation
Regular appraisal
Teacher registration
Appraisal for promotion
Completion of probation
Regular appraisal
Appraisal for promotion
Reward schemes
a
Completion of probation
Teacher registration
Completion of probation
Teacher registration
Appraisal for promotion
Completion of probation
Regular appraisal
Regular appraisal
Appraisal for promotion
Reward schemes
a
Completion of probation
Regular appraisal
Appraisal for promotion
Reward schemes

m
m
Yes
m
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
m
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
a
No
No
a
m
Yes
Yes
a
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
a
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
a
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes

m
m
m
m
No
Yes
No
No
No
Yes
m
No
No
No
No
No
a
No
No
a
m
Yes
Yes
a
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
No
a
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
a
No
No
No
No

m
Yes
No
m
No
Yes
No
No
No
Yes
m
No
No
No
No
No
a
Yes
Yes
a
m
Yes
Yes
a
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
No
a
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
Yes
No
No
No
a
No
No
No
No

m
m
No
m
No
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
m
No
No
No
No
No
a
No
No
a
m
No
No
a
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
a
No
No
No
No
No
No
a
No
No
No
a
No
No
No
No

m
Yes
No
m
No
Yes
No
No
Yes
Yes
m
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
a
No
No
a
m
No
No
a
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
a
No
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
a
No
No
No
No

m
m
No
m
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
No
m
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
a
Yes
Yes
a
m
No
Yes
a
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
a
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
a
No
No
Yes
Yes

m
Yes
No
m
No
No
No
No
No
No
m
No
No
No
No
No
a
No
No
a
m
No
No
a
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
a
No
No
No
No
No
No
m
Yes
Yes
Yes
a
No
No
No
No

S, SR, SB, P
S, SR, SB, P
S
m
C
C
C
C
S, SO, P
S
m
C
C
P
C, P
C, P
a
C, S
C
a
m
C
C
a
C
C, CA, SB, SO
C, CA, SB, SO
C, CA, SB, SO
C, CA
C, CA
C, CA
C, CA
a
TP
TP
C
C
C
SB
R, L
C, R, L, SB
C, R
C, R, L, SB
a
C
C
C
C

S, P, SL, SU
P, SL, SU
S
m
S, R, P
S, R, P, IA
S, R, P, IA
S, R, IA
SO, P, SL
S
m
C
C
P, SU
P, O
P, O
a
L, P
L, P
a
m
C, P, SU, IA
C, P, IA
a
C, P, EE
C, SB, P, EE
C, SB, P, EE
C, SB, P, EE
P, O
R, P
R, P
R, P
a
P, SL, SU, PE
P, SL, SU, PE
C, P
C, P, O
C, P, O
O
R, L, P, SL
P, SL, PS, O
P, PS
P, PS
a
C
C
C, P, PS
C

Who determines
the procedures
for appraisal

Who are
the evaluators

Obligation to undertake teacher appraisal

Frequency of appraisal

Who determines the procedures and who evaluates

MP: Mandatory periodic
MN: Mandatory non-periodic
VO: Not mandatory/voluntary

1:
2:
3:
4:
5:
6:
7:

C: Central education authorities or government
S: State education authorities or government
R: Provincial or regional education authorities or government
SR: Sub-regional education authorities or government
L: Local education authorities or government
CA: Central agency
SB: School board
SO: School organising body
P: School principal
DP: Deputy school principal
SL: Member of school leadership other than school principal/director
TP: Teacher professional organisation
SU: Supervisor
PS: Peer evaluator at the same school
PE: Peer evaluator from another school
IA: Intermediate agency
EE: External accredited evaluator
O: Other

More than once per month
Three or more times per year
Twice per year
Once per year
Once every two years
Once every three years
Once every four years

Notes: Federal states or countries with highly decentralised school systems may have different regulations in states, provinces or regions. Please refer to Annex 3
for additional information.
Individual columns for who determines the procedures for appraisal (i.e. columns 22-33) and who evaluates (i.e. columns 35-50) are available for consultation on line
(see StatLink below).
Source: OECD. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/education/education-at-a-glance-19991487.htm).
Please refer to the Reader’s Guide for information concerning symbols for missing data and abbreviations.
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933286404

506 Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

What teacher and school leader appraisal systems are in place? – INDICATOR D7

chapter D

Table D7.3b. [3/4] Teacher appraisal at the lower secondary level:

Eligibility, governance and responsibilities (2015)
For teachers teaching general programmes

Latvia

Frequency
of appraisal

Colombia

Obligation to
undertake appraisal

Brazil

Other

Partners

United States

Teachers on
probation

Switzerland
Turkey

Teachers on
fixed-term
contracts

Spain
Sweden

Permanent
teachers

Slovenia

All provisionally
registered
teachers

Scotland
Slovak Republic

All registered
teachers

Portugal

All teachers
regardless of
contract status

Norway
Poland

Teachers in
independent
private schools

New Zealand

Teachers in
governmentdependent
private schools

Netherlands

Types of teacher
appraisal covered
by policy framework

Teachers in
public schools

OECD

Teachers eligible and included in the policy framework

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7)

(8)

(9)

(10)

(11)

(12)

(13)

Completion of probation
Regular appraisal
Teacher registration
Appraisal for promotion
Reward schemes
Completion of probation
Regular appraisal
Teacher registration
a
Completion of probation
Regular appraisal
Appraisal for promotion
Completion of probation
Regular appraisal
a
Completion of probation
Regular appraisal
Completion of probation
Regular appraisal
Teacher registration
Appraisal for promotion
Reward schemes
Teacher registration
Regular appraisal
Teacher registration
Reward schemes
m
Completion of probation
Regular appraisal
Reward schemes
Completion of probation
Regular appraisal
Teacher registration
Appraisal for promotion
Reward schemes

Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
a
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
a
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
m
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes

Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
a
a
a
a
Yes
No
Yes
No
No
a
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
m
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a

Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
a
No
No
No
No
No
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
No
a
a
a
m
Yes
Yes
No
m
m
m
m
m

Yes
Yes
Yes
No
m
No
Yes
Yes
a
No
No
No
No
No
a
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
No
No
m
No
Yes
No
m
m
m
m
m

Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
m
a
a
a
m
m
m
m
m

Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
No
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
No
m
a
a
a
m
m
m
m
m

Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
a
No
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
a
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
m
No
Yes
Yes
m
m
m
m
m

Yes
Yes
Yes
No
m
No
Yes
Yes
a
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
a
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No
m
No
No
No
m
m
m
m
m

Yes
Yes
Yes
No
m
Yes
No
No
a
Yes
No
No
Yes
No
a
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No
m
Yes
No
No
m
m
m
m
m

No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
a
No
No
No
No
No
a
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
m
No
No
No
m
m
m
m
m

m
MP
VO
VO
m
MP
MP
MP
a
MP
VO
VO
MP
MP
a
MN
MP
VO
MP
MN
VO
VO
MN
MP
MN
VO
m
MP
MP
MP
m
m
m
m
m

m
6
m
m
m
4
4
4
a
4
a
a
4
7
a
a
4
a
4
a
a
a
a
m
a
a
m
4
4
4
m
m
m
m
m

Completion of probation
Regular appraisal
Completion of probation
Regular appraisal
Appraisal for promotion
m

Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
m

Yes
Yes
No
No
No
m

Yes
Yes
No
No
No
m

No
Yes
No
No
No
m

a
a
No
No
No
m

a
a
No
No
No
m

Yes
Yes
No
No
No
m

No
Yes
No
No
No
m

Yes
Yes
No
No
No
m

No
No
No
No
No
m

MP
MP
MN
MP
VO
m

3
2
a
4
a
m

Obligation to undertake teacher appraisal

Frequency of appraisal

Who determines the procedures and who evaluates

MP: Mandatory periodic
MN: Mandatory non-periodic
VO: Not mandatory/voluntary

1:
2:
3:
4:
5:
6:
7:

C: Central education authorities or government
S: State education authorities or government
R: Provincial or regional education authorities or government
SR: Sub-regional education authorities or government
L: Local education authorities or government
CA: Central agency
SB: School board
SO: School organising body
P: School principal
DP: Deputy school principal
SL: Member of school leadership other than school principal/director
TP: Teacher professional organisation
SU: Supervisor
PS: Peer evaluator at the same school
PE: Peer evaluator from another school
IA: Intermediate agency
EE: External accredited evaluator
O: Other

More than once per month
Three or more times per year
Twice per year
Once per year
Once every two years
Once every three years
Once every four years

Notes: Federal states or countries with highly decentralised school systems may have different regulations in states, provinces or regions. Please refer to Annex 3
for additional information.
Individual columns for who determines the procedures for appraisal (i.e. columns 22-33) and who evaluates (i.e. columns 35-50) are available for consultation on line
(see StatLink below).
Source: OECD. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/education/education-at-a-glance-19991487.htm).
Please refer to the Reader’s Guide for information concerning symbols for missing data and abbreviations.
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933286404

Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

507

D7

chapter D THE LEARNING ENVIRONMENT AND ORGANISATION OF SCHOOLS

Table D7.3b. [4/4] Teacher appraisal at the lower secondary level:

Eligibility, governance and responsibilities (2015)
For teachers teaching general programmes

Portugal
Scotland
Slovak Republic
Slovenia

Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Turkey

Partners

United States

Brazil
Colombia
Latvia

Other

Norway
Poland

Voluntary

New Zealand

As the result
of a complaint

Netherlands

In relation
to decision
on employment
status

OECD

D7

As the result
of performance
problems
At the discretion
of the school
board or
committee
At the discretion
of the school
director

Circumstances under which appraised

Who determines
the procedures
for appraisal

(1)

(14)

(15)

(16)

(17)

(18)

(19)

(20)

(21)

(34)

Completion of probation
Regular appraisal
Teacher registration
Appraisal for promotion
Reward schemes
Completion of probation
Regular appraisal
Teacher registration
a
Completion of probation
Regular appraisal
Appraisal for promotion
Completion of probation
Regular appraisal
a
Completion of probation
Regular appraisal
Completion of probation
Regular appraisal
Teacher registration
Appraisal for promotion
Reward schemes
Teacher registration
Regular appraisal
Teacher registration
Reward schemes
m
Completion of probation
Regular appraisal
Reward schemes
Completion of probation
Regular appraisal
Teacher registration
Appraisal for promotion
Reward schemes

m
m
m
m
m
Yes
Yes
Yes
a
Yes
No
Yes
No
No
a
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
m
Yes
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes

m
m
m
m
m
Yes
Yes
Yes
a
No
No
No
No
No
a
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
m
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes

m
m
m
m
m
Yes
Yes
Yes
a
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
a
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
No
No
m
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes

m
m
m
m
m
Yes
Yes
Yes
a
No
No
No
No
No
a
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
No
m
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes

m
m
m
m
m
Yes
Yes
Yes
a
No
Yes
No
No
No
a
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
m
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes

m
m
m
m
m
Yes
Yes
Yes
a
No
Yes
No
No
No
a
Yes
Yes
No
No
Yes
Yes
No
No
m
Yes
Yes
m
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes

m
m
m
m
m
No
No
No
a
No
No
No
No
Yes
a
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
m
m
m
m
No
No
No
m
m
m
m
m

SB
SB
SB
SB
SB
C, CA, TP
C, CA, TP
C, CA, TP
a
C
C
C
C
C
a
C, CA, SB, P, DP, TP
C, CA, SB, P, DP, TP
C, O
C
C, P
C
P
C, S
C, SR, L, SO, P, DP
C, CA
C, SR, L, SO
m
C
C
C
S, L, SB, SO, P
S, L, SB, SO, P
S, L, SB, SO, P
S, L, SB, SO, P
S, L, SB, SO, P

m
m
m
m
m
C, SB, P, SL, TP, SU, PS
C, SB, P, SL, TP, SU, PS
C, SB, P, SL, TP, SU, PS
a
P
P
P
SB, SO, P, SU, EE
SB, SO, P, SU, EE
a
P, TP, SU, PS
P, TP, SU, PS
PS
P
C, P, PS
C, SO, P
P
S, P, SU, IA
C, SO, P, SL
C
L, SO
m
R, L, P, SU, EE
R, L, P, EE
R, L, P
P, SL, TP, SU, PS, EE
P, SL, TP, SU, PS, EE
P, SL, TP, SU, PS, EE
P, SL, TP, SU, PS, EE
P, SL, TP, SU, PS, EE

Completion of probation
Regular appraisal
Completion of probation
Regular appraisal
Appraisal for promotion
m

Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
m

No
No
No
No
No
m

No
Yes
No
No
No
m

No
No
No
No
No
m

No
Yes
No
No
No
m

No
No
No
No
Yes
m

No
No
No
No
No
m

S, L
S, L
C, CA
C, CA
C, CA
m

L, SL, SU, PS
L, SL, SU
P
P
S
m

Types of teacher
appraisal covered
by policy framework

Who are
the evaluators

Obligation to undertake teacher appraisal

Frequency of appraisal

Who determines the procedures and who evaluates

MP: Mandatory periodic
MN: Mandatory non-periodic
VO: Not mandatory/voluntary

1:
2:
3:
4:
5:
6:
7:

C: Central education authorities or government
S: State education authorities or government
R: Provincial or regional education authorities or government
SR: Sub-regional education authorities or government
L: Local education authorities or government
CA: Central agency
SB: School board
SO: School organising body
P: School principal
DP: Deputy school principal
SL: Member of school leadership other than school principal/director
TP: Teacher professional organisation
SU: Supervisor
PS: Peer evaluator at the same school
PE: Peer evaluator from another school
IA: Intermediate agency
EE: External accredited evaluator
O: Other

More than once per month
Three or more times per year
Twice per year
Once per year
Once every two years
Once every three years
Once every four years

Notes: Federal states or countries with highly decentralised school systems may have different regulations in states, provinces or regions. Please refer to Annex 3

for additional information.
Individual columns for who determines the procedures for appraisal (i.e. columns 22-33) and who evaluates (i.e. columns 35-50) are available for consultation on line
(see StatLink below).
Source: OECD. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/education/education-at-a-glance-19991487.htm).
Please refer to the Reader’s Guide for information concerning symbols for missing data and abbreviations.
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933286404

508 Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

What teacher and school leader appraisal systems are in place? – INDICATOR D7

chapter D

Table D7.4b. [1/2] Features of teacher appraisal at the lower secondary level (2015)
For teachers teaching general programmes

No
m
No
m
No
No
No
No
m
Yes
m
No
No
No
No
No
a
Yes
Yes
a
m
No
No
a
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
a
No
No
No
No
No
m
m
No
No

No
No
No
m
No
No
No
No
m
No
m
No
No
No
Yes
No
a
No
No
a
m
No
No
a
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
a
No
No
No
No
No
m
m
Yes
No

No
No
No
m
No
No
No
No
m
No
m
No
No
No
Yes
No
a
No
No
a
m
No
No
a
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
a
No
No
No
No
No
m
m
Yes
No

m
m
m
m
No
No
No
No
m
No
m
No
No
No
Yes
No
a
No
No
a
m
No
No
a
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
a
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
m
Yes
No

Belgium (Fl.)
Belgium (Fr.)
Canada
Chile
Czech Republic
Denmark
England
Estonia
Finland
France
Germany
Greece

Hungary

Iceland
Ireland
Israel
Italy
Japan
Korea

Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No

No

No

No Yes No

No

No

No

No

a
a
a
No No Yes
No Yes No
No Yes No
No No Yes

a
No
No
No
No

a
No
No
No
No

a
No
No
No
No

Reward schemes

Luxembourg
Mexico

a
Completion of probation
Regular appraisal
Appraisal for promotion
Reward schemes

a
Yes
Yes
Yes
No

a
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes

a
Yes
Yes
Yes
No

a
Yes
Yes
Yes
No

a
Yes
Yes
Yes
No

a
Yes
Yes
Yes
No

a
a
a
No Yes Yes
No No No
No No No
No No No

a
No
No
No
No

OECD

(18)

NTS, DUT, CC
NTS, DUT, CC
NTS
m
None
None
None
None
DUT
NTS
m
NTS, DUT
NTS, DUT
DUT, SIR
SIR
SIR
a
NTS, OTH
NTS, OTH
a
m
NTS, DUT, CC
NTS, DUT, CC
a
NTS, SDP
NTS, SDP
NTS, SDP
NTS, SDP
NTS, DUT
NTS, DUT
NTS, DUT
NTS, DUT
a
NTS, CC
NTS, CC
NTS
NTS
NTS
CC, SDP
m
NTS, RTS, DUT
NTS, RTS, DUT, CC,
SDP, SIR
NTS, RTS, DUT, SDP,
SIR
a
NTS
NTS
NTS
NTS

Mechanisms to appeal
appraisal results

m
m
m
m
No
No
No
No
m
No
m
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
a
No
No
a
m
No
No
a
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
a
No
No
No
No
No
m
m
No
No

Yes
Yes
Yes
m
Yes
No
No
No
m
Yes
m
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
a
No
No
a
m
Yes
Yes
a
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
a
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
m
m
Yes
Yes

References/standards
against which
teachers
are appraised

Appraisal results in a rating

Yes
Yes
No
m
No
No
No
No
m
No
m
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
a
Yes
Yes
a
m
Yes
Yes
a
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
a
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
m
m
No
Yes

Other

Yes
Yes
Yes
m
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
m
No
No
Yes
Yes
No
a
Yes
Yes
a
m
Yes
Yes
a
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
a
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
m
m
No
No

Parent surveys

Yes
Yes
m
m
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
m
Yes
m
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
a
Yes
Yes
a
m
Yes
Yes
a
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
a
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
m
m
Yes
Yes

Student surveys

(9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) (15) (16) (17)

m
m
No
m
No
No
Yes
No
No
Yes
m
No
No
No
Yes
No
a
No
No
a
m
Yes
Yes
a
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
a
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
m
No
No

Student outcomes

(8)

Yes
Yes
Yes
m
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
m
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
a
Yes
Yes
a
m
Yes
Yes
a
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
a
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
m
m
Yes
Yes

Teacher testing

(7)

m
m
No
m
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No
m
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
a
Yes
Yes
a
m
Yes
Yes
a
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
a
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
m
m
No
Yes

Teacher portfolio

(6)

Teacher self-appraisal

Other

Austria

Interview/dialogue between
teachers and evaluator

Links to the community

(5)

Yes
Yes
Yes
m
Yes
Yes
No
No
Yes
Yes
m
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
a
Yes
Yes
a
m
Yes
Yes
a
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
a
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
m
m
No
Yes

Classroom observation

Contribution to school
development

(4)

Yes
Yes
Yes
m
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
m
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
a
Yes
Yes
a
m
Yes
Yes
a
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
a
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
m
m
Yes
Yes

Classroom environment

(3)

Yes
Yes
Yes
m
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
m
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
a
Yes
Yes
a
m
Yes
Yes
a
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
a
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
m
m
Yes
Yes

Instruction

(2)

Yes
Yes
Yes
m
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
m
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
a
Yes
Yes
a
m
Yes
Yes
a
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
a
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
m
m
Yes
Yes

Planning and preparation

(1)

Completion of probation
Regular appraisal
Teacher registration
Appraisal for promotion
Completion of probation
Regular appraisal
Teacher registration
Appraisal for promotion
Regular appraisal
Regular appraisal
m
Regular appraisal
Reward schemes
Completion of probation
Regular appraisal
Appraisal for promotion
a
Completion of probation
Regular appraisal
a
m
Completion of probation
Regular appraisal
a
Completion of probation
Regular appraisal
Teacher registration
Appraisal for promotion
Completion of probation
Regular appraisal
Appraisal for promotion
Reward schemes
a
Completion of probation
Teacher registration
Completion of probation
Teacher registration
Appraisal for promotion
Completion of probation
Regular appraisal
Regular appraisal
Appraisal for promotion

Types of teacher
appraisal covered
by policy framework
Australia

Instruments and information sources used

Professional development

Aspects appraised

(27) (28)

Yes
Yes
No
m
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
m
Yes
No
m
No
No
a
No
No
a
m
Yes
Yes
a
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
a
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
m
No
Yes

Yes
Yes
Yes
m
m
m
m
m
Yes
No
m
No
No
No
No
No
a
Yes
Yes
a
m
Yes
Yes
a
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
m
m
m
m
a
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
m
Yes
No

Yes Yes
a
a
Yes Yes
Yes m
Yes Yes
m Yes

References /standards against which teachers are appraised
None: None
NTS: National or state teaching standards
RTS: Regional or intermediate teaching standards
DUT: A description of the general and professional duties of teachers
CC:
Code of conduct
SDP: School development plan or school project
SIR: School internal regulations
OTH: Other

Notes: Federal states or countries with highly decentralised school systems may have different regulations in states, provinces or regions. Please refer to Annex 3 for
additional information.
Individual columns for the references against which teachers are appraised (i.e. columns 19-26) are available for consultation on line (see StatLink below).
Source: OECD. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/education/education-at-a-glance-19991487.htm).
Please refer to the Reader’s Guide for information concerning symbols for missing data and abbreviations.
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933286413

Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

509

D7

chapter D THE LEARNING ENVIRONMENT AND ORGANISATION OF SCHOOLS

Table D7.4b. [2/2] Features of teacher appraisal at the lower secondary level (2015)
For teachers teaching general programmes

Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Turkey

Partners

United States

Brazil
Colombia
Latvia

Appraisal results in a rating

Interview/dialogue between
teachers and evaluator

(8)

(9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) (15) (16) (17)

m
m
m
m
m
Yes
Yes
Yes
a
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
a
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
m
No
m
m
Yes
Yes
Yes
m
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes

m
m
m
m
m
No
No
No
a
No
No
No
No
No
a
Yes
Yes
No
No
Yes
No
No
No
m
Yes
Yes
m
No
No
No
m
m
m
m
m

m
m
m
m
m
Yes
Yes
Yes
a
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
a
Yes
Yes
m
Yes
Yes
No
m
Yes
m
No
m
m
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes

m
m
m
m
m
Yes
Yes
Yes
a
m
m
m
No
No
a
Yes
Yes
m
Yes
No
No
m
Yes
m
No
m
m
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes

m
m
m
m
m
Yes
Yes
Yes
a
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
a
No
No
m
No
No
No
m
No
m
No
m
m
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes

m
m
m
m
m
Yes
Yes
Yes
a
m
No
m
No
No
a
Yes
Yes
m
No
No
Yes
m
Yes
m
No
m
m
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes

m
m
m
m
m
No
No
No
a
No
No
No
No
No
a
Yes
No
m
No
Yes
No
m
No
m
No
m
m
Yes
No
No
m
m
m
m
m

m
m
m
m
m
No
No
No
a
No
No
No
No
No
a
Yes
Yes
m
No
No
No
m
No
m
No
m
m
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes

m
m
m
m
m
No
No
No
a
No
Yes
No
No
No
a
Yes
Yes
m
No
No
No
m
No
m
No
m
m
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes

m
m
m
m
m
No
No
No
a
No
No
No
No
No
a
Yes
Yes
m
No
No
No
m
No
m
No
m
m
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes

m
m
m
m
m
No
No
No
a
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
a
No
No
m
m
m
m
m
No
m
Yes
m
m
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes

m
m
m
m
m
NTS, DUT, CC, SDP, SIR
NTS, DUT, CC, SDP, SIR
NTS, DUT
a
NTS
NTS
NTS
NTS, SDP, SIR, OTH
NTS, SDP, SIR, OTH
a
NTS, DUT, CC, SDP, SIR
NTS, DUT, CC, SDP, SIR
None
DUT
NTS, OTH
NTS, DUT
DUT
NTS
NTS, SDP, SIR
NTS
NTS, OTH
m
NTS, CC
NTS, CC
NTS, CC
NTS, DUT, CC, SDP, SIR
NTS, DUT, CC, SDP, SIR
NTS, DUT, CC, SDP, SIR
NTS, DUT, CC, SDP, SIR
NTS, DUT, CC, SDP, SIR

Completion of probation
Regular appraisal
Completion of probation
Regular appraisal
Appraisal for promotion
m

Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
m

Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
m

Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
m

Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
m

Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
m

Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
m

No
No
No
No
No
m

No
No
No
No
No
m

Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
m

Yes
Yes
No
No
No
m

No
No
Yes
Yes
No
m

No
No
No
No
Yes
m

No
Yes
No
Yes
No
m

No
Yes
No
No
No
m

No
No
No
No
No
m

No
No
No
No
No
m

DUT, CC
m m
DUT, CC
m m
NTS, DUT, CC, SDP, SIR Yes No
NTS, DUT, CC, SDP, SIR Yes No
NTS, DUT, CC
Yes Yes
m
m m

References/standards
against which
teachers
are appraised
(18)

Mechanisms to appeal
appraisal results

(7)

m
m
m
m
m
Yes
Yes
Yes
a
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
a
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
m
No
m
m
Yes
Yes
Yes
m
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes

Other

(6)

m
m
m
m
m
Yes
Yes
Yes
a
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
a
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
m
No
m
m
Yes
Yes
Yes
m
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes

Parent surveys

(5)

m
m
m
m
m
Yes
Yes
Yes
a
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
a
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
m
No
m
m
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes

Student surveys

(4)

m
m
m
m
m
Yes
Yes
Yes
a
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
a
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
m
No
m
m
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes

Student outcomes

(3)

m
m
m
m
m
Yes
Yes
Yes
a
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
a
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
m
No
m
m
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes

Teacher testing

(2)

Teacher portfolio

(1)

Completion of probation
Regular appraisal
Teacher registration
Appraisal for promotion
Reward schemes
Completion of probation
Regular appraisal
Teacher registration
a
Completion of probation
Regular appraisal
Appraisal for promotion
Completion of probation
Regular appraisal
a
Completion of probation
Regular appraisal
Completion of probation
Regular appraisal
Teacher registration
Appraisal for promotion
Reward schemes
Teacher registration
Regular appraisal
Teacher registration
Reward schemes
m
Completion of probation
Regular appraisal
Reward schemes
Completion of probation
Regular appraisal
Teacher registration
Appraisal for promotion
Reward schemes

Types of teacher
appraisal covered
by policy framework

Teacher self-appraisal

Classroom observation

Slovenia

Other

Scotland
Slovak Republic

Links to the community

Portugal

Contribution to school
development

Norway
Poland

Professional development

New Zealand

Classroom environment

Netherlands

Instruction

OECD

D7

Instruments and information sources used

Planning and preparation

Aspects appraised

(27) (28)

m
m
m
m
m
No
No
No
a
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
a
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
m
No
m
m
Yes
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes

Yes
Yes
m
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
a
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
a
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
m
Yes
m
m
Yes
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes

References /standards against which teachers are appraised
None: None
NTS: National or state teaching standards
RTS: Regional or intermediate teaching standards
DUT: A description of the general and professional duties of teachers
CC:
Code of conduct
SDP: School development plan or school project
SIR: School internal regulations
OTH: Other

Notes: Federal states or countries with highly decentralised school systems may have different regulations in states, provinces or regions. Please refer to Annex 3 for
additional information.
Individual columns for the references against which teachers are appraised (i.e. columns 19-26) are available for consultation on line (see StatLink below).
Source: OECD. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/education/education-at-a-glance-19991487.htm).
Please refer to the Reader’s Guide for information concerning symbols for missing data and abbreviations.
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933286413

510 Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

What teacher and school leader appraisal systems are in place? – INDICATOR D7

chapter D

Table D7.8b. School leader appraisal at the lower secondary level:

Eligibility, governance and responsibilities (2015)
In general programmes

School leaders included
in the policy framework

School principals/
directors

Deputy school
principals/directors

Middle leaders

Department heads

Other

Obligation to undertake
appraisal

Frequency of appraisal

In relation to decision
on employment status

As the result
of a complaint

At the discretion
of the school board
or committee/
education authority

In the event of
a transfer request

At the discretion
of the school director

Voluntary

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7)

(8)

(9)

(10)

(11)

(12)

(13)

(14) (15)

OECD

P
N
L
L
L
N
L
P
L
N
m
L
N
L
L
N
N
L
N
N
L
N
L
P
L
N
L
L
N
L
L
L
N
L
L
L

a
a
Yes
Yes
m
a
Yes
a
Yes
a
m
Yes
a
Yes
Yes
a
a
Yes
a
a
Yes
a
Yes
a
Yes
a
Yes
Yes
a
Yes
Yes
Yes
a
m
Yes
Yes

a
a
No
No
m
a
No
a
Yes
a
m
Yes
a
No
No
a
a
Yes
a
a
Yes
a
Yes
a
Yes
a
No
Yes
a
Yes
Yes
No
a
m
No
Yes

a
a
Yes
a
m
a
No
a
No
a
m
No
a
No
No
a
a
No
a
a
a
a
Yes
a
Yes
a
No
Yes
a
No
a
No
a
m
No
m

a
a
No
a
m
a
No
a
No
a
m
No
a
No
No
a
a
No
a
a
a
a
Yes
a
Yes
a
No
Yes
a
No
a
No
a
m
No
m

a
a
No
a
m
a
No
a
Yes
a
m
No
a
No
No
a
a
No
a
a
No
a
No
a
No
a
No
No
a
No
No
No
a
m
No
m

a
a
MP
MP
m
a
MN
a
MP
a
m
MP
a
MP
MP
a
a
MP
a
a
MP
a
MP
a
MP
a
VO
MP
a
MP
MP
MP
a
m
MP
m

a
a
3
4
m
a
a
a
1
a
m
2
a
3
4
a
a
2
a
a
1
a
3
a
1
a
a
3
a
1
1
1
a
m
3
m

a
a
Yes
Yes
m
a
Yes
a
No
a
m
No
a
Yes
Yes
a
a
Yes
a
a
No
a
Yes
a
Yes
a
No
No
a
No
Yes
Yes
a
m
Yes
Yes

a
a
No
No
m
a
No
a
No
a
m
Yes
a
No
No
a
a
No
a
a
No
a
No
a
No
a
No
No
a
Yes
No
No
a
m
Yes
Yes

a
a
Yes
Yes
m
a
No
a
No
a
m
No
a
No
No
a
a
No
a
a
Yes
a
No
a
Yes
a
Yes
No
a
No
No
No
a
m
No
Yes

a
a
No
No
m
a
No
a
No
a
m
Yes
a
No
No
a
a
No
a
a
No
a
No
a
No
a
No
No
a
No
No
No
a
m
No
Yes

a
a
Yes
No
m
a
No
a
No
a
m
No
a
No
No
a
a
Yes
a
a
No
a
No
a
No
a
No
No
a
No
No
No
a
m
Yes
Yes

a
a
No
No
m
a
No
a
Yes
a
m
No
a
Yes
No
a
a
Yes
a
a
No
a
Yes
a
No
a
Yes
No
a
No
No
No
a
m
No
Yes

