Education at a Glance 2010: OECD Indicators

Education at a Glance 2010 OECD indicators ORGANISATION FOR ECONOMIC CO-OPERATION AND DEVELOPMENT The OECD is a unique...

Author: Secretary-General of the OECD

6 downloads 956 Views 4MB Size Report

This content was uploaded by our users and we assume good faith they have the permission to share this book. If you own the copyright to this book and it is wrongfully on our website, we offer a simple DMCA procedure to remove your content from our site. Start by pressing the button below!
Report copyright / DMCA form

DOWNLOAD PDF

Education at a Glance 2010 OECD indicators

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, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Korea, Luxembourg, Mexico, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Portugal, the Slovak Republic, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, the United Kingdom and the United States. The Commission of the European Communities takes part in the work of the OECD. OECD Publishing disseminates widely the results of the Organisation’s statistics gathering and research on economic, social and environmental issues, as well as the conventions, guidelines and standards agreed by its members.

This work is published on the responsibility of the Secretary-General of the OECD. The opinions expressed and arguments employed herein do not necessarily reflect the official views of the Organisation or of the governments of its member countries.

ISBN 978-92-64-05598-8 (print) ISBN 978-92-64-07566-5 (PDF)

Also available in French: Regards sur l’éducation 2010 : Les indicateurs de l’OCDE 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 2010 You can copy, download or print OECD content for your own use, and you can include excerpts from OECD publications, databases and multimedia products in your own documents, presentations, blogs, websites and teaching materials, provided that suitable acknowledgment of OECD as source and copyright owner is given. All requests for public or commercial use and translation rights should be submitted to [email protected]. 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 [email protected] or the Centre français d’exploitation du droit de copie (CFC) at [email protected].

Foreword Governments are paying increasing attention to international comparisons as they search for effective policies that enhance individuals’ social and economic prospects, provide incentives for greater efficiency in schooling, and help to mobilise resources to meet rising demands. As part of its response, the OECD Directorate for Education devotes a major effort to the development and analysis of the quantitative, internationally comparable indicators that it publishes annually in Education at a Glance. These indicators enable educational policy makers and practitioners alike to see their education systems in the light of other countries’ performances and, together with OECD’s country policy reviews, are designed to support and review the efforts that governments are making towards policy reform. Education at a Glance addresses the needs of a range of users, from governments seeking to learn policy lessons to academics requiring data for further analysis to the general public wanting to monitor how its nation’s schools are progressing in producing world-class students. The publication examines the quality of learning outcomes, the policy levers and contextual factors that shape these outcomes, and the broader private and social returns that accrue to investments in education. Education at a Glance is the product of a long-standing, collaborative effort between OECD governments, the experts and institutions working within the framework of the OECD’s indicators of education systems (INES) programme and the OECD Secretariat. The publication was prepared by the Indicators and Analysis Division of the OECD Directorate for Education with input from the Centre for Educational Research and Innovation, under the responsibility of Andreas Schleicher, in co-operation with Etienne Albiser, Eric Charbonnier, Pedro Lenin García de León, Bo Hansson, Corinne Heckmann, Karinne Logez, Koji Miyamoto and Jean Yip. Administrative support was provided by Sandrine Meireles, and additional advice as well as analytical and editorial support were provided by Marika Boiron, Niccolina Clements, Julia Gerick and Estelle Herbaut. The production of the report was co-ordinated by Corinne Heckmann and Elisabeth Villoutreix. The development of the publication was steered by member countries through the INES Working Party and facilitated by the INES Networks. The members of the various bodies as well as the individual experts who have contributed to this publication and to OECD INES more generally are listed at the end of the book. While much progress has been accomplished in recent years, member countries and the OECD continue to strive to strengthen the link between policy needs and the best available internationally comparable data. In doing so, various challenges and trade-offs are faced. First, the indicators need to respond to educational issues that are high on national policy agendas, and where the international comparative perspective can offer important added value to what can be accomplished through national analysis and evaluation. Second, while the indicators need to be as comparable as possible, they also need to be as country-specific as is necessary to allow for historical, systemic and cultural differences between countries. Third, the indicators need to be Education at a Glance   © OECD 2010

3

Foreword

presented in as straightforward a manner as possible, while remaining sufficiently complex to reflect multi-faceted educational realities. Fourth, there is a general desire to keep the indicator set as small as possible, but it needs to be large enough to be useful to policy makers across countries that face different educational challenges. The OECD will continue to address these challenges vigorously and to pursue not just the development of indicators in areas where it is feasible and promising to develop data, but also to advance in areas where a considerable investment still needs to be made in conceptual work. The further development of the OECD Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) and its extension through the OECD Programme for the International Assessment of Adult Competencies (PIAAC), as well as OECD’s Teaching and Learning International Survey (TALIS) are major efforts to this end.

This book has...

StatLinks 2 ®

A service that delivers Excel ﬁles from the printed page! Look for the StatLinks at the bottom left-hand corner 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. If you’re reading the PDF e-book edition, and your PC is connected to the Internet, simply click on the link. You’ll find StatLinks appearing in more OECD books.

4

Education at a Glance   © OECD 2010

Table of Contents Editorial................................................................................................................................................... 13

Name of the indicator in the 2009 edition

Introduction. ........................................................................................................................................ 17 Reader’s Guide..................................................................................................................................... 21 Chapter A The Output of Educational Institutions and the Impact of Learning........................................................... 25 Indicator A1 To what level have adults studied?......................................................... 26 Table A1.1a. Educational attainment: Adult population (2008)........................................ 34 Table A1.2a. Population with at least upper secondary education (2008)........................... 35 Table A1.3a. Population with tertiary education (2008)..................................................... 36 Table A1.4. Trends in educational attainment: 25-64 year-old population . (1997-2008)............................................................................................................. 37 Table A1.5. Annual average growth in 25-64 year-old population between 1998 . and 2008.................................................................................................................... 40 Indicator A2 How many students finish secondary education and access tertiary education?. ................................................................ 42 Table A2.1. Upper secondary graduation rates (2008)...................................................... 54 Table A2.2. Trends in graduation rates (first-time) at upper secondary level . (1995-2008)............................................................................................................. 55 Table A2.3. Entry rates into tertiary education and age distribution . of new entrants (2008). ........................................................................................ 56 Table A2.4. Trends in entry rates at tertiary level (1995-2008)..................................... 57

A1

A2

Indicator A3 How many students finish tertiary education?. .............................. 58 Graduation rates in tertiary education and age distribution . Table A3.1. of new graduates at tertiary-type A level (2008).......................................... 68 Table A3.2. Trends in tertiary graduation rates (1995-2008).......................................... 69 Table A3.3. Graduation rates at different tertiary levels, impact of international/ foreign students (2008)......................................................................................... 70 Table A3.4. Structure of tertiary education: Main programme blocks (2008).......... 71

A3

Indicator A4 How many students complete tertiary education?............................. 72 Table A4.1. Completion rates in tertiary education (2008)............................................. 79 Table A4.2. Completion rates in tertiary-type A education, by mode of enrolment (2008).......................................................................................................................... 80

A3

Indicator A5 How many adults participate in education and learning?....... 82 Table A5.1a. Participation in formal and/or non-formal education, . by gender and age (2007)..................................................................................... 92 Table A5.1b. Participation in formal and/or non-formal education, . by gender and educational attainment (2007)............................................... 93 Education at a Glance   © OECD 2010

5

Table of Contents


Table A5.2. Table A5.3. Table A5.4a. Table A5.5. Table A5.6.

Adults who have not participated in formal/non-formal education and have not looked for information, by gender, age group, educational attainment and labour force status (employed) (2007) ...... 94 Participation in formal and/or non-formal education, by gender, and according to whether individuals have looked for and found information (2007) ................................................................................................ 95 Participation in formal and/or non-formal education, by workplace aspects (full-time/part-time status, occupation and industry) (2007) ........ 96 Participation in job-related non-formal education, by gender and labour force status (2007) ........................................................................... 97 Mean hours in non-formal education per participant, by gender, educational attainment and labour force status (2007).............................. 98

Indicator A6 How does educational attainment affect participation in the labour market? .................................................................................. 100 Employment rates and educational attainment, by gender (2008).......... 110 Table A6.1a. Table A6.2a. Unemployment rates and educational attainment, by gender (2008)........ 111 Table A6.3a. Trends in employment rates of 25-64 year-olds, by educational attainment (1997-2008) ...................................................................................... 112 Table A6.4a. Trends in unemployment rates of 25-64 year-olds, by educational attainment (1997-2008) .................................................................................... 114

A6

Indicator A7 What are the economic benefits of education?............................. 116 Table A7.1. Relative earnings of the population with income from employment (2008 or latest available year) .......................................................................... 126 Table A7.2a. Trends in relative earnings:Total population (1997-2008)..................... 128 Table A7.2b. Trends in relative earnings: Male population (1997-2008) .................... 129 Table A7.2c. Trends in relative earnings: Female population (1997-2008) ................ 130 Table A7.3a. Differences in earnings between females and males (2008 or latest available year) .......................................................................... 131 Table A7.3b. Trends in differences in earnings between females and males (1998-2008) .......................................................................................................... 132

A7

Indicator A8 What are the incentives to invest in education? .......................... 134 Table A8.1. Private net present value for an individual obtaining upper secondary or post-secondary non-tertiary education as part of initial education, ISCED 3/4 (2006)............................................................................................... 147 Table A8.2. Private net present value for an individual obtaining tertiary education as part of initial education, ISCED 5/6 (2006) ............................................ 148 Table A8.3. Public net present value for an individual obtaining upper secondary or post-secondary non-tertiary education as part of initial education (2006)....................................................................................................................... 149 Table A8.4. Public net present value for an individual obtaining tertiary education as part of initial education (2006)................................................................... 150

A8

Indicator A9 What are the social outcomes of education?.................................. 152 Table A9.1. Proportion of adults reporting good health, by level of education ...... 161 Table A9.2. Proportion of adults expressing interest in politics, by level of education ........................................................................................... 162

A9

6


Table of Contents


Table A9.3. Table A9.4. Table A9.5. Table A9.6.