Brazil
Colombia
Latvia

m
L

m
Yes

m
Yes

m
No

m
No

m
No

m
MP

m
1

m
Yes

m
No

m
No

m
No

m
Yes

m m
No No

P

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

Other

Existence of school leader
appraisal
(1)

Australia
Austria
Belgium (Fl.)
Belgium (Fr.)
Canada
Chile
Czech Republic
Denmark
England
Estonia
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Iceland
Ireland
Israel
Italy
Japan
Korea
Luxembourg
Mexico
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Scotland
Slovak Republic
Slovenia
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Turkey
United States

Partners

Circumstances under which appraised

Who are
the evaluators

(16)

(30)

a
a
a
a
No
S, SO
No
S, SO
m
m
a
a
No
R, SO
a
a
m
C
a
a
m
m
No
C
a
a
No
C
Yes
C, CA
a
a
a
a
No
C, SA
a
a
a
a
No
C, R, L, SB
a
a
No
C
a
a
No C, CA, SB, P, DP, SP
a
a
No
C
Yes
C
a
a
No
SO, P, O
No
C
No
S
a
a
m
m
No
C
Yes
S, L, SB, SO, SP

a

D7

Who determines
the procedures
for appraisal

a
a
P, SO
S, SO, O
m
a
SR, SO
a
L, SB, EE
a
m
C
a
C, IA
P, EE, O
a
a
R
a
a
P, DP, EE, O
a
C
a
C, SB, P, SL, PE
a
L
SB, IA
a
P, SO
C, SB, P, SO, IA
S, IA
a
m
R, L, EE, O
S, L, SB, PS, EE, PE

m
C, CA

m
S/L

a

a

Existence of school leader appraisal

Frequency of appraisal

Who determines the procedures and who evaluates

L: Legislated
P: No school leader appraisal, but have similar practices
N: No school leader appraisal or similar practices

1: Once per year
2: Once every three years
3: Once every four years
4: Once every five years

C: Central education authorities or government
CA: Central agency
S: State education authorities or government
SA: State agency
R: Provincial or regional education authorities or government
SR: Sub-regional inter-municipal education authorities or government
L: Local education authorities or government
SB: School board or committee
SO: School organising body
P: School principal/director
DP: Deputy school principal/director
SP: Professional organisation for school leaders
SL: Member of school leadership other than school principal/director
TP: Teacher professional organisation
SU: Supervisor
PS: Peer evaluator at the same school
PE: Peer evaluator from another school
IA: Intermediate agency
EE: External accredited evaluator
O: Other

Obligation to undertake appraisal procedure
MP: Mandatory periodic
MN: Mandatory non-periodic
VO: Not mandatory/voluntary

Notes: Federal states or countries with highly decentralised school systems may have different regulations in states, provinces or regions. Please refer to Annex 3 for
additional information.
Individual columns for who determines the procedures for appraisal (i.e. columns 17-29) and who evaluates (i.e. columns 31-45) are available for consultation on line
(see StatLink below).
Source: OECD. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/education/education-at-a-glance-19991487.htm).
Please refer to the Reader’s Guide for information concerning symbols for missing data and abbreviations.
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933286426

Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

511

chapter D THE LEARNING ENVIRONMENT AND ORGANISATION OF SCHOOLS

Table D7.9b. Features of school leader appraisal at the lower secondary level (2015)
In general programmes

Evaluation and
accountability

Resource management

Interpersonal skills

Other

Interview/dialogue between
school leader and evaluator

School leader self-appraisal

School leader portfolio

Result in a rating

Mechanisms to appeal
appraisal results

(7)

(8)

(9) (10)

(11)

(12)

(13) (14) (15) (16) (17) (18) (19)

(20)

(29)

(30)

a
a
m
Yes
m
a
No
a
m
a
m
Yes
a
Yes
No
a
a
Yes
a
a
Yes
a
Yes
a
Yes
a
Yes
Yes
a
Yes
Yes
Yes
a
m
Yes
Yes

a
a
m
Yes
m
a
No
a
m
a
m
Yes
a
Yes
No
a
a
Yes
a
a
Yes
a
Yes
a
Yes
a
Yes
Yes
a
Yes
Yes
Yes
a
m
Yes
Yes

a
a
m
No
m
a
Yes
a
m
a
m
Yes
a
Yes
No
a
a
Yes
a
a
Yes
a
Yes
a
Yes
a
Yes
Yes
a
Yes
Yes
Yes
a
m
Yes
Yes

a
a
m
Yes
m
a
Yes
a
m
a
m
Yes
a
Yes
No
a
a
Yes
a
a
Yes
a
Yes
a
Yes
a
Yes
Yes
a
Yes
Yes
Yes
a
m
Yes
Yes

a
a
m
Yes
m
a
No
a
m
a
m
Yes
a
Yes
No
a
a
No
a
a
Yes
a
Yes
a
Yes
a
Yes
Yes
a
Yes
Yes
Yes
a
m
Yes
Yes

a
a
m
Yes
m
a
Yes
a
m
a
m
No
a
No
No
a
a
No
a
a
No
a
No
a
No
a
No
Yes
a
No
No
No
a
m
Yes
m

a
a
Yes
Yes
m
a
No
a
Yes
a
m
Yes
a
Yes
Yes
a
a
Yes
a
a
Yes
a
No
a
Yes
a
m
No
a
Yes
Yes
Yes
a
m
Yes
Yes

a
a
m
Yes
m
a
Yes
a
Yes
a
m
Yes
a
Yes
Yes
a
a
Yes
a
a
Yes
a
No
a
Yes
a
m
Yes
a
Yes
No
No
a
m
No
Yes

a
a
m
No
m
a
No
a
Yes
a
m
Yes
a
Yes
Yes
a
a
No
a
a
Yes
a
Yes
a
Yes
a
No
No
a
Yes
Yes
Yes
a
m
Yes
Yes

a
a
m
No
m
a
Yes
a
No
a
m
No
a
Yes
Yes
a
a
No
a
a
Yes
a
No
a
Yes
a
No
Yes
a
Yes
No
Yes
a
m
Yes
Yes

a
a
m
No
m
a
Yes
a
m
a
m
Yes
a
No
No
a
a
No
a
a
No
a
No
a
m
a
No
No
a
No
No
No
a
m
No
m

a
a
DUT
NSS, DUT, OTH
m
a
DUT, OTH
a
NSS
a
m
NSS, DUT, OTH
a
NSS, DUT, SDP
NSS, DUT
a
a
NSS, RSS, DUT, CC
a
a
RSS, DUT
a
NSS
a
NSS, DUT, CC, SDP, SIR
a
NSS
DUT, SDP, OTH
a
RSS, SIR
NSS
NSS
a
m
NSS, CC
NSS, DUT, CC, SDP, SIR

a
a
Yes
No
m
a
No
a
No
a
m
Yes
a
Yes
No
a
a
Yes
a
a
Yes
a
Yes
a
No
a
Yes
Yes
a
Yes
Yes
No
a
m
Yes
Yes

a
a
Yes
Yes
m
a
No
a
Yes
a
m
Yes
a
Yes
m
a
a
Yes
a
a
No
a
Yes
a
Yes
a
Yes
Yes
a
Yes
Yes
Yes
a
m
Yes
Yes

Brazil
Colombia
Latvia

m
L

m
Yes

m
Yes

m
Yes

m
Yes

m
Yes

m
No

m m m
Yes Yes No

m
Yes

m
No

m
Yes

m m m m m m
No Yes No No No No

m
NSS, DUT, CC, SDP, SIR

m
Yes

m
No

P

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

Existence of school leader appraisal
L: Legislated
P: No school leader appraisal, but have similar practices
N: No school leader appraisal or similar practices

a

a

a
a
m
No
m
a
No
a
No
a
m
Yes
a
Yes
No
a
a
No
a
a
No
a
Yes
a
Yes
a
No
Yes
a
Yes
No
No
a
m
Yes
Yes

a

a
a
m
No
m
a
No
a
Yes
a
m
No
a
Yes
No
a
a
No
a
a
No
a
No
a
Yes
a
No
No
a
No
No
No
a
m
Yes
Yes

a

a
a
m
No
m
a
No
a
No
a
m
No
a
Yes
Yes
a
a
No
a
a
Yes
a
No
a
Yes
a
No
No
a
No
No
No
a
m
Yes
Yes

a

a
a
m
No
m
a
No
a
No
a
m
No
a
Yes
Yes
a
a
No
a
a
Yes
a
No
a
Yes
a
No
No
a
No
No
No
a
m
Yes
Yes

a

Other

Community relations
(6)

a
a
m
Yes
m
a
Yes
a
m
a
m
Yes
a
Yes
No
a
a
Yes
a
a
Yes
a
Yes
a
Yes
a
Yes
Yes
a
Yes
Yes
Yes
a
m
Yes
Yes

Teacher surveys

School climate
(5)

a
a
m
Yes
m
a
Yes
a
m
a
m
Yes
a
Yes
Yes
a
a
Yes
a
a
Yes
a
Yes
a
Yes
a
Yes
Yes
a
Yes
Yes
Yes
a
m
Yes
Yes

Parent surveys

Organisation development
(4)

a
a
m
Yes
m
a
Yes
a
m
a
m
Yes
a
Yes
Yes
a
a
Yes
a
a
Yes
a
Yes
a
Yes
a
Yes
Yes
a
Yes
Yes
Yes
a
m
Yes
Yes

Student surveys

Pedagogical/instructional
leadership
(3)

P
N
L
L
L
N
L
P
L
N
m
L
N
L
L
N
N
L
N
N
L
N
L
P
L
N
L
L
N
L
L
L
N
L
L
L

Student outcomes

General leadership
(2)

Australia
Austria
Belgium (Fl.)
Belgium (Fr.)
Canada
Chile
Czech Republic
Denmark
England
Estonia
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Iceland
Ireland
Israel
Italy
Japan
Korea
Luxembourg
Mexico
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Scotland
Slovak Republic
Slovenia
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Turkey
United States

D7

School visit

Existence of school leader
appraisal
(1)
OECD

Instruments and information sources used

Partners

Aspects appraised

References/standards
against which
school leaders
are appraised

a

References /standards against which school leaders are appraised
None: None
NSS: National or state standards for school leadership
RSS: Regional or intermediate standards for school leadership
DUT: A description of the general and professional duties of school leaders
CC: Code of conduct
SDP: School development plan or school project
SIR: School internal regulations
OTH: Other

Notes: Federal states or countries with highly decentralised school systems may have different regulations in states, provinces or regions. Please refer to Annex 3 for
additional information.
Individual columns for the references against which school leaders are appraised (i.e. columns 21-28) are available for consultation on line (see StatLink below).
Source: OECD. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/education/education-at-a-glance-19991487.htm).
Please refer to the Reader’s Guide for information concerning symbols for missing data and abbreviations.
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933286432

512 Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

TO WHAT EXTENT IS INFORMATION AND COMMUNICATION
TECHNOLOGY USED IN TEACHING AND LEARNING?
• Virtually all 15-year-old students in OECD countries are in schools that make at least one computer
available to them; but there is considerable variation in the ratio of students to computers, from
less than 1 student per computer in Australia to 45 students per computer in Turkey.

• On average across OECD countries, around 15% of students reported that they first accessed the

INDICATOR D8

Internet at age 6 or younger.

• Only 17% of students spend one hour or more at school using the Internet during a typical school
day, on average across OECD countries, while more than 36% of them do not spend any time using
the Internet at school.

Chart D8.1. How old were 15 year-old students
when they first accessed the Internet? (PISA 2012)
Age distribution based on results from students’ self-reports
6 years old or younger
7-9 years old
Have never accessed the Internet

10-12 years old

13 years old and older

Netherlands
Denmark
Israel
Norway
Sweden
Hong Kong (China)
Estonia
New Zealand
Iceland
Finland
Australia
Singapore
Spain
OECD average
Belgium
Liechtenstein
Slovenia
Chile
Latvia
Korea
Chinese Taipei
Portugal
Macao (China)
Uruguay
Costa Rica
Hungary
Jordan
Switzerland
Poland
Shanghai (China)
Austria
Croatia
Italy
Germany
Czech Republic
Ireland
Japan
Mexico
Turkey
Greece
Slovak Republic
Serbia
Russian Federation
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100 %

Countries and economies are ranked in descending order of the percentage of students who reported that they had first accessed the Internet when they
were 6 or younger.
Source: OECD. Table D8.1. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/education/education-at-a-glance-19991487.htm).
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933284683

514 Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

Context
Information and communication technology (ICT) is a major component of economic growth in all
OECD countries. Given that young people today need to be skilled in using these technologies as
students, job-seekers or workers, consumers and responsible citizens, those who have no access to
or experience in using ICT will find it increasingly difficult to participate fully in economic, social and
civic life. However, basic ICT skills may not add value unless they are well paired with cognitive skills
and other skills, such as creativity, communication skills, team work and perseverance.
Schools need sufficient ICT resources to help students both to learn how to use and benefit from
these technologies and to acquire new knowledge and skills, in other subjects, through using them.
ICT can also help teachers and school administrators to work more efficiently. The distribution of
resources across and within education systems has long been an important issue for both equity and
excellence in education. Given the rapid advances in technology, and the central role ICT now plays
in all aspects of life, education policy makers need to consider how to ensure that ICT resources and
students’ access to those resources are provided equitably within education systems.

INDICATOR D8

Other findings

• On average, 15-year-old boys score 4 points higher on the computer-based PISA reading test than
on the paper-based reading test. By contrast, 15-year-old girls perform 8 points lower in digital
reading than in paper-based reading test, on average.

• In all countries and economies that participated in the OECD Programme for International Student
Assessment (PISA) in 2012, the gender gap in reading performance is narrower in digital reading
than in print reading. Girls outperform boys in digital reading by an average of 26 score points,
compared to an average of 38 score points – the equivalent of nearly one year of schooling – in
print reading.

• Teachers who participated in the 2013 OECD Teaching and Learning International Survey (TALIS)
(OECD, 2014a) reported that the areas in which they most need professional development are in
teaching students with special needs and developing ICT skills for teaching.

• An average of only 40% of lower secondary teachers who participated in TALIS reported that
students frequently use ICT for projects or class work. This suggests that, despite large investments
in ICT across school systems, in many countries, teachers are still not systematically inclined and
prepared to use these tools in their teaching.

• Given teachers’ self-reported need for training in how to use ICT in their teaching, TALIS finds
no correlation between the ICT-related professional development activities offered and teachers’
participation rates in those programmes. That lack of coherence could be costly if the teachers who
feel they need further training do not have access to it, or if the training is not well-targeted.
Trends

• Students in 2012 were less likely than their counterparts were in 2003 to attend schools whose
principal reported that the school’s capacity to provide instruction is hindered by a lack of computers
and computer software.

• According to principals’ reports, the number of 15-year-old students per school computer did not
change significantly across OECD countries, on average. In 2012 as in 2009 there were between
four and five students to every school computer, on average across OECD countries.

Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

515

chapter D THE LEARNING ENVIRONMENT AND ORGANISATION OF SCHOOLS

Analysis
ICT resources in schools

Quality of schools’ educational resources

In 2012, an average of less than 10% of 15-year-old students across OECD countries attended schools whose principals
reported that the school’s capacity to provide instruction was hindered a lot by a shortage or inadequacy of educational
resources (e.g. traditional textbooks, library materials, a science laboratory, computers and computer software). Thus,
for example, only 9% of students were in schools whose principals reported that instruction was hindered a lot by
a shortage of computers for instruction, and only 5% were in schools whose principals reported that instruction
was hindered by a shortage of computer software. More globally, a shortage of computers for instruction hinders
learning to a greater extent in Brazil, Greece, Iceland, Indonesia, Mexico, Sweden, Tunisia and Turkey: at least 15% of
students attended schools whose principals reported that the school’s capacity to provide instruction was hindered a
lot by a shortage of computers. By contrast, principals are the most positive in Australia, the Czech Republic, France,
Hong-Kong (China), Hungary, Italy, Korea, Macao (China) and the Slovak Republic and reported for more than 96% of
them that instruction in their school is not hindered by a shortage of computers (Table D8.2).

Chart D8.2. Change between 2003 and 2012 in the index of quality of schools’
educational resources (e.g. textbooks, computers for instruction, computer software)
Mean index difference

1.6
1.4
1.2
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
-0.2
-0.4
-0.6
-0.8

1.51
1.38

1.33
1.10
0.83 0.82
0.69 0.63

0.61

0.55 0.52 0.51

0.47 0.46 0.43 0.43

0.42 0.41 0.41 0.41

0.36 0.36 0.35 0.33

0.24 0.22 0.20 0.20

0.18 0.17 0.16 0.14 0.13

0.07 0.04
-0.16

-0.31 -0.32
-0.66

Turkey
Poland
Uruguay
Russian Federation
Latvia
Macao (China)
Japan
Brazil
Canada
Slovak Republic
Portugal
Norway
Ireland
Czech Republic
Greece
Spain
Belgium
Hungary
Hong Kong (China)
Australia
Sweden
OECD average 2003
Switzerland
Indonesia
Liechtenstein
Germany
Italy
New Zealand
Denmark
Finland
Austria
Thailand
United States
Luxembourg
Netherlands
Mexico
Iceland
Korea
Tunisia

D8

In 2012, the OECD Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) asked school principals to report
whether their school’s capacity to provide instruction was hindered by a shortage or inadequacy of: science laboratory
equipment, instructional materials (e.g. textbooks), computers for instruction, computer software for instruction,
and library materials. The responses were combined to create an index of quality of schools’ educational resources that
has a mean of zero and a standard deviation of 1 in OECD countries. Positive values reflect principals’ perceptions
that a shortage of educational resources hinders learning to a lesser extent than the OECD average, and negative
values indicate that school principals believe the shortage hinders learning to a greater extent.

Notes: The index of quality of school educational resources was derived from the items measuring school principals’ perceptions of potential factors hindering instruction at
their school (SC14, from the PISA 2012 school questionnaire). Higher values on this index indicate better quality of educational resources in 2012. Dark blue bars indicate
differences that are statistically significant. For comparability over time, PISA 2003 values on the index of schools’ educational resources have been rescaled to the PISA 2012
scale of the index.
Countries and economies are ranked in descending order of the change between 2003 and 2012 in the index of quality of schools’ educational resources.
Source: OECD. Table D8.2. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/education/education-at-a-glance-19991487.htm).
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933284698

Moreover, the schools seem to be better equipped in new technologies in 2012 than in 2003. Thus, students in
2012 were less likely than their counterparts in 2003 to attend schools whose principal reported that the school’s
capacity to provide instruction is hindered by a lack of computers and computer software. Thus, for example, in
26 of the 38 countries and economies with comparable data, there were fewer school principals in 2012 than in
2003 who reported that their school’s capacity to provide instruction was hindered by a shortage of computers.

516 Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

To what extent is information and communication technology used in teaching and learning? – INDICATOR D8

chapter D

The largest improvements between 2003 and 2012 were observed in Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Germany, Ireland,
the Netherlands, the Russian Federation and Uruguay. By contrast, the shortage of computers for instruction was
greater in 2012 than in 2003 – signalling a greater likelihood that students attend schools where a lack of computers
hinders the school’s capacity to provide instruction – in Iceland, Indonesia, Mexico and Tunisia (Table D8.2).
The overall trend among OECD countries shows that the shortage of educational resources (e.g. traditional
textbooks, library materials, a science laboratory, computers and computer software) hindered the school’s capacity
to provide instruction to a lesser extent in 2012 than in 2003. This trend was observed across all school types,
advantaged and disadvantaged schools, private and public schools, lower and upper secondary programmes, and
urban and rural schools). (OECD [2013], Table IV.3.45).

Number of students per computer
Given that students’ use of ICT for learning partly depends on the extent to which they can have access to
a computer, a key indication of access to ICT resources is the number of students per school computer. Across
OECD countries, virtually all students attend schools with at least one computer. The number of students per
computer is based on principals’ reports about the number of students in the national modal grade for 15-year-olds
and on the number of computers available for these students. On average across OECD countries in 2012, there
were five students for every school computer. Brazil, Costa Rica, Indonesia, Mexico and Turkey had the largest
number (at least 15) of students per computer, while Australia, the Czech Republic, Macao (China), New Zealand,
Norway, the Slovak Republic, the United Kingdom and the United States had the smallest number (fewer than two)
of students per school computer (Table D8.1).
According to principals’ reports, the number of 15-year-old students per school computer did not change significantly
across OECD countries, on average. In 2012 as in 2009 there were between four and five students to every school
computer, on average across OECD countries. Globally, the number of students per school computer decreased
significantly in 12 of the 49 countries/economies with comparable data, and increased only in five – most notably
in Turkey (from 12 to 45). The change in Turkey may have been partly the result of an increase in the student
population during this period rather than a reduction in the number of computers available to them (Table D8.1).
First Internet access and intensity of Internet use at school

Number of students who have never used a computer
The most basic measure of students’ access to and familiarity with ICT is whether or not they have used a computer.
PISA 2012 found that virtually all 15-year-old boys and girls in all participating countries and economies had
accessed the Internet by the time they took the PISA test. In 2012, on average across OECD countries, less than
1% of students reported that they had never used a computer or accessed the Internet. In Mexico, 5% of students
so reported, and Jordan showed the highest levels of non-use, with 7% of students reporting that they had never
accessed the Internet (OECD [2015a]).
On average across OECD countries, around 15% of students reported that they first accessed the Internet before
they set foot in a classroom (i.e. at the age of 6 or earlier), and around 40% of students reported that they were
between 7 and 9 years old when they first used the Internet. On average, boys were 4 percentage points more likely
than girls to have used the Internet before the age of 6 (Table D8.1, Chart D8.1 and OECD [2015b]).
PISA 2012 asked students how much time they spend using the computer in classroom lessons during a typical
school day. Interpretation of ICT use in classroom lessons, measured by minutes and hours, is one way researchers
can determine the extent to which ICT is included in classroom activities. On average across OECD countries, only
17 % of students reported that they spend one hour or more using the Internet at school during a school day, while
more than 36% reported that they do not spend any time at school using the Internet (Table D8.1).
According to their own reports, students in OECD countries spend an average of 25 minutes per day on line at
school. In Australia, students spend an average of 58 minutes per day on line at school; in Denmark students spend
an average of 46 minutes per day on line at school; in Greece they spend 42 minutes per day on line at school; and
in Sweden students spend an average of 39 minutes per day on line at school. By contrast, in Germany, Italy, Japan,
Jordan, Korea, Macao (China), Poland, Shanghai (China), Singapore, Turkey and Uruguay, at least 50% of students
reported that they spend no time at school using the Internet (Table D8.1). However, the association between
the intensity of Internet use at school and PISA performance in reading is not linear. Thus, while PISA results
suggest that limited use of computers at school may be better than not using computers at all, using computers
more intensively than the OECD average tends to be associated with significantly poorer student performance.
Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

517

D8

chapter D THE LEARNING ENVIRONMENT AND ORGANISATION OF SCHOOLS

The use of ICT is linked to better student performance only in certain contexts, such as when computer software
and Internet connections help to increase study time and practice (OECD [2015b]).

D8

Although computers are becoming familiar pieces of hardware in many classrooms, most 15-year-olds who
use computers regularly do so outside of school, on weekends, during their leisure time, and generally not for
school work. On average across OECD countries, boys reported using the Internet for 144 minutes and girls for
130 minutes on typical weekdays. Perhaps surprisingly, boys also reported using the Internet at school more
than girls: in 26 countries, boys spend more time using the Internet at school on a typical weekday than girls do
(OECD [2015b]).
Gender differences in digital- and print-reading performance
But being familiar with smartphones and computers does not necessarily mean that a student can use those devices
competently or know how to critically assess the information he or she collects through them. The learning outcomes
that are associated with digital technologies depend, to a great extent, on how – and how frequently – students use
them.
PISA 2012 evaluated not only how skilled 15-year-olds are in gathering and processing information that they
acquire when reading printed texts, but also how proficient they are in reading digital material. PISA found that
some countries have been far more successful than others in helping students to equip themselves to participate
fully in the digital age. For example, 15-year-old boys and girls in Australia, Brazil, Korea, Singapore, Sweden
and the United States perform better in digital reading than in print reading, while the opposite is observed in
Germany, Hungary, Israel, Poland, Shanghai (China), Spain and the United Arab Emirates. Among those countries
where students perform better in digital reading, Korea recently developed a “Smart Education” policy that includes
building or improving school infrastructure so that it accommodates new technologies, and training teachers in the
use of these technologies (Table D8.3 and Chart D8.3).
The assessment also revealed some interesting differences between girls and boys in their skills in the digital
domain. On average, 15-year-old boys score 4 points higher on the computer-based PISA reading test than on the
paper-based reading test. By contrast, 15-year-old girls perform 8 points lower in digital reading than in paperbased reading test, on average. As a result, while girls outperform boys in both print and digital reading, the gender
gap tends to be narrower in digital reading. On average among the countries that took part in both assessments,
girls outperformed boys by 38 points – the equivalent of one year of formal schooling – in print reading, but by only
26 points in digital reading. There is still a marked difference in performance in favour of girls in digital reading,
but it is less extreme than the disparity between boys’ and girls’ performance in print reading. In all participating
countries the gender gap in performance was wider in print than in digital reading, and the difference exceeds
15 score points in France, Israel, Italy, Korea, Macao (China), Portugal, the Russian Federation, the Slovak Republic,
Slovenia, Sweden, and Chinese Taipei (Table D8.3 and Chart D8.3).
The variations in the size of the gender gap among countries do not seem to be associated with the absolute levels
of performance. For example, among countries performing below the OECD average in digital and print reading,
Austria has a substantially narrower gap between boys and girls in digital reading (27 points) than in print reading
(37 points), while the gaps between Spanish boys and girls in digital (24 points) and print (29 points) reading
are almost the same. Of the 32 countries that participated in the digital reading assessment in 2012, those with
the widest gender gaps in digital reading, namely Estonia, Hungary, Norway, Poland, Slovenia, Sweden and the
United Arab Emirates, tend to have a comparatively wide gender gap in print reading as well. In these countries,
whatever factors might explain the performance differences between boys and girls in the digital medium seem to
be the same, or at least have a similar effect, as those that account for performance differences in the print medium
(Table D8.3 and Chart D8.3).
Results from the PISA report, The ABC of Gender Equality in Education: Aptitude, Behaviour, Confidence (OECD, 2015b),
suggest that boys tend to do better in reading when they take a computer-based test largely because of their greater
familiarity computers, which, in turn, is linked to the greater amount of time they spend playing video games. The
more frequently students play one-player video games and collaborative online games, which boys tend to play more
than girls, the worse their relative performance on paper-based tests. Frequent video gaming appears to “crowd out”
other activities, such as doing homework regularly, that help students to acquire reading and mathematics skills.
In computer-based tests, the negative effects of video gaming may be counterbalanced by its positive effects on
students’ ability to navigate through digital texts. And students who frequently play video games will, necessarily,
be more at ease – and may even prefer – taking a test using a computer.

518 Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

To what extent is information and communication technology used in teaching and learning? – INDICATOR D8

chapter D

Chart D8.3. Mean score-point difference between paper-and-pencil
and computer-delivered reading test1 (PISA 2012)
15-year-old students, by gender
Mean score-point
difference

Girls

Boys

Poland

Hungary

Shanghai (China)

United Arab Emirates

Israel

Spain

Germany

Austria

Norway

Belgium

Slovenia

Ireland

Colombia

Denmark

Russian Federation

Chinese Taipei

OECD average

Hong Kong (China)

Estonia

Portugal

Japan

Australia

United States

Macao (China)

France

Canada

Chile

Slovak Republic

Brazil

Sweden

Korea

Italy

D8

Singapore

50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
-5
-10
-15
-20
-25
-30
-35

Note: Differences that are statistically significant are marked in grey and dark blue.
1. Negative figures mean that 15-year-old students have obtained better performances on computer-delivered reading test.
Countries and economies are ranked in ascending order of the mean score-point difference between paper-and-pencil and computer-delivered reading test of boys.
Source: OECD. Table D8.3. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/education/education-at-a-glance-19991487.htm).
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933284709

Teachers and ICT
Teaching practices deployed by teachers can play a significant role in the degree to which students learn. The OECD
Teaching and Learning International Survey (TALIS) conducted in 2013 asked lower secondary school teachers to
choose a particular class from their teaching schedule and then respond to a series of questions about the frequency
with which they used a number of teaching practices in this class. Of the eight practices examined, the two that
teachers reported using most frequently, on average across countries, are presenting a summary of recently learned
content and checking students’ exercise books or homework (around 80% of teachers, on average, reported using
these practices). (See Table 6.1 in the TALIS survey [OECD, 2014a]).
In contrast, 40% of lower secondary teachers reported that students use ICT for projects or class work “frequently”
or “in all or nearly all lessons”. However, this average masks large disparities among countries. For example, in
Australia, Chile, Denmark, Mexico, New Zealand, Norway and Abu Dhabi (the United Arab Emirates), more than
one in two teachers reported that students use ICT “frequently” or “in all or nearly all lessons”, while fewer than
one in four teachers in Croatia, Finland, France, Israel, Japan, Malaysia, Serbia and Shanghai (China) reported so
(Table D8.4 and Chart D8.4).
Despite an increasing number of new initiatives to develop ICT skills for teaching and greater investments in
new technologies (OECD [2015c]), these figures show that teachers are still not systematically using these tools
in their teaching. This may be because, among other things, teachers feel they are not sufficiently skilled in
using ICT themselves. The PISA study showed that, among all teachers, those who are more inclined and better
prepared for student-oriented teaching practices, such as group work, individualised learning and project work,
are more likely to use digital resources, according to students’ reports (OECD [2015b]). In addition, when asked
to rank their professional development needs, teachers across all countries and economies that participated in
TALIS in 2013 cited teaching students with special needs first, followed by teaching with ICT (18% of teachers,
on average) and using new technologies in the workplace (16% of teachers, on average). Even larger proportions
Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

519

chapter D THE LEARNING ENVIRONMENT AND ORGANISATION OF SCHOOLS

of teachers cited the need for professional development in teaching with ICT and using new technologies in the
workplace in Brazil (27% and 37%, respectively), Georgia (31% and 39%, respectively), Italy (36% and 32%,
respectively) and Malaysia (38% and 31%, respectively) (Table D8.4).

Chart D8.4. Information and communications technology:
Teaching practices, teachers’ needs for professional development and participation
in professional development activities (TALIS 2013)
Percentage of lower secondary education teachers who report:
that students use ICT for projects or class work “frequently” or “in all or nearly all lessons”1
having a high level of need for professional development to improve their ICT skills for teaching
having participated in professional development in the 12 months prior to the survey to improve their ICT skills for teaching

%

80
70
60
50
40
30
20

Japan

Israel

Finland

Serbia

Malaysia

France

Croatia

Romania

Korea

Belgium (Flanders)

Estonia

Singapore

Italy

Brazil

Iceland

Sweden

Bulgaria

Portugal

Poland

Netherlands

Spain

Czech Republic

England (UK)

Latvia

OECD average

United States

Slovak Republic

Georgia

Cyprus2, 3

New-Zealand

Russian Federation

Chile

Mexico

Australia

Abu Dhabi (UAE)

0

Norway

10
Denmark

D8

Providing further support, either through professional development or initial teacher training, to encourage
teachers to use ICT tools in their teaching should be a priority. In addition, teachers should be encouraged and
given the time to collaborate with their colleagues. TALIS finds that teachers who reported that they participate
in professional development activities involving collaborative research, observation visits to other schools, or a
network of teachers are more likely to have reported that they use teaching practices that involve small groups
of students and ICT.

1. These data are reported by teachers and refer to a randomly chosen class they currently teach from their weekly timetable.
2. Note by Turkey: The information in this document with reference to “Cyprus” relates to the southern part of the Island. There is no single authority representing both
Turkish and Greek Cypriot people on the Island. Turkey recognises the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (TRNC). Until a lasting and equitable solution is found
within the context of the United Nations, Turkey shall preserve its position concerning the “Cyprus issue”.
3. Note by all the European Union Member States of the OECD and the European Union: The Republic of Cyprus is recognised by all members of the United Nations
with the exception of Turkey. The information in this document relates to the area under the effective control of the Government of the Republic of Cyprus.
Countries and economies are ranked in descending order, based on the overall percentage of teachers who report that students use ICT for projects or class work “frequently” or “in all or nearly
all lessons”.
Source: OECD. Table D8.4. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/education/education-at-a-glance-19991487.htm).
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933284717

Professional development
No matter how good initial teacher education is, it cannot be expected to prepare teachers for all the challenges they
will face during their first job as a teacher. Therefore, professional development, at all points in a teacher’s career, is
necessary to keep up with changing research, tools, practices and students’ needs.
One in two teachers reported that they had participated in at least one professional development activity to improve
their ICT skills for teaching during the 12 months prior to the TALIS survey. Although the reported participation
rates in professional development activities related to ICT vary widely across countries (from 33% in Norway to
81% in the Russian Federation), teachers generally indicated that their professional development activities have
a moderate or large positive impact on their teaching. Thus, between 64% of teachers in England and more than
90% of teachers in Portugal, Romania and the Slovak Republic, on average, reported that professional development
activities to improve their ICT skills for teaching had a positive impact (Table D8.4).

520 Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

To what extent is information and communication technology used in teaching and learning? – INDICATOR D8

chapter D

Given what teachers reported about their professional development needs, one would expect to see strong
correlations between the reported need and participation rates in relevant professional development activities.
But the data reported in Table D8.4 show otherwise. In many countries, the supply of professional development
activities does not match the demand. That lack of coherence could be costly if the teachers who feel they need
further training do not have access to it, or if the training is not well-targeted.
For example, in Italy, 36 % of lower secondary school teachers indicated that they have a high need for professional
development to improve their ICT skills for teaching (the second highest percentage of teachers among all
participating countries/economies), but an average of 53% of lower secondary teachers reported that they had
participated in professional development activities in this area in the 12 months prior to the survey. Similarly,
only 12% of lower secondary teachers indicated that they have a high need for professional development in ICT in
Singapore while 68% of them participated in professional development activities in this area in the 12 months prior
to the survey (Table D8.4 and Chart D8.4).

Methodology
All the data published in this Indicator came from the TALIS and PISA surveys.
The number of students per school computer was derived from dividing the number of students in the modal grade
for 15-year-olds by the number of computers for educational purposes available to students in the modal grade for
15-year-olds.
The index of quality of school educational resources was derived from six items measuring school principals’ perceptions
of potential factors hindering instruction at their school (SC14, from the PISA 2012 school questionnaire). These
factors are: shortage or inadequacy of science laboratory equipment; shortage or inadequacy of instructional
materials; shortage or inadequacy of computers for instruction; lack or inadequacy of Internet connectivity; shortage
or inadequacy of computer software for instruction; and shortage or inadequacy of library materials. As all items
were inverted for scaling, higher values on this index indicate better quality of educational resources. For trends
analyses, the PISA 2003 values of the index of quality of educational resources were rescaled to be comparable to
those in PISA 2012. As a result, values for the index of quality educational resources for PISA 2003 reported in this
Indicator may differ from those reported in Learning for Tomorrow’s World: First Results from PISA 2003. One of
the questions included to compute the index of quality of educational resources in PISA 2012 (“lack or inadequacy of
Internet connection”) was not included in the PISA 2003 questionnaire. Estimation of the PISA 2003 index treats
this question as missing and, under the assumption that the relationship between the items remains unchanged
with the inclusion of the new questions, the PISA 2003 and PISA 2012 values on the index of quality of educational
resources are comparable after the rescaling. For more information regarding the indices, please refer to the PISA 2012
Technical Report (OECD [2014b]).
Thirty-two countries participated in the digital reading assessment in PISA 2012. When a country participated
in the digital reading assessment option, it was expected that student sampling of the digital reading assessment
would occur in every school that participated in the paper-based PISA survey. The overall sample size requirement
for the digital reading assessment was 1 200 assessed students within each country. The recommended Target
Cluster Size (TCS) for the digital reading assessment was 14 students per sampled school. While 14 students for
each of 150 schools (the typical number of PISA schools) would potentially yield 2 100 students, the large TCS
was chosen to account for the fact that some schools would not have adequate computer resources. The TCS of
14 also accounted for the loss in the digital reading assessment sample that would accrue from prior losses in the
paper-based PISA sample. It was a requirement that all students who participated in the digital reading assessment
also took part in the paper-based PISA assessment. The student sample for the digital reading assessment was
selected at the same time that the paper-based PISA student sample was selected in each school by a student-sampling
software. Therefore, any student sampled for both assessments who did not provide responses to the paper-based
PISA assessment was an automatic loss to the digital reading assessment.
Note regarding data from Israel
The statistical data for Israel are supplied by and are under the responsibility of the relevant Israeli authorities. The use of
such data by the OECD is without prejudice to the status of the Golan Heights, East Jerusalem and Israeli settlements in the
West Bank under the terms of international law.

Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

521

D8

chapter D THE LEARNING ENVIRONMENT AND ORGANISATION OF SCHOOLS

References
OECD (2015a), Students, Computers and Learning: Making the Connection, PISA, OECD Publishing, Paris, http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/
9789264239555-en.
OECD (2015b), The ABC of Gender Equality in Education: Aptitude, Behaviour, Confidence, PISA, OECD Publishing, Paris, http://
dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264229945-en.
OECD (2015c), Education Policy Outlook 2015: Making Reforms Happen, OECD Publishing, Paris, http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/
9789264225442-en.

D8

OECD (2014a), TALIS 2013 Results: An International Perspective on Teaching and Learning, OECD Publishing, Paris, http://dx.doi.
org/10.1787/9789264196261-en.
OECD (2014b), PISA 2012 Technical Report, PISA, OECD, Paris, www.oecd.org/pisa/pisaproducts/pisa2012technicalreport.htm.
OECD (2013), PISA 2012 Results: What Makes Schools Successful? (Volume IV): Resources, Policies and Practices, PISA, OECD Publishing,
Paris, http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264201156-en.

Indicator D8 Tables
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933286444

Table D8.1

Computer availability, first access to Internet and intensity of Internet use at school (PISA 2012)

Table D8.2

Change between 2003 and 2012 in the quality of schools’ educational resources

Table D8.3

PISA score in reading for 15-year-olds and mean score-point difference between paper-and-pencil
and computer-delivered reading test, by gender (PISA 2012)

Table D8.4

Teachers and information and communication technology

522 Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

To what extent is information and communication technology used in teaching and learning? – INDICATOR D8

chapter D

Table D8.1. [1/2] Computer availability, first access to Internet and intensity

of Internet use at school (PISA 2012)

Ratio of 15-year-old students
to computers available to them1
(results based on principals’ reports)

Partners

OECD

2009

How old were 15-year-old students when they first accessed the Internet?
(results based on students’ self-reports)
6 years old
or younger

2012

7-9 years old

10-12 years old

13 years old
or older

Never accessed
the Internet

Mean

S.E.

Mean

S.E.

%

S.E.

%

S.E.

%

S.E.

%

S.E.

%

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7)

(8)

(9)

(10)

(11)

(12)

(13)

(14)

Australia
Austria
Belgium
Canada
Chile
Czech Republic
Denmark
Estonia
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Iceland
Ireland
Israel
Italy
Japan
Korea
Luxembourg
Mexico
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Slovak Republic
Slovenia
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Turkey
United Kingdom
United States

2.4
2.4
3.0
2.0
6.2
2.2
1.8
2.5
3.0
m
3.0
7.8
2.4
2.2
3.6
5.2
3.7
3.7
4.6
12.1
20.8
2.6
1.4
1.8
4.9
2.2
3.1
4.8
2.2
3.6
2.7
12.1
1.4
2.5

(1.1)
(0.4)
(0.2)
(0.1)
(0.5)
(0.1)
(0.1)
(0.1)
(0.1)
m
(0.2)
(1.2)
(0.1)
(0.0)
(1.2)
(0.6)
(0.1)
(0.1)
(0.2)
(0.0)
(7.6)
(0.2)
(0.0)
(0.1)
(0.2)
(0.1)
(0.3)
(0.0)
(0.1)
(0.2)
(0.1)
(2.0)
(0.1)
(0.4)

0.9
2.9
2.8
2.8
4.7
1.6
2.4
2.1
3.1
2.9
4.2
8.2
2.2
4.1
2.6
4.7
4.1
3.6
5.3
2.2
15.5
2.6
1.2
1.7
4.0
3.7
2.0
3.3
2.2
3.7
2.7
44.9
1.4
1.8

(0.0)
(0.5)
(0.3)
(1.0)
(0.9)
(0.1)
(0.3)
(0.1)
(0.1)
(0.2)
(1.3)
(1.1)
(0.1)
(0.0)
(0.2)
(0.6)
(0.5)
(0.1)
(0.2)
(0.0)
(2.0)
(0.2)
(0.1)
(0.1)
(0.1)
(0.3)
(0.2)
(0.0)
(0.1)
(0.8)
(0.2)
(9.7)
(0.1)
(0.2)

19.3
8.0
14.5
m
12.2
7.0
32.6
24.1
20.9
m
7.0
5.1
8.9
22.9
6.6
27.9
7.0
6.5
11.8
m
6.1
33.3
23.7
26.1
8.3
11.0
4.8
12.5
14.8
25.0
8.8
5.3
m
m

(0.4)
(0.4)
(0.5)
m
(0.4)
(0.4)
(0.8)
(0.8)
(0.6)
m
(0.4)
(0.3)
(0.5)
(0.7)
(0.4)
(0.8)
(0.2)
(0.4)
(0.5)
m
(0.3)
(0.9)
(0.8)
(0.7)
(0.5)
(0.6)
(0.4)
(0.5)
(0.4)
(0.7)
(0.4)
(0.4)
m
m

48.1
37.8
41.1
m
37.4
41.9
51.5
56.1
60.2
m
35.2
22.7
38.4
52.5
31.9
44.7
27.3
38.8
58.3
m
26.9
50.5
48.3
50.9
37.2
39.7
26.3
48.4
45.3
53.7
38.4
32.7
m
m

(0.4)
(0.7)
(0.6)
m
(0.8)
(0.9)
(0.7)
(0.9)
(0.6)
m
(0.8)
(0.6)
(1.0)
(0.8)
(0.8)
(0.8)
(0.4)
(0.6)
(0.7)
m
(0.5)
(0.9)
(0.9)
(0.9)
(0.8)
(0.7)
(0.8)
(0.8)
(0.6)
(0.8)
(0.7)
(0.8)
m
m

27.4
43.9
37.7
m
37.2
42.7
14.8
17.2
17.8
m
46.4
41.8
42.9
21.6
47.5
20.7
46.7
43.8
26.5
m
37.5
15.3
23.7
20.9
41.6
39.5
46.7
32.5
34.0
18.7
43.0
40.2
m
m

(0.4)
(0.7)
(0.7)
m
(0.9)
(1.0)
(0.6)
(0.7)
(0.5)
m
(0.7)
(0.7)
(0.9)
(0.7)
(0.8)
(0.7)
(0.5)
(0.7)
(0.8)
m
(0.4)
(0.6)
(0.7)
(0.6)
(0.9)
(0.8)
(0.9)
(0.7)
(0.5)
(0.6)
(0.7)
(0.8)
m
m

5.1
10.2
6.4
m
12.9
8.3
0.9
2.4
1.1
m
11.2
29.6
9.7
2.8
13.7
5.7
18.6
10.3
3.3
m
24.4
0.8
4.0
1.9
12.3
9.7
21.5
6.1
5.8
2.1
9.6
19.7
m
m

(0.2)
(0.6)
(0.3)
m
(0.6)
(0.5)
(0.1)
(0.3)
(0.2)
m
(0.5)
(0.7)
(0.6)
(0.3)
(0.5)
(0.5)
(0.4)
(0.5)
(0.3)
m
(0.5)
(0.1)
(0.3)
(0.2)
(0.6)
(0.5)
(0.8)
(0.4)
(0.3)
(0.2)
(0.4)
(0.7)
m
m

0.1
0.2
0.3
m
0.4
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.0
m
0.2
0.8
0.1
0.3
0.2
0.9
0.4
0.7
0.1
m
5.1
0.1
0.3
0.3
0.7
0.1
0.8
0.5
0.2
0.5
0.3
2.0
m
m

(0.0)
(0.1)
(0.1)
m
(0.1)
(0.1)
(0.0)
(0.1)
c
m
(0.1)
(0.1)
(0.1)
(0.1)
(0.1)
(0.2)
(0.1)
(0.1)
(0.0)
m
(0.4)
(0.0)
(0.1)
(0.1)
(0.1)
(0.0)
(0.2)
(0.1)
(0.1)
(0.1)
(0.1)
(0.3)
m
m

OECD average

4.2

(0.2)

4.7

(0.3)

14.6

(0.1)

42.1

(0.1)

33.5

(0.1)

9.3

(0.1)

0.5

(0.0)

Brazil
Colombia
Costa Rica
Croatia
Hong Kong (China)
Indonesia
Jordan
Latvia
Liechtenstein
Macao (China)
Russian Federation
Serbia
Shanghai (China)
Singapore
Chinese Taipei
Uruguay

34.0
6.1
19.5
4.2
1.9
22.8
4.3
2.1
2.4
2.5
4.0
7.1
4.8
2.0
5.0
13.1

(4.6)
(0.9)
(3.3)
(0.2)
(0.1)
(2.8)
(0.3)
(0.1)
(0.0)
(0.0)
(0.6)
(0.9)
(2.2)
(0.0)
(0.3)
(1.8)

22.1
3.7
17.7
5.0
2.2
16.4
5.0
2.2
2.1
1.3
3.0
8.8
2.9
2.0
5.8
8.7

(2.7)
(0.2)
(3.1)
(0.2)
(0.3)
(2.2)
(0.5)
(0.6)
(0.0)
(0.0)
(0.1)
(2.4)
(0.2)
(0.0)
(1.1)
(0.6)

m
m
9.1
7.2
24.5
m
8.9
12.1
13.6
10.6
2.3
3.2
8.3
16.3
11.2
10.5

m
m
(0.5)
(0.4)
(1.0)
m
(0.5)
(0.7)
(2.1)
(0.4)
(0.2)
(0.3)
(0.5)
(0.5)
(0.5)
(0.5)

m
m
28.6
34.7
51.0
m
17.6
49.3
39.6
42.3
14.8
19.8
35.0
45.7
43.0
37.1

m
m
(0.9)
(0.8)
(1.0)
m
(0.6)
(1.0)
(3.0)
(0.7)
(0.6)
(0.7)
(0.9)
(0.6)
(0.8)
(0.8)

m
m
38.9
44.0
21.6
m
31.2
32.3
38.6
38.8
39.0
44.1
38.4
32.3
39.8
38.4

m
m
(0.8)
(0.8)
(0.7)
m
(0.7)
(1.0)
(2.9)
(0.7)
(0.9)
(0.8)
(0.6)
(0.7)
(0.7)
(0.7)

m
m
22.0
13.9
2.3
m
34.9
6.0
8.3
7.9
42.7
31.9
16.5
5.7
5.8
13.5

m
m
(1.1)
(0.6)
(0.3)
m
(0.7)
(0.4)
(1.5)
(0.3)
(1.2)
(0.8)
(0.8)
(0.3)
(0.4)
(0.6)

m
m
1.4
0.2
0.5
m
7.3
0.2
0.0
0.4
1.3
1.0
1.8
0.1
0.1
0.5

m
m
(0.3)
(0.1)
(0.1)
m
(0.5)
(0.1)
c
(0.1)
(0.2)
(0.1)
(0.3)
(0.0)
(0.0)
(0.1)

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

G20 average

S.E.

1. The number of students per computer is based on principals’ reports about the number of students in the national modal grade for 15-year-olds and on the number
of computers available for these students. In schools where no computer is available, the number of students per computer is set equal to 1 + the number of students
reported by the principal.
Source: OECD. PISA 2012 Database.
Please refer to the Reader’s Guide for information concerning symbols for missing data and abbreviations.
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933286450

Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

523

D8

chapter D THE LEARNING ENVIRONMENT AND ORGANISATION OF SCHOOLS

Table D8.1. [2/2] Computer availability, first access to Internet and intensity

of Internet use at school (PISA 2012)

During a typical weekday, for how long do 15-year-old students use the Internet at school? (results based on students’ self-reports)

Partners

D8

OECD

No time

1-60 minutes

Between
1 and 2 hours

Between
2 and 4 hours

Between
4 and 6 hours

More than
6 hours

Average daily time
spent using the
Internet at school
(lower bound)

%

S.E.

%

S.E.

%

S.E.

%

S.E.

%

S.E.

%

S.E.

Minutes

(15)

(16)

(17)

(18)

(19)

(20)

(21)

(22)

(23)

(24)

(25)

(26)

(27)

(28)

Australia
Austria
Belgium
Canada
Chile
Czech Republic
Denmark
Estonia
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Iceland
Ireland
Israel
Italy
Japan
Korea
Luxembourg
Mexico
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Slovak Republic
Slovenia
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Turkey
United Kingdom
United States

6.7
25.3
47.8
m
40.1
36.3
6.7
34.0
32.8
m
51.4
36.5
34.5
35.7
45.5
45.6
56.9
62.0
68.3
m
42.6
17.8
21.8
14.8
50.2
40.9
25.0
26.7
32.7
16.3
32.3
63.4
m
m

(0.3)
(1.0)
(0.9)
m
(1.4)
(1.3)
(0.4)
(1.0)
(0.9)
m
(1.1)
(1.3)
(1.2)
(0.8)
(1.3)
(1.2)
(0.7)
(1.2)
(1.6)
m
(0.8)
(1.1)
(1.0)
(1.1)
(1.5)
(1.3)
(1.2)
(0.8)
(1.0)
(1.0)
(1.0)
(1.4)
m
m

48.6
53.0
36.8
m
38.6
51.6
61.4
52.2
55.7
m
40.2
35.4
47.1
52.7
44.4
39.2
29.0
30.5
24.7
m
38.5
67.3
62.6
70.1
42.8
43.0
56.0
53.3
45.1
60.1
56.9
25.7
m
m

(0.7)
(1.0)
(0.7)
m
(1.1)
(1.2)
(1.2)
(1.0)
(0.9)
m
(1.1)
(1.1)
(1.2)
(0.8)
(1.2)
(1.2)
(0.6)
(1.2)
(1.5)
m
(0.6)
(1.1)
(1.0)
(1.1)
(1.4)
(1.2)
(1.2)
(0.7)
(0.8)
(1.6)
(1.0)
(1.1)
m
m

23.4
13.3
8.6
m
12.6
7.4
16.2
6.3
6.9
m
4.5
13.2
9.3
4.7
6.1
7.2
9.2
5.7
4.4
m
12.1
8.2
9.1
9.7
3.7
8.3
9.9
12.2
12.0
11.2
6.9
6.3
m
m

(0.6)
(0.6)
(0.3)
m
(0.8)
(0.6)
(0.6)
(0.4)
(0.4)
m
(0.4)
(0.6)
(0.5)
(0.4)
(0.4)
(0.4)
(0.3)
(0.5)
(0.4)
m
(0.5)
(0.5)
(0.6)
(0.7)
(0.3)
(0.5)
(0.6)
(0.5)
(0.3)
(0.8)
(0.4)
(0.4)
m
m

14.7
5.0
4.4
m
4.8
2.5
9.7
4.3
2.8
m
2.2
8.2
4.7
3.7
2.6
3.6
2.8
1.3
2.3
m
4.0
3.5
4.1
3.3
1.7
3.9
4.7
4.5
5.7
6.4
2.6
2.5
m
m

(0.5)
(0.4)
(0.3)
m
(0.3)
(0.3)
(0.8)
(0.3)
(0.3)
m
(0.2)
(0.7)
(0.4)
(0.4)
(0.3)
(0.3)
(0.1)
(0.2)
(0.3)
m
(0.2)
(0.3)
(0.4)
(0.4)
(0.2)
(0.4)
(0.3)
(0.2)
(0.3)
(0.9)
(0.3)
(0.3)
m
m

4.9
2.0
1.3
m
1.8
1.2
4.3
1.8
1.0
m
0.8
3.4
2.2
1.8
0.7
1.8
1.0
0.3
0.2
m
1.4
1.3
1.3
1.4
0.7
2.2
1.9
1.7
2.3
3.5
0.7
1.1
m
m

(0.3)
(0.3)
(0.1)
m
(0.2)
(0.2)
(0.4)
(0.2)
(0.2)
m
(0.2)
(0.3)
(0.2)
(0.2)
(0.1)
(0.2)
(0.1)
(0.1)
(0.1)
m
(0.1)
(0.2)
(0.2)
(0.2)
(0.1)
(0.3)
(0.2)
(0.2)
(0.3)
(0.5)
(0.2)
(0.2)
m
m

1.7
1.3
1.1
m
2.1
1.0
1.7
1.4
0.7
m
0.9
3.2
2.2
1.4
0.7
2.5
1.1
0.3
0.1
m
1.5
1.9
1.1
0.7
0.9
1.5
2.5
1.7
2.1
2.5
0.6
1.1
m
m

(0.1)
(0.2)
(0.1)
m
(0.2)
(0.2)
(0.3)
(0.2)
(0.1)
m
(0.2)
(0.3)
(0.2)
(0.2)
(0.1)
(0.3)
(0.1)
(0.1)
(0.0)
m
(0.1)
(0.3)
(0.2)
(0.1)
(0.2)
(0.3)
(0.2)
(0.2)
(0.3)
(0.4)
(0.1)
(0.2)
m
m

58
29
22
m
30
18
46
23
18
m
14
42
30
20
16
25
19
13
9
m
26
26
25
24
13
24
32
28
34
39
16
15
m
m

(1.1)
(1.3)
(0.8)
m
(1.1)
(1.0)
(2.1)
(1.0)
(0.8)
m
(0.9)
(1.6)
(1.3)
(1.0)
(0.7)
(1.5)
(0.5)
(0.5)
(0.6)
m
(0.6)
(1.3)
(1.1)
(1.4)
(0.9)
(2.0)
(1.3)
(0.9)
(1.4)
(2.9)
(0.9)
(0.9)
m
m

OECD average

36.2

(0.2)

47.0

(0.2)

9.3

(0.1)

4.4

(0.1)

1.7

(0.0)

1.4

(0.0)

25

(0.2)

Brazil
Colombia
Costa Rica
Croatia
Hong Kong (China)
Indonesia
Jordan
Latvia
Liechtenstein
Macao (China)
Russian Federation
Serbia
Shanghai (China)
Singapore
Chinese Taipei
Uruguay

m
m
45.5
39.3
49.6
m
50.1
47.6
22.1
56.3
38.5
46.4
75.0
52.0
49.0
50.6

m
m
(1.3)
(1.0)
(1.2)
m
(1.5)
(1.1)
(2.6)
(0.6)
(0.9)
(1.7)
(1.2)
(0.7)
(1.6)
(1.3)

m
m
35.3
45.4
43.3
m
35.5
41.5
66.8
34.4
41.2
40.8
18.0
33.4
34.2
30.1

m
m
(1.1)
(1.1)
(1.2)
m
(1.3)
(0.9)
(3.1)
(0.7)
(1.0)
(1.5)
(1.0)
(0.6)
(1.5)
(1.1)

m
m
10.3
8.2
4.0
m
8.2
5.3
6.4
5.3
8.6
7.6
4.0
9.2
10.8
9.3

m
m
(0.5)
(0.5)
(0.3)
m
(0.5)
(0.5)
(1.4)
(0.3)
(0.4)
(0.5)
(0.3)
(0.4)
(0.7)
(0.5)

m
m
4.5
3.6
1.7
m
2.8
3.2
3.2
2.6
6.0
2.6
1.7
3.5
3.5
5.1

m
m
(0.4)
(0.3)
(0.2)
m
(0.2)
(0.3)
(1.1)
(0.2)
(0.3)
(0.3)
(0.2)
(0.4)
(0.3)
(0.4)

m
m
2.2
1.5
1.0
m
1.2
1.5
1.1
0.7
2.4
1.0
0.6
1.0
1.4
2.4

m
m
(0.2)
(0.2)
(0.2)
m
(0.2)
(0.2)
(0.6)
(0.1)
(0.2)
(0.2)
(0.1)
(0.1)
(0.2)
(0.2)

m
m
2.2
1.9
0.4
m
2.2
0.8
0.3
0.7
3.3
1.6
0.7
1.0
1.1
2.5

m
m
(0.3)
(0.2)
(0.1)
m
(0.2)
(0.2)
(0.3)
(0.1)
(0.3)
(0.2)
(0.1)
(0.2)
(0.1)
(0.2)

m
m
29
23
11
m
23
17
18
14
34
20
10
20
23
30

m
m
(1.3)
(1.1)
(0.9)
m
(0.9)
(1.0)
(2.3)
(0.5)
(1.2)
(1.1)
(0.8)
(1.0)
(1.0)
(1.2)

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

G20 average

S.E.