Proportion of adults expressing interpersonal trust, by level of education ........................................................................................... 163 Incremental differences in self-reported good health associated with an increase in the level of educational attainment ..................................... 164 Incremental differences in political interest associated with an increase in the level of educational attainment (with and without adjustments for age, gender and income) .................................................... 165 Incremental differences in interpersonal trust associated with an increase in the level of educational attainment (with and without adjustments for age, gender and income) .................................................... 166

Indicator A10 What are the economic links with education? ............................. 168 Table A10.1. Annual full time earnings and annual labour costs in equivalent USD, 25-64 year-old population ................................................................................ 178 Table A10.2. Annual full time earnings and annual labour costs in equivalent USD, 25-34 year-old population ................................................................................ 180 Table A10.4. Annual full time earnings and annual labour costs in equivalent USD, 45-54 year-old population ................................................................................ 182 Chapter B Financial and Human Resources Invested In Education ............................................................................................... 185 Indicator B1 How much is spent per student? ........................................................... 186 Table B1.1a. Annual expenditure by educational institutions per student for all services (2007) ......................................................................................... 202 Table B1.2. Annual expenditure per student by educational institutions on core services, ancillary services and R&D (2007)............................... 203 Table B1.3a. Cumulative expenditure by educational institutions per student for all services over the theoretical duration of primary and secondary studies (2007) ........................................................................... 204 Table B1.3b. Cumulative expenditure by educational institutions per student for all services over the average duration of tertiary studies (2007) ....... 205 Table B1.4. Annual expenditure by educational institutions per student for all services relative to GDP per capita (2007) ..................................... 206 Table B1.5. Change in expenditure by educational institutions for all services per student relative to different factors, by level of education (1995, 2000, 2007) ............................................................................................. 207 Indicator B2 What proportion of national wealth is spent on education? ..... 208 Table B2.1. Expenditure on educational institutions as a percentage of GDP, by level of education (1995, 2000, 2007) .................................................... 217 Table B2.2. Expenditure on educational institutions as a percentage of GDP, by level of education (2007) ............................................................................. 218 Table B2.3. Expenditure on educational institutions as a percentage of GDP (2007), proportion of the population at basic ages of primary to tertiary education (school year 2006-07) and demographic trends (2000-20) ......................... 219 Table B2.4. Expenditure on educational institutions as a percentage of GDP, by source of fund and level of education (2007) ........................................ 220 Education at a Glance   © OECD 2010

B1

B2

7

Table of Contents


Indicator B3 How much public and private investment is there in education?..................................................................................................... 222 Relative proportions of public and private expenditure on educational Table B3.1. institutions for all levels of education (2000, 2007) ................................. 233 Table B3.2a. Relative proportions of public and private expenditure on educational institutions, as a percentage, by level of education (2000, 2007)......... 234 Table B3.2b. Relative proportions of public and private expenditure on educational institutions, as a percentage, for tertiary education (2000, 2007) ....... 235 Table B3.3. Trends in relative proportions of public expenditure on educational institutions and index of change between 1995 and 2007 (2000 = 100), for tertiary education (1995, 2000, 2002, 2004, 2006, and 2007) .......... 236 Table B3.4. Annual public expenditure on educational institutions per student, by type of institution (2007) .............................................................................. 237 Indicator B4 What is the total public spending on education? ....................... 238 Total public expenditure on education (1995, 2000, 2007) .................. 243 Table B4.1. Indicator B5 How much do tertiary students pay and what public subsidies do they receive? ............................................ 244 Estimated annual average tuition fees charged by tertiary-type A Table B5.1. educational institutions for national students (academic year 2006-07) ................................................................................... 254 Distribution of financial aid to students compared to amount of tuition Table B5.2. fees charged in tertiary-type A education (academic year 2006-07) .......... 256 Table B5.3. Public subsidies for households and other private entities as a percentage of total public expenditure on education and GDP, for tertiary education (2007) ........................................................................... 257

B3

B4

B5

Indicator B6 On what resources and services is education funding spent? ...... 258 Table B6.1. Expenditure on educational institutions, by service category as a percentage of GDP (2007)........................................................................ 265 Table B6.2a. Expenditure by educational institutions, by resource category in primary and secondary education (2007) ............................................... 266 Table B6.2b. Expenditure by educational institutions, by resource category and level of education (2007)........................................................................... 267

B6

Indicator B7 Which factors influence the level of expenditure? .................... 268 Table B7.1. Contribution of various factors to salary cost per student at the primary level of education (2007) ...................................................... 279 Table B7.2. Contribution of various factors to salary cost per student at lower secondary level of education (2007) ............................................. 281 Table B7.3. Contribution of various factors to salary cost per student at upper secondary level of education (2007) ............................................... 283 Table B7.4. Main reforms implemented between 1995 and 2010 on the four factors used to calculate salary cost per student..................... 285

B7

8


Table of Contents


Chapter C Access to Education, Participation and Progression..................................................................................... 291 Who participates in education? ............................................................. 292 Enrolment rates, by age (2008) ....................................................................... 302 Trends in enrolment rates (1995-2008) ....................................................... 303 Transition characteristics from age 15-20, by level of education (2008) ...................................................................................................................... 304 Upper secondary enrolment patterns (2008) ............................................. 305 Students in primary and secondary education, by type of institution or mode of enrolment (2008) .......................................................................... 306 Students in tertiary education, by type of institution or mode of enrolment (2008) .......................................................................... 307

C1

Indicator C2 Who studies abroad and where? ............................................................ 308 Table C2.1. Student mobility and foreign students in tertiary education (2000, 2008).......................................................................................................... 327 Table C2.2. Distribution of international and foreign students in tertiary education, by country of origin (2008) .............................................................................. 328 Table C2.3. Citizens studying abroad in tertiary education, by country of destination (2008) .................................................................... 330 Table C2.4. Distribution of international and foreign students in tertiary education, by level and type of tertiary education (2008) ........................................... 332 Table C2.5. Distribution of international and foreign students in tertiary education, by field of education (2008).............................................................................. 333 Table C2.6. Trends in the number of foreign students enrolled outside their country of origin (2000 to 2008) ......................................................... 334

C2

Indicator C1 Table C1.1. Table C1.2. Table C1.3. Table C1.4. Table C1.5. Table C1.6.

Indicator C3 How successful are students in moving from education to work? ............................................................................................................... 336 Table C3.1a. Expected years in education and not in education for 15-29 year-olds (2008) ............................................................................... 348 Table C3.2a. Percentage of the youth population in education and not in education, by age group (2008) ............................................................................................ 350 Table C3.2d. Percentage of the youth population in education and not in education, by level of education (2008) ............................................................................. 352 Table C3.3. Percentage of the cohort population not in education and unemployed, by level of education (2008) ............................................................................. 354 Table C3.4a. Trends in the percentage of the youth population in education and not in education (1995, 1997-2008) ..................................................... 356 Table C3.5. Educational attainment and occupational matches by migrant status, and proportion of population born abroad among 20-29 year-olds and 15-64 year-olds (2003 and 2007) ........................................................... 358 Table C3.6. Permanent jobs, full-time work and involuntary part-time work among 15-29 year-old non-students (2007) ............................................... 359 Table C3.7. Education and occupational mismatches for young individuals (2003, 2007).......................................................................................................... 361 Education at a Glance   © OECD 2010

C3

9

Table of Contents


Chapter D The Learning Environment and Organisation of Schools ..................................................................................................... 363 Indicator D1 How much time do students spend in the classroom?............. 364 Compulsory and intended instruction time in public institutions (2008) ..... 372 Table D1.1. Table D1.2a. Instruction time per subject as a percentage of total compulsory instruction time for 9-11 year-olds (2008) ................................................. 373 Table D1.2b. Instruction time per subject as a percentage of total compulsory instruction time for 12-14 year-olds (2008) ............................................... 374 Indicator D2 Table D2.1. Table D2.2. Table D2.3.

D1

What is the student-teacher ratio and how big are classes? ....... 376 Average class size, by type of institution and level of education (2008)..... 386 Ratio of students to teaching staff in educational institutions (2008)......... 387 Ratio of students to teaching staff, by type of institution (2008) ................ 388

D2

Indicator D3 How much are teachers paid? ................................................................. 390 Table D3.1. Teachers’ salaries (2008) ................................................................................... 402 Table D3.2. Change in teachers’ salaries (between 1996 and 2008) ........................... 404 Table D3.3a. Decisions on payments for teachers in public institutions (2008)........ 405

D3

Indicator D4 How much time do teachers spend teaching? .............................. 408 Organisation of teachers’ working time (2008) ......................................... 416 Table D4.1. Table D4.2. Number of teaching hours per year (1996, 2008) .................................... 417

D4

Indicator D5 What school choices are available and what measures do countries use to promote or restrict school choice? ........ 418 Table D5.1. Freedom for parents to choose a public school for their child(ren) (2008) ...................................................................................................................... 428 Table D5.2. Public and private schools and their role in providing compulsory education (2008) .................................................................................................. 429 Table D5.3. Financial incentives and disincentives for school choice (2008) ........... 430 Table D5.4. Government regulations that apply to schools at the primary and lower secondary levels (2008) ................................................................. 431 Indicator D6 How can parents influence the education of their children?.... 434 Table D6.1. Requirement for schools to have a governing board in which parents can take part (2008)........................................................... 440 Table D6.2. Existence and role of parent associations (2008) ....................................... 441 Table D6.3. Regulations that provide a formal process which parents can use to file complaints regarding the education of their children (2008) ....... 442 Annex 1 Characteristics of Educational Systems .................. 443 Table X1.1a. Upper secondary graduation rate:Typical graduation ages and method used to calculate graduation rates (2008) ............................ 444 Table X1.1b. Post-secondary non-tertiary graduation rate:Typical graduation ages and method used to calculate graduation rate (2008) .............................. 446 Table X1.1c. Tertiary graduation rate:Typical graduation ages and method used to calculate graduation rates (2008) .............................................................. 447 Table X1.1d. Tertiary entry rate:Typical age of entry and method used to calculate entry rates (2008) ................................................................................................ 449

10


Table of Contents


Table X1.2a. Table X1.2b. Table X1.3.