1. The number of students per computer is based on principals’ reports about the number of students in the national modal grade for 15-year-olds and on the number
of computers available for these students. In schools where no computer is available, the number of students per computer is set equal to 1 + the number of students
reported by the principal.
Source: OECD. PISA 2012 Database.
Please refer to the Reader’s Guide for information concerning symbols for missing data and abbreviations.
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933286450

524 Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

To what extent is information and communication technology used in teaching and learning? – INDICATOR D8

chapter D

Table D8.2. [1/2] Change between 2003 and 2012 in the quality of schools’ educational resources
Results based on PISA school principals’ reports
PISA 2003
Percentage of students in schools whose principal reported that the school’s capacity to provide instruction
is hindered a lot by a shortage or inadequacy of the following:

Partners

OECD

Index of quality
of schools’ educational
resources1

Science laboratory
equipment

Instructional
materials
(e.g. textbooks)

Computers
for instruction

Computer software
for instruction

Library
materials

Mean index

S.E.

%

S.E.

%

S.E.

%

S.E.

%

S.E.

%

S.E.

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7)

(8)

(9)

(10)

(11)

(12)

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 States

0.27
0.06
-0.12
-0.34
-0.41
-0.32
-0.37
m
-0.13
-0.78
-0.24
-0.03
-0.36
-0.16
-0.25
0.38
-0.04
-0.69
0.15
0.00
-0.70
-1.02
-0.35
-1.10
-0.41
-0.31
0.20
-1.91
0.25

(0.07)
(0.08)
(0.06)
(0.05)
(0.06)
(0.07)
(0.06)
m
(0.08)
(0.13)
(0.08)
(0.00)
(0.08)
(0.07)
(0.10)
(0.06)
(0.00)
(0.09)
(0.06)
(0.06)
(0.05)
(0.07)
(0.07)
(0.05)
(0.07)
(0.07)
(0.07)
(0.11)
(0.09)

9.5
1.4
8.2
8.0
19.8
0.9
0.7
m
10.6
11.0
1.0
2.2
1.3
4.1
8.2
3.8
13.1
8.6
5.6
6.2
3.1
19.0
1.2
11.4
5.6
8.9
3.1
41.7
2.8

(1.7)
(0.9)
(1.9)
(1.1)
(2.0)
(0.7)
(0.7)
m
(2.4)
(3.2)
(0.6)
(0.1)
(0.9)
(1.5)
(2.3)
(1.6)
(0.0)
(1.9)
(2.1)
(1.4)
(1.3)
(3.3)
(0.8)
(1.9)
(1.8)
(2.2)
(1.5)
(4.2)
(1.0)

2.2
0.9
11.2
2.5
0.6
1.4
0.0
m
4.6
21.5
0.0
0.6
2.6
4.5
5.5
2.0
10.9
9.3
8.0
7.8
0.7
5.3
5.2
0.8
6.4
3.9
3.9
51.1
2.3

(0.9)
(0.7)
(2.2)
(0.8)
(0.6)
(1.0)
(0.0)
m
(1.4)
(5.0)
c
(0.1)
(0.9)
(1.3)
(1.9)
(1.2)
(0.0)
(2.2)
(2.5)
(1.5)
(0.7)
(1.8)
(1.9)
(0.6)
(2.1)
(1.4)
(1.6)
(4.4)
(1.2)

13.1
11.6
25.0
14.6
5.0
5.0
7.9
m
44.1
10.7
9.4
7.5
50.5
10.3
0.0
2.4
15.3
20.8
27.1
8.2
4.9
8.5
5.4
5.1
16.8
8.2
7.0
22.2
8.2

(1.8)
(2.7)
(3.0)
(1.5)
(1.4)
(1.7)
(2.0)
m
(3.9)
(3.9)
(2.4)
(0.1)
(4.6)
(2.2)
c
(1.2)
(0.0)
(2.8)
(3.7)
(1.6)
(1.7)
(2.1)
(1.9)
(1.5)
(2.5)
(2.1)
(1.4)
(4.3)
(1.5)

0.7
2.9
4.0
4.5
3.8
2.7
0.8
m
6.5
23.3
1.5
3.4
0.8
6.5
8.9
0.6
0.0
11.3
1.0
2.7
2.7
18.4
1.1
19.9
6.3
4.9
2.6
51.4
2.0

(0.5)
(1.4)
(1.3)
(1.1)
(1.2)
(1.2)
(0.7)
m
(1.6)
(4.5)
(1.1)
(0.0)
(0.8)
(1.9)
(2.4)
(0.7)
c
(2.1)
(0.7)
(1.4)
(1.3)
(2.8)
(0.9)
(2.7)
(1.8)
(1.7)
(1.3)
(4.4)
(0.9)

3.1
6.5
10.5
10.8
22.9
4.0
4.6
m
8.3
21.2
28.5
1.9
21.7
6.8
9.6
0.6
4.3
15.4
2.8
5.7
5.5
16.5
3.8
53.9
7.5
3.9
2.3
42.1
6.9

(0.9)
(2.1)
(2.1)
(1.3)
(3.0)
(1.6)
(1.7)
m
(1.9)
(4.2)
(3.6)
(0.0)
(3.7)
(2.1)
(2.5)
(0.7)
(0.0)
(2.4)
(1.9)
(1.8)
(1.6)
(2.8)
(1.6)
(3.3)
(1.5)
(1.5)
(1.0)
(3.8)
(2.1)

OECD average

-0.31

(0.01)

7.9

(0.4)

6.3

(0.4)

13.4

(0.5)

7.0

(0.4)

11.8

(0.4)

Brazil
Hong Kong (China)
Indonesia
Latvia
Liechtenstein
Macao (China)
Russian Federation
Thailand
Tunisia
Uruguay

-1.17
0.03
-1.08
-0.80
0.52
-0.46
-1.58
-0.82
-0.68
-1.21

(0.10)
(0.08)
(0.09)
(0.07)
(0.01)
(0.00)
(0.08)
(0.10)
(0.07)
(0.09)

17.9
2.2
36.2
4.3
0.0
2.4
16.3
11.7
6.8
18.5

(3.3)
(2.2)
(3.8)
(1.7)
c
(0.0)
(2.7)
(2.7)
(2.1)
(3.4)

11.4
1.4
43.0
1.0
0.0
13.0
10.3
3.0
6.3
14.3

(2.4)
(1.0)
(4.0)
(1.0)
c
(0.2)
(2.8)
(1.4)
(1.9)
(3.2)

31.9
3.4
13.2
9.9
9.5
3.2
24.3
16.4
24.5
29.7

(3.5)
(1.5)
(2.3)
(2.7)
(0.1)
(0.0)
(3.9)
(2.9)
(3.0)
(4.5)

20.3
0.8
47.9
9.4
0.0
0.3
27.6
15.8
5.1
31.8

(2.7)
(0.8)
(3.9)
(2.3)
c
(0.0)
(3.6)
(3.0)
(1.8)
(3.8)

29.5
1.5
38.9
16.1
1.2
0.0
27.0
13.5
3.1
46.2

(3.1)
(1.0)
(3.7)
(2.8)
(0.0)
c
(3.2)
(2.9)
(1.4)
(4.0)

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

G20 average

Notes: Values for Change between 2003 and 2012 (PISA 2012 - PISA 2003) in the index of quality of schools’ educational resources which are bolded indicate a statistical
significance between the 2003 and 2012 index for that country.
Only countries and economies with comparable data from PISA 2003 and PISA 2012 are shown.
For comparability over time, PISA 2003 values on the index of quality of schools’ educational resources have been rescaled to the PISA 2012 scale of the index. PISA 2003
results reported in this table may thus differ from those presented in Learning for Tomorrow’s World: First Results from PISA 2003 (OECD, 2004) (see Annex A5 for more
details).
1.The index of quality of school educational resources was derived from the items included in this table measuring school principals’ perceptions of potential factors
hindering instruction at their school (SC14, from the PISA 2012 school questionnaire). Higher values on this index indicate better quality of educational resources.
Source: OECD. PISA 2012 Results (Volume IV): What Makes Schools Successful? Resources, Policies and Practices, Table IV.3.43.
Please refer to the Reader’s Guide for information concerning symbols for missing data and abbreviations.
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933286465

Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

525

D8

chapter D THE LEARNING ENVIRONMENT AND ORGANISATION OF SCHOOLS

Table D8.2. [2/2] Change between 2003 and 2012 in the quality of schools’ educational resources
Results based on PISA school principals’ reports
PISA 2012
Percentage of students in schools whose principal reported that the school’s capacity
to provide instruction is hindered a lot by a shortage or inadequacy of the following:
Index of quality
of schools’ educational
resources1

Partners

OECD

D8

Science
laboratory
equipment

Instructional
materials
Computers
(e.g. textbooks) for instruction

Computer
software for
instruction

Library
materials

Change between
2003 and 2012
(PISA 2012 PISA 2003)
in the index
of quality of schools’
educational resources1

Mean index

S.E.

%

S.E.

%

S.E.

%

S.E.

%

S.E.

%

S.E.

Dif.

(13)

(14)

(15)

(16)

(17)

(18)

(19)

(20)

(21)

(22)

(23)

(24)

(25)

(26)

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 States

0.68
0.22
0.30
0.27
0.05
-0.15
-0.20
0.38
0.09
-0.35
0.17
-0.34
0.11
0.05
0.44
0.06
0.04
-0.86
0.19
0.20
-0.19
0.36
0.17
-0.54
0.02
0.05
0.55
-0.40
0.38

(0.03)
(0.09)
(0.06)
(0.04)
(0.06)
(0.05)
(0.06)
(0.07)
(0.07)
(0.07)
(0.06)
(0.00)
(0.08)
(0.04)
(0.08)
(0.08)
(0.00)
(0.04)
(0.08)
(0.08)
(0.06)
(0.08)
(0.08)
(0.05)
(0.05)
(0.06)
(0.07)
(0.06)
(0.08)

1.7
18.5
3.2
2.1
7.4
2.5
1.5
2.6
5.8
13.0
11.8
14.4
9.4
8.5
5.1
6.5
5.6
31.0
4.6
1.2
7.8
4.1
4.5
15.4
5.4
2.7
1.6
22.1
4.2

(0.5)
(3.3)
(1.1)
(0.9)
(2.0)
(1.3)
(0.3)
(1.1)
(1.8)
(2.7)
(2.7)
(0.2)
(2.4)
(1.1)
(1.7)
(2.2)
(0.1)
(1.7)
(1.8)
(0.7)
(1.9)
(1.6)
(1.5)
(2.5)
(1.3)
(1.2)
(0.5)
(3.1)
(1.7)

0.9
1.7
0.7
1.0
1.6
1.8
3.6
0.8
0.0
11.7
2.8
0.0
1.3
1.2
0.5
0.6
0.0
11.1
0.0
0.8
1.1
0.0
0.8
18.4
0.4
0.0
1.2
8.3
3.3

(0.4)
(1.0)
(0.5)
(0.6)
(0.8)
(1.5)
(1.4)
(0.6)
c
(2.6)
(1.3)
c
(0.9)
(0.4)
(0.5)
(0.6)
c
(1.2)
c
(0.1)
(0.8)
c
(0.8)
(2.7)
(0.2)
c
(0.7)
(2.2)
(1.5)

0.7
10.2
6.1
5.8
2.5
10.8
11.4
3.7
4.3
17.8
3.2
20.0
8.8
3.5
5.6
3.1
6.1
30.9
12.4
6.4
5.0
6.3
8.7
3.3
9.9
15.9
4.8
15.0
5.5

(0.3)
(2.5)
(1.6)
(1.4)
(1.2)
(2.2)
(2.3)
(1.2)
(1.4)
(3.2)
(1.3)
(0.1)
(2.4)
(0.7)
(1.9)
(1.4)
(0.0)
(1.9)
(2.6)
(2.1)
(1.6)
(1.7)
(2.2)
(1.1)
(1.4)
(2.7)
(1.6)
(2.6)
(1.9)

0.8
2.9
2.9
2.7
1.7
1.2
6.2
2.8
2.0
10.4
3.5
5.4
4.8
5.0
7.7
2.9
3.2
26.5
7.1
0.4
1.8
4.8
4.6
5.8
4.2
5.2
1.5
9.8
2.2

(0.3)
(1.3)
(1.1)
(0.8)
(0.9)
(0.8)
(1.5)
(1.1)
(0.8)
(2.5)
(1.5)
(0.1)
(1.9)
(0.9)
(2.0)
(1.5)
(0.0)
(1.6)
(2.0)
(0.4)
(1.1)
(1.5)
(1.8)
(1.8)
(1.0)
(1.7)
(0.7)
(2.4)
(1.2)

0.8
2.4
4.6
1.6
6.3
1.0
5.4
2.4
2.4
20.1
2.8
3.0
13.7
5.5
2.3
7.6
5.2
14.5
1.3
0.1
10.9
2.5
2.2
5.2
2.5
4.0
2.4
9.8
1.1

(0.4)
(1.1)
(1.2)
(0.6)
(1.9)
(0.7)
(1.4)
(0.9)
(1.1)
(3.3)
(1.6)
(0.1)
(2.9)
(0.9)
(1.0)
(2.4)
(0.1)
(1.0)
(1.0)
(0.1)
(2.3)
(1.3)
(1.2)
(1.6)
(0.7)
(1.2)
(1.0)
(2.2)
(0.6)

0.41
0.16
0.42
0.61
0.46
0.18
0.17
m
0.22
0.43
0.41
-0.31
0.47
0.20
0.69
-0.32
0.07
-0.16
0.04
0.20
0.51
1.38
0.52
0.55
0.43
0.36
0.35
1.51
0.13

(0.08)
(0.12)
(0.09)
(0.06)
(0.09)
(0.09)
(0.08)
m
(0.10)
(0.15)
(0.10)
(0.01)
(0.11)
(0.08)
(0.13)
(0.10)
(0.00)
(0.10)
(0.10)
(0.10)
(0.08)
(0.10)
(0.11)
(0.07)
(0.09)
(0.09)
(0.10)
(0.13)
(0.12)

OECD average

0.05

(0.01)

7.9

(0.3)

2.7

(0.3)

8.7

(0.4)

4.9

(0.3)

5.0

(0.3)

0.36

(0.02)

Brazil
Hong Kong (China)
Indonesia
Latvia
Liechtenstein
Macao (China)
Russian Federation
Thailand
Tunisia
Uruguay

-0.54
0.44
-0.76
0.04
0.77
0.36
-0.48
-0.68
-1.34
0.12

(0.05)
(0.07)
(0.10)
(0.05)
(0.01)
(0.00)
(0.07)
(0.07)
(0.08)
(0.08)

41.2
1.0
28.8
7.4
0.0
0.0
17.1
26.2
30.8
8.2

(1.9)
(0.8)
(3.7)
(1.9)
c
c
(2.5)
(3.4)
(3.7)
(2.2)

2.9
0.9
9.6
4.1
0.0
2.4
3.4
2.7
17.3
6.9

(0.7)
(0.7)
(2.2)
(1.6)
c
(0.0)
(1.1)
(1.2)
(3.1)
(1.9)

21.6
2.4
23.1
7.5
0.0
0.1
12.8
14.3
37.0
12.3

(2.2)
(1.2)
(3.5)
(2.0)
c
(0.0)
(2.7)
(2.5)
(4.6)
(2.3)

25.6
1.9
21.0
3.0
0.0
0.3
12.0
15.1
25.3
13.1

(2.3)
(1.1)
(3.6)
(1.3)
c
(0.0)
(1.7)
(2.6)
(3.9)
(2.6)

12.5
1.3
13.8
4.8
0.0
4.0
5.0
19.9
47.9
6.7

(1.6)
(0.9)
(3.1)
(1.7)
c
(0.0)
(1.2)
(2.5)
(3.6)
(1.9)

0.63
0.41
0.33
0.83
0.24
0.82
1.10
0.14
-0.66
1.33

(0.11)
(0.10)
(0.14)
(0.08)
(0.01)
(0.00)
(0.11)
(0.12)
(0.11)
(0.12)

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

G20 average

S.E.

Notes: Values for Change between 2003 and 2012 (PISA 2012 - PISA 2003) in the index of quality of schools’ educational resources which are bolded indicate a statistical
significance between the 2003 and 2012 index for that country.
Only countries and economies with comparable data from PISA 2003 and PISA 2012 are shown.
For comparability over time, PISA 2003 values on the index of quality of schools’ educational resources have been rescaled to the PISA 2012 scale of the index. PISA 2003
results reported in this table may thus differ from those presented in Learning for Tomorrow’s World: First Results from PISA 2003 (OECD, 2004) (see Annex A5 for more
details).
1.The index of quality of school educational resources was derived from the items included in this table measuring school principals’ perceptions of potential factors
hindering instruction at their school (SC14, from the PISA 2012 school questionnaire). Higher values on this index indicate better quality of educational resources.
Source: OECD. PISA 2012 Results (Volume IV): What Makes Schools Successful? Resources, Policies and Practices, Table IV.3.43.
Please refer to the Reader’s Guide for information concerning symbols for missing data and abbreviations.
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933286465

526 Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

To what extent is information and communication technology used in teaching and learning? – INDICATOR D8

chapter D

Table D8.3. PISA score in reading for 15-year-olds and mean score-point difference
between paper-and-pencil and computer-delivered reading test, by gender (PISA 2012)
Mean score and variation
Mean score in reading and gender differences
(based on paper-based assessment)

Partners

OECD

Boys and girls

Boys

Mean score-point difference between paper-and-pencil
and computer-delivered reading test1
Difference
(B - G)

Girls

Boys

Difference
(B - G)

Girls

Mean

S.E.

Mean
score

S.E.

Mean
score

S.E.

Score
dif.

S.E.

Score
dif.

S.E.

Score
dif.

S.E.

Score
dif.

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7)

(8)

(9)

(10)

(11)

(12)

(13)

(14)

Australia

512

(1.6)

495

(2.3)

530

(2.0)

-34

(2.9)

-10

(1.7)

-7

(1.5)

-4

(1.6)

Austria

490

(2.8)

471

(4.0)

508

(3.4)

-37

(5.0)

4

(3.7)

15

(3.3)

-10

(3.7)

Belgium

509

(2.3)

493

(3.0)

525

(2.7)

-32

(3.5)

3

(2.6)

9

(2.4)

-6

(2.5)

Canada

523

(1.9)

506

(2.3)

541

(2.1)

-35

(2.1)

-16

(2.4)

-2

(2.4)

-14

(1.3)

Chile

441

(2.9)

430

(3.8)

452

(2.9)

-23

(3.3)

-18

(2.9)

-4

(2.9)

-14

(2.5)

Denmark

496

(2.6)

481

(3.3)

512

(2.6)

-31

(2.8)

-3

(2.8)

5

(2.5)

-8

(1.9)

Estonia

516

(2.0)

494

(2.4)

538

(2.3)

-44

(2.4)

-10

(2.5)

-3

(2.4)

-7

(1.6)

France

505

(2.8)

483

(3.8)

527

(3.0)

-44

(4.2)

-16

(3.2)

5

(3.4)

-21

(2.4)

Germany

508

(2.8)

486

(2.9)

530

(3.1)

-44

(2.5)

7

(3.2)

22

(2.8)

-15

(2.0)

S.E.

Hungary

488

(3.2)

468

(3.9)

508

(3.3)

-40

(3.6)

35

(3.7)

42

(3.5)

-7

(3.0)

Ireland

523

(2.6)

509

(3.5)

538

(3.0)

-29

(4.2)

1

(4.0)

5

(2.8)

-3

(3.9)
(4.3)

Israel

486

(5.0)

463

(8.2)

507

(3.9)

-44

(7.9)

16

(4.2)

33

(3.5)

-17

Italy

490

(2.0)

471

(2.5)

510

(2.3)

-39

(2.6)

-28

(4.6)

-4

(3.2)

-24

(4.3)

Japan

538

(3.7)

527

(4.7)

551

(3.6)

-24

(4.1)

-11

(2.7)

-2

(2.4)

-8

(2.7)
(3.6)

Korea

536

(3.9)

525

(5.0)

548

(4.5)

-23

(5.4)

-27

(3.3)

-11

(3.1)

-16

Norway

504

(3.2)

481

(3.3)

528

(3.9)

-46

(3.3)

4

(3.7)

5

(3.9)

-1

(2.2)

Poland

518

(3.1)

497

(3.7)

539

(3.1)

-42

(2.9)

37

(3.4)

45

(3.4)

-8

(2.0)

Portugal

488

(3.8)

468

(4.2)

508

(3.7)

-39

(2.7)

-9

(3.1)

13

(2.7)

-22

(1.9)

Slovak Republic

463

(4.2)

444

(4.6)

483

(5.1)

-39

(4.6)

-21

(2.7)

-1

(2.6)

-21

(2.6)
(1.5)

Slovenia

481

(1.2)

454

(1.7)

510

(1.8)

-56

(2.7)

2

(1.4)

18

(1.4)

-16

Spain

488

(1.9)

474

(2.3)

503

(1.9)

-29

(2.0)

17

(4.2)

22

(3.8)

-5

(2.4)

Sweden

483

(3.0)

458

(4.0)

509

(2.8)

-51

(3.6)

-24

(3.2)

-6

(2.6)

-18

(2.1)

United States

498

(3.7)

482

(4.1)

513

(3.8)

-31

(2.6)

-15

(3.0)

-12

(2.7)

-2

(1.6)

OECD average

496

(0.5)

478

(0.6)

515

(0.5)

-38

(0.6)

-4

(0.7)

8

(0.6)

-12

(0.6)

Brazil

410

(2.1)

394

(2.4)

425

(2.2)

-31

(1.9)

-26

(3.4)

-18

(3.5)

-8

(2.1)

Colombia

403

(3.4)

394

(3.9)

412

(3.8)

-19

(3.5)

0

(3.3)

14

(3.4)

-14

(2.7)

Hong Kong (China)

545

(2.8)

533

(3.8)

558

(3.3)

-25

(4.7)

-8

(3.3)

-2

(3.3)

-7

(2.8)

Macao (China)

509

(0.9)

492

(1.4)

527

(1.1)

-36

(1.7)

-15

(1.5)

3

(1.1)

-17

(1.9)

Russian Federation

475

(3.0)

455

(3.5)

495

(3.2)

-40

(3.0)

-2

(3.6)

21

(3.1)

-22

(2.3)

Shanghai (China)

570

(2.9)

557

(3.3)

581

(2.8)

-24

(2.5)

31

(2.8)

45

(2.3)

-14

(2.0)

Singapore

542

(1.4)

527

(1.9)

559

(1.9)

-32

(2.6)

-32

(1.0)

-17

(1.2)

-14

(1.5)

Chinese Taipei

523

(3.0)

507

(4.3)

539

(4.3)

-32

(6.4)

-4

(2.3)

11

(2.2)

-15

(2.1)

United Arab Emirates

442

(2.5)

413

(3.9)

469

(3.2)

-55

(4.8)

32

(3.5)

38

(3.4)

-5

(4.9)

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

G20 average

Note: Differences that are statistically significant are indicated in bold. Only countries that have participated in the optional digital reading assessment in PISA 2012
are shown.
1. Negative figures (in columns 9, 11 and 13) mean that 15-year-old students have obtained better performances on computer-delivered reading test.
Source: OECD. PISA 2012 Database.
Please refer to the Reader’s Guide for information concerning symbols for missing data and abbreviations.
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933286476

Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

527

D8

chapter D THE LEARNING ENVIRONMENT AND ORGANISATION OF SCHOOLS

Table D8.4. Teachers and information and communication technology
Results from TALIS 2013, percentage of lower secondary education teachers
Percentage
of lower secondary
education teachers
indicating students
use ICT for projects
or class work
“frequently” or
“in all or nearly
all lessons”1

Partners

OECD

D8

Percentage of lower secondary
education teachers indicating
they have a high level of need
for professional development
in the following areas:

ICT skills
for teaching

New
technologies
in the workplace

Percentage of lower secondary education teachers who report
having participated in professional development with the following
content in the 12 months prior to the survey and percentage
of participating teachers who report a moderate or large positive impact
of this professional development on their teaching
ICT skills for teaching
Participation

New technologies in the workplace

Moderate or large
positive impact

Participation

Moderate or large
positive impact

%

S.E.

%

S.E.

%

S.E.

%

S.E.

%

S.E.

%

S.E.

%

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7)

(8)

(9)

(10)

(11)

(12)

(13)

S.E.
(14)

Australia
Belgium (Flanders)
Chile
Czech Republic
Denmark
England
Estonia
Finland
France
Iceland
Israel
Italy
Japan
Korea
Mexico
New-Zealand
Netherlands
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Slovak Republic
Spain
Sweden
United States

67
27
60
37
74
37
29
18
24
32
19
31
10
28
56
55
35
74
36
34
45
37
34
46

(1.9)
(1.1)
(2.3)
(1.1)
(1.9)
(1.4)
(1.3)
(0.9)
(1.0)
(1.4)
(1.3)
(1.4)
(0.6)
(1.2)
(1.2)
(1.6)
(2.1)
(1.7)
(1.5)
(0.9)
(1.3)
(1.3)
(1.7)
(1.8)

14
11
13
15
19
8
24
17
25
29
24
36
26
25
21
16
15
18
11
9
19
14
25
8

(0.9)
(0.7)
(0.9)
(0.7)
(1.2)
(0.7)
(0.9)
(1.0)
(0.9)
(1.5)
(1.2)
(0.8)
(0.9)
(1.1)
(1.0)
(0.9)
(1.1)
(1.4)
(0.8)
(0.5)
(0.9)
(0.7)
(0.8)
(0.8)

12
5
17
10
14
8
21
14
17
19
23
32
16
19
28
14
12
9
13
9
15
14
18
15

(0.8)
(0.5)
(1.1)
(0.7)
(1.1)
(0.6)
(1.0)
(0.8)
(0.7)
(1.2)
(0.9)
(0.9)
(0.7)
(1.0)
(1.1)
(0.7)
(1.2)
(0.5)
(0.8)
(0.6)
(0.7)
(0.7)
(0.8)
(1.0)

72
37
51
53
49
39
63
48
40
44
60
53
36
54
73
67
48
33
52
49
60
68
47
49

(1.7)
(1.8)
(2.2)
(1.6)
(1.9)
(1.7)
(1.3)
(1.9)
(1.4)
(1.4)
(1.6)
(1.3)
(1.4)
(1.3)
(1.0)
(1.3)
(1.9)
(2.1)
(1.5)
(1.6)
(1.3)
(1.6)
(1.6)
(2.0)

70
80
87
83
81
64
84
68
77
78
79
82
69
90
84
70
73
78
85
92
92
87
66
73

(1.8)
(1.5)
(1.7)
(1.3)
(1.6)
(1.5)
(1.1)
(1.9)
(1.7)
(1.9)
(1.5)
(1.4)
(1.9)
(0.8)
(1.0)
(1.5)
(1.9)
(2.3)
(1.1)
(0.9)
(0.8)
(0.9)
(1.9)
(1.8)

57
13
38
42
29
32
47
42
11
34
48
45
15
37
55
49
30
7
41
36
33
56
37
57

(1.8)
(0.8)
(1.8)
(1.4)
(2.0)
(1.7)
(1.7)
(1.7)
(0.8)
(1.5)
(1.4)
(1.4)
(0.9)
(1.0)
(1.4)
(1.4)
(2.1)
(1.0)
(1.5)
(1.4)
(1.4)
(1.5)
(1.7)
(2.2)

68
82
86
82
78
64
84
63
74
80
78
80
69
91
81
69
71
77
84
92
90
86
65
73

(2.0)
(2.4)
(2.3)
(1.5)
(2.3)
(2.1)
(1.3)
(2.3)
(3.1)
(2.4)
(1.4)
(1.6)
(2.5)
(0.8)
(1.1)
(1.4)
(2.6)
(4.8)
(1.4)
(1.1)
(1.2)
(1.1)
(2.2)
(1.6)

OECD average

40

(1.4)

18

(0.9)

15

(0.8)

51

(1.6)

80

(1.5)

36

(1.5)

79

(2.0)

Abu Dhabi (UAE)
Brazil
Bulgaria
Croatia
Cyprus2, 3
Georgia
Latvia
Malaysia
Romania
Russian Federation
Serbia
Singapore
Shanghai (China)

72
30
34
24
46
47
41
19
26
48
23
30
15

(1.7)
(1.1)
(1.3)
(0.9)
(1.4)
(1.8)
(1.5)
(1.3)
(1.2)
(1.5)
(0.9)
(0.8)
(0.9)

9
27
20
20
13
31
19
38
19
17
20
12
25

(0.8)
(0.7)
(0.9)
(0.9)
(0.7)
(1.4)
(1.1)
(1.2)
(0.9)
(1.0)
(0.8)
(0.6)
(0.9)

18
37
23
24
20
39
24
31
22
21
21
10
16

(1.3)
(0.9)
(1.3)
(0.9)
(1.0)
(1.1)
(1.0)
(1.0)
(0.9)
(0.9)
(0.8)
(0.6)
(0.8)

77
46
56
58
54
58
72
71
60
81
46
68
64

(1.4)
(1.0)
(1.8)
(1.5)
(1.6)
(1.9)
(1.5)
(1.3)
(1.4)
(1.1)
(1.2)
(0.8)
(1.1)

90
79
85
73
81
89
87
88
91
87
84
73
83

(1.0)
(1.0)
(1.5)
(1.1)
(1.9)
(1.5)
(1.2)
(0.8)
(1.0)
(1.1)
(1.2)
(1.0)
(1.0)

69
53
53
41
48
33
59
56
30
89
33
40
26

(1.7)
(1.2)
(1.7)
(1.3)
(1.4)
(1.8)
(1.6)
(1.3)
(1.2)
(0.9)
(1.3)
(0.9)
(1.1)

88
79
82
74
78
85
86
83
88
89
83
69
82

(1.0)
(1.0)
(1.5)
(1.3)
(2.1)
(1.9)
(1.3)
(1.1)
(1.4)
(0.9)
(1.3)
(1.5)
(1.3)

G20 average

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

1. These data are reported by teachers and refer to a randomly chosen class they currently teach from their weekly timetable.
2. Footnote by Turkey: The information in this document with reference to “Cyprus” relates to the southern part of the Island. There is no single authority representing
both Turkish and Greek Cypriot people on the Island. Turkey recognises the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (TRNC). Until a lasting and equitable solution is
found within the context of the United Nations, Turkey shall preserve its position concerning the “Cyprus issue”.
3. Note by all the European Union Member States of the OECD and the European Union: The Republic of Cyprus is recognised by all members of the United Nations
with the exception of Turkey. The information in this document relates to the area under the effective control of the Government of the Republic of Cyprus.
Source: OECD. TALIS 2013 Results: An International Perspective on Teaching and Learning, Tables 4.10, 4.12 and 6.1.
Please refer to the Reader’s Guide for information concerning symbols for missing data and abbreviations.
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933286483

528 Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

Annex

1

CHARACTERISTICS
OF EDUCATION SYSTEMS
All tables in Annex 1 are available on line at:
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933286494

Note regarding data from Israel
The statistical data for Israel are supplied by and are under the responsibility of the relevant Israeli authorities. The use of
such data by the OECD is without prejudice to the status of the Golan Heights, East Jerusalem and Israeli settlements in the
West Bank under the terms of international law.

Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

529

Annex 1

Characteristics of education systems

Table X1.1a. [1/2] Typical graduation ages, by level of education (2013)
The typical age refers to the age of the students at the beginning of the school year; students will generally be one year older than
the age indicated when they graduate at the end of the school year. The typical age is used for the gross graduation rate calculation.
Upper secondary level

Post-secondary non-tertiary level

Tertiary level
Short cycle tertiary
(ISCED 5)

General
programmes

Vocational
programmes

General
programmes

Vocational
programmes

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

OECD

1

Vocational
programmes

Australia
Austria
Belgium
Canada
Chile
Czech Republic
Denmark
Estonia
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Iceland
Ireland
Israel
Italy
Japan
Korea
Luxembourg
Mexico
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Slovak Republic
Slovenia
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Turkey
United Kingdom
United States

17-18
17-18
18-18
17-18
17-17
19-20
18-19
18-18
19-19
17-18
18-20
m
18-19
m
18-19
17-17
18-19
17-17
18-18
17-19
17-18
17-18
17-18
18-18
19-19
17-17
18-19
19-19
17-17
18-18
18-20
17-17
16-17
17-17

17-28
16-18
18-19
18-26
17-17
19-20
19-22
18-19
19-23
16-19
19-20
m
17-19
m
a
17-17
18-19
17-17
18-18
17-20
17-18
18-21
16-28
18-21
19-20
17-19
17-19
18-19
17-21
18-18
18-20
17-17
16-19
17-17

a
a
a
m
a
20-22
a
a
a
m
22-22
m
a
m
18-19
m
a
18-18
m
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
19-21
a
a
a
21-23
a
a
19-22

18-37
19-30
20-21
m
a
19-20
23-27
19-24
32-46
m
22-22
m
19-20
m
20-26
m
m
18-18
m
20-28
a
22-32
17-26
20-32
21-25
19-22
19-21
a
m
20-30
21-23
a
a
19-22

19-24
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
m
a
m
20-26
m
a
19-19
a
a
a
a
a
22-35
a
a
a
a
a
21-26
24-26
a
a
20-21

18-30
18-19
21-24
20-24
21-26
21-23
20-24
a
m
m
22-23
m
19-21
m
a
m
a
19-19
20-22
m
20-21
21-27
18-25
21-26
22-23
a
20-22
23-24
19-22
21-27
24-26
21
19-28
20-21

Partners

Annex

General
programmes

Argentina
Brazil
China
Colombia
India
Indonesia
Latvia
Russian Federation
Saudi Arabia
South Africa

17-17
16-17
17-17
16-18
17-17
17-17
18-18
17-17
m
m

17-17
16-18
17-17
17-18
17-17
17-17
20-20
17-18
m
m

m
m
18-18
18-21
18-18
m
m
m
m
m

m
18-25
18-18
m
18-18
m
20-23
18-19
m
m

20-24
m
20-20
m
20-20
24-24
m
m
20-20
20-20

24
20-28
22-22
m
22-22
24-24
21-26
19-20
20-20
20-20

Sources: OECD. Argentina, China, Colombia, India, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia, South Africa: UNESCO Institute for Statistics. Latvia: Eurostat. See Annex 3 for notes
(www.oecd.org/education/education-at-a-glance-19991487.htm).
Please refer to the Reader’s Guide for information concerning symbols for missing data and abbreviations.
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933286506

530 Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

Characteristics of education systems

Annex 1

Table X1.1a. [2/2] Typical graduation ages, by level of education (2013)
The typical age refers to the age of the students at the beginning of the school year; students will generally be one year older than
the age indicated when they graduate at the end of the school year. The typical age is used for the gross graduation rate calculation.
Tertiary level
Bachelor’s or equivalent
(ISCED 6)

Long first degree
(at least 5 years)

Second or
further degree,
(following
a bachelor’s
or equivalent
programme)

Second or
further degree,
(following
a master’s
or equivalent
programme)

Doctoral
or equivalent
(ISCED 8)

(7)

(8)

(9)

(10)

(11)

(12)

(13)

OECD

Long first degree
(more than
4 years)

Second or
further degree,
(following
a bachelor’s
or equivalent
programme)

Australia
Austria
Belgium
Canada
Chile
Czech Republic
Denmark
Estonia
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Iceland
Ireland
Israel
Italy
Japan
Korea
Luxembourg
Mexico
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Slovak Republic
Slovenia
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Turkey
United Kingdom
United States

20-23
21-24
21-22
22-24
23-27
22-24
22-25
21-23
23-26
m
22-26
m
21-23
m
22-23
24-28
22-24
21-21
23-25
m
22-24
21-23
20-23
21-24
22-23
21-23
21-22
21-22
21-23
22-26
21-26
23-24
21-24
21-23

22-25
a
a
23-25
23-28
a
a
a
a
m
a
m
a
m
m
m
m
m
m
a
a
a
22-24
a
a
a
a
22-24
a
m
24-26
a
22-25
21-23

22-32
a
22-24
23-27
23-26
a
m
a
a
m
24-30
m
25-38
m
m
25-32
m
m
a
a
a
a
21-27
25-31
24-34
23-28
m
26-28
a
m
29-38
a
m
21-23

23-27
24-28
a
24-27
25-26
25-26
m
23-24
25-27
m
24-27
m
23-26
m
22-28
m
24-27
23-23
a
m
a
a
a
24-26
24-25
23-24
23-24
24-25
22-24
24-27
27-32
23-25
m
24-31

22-30
23-28
22-24
24-29
26-36
24-26
25-28
23-26
25-29
m
24-26
m
23-25
m
m
27-34
24-27
23-23
25-31
m
23-26
23-26
23-30
24-28
24-25
24-28
23-25
m
23-27
24-29
25-29
26-27
23-28
24-31

29-43
a
23-27
26-29
m
a
a
a
33-39
m
24-27
m
a
m
m
a
m
m
a
a
a
24-27
a
24-28
a
27-47
24-29
a
29-32
a
26-32
a
m
24-31

26-35
27-32
27-30
29-34
29-35
29-33
27-39
27-32
29-36
26-30
28-32
m
28-33
m
26-31
31-37
28-31
26-26
29-38
m
24-28
28-31
26-34
28-35
28-32
29-37
26-29
28-29
28-34
28-34
28-34
30-34
26-33
26-32

Partners

First degree
(3-4 years)

Master’s or equivalent
(ISCED 7)

Argentina
Brazil
China
Colombia
India
Indonesia
Latvia
Russian Federation
Saudi Arabia
South Africa

21-24
21-25
21-21
m
21-21
22-22
21-24
21-21
21-21
21-21

23-24
m
21-21
m
21-21
24-24
m
m
21-21
22-22

m
m
m
m
m
26-26
24-30
m
21-21
22-22

20-24
m
22-22
m
22-22
m
25-37
22-23
24-24
23-23

21-24
21-27
22-22
m
22-22
m
29-38
22-23
24-24
m

m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
24-24
m

25-29
30-39
27-27
27-27
27-27
28-35
25-27
27-27
25-25

Sources: OECD. Argentina, China, Colombia, India, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia, South Africa: UNESCO Institute for Statistics. Latvia: Eurostat. See Annex 3 for notes
(www.oecd.org/education/education-at-a-glance-19991487.htm).
Please refer to the Reader’s Guide for information concerning symbols for missing data and abbreviations.
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933286506

Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

531

Annex

1

Annex 1

Characteristics of education systems

Table X1.1b. Typical age of entry by level of education (2013)
The typical age refers to the age of the students at the beginning of the school year; students will generally be one year older than the age
indicated when they graduate at the end of the school year. The typical age is used for the gross graduation rate calculation.
Short cycle tertiary
(ISCED 5)

Bachelor’s
or equivalent
(ISCED 6)

Master’s
or equivalent
(ISCED 7)

Doctoral
or equivalent
(ISCED 8)

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

OECD

1

Post-secondary
non-tertiary
(ISCED 4)

Australia
Austria
Belgium
Canada
Chile
Czech Republic
Denmark
Estonia
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Iceland
Ireland
Israel
Italy
Japan
Korea
Luxembourg
Mexico
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Slovak Republic
Slovenia
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Turkey
United Kingdom
United States

m
14-15
14-16
15
14-14
15-16
16-17
16-19
16-16
15-17
15-18
m
15-15
m
15-16
15-15
14-14
15-15
15-15
15-19
15-15
16-19
15-16
16-16
16-16
15-15
15-18
15-15
15-15
16-16
15-17
14-14
16-18
15-15

m
17-22
18-22
18
a
20-29
a
19-24
31-43
m
19-21
m
19-20
m
18-20
20-25
17-18
18-18
m
a
a
22-36
17-24
19-31
19-23
18-20
18-20
a
m
19-25
18-24
a
a
18-25

m
17-18
18-19
18-19
18-21
19-21
19-27
a
33-36
m
21-25
m
19-21
m
18-19
18-23
20-21
18-18
18-18
22-22
18-19
19-26
17-25
19-23
19-20
a
19-20
19-25
18-20
19-25
18-23
18-19
18-27
18-22

18-20
19-21
18-19
18-19
18-18
19-20
20-22
19-22
19-20
m
19-21
m
19-20
m
18-19
21-25
20-20
18-18
18-18
18-18
18-19
18-20
18-20
19-20
19-20
18-20
19-21
19-20
18-18
19-21
19-22
18-19
18-21
18-19

21-26
19-24
21-23
21-27
24-33
22-24
23-25
22-26
22-29
18-19
19-24
m
19-24
m
20-21
24-31
20-20
22-22
22-27
20-20
24-28
22-24
21-28
19-20
22-24
18-23
22-23
22-24
18-23
19-24
22-25
23-25
21-30
22-28

22-30
24-28
23-26
25-30
24-33
24-26
25-29
24-28
25-30
23-26
25-29
m
24-27
m
20-23
26-32
26-29
24-24
23-32
24-24
24-34
24-26
22-30
25-29
24-26
23-31
24-26
24-26
m
26-33
25-28
26-27
22-27
22-27

Partners

Annex

Upper secondary
(ISCED 3)

Argentina
Brazil
China
Colombia
India
Indonesia
Latvia
Russian Federation
Saudi Arabia
South Africa

15-15
m
15-15
m
m
16-16
15-16
15-16
m
m

m
m
m
m
m
a
19-21
17-18
m
m

18-18
m
17-17
m
m
19-19
19-22
17-18
m
m

18
m
17
m
m
19
19-20
17-18
m
m

m
m
m
m
m
23-25
21-23
21-22
m
m

25-25
m
21-21
m
m
25-25
24-31
23-24
m
m

Sources: OECD. Argentina, China, Colombia, India, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia, South Africa: UNESCO Institute for Statistics. Latvia: Eurostat. See Annex 3 for notes
(www.oecd.org/education/education-at-a-glance-19991487.htm).
Please refer to the Reader’s Guide for information concerning symbols for missing data and abbreviations.
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933286516

532 Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

Characteristics of education systems

Annex 1

Table X1.2a. School year and financial year used for the calculation of indicators, OECD countries
Financial year

School year

OECD

2011
2012
2013
2014
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

Canada
Chile
Czech Republic
Denmark
Estonia
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Iceland
Ireland
Israel
Italy
Japan
Korea
Luxembourg
Mexico
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Slovak Republic
Slovenia
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
2011
2012
2013
2014
Sources: OECD. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/education/education-at-a-glance-19991487.htm).
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933286528

Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

533

1

Annex 1

Characteristics of education systems

Table X1.2b. School year and financial year used for the calculation of indicators, partner countries
Financial year

School year

Partners

2011
2012
2013
2014
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

Argentina
Brazil
China
Colombia
India
Indonesia
Latvia
Russian Federation
Saudi Arabia
South Africa
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
2011
2012
2013
2014
Sources: OECD. Argentina, China, Colombia, India, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia, South Africa: UNESCO Institute for Statistics. Latvia: Eurostat. See Annex 3 for notes
(www.oecd.org/education/education-at-a-glance-19991487.htm).
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933286531

534 Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

Characteristics of education systems

Annex 1

Table X1.3 Starting and ending age for students in compulsory education (2013)

Partners

OECD

Compulsory education
Starting age

Ending age

(1)

(2)

Australia
Austria
Belgium
Canada1
Chile
Czech Republic
Denmark
Estonia
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Iceland
Ireland
Israel
Italy
Japan
Korea
Luxembourg
Mexico
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Slovak Republic
Slovenia
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Turkey
United Kingdom
United States

6
6
6
6
6
6
6
7
7
6
6
5
5
6
6
5
6
6
6
4
4
5
5
6
5
6
6
6
6
7
5-7
5-6
4-5
4-6

17
15
18
16-18
18
15
16
16
16
16
18
14-15
16
16
16
17
16
15
14
16
15
18
16
16
16
18
16
14
16
16
15
17
16
17

OECD average
EU21 average

6
6

16
16

Argentina1
Brazil
China
Colombia
India
Indonesia
Latvia
Russian Federation
Saudi Arabia
South Africa1

5
4
m
5
m
7
5
7
6
7

17
17
m
15
m
15
16
17
11
15

G20 average

m

m

Annex

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.
1. Year of reference 2012.
Sources: OECD. Argentina, China, Colombia, India, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia, South Africa: UNESCO Institute for Statistics. Latvia: Eurostat. See Annex 3 for notes
(www.oecd.org/education/education-at-a-glance-19991487.htm).
Please refer to the Reader’s Guide for information concerning symbols for missing data and abbreviations.
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933286542

Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

535

1

Annex

2

REFERENCE STATISTICS
All tables in Annex 2 are available on line at:
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933286551

Note regarding data from Israel
The statistical data for Israel are supplied by and are under the responsibility of the relevant Israeli authorities. The use of
such data by the OECD is without prejudice to the status of the Golan Heights, East Jerusalem and Israeli settlements in the
West Bank under the terms of international law.

Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

537

Annex 2

Reference statistics

Table X2.1. Overview of the economic context using basic variables

(reference period: calendar year 2012, 2012 current prices)

OECD

Total public expenditure
as a percentage of GDP

2

GDP deflator
(2008 =100)

GDP deflator
(2005 = 100)

GDP deflator
(2000 = 100)

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

Australia

33.9

43 158

109.0

125.5

149.8

Austria

51.7

44 892

106.6

113.1

123.3

Belgium

53.3

41 684

107.7

115.1

127.6

Canada1

41.4

42 585

107.9

118.1

129.6

Chile2

24.5

21 260

115.9

126.8

179.4

Czech Republic

42.3

28 679

102.4

108.9

123.4

Denmark

58.1

43 564

107.1

116.8

130.7

Estonia

39.0

24 689

107.9

140.3

181.4

Finland

54.6

40 209

108.0

115.4

122.5

France

55.1

37 347

103.4

110.9

121.9

Germany

43.3

42 730

105.3

108.3

114.4

Greece

53.5

25 462

104.2

116.2

135.1

Hungary

47.8

22 494

112.1

128.4

175.5

Iceland

45.4

40 464

120.5

152.4

186.6

Ireland

40.4

45 210

96.6

99.1

122.6

Israel

40.3

31 296

111.7

116.3

124.1

Italy

48.7

35 334

105.5

112.9

129.5

Japan

41.9

35 695

94.7

91.6

85.3

Korea

32.7

32 022

109.6

115.4

132.6

Luxembourg

43.0

91 754

114.5

128.6

142.2

Mexico

25.3

16 767

117.4

139.0

194.7

Netherlands

47.5

46 062

103.0

109.7

124.6

New Zealand

33.2

32 165

105.6

117.2

132.1

Norway3

54.9

51 368

111.8

126.8

145.9

Poland

41.7

22 869

111.5

122.2

139.4

Portugal

46.1

27 204

101.1

109.3

129.3

Slovak Republic

39.3

25 725

102.2

109.4

136.5

Slovenia

47.1

28 455

103.8

115.5

149.6

Spain

46.6

32 775

100.7

110.5

134.7

Sweden

50.1

43 869

105.7

114.4

122.8

Switzerland

31.9

55 623

100.8

107.1

110.0

m

18 002

129.2

168.0

523.5

United Kingdom

45.5

37 170

109.2

118.7

133.2

United States

41.3

49 895

106.0

114.3

128.4

Turkey

Partners

Annex

GDP per capita
(in equivalent USD
converted using PPPs)

Argentina

m

14 680

m

m

m

Brazil

33.0

12 583

130.7

159.1

252.5

China

m

10 917

m

m

m

Colombia2

m

12 125

m

m

m

India

m

m

m

m

m

Indonesia2

m

10 023

m

m

m

Latvia

m

15 004

m

m

m

Russian Federation

m

24 085

145.1

224.3

493.2

Saudi Arabia

m

m

m

m

m

South Africa

m

12 555

m

m

m

1. Year of reference 2011.
2. Year of reference 2013 instead of 2012. GDP deflators refer to 2001-13 instead of 2000-12, and to 2006-13 instead of 2005-12.
3. The GDP Mainland market value is used for Norway.
Source: OECD. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/education/education-at-a-glance-19991487.htm).
Please refer to the Reader’s Guide for information concerning symbols for missing data and abbreviations.
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933286560

538 Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

Reference statistics

Annex 2

OECD

Table X2.2. Basic reference statistics
(reference period: calendar year 2012, 2012 current prices)1
Gross domestic
product
(in millions of
local currency)2

Gross
domestic product
(adjusted to
financial year)3

(1)

(2)

Total public
expenditure
(in millions of
local currency)

Purchasing power
Total population Purchasing power Purchasing power parity for private
consumption
parity for GDP
parity for GDP
in thousand
(PPP)
(PPP)
(PPP)
(mid-year
(USD = 1)
(Euro area = 1)
(USD = 1)
estimates)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7)

Australia

1 520 944

a

515 094

23 152

1.5222

1.9515

1.5805

Austria

317 213

a

164 052

8 426

0.8386

1.0751

0.8574

Belgium

388 254

a

206 852

11 054

0.8426

1.0803

0.9056

Canada4

1 770 014

1 785 318

738 481

34 343

1.2207

1.5651

1.2999

Chile5

129 600 791

a

31 782 047

17 403

350.2946

449.0957

370.1642

Czech Republic

4 047 675

a

1 711 712

10 509

13.4300

17.2179

15.5650

Denmark

1 866 779

a

1 084 834

5 591

7.6643

9.8260

8.5705

Estonia

17 637

a

6 873

1 325

0.5391

0.6911

0.6214

Finland

199 793

a

109 071

5 414

0.9178

1.1766

1.0019

France

2 091 059

a

1 151 257

65 609

0.8534

1.0941

0.9019

Germany

2 749 900

a

1 215 231

81 917

0.7856

1.0072

0.8503

Greece

194 204

a

103 822

11 093

0.6876

0.8815

0.7793

Hungary

28 548 800

a

13 658 622

9 920

127.9363

164.0209

145.0074

Iceland

1 774 001

a

805 617

321

136.6984

175.2543

145.9209

Ireland

172 755

a

69 811

4 590

0.8325

1.0673

0.9621

Israel

991 762

a

399 528

7 911

4.0060

5.1359

4.4700

Italy

1 628 004

a

792 583

60 339

0.7636

0.9790

0.8385

Japan6

475 110 400

476 364 800

199 725 200

127 552

104.6281

134.1386

121.3658

Korea

1 377 456 700

a

450 811 900

50 004

860.2495

1 102.8839

910.4712

43 812

a

18 843

532

0.8984

1.1518

0.9938

15 561 472

a

3 942 261

117 054

7.9290

10.1654

8.9529

640 644

a

304 035

16 752

0.8303

1.0644

0.8822

Luxembourg
Mexico
Netherlands
New Zealand

211 632

a

70 306

4 444

1.4806

1.8982

1.6071

Norway7

2 295 395

a

1 260 543

5 019

8.9032

11.4144

9.8063

Poland

1 615 895

a

673 930

38 534

1.8337

2.3509

1.9923

Portugal

169 668

a

78 244

10 515

0.5932

0.7604

0.7147

Slovak Republic

72 185

a

28 373

5 406

0.5190

0.6654

0.5800

Slovenia

36 006

a

16 975

2 057

0.6152

0.7887

0.7078

Spain

1 055 158

a

491 414

46 766

0.6884

0.8826

0.7898

Sweden

3 684 800

a

1 844 276

9 519

8.8236

11.3123

9.4636

624 592

a

199 208

8 039

1.3968

1.7908

1.6538

Switzerland
Turkey

1 416 798

a

m

74 899

1.0508

1.3472

1.1474

United Kingdom

1 655 384

1 645 957

749 427

63 705

0.6951

0.8912

0.7046

United States

16 163 150

15 679 235

6 474 354

314 246

1.0000

1.2821

1.0000

Partners

Euro area

0.78

Argentina

2 744 829

a

m

41 087

4.5508

5.8344

m

Brazil

4 402 537

a

1 453 357

196 877

1.7771

2.2783

m

China

51 947 010

a

m

1 354 040

3.5140

4.5052

m

Colombia5

665 441 000

a

m

46 582

1 178.1469

1 510.4448

m

m

a

m

1 227 193

15.9149

20.4038

m

India
Indonesia5
Latvia
Russian Federation

9 524 736 500

a

m

249 866

3 803.3510

4 876.0911

m

15 492

a

m

2 034

0.5077

0.6509

m

62 218 378

a

m

143 170

18.0435

23.1327

17.4149

Saudi Arabia

m

a

m

m

m

m

m

South Africa

3 138 980

a

m

51 012

4.9010

6.2833

m

1. Data on GDP, PPPs and total public expenditure in countries in the Euro area 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 Canada, Japan, the United Kingdom and the United States.
4. Year of reference 2011.
5. Year of reference 2013.
6. Total public expenditure adjusted to financial year.
7. The GDP Mainland market value is used for Norway.
Source: OECD. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/education/education-at-a-glance-19991487.htm).
Please refer to the Reader’s Guide for information concerning symbols for missing data and abbreviations.
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933286577

Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

539

Annex

2

Annex 2

Reference statistics

Table X2.3. [1/2] Basic reference statistics
(reference period: calendar year 2000, 2005, 2008, 2010, 2011)1

OECD

Gross domestic product
(in millions of local currency, current prices)

2

2000

2005

2008

2010

2011

2000

2005

2008

2010

2011

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7)

(8)

(9)

(10)

Australia

705 275

997 968

1 258 074

1 407 865

1 488 028

225 913

309 431

405 784

473 579

498 406

Austria

213 196

253 009

291 930

294 208

308 675

108 287

122 585

139 494

150 593

151 994
197 422

Belgium

257 605

311 150

355 066

365 747

379 991

123 943

157 399

172 484

187 026

Canada

1 098 166

1 324 940

1 565 900

1 567 007

1 662 757

444 532

541 985

645 514

719 289

738 481

Chile2

42 094 989

82 018 171

96 443 761

121 402 822

129 600 791

10 559 689

15 327 440

23 797 395

27 847 954

30 050 204

Czech Republic

2 372 630

3 257 972

4 015 346

3 953 651

4 022 410

945 255

1 340 123

1 583 527

1 661 774

1 653 244

Denmark

1 326 912

1 586 537

1 797 547

1 798 649

1 833 404

694 479

815 717

903 263

1 016 158

1 034 208

Estonia

6 171

11 260

16 511

14 709

16 404

2 225

3 757

6 441

5 828

6 109

Finland

136 261

164 387

193 711

187 100

196 869

63 903

79 262

91 372

99 707

104 259

France

1 485 303

1 771 978

1 995 850

1 998 481

2 059 284

744 119

920 351

1 030 025

1 095 602

1 118 728

Germany

2 113 500

2 297 820

2 558 020

2 576 220

2 699 100

944 533

1 059 389

1 112 309

1 215 270

1 202 749

Greece

141 732

199 153

242 096

226 210

207 752

63 693

86 097

117 992

114 302

108 003

Hungary

13 293 578

22 331 300

26 949 316

26 946 030

28 035 033

6 251 647

11 032 047

13 070 489

13 252 926

13 834 811

Iceland

703 445

1 057 998

1 547 817

1 621 053

1 700 558

286 259

433 346

853 725

791 880

771 800

Ireland

107 799

169 153

186 870

164 931

171 042

33 010

55 177

77 009

103 427

76 536

Israel

535 966

633 762

767 547

870 843

924 618

261 087

296 289

332 256

367 301

365 561

1 239 759

1 638 857

549 577

688 251

765 537

782 101

788 137

Italy

1 490 409

1 632 933

1 605 694

Japan

508 780 800 504 599 000

493 691 650

479 616 000

Korea

635 184 600 919 797 300 1 104 492 200 1 265 308 000 1 332 681 000 135 324 800 230 062 600 312 548 300 353 006 600 373 227 400

Luxembourg

472 260 700 193 917 400 183 640 900 188 561 300 195 879 800 199 103 100

23 122

29 771

37 523

39 371

42 410

8 270

12 573

14 624

17 098

17 882

6 132 389

9 424 602

12 256 864

13 266 858

14 508 784

1 139 998

1 979 808

2 894 807

3 355 288

3 655 757

Netherlands

448 701

540 656

635 794

631 512

642 929

187 162

230 884

278 455

304 447

302 269

New Zealand

118 446

161 615

185 608

199 108

207 392

36 559

49 320

64 002

70 450

69 076

Norway3

1 113 894

1 464 974

1 862 873

1 987 362

2 157 835

626 569

818 805

1 018 107

1 149 163

1 207 768

Poland

746 255

984 919

1 277 322

1 437 357

1 553 582

294 012

427 147

551 403

643 465

663 757

Portugal

128 466

158 653

178 873

179 930

176 167

52 983

71 830

77 055

88 987

84 423

Slovak Republic

31 596

50 398

68 156

67 204

70 160

16 255

18 730

23 340

26 329

26 381

Mexico

Partners

Annex

Total public expenditure
(in millions of local currency, current prices)

Slovenia

18 902

29 227

37 951

36 220

36 868

8 636

13 011

16 511

17 894

18 350

Spain

646 250

930 566

1 116 207

1 080 913

1 075 147

246 890

349 501

450 948

485 467

480 111

Sweden

2 380 358

2 907 352

3 387 599

3 519 994

3 656 577

1 248 029

1 491 382

1 657 889

1 746 603

1 792 006

Switzerland

458 779

507 463

597 381

606 146

618 325

151 837

176 236

187 914

189 561

196 889

Turkey

166 658

648 932

950 534

1 098 799

1 297 713

m

m

345 392

442 178

485 001

United Kingdom

1 023 512

1 326 660

1 518 675

1 558 365

1 617 677

358 902

553 033

686 738

738 598

736 445

United States

10 284 780

13 093 720

14 718 590

14 964 380

15 517 930

3 353 547

4 563 353

5 567 081

6 153 839

5 754 000

Brazil

1 179 482

2 147 240

3 032 204

3 770 085

4 143 015

394 349

670 514

939 831

1 211 373

1 308 035

Russian Federation

7 298 009

21 609 766

41 276 849

46 308 541

55 967 227

2 016 630

7 380 575

m

m

m

1. Data on GDP, and total public expenditure in countries in the Euro area are provided in Euros.
2. Years of reference 2001, 2006, 2009, 2011 and 2012 instead of 2000, 2005, 2008, 2010 and 2011.
3. The GDP Mainland market value is used for Norway.
Source: OECD. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/education/education-at-a-glance-19991487.htm).
Please refer to the Reader’s Guide for information concerning symbols for missing data and abbreviations.
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933286586

540 Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

Reference statistics

Annex 2

OECD

Table X2.3. [2/2] Basic reference statistics
(reference period: calendar year 2000, 2005, 2008, 2010, 2011)1
Gross Domestic Product
(in millions of local currency, 2012 constant prices)

Total Public Expenditure
(in millions of local currency, 2012 constant prices)

2008

2010

2011

2008

2010

(11)

(12)

(13)

(14)

(15)

(16)