School year and financial year used for the calculation of financial indicators, OECD countries............................................................ 450 School year and financial year used for the calculation of financial indicators, partner countries........................................................... 451 Summary of completion requirements for upper secondary programmes ........................................................................................................... 452

Annex 2 Reference Statistics ............................................................................ 453 Table X2.1. Overview of the economic context using basic variables (reference period: calendar year 2007, 2007 current prices) ............... 454 Table X2.2. Basic reference statistics (reference period: calendar year 2007, 2007 current prices) ........................................................................................... 455 Table X2.3a. Reference statistics used in the calculation of teachers’ salaries, by level of education (1996, 2008)................................................................. 456 Reference statistics used in the calculation of teachers’ salaries Table X2.3b. (1996, 2008) .......................................................................................................... 458 Teachers’ salaries (2008) ................................................................................... 459 Table X2.3c. Annex 3 Sources, Methods and Technical Notes ...................... 461 References............................................................................................................................................ 463 Contributors to this Publication............................................................................................ 465 Related OECD Publications....................................................................................................... 469


11

Editorial By Angel Gurría, OECD Secretary-General

Investing in the future

In the wake of the global economic crisis, most OECD countries face the twin challenges of making public finances sustainable while building the foundations for continued long-run economic growth. Education is a large item of public expenditure in most countries. At the same time, it is also an essential investment for developing the long-run growth potential of countries and for responding to the fundamental changes in technology and demographics that are re-shaping labour markets. This year’s edition of Education at a Glance shows that public resources invested in education ultimately pay off in even greater tax revenues. On average across OECD countries, a man with a tertiary level of education will generate an additional USD 119 000 in income taxes and social contributions over his working life compared to someone with just an upper secondary level of education. Even after subtracting the public revenue that has financed the degree, an average of USD 86 000 remain, almost three times the amount of public investment per student in tertiary education. The returns to society are even larger because many benefits of education are not directly reflected in tax income. Education also plays a major role in keeping individuals in the labour force longer – an advantage that is becoming a necessity as more OECD countries face demographic and structural changes to labour markets. Not less important, good education increases employability. Focusing on labour market conditions in 2008, the data show that in countries hit early by the recession, people with lower levels of education had more difficulties finding and keeping a job. On average across OECD countries, unemployment rates among people with a tertiary level of education have stayed at or below 4% while for those without upper secondary education, unemployment rates have repeatedly exceeded 9%. Overall, the demand for better education has shown few signs of slowing, despite the very significant increase in the number of tertiary graduates. In 2007, close to 75% of people across the OECD with a tertiary degree found a skilled job in their first years in the labour market, a percentage similar to that in 2003. The fact that labour markets have absorbed the significant increase in individuals with tertiary education shows how rapidly labour market demand for skilled labour is changing. As global competition for jobs moves up the education ladder, it will be crucial for countries to develop policies that encourage the acquisition and efficient use of these competencies to retain both high value jobs and highly educated labour. As labour markets change and the demand for competencies rises, adults will need to be able to re-enter education to upgrade their competencies or to change their professions. Education at a Glance shows that, across the OECD, more than 40% of the adult population already participate in formal and/or non-formal education in a given year. However, this varies significantly not just between countries but also across education and age groups. For Education at a Glance   © OECD 2010

13

Editorial

example, individuals with a tertiary level of education are almost three times more likely to participate in further education than those who have not acquired an upper secondary level of education, which means that those who need such training most are least likely to benefit from it in current education systems. Despite compelling evidence of the economic and social benefits of education, at a time of tight budgets, there is a strong need for effectiveness and efficiency in the education systems’ response to the skill needs of a fast-changing labour market, and countries must find new ways to generate greater value for money from educational investments. It is worrying that the significant increase in spending per student over the past decade has, in many countries, not been matched with improvements in the quality of learning outcomes. The indicators in this year’s edition of Education at a Glance underline the scale of the effort that is needed for education to re-invent itself in ways that other professions have already done to provide better value for money. Improving the performance of education systems and raising value for money will be a formidable task for public policy. It will require education systems that have often tended to operate supply-driven to develop effective mechanisms to understand and respond to the rapidly changing economic and social demands for competencies. Effective policies here will require a solid understanding not just of the development of competencies, but also of how effectively economies use their talent pool, and of how better competencies feed into better jobs, higher productivity, and ultimately better economic and social outcomes. The future will measure the success of education systems no longer by how much countries spend on education or by how many individuals complete a degree, but by the educational outcomes achieved and by their impact on economic and social progress. Citizens and employers now expect education systems to: • be responsive by ensuring that education and training providers adapt efficiently to changing demand; • deliver quality and efficiency in learning provision so that the right skills are acquired at the right time, at the right place and in the most effective mode; • provide the flexibility needed to allow people to study and train in what they want, when they want and how they want; • reduce barriers to entry such as institutional rigidities, up-front fees and age restrictions and ensure a sufficient variety of entry and re-entry pathways; and, • last but not least, to develop efficient and sustainable approaches to the financing of learning with a rational basis for who should pay for what, when, where and how much. The knowledge society is here to stay, and requires a capable, highly qualified and innovative labour force. Managing the growth and development of educational systems in ways that improve access, enhance quality, increase performance and boost value for money is not easy. Countries must establish which policy choices and mixes promote efficient learning in their specific contexts. International comparisons can offer valuable insights, as they allow countries to see their own education systems in relation to the quality, equity, and efficiency of educational services achieved elsewhere in the world. Sharing of policy experience can also show how different education systems address similar problems. 14


Editorial

Education at a Glance has become an essential reference point for internationally comparative analysis and the OECD will continue to provide international educational benchmarks as a way of assisting countries in developing tailored responses to the public’s demands for a more highly skilled, knowledgeable labour force in their specific national contexts. In a global economy, it is no longer improvement by national standards alone, but the best performing education systems internationally that provide the benchmark for success. Success will go to those individuals and nations which are swift to adapt. The task of governments will be to ensure that countries rise to this challenge.


15

Introduction: the Indicators and their Framework The organising framework

Education at a Glance: OECD Indicators 2010 provides a rich, comparable and up-to-date array of indicators that reflect a consensus among professionals on how to measure the current state of education internationally. The indicators provide information on the human and financial resources invested in education, on how education and learning systems operate and evolve, and on the returns to educational investments. The indicators are organised thematically, and each is accompanied by information on the policy context and the interpretation of the data. The education indicators are presented within an organising framework that: • distinguishes between the actors in education systems: individual learners and teachers, instructional settings and learning environments, educational service providers, and the education system as a whole; • groups the indicators according to whether they speak to learning outcomes for individuals or countries, policy levers or circumstances that shape these outcomes, or to antecedents or constraints that set policy choices into context; and • identifies the policy issues to which the indicators relate, with three major categories distinguishing between the quality of educational outcomes and educational provision, issues of equity in educational outcomes and educational opportunities, and the adequacy and effectiveness of resource management. The following matrix describes the first two dimensions: 1.

Education and learning outputs and outcomes

2. Policy levers and contexts shaping educational outcomes

3. Antecedents or constraints that contextualise policy

I. Individual participants in education and learning

1.I. The quality

2.I. Individual attitudes,

3.I. Background

II. Instructional settings

1.II. The quality

2.II. Pedagogy, learning

3.II. Student learning

and distribution of individual educational outcomes

of instructional delivery

engagement, and behaviour to teaching and learning practices and classroom climate

characteristics of the individual learners and teachers

conditions and teacher working conditions

III. Providers 1.III. The output of 2.III. School environment of educational educational institutions and organisation services and institutional performance

3.III. Characteristics

IV. The education 1.IV. The overall system as performance of a whole the education system

3.IV. The national

2.IV. System-wide

of the service providers and their communities

institutional settings, resource allocations, and policies

educational, social, economic, and demographic contexts


17

Introduction

The following sections discuss the matrix dimensions in more detail: Actors in education systems

The OECD indicators of education systems (INES) programme seeks to gauge the performance of national education systems as a whole, rather than to compare individual institutional or other sub-national entities. However, there is increasing recognition that many important features of the development, functioning and impact of education systems can only be assessed through an understanding of learning outcomes and their relationships to inputs and processes at the level of individuals and institutions. To account for this, the indicator framework distinguishes between a macro level, two meso-levels and a micro-level of education systems. These relate to: • the education system as a whole; • the educational institutions and providers of educational services; • the instructional setting and the learning environment within the institutions; and • the individual participants in education and learning. To some extent, these levels correspond to the entities from which data are being collected but their importance mainly centres on the fact that many features of the education system play out quite differently at different levels of the system, which needs to be taken into account when interpreting the indicators. For example, at the level of students within a classroom, the relationship between student achievement and class size may be negative, if students in small classes benefit from improved contact with teachers.At the class or school level, however, students are often intentionally grouped such that weaker or disadvantaged students are placed in smaller classes so that they receive more individual attention. At the school level, therefore, the observed relationship between class size and student achievement is often positive (suggesting that students in larger classes perform better than students in smaller classes). At higher aggregated levels of education systems, the relationship between student achievement and class size is further confounded, e.g. by the socio-economic intake of schools or by factors relating to the learning culture in different countries. Past analyses which have relied on macro-level data alone have therefore sometimes led to misleading conclusions. Outcomes, policy levers and antecedents

The second dimension in the organising framework further groups the indicators at each of the above levels: • indicators on observed outputs of education systems, as well as indicators related to the impact of knowledge and skills for individuals, societies and economies, are grouped under the subheading output and outcomes of education and learning; • the sub-heading policy levers and contexts groups activities seeking information on the policy levers or circumstances which shape the outputs and outcomes at each level; and • these policy levers and contexts typically have antecedents – factors that define or constrain policy. These are represented by the sub-heading antecedents and constraints. It should be noted that the antecedents or constraints are usually specific for a given level of the education system and that antecedents at a lower level of the system may well be policy levers at a higher level. For teachers and students in a school, for example, teacher qualifications are a given constraint while, at the level of the education system, professional development of teachers is a key policy lever. 18


Introduction

Policy issues

Each of the resulting cells in the framework can then be used to address a variety of issues from different policy perspectives. For the purpose of this framework, policy perspectives are grouped into three classes that constitute the third dimension in the organising framework for INES: • quality of educational outcomes and educational provision; • equality of educational outcomes and equity in educational opportunities; and • adequacy, effectiveness and efficiency of resource management. In addition to the dimensions mentioned above, the time perspective as an additional dimension in the framework, allows dynamic aspects in the development of education systems to be modelled also. The indicators that are published in Education at a Glance 2010 fit within this framework, though often they speak to more than one cell. Most of the indicators in Chapter A The output of educational institutions and the impact of learning relate to the first column of the matrix describing outputs and outcomes of education. Even so, indicators in Chapter A measuring educational attainment for different generations, for instance, not only provide a measure of the output of the educational system, but also provide context for current educational policies, helping to shape polices on, for example, lifelong learning. Chapter B Financial and human resources invested in education provides indicators that are either policy levers or antecedents to policy, or sometimes both. For example, expenditure per student is a key policy measure which most directly impacts on the individual learner as it acts as a constraint on the learning environment in schools and student learning conditions in the classroom. Chapter C Access to education, participation and progression provides indicators that are a mixture of outcome indicators, policy levers and context indicators. Internationalisation of education and progression rates are, for instance, outcomes measures to the extent that they indicate the results of policies and practices in the classroom, school and system levels. But they can also provide contexts for establishing policy by identifying areas where policy intervention is necessary to, for instance, address issues of inequity. Chapter D The learning environment and organisation of schools provides indicators on instruction time, teachers working time and teachers’ salaries that not only represent policy levers which can be manipulated but also provide contexts for the quality of instruction in instructional settings and for the outcomes of learners at the individual level. It also presents data on school choice and parent voice. The reader should note that, for the first time, Education at a Glance covers a significant amount of data from China, India and Indonesia (please refer to the Reader’s Guide for details).