Australia

1 371 034

1 430 317

1 483 654

442 219

481 131

496 940

Austria

311 246

305 049

314 429

148 723

156 142

154 827

Belgium

382 327

381 623

387 873

185 727

195 144

201 517

Canada

1 689 500

1 663 092

1 719 259

696 466

763 394

763 575

Chile2

111 759 872

125 027 571

131 134 365

27 576 629

28 679 416

30 405 790

Czech Republic

4 111 210

4 001 777

4 080 472

1 621 333

1 682 002

1 677 108

Denmark

1 925 955

1 857 798

1 879 078

967 788

1 049 575

1 059 972

Estonia

17 815

15 567

16 853

6 950

6 168

6 276

Finland

209 169

197 612

202 681

98 664

105 309

107 337

France

2 063 017

2 041 566

2 084 095

1 064 689

1 119 222

1 132 207

Germany

2 692 561

2 644 613

2 739 585

1 170 812

1 247 533

1 220 790

Greece

252 327

228 095

207 877

122 978

115 255

108 068

Hungary

30 221 464

28 464 834

28 978 563

14 657 489

13 999 923

14 300 427

Iceland

1 865 164

1 717 284

1 753 959

1 028 763

838 889

796 036

Ireland

180 580

168 626

173 299

74 417

105 744

77 546

Israel

857 573

924 158

962 951

371 227

389 788

380 716

Italy

1 722 693

1 656 179

1 665 871

807 618

806 691

801 128

Japan

467 302 218

466 371 161

467 865 676

178 482 082

190 470 480

197 250 176

Korea

1 210 975 823

1 298 839 506

1 346 680 975

342 680 949

362 361 510

377 148 199

42 967

42 769

43 884

16 746

18 574

18 503

14 388 718

14 418 513

14 972 048

3 398 305

3 646 550

3 772 485

Netherlands

655 138

640 324

650 937

286 927

308 695

306 034

New Zealand

196 080

201 724

206 423

67 613

71 376

68 753

Norway3

2 082 486

2 083 187

2 211 899

1 138 131

1 204 572

1 238 028

Poland

1 424 257

1 515 860

1 588 011

614 833

678 609

678 466

Portugal

180 792

178 752

175 476

77 882

88 404

84 092

Slovak Republic

69 678

69 176

71 049

23 861

27 102

26 715

Luxembourg
Mexico

Slovenia

39 384

36 758

36 981

17 134

18 160

18 406

Spain

1 124 344

1 084 346

1 077 682

454 235

487 009

481 243

Sweden

3 581 641

3 599 250

3 695 326

1 752 853

1 785 930

1 810 996

602 215

606 825

617 748

189 435

189 774

196 705

Turkey

1 227 670

1 275 403

1 387 322

446 094

513 247

518 491

United Kingdom

1 659 099

1 617 909

1 644 546

750 237

766 819

748 677

United States

15 597 149

15 547 779

15 797 034

5 899 382

6 393 751

5 857 491

Switzerland

Partners

2011

Brazil

3 963 739

4 341 660

4 364 448

1 228 560

1 395 027

1 377 946

Russian Federation

59 887 606

57 691 503

60 150 289

m

m

m

1. Data on GDP, and total public expenditure in countries in the Euro area are provided in Euros.
2. Years of reference 2001, 2006, 2009, 2011 and 2012 instead of 2000, 2005, 2008, 2010 and 2011.
3. The GDP Mainland market value is used for Norway.
Source: OECD. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/education/education-at-a-glance-19991487.htm).
Please refer to the Reader’s Guide for information concerning symbols for missing data and abbreviations.
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933286586

Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

541

Annex

2

Annex 2

Reference statistics

Table X2.4a. [1/2] Teachers’ statutory salaries at different points in their careers,

for teachers with typical qualification (2013)

Annual salaries in public institutions for teachers with typical qualification, in national currency
Pre-primary
Salary
at top of scale

Starting salary

Salary after
10 years
of experience

Salary after
15 years
of experience

Salary
at top of scale

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7)

(8)

OECD

Annex

Primary

Salary after
15 years
of experience

Australia1
Austria2
Belgium (Fl.)
Belgium (Fr.)
Canada
Chile1, 3
Czech Republic
Denmark3
England
Estonia
Finland4
France5, 6
Germany
Greece
Hungary7
Iceland3
Ireland
Israel
Italy
Japan3
Korea
Luxembourg
Mexico
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Scotland
Slovak Republic
Slovenia
Spain
Sweden7
Switzerland
Turkey
United States7

60 967
28 156
30 803
30 121
m
6 960 975
240 000
339 065
21 588
m
27 424
24 195
m
13 104
1 479 312
3 580 333
m
96 132
23 051
m
26 812 800
67 129
147 754
32 468
m
350 900
29 044
20 439
21 438
5 638
16 981
27 841
306 000
m
32 639
42 590

87 035
33 134
38 688
37 669
m
9 317 091
243 000
384 852
35 447
m
29 617
27 724
m
16 572
1 652 268
3 580 333
m
117 321
25 358
m
40 363 200
88 894
192 555
40 280
m
402 000
38 932
22 386
34 200
6 204
20 204
30 169
328 356
m
33 687
51 275

87 035
37 140
43 586
42 414
m
10 445 247
248 160
384 852
36 756
m
29 617
29 740
m
19 056
1 768 164
4 091 064
m
133 059
27 845
m
47 122 800
100 350
245 884
48 093
m
402 000
47 556
24 326
34 200
6 488
24 875
32 248
338 100
m
35 018
58 202

87 406
55 270
53 382
51 903
m
14 566 995
264 600
384 852
36 756
m
29 617
43 854
m
25 752
2 343 120
4 091 064
m
247 180
33 884
m
74 895 600
120 282
315 517
48 093
m
402 000
49 576
37 952
34 200
6 996
28 601
39 187
354 864
m
37 860
70 978

60 049
28 156
30 803
30 121
51 145
6 960 975
247 200
385 998
21 588
8 153
32 097
24 195
42 281
13 104
1 529 892
3 744 242
33 814
85 124
23 051
3 105 000
26 812 800
67 129
147 754
32 468
45 796
404 900
29 044
20 439
21 438
6 306
16 981
27 841
302 400
m
32 639
41 606

86 348
33 134
38 688
37 669
82 069
9 317 091
254 400
428 907
35 447
8 296
37 153
27 724
49 736
16 572
1 749 780
4 192 652
48 686
110 591
25 358
4 612 000
40 363 200
88 894
192 555
40 280
68 074
437 950
38 932
22 386
34 200
7 574
20 996
30 169
337 470
m
33 687
53 799

86 348
37 140
43 586
42 414
86 130
10 445 247
265 200
443 335
36 756
8 296
39 382
29 740
52 016
19 056
1 876 836
4 477 217
54 314
128 372
27 845
5 456 000
47 122 800
100 350
245 884
48 093
68 074
437 950
47 556
24 326
34 200
8 878
25 850
32 248
349 920
m
35 018
59 339

86 634
55 270
53 382
51 903
86 130
14 566 995
301 800
443 335
36 756
10 668
41 745
43 854
55 465
25 752
2 494 920
4 477 217
61 201
222 865
33 884
6 842 000
74 895 600
120 282
315 517
48 093
68 074
478 500
49 576
37 952
34 200
9 570
30 919
39 187
399 600
m
37 860
66 938

Partners

Starting salary

Salary after
10 years
of experience

Argentina
Brazil
China
Colombia
India
Indonesia
Latvia
Russian Federation
Saudi Arabia
South Africa

m
m
m
18 592 710
m
m
a
m
m
m

m
m
m
23 853 604
m
m
m
m
m
m

m
m
m
23 853 604
m
m
m
m
m
m

m
m
m
23 853 604
m
m
a
m
m
m

m
m
m
18 703 923
m
m
a
m
m
m

m
m
m
25 244 573
m
m
m
m
m
m

m
m
m
25 244 573
m
m
m
m
m
m

m
m
m
25 244 573
m
m
a
m
m
m

2

1. Statutory salaries do not include the part of social security contributions and pension scheme contributions paid by the employees.
2. Figures for the pre-primary level refer to primary teachers (in primary schools only) teaching pre-primary classes.
3. Statutory salaries include the part of social security contributions and pension scheme contributions paid by the employers.
4. Includes data on the majority, i.e. kindergarten teachers only for pre-primary education.
5. Includes average bonuses for overtime hours for lower and upper secondary teachers.
6. The typical qualification of starting teachers differ substantially from the typical qualification of all the current teachers.
7. Actual base salaries.
Source: OECD. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/education/education-at-a-glance-19991487.htm).
Please refer to the Reader’s Guide for information concerning symbols for missing data and abbreviations.
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933286596

542 Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

Annex 2

Reference statistics

Table X2.4a. [2/2] Teachers’ statutory salaries at different points in their careers,

for teachers with typical qualification (2013)

Annual salaries in public institutions for teachers with typical qualification, in national currency
Lower secondary, general programmes

Salary
at top of scale

Starting salary

Salary after
10 years
of experience

Salary after
15 years
of experience

Salary
at top of scale

(9)

(10)

(11)

(12)

(13)

(14)

(15)

(16)

OECD

Salary after
15 years
of experience

Australia1
Austria2
Belgium (Fl.)
Belgium (Fr.)
Canada
Chile1, 3
Czech Republic
Denmark3
England
Estonia
Finland4
France5, 6
Germany
Greece
Hungary7
Iceland3
Ireland
Israel
Italy
Japan3
Korea
Luxembourg
Mexico
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Scotland
Slovak Republic
Slovenia
Spain
Sweden7
Switzerland
Turkey
United States7

59 970
29 479
30 803
30 121
51 145
6 960 975
247 200
388 387
21 588
8 153
34 665
26 937
46 697
13 104
1 529 892
3 744 242
35 474
85 598
24 849
3 105 000
26 716 800
77 897
189 894
34 264
46 598
404 900
29 044
20 439
21 438
6 306
16 981
31 151
306 000
m
33 892
43 324

86 317
35 840
38 688
37 669
82 069
9 317 091
254 400
434 652
35 447
8 296
40 125
30 465
54 173
16 572
1 749 780
4 192 652
50 633
109 511
27 527
4 612 000
40 267 200
97 371
246 322
49 604
69 987
437 950
38 932
22 386
34 200
7 574
20 996
33 728
343 200
m
34 490
53 758

86 317
40 262
43 586
42 414
86 130
10 445 247
265 200
449 727
36 756
8 296
42 533
32 482
56 522
19 056
1 876 836
4 477 217
54 905
123 411
30 340
5 456 000
47 026 800
107 452
315 847
59 520
69 987
437 950
47 556
24 326
34 200
8 878
25 850
35 855
356 124
m
36 271
60 965

86 561
57 311
53 382
51 903
86 130
14 566 995
301 800
449 727
36 756
10 668
45 085
46 750
61 497
25 752
2 494 920
4 477 217
61 792
189 558
37 211
6 842 000
74 799 600
135 403
403 167
59 520
69 987
478 500
49 576
37 952
34 200
9 570
30 919
43 875
406 968
m
39 113
66 022

59 970
30 905
38 489
37 477
51 360
7 394 631
247 200
389 016
21 588
8 153
36 759
27 211
50 449
13 104
1 669 296
3 619 909
35 474
82 956
24 849
3 105 000
26 716 800
77 897
m
34 264
47 400
448 400
29 044
20 439
21 438
6 306
16 981
31 151
318 000
m
33 892
42 695

86 317
38 015
49 121
47 776
82 484
9 874 011
254 400
462 754
35 447
8 296
44 147
30 740
57 983
16 572
2 008 608
4 149 248
50 633
98 253
28 196
4 612 000
40 267 200
97 371
m
49 604
71 900
494 500
38 932
22 386
34 200
7 574
20 996
33 728
357 456
m
34 490
54 843

86 317
43 328
56 050
54 487
86 543
11 061 207
265 200
462 754
36 756
8 296
45 912
32 756
60 591
19 056
2 226 036
4 517 420
54 905
110 371
31 189
5 456 000
47 026 800
107 452
m
59 520
71 900
494 500
47 556
24 326
34 200
8 878
25 850
35 855
373 368
m
36 271
59 948

86 561
64 061
67 598
65 673
86 543
15 398 583
301 800
462 754
36 756
10 668
48 667
47 052
69 646
25 752
3 123 672
4 720 919
61 792
172 948
38 901
7 029 000
74 799 600
135 403
m
59 520
71 900
555 100
49 576
37 952
34 200
9 570
30 919
43 875
426 840
m
39 113
67 016

Partners

Starting salary

Salary after
10 years
of experience

Upper secondary, general programmes

Argentina
Brazil
China
Colombia
India
Indonesia
Latvia
Russian Federation
Saudi Arabia
South Africa

m
m
m
18 600 692
m
m
a
m
m
m

m
m
m
26 084 302
m
m
m
m
m
m

m
m
m
26 084 302
m
m
m
m
m
m

m
m
m
26 084 302
m
m
a
m
m
m

m
m
m
18 600 692
m
m
a
m
m
m

m
m
m
26 084 302
m
m
m
m
m
m

m
m
m
26 084 302
m
m
m
m
m
m

m
m
m
26 084 302
m
m
a
m
m
m

1. Statutory salaries do not include the part of social security contributions and pension scheme contributions paid by the employees.
2. Figures for the pre-primary level refer to primary teachers (in primary schools only) teaching pre-primary classes.
3. Statutory salaries include the part of social security contributions and pension scheme contributions paid by the employers.
4. Includes data on the majority, i.e. kindergarten teachers only for pre-primary education.
5. Includes average bonuses for overtime hours for lower and upper secondary teachers.
6. The typical qualification of starting teachers differ substantially from the typical qualification of all the current teachers.
7. Actual base salaries.
Source: OECD. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/education/education-at-a-glance-19991487.htm).
Please refer to the Reader’s Guide for information concerning symbols for missing data and abbreviations.
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933286596

Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

543

Annex

2

Annex 2

Reference statistics

Table X2.4b. [1/2] Teachers’ statutory salaries at different points in their careers,

for teachers with minimum qualification (2013)

Annual salaries in public institutions for teachers with minimum qualification, in national currency
Pre-primary
Salary
at top of scale

Starting salary

Salary after
10 years
of experience

Salary after
15 years
of experience

Salary
at top of scale

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7)

(8)

OECD

Annex

Primary

Salary after
15 years
of experience

Australia1
Austria2
Belgium (Fl.)
Belgium (Fr.)
Canada
Chile1, 3
Czech Republic
Denmark3
England
Estonia
Finland4
France5
Germany
Greece
Hungary6
Iceland3
Ireland
Israel
Italy
Japan3
Korea
Luxembourg
Mexico
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Scotland
Slovak Republic
Slovenia
Spain
Sweden6
Switzerland7
Turkey
United States6

57 859
28 156
30 803
30 083
m
6 960 975
180 000
339 065
21 588
m
27 424
24 195
m
13 104
1 479 312
3 580 333
m
96 132
23 051
m
26 268 000
67 129
147 754
32 468
m
350 900
22 800
20 439
21 438
5 638
16 981
27 841
306 000
70 925
32 639
36 551

84 544
33 134
38 688
36 589
m
8 908 719
187 200
384 852
31 552
m
29 617
27 724
m
16 572
1 652 268
3 983 241
m
117 205
25 358
m
39 162 000
88 894
148 587
40 280
m
402 000
30 026
22 386
34 200
6 204
a
30 169
328 356
88 041
33 687
46 884

86 085
37 140
43 586
40 408
m
9 685 479
195 000
384 852
31 552
m
29 617
29 740
m
19 056
1 768 164
3 983 241
m
132 685
27 845
m
45 795 600
100 350
192 555
48 093
m
402 000
36 452
24 326
34 200
6 488
a
32 248
338 100
m
35 018
46 054

87 406
55 270
53 382
48 045
m
12 792 531
213 600
384 852
31 552
m
29 617
43 854
m
25 752
2 343 120
4 091 064
m
204 314
33 884
m
74 895 600
120 282
245 884
48 093
m
402 000
37 989
33 881
34 200
6 996
a
39 187
354 864
108 500
37 860
61 999

57 661
28 156
30 803
30 083
48 458
6 960 975
244 200
385 998
21 588
8 153
32 097
24 195
42 281
13 104
1 529 892
3 744 242
31 972
85 124
23 051
3 105 000
26 812 800
67 129
147 754
32 468
45 796
355 100
22 800
20 439
21 438
6 306
16 981
27 841
302 400
78 741
32 639
36 938

84 431
33 134
38 688
36 589
73 021
8 908 719
248 400
428 907
31 552
8 296
37 153
27 724
49 736
16 572
1 749 780
4 090 979
46 844
110 537
25 358
4 612 000
40 363 200
88 894
148 587
40 280
68 074
391 000
30 026
22 386
34 200
7 574
a
30 169
337 470
98 257
33 687
45 744

85 617
37 140
43 586
40 408
77 006
9 685 479
255 360
443 335
31 552
8 296
39 382
29 740
52 016
19 056
1 876 836
4 192 652
52 472
128 240
27 845
5 456 000
47 122 800
100 350
192 555
48 093
68 074
391 000
36 452
24 326
34 200
7 918
a
32 248
349 920
m
35 018
46 763

86 634
55 270
53 382
48 045
77 006
12 792 531
279 000
443 335
31 552
10 668
41 745
43 854
55 465
25 752
2 494 920
4 367 237
59 359
179 921
33 884
6 842 000
74 895 600
120 282
245 884
48 093
68 074
435 200
37 989
33 881
34 200
8 538
a
39 187
399 600
120 673
37 860
59 771

Partners

Starting salary

Salary after
10 years
of experience

Argentina
Brazil
China
Colombia
India
Indonesia
Latvia1, 3
Russian Federation
Saudi Arabia
South Africa

m
20 893
m
15 665 074
m
m
2 940
m
m
m

m
m
m
18 461 157
m
m
3 000
m
m
m

m
m
m
18 461 157
m
m
3 060
m
m
m

m
m
m
18 461 157
m
m
a
m
m
m

m
20 893
m
16 219 031
m
m
2 940
m
m
m

m
m
m
21 232 442
m
m
3 000
m
m
m

m
m
m
21 232 442
m
m
3 060
m
m
m

m
m
m
21 232 442
m
m
a
m
m
m

2

1. Statutory salaries do not include the part of social security contributions and pension scheme contributions paid by the employees.
2. Figures for the pre-primary level refer to primary teachers (in primary schools only) teaching pre-primary classes.
3. Statutory salaries include the part of social security contributions and pension scheme contributions paid by the employers.
4. Includes data on the majority, i.e. kindergarten teachers only for pre-primary education.
5. Includes average bonuses for overtime hours for lower and upper secondary teachers.
6. Actual base salaries.
7. Salaries after 11 years of experience for columns 2, 6, 10 and 14.
Source: OECD. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/education/education-at-a-glance-19991487.htm).
Please refer to the Reader’s Guide for information concerning symbols for missing data and abbreviations.
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933286604

544 Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

Annex 2

Reference statistics

Table X2.4b. [2/2] Teachers’ statutory salaries at different points in their careers,

for teachers with minimum qualification (2013)

Annual salaries in public institutions for teachers with minimum qualification, in national currency
Lower secondary, general programmes

Salary
at top of scale

Starting salary

Salary after
10 years
of experience

Salary after
15 years
of experience

Salary
at top of scale

(9)

(10)

(11)

(12)

(13)

(14)

(15)

(16)

OECD

Salary after
15 years
of experience

Australia1
Austria2
Belgium (Fl.)
Belgium (Fr.)
Canada
Chile1, 3
Czech Republic
Denmark3
England
Estonia
Finland4
France5
Germany
Greece
Hungary6
Iceland3
Ireland
Israel
Italy
Japan3
Korea
Luxembourg
Mexico
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Scotland
Slovak Republic
Slovenia
Spain
Sweden6
Switzerland7
Turkey
United States6

57 702
29 479
30 803
30 083
48 458
6 960 975
244 200
388 387
21 588
8 153
34 665
26 937
46 697
13 104
1 529 892
3 744 242
33 041
85 598
24 849
3 105 000
26 716 800
77 897
189 894
34 264
45 098
355 100
25 688
20 439
21 438
6 306
16 981
30 949
306 000
89 026
33 892
37 609

84 629
35 840
38 688
36 589
73 021
8 908 719
248 400
434 652
31 552
8 296
40 125
30 465
54 173
16 572
1 749 780
4 090 979
48 200
109 349
27 527
4 612 000
40 267 200
97 371
194 910
49 604
68 074
391 000
34 058
22 386
34 200
7 574
a
33 488
343 200
111 293
34 490
44 490

85 674
40 262
43 586
40 408
77 006
9 685 479
255 360
449 727
31 552
8 296
42 533
32 482
56 522
19 056
1 876 836
4 192 652
52 472
120 582
30 340
5 456 000
47 026 800
107 452
246 322
59 520
68 074
391 000
41 548
24 326
34 200
7 918
a
35 590
356 124
m
36 271
47 829

86 561
57 311
53 382
48 045
77 006
12 792 531
279 000
449 727
31 552
10 668
45 085
46 750
61 497
25 752
2 494 920
4 367 237
59 359
167 842
37 211
6 842 000
74 799 600
135 403
315 847
59 520
68 074
435 200
43 307
33 881
34 200
8 538
a
43 508
406 968
136 360
39 113
57 886

57 702
30 905
38 489
30 083
48 647
7 394 631
244 200
389 016
21 588
8 153
36 759
27 211
50 449
13 104
1 669 296
3 619 909
33 041
82 956
24 849
3 105 000
26 716 800
77 897
m
34 264
44 400
395 900
29 044
20 439
21 438
6 306
16 981
31 151
318 000
100 390
33 892
39 073

84 629
38 015
49 121
36 589
73 354
9 444 279
248 400
462 754
31 552
8 296
44 147
30 740
57 983
16 572
2 008 608
4 070 080
48 200
97 519
28 196
4 612 000
40 267 200
97 371
m
49 604
68 074
424 500
38 932
22 386
34 200
7 574
a
33 728
357 456
128 659
34 490
45 565

85 674
43 328
56 050
40 408
77 338
10 261 683
255 360
462 754
31 552
8 296
45 912
32 756
60 591
19 056
2 226 036
4 415 668
52 472
109 670
31 189
5 456 000
47 026 800
107 452
m
59 520
68 074
424 500
47 556
24 326
34 200
7 918
a
35 855
373 368
m
36 271
50 651

86 561
64 061
67 598
48 045
77 338
13 531 287
279 000
462 754
31 552
10 668
48 667
47 052
69 646
25 752
3 123 672
4 619 167
59 359
161 766
38 901
7 029 000
74 799 600
135 403
m
59 520
68 074
463 200
49 576
33 881
34 200
8 538
a
43 875
426 840
153 752
39 113
57 885

Partners

Starting salary

Salary after
10 years
of experience

Upper secondary, general programmes

Argentina
Brazil
China
Colombia
India
Indonesia
Latvia1, 3
Russian Federation
Saudi Arabia
South Africa

m
20 893
m
16 718 331
m
m
2 940
m
m
m

m
m
m
20 567 674
m
m
3 000
m
m
m

m
m
m
20 567 674
m
m
3 060
m
m
m

m
m
m
20 567 674
m
m
a
m
m
m

m
20 893
m
16 718 331
m
m
2 940
m
m
m

m
m
m
20 567 674
m
m
3 000
m
m
m

m
m
m
20 567 674
m
m
3 060
m
m
m

m
m
m
20 567 674
m
m
a
m
m
m

1. Statutory salaries do not include the part of social security contributions and pension scheme contributions paid by the employees.
2. Figures for the pre-primary level refer to primary teachers (in primary schools only) teaching pre-primary classes.
3. Statutory salaries include the part of social security contributions and pension scheme contributions paid by the employers.
4. Includes data on the majority, i.e. kindergarten teachers only for pre-primary education.
5. Includes average bonuses for overtime hours for lower and upper secondary teachers.
6. Actual base salaries.
7. Salaries after 11 years of experience for columns 2, 6, 10 and 14.
Source: OECD. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/education/education-at-a-glance-19991487.htm).
Please refer to the Reader’s Guide for information concerning symbols for missing data and abbreviations.
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933286604

Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

545

Annex

2

Annex 2

Reference statistics

Table X2.4c. [1/2] Trends in teachers’ salaries between 2000 and 2013,

for teachers with typical qualification1

Annual statutory teachers’ salaries in public institutions for teachers with 15 years of experience and typical qualification,
by level of education, in national currency

OECD

Annex

Australia
Austria2, 3
Belgium (Fl.)
Belgium (Fr.)
Canada
Chile
Czech Republic
Denmark
England
Estonia
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary4
Iceland
Ireland
Israel
Italy
Japan
Korea
Luxembourg
Mexico
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Scotland
Slovak Republic
Slovenia
Spain
Sweden4
Switzerland
Turkey
United States4

Partners

Pre-primary

Argentina
Brazil
China
Colombia
India
Indonesia
Latvia
Russian Federation
Saudi Arabia
South Africa

2

Primary

2000

2005

2011

2012

2013

2000

2005

2011

2012

2013

(1)

(2)

(8)

(9)

(10)

(11)

(12)

(18)

(19)

(20)

m
m
m
28 485
m
m
m
269 948
30 018
m
19 956
27 288
m
m
751 668
m
m
72 174
m
m
m
m
110 833
m
m
m
m
m
14 022
m
m
m
m
m
4 560
36 758

62 240
31 050
35 417
33 427
m
m
m
334 577
33 978
m
23 333
28 395
m
21 237
1 739 076
2 821 586
m
82 076
25 234
m
38 608 000
62 139
159 128
m
m
287 000
31 216
24 759
29 827
m
m
28 122
261 000
m
16 464
41 501

77 488
35 889
41 094
39 905
m
9 474 152
m
375 122
36 756
m
28 671
29 831
m
21 958
1 779 564
3 901 395
m
117 644
27 845
m
44 222 400
93 182
225 605
m
m
374 500
42 860
28 069
34 200
6 156
26 889
33 086
318 000
m
29 426
m

80 207
36 653
41 968
40 785
m
9 947 847
m
382 384
36 756
m
29 191
29 888
m
20 056
1 778 004
4 258 019
m
129 950
27 845
m
45 800 400
97 902
235 139
m
m
381 500
45 785
24 326
34 200
6 236
26 412
32 652
m
m
32 049
57 249

87 035
37 140
43 586
42 414
m
10 445 247
248 160
384 852
36 756
m
29 617
29 740
m
19 056
1 768 164
4 091 064
m
133 059
27 845
m
47 122 800
100 350
245 884
48 093
m
402 000
47 556
24 326
34 200
6 488
24 875
32 248
338 100
m
35 018
58 202

m
25 826 181
29 579
28 485
m
m
m
315 530
30 018
3 068
24 961
27 288
m
m
897 168
m
33 370
75 912
20 849
m
m
m
110 833
m
m
m
m
m
22 743
m
14 123
m
m
m
4 560
38 046

62 240
31 050
35 417
33 427
m
m
m
367 323
33 978
4 379
30 791
28 395
43 320
21 237
1 944 576
3 100 440
48 206
82 179
25 234
6 236 000
39 712 000
62 139
159 128
m
m
327 500
31 216
24 759
29 827
m
21 465
28 122
283 200
m
16 464
51 413

78 472
35 889
41 094
39 905
m
9 474 152
m
428 628
36 756
7 728
38 222
29 831
49 587
21 958
1 911 204
4 264 973
54 314
125 440
27 845
5 456 000
44 222 400
93 182
225 605
m
m
408 500
42 860
28 069
34 200
7 518
27 423
33 086
322 600
m
29 426
53 801

80 730
36 653
41 968
40 785
m
9 947 847
m
429 083
36 756
7 728
38 850
29 888
50 991
20 056
1 890 288
4 321 578
54 314
129 562
27 845
5 456 000
45 800 400
97 902
235 139
m
m
415 650
45 785
24 326
34 200
7 614
26 936
32 652
m
m
32 049
58 367

86 348
37 140
43 586
42 414
86 130
10 445 247
265 200
443 335
36 756
8 296
39 382
29 740
52 016
19 056
1 876 836
4 477 217
54 314
128 372
27 845
5 456 000
47 122 800
100 350
245 884
48 093
68 074
437 950
47 556
24 326
34 200
8 878
25 850
32 248
349 920
m
35 018
59 339

m
m
m
m
m
m
1 321
m
m
m

m
m
m
m
m
m
2 321
m
m
m

m
m
m
m
m
m
4 071
m
m
m

m
m
m
m
m
m
4 341
m
m
m

m
m
m
23 853 604
m
m
m
m
m
m

m
m
m
m
m
m
1 321
m
m
m

m
m
m
m
m
m
2 321
m
m
m

m
m
m
m
m
m
4 071
m
m
m

m
m
m
m
m
m
4 341
m
m
m

m
m
m
25 244 573
m
m
m
m
m
m

Note: Years 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010 (i.e. columns 3-7; 13-17; 23-27; 33-37) are available for consultation on line (see StatLink below).
1. Data on salaries for countries now in the Euro area are shown in euros.
2. Break in time series following methodological changes in 2007 for upper secondary education.
3. Figures for the pre-primary level refer to primary teachers (in primary schools only) teaching pre-primary classes.
4. Actual base salaries.
Source: OECD. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/education/education-at-a-glance-19991487.htm).
Please refer to the Reader’s Guide for information concerning symbols for missing data and abbreviations.
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933286619