19

Reader’s Guide Coverage of the statistics

Although a lack of data still limits the scope of the indicators in many countries, the coverage extends, in principle, to the entire national education system (within the national territory) regardless of the ownership or sponsorship of the institutions concerned and regardless of education delivery mechanisms.With one exception described below, all types of students and all age groups are meant to be included: children (including students with special needs), adults, nationals, foreigners, as well as students in open distance learning, in special education programmes or in educational programmes organised by ministries other than the Ministry of Education, provided the main aim of the programme is the educational development of the individual. However, vocational and technical training in the workplace, with the exception of combined school and work-based programmes that are explicitly deemed to be parts of the education system, is not included in the basic education expenditure and enrolment data. Educational activities classified as “adult” or “non-regular” are covered, provided that the activities involve studies or have a subject matter content similar to “regular” education studies or that the underlying programmes lead to potential qualifications similar to corresponding regular educational programmes. Courses for adults that are primarily for general interest, personal enrichment, leisure or recreation are excluded. Country coverage

This publication features data on education from the 31 OECD member countries, five non-OECD member countries that participate in the OECD Indicators of Education Systems Programme (INES), namely Brazil, Estonia, Israel, the Russian Federation and Slovenia, and three non-OECD member countries that participate in the OECD’s Enhanced Engagement process, namely China, India and Indonesia. When this publication went to print, Estonia, Israel and Slovenia were in the final stages of accession to the OECD but were not yet OECD members. Accordingly, the present edition does not include these three countries in the list of OECD countries and the calculation of OECD averages. 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

For many indicators, an OECD average is presented and for some, an OECD total. The OECD average is calculated as the unweighted mean of the data values of all OECD countries for which data are available or can be estimated. The OECD average therefore refers to an average of data values at the level of the national systems and can be used


21

Reader’s Guide

to answer the question of how an indicator value for a given country compares with the value for a typical or average country. It does not take into account the absolute size of the education system in each country. The OECD total is calculated as a weighted mean of the data values of all OECD countries for which data are available or can be estimated. It reflects the value for a given indicator when the OECD area is considered as a whole. This approach is taken for the purpose of comparing, for example, expenditure charts for individual countries with those of the entire OECD area for which valid data are available, with this area considered as a single entity. Note that both the OECD average and the OECD total can be significantly affected by missing data. Given the relatively small number of countries, no statistical methods are used to compensate for this. In cases where a category is not applicable (code “a”) in a country or where the data value is negligible (code “n”) for the corresponding calculation, the value zero is imputed for the purpose of calculating OECD averages. In cases where both the numerator and the denominator of a ratio are not applicable (code “a”) for a certain country, this country is not included in the OECD average. For financial tables using 1995 and 2000 data, both the OECD average and OECD total are calculated for countries providing 1995, 2000 and 2007 data. This allows comparison of the OECD average and OECD total over time with no distortion due to the exclusion of certain countries in the different years. For many indicators an “EU19” average is also presented. It is calculated as the unweighted mean of the data values of the 19 OECD countries that are members of the European Union for which data are available or can be estimated. These 19 countries are Austria, Belgium, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Ireland, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, the Slovak Republic, Spain, Sweden and the United Kingdom. Classification of levels of education

The classification of the levels of education is based on the revised International Standard Classification of Education (ISCED-97).The biggest change between the revised ISCED and the former ISCED (ISCED-76) is the introduction of a multi-dimensional classification framework, allowing for the alignment of the educational content of programmes using multiple classification criteria. ISCED is an instrument for compiling statistics on education internationally and distinguishes among six levels of education. The glossary available at www.oecd.org/edu/eag2010 describes in detail the ISCED levels of education, and Annex 1 shows corresponding typical graduation ages of the main educational programmes by ISCED level. Symbols for missing data

Seven symbols are employed in the tables and charts to denote missing data: a Data is not applicable because the category does not apply. c There are too few observations to provide reliable estimates (i.e. there are fewer than 3% of students for this cell or too few schools for valid inferences). However, these statistics were included in the calculation of cross-country averages. 22


Reader’s Guide

m n w x

Data is not available. Magnitude is either negligible or zero. Data has been withdrawn at the request of the country concerned. Data included in another category or column of the table (e.g. x(2) means that data are included in column 2 of the table). ~ Average is not comparable with other levels of education. Further resources

The website www.oecd.org/edu/eag2010 provides a rich source of information on the methods employed for the calculation of the indicators, the interpretation of the indicators in the respective national contexts and the data sources involved.The website also provides access to the data underlying the indicators as well as to a comprehensive glossary for technical terms used in this publication. All post-production changes to this publication are listed at www.oecd.org/edu/eag2010. Education at a Glance uses the OECD’s StatLinks service. Below each table and chart in Education at Glance 2010 is a url which leads to a corresponding Excel® workbook containing the underlying data for the indicator. These urls are stable and will remain unchanged over time. In addition, readers of the Education at a Glance e-book will be able to click directly on these links and the workbook will open in a separate window. Codes used for territorial entities

These codes are used in certain charts. Country or territorial entity names are used in the text. Note that throughout the publication, the Flemish Community of Belgium and the French Community of Belgium may be referred to as “Belgium (Fl.)” and “Belgium (Fr.)” respectively. AUS AUT BEL BFL BFR BRA CAN CHL CZE DNK ENG EST FIN

Australia Austria Belgium Belgium (Flemish Community) Belgium (French Community) Brazil Canada Chile Czech Republic Denmark England Estonia Finland

FRA DEU ISL IRL ISR ITA JPN KOR LUX MEX NLD NZL NOR

France Germany Iceland Ireland Israel Italy Japan Korea Luxembourg Mexico Netherlands New Zealand Norway

POL PRT RUS SCO SVK SVN ESP SWE CHE TUR UKM USA

Poland Portugal Russian Federation Scotland Slovak Republic Slovenia Spain Sweden Switzerland Turkey United Kingdom United States


23

Chapter

A

The Output of Educational Institutions and the Impact of Learning


25

INDICATOR A1

TO WHAT LEVEL HAVE ADULTS STUDIED?

This indicator profiles the educational attainment of the adult population as captured through formal educational qualifications. As such, it provides a proxy for the knowledge and skills available to national economies and societies. To gauge the evolution of available skills, trend data on growth in the number of people with different levels of educational attainment are part of the analysis.

Key results Chart A1.1. Population that has attained tertiary education (2008)

This chart compares the population aged 25 to 34 with tertiary education to the population aged 55 to 64 with tertiary education in 2008, in percentage, by age group. Tertiary attainment levels have increased considerably over the past 30 years. In almost all countries, 25-34 year-olds have higher tertiary attainment levels than the generation about to leave the labour market (55-64 year-olds). On average across OECD countries, 35% of the younger cohort has completed tertiary education, compared with 20% of the oldest cohort. The expansion of the tertiary sector has put Japan and Korea in the top group together with Canada and the partner country the Russian Federation, with over 50% of the younger cohort with tertiary education. 25-34 year-olds

%

55-64 year-olds

60 50 40 30 20 0

Korea Canada Russian Federation1 Japan New Zealand Norway Ireland Denmark Israel Belgium Australia United States Sweden France Netherlands Spain Luxembourg Switzerland United Kingdom Finland Estonia OECD average Chile Iceland Poland Slovenia Greece Hungary Germany Portugal Italy Mexico Austria Slovak Republic Czech Republic Turkey Brazil

10

1. Year of reference 2002. Countries are ranked in descending order of the percentage of 25-34 year-olds who have attained tertiary education. Source: OECD. Table A1.3a. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/edu/eag2010). 1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888932310092

26


Other highlights of this indicator

INDICATOR A1

• The big change in the educational attainment of the adult population over the past decade has been at the low and high ends of the attainment distribution. On average across OECD countries, 29% now have only primary or lower secondary levels of education, 44% have upper secondary education and 28% have a tertiary qualification. • Upper secondary education has become the norm among younger cohorts in almost all OECD countries. On average across OECD countries, the proportion of 25-34 year-olds with at least upper secondary education is 22 percentage points higher than that of 55-64 year-olds. The change has been particularly dramatic in Belgium, Chile, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Korea, Portugal and Spain, all of which have seen an increase in upper secondary attainment of 30 percentage points or more. • If current tertiary attainment rates among 25-34 year-olds are maintained, Ireland, Japan and Korea will increase the proportion of the total population (25-64 years old) with tertiary attainment compared to the OECD average while Austria, Germany and the partner country Brazil will fall further behind. • With the exception of Denmark, Iceland, Mexico and Turkey, the number of individuals available to the labour market with below secondary education decreased between 1998 and 2008, and in some countries substantially so. • Together, Japan and the United States have 48% of all tertiary-educated individuals among OECD countries owing to the size of their population and overall high tertiary attainment levels. The rapid expansion of higher education has moved Korea into fourth place (representing 5% of the total OECD 200 million people with tertiary education).