546 Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

Reference statistics

Annex 2

Table X2.4c. [2/2] Trends in teachers’ salaries between 2000 and 2013,

for teachers with typical qualification1

Annual statutory teachers’ salaries in public institutions for teachers with 15 years of experience and typical qualification,
by level of education, in national currency

Partners

OECD

Lower secondary, general programmes

Australia
Austria2, 3
Belgium (Fl.)
Belgium (Fr.)
Canada
Chile
Czech Republic
Denmark
England
Estonia
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary4
Iceland
Ireland
Israel
Italy
Japan
Korea
Luxembourg
Mexico
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Scotland
Slovak Republic
Slovenia
Spain
Sweden4
Switzerland
Turkey
United States4
Argentina
Brazil
China
Colombia
India
Indonesia
Latvia
Russian Federation
Saudi Arabia
South Africa

Upper secondary, general programmes

2000

2005

2011

2012

2013

2000

2005

2011

2012

2013

(21)

(22)

(28)

(29)

(30)

(31)

(32)

(38)

(39)

(40)

m
26 916
31 191
30 327
m
m
m
315 530
30 018
3 068
28 293
29 456 000
m
m
897 168
m
33 729
76 995
22 836
m
m
m
141 093
m
m
m
m
m
22 743
m
14 123
m
m
m
4 813
43 834

62 384
33 635
35 417
33 802
m
m
m
367 323
33 978
4 379
34 677
30 667
46 842
21 237
1 944 576
3 100 440
48 725
83 744
27 487
6 236 000
39 616 000
81 258
203 399
m
m
327 500
31 216
24 759
29 827
m
21 465
32 293
290 400
m
17 402
47 215

79 187
38 882
41 094
39 905
m
9 474 152
m
434 802
36 756
7 728
41 280
32 537
54 514
21 958
1 911 204
4 264 973
54 905
114 378
30 340
5 456 000
44 126 400
99 782
288 500
m
m
408 500
42 860
28 069
34 200
7 518
27 423
37 370
333 000
m
30 483
57 042

81 366
39 748
41 968
40 785
m
9 947 847
m
435 268
36 756
7 728
41 958
32 588
55 534
20 056
1 890 288
4 321 578
54 905
116 754
30 340
5 456 000
45 704 400
104 831
305 373
m
m
415 650
45 785
24 326
34 200
7 614
26 936
36 199
m
m
33 197
59 967

86 317
40 262
43 586
42 414
86 130
10 445 247
265 200
449 727
36 756
8 296
42 533
32 482
56 522
19 056
1 876 836
4 477 217
54 905
123 411
30 340
5 456 000
47 026 800
107 452
315 847
59 520
69 987
437 950
47 556
24 326
34 200
8 878
25 850
35 855
356 124
m
36 271
60 965

m
29 727 99
39 886
39 040
m
m
m
395 558
30 018
3 068
31 115
29 456
m
m
1 128 996
m
33 729
75 873
23 518
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
22 743
m
14 123
m
m
m
4 813
43 918

62 384
34 265
45 301
43 519
m
m
m
402 580
33 978
4 379
36 550
30 895
53 096
21 237
2 432 388
3 198 000
48 725
81 353
28 259
6 237 000
39 616 000
81 258
m
m
m
364 000
31 216
24 759
29 827
m
21 465
32 293
313 600
m
17 402
49 467

79 187
41 858
52 844
51 283
m
10 032 401
m
459 745
36 756
7 728
43 686
32 752
58 930
21 958
2 260 944
4 104 000
54 905
97 160
31 190
5 456 000
44 126 400
99 782
m
m
m
459 000
42 860
28 069
34 200
7 518
27 423
37 370
352 600
m
30 483
56 843

81 366
42 749
53 968
52 390
m
10 534 021
m
461 176
36 756
7 728
45 292
32 843
59 549
20 056
2 184 756
4 393 240
54 905
110 075
31 190
5 456 000
45 704 400
104 831
m
m
m
466 900
45 785
24 326
34 200
7 614
26 936
36 199
m
m
33 197
58 966

86 317
43 328
56 050
54 487
86 543
11 061 207
265 200
462 754
36 756
8 296
45 912
32 756
60 591
19 056
2 226 036
4 517 420
54 905
110 371
31 189
5 456 000
47 026 800
107 452
m
59 520
71 900
494 500
47 556
24 326
34 200
8 878
25 850
35 855
373 368
m
36 271
59 948

m
m
m
m
m
m
1 321
m
m
m

m
m
m
m
m
m
2 321
m
m
m

m
m
m
m
m
m
4 071
m
m
m

m
m
m
m
m
m
4 341
m
m
m

m
m
m
26 084 302
m
m
m
m
m
m

m
m
m
m
m
m
1 321
m
m
m

m
m
m
m
m
m
2 321
m
m
m

m
m
m
m
m
m
4 071
m
m
m

m
m
m
m
m
m
4 341
m
m
m

m
m
m
26 084 302
m
m
m
m
m
m

Note: Years 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010 (i.e. columns 3-7; 13-17; 23-27; 33-37) are available for consultation on line (see StatLink below).
1. Data on salaries for countries now in the Euro area are shown in euros.
2. Break in time series following methodological changes in 2007 for upper secondary education.
3. Figures for the pre-primary level refer to primary teachers (in primary schools only) teaching pre-primary classes.
4. Actual base salaries.
Source: OECD. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/education/education-at-a-glance-19991487.htm).
Please refer to the Reader’s Guide for information concerning symbols for missing data and abbreviations.
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933286619

Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

547

Annex

2

Annex 2

Reference statistics

Table X2.4d. [1/2] Trends in teachers’ salaries between 2000 and 2013,

for teachers with minimum qualification1

Annual statutory teachers’ salaries in public institutions for teachers with 15 years of experience and minimum qualification,
by level of education, in national currency

OECD

Annex

Australia
Austria2, 3
Belgium (Fl.)
Belgium (Fr.)
Canada
Chile
Czech Republic4
Denmark
England
Estonia
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary5
Iceland
Ireland
Israel
Italy
Japan
Korea
Luxembourg
Mexico
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Scotland
Slovak Republic
Slovenia
Spain
Sweden5
Switzerland6
Turkey
United States5

Partners

Pre-primary

Argentina
Brazil
China
Colombia
India
Indonesia
Latvia
Russian Federation
Saudi Arabia
South Africa

2

Primary

2000

2005

2011

2012

2013

2000

2005

2011

2012

2013

(1)

(2)

(8)

(9)

(10)

(11)

(12)

(18)

(19)

(20)

m
m
m
28 485
m
m
m
269 948
23 958
m
19 956
27 288
m
m
751 668
m
m
68 894
m
m
m
m
86 748
m
m
m
m
m
14 022
m
a
m
m
m
4 560
36 758

62 240
31 050
35 417
32 188
m
m
279 001
334 577
27 123
m
23 333
28 395
m
21 237
1 739 076
2 257 836
m
74 610
25 234
m
38 608 000
62 139
124 082
m
m
298 812
23 328
22 775
29 827
m
a
28 122
261 000
77 925
16 464
41 500

75 235
35 889
41 094
38 015
m
8 785 016
274 829
375 122
31 552
m
28 671
29 831
m
21 958
1 779 564
3 409 863
m
115 884
27 845
m
42 987 600
93 182
176 627
m
m
374 500
32 878
28 069
34 200
6 156
a
33 086
318 000
85 904
29 426
m

78 095
36 653
41 968
38 857
m
9 224 259
195 000
382 384
31 552
m
29 191
29 888
m
20 056
1 778 004
3 721 409
m
126 521
27 845
m
44 515 200
97 902
183 981
m
m
381 500
35 101
24 326
34 200
6 236
a
32 652
m
87 198
32 049
45 300

86 085
37 140
43 586
40 408
m
9 685 479
195 000
384 852
31 552
m
29 617
29 740
m
19 056
1 768 164
3 983 241
m
132 685
27 845
m
45 795 600
100 350
192 555
48 093
m
402 000
36 452
24 326
34 200
6 488
a
32 248
338 100
88 041
35 018
46 054

50 995
25 826 18
29 579
28 485
m
m
125 501
315 530
23 958
3 068
24 961
27 288
m
m
897 168
1 884 000
32 251
68 421
20 849
6 645 000
26 757 000
m
86 748
m
m
m
m
17 180
22 743
m
a
22 701
248 300
85 513
4 560
38 040

62 240
31 050
35 417
32 188
m
m
250 559
367 323
27 123
4 379
30 791
28 395
43 320
21 237
1 944 576
2 573 556
46 591
73 496
25 234
6 236 000
39 712 000
62 139
124 082
m
m
302 000
23 328
22 775
29 827
m
a
28 122
283 200
90 341
16 464
41 114

76 732
35 889
41 094
38 015
73 154
8 785 016
311 793
428 628
31 552
7 728
38 222
29 831
49 587
21 958
1 911 204
3 987 224
52 472
121 858
27 845
5 456 000
44 222 400
93 182
176 627
m
m
370 000
32 878
28 069
34 200
7 518
a
33 086
322 600
96 798
29 426
46 122

78 619
36 653
41 968
38 857
74 981
9 224 259
255 360
429 083
31 552
7 728
38 850
29 888
50 991
20 056
1 890 288
4 047 201
52 472
125 606
27 845
5 456 000
45 800 400
97 902
183 981
m
m
377 000
35 101
24 326
34 200
7 614
a
32 652
m
97 436
32 049
45 998

85 617
37 140
43 586
40 408
77 006
9 685 479
255 360
443 335
31 552
8 296
39 382
29 740
52 016
19 056
1 876 836
4 192 652
52 472
128 240
27 845
5 456 000
47 122 800
100 350
192 555
48 093
68 074
391 000
36 452
24 326
34 200
7 918
a
32 248
349 920
98 257
35 018
46 763

m
m
m
m
m
m
1 321
m
m
m

m
m
m
m
m
m
2 321
m
m
m

m
m
m
m
m
m
4 071
m
m
m

m
m
m
m
m
m
4 341
m
m
m

m
m
m
18 461 157
m
m
3 060
m
m
m

m
m
m
m
m
m
1 321
m
m
m

m
m
m
m
m
m
2 321
m
m
m

m
m
m
m
m
m
4 071
m
m
m

m
m
m
m
m
m
4 341
m
m
m

m
m
m
21 232 442
m
m
3 060
m
m
m

Note: Years 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010 (i.e. columns 3-7; 13-17; 23-27; 33-37) are available for consultation on line (see StatLink below).
1. Data on salaries for countries now in the Euro area are shown in euros.
2. Break in time series following methodological changes in 2007 for upper secondary education.
3. Figures for the pre-primary level refer to primary teachers (in primary schools only) teaching pre-primary classes.
4. Break in time series following methodological changes in 2012.
5. Actual base salaries.
6. Salaries after 11 years of experience.
Source: OECD. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/education/education-at-a-glance-19991487.htm).
Please refer to the Reader’s Guide for information concerning symbols for missing data and abbreviations.
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933286624

548 Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

Reference statistics

Annex 2

Table X2.4d. [2/2] Trends in teachers’ salaries between 2000 and 2013,

for teachers with minimum qualification1

Annual statutory teachers’ salaries in public institutions for teachers with 15 years of experience and minimum qualification,
by level of education, in national currency

Partners

OECD

Lower secondary, general programmes

Australia
Austria2, 3
Belgium (Fl.)
Belgium (Fr.)
Canada
Chile
Czech Republic4
Denmark
England
Estonia
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary5
Iceland
Ireland
Israel
Italy
Japan
Korea
Luxembourg
Mexico
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Scotland
Slovak Republic
Slovenia
Spain
Sweden5
Switzerland6
Turkey
United States5
Argentina
Brazil
China
Colombia
India
Indonesia
Latvia
Russian Federation
Saudi Arabia
South Africa

Upper secondary, general programmes

2000

2005

2011

2012

2013

2000

2005

2011

2012

2013

(21)

(22)

(28)

(29)

(30)

(31)

(32)

(38)

(39)

(40)

51 016
26 916
31 191
28 879
m
m
125 501
315 530
23 958
3 068
28 293
29 456 352
m
m
897 168
1 884 000
32 251
75 608
22 836
6 645 000
26 661 000
m
109 779
m
m
m
m
17 180
22 743
m
a
24 528
248 300
102 409
4 813
37 989

62 384
33 635
35 417
32 188
m
m
250 559
367 323
27 123
4 379
34 677
30 667
46 842
21 237
1 944 576
2 573 556
46 591
82 030
27 487
6 236 000
39 616 000
81 258
157 816
m
m
302 000
26 935
22 775
29 827
m
a
31 561
290 400
103 100
17 402
41 327

77 715
38 882
41 094
38 015
73 154
8 785 016
314 495
434 802
31 552
7 728
41 280
32 537
54 514
21 958
1 911 204
3 987 224
52 472
112 095
30 340
5 456 000
44 126 400
99 782
224 596
m
m
370 000
37 459
28 069
34 200
7 518
a
37 043
333 000
110 628
30 483
45 950

79 834
39 748
41 968
38 857
74 981
9 224 259
255 360
435 268
31 552
7 728
41 958
32 588
55 534
20 056
1 890 288
4 047 201
52 472
114 923
30 340
5 456 000
45 704 400
104 831
237 759
m
m
377 000
40 010
24 326
34 200
7 614
a
35 923
m
111 019
33 197
47 046

85 674
40 262
43 586
40 408
77 006
9 685 479
255 360
449 727
31 552
8 296
42 533
32 482
56 522
19 056
1 876 836
4 192 652
52 472
120 582
30 340
5 456 000
47 026 800
107 452
246 322
59 520
68 074
391 000
41 548
24 326
34 200
7 918
a
35 590
356 124
111 293
36 271
47 829

51 016
29 728
39 886
28 879
m
m
152 941
395 558
23 958
3 068
31 115
29 456
m
m
1 128 996
2 220 000
32 251
74 657
23 518
6 649 000
26 661 000
m
m
m
m
m
m
17 180
22 743
m
a
26 366
264 700
121 629
4 813
37 997

62 384
34 265
45 301
32 188
m
m
255 125
402 580
27 123
4 379
36 550
30 895
53 096
21 237
2 432 388
3 014 000
46 591
80 052
28 259
6 237 000
39 616 000
81 258
m
m
m
321 000
31 216
22 775
29 827
m
a
32 293
313 600
120 546
17 402
41 172

77 715
41 858
52 844
38 015
73 440
9 307 217
335 696
459 745
31 552
7 728
43 686
32 752
58 930
21 958
2 260 944
4 012 000
52 472
95 590
31 190
5 456 000
44 126 400
99 782
m
m
m
398 000
42 860
28 069
34 200
7 518
a
37 370
352 600
128 873
30 483
49 410

79 834
42 749
53 968
38 857
75 281
9 772 573
255 360
461 176
31 552
7 728
45 292
32 843
59 549
20 056
2 184 756
4 294 829
52 472
109 467
31 190
5 456 000
45 704 400
104 831
m
m
m
405 000
45 785
24 326
34 200
7 614
a
36 199
m
128 748
33 197
49 822

85 674
43 328
56 050
40 408
77 338
10 261 683
255 360
462 754
31 552
8 296
45 912
32 756
60 591
19 056
2 226 036
4 415 668
52 472
109 670
31 189
5 456 000
47 026 800
107 452
m
59 520
68 074
424 500
47 556
24 326
34 200
7 918
a
35 855
373 368
128 659
36 271
50 651

m
m
m
m
m
m
1 321
m
m
m

m
m
m
m
m
m
2 321
m
m
m

m
m
m
m
m
m
4 071
m
m
m

m
m
m
m
m
m
4 341
m
m
m

m
m
m
20 567 674
m
m
3 060
m
m
m

m
m
m
m
m
m
1 321
m
m
m

m
m
m
m
m
m
2 321
m
m
m

m
m
m
m
m
m
4 071
m
m
m

m
m
m
m
m
m
4 341
m
m
m

m
m
m
20 567 674
m
m
3 060
m
m
m

Note: Years 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010 (i.e. columns 3-7; 13-17; 23-27; 33-37) are available for consultation on line (see StatLink below).
1. Data on salaries for countries now in the Euro area are shown in euros.
2. Break in time series following methodological changes in 2007 for upper secondary education.
3. Figures for the pre-primary level refer to primary teachers (in primary schools only) teaching pre-primary classes.
4. Break in time series following methodological changes in 2012.
5. Actual base salaries.
6. Salaries after 11 years of experience.
Source: OECD. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/education/education-at-a-glance-19991487.htm).
Please refer to the Reader’s Guide for information concerning symbols for missing data and abbreviations.
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933286624

Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

549

Annex

2

Annex 2

Reference statistics

Table X2.4e. Reference statistics used in calculating teachers’ salaries (2000, 2005-13)
Purchasing power parity for
private consumption (PPP)1
2013

Jan 2013

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7)

(8)

(9)

(10)

(11)

(12)

(13)

(14)

OECD

Jan
2006

Jan
2007

Jan
2008

Jan
2009

Australia
Austria
Belgium (Fl.)2
Belgium (Fr.)2
Canada
Chile
Czech Republic
Denmark
England3
Estonia
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Iceland
Ireland
Israel
Italy
Japan
Korea
Luxembourg
Mexico
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Scotland3
Slovak Republic
Slovenia
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Turkey
United States

1.53
0.86
0.89
0.89
1.29
391.92
14.56
8.41
0.77
0.62
0.99
0.89
0.82
0.75
143.79
142.56
0.97
4.26
0.84
112.69
911.96
0.97
9.18
0.88
1.58
9.73
1.92
0.67
0.77
0.57
0.68
0.77
9.11
1.55
1.25
1.00

1.54
0.87
0.90
0.90
1.29
393.15
14.47
8.42
0.79
0.63
1.00
0.89
0.83
0.72
143.60
144.95
0.97
4.34
0.84
112.08
914.72
0.98
9.36
0.90
1.57
9.94
1.90
0.66
0.79
0.56
0.67
0.76
9.22
1.54
1.33
1.00

1.53
0.86
0.90
0.90
1.29
392.53
14.51
8.42
0.78
0.63
0.99
0.89
0.82
0.74
143.70
143.75
0.97
4.30
0.84
112.39
913.34
0.97
9.27
0.89
1.57
9.83
1.91
0.66
0.78
0.57
0.68
0.76
9.17
1.55
1.29
1.00

88
91
91
91
91
86
90
92
94
82
93
92
93
87
73
81
83
93
87
105
84
90
80
88
92
91
85
85
94
76
76
85
93
97
28
90

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

103
102
103
103
102
104
101
102
103
105
101
102
101
103
103
105
102
102
102
100
102
103
104
102
102
101
102
104
103
104
102
104
101
101
109
103

106
104
106
106
103
107
104
104
105
112
103
104
103
107
109
112
105
104
105
99
104
105
109
104
105
103
104
107
105
108
106
107
103
103
118
105

110
107
109
109
105
113
108
106
109
121
106
107
104
111
115
122
107
108
108
99
107
107
115
107
107
106
107
111
109
112
111
111
105
104
128
108

113
108
111
111
106
118
111
109
112
126
108
107
105
114
121
137
105
111
109
98
111
109
121
107
111
109
111
111
112
114
114
112
108
105
138
110

116
110
111
111
106
121
112
111
115
128
110
107
106
116
125
145
100
114
110
96
114
110
127
107
113
111
114
111
115
115
116
113
110
105
147
111

118
113
114
114
108
125
113
113
120
134
113
109
108
120
130
149
100
118
112
95
117
112
132
109
115
113
118
113
120
117
117
115
111
105
160
113

122
116
117
117
110
130
115
116
123
140
116
111
110
122
137
156
102
121
115
94
121
114
137
111
117
114
123
115
123
122
119
118
113
105
174
115

125
118
119
119
112
134
117
118
125
144
119
112
111
121
142
163
103
124
118
93
122
115
142
112
117
116
125
116
125
125
120
120
113
104
186
117

2013
2013
2013
2012/2013
2012/2013
2013
2012/2013
2012/2013
2012/2013
2012/2013
2013
2012/2013
2012/2013
2013
2013
2012/2013
2012/2013
2012/2013
2012/2013
2012/2013
2013
2012/2013
2012/2013
2012/2013
2013
2012/2013
2012/2013
2012/2013
2012/2013
2012/2013
2012/2013
2012/2013
2013
2012/2013
2013
2012/2013

Argentina
Brazil
China
Colombia
India
Indonesia
Latvia
Russian Federation
Saudi Arabia
South Africa

m
1.71
m
1 209.94
m
m
0.58
16.74
m
m

m
1.79
m
1 216.60
m
m
0.58
16.72
m
m

m
1.75
m
1 213.27
m
m
0.58
16.73
m
m

m
65
m
72
m
m
77
m
m
m

m
100
m
100
m
m
100
m
m
m

m
106
m
104
m
m
110
m
m
m

m
111
m
109
m
m
122
m
m
m

m
117
m
115
m
m
137
m
m
m

m
125
m
120
m
m
143
m
m
m

m
132
m
124
m
m
138
m
m
m

m
141
m
128
m
m
140
m
m
m

m
150
m
133
m
m
147
m
m
m

m
161
m
136
m
m
149
m
m
m

m
2013
m
2013
m
m
2012/2013
2012/2013
m
m

1. Data on PPPs and GDP for countries now in the Euro area are shown in euros.
2. Data on PPPs and deflators refer to Belgium.
3. Data on PPPs and deflators refer to the United Kingdom.
Source: OECD. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/education/education-at-a-glance-19991487.htm).
Please refer to the Reader’s Guide for information concerning symbols for missing data and abbreviations.
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933286638

550 Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

Jan
2010

Jan
2011

Jan
2012

Reference
year for 2013
salary data

2012

2

Jan
2005

Jan
2013

Partners

Annex

Private consumption deflators (2005 = 100)
Jan
2000

Annex 2

Reference statistics

Table X2.4f. Average actual teachers’ salaries in national currency (2013)
Average gross annual salary of teachers aged 25-64

OECD

Pre-primary

Lower secondary,
general programmes

Upper secondary,
general programmes

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

Australia

75 925

77 768

78 810

78 872

Austria1, 2

47 786

47 786

55 140

60 121

Belgium (Fl.)

44 376

44 903

44 103

57 712

Belgium (Fr.)

42 005

41 966

41 561

53 151

m

m

m

m

10 409 992

11 215 673

11 324 253

11 976 864

Czech Republic

269 316

311 736

310 956

334 272

Denmark3

386 061

465 498

471 562

525 132

England

32 962

32 962

36 016

36 016

Estonia

7 529

10 747

10 747

10 747

Finland4

31 651

43 189

47 514

53 694

France

32 350

32 066

37 909

41 604

m

49 875

54 723

59 667

Canada
Chile

Germany
Greece

19 528

19 528

19 713

19 713

Hungary

2 252 292

2 451 684

2 451 684

2 777 160

Iceland

m

m

m

5 934 533

Ireland

m

m

m

m

Israel

148 623

156 415

154 504

148 390

Italy

27 970

27 970

29 963

32 407

Japan

m

m

m

m

Korea

m

m

m

m

93 705

93 705

106 650

106 650

Luxembourg
Mexico
Netherlands
New Zealand

m

m

m

m

44 114

44 114

54 396

54 396

m

m

m

m

Norway

423 631

481 070

481 070

512 038

Poland

55 821

49 005

56 168

57 079

Portugal

m

m

m

m

Scotland5

32 661

32 661

32 661

32 661

Slovak Republic

7 978

10 732

10 732

10 699

Slovenia6

17 826

23 676

24 111

25 929

m

m

m

m

323 474

350 680

357 721

375 937

Switzerland

m

m

m

129 060

Turkey

m

m

m

m

49 800

51 334

52 343

54 083

Spain
Sweden7

United States
Other G20

Primary

Argentina

m

m

m

m

Brazil

m

m

m

m

China

m

m

m

m

Colombia

m

m

m

m

India

m

m

m

m

Indonesia

m

m

m

m

297

297

335

360

Latvia
Russian Federation8

418 112

429 036

429 036

429 036

Saudi Arabia

m

m

m

m

South Africa

m

m

m

m

Annex

1. Figures for the pre-primary level refer to primary teachers (in primary schools only) teaching pre-primary classes.
2. Includes also data on actual salaries of headmasters, deputies and assistants.
3. Includes also data on actual salaries of teachers in early childhood educational development programmes for pre-primary education.
4. Includes data on the majority, i.e. kindergarten teachers only for pre-primary education.
5. Includes all teachers, irrespective of their age.
6. Includes also data on actual salaries of pre-school teacher assistants for pre-primary education.
7. Average actual teachers’ salaries, not including bonuses and allowances.
8. Average actual teachers’ salaries for all teachers, irrespective of the level of education they teach.
Source: OECD. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/education/education-at-a-glance-19991487.htm).
Please refer to the Reader’s Guide for information concerning symbols for missing data and abbreviations.
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933286640

Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

551

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.
Annex

2

GDP per capita is the gross domestic product (in equivalent USD 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 of 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 2015 edition of the National Accounts of OECD Countries: Detailed Tables, Volume II.
OECD Analytical Database, February 2015.

552 Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

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/education/education-at-a-glance-19991487.htm

Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

553

CONTRIBUTORS TO THIS PUBLICATION
Many people have contributed to the development of this publication.
The following lists the names of the country representatives who have taken part to the INES meetings
and to the preparatory work leading to the publication of Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators.
The OECD wishes to thank them all for their valuable efforts.