27

chapter A

A1


Policy context

A continuously well-educated and well-trained population is essential for the social and economic well-being of countries. Education plays a key role in providing individuals with the knowledge, skills and competences needed to participate effectively in society and in the economy. It also contributes to the expansion of scientific and cultural knowledge. Educational attainment is a commonly used proxy for the stock of human capital, that is, the skills available in the population and the labour force. The stock of human capital varies substantially among countries, depending on their industry structure and general level of economic development.Technological innovations have been a factor affecting work systems, and higher levels of education and training have in many instances been a prerequisite for the adoption of new technologies. Some countries have had the advantage of a large pool of more highly educated individuals for several decades. This first-mover advantage has likely influenced the development of high-technology and high-skills industries in these countries. The demand for skills changes constantly. Following a decline in manual labour over previous decades, more recent declines have been in basic cognitive tasks which can now be computerised. However, recent trends also show sharp increases in demand for tasks requiring complex communication and involve interaction among individuals and groups to obtain, persuade and process information, while acknowledging implications for action. Similarly, there has been increase in demand for advanced analytical skills outside “rule-based” structures. These trends generally favour a more educated labour force and the demand for education is thus increasing at a rapid pace in many countries. It is important not only to examine overall attainment levels but also how these have evolved over time in order to gain an idea of the current and future supply of skills in the labour market.While the current economic downturn increases the speed of change it will also increase incentives for individuals to invest in education, as worsening labour market prospects lower the opportunity costs of education, such as earnings foregone while studying. Evidence and explanations Attainment levels in OECD countries

On average across OECD countries, less than one-third of adults (29%) have only primary or lower secondary education, 44% have upper secondary education and 28% have a tertiary level qualification. However, countries differ widely in the distribution of educational attainment across their populations (Table A1.1a). Upper secondary education

In 25 out of 30 OECD countries – as well as in the partner countries Estonia, Israel, the Russian Federation and Slovenia – 60% or more of the population aged 25 to 64 has completed at least upper secondary education. Some countries show a different profile, however. For instance, in Mexico, Portugal, Turkey and the partner country Brazil, two-thirds or more of the population aged 25 to 64 have not completed upper secondary education (Table A1.2a). Overall, a comparison of the levels of educational attainment in younger and older age groups indicates marked progress with regard to attainment of upper secondary education, except in the United States, where there is minimal difference between age cohorts. (Chart A1.2). 28


To What Level have Adults Studied? – Indicator A1

chapter A

Chart A1.2. Population that has attained at least upper secondary education1 (2008)

A1

Percentage, by age group %

25-34 year-olds

55-64 year-olds

100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 0

Korea Slovak Republic Czech Republic Poland Slovenia Canada Sweden Russian Federation2 Switzerland Finland United States Austria Israel Denmark Germany Hungary Estonia Ireland Chile Norway Belgium France Australia Netherlands OECD average New Zealand Luxembourg United Kingdom Greece Iceland Italy Spain Brazil Portugal Turkey Mexico

10

1. Excluding ISCED 3C short programmes. 2. Year of reference 2002. Countries are ranked in descending order of the percentage of 25-34 year-olds who have attained at least upper secondary education. Source: OECD. Table A1.2a. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/edu/eag2010). 1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888932310092

On average across OECD countries, the proportion of 25-34 year-olds with at least upper secondary education is 22 percentage points higher than that of 55-64 year-olds. The change has been particularly dramatic in Belgium, Chile, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Korea, Portugal and Spain, all of which have seen an increase in upper secondary attainment of 30 percentage points or more. In countries in which the adult population generally has a high level of educational attainment, differences among age groups are less pronounced (Table A1.2a). In the 12 OECD countries in which 80% or more of 25-64 year-olds have at least upper secondary education, the difference in the proportion of 25-34 year-olds and 55-64 year-olds with at least an upper secondary level is, on average, 12 percentage points. In Germany and the United States, the proportion of the population with upper secondary education or more is almost the same for all age groups. For countries with more room for growth, the average gain in attainment between these age groups is typically large, but situations differ widely. In Norway, the difference between 25-34 year-olds and 55-64 year-olds is 6 percentage points; in Korea it is 57 percentage points. Education at a Glance   © OECD 2010

29

chapter A

Tertiary education

In almost all countries, 25-34 year-olds have higher tertiary attainment levels than the generation about to leave the labour market (55-64 year-olds). On average across OECD countries, 35% of the younger cohort has completed tertiary education, compared with 20% of the oldest cohort, while the average for the total population of 25-64 year-olds is 28%. The expansion of tertiary education differs substantially among countries. In Ireland, Japan and Korea there is a difference of 25 percentage points or more in tertiary attainment of the oldest and youngest age cohorts (Table A1.3a). Chart A1.3 provides an overview of the influence that tertiary education among 25-34 yearolds will have on overall tertiary attainment (25-64 year-olds) if current levels among young individuals are maintained. The vertical axis shows the percentage change that attainment of the younger cohort will make to attainment in the total population and the horizontal axis shows current levels of tertiary attainment in countries. Chart A1.3. Proportion of population with tertiary education and potential growth (2008) Difference between the 25-34 and 25-64 year-old population with tertiary education, 2008

25

OECD average

A1


20

Korea

15 France

Poland

10

Portugal

Luxembourg Chile Slovenia

OECD average Italy

5

Slovak Republic Turkey Czech Republic

0

Hungary Greece Mexico

Spain Japan Belgium Sweden Norway Denmark Netherlands New Zealand Canada Australia United Kingdom Switzerland Iceland Russian Finland Federation1 Ireland

Estonia

Austria

United States

Brazil Germany

-5

0

10

20

Israel

30

40

50

60

Proportion of the 25-64 year-old population with tertiary education, 2008

1.Year of reference 2002. Source: OECD. Table A1.3a. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/edu/eag2010). 1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888932310092

30



chapter A

The upper right quadrant comprises countries which have high tertiary attainment levels and may increase their tertiary attainment advantage over time. Ireland, Japan and Korea belong to this category. The lower right corner of the chart includes countries with high attainment but which may be met by other OECD countries in the longer term. Finland, Iceland, the United States and the partner countries Estonia, Israel and the Russian Federation will find that an increasing number of countries pass or move closer to their levels of tertiary attainment in the coming years. Some countries have lower tertiary attainment levels than the OECD average but will move towards a less disadvantaged position. Given the current attainment rates among 25-34 year-olds, France, Luxembourg and Poland will move above the OECD average on tertiary attainment in the coming years. Countries that will fall further behind are in the lower left corner of the chart; this disadvantage is particularly marked in Austria, Germany and the partner country Brazil. Tertiary graduation rates provide more recent data on potential evolution of attainment in the population (see Indicator A3). Chart A1.4 presents shares of countries among the almost 200 million OECD 25-64 year-old population with tertiary education.While there have been significant changes in attainment levels in many OECD countries in the past decades, large countries with high educational attainment still dominate the landscape. Chart A1.4. Countries’ share in the total OECD 25-64 year-old population with tertiary education, in percentage (2008) Canada, 4.6% United Kingdom, 5.0% Korea, 5.4%

Germany, 5.8%

France, 4.5%

Mexico, 3.9% Spain, 3.9% Italy, 2.4% Poland, 2.1% Australia, 2.0% Turkey, 1.9% Netherlands, 1.5%

Other, 8.7% Japan, 14.7%

.0% Chile, 1m, 1.0% Belgiu , 0.8% Sweden d, 0.7% Switzerlan Greece, 0.7% Hungary, 0.5% Finland, 0 5% Denmark, 0 5% Norway, 0 5% Czech Republi c, 0 5% Portugal, New Zea 0 4% la n d , 0 4% Austri Irelan a, 0 4% Slovak d, 0 4% Lux Republi Icela embourg, c, 0 2% nd, 0 0 .0% 0%

United States, 33.5%

Source: OECD. Table A1.3a. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/edu/eag2010). 1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888932310092

Together, Japan and the United States have 48% of all tertiary-educated individuals owing to the size of their populations and overall high tertiary attainment. Both countries enjoyed high tertiary attainment levels before most other countries had started to expand their higher education systems. The only countries with attainment levels at or above 40% among the 45-54 year-old population Education at a Glance   © OECD 2010

31

A1

chapter A

A1


are Canada, Japan and the United States (Table A1.3a).The high educational level of the work force at an early date not only affects overall attainment levels, it also gave these countries a head start in many high-skill areas. This first-mover advantage is likely to have been particularly important for innovations and adaptation of new technologies. However, the expansion of tertiary education in many countries has narrowed their advantage in terms both of overall attainment levels and the sheer number of individuals with tertiary education. The rapid expansion of higher education has moved Korea into fourth place with 5% of the total OECD share of tertiary-educated individuals, after Germany with 6%, Japan with 15% and the United States with 33.5%. Canada, France and the United Kingdom each have 5% of tertiaryeducated individuals, followed by Mexico and Spain. Trends in attainment rates in OECD countries

Measurements of improvements in attainment levels across age cohorts provide a rough picture of the evolution of human capital in different countries. Trends in attainment levels provide a more nuanced picture, enabling examination of how attainment levels have evolved over time. Trends will in some circumstances reveal slight differences from the analysis of attainment levels by age cohorts, because attainment levels are not evenly distributed within an age cohort. Attainment levels have also risen because 25-64 year-old adults have acquired higher qualifications after completing initial education. Furthermore, in some countries immigration can have a big impact on attainment levels over time. Trends in attainment gains over time thus provide a complementary picture of the changes in human capital available to the economy and society. Table A1.4 presents trends in the educational attainment of the adult population (25-64 year-olds). In 1998, on average across OECD countries, 37% of the population had not completed upper secondary education, 42% had completed upper secondary and post-secondary non-tertiary education, and another 21% had completed tertiary education. Over the past decade, these figures have changed quite dramatically owing to efforts to raise the educational level of the population. The proportion of the adult population with below upper secondary education has fallen to 29%, the proportion with tertiary attainment has risen to 28%, while the proportion with upper secondary and post-secondary non-tertiary education has remained almost unchanged at 44%. The principal changes in the educational attainment of the adult population over the past decade have thus been at the low and high ends of the skill distribution. Average annual growth in tertiary attainment levels has exceeded 5% in Italy, Poland and Portugal – countries in which overall levels of tertiary attainment were low at the beginning of the decade. The proportion of the population with below upper secondary education decreased by 5% or more per year in Hungary, Poland and the Slovak Republic. Only Spain has seen growth rates above 5% for upper secondary and post-secondary non-tertiary attainment (Table A1.4). Trends in the total number of people with different educational attainment in OECD countries

The actual output of the education system may, in many instances, diverge quite substantially from what appears in measures of attainment levels because of demographic changes (population growth). 32



chapter A

Table A1.5 provides estimates of the average annual growth of the total number of individuals in the adult population at different educational levels between 1998 and 2008. The number of individuals with tertiary education available to the labour market has increased by an average of 4.6% per year across OECD countries. Some of this growth is due to the retirement of individuals in older age cohorts with lower levels of tertiary attainment. Nevertheless, the total investment in human capital and the overall change in the supply of highly educated individuals during this period is impressive. Average annual growth of the adult population with upper secondary and post-secondary nontertiary education has been substantially lower than that of the adult population with tertiary education. This is because many individuals had already achieved this level of education. The total number of individuals who have not completed upper secondary education has decreased by an average of 2.1% per year during this period. With the exception of Denmark, Iceland, Mexico and Turkey, the number of individuals with below secondary education available to the labour market decreased between 1998 and 2008, and in some countries substantially so. This indicator describes the supply side by examining educational attainment across OECD countries. The demand side is explored in labour-market indicators on employment and unemployment (see Indicator A6), earnings (see Indicator A7), incentives to invest in education (see Indicator A8), and transition from school to work (see Indicator C3). Definitions and methodologies

Data on population and educational attainment are taken from OECD and Eurostat databases, which are compiled from National Labour Force Surveys. See Annex 3 (www.oecd.org/edu/eag2010) for national sources. Attainment profiles are based on the percentage of the population aged 25 to 64 that has completed a specified level of education. The International Standard Classification of Education (ISCED-97) is used to define the levels of education. See Annex 3 (www.oecd.org/edu/eag2010) for a description of the mapping of ISCED-97 education programmes and attainment levels for each country. Successful completion of upper secondary education means the achievement of upper secondary programmes type A, B or C, which are of a similar length; completion of type C programmes (labour market destination) of significantly shorter duration are not classified as upper secondary attainment. Further references

The following additional material relevant to this indicator is available on line at: 1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888932310092

• Table A1.1b. Educational attainment: Male population (2008) • Table A1.1c. Educational attainment: Female population (2008) • Table A1.2b. Population of males with at least upper secondary education (2008) • Table A1.2c. Population of females with at least upper secondary education (2008) • Table A1.3b. Male population with tertiary education (2008) • Table A1.3c. Female population with tertiary education (2008)


33

A1

chapter A


Table A1.1a. Educational attainment: Adult population (2008) Distribution of the 25-64 year-old population, by highest level of education attained

Partner countries

Below upper secondary education

ISCED 3A (5) 30 6 24 26 32 36 6 44 12 3 26 28 11 25 31 57 43 20 11 22 9 11 31 13 40 14 47 6 10 7 48

Postsecondary nontertiary education (6) 4 10 2 12 a a n 1 n 7 8 2 10 11 1 a a 3 a 3 11 3 4 1 x(5) n 6 3 a n x(5)

Advanced research programmes

Australia Austria Belgium Canada Chile Czech Republic Denmark Finland France Germany Greece Hungary Iceland Ireland Italy Japan Korea Luxembourg Mexico Netherlands New Zealand Norway Poland Portugal Slovak Republic Spain Sweden Switzerland Turkey United Kingdom United States

Preprimary and Lower ISCED 3C primary secondary (short education education programme) (1) (3) (4) (2) 8 22 x(5) x(5) x(2) 17 2 48 13 17 a 11 4 9 a x(5) 29 3 x(5) 12 n 9 a 40 n 23 2 37 9 10 a a 12 18 a 31 3 11 a 50 25 11 3 3 2 19 a 30 2 28 6 12 14 17 n x(5) 14 32 1 7 x(5) x(5) x(5) x(5) 10 11 a x(5) 17 9 7 17 46 21 a 6 7 20 x(4) 16 x(2) 21 7 12 n 19 a 31 x(2) 13 a 33 54 18 x(5) x(5) 1 9 x(4) 35 21 27 a 8 5 10 a x(5) 3 8 1 45 59 11 a 8 n 13 17 30 4 7 x(5) x(5)

Tertiary education

Type A

OECD countries

ISCED 3C (long programme)/3B

Upper secondary education

Type B

A1

(7) 10 7 16 24 8 x(8) 7 15 11 9 7 n 3 12 n 19 11 8 1 2 15 2 x(8) x(8) 1 9 9 10 x(8) 9 10

(8) 26 11 16 25 16 14 25 20 16 15 16 18 27 22 14 24 26 18 15 29 25 33 20 13 14 19 23 20 12 23 30

(9) x(8) x(8) 1 x(8) x(8) x(8) 1 1 1 1 n n 1 n n x(8) x(8) 2 x(8) 1 x(8) 1 x(8) 1 n 1 x(8) 3 x(8) 1 1

Upper secondary level of education

Tertiary level of education

OECD average

29

44

28

EU19 average

28

47

25

Brazil Estonia Israel Russian Federation1 Slovenia

46 1 11 3 2

15 11 8 8 16

x(5) a a x(4) a

x(5) 4 10 16 28

28 44 28 18 32

a 6 a x(4) a

Note: Due to discrepancies in the data, averages have not been calculated for each column individually. 1.Year of reference 2002. Source: OECD. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/edu/eag2010). Please refer to the Reader’s Guide for information concerning the symbols replacing missing data. 1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888932310092

34


All levels of education (10) 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

x(8) 12 15 34 11

11 22 28 20 10

x(8) n 1 n 2

100 100 100 100 100


chapter A

Partner countries

OECD countries

Table A1.2a. Population with at least upper secondary education1 (2008) Percentage, by age group

A1

25-64 (1) 70 81 70 87 68 91 75 81 70 85 61 80 64 69 53 79 68 34 73 72 81 87 28 90 51 85 87 30 70 89

25-34 (2) 82 88 83 92 85 94 85 90 83 86 75 86 69 85 69 98 79 40 82 79 84 93 47 94 65 91 90 40 77 88

Age group 35-44 (3) 73 85 77 90 74 94 80 88 77 87 69 83 68 75 57 93 70 36 77 74 82 91 29 93 57 90 88 27 70 89

45-54 (4) 66 79 64 86 65 90 69 82 64 86 56 78 61 62 49 68 63 30 71 71 78 87 20 88 45 84 85 24 67 89

55-64 (5) 55 71 52 80 39 85 63 66 55 82 39 70 56 45 35 40 57 19 62 62 78 76 13 81 29 75 83 19 63 89

OECD average

71

80

75

68

58

EU19 average

72

82

76

69

59

Brazil Estonia Israel Russian Federation2 Slovenia

39 88 81 88 82

50 85 87 91 92

40 93 84 94 85

33 92 77 89 78

23 83 72 71 71

Australia Austria Belgium Canada Chile Czech Republic Denmark Finland France Germany Greece Hungary Iceland Ireland Italy Korea Luxembourg Mexico Netherlands New Zealand Norway Poland Portugal Slovak Republic Spain Sweden Switzerland Turkey United Kingdom United States

1. Excluding ISCED 3C short programmes. 2.Year of reference 2002. Source: OECD. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/edu/eag2010). 1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888932310092


35

chapter A


Table A1.3a. Population with tertiary education (2008) Percentage of the population that has attained tertiary-type B education or tertiary-type A and advanced research programmes, by age group Column 16 refers to absolute numbers in thousands.

A1

Tertiary-type A and advanced research programmes

OECD countries

Tertiary-type B education 25-64 (1) 10 7 16 24 8 x(11) 7 15 11 9 7 n 3 12 n 19 11 8 1 2 15 2 x(11) x(11) 1 9 9 10 x(11) 9 10

25-34 (2) 10 6 20 26 11 x(12) 8 5 17 6 10 1 2 14 n 24 23 11 1 2 14 2 x(12) x(12) 1 13 8 10 x(12) 8 9

35-44 (3) 11 8 17 26 11 x(13) 8 20 13 9 8 n 4 13 1 23 11 7 1 3 14 2 x(13) x(13) 1 11 8 11 x(13) 10 10

45-54 (4) 11 8 15 23 7 x(14) 7 19 9 10 5 n 4 10 n 18 4 7 1 2 16 3 x(14) x(14) 1 7 9 11 x(14) 10 10

9

10

10

9

7

21

9

9

9

7

Brazil x(11) x(12) x(13) x(14) x(15) Estonia 12 12 12 12 11 Israel 15 13 16 16 17 Russian Federation1 33 34 37 34 26 Slovenia 11 12 11 11 9

Australia Austria Belgium Canada Chile Czech Republic Denmark Finland France Germany Greece Hungary Iceland Ireland Italy Japan Korea Luxembourg Mexico Netherlands New Zealand Norway Poland Portugal Slovak Republic Spain Sweden Switzerland Turkey United Kingdom United States OECD average

55-64 25-64 25-34 (5) (6) (7) 10 26 32 7 11 13 12 16 23 19 25 30 3 16 22 x(15) 14 18 5 27 35 15 22 33 6 16 24 9 16 17 3 17 19 n 19 23 3 28 31 7 22 31 n 14 20 10 24 31 1 26 35 6 20 28 1 15 19 2 30 38 16 25 34 3 34 44 x(15) 20 32 x(15) 14 23 1 14 18 4 20 26 9 23 32 9 23 29 x(15) 12 15 9 24 31 9 32 32

Total tertiary

35-44 (8) 27 12 18 28 14 14 29 24 18 17 19 19 32 23 15 26 32 22 15 30 26 36 19 15 13 22 24 25 11 23 33

45-54 (9) 23 9 14 21 13 15 25 17 12 16 16 17 26 17 12 25 19 15 14 28 22 29 13 10 13 17 19 21 10 20 30

55-64 (10) 19 8 10 21 14 11 21 14 12 15 13 16 21 12 10 16 11 13 9 24 18 25 12 8 10 12 18 18 9 19 31

25-64 (11) 36 18 32 49 24 14 34 37 27 25 23 19 31 34 14 43 37 28 16 32 40 36 20 14 15 29 32 34 12 33 41

25-34 (12) 42 19 42 56 34 18 43 38 41 24 28 24 33 45 20 55 58 39 20 40 48 46 32 23 18 39 41 38 15 38 42

35-44 (13) 38 19 35 54 24 14 37 44 31 27 27 19 36 37 15 48 43 28 16 33 40 38 19 15 14 33 33 36 11 33 43

45-54 (14) 33 18 29 44 20 15 32 37 20 26 22 17 30 27 12 43 23 22 15 31 38 32 13 10 14 24 28 31 10 30 40

55-64 (15) 28 15 22 40 17 11 26 29 17 24 15 16 24 19 10 26 12 19 10 26 34 28 12 8 11 16 26 27 9 27 40

27

22

18

15

28

35

29

25

20

20

26

21

17

14

27

34

26

22

18

11 22 29 21 12

11 23 29 21 18

12 23 30 21 12

11 22 28 20 9

9 21 28 19 7

11 34 44 54 23

11 36 42 55 30

12 35 46 58 24

11 35 44 54 20

9 32 44 44 16

195 438

OECD total (in thousands)

Partner countries

EU19 average

9

1.Year of reference 2002. Source: OECD. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/edu/eag2010). Please refer to the Reader’s Guide for information concerning the symbols replacing missing data. 1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888932310092

36

25-64 in thousands (16) 3 913 828 1 866 8 922 1 964 880 998 1 052 8 814 11 315 1 425 1 069 51 792 4 754 28 790 10 470 73 7 675 2 871 839 894 4 082 847 451 7 663 1 541 1 433 3 754 9 844 65 569



chapter A

Table A1.4. Trends in educational attainment: 25-64 year-old population (1997-2008) Percentage, by educational level

A1

OECD countries

2008 -1998 Average annual growth rate in 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 the proportion Australia