INES Working Party
Ms Maria Laura ALONSO (Argentina)
Mr Julián FALCONE (Argentina)
Ms Marcela JÁUREGUI (Argentina)
Ms Cheryl HOPKINS (Australia)
Mr Stuart FAUNT (Australia)
Mr Karl BAIGENT (Australia)
Mr Paul CMIEL (Australia)
Ms Rebecca SMEDLEY (Australia)
Mr Andreas GRIMM (Austria)
Ms Sabine MARTINSCHITZ (Austria)
Mr Mark NÉMET (Austria)
Mr Wolfgang PAULI (Austria)
Ms Helga POSSET (Austria)
Ms Natascha RIHA (Austria)
Mr Philippe DIEU (Belgium)
Ms Isabelle ERAUW (Belgium)
Ms Nathalie JAUNIAUX (Belgium)
Mr Guy STOFFELEN (Belgium)
Mr Raymond VAN DE SIJPE (Belgium)
Ms Ann VAN DRIESSCHE (Belgium)
Mr Daniel Jaime CAPISTRANO DE OLIVEIRA (Brazil)
Ms Carla D’Lourdes DO NASCIMENTO (Brazil)
Ms Juliana MARQUES DA SILVA (Brazil)
Ms Ana Carolina SILVA CIROTTO (Brazil)
Mr Patric BLOUIN (Canada)
Mr Patrice DE BROUCKER (Canada)
Mr Tomasz GLUSZYNSKI (Canada)
Ms Amanda HODGKINSON (Canada)
Mr Michael MARTIN (Canada)
Mr Enzo PIZZOFERRATO (Canada)
Mr Janusz ZIEMINSKI (Canada)
Ms María Paz DONOSO (Chile)
Ms Paola LEIVA (Chile)
Mr Francisco MENESES (Chile)
Mr Fabián RAMÍREZ (Chile)
Mr Roberto SCHURCH (Chile)
Ms María José SEPÚLVEDA (Chile)
Mr Juan Carlos BOLIVAR (Colombia)
Ms Jennifer DIAZ (Colombia)
Mr Javier Andrés RUBIO (Colombia)
Ms Azucena VALLEJO (Colombia)
Ms Elsa Nelly VELASCO (Colombia)

Mr Victor Alejandro VENEGAS (Colombia)
Mr Andrés VERGARA (Colombia)
Mr Vladimír HULÍK (Czech Republic)
Ms Michaela MARŠÍKOVÁ (Czech Republic)
Mr Lubomír MARTINEC (Czech Republic)
Mr Jens ANDERSEN (Denmark)
Mr Peter BOHNSTEDT ANAN HANSEN (Denmark)
Mr Leo Elmbirk JENSEN (Denmark)
Mr Kristian ORNSHOLT (Denmark)
Mr Signe Tychsen PHILIP (Denmark)
Mr Ken THOMASSEN (Denmark)
Ms Tiina ANNUS (Estonia)
Ms Lene MEJER (European Commission)
Mr Jan PAKULSKI (European Commission)
Ms Christine COIN (Eurostat, European Commission)
Mr Jacques LANNELUC (Eurostat, European Commission)
Mr Timo ERTOLA (Finland)
Mr Ville HEINONEN (Finland)
Mr Matti KYRÖ (Finland)
Mr Mika TUONONEN (Finland)
Mr Cedric AFSA (France)
Ms Pierrette BRIANT (France)
Ms Marion DEFRESNE (France)
Ms Mireille DUBOIS (France)
Ms Nadine ESQUIEU (France)
Ms Stéphanie LEMERLE (France)
Ms Florence LEFRESNE (France)
Ms Valérie LIOGIER (France)
Ms Hélène MICHAUDON (France)
Ms Pascale POULET-COULIBANDO (France)
Mr Robert RAKOCEVIC (France)
Ms Marguerite RUDOLF (France)
Mr Hans-Werner FREITAG (Germany)
Mr Heinz-Werner HETMEIER (Germany)
Ms Christiane KRÜGER-HEMMER (Germany)
Ms Pauline LICHTENBERG (Germany)
Mr Marco MUNDELIUS (Germany)
Mr Martin SCHULZE (Germany)
Ms Eveline VON GAESSLER (Germany)
Ms Susanne ZIEMEK (Germany)
Ms Dimitra FARMAKIOUTOU (Greece)
Ms Maria FASSARI (Greece)
Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

555

Contributors

Mr Konstantinos KAMPANAKIS (Greece)
Ms Akrivi NIKOLAKOPOULOU (Greece)
Ms Athena PLESSA-PAPADAKI (Greece)
Ms Tünde HAGYMÁSY (Hungary)
Mr Tibor KÖNYVESI (Hungary)
Mr László LIMBACHER (Hungary)
Mr Kristián SZÉLL (Hungary)
Mr Gunnar J. ÁRNASON (Iceland)
Mr Julius BJORNSSON (Iceland)
Ms Ásta URBANCIC (Iceland)
Ms Ida KINTAMANI (Indonesia)
Mr Yul Yunazwin NAZARUDDIN (Indonesia)
Ms Siti SOFIA (Indonesia)
Mr Gary Ó DONNCHADHA (Ireland)
Mr Diarmuid REIDY (Ireland)
Ms Nicola TICKNER (Ireland)
Ms Sophie ARTSEV (Israel)
Ms Yael ATIYAH (Israel)
Mr Yoav AZULAY (Israel)
Mr Yonatan BARON (Israel)
Ms Lilach BITON (Israel)
Ms Nava BRENNER (Israel)
Ms Livnat GAVRIELOV (Israel)
Mr Yosef GIDANIAN (Israel)
Mr Pinhas KLEIN (Israel)
Mr Aviel KRENTZLER (Israel)
Mr Daniel LEVI-MAZLOUM (Israel)
Ms Iris Avigail MATATYAHU (Israel)
Mr Haim PORTNOY (Israel)
Ms Naama STEINBERG (Israel)
Ms Francesca BROTTO (Italy)
Mr Massimiliano CICCIA (Italy)
Ms Daniela DI ASCENZO (Italy)
Ms Paola DI GIROLAMO (Italy)
Ms Maria Teresa MORANA (Italy)
Ms Claudia PIZZELLA (Italy)
Mr Paolo SESTITO (Italy)
Mr Paolo TURCHETTI (Italy)
Mr Yuki MATSUO (Japan)
Mr Takashi MURAO (Japan)
Mr Yutaro NAGANO (Japan)
Mr Hiromi SASAI (Japan)
Mr Kenichiro TAKAHASHI (Japan)
Ms Kumiko TANSHO-HIRABAYASHI (Japan)
Ms Natsue SAITO (Japan)
Ms Hiroe HINO (Japan)
Mr Koji YANAGISAWA (Japan)
Ms Sujin CHOI (Korea)
Ms Jeongwon HWANG (Korea)
Ms Yoon Hee IM (Korea)
Ms Young Ok KIM (Korea)
Ms Hae Suk LEE (Korea)
Ms Hyun Mi LEE (Korea)
Ms Won Hee NA (Korea)

556 Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

Ms Ennata KIVRINA (Latvia)
Mr Reinis MARKVARTS (Latvia)
Mr Jérôme LEVY (Luxembourg)
Ms Charlotte MAHON (Luxembourg)
Ms Elisa MAZZUCATO (Luxembourg)
Mr Claude SCHABER (Luxembourg)
Mr Antonio ÁVILA DÍAZ (Mexico)
Ms Cynthia CABRERA CARDENAS (Mexico)
Mr Agustin CASO-RAPHAEL(Mexico)
Mr René GÓMORA CASTILLO (Mexico)
Mr Juan Manuel HERNÁNDEZ VÁZQUEZ (Mexico)
Mr Tomás RAMÍREZ REYNOSO (Mexico)
Mr Héctor Virgilio ROBLES VASQUEZ (Mexico)
Ms Annette SANTOS (Mexico)
Mr Lorenzo VERGARA LÓPEZ (Mexico)
Ms Danielle ANDARABI (Netherlands)
Mr Hugo ELBERS (Netherlands)
Mr Dick TAKKENBERG (Netherlands)
Ms Priscilla TEDJAWIRJA (Netherlands)
Ms Anouschka VAN DER MEULEN (Netherlands)
Ms Floor VAN OORT (Netherlands)
Mr Joost SCHAACKE (Netherlands)
Mr Simon CROSSAN (New Zealand)
Mr David SCOTT (New Zealand)
Ms Alette SCHREINER (Norway)
Mr Sadiq Kwesi BOATENG (Norway)
Mr Kjetil DIGRE (Norway)
Mr Geir NYGÅRD (Norway)
Ms Anne-Marie RUSTAD HOLSETER (Norway)
Ms Barbara ANTOSIEWICZ (Poland)
Ms Joanna DACIUK-DUBRAWSKA (Poland)
Ms Agata FRANECKA (Poland)
Ms Renata KORZENIOWSKA-PUCULEK (Poland)
Mr Andrzej KURKIEWCZ (Poland)
Ms Anna NOWOŻYŃSKA (Poland)
Ms Malgorzata ZYRA (Poland)
Ms Isabel CORREIA (Portugal)
Ms Janine COSTA (Portugal)
Ms Teresa KOL DE ALVARENGA (Portugal)
Ms Mónica LUENGO (Portugal)
Mr Carlos Alberto MALACA (Portugal)
Ms Sandrine MIRANDA (Portugal)
Ms Rute NUNES (Portugal)
Mr Joao PEREIRA DE MATOS (Portugal)
Mr José RAFAEL (Portugal)
Mr Nuno Miguel RODRIGUES (Portugal)
Mr Joaquim SANTOS (Portugal)
Mr Mark AGRANOVICH (Russian Federation)
Ms Julia ERMACHKOVA (Russian Federation)
Ms Olga ZAITSEVA (Russian Federation)
Ms Irina SELIVERSTOVA (Russian Federation)
Mr Ahmed F. HAYAJNEH (Saudi Arabia)
Mr Peter BRODNIANSKY (Slovak Republic)
Ms Alzbeta FERENCICOVA (Slovak Republic)

Contributors

Ms Gabriela SLODICKOVA (Slovak Republic)
Mr Frantisek ZAJICEK (Slovak Republic)
Ms Barbara KRESAL-STERNIŠA (Slovenia)
Ms Breda LOŽAR (Slovenia)
Ms Tatjana ŠKRBEC (Slovenia)
Ms Andreja KOZMELJ (Slovenia)
Ms Darja VIDMAR (Slovenia)
Ms Bheki MPANZA (South Africa)
Mr Jacques APPELGRYN (South Africa)
Mr Nyokong MOSIUOA (South Africa)
Ms Hersheela NARSEE (South Africa)
Mr Vicente ALCAÑIZ MIÑANO (Spain)
Ms Laura ALONSO CARMONA (Spain)
Mr Eduardo DE LA FUENTE FUENTE (Spain)
Mr Jesús IBAÑEZ MILLA (Spain)
Mr Joaquín MARTÍN MUÑOZ (Spain)
Ms Cristina MONEO OCAÑA (Spain)
Mr Ismael SANZ LABRADOR (Spain)
Ms Carmen UREÑA UREÑA (Spain)
Ms Anna ERIKSSON (Sweden)
Mr Andreas FRODELL (Sweden)

Ms Maria GÖTHERSTRÖM (Sweden)
Ms Marie KAHLROTH (Sweden)
Ms Eva-Marie LARSSON (Sweden)
Mr Torbjörn LINDQVIST (Sweden)
Mr Kenny PETERSSON (Sweden)
Mr Hans-Åke ÖSTRÖM (Sweden)
Mr Alexander GERLINGS (Switzerland)
Ms Katrin HOLENSTEIN (Switzerland)
Mr Emanuel VON ERLACH (Switzerland)
Ms Hümeyra ALTUNTAŞ (Turkey)
Ms Nihan ERDAL (Turkey)
Ms Dilek GÜLEÇYÜZ (Turkey)
Ms Nur SALMANOĞLU (Turkey)
Ms Anuja SINGH (UNESCO Institute for Statistics)
Mr Said OULD AHMEDOU (UNESCO Institute for Statistics)
Ms Elisabeth BOYLING (United Kingdom)
Ms Emily KNOWLES (United Kingdom)
Ms Rachel DINKES (United States)
Ms Jana KEMP (United States)
Ms Ashley ROBERTS (United States)
Mr Thomas SNYDER (Chair INES Working Party, United States)

Network on Labour Market, Economic and Social Outcomes of Learning (LSO)
Ms Cheryl HOPKINS (Australia)
Mr Stuart FAUNT (Australia)
Mr Karl BAIGENT (Australia)
Ms Rebecca SMEDLEY (Australia)
Mr Patrick DONALDSON (Australia)
Mr Mark NÉMET (Austria)
Ms Isabelle ERAUW (Belgium)
Ms Geneviève HINDRYCKX (Belgium)
Mr Daniel Jaime CAPISTRANO DE OLIVEIRA (Brazil)
Mr Carlos Augusto DOS SANTOS ALMEIDA (Brazil)
Ms Juliana MARQUES DA SILVA (Brazil)
Ms Camila NEVES SOUTO (Brazil)
Mr Patric BLOUIN (Canada)
Mr Patrice DE BROUCKER (Chair LSO Network, Canada)
Mr Patrick BUSSIERE (Canada)
Ms Amanda HODGKINSON (Canada)
Ms Jolie LEMMON (Canada)
Ms Dallas MORROW (Canada)
Mr Marco SERAFINI (CEDEFOP)
Ms María Paz DONOSO (Chile)
Ms María Francisca DONOSO (Chile)
Ms Paola LEIVA (Chile)
Mr Francisco MENESES (Chile)
Mr Fabián RAMÍREZ (Chile)
Mr Roberto SCHURCH (Chile)
Ms María José SEPÚLVEDA (Chile)
Mr Vladimír HULÍK (Czech Republic)
Ms Michaela MARŠÍKOVÁ (Czech Republic)
Mr Jens ANDERSEN (Denmark)

Ms Tiina ANNUS (Estonia)
Ms Ingrid JAGGO (Estonia)
Mr Priit LAANOJA (Estonia)
Ms Eve TÕNISSON (Estonia)
Ms Aune VALK (Estonia)
Ms Katrin REIN (Estonia)
Mr Jens FISHER-KOTTENSTEDE (European Commission)
Ms Marta BECK-DOMZALSKA (Eurostat, European
Commission)
Ms Sabine GAGEL (Eurostat, European Commission)
Ms Irja BLOMQVIST (Finland)
Mr Mika WITTING (Finland)
Mr Cédric AFSA (France)
Ms Pascale POULET-COULIBANDO (France)
Mr Hans-Werner FREITAG (Germany)
Ms Christiane KRÜGER-HEMMER (Germany)
Mr Marco MUNDELIUS (Germany)
Ms Eveline VON GAESSLER (Germany)
Mr Vasileios KARAVITIS (Greece)
Ms Athena PLESSA-PAPADAKI (Greece)
Mr Georgios VAFIAS (Greece)
Mr László LIMBACHER (Hungary)
Mr Kristián SZÉLL (Hungary)
Ms Eva TOT (Hungary)
Ms Ásta M. URBANCIC (Iceland)
Ms Gillian GOLDEN (Ireland)
Ms Nicola TICKNER (Ireland)
Mr Yosef GIDANIAN (Israel)
Mr Adnan MANSUR (Israel)
Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

557

Contributors

Mr Haim PORTNOY (Israel)
Mr Dan SHEINBERG (Israel)
Ms Raffaella CASCIOLI (Italy)
Mr Gaetano PROTO (Italy)
Ms Liana VERZICCO (Italy)
Ms Kaori MOCHIZUKI (Japan)
Ms Kumiko TANSHO-HIRABAYASHI (Japan)
Mr Chang Kyun CHAE (Korea)
Ms Jeongwon HWANG (Korea)
Ms Sung Bin MOON (Korea)
Mr Kirak RYU (Korea)
Mr Jung-seung Thomas YANG (Korea)
Mr Jérôme LEVY (Luxembourg)
Ms Karin MEYER (Luxembourg)
Mr Juan Manuel HERNÁNDEZ VÁZQUEZ (Mexico)
Mr Héctor ROBLES (Mexico)
Mr Gerardo TERRAZAS (Mexico)
Mr Ted REININGA (Netherlands)
Ms Tanja TRAAG (Netherlands)
Mr Francis VAN DER MOOREN (Netherlands)
Mr Bernard VERLAAN (Netherlands)
Mr Simon CROSSAN (New Zealand)
Mr David SCOTT (New Zealand)
Mr Sadiq-Kwesi BOATENG (Norway)
Ms Hild Marte BJØRNSEN (Norway)
Mr Geir NYGÅRD (Norway)
Ms Anne-Marie RUSTAD HOLSETER (Norway)
Mr Jacek MASLANKOWSKI (Poland)
Ms Anna NOWOŻYŃSKA (Poland)

Mr Carlos Alberto MALACA (Portugal)
Mr Joaquim SANTOS (Portugal)
Mr Mark AGRANOVICH (Russian Federation)
Ms Natalia KOVALEVA (Russian Federation)
Ms Elena SABELNIKOVA (Russian Federation)
Ms Olga ZAITSEVA (Russian Federation)
Mr Frantisek BLANAR (Slovak Republic)
Ms Gabriela JAKUBOVÁ (Slovak Republic)
Ms Tatjana SKRBEC (Slovenia)
Ms Irena SVETIN (Slovenia)
Mr Matej DIVJAK (Slovenia)
Ms Raquel HIDALGO (Spain)
Mr Raúl SAN SEGUNDO (Spain)
Ms Carmen UREÑA UREÑA (Spain)
Mr Torbjorn LINDQVIST (Sweden)
Mr Kenny PETERSSON (Sweden)
Mr Russell SCHMIEDER (Sweden)
Ms Wayra CABALLERO LIARDET (Switzerland)
Mr Emanuel VON ERLACH (Switzerland)
Mr Mutlu ALBAYRAK (Turkey)
Ms Hümeyra ALTUNTAŞ (Turkey)
Ms Dilek GÜLEÇYÜZ (Turkey)
Mr Cengiz SARAÇOĞLU (Turkey)
Mr Friedrich HUEBLER (UNESCO Institute for Statistics)
Ms Alison KENNEDY (UNESCO Institute for Statistics)
Mr Anthony CLARKE (United Kingdom)
Ms Rachel DINKES (United States)
Ms Ashley ROBERTS (United States)
Mr Thomas SNYDER (United States)

Network for the Collection and Adjudication of System-Level Descriptive Information on Educational Structures,
Policies and Practices (NESLI)
Mr Karl BAIGENT (Australia)
Mr Stuart FAUNT (Australia)
Ms Cheryl HOPKINS (Australia)
Ms Rebecca SMEDLEY (Australia)
Mr Andreas GRIMM (Austria)
Mr Philippe DIEU (Belgium)
Ms Nathalie JAUNIAUX (Belgium)
Ms Bernadette SCHREUER (Belgium)
Mr Raymond VAN DE SIJPE (Belgium)
Ms Ann VAN DRIESSCHE (Belgium)
Mr Daniel Jaime CAPISTRANO DE OLIVEIRA (Brazil)
Ms Juliana MARQUES DA SILVA (Brazil)
Mr Richard FRANZ (Canada)
Ms Jolie LEMMON (Canada)
Ms María Paz DONOSO (Chile)
Ms Paola LEIVA (Chile)
Mr Francisco MENESES (Chile)
Mr Fabián RAMÍREZ (Chile)
Mr Roberto SCHURCH (Chile)
Ms María José SEPÚLVEDA (Chile)
Mr Vladimír HULÍK (Czech Republic)

558 Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

Ms Michaela MARŠÍKOVÁ (Czech Republic)
Mr Lubomír MARTINEC (Czech Republic)
Mr Jorgen Balling RASMUSSEN (Denmark)
Ms Tiina ANNUS (Estonia)
Ms Hanna KANEP (Estonia)
Ms Kristel VAHER (Estonia)
Ms Lene MEJER (European Commission)
Ms Nathalie BAIDAK (Eurydice)
Ms Arlette DELHAXHE (Eurydice)
Ms Petra PACKALEN (Finland)
Mr Mika VÄISÄNEN (Finland)
Ms Kristiina VOLMARI (Finland)
Ms Florence LEFRESNE (France)
Mr Robert RAKOCEVIC (France)
Ms Pia BRUGGER (Germany)
Mr Marco MUNDELIUS (Germany)
Ms Dimitra FARMAKIOTOU (Greece)
Ms Maria FASSARI (Greece)
Ms Eudokia KARDAMITSI (Greece)
Mr Georgios MALLIOS (Greece)
Mr Stylianos MERKOURIS (Greece)

Contributors

Mr Konstantinos PAPACHRISTOS (Greece)
Ms Athena PLESSA-PAPADAKI (Greece)
Ms Anna IMRE (Hungary)
Mr Gunnar J. ÁRNASON (Iceland)
Ms Asta URBANCIC (Iceland)
Mr Gary Ó DONNCHADHA (Ireland)
Ms Nicola TICKNER (Ireland)
Mr Yoav AZULAY (Israel)
Ms Livnat GAVRIELOV (Israel)
Mr Yosef GIDANIAN (Israel)
Mr Pinhas KLEIN (Israel)
Mr Daniel LEVI-MAZLOUM (Israel)
Mr David MAAGAN (Israel)
Mr Haim PORTNOY (Israel)
Ms Gianna BARBIERI (Italy)
Ms Lucia DE FABRIZIO (Italy)
Mr Naruhiko KAWASE (Japan)
Ms Kayo KIRIHARA (Japan)
Ms Kumiko TANSHO-HIRABAYASHI (Japan)
Ms Sujin CHOI (Korea)
Ms Jeongwon HWANG (Korea)
Ms Sung Bim MOON (Korea)
Mr Gilles HIRT (Luxembourg)
Mr Jérôme LEVY (Luxembourg)
Ms Ana Maria ACEVES ESTRADA (Mexico)
Mr Antonio ÁVILA DÍAZ (Mexico)
Ms Cynthia CABRERA CARDENAS (Mexico)
Mr Juan Martín SOCA DE IÑIGO (Mexico)
Ms Linda DE PAEPE (Netherlands)
Mr Dick VAN VLIET (Netherlands)
Mr Hans RUESINK (Netherlands)
Ms Marian HULSHOF (Netherlands)
Mr Simon CROSSAN (New Zealand)
Mr Cyril MAKO (New Zealand)
Mr David SCOTT (New Zealand)

Mr Kjetil HELGELAND (Norway)
Mr Kjetil DIGRE (Norway)
Ms Renata KARNAS (Poland)
Ms Renata KORZENIOWSKA-PUCULEK (Poland)
Ms Anna NOWOŻYŃSKA (Poland)
Mr Joaquim SANTOS (Portugal)
Mr Mark AGRANOVICH (Russian Federation)
Ms Alzbeta FERENCICOVA (Slovak Republic)
Ms Gabriela SLODICKOVA (Slovak Republic)
Ms Andreja BARLE LAKOTA (Slovenia)
Ms Ksenija BREGAR GOLOBIČ (Slovenia)
Ms Barbara KRESAL-STERNIŠA (Slovenia)
Ms Tanja TAŠTANOSKA (Slovenia)
Ms Duša MARJETIČ (Slovenia)
Ms Nataša HAFNER-VOJČIĆ (Slovenia)
Mr Inmaculada CABEZALÍ MONTERO (Spain)
Ms Laura ALONSO CARMONA (Spain)
Ms María CÓRDOBA HITA (Spain)
Mr Joaquin MARTIN MUÑOZ (Spain)
Ms Camilla THINSZ FJELLSTROM (Sweden)
Ms Helena WINTGREN (Sweden)
Ms Rejane DEPPIERRAZ (Switzerland)
Ms Katrin MÜHLEMANN (Switzerland)
Ms Hümeyra ALTUNTAŞ (Turkey)
Ms Nihan ERDAL (Turkey)
Ms Dilek GÜLEÇYÜZ (Turkey)
Mr Olivier Labé (UNESCO Institute for Statistics)
Ms Elisabeth BOYLING (United Kingdom)
Ms Louise CUTHBERTSON (United Kingdom)
Mr Adrian HIGGINBOTHAM (United Kingdom)
Mr Christopher MORRISS (United Kingdom)
Ms Rachel DINKES (United States)
Ms Jana KEMP (United States)
Mr Thomas SNYDER (Chair NESLI Network, United States)

Other contributors to this publication
Ms Anna BORKOWSKY (LSO consultant)
BRANTRA SPRL (French translation)
Gavan CONLON (LSO consultant)
Marguerita LANE (LSO consultant)

Mr Gary MIRON (NESLI consultant)
Mr Dan SHERMAN (LSO consultant)
Ms Fung-Kwan TAM (layout)

Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

559

EDUCATION INDICATORS IN FOCUS
Education Indicators in Focus is a series of OECD briefs that highlight specific indicators in Education at a Glance that
are of particular interest to policy makers and practitioners. These briefs provide a detailed look into current issues
in pre-primary, primary and secondary education, higher education, and adult outcomes from a global perspective.
They contain an engaging mix of text, tables and charts that describe the international context of the most pressing
questions in education policy and practice.
The complete series is available at:
English: http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/22267077
French: http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/22267093
“How do differences in social and cultural background influence access to higher education and the completion
of studies?”, Education Indicators in Focus, No. 35 (2015)
http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/5jrs703c47s1-en
“What are the advantages today of having an upper secondary qualification?”, Education Indicators in Focus,
No. 34 (2015)
http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/5jrw5p4jn426-en
“Focus on vocational education and training (VET) programmes”, Education Indicators in Focus, No. 33 (2015)
http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/5jrxtk4cg7wg-en
“Are education and skills being distributed more inclusively?”, Education Indicators in Focus, No. 32 (2015)
http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/5js0bsgdtr28-en
“How is the global talent pool changing (2013, 2030)?”, Education Indicators in Focus, No. 31 (2015)
http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/5js33lf9jk41-en
“Education and employment: What are the gender differences?”, Education Indicators in Focus, No. 30 (2015)
http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/5js4q17gg540-en
“How much time do teachers spend on teaching and non-teaching activities?”, Education Indicators in Focus,
No. 29 (2015)
http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/5js64kndz1f3-en
“Are young people attaining higher levels of education than their parents?”, Education Indicators in Focus,
No. 28 (2015)
http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/5js7lx8zx90r-en
“What are the earnings advantages from education?”, Education Indicators in Focus, No. 27 (2014)
http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/5jxrcllj8pwl-en
“Learning Begets Learning: Adult Participation in Lifelong Education”, Education Indicators in Focus, No. 26
(2014)
http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/5jxsvvmr9z8n-en
“Who are the doctorate holders and where do their qualifications lead them?”, Education Indicators in Focus,
No. 25 (2014)
http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/5jxv8xsvp1g2-en
“How innovative is the education sector?”, Education Indicators in Focus, No. 24 (2014)
http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/5jz1157b915d-en
Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

561

Education Indicators in Focus

“At what age do university students earn their first degree?”, Education Indicators in Focus, No. 23 (2014)
http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/5jz3wl5rvjtk-en
“How much time do primary and lower secondary students spend in the classroom?”, Education Indicators in
Focus, No. 22 (2014)
http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/5jz44fnl1t6k-en
“How much are teachers paid and how much does it matter?”, Education Indicators in Focus, No. 21 (2014)
http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/5jz6wn8xjvvh-en
“How old are the teachers?”, Education Indicators in Focus, No. 20 (2014)
http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/5jz76b5dhsnx-en
“What are tertiary students choosing to study?”, Education Indicators in Focus, No. 19 (2014)
http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/5jz8ssmzg5q4-en
“What is the impact of the economic crisis on public education spending?”, Education Indicators in Focus, No. 18
(2013)
http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/5jzbb2sprz20-en
“Does upper secondary vocational education and training improve the prospects of young adults?”, Education
Indicators in Focus, No. 17 (2013)
http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/5jzbb2st885l-en
“How can countries best produce a highly-qualified young labour force?”, Education Indicators in Focus, No. 16
(2013)
http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/5k3wb8khp3zn-en
“How are university students changing?”, Education Indicators in Focus, No. 15 (2013)
http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/5k3z04ch3d5c-en
“How is international student mobility shaping up?”, Education Indicators in Focus, No. 14 (2013)
http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/5k43k8r4k821-en
“How difficult is it to move from school to work?”, Education Indicators in Focus, No. 13 (2013)
http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/5k44zcplv70q-en
“Which factors determine the level of expenditure on teaching staff?”, Education Indicators in Focus, No. 12
(2013)
http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/5k4818h3l242-en
“How do early childhood education and care (ECEC) policies, systems and quality vary across OECD countries?”,
Education Indicators in Focus, No. 11 (2013)
http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/5k49czkz4bq2-en
“What are the social benefits of education?”, Education Indicators in Focus, No. 10 (2013)
http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/5k4ddxnl39vk-en
“How does class size vary around the world?”, Education Indicators in Focus, No. 9 (2012)
http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/5k8x7gvpr9jc-en
“Is increasing private expenditure, especially in tertiary education, associated with less public funding and less
equitable access?”, Education Indicators in Focus, No. 8 (2012)
http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/5k8zs43nlm42-en
“How well are countries educating young people to the level needed for a job and a living wage?”, Education
Indicators in Focus, No. 7 (2012)
http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/5k91d4fsqj0w-en
“What are the returns on higher education for individuals and countries?”, Education Indicators in Focus,
No. 6 (2012)
http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/5k961l69d8tg-en

562 Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

Education Indicators in Focus

“How is the global talent pool changing?”, Education Indicators in Focus, No. 5 (2012)
http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/5k97krns40d4-en
“How pronounced is income inequality around the world – and how can education help reduce it?”, Education
Indicators in Focus, No. 4 (2012)
http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/5k97krntvqtf-en
“How are girls doing in school – and women doing in employment – around the world?”, Education Indicators
in Focus, No. 3 (2012)
http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/5k9csf9bxzs7-en
“How are countries around the world supporting students in higher education?”, Education Indicators in Focus,
No. 2 (2012)
http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/5k9fd0kd59f4-en
“How has the global economic crisis affect people with different levels of education?”, Education Indicators in
Focus, No. 1 (2012)
http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/5k9fgpwlc6s0-en

Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators © OECD 2015

563

ORGANISATION FOR ECONOMIC CO-OPERATION
AND DEVELOPMENT
The OECD is a unique forum where governments work together to address the economic, social and
environmental challenges of globalisation. The OECD is also at the forefront of efforts to understand and
to help governments respond to new developments and concerns, such as corporate governance, the
information economy and the challenges of an ageing population. The Organisation provides a setting
where governments can compare policy experiences, seek answers to common problems, identify good
practice and work to co-ordinate domestic and international policies.
The OECD member countries are: Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Chile, the Czech Republic,
Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Korea,
Luxembourg, Mexico, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Portugal, the Slovak Republic, Slovenia,
Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, the United Kingdom and the United States. The European Union takes part
in the work of the OECD.
OECD Publishing disseminates widely the results of the Organisation’s statistics gathering and research
on economic, social and environmental issues, as well as the conventions, guidelines and standards agreed
by its members.

OECD PUBLISHING, 2, rue André-Pascal, 75775 PARIS CEDEX 16
(96 2015 03 1P) ISBN 978-92-64-24208-1 – 2015

Education at a Glance 2015
OECD INDICATORS
Education at a Glance: OECD Indicators is the authoritative source for information on the state of education
around the world. It provides data on the structure, finances and performance of education systems
in the 34 OECD countries and a number of partner countries.
With more than 100 charts, 150 tables and links to another 150 tables on line, Education at a Glance 2015
provides key information on the output of educational institutions; the impact of learning across countries;
the financial and human resources invested in education; access, participation and progression in education;
and the learning environment and organisation of schools.
New material in the 2015 edition includes:
• 2014 data on educational attainment and participation in the labour market and 2015 data on instruction
time, and on appraisal, evaluation and assessment mechanisms;
• more detailed analysis of participation in early childhood and tertiary levels of education;
• indicators on the impact of skills on employment and earnings, gender differences in education
and employment, and teacher and school leader appraisal systems;
• analysis of first generation tertiary-educated adults and their educational and social mobility, labour market
outcomes for recent graduates, and participation in employer-sponsored formal and/or non-formal education;
• data and analysis on the skills and readiness to use information and communication technology for problem
solving in teaching and learning;
• information on recess and breaks during the school day, teachers’ typical qualifications, criteria
for determining teachers’ base salaries and additional payments for teachers, and salaries
for tertiary faculty; and
• for the first time, data from Costa Rica and Lithuania.
The Excel™ spreadsheets used to create the tables and charts in Education at a Glance are available via
the StatLinks provided throughout the publication. Tables and charts, as well as the complete OECD education
database, are available via the OECD education website at www.oecd.org/education/education-at-aglance-19991487.htm. Updated data can be found on line at http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/eag-data-en.
Contents
Chapter A. The output of educational institutions and the impact of learning
Chapter B. Financial and human resources invested in education
Chapter C. Access to education, participation and progression
Chapter D. The learning environment and organisation of schools

Please cite this publication as:
OECD (2015), Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators, OECD Publishing.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/eag-2015-en
This work is published on the OECD iLibrary, which gathers all OECD books, periodicals and statistical databases.
Visit www.oecd-ilibrary.org and do not hesitate to contact us for more information.

2015
ISBN 978-92-64-24208-1
96 2015 03 1P