Austria

Belgium

Canada

Chile

Czech Republic

Denmark

Finland

France

Germany

Greece

Hungary

Iceland

Ireland

Below upper secondary Upper secondary and postsecondary non-tertiary Tertiary education Below upper secondary Upper secondary and postsecondary non-tertiary Tertiary education Below upper secondary Upper secondary and postsecondary non-tertiary Tertiary education Below upper secondary Upper secondary and postsecondary non-tertiary Tertiary education Below upper secondary Upper secondary and postsecondary non-tertiary Tertiary education Below upper secondary Upper secondary and postsecondary non-tertiary Tertiary education Below upper secondary Upper secondary and postsecondary non-tertiary Tertiary education Below upper secondary Upper secondary and postsecondary non-tertiary Tertiary education Below upper secondary Upper secondary and postsecondary non-tertiary Tertiary education Below upper secondary Upper secondary and postsecondary non-tertiary Tertiary education Below upper secondary Upper secondary and postsecondary non-tertiary Tertiary education Below upper secondary Upper secondary and postsecondary non-tertiary Tertiary education Below upper secondary Upper secondary and postsecondary non-tertiary Tertiary education Below upper secondary Upper secondary and postsecondary non-tertiary Tertiary education

47

44

43

41

41

39

38

36

35

33

32

30

29

31

31

31

30

30

31

33

33

34

34

34

-3.7 1.1

24 26

25 26

27 25

27 24

29 23

31 22

31 21

31 20

32 19

33 20

34 20

36 19

3.4 -3.0

63

61

61

62

63

64

64

62

63

63

63

63

0.4

11 45

14 43

14 43

14 41

14 41

15 39

15 38

18 36

18 34

18 33

18 32

18 30

2.8 -3.5

30

31

31

31

32

33

33

34

35

35

36

37

1.7

25 22

25 21

27 20

27 19

28 18

28 17

29 16

30 16

31 15

32 14

32 13

32 13

2.5 -4.9

40

40

40

41

40

40

40

40

39

39

38

38

-0.6

37 m

38 m

39 m

40 m

42 m

43 m

44 m

45 m

46 m

47 m

48 32

49 32

2.5

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

47

46

m 15

m 15

m 14

m 14

m 14

m 12

m 14

m 11

m 10

m 10

21 9

22 9

-4.7

74

75

75

75

75

76

74

77

77

77

77

76

0.2

11 m

10 21

11 20

11 21

11 19

12 19

12 19

12 19

13 19

14 18

14 25

14 22

3.4 -1.9

m

53

53

52

52

52

49

48

47

47

43

43

-2.1

m 32

25 31

27 28

26 27

28 26

30 25

32 24

33 22

34 21

35 20

32 19

34 19

3.1 -4.8

39

39

40

41

42

42

43

43

44

44

44

44

1.4

29 41

30 39

31 38

32 37

32 36

33 35

33 35

34 34

35 33

35 33

36 31

37 30

2.0 -2.6

39

40

40

41

41

41

41

41

41

41

42

43

0.6

20 17

21 16

21 19

22 18

23 17

24 17

24 17

24 16

25 17

26 17

27 16

27 15

2.9 -1.0

61

61

58

58

59

60

59

59

59

59

60

60

-0.1

23 56

23 54

23 52

23 51

23 50

23 48

24 47

25 44

25 43

24 41

24 40

25 39

1.0 -3.2

29

29

30

32

32

33

34

35

36

37

37

38

2.5

16 37

17 37

17 33

18 31

18 30

19 29

19 26

21 25

21 24

22 22

23 21

23 20

3.4 -5.8

51

50

54

55

56

57

59

59

59

60

61

61

1.9

12 44

13 45

14 44

14 45

14 43

14 41

15 40

17 39

17 37

18 37

18 36

19 36

3.8 -2.2

35

34

34

32

32

33

31

32

32

34

34

33

-0.5

21 50

21 49

22 45

23 54

25 45

26 40

29 38

29 37

31 35

30 34

30 32

31 31

4.1 -4.6

27

30

35

28

32

35

35

35

35

35

35

36

1.6

23

21

20

19

24

25

26

28

29

31

32

34

4.9

Note: See Annex 3 for breaks in time series. Source: OECD. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/edu/eag2010). Please refer to the Reader’s Guide for information concerning the symbols replacing missing data. 1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888932310092


37

chapter A


Table A1.4. (continued – 1) Trends in educational attainment: 25-64 year-old population (1997-2008) Percentage, by educational level

OECD countries

A1

Italy

Below upper secondary Upper secondary and postsecondary non-tertiary Tertiary education Below upper secondary Japan Upper secondary and postsecondary non-tertiary Tertiary education Below upper secondary Korea Upper secondary and postsecondary non-tertiary Tertiary education Below upper secondary Luxembourg Upper secondary and postsecondary non-tertiary Tertiary education Below upper secondary Mexico Upper secondary and postsecondary non-tertiary Tertiary education Below upper secondary Netherlands Upper secondary and postsecondary non-tertiary Tertiary education Below upper secondary New Zealand Upper secondary and postsecondary non-tertiary Tertiary education Below upper secondary Norway Upper secondary and postsecondary non-tertiary Tertiary education Below upper secondary Poland Upper secondary and postsecondary non-tertiary Tertiary education Below upper secondary Portugal Upper secondary and postsecondary non-tertiary Tertiary education Slovak Republic Below upper secondary Upper secondary and postsecondary non-tertiary Tertiary education Below upper secondary Spain Upper secondary and postsecondary non-tertiary Tertiary education Below upper secondary Sweden Upper secondary and postsecondary non-tertiary Tertiary education Below upper secondary Switzerland Upper secondary and postsecondary non-tertiary Tertiary education

2008 -1998 Average annual growth rate in 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 the proportion m 59 58 58 57 56 52 51 50 49 48 47 -2.4 m

32

33

33

33

34

38

37

38

38

39

39

1.9

m 20

9 20

9 19

9 17

10 17

10 m

10 m

12 m

12 m

13 m

14 m

14 m

5.3

49

49

49

49

49

63

63

61

60

60

59

57

1.5

31 38

31 34

32 33

34 32

34 30

37 29

37 27

39 26

40 24

40 23

41 22

43 21

3.4 -4.7

42

44

44

44

45

45

44

44

44

44

43

43

-0.3

20 m

22 m

23 44

24 44

25 47

26 38

29 41

30 37

32 34

33 34

35 34

37 32

5.0 -3.1

m

m

38

38

35

43

45

40

39

42

39

40

0.7

m 72

m 72

18 73

18 71

18 70

19 70

14 70

24 69

27 66

24 65

27 67

28 66

4.2 -0.8

15

15

14

14

15

15

14

15

20

21

17

18

1.9

13 m

13 36

13 45

15 35

15 35

15 32

16 31

17 29

13 28

14 28

16 27

16 27

1.8 -2.9

m

40

32

41

42

43

42

41

42

42

42

41

0.3

m 40

24 39

23 38

23 37

23 36

25 34

28 33

30 33

30 32

30 31

31 29

32 28

2.9 -3.2

33

34

33

34

36

35

35

32

29

31

30

32

-0.5

27 17

28 15

28 15

29 15

29 14

30 14

32 13

35 12

39 23

38 21

41 21

40 19

3.8 -1.6

57

57

57

57

55

55

56

56

45

46

45

45

0.0

26 23

27 22

28 22

28 20

30 19

31 19

31 17

32 16

33 15

33 14

34 14

36 13

1.0 -5.1

67

67

67

69

69

69

68

68

68

68

68

68

0.0

10 m

11 82

11 81

11 81

12 80

13 79

14 77

16 75

17 74

18 72

19 73

20 72

6.1 -1.3

m

10

10

11

11

11

12

13

14

14

14

14

3.9

m 21

8 20

9 18

9 16

9 15

9 14

11 13

13 13

13 12

13 11

14 11

14 10

5.6 -6.5

68

70

72

73

74

75

75

74

74

74

75

75

0.7

10 69

10 67

10 65

10 62

11 60

11 59

12 57

13 55

14 51

15 50

14 49

15 49

3.7 -3.1

13

13

14

16

16

17

18

19

21

21

22

22

5.2

19 25

20 24

21 23

23 22

24 19

24 18

25 18

26 17

28 16

28 16

29 15

29 15

4.0 -4.6

48

48

48

47

49

49

49

48

54

54

53

53

1.0

28 16

28 16

29 16

30 16

32 15

33 15

33 15

35 15

30 15

31 15

31 14

32 13

1.3 -2.1

61

61

60

60

59

60

58

57

56

56

55

53

-1.3

22

23

24

24

25

25

27

28

29

30

31

34

3.9


38



chapter A

OECD countries

Table A1.4. (continued – 2) Trends in educational attainment: 25-64 year-old population (1997-2008) Percentage, by educational level

Turkey

Below upper secondary Upper secondary and postsecondary non-tertiary Tertiary education United Kingdom Below upper secondary Upper secondary and postsecondary non-tertiary Tertiary education United States Below upper secondary Upper secondary and postsecondary non-tertiary Tertiary education OECD average

Partner countries

EU19 average

Brazil

Estonia

Israel

Slovenia

A1

2008 -1998 Average annual growth rate in 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 the proportion 79 78 78 77 76 75 74 74 73 72 70 70 -1.1 13

14

14

15

15

16

17

17

18

18

18

18

2.4

8 41

7 40

8 38

8 37

8 37

9 36

10 35

9 34

10 33

10 32

11 32

12 30

4.9 -2.7

37

36

37

37

37

37

37

37

37

38

37

37

0.2

23 14

24 14

25 13

26 13

26 12

27 13

28 12

29 12

30 12

31 12

32 12

33 11

3.2 -1.8

52

52

51

51

50

49

49

49

49

48

48

48

-0.8

34

35

36

36

37

38

38

39

39

39

40

41

1.7

Below upper secondary Upper secondary and post-secondary non-tertiary Tertiary education

36

37

37

36

35

34

33

32

31

30

30

29

-3.2

43

42

42

42

43

44

44

44

44

44

44

44

0.8

21

21

21

22

23

23

24

26

26

27

27

28

3.4

Below upper secondary Upper secondary and post-secondary non-tertiary Tertiary education

37

39

39

38

37

35

34

33

32

31

31

30

-3.1

43

42

42

42

43

44

44

44

44

45

44

45

1.3

21

20

21

21

22

22

23

24

25

25

25

26

3.2

Below upper secondary Upper secondary and postsecondary non-tertiary Tertiary education Below upper secondary Upper secondary and postsecondary non-tertiary Tertiary education Below upper secondary Upper secondary and postsecondary non-tertiary Tertiary education Below upper secondary Upper secondary and postsecondary non-tertiary Tertiary education

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

63

61

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

27

28

m m

m m

m m

m m

m m

m 12

m 12

m 11

m 11

m 12

10 11

11 12

m

m

m

m

m

57

58

57

56

55

56

54

m m

m m

m m

m m

m m

30 20

31 18

31 21

33 21

33 20

33 20

34 19

m

m

m

m

m

38

39

34

33

34

37

37

m m

m m

m m

m m

m m

42 23

43 22

45 20

46 20

46 18

44 18

44 18

m

m

m

m

m

62

60

61

60

60

60

59

m

m

m

m

m

15

18

19

20

21

22

23



39

chapter A


Table A1.5. Annual average growth in the 25-64 year-old population between 1998 and 2008 Percentage, by level of education

OECD countries

A1

Australia Austria Belgium Canada Czech Republic Denmark Finland France Germany Greece Hungary Iceland Ireland Italy Japan Korea Luxembourg1 Mexico Netherlands New Zealand Poland Portugal Slovak Republic Spain Sweden Switzerland Turkey United Kingdom United States OECD average

-3.4 -1.8 1.4 -2.6 -2.2 -4.5 -0.3 -5.4 -0.5 -4.1 -1.3 1.4 -2.3

Upper secondary and post-secondary non-tertiary (2) 2.3 0.9 2.3 0.7 1.3 -2.0 1.7 1.2 -0.2 3.5 2.5 1.7 4.4 2.5 1.2 1.0 2.6 4.2 0.5 0.5 0.7 5.0 1.9 8.1 1.5 -0.6 5.1 0.7

Tertiary education (3) 4.7 3.3 3.1 3.8 4.5 3.2 2.3 3.6 0.9 4.4 4.5 6.4 7.7 5.8 3.1 6.4 6.5 4.0 3.1 4.9 6.8 6.7 4.9 6.9 1.8 4.7 7.6 3.6

All levels of education (4) 1.2 0.5 0.6 1.3 1.1 0.3 0.3 0.6 -0.5 1.0 0.6 2.3 3.1 0.5 -0.3 1.4 1.2 2.2 0.3 1.3 0.7 1.1 1.2 2.7 0.5 0.7 2.6 0.4

-0.5

0.5

3.0

1.3

-2.1

1.9

4.6

1.0

Below upper secondary (1) -2.5 -2.6 -2.9 -3.6 -3.6 0.5 -4.5 -2.0 -1.1 -2.3 -5.2 0.0 -2.0 -1.9

1. Annual average growth in the 25-64 year-old population between 1999 and 2008. Source: OECD. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/edu/eag2010). 1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888932310092

40


INDICATOR A2

HOW MANY STUDENTS FINISH SECONDARY EDUCATION AND ACCESS TERTIARY EDUCATION?

Rising knowledge demands in OECD countries have made qualifications at the upper secondary level the minimum credential for successful labour market entry. This indicator presents the current upper secondary graduate output of education systems, i.e. the estimated percentage of an age cohort that will follow and successfully complete upper secondary programmes. It also shows the percentage of a youth cohort that will enter different types of tertiary education during their lifetime and the impact of international students.

Key results Chart A2.1. Upper secondary graduation rates (2008)

The chart shows the estimated percentage of a 2008 age cohort that will complete, for the first time, upper secondary education (based on current patterns of graduation); it also indicates how many young adults complete upper secondary education outside of the typical age of graduation. On average 80% of an age cohort in 2008 is estimated to complete upper secondary education in the 26 OECD countries with available data. The proportion of students who complete the upper secondary level of education outside the typical age of graduation is high in Denmark, Finland, Iceland and Norway, where graduation rates for students older than 25 account for 10 percentage points or more. Total

%

≥ 25

< 25

100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 0

Germany Ireland Japan Finland Korea Greece Norway United Kingdom Switzerland Israel Iceland Czech Republic Slovenia Italy EU19 average Denmark Poland Slovak Republic OECD average Hungary New Zealand United States Sweden Canada1 Spain Luxembourg Chile Portugal Mexico Turkey

10

1. Year of reference 2007. Countries are ranked in descending order of the upper secondary graduation rates in 2008. Source: OECD. Table A2.1. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/edu/eag2010). 1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888932310111

42


Other highlights of this indicator

INDICATOR A2

• In 22 of 26 OECD countries and all partner countries with available data, firsttime upper secondary graduation rates exceed 70%. In Finland, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Japan, Korea, Norway, Switzerland, the United Kingdom and the partner country Israel, graduation rates equal or exceed 90%. • Females are now more likely to complete upper secondary education than males in almost all OECD and partner countries, a reversal of the historical pattern. Today, graduation rates for females are significantly below those for males only in Switzerland and Turkey. Females are also graduating from vocational programmes more often than in the past, and consequently their graduation rates are moving closer to those of males. • In most countries, upper secondary education is designed to prepare students to enter into tertiary-type A education. In Germany, Switzerland and the partner country Slovenia, however, students are more likely to graduate from upper secondary programmes that lead to tertiary-type B, where courses are typically shorter and focus on the development of practical, technical or occupational skills. • Entry rates for tertiary-type A education increased by more than 20 percentage points on average in OECD countries between 1995 and 2008. In 2008, in Australia, Finland, Iceland, Korea, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Portugal and the Slovak Republic, it is estimated that 70% or more young adults will enter tertiary-type A programmes during their lifetime. • The proportion of students who enter tertiary-type B programmes is generally smaller than that for tertiary-type A programmes. In OECD countries for which data are available, 16% of young adults, on average, will enter tertiary-type B programmes, 56% will enter tertiary-type A programmes and 2.4% will enter advanced research programmes. • High proportions of international students influence entry rates. In Australia, the impact of international students is so great that entry rates drop significantly when international students are excluded, causing it to lose its top position.


43

chapter A

A2


Policy context

Upper secondary education serves as the foundation for advanced learning and training opportunities, as well as preparation for direct entry into the labour market. Although many countries allow students to leave the education system at the end of the lower secondary level, those who leave without an upper secondary qualification tend to face severe difficulties when entering the labour market in OECD countries and for staying in it (see Indicators A6 and A7). High upper secondary graduation rates do not guarantee that an education system has adequately equipped its graduates with the basic skills and knowledge necessary to enter the labour market, because this indicator does not capture the quality of educational outcomes. However, graduation rates do give an indication of the extent to which education systems succeed in preparing students to meet the minimum requirements of the labour market. The tertiary-level entry rate is an estimated probability that a school leaver will enter tertiary education during his/her lifetime. It provides an indication of the accessibility of tertiary education as well as the perceived value of attending tertiary programmes. It provides a partial indication of the degree to which a population is acquiring the high-level skills and knowledge valued by the labour market in today’s knowledge society. High tertiary entry and participation rates help to ensure the development and maintenance of a highly educated population and labour force. In the context of crisis, it could also increase the flexibility of the labour force. As students’ awareness of the economic and social benefits of tertiary education has increased, so have rates of entry into both tertiary-type A and tertiary-type B programmes. Continued growth in participation, accompanied by a widening diversity in the backgrounds and interests of those aspiring to tertiary studies, will demand new kinds of provision. Tertiary institutions will be challenged not only to meet growing demand through expansion of places offered, but also to adapt programmes, teaching and learning to match the diverse needs of the new generation of students. Moreover, the relative popularity of the various fields of study affects the demand for courses and teaching staff. Evidence and explanations Graduation from upper secondary programmes

In 22 of 26 OECD countries and all partner countries with available data, first-time upper secondary graduation rates exceed 70%. In Finland, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Japan, Korea, Norway, Switzerland, the United Kingdom and the partner country Israel, graduation rates equal or exceed 90% (Chart A2.1). Even if completing an upper secondary education programme is considered the norm for most OECD and partner countries, the proportion of students outside the typical age of graduation varies. First-time graduates are generally between 17 and 20 years old (see Table X1.1a in Annex 1). However, some countries propose second chance/adult education programmes. In the Nordic countries, for example, students can relatively easily leave the education system and re-enter it at a later date: in Denmark, Finland, Iceland and Norway, graduation rates of students over 25 years old account for at least 10 percentage points. High graduation rates do not mean that all young people have graduated from the upper secondary level when they enter the labour market; they may do so later. Decision makers have room for manoeuvre to 44


How Many Students Finish Secondary Education and Access Tertiary Education? – Indicator A2

chapter A

encourage upper secondary graduation at an earlier age and before entry to the labour market, as this level is often considered to be the minimum credential for successful labour market entry (Chart A2.1). The balance of educational attainment between males and females in the adult population differs in most countries. In the past, females had fewer opportunities and/or incentives to obtain the same level of education as males. Females have generally been overrepresented among those not continuing to upper secondary education and consequently were underrepresented at higher levels of education. However, these gender differences are most evident in older age groups and have been significantly reduced or reversed among younger age groups (see Indicator A1). Today, upper secondary graduation rates for females exceed those for males in 23 of 26 OECD countries and in all partner countries for which total upper secondary graduation rates can be compared by gender. The exceptions are Switzerland and Turkey where graduation rates are significantly higher for males. The gap is greatest in Denmark, Iceland, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, Spain and the partner country Slovenia, where female graduation rates exceed those of males by 10 percentage points or more (Table A2.1). Since 1995, the upper secondary graduation rate has increased by seven percentage points on average among OECD countries with comparable data. The highest growth occurred in Chile, Greece, Norway, Spain and Sweden (more than ten percentage points of increase between 1995 and 2008) (Table A2.2). Although graduation from upper secondary education is becoming the norm, the upper secondary curriculum may vary depending on the type of education or occupation for which it is designed. Most upper secondary programmes in OECD and partner countries are designed primarily to prepare students for tertiary studies; their orientation may be general, pre-vocational or vocational (see Indicator C1). In 2008, it is estimated that 47% of an age cohort will be graduated from a general programmes compared to 44% from a pre-vocational or vocational programmes. In 2008, the female graduation rate from general programmes was higher than that of males for almost all OECD and partner countries with comparable data. The average OECD graduation rate from general programmes was 53% for females and 41% for males. The higher proportion of females is especially noteworthy in Austria, the Czech Republic, Iceland, Italy, Norway, Poland and the partner countries Estonia and Slovenia, where they outnumber males by at least three to two. Only in Korea are the proportions of both sexes close to equal. Females are also, more often than in the past, graduates of vocational programmes. On average among OECD countries, the graduation rate of females from pre-vocational and vocational programmes is 43% (45% for males). This pattern may affect entry rates in tertiary-type B programmes in subsequent years (Table A2.1). Furthermore, graduation rates at the pre-vocational/vocational level are affected by the proportion of students outside the typical age of graduation, which differs markedly from one country to another (see Table X1.1a in Annex 1). Adult students have a particularly strong effect on graduation rates in Australia, Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway and the partner country Brazil as they account for some 40% or more of total graduation rates. In these countries, some programmes at this level of education, i.e. part-time or evening programmes, may be especially designed for the adult population (Table A2.1). Education at a Glance   © OECD 2010

45

A2

chapter A

A2


Transitions following upper secondary education

The vast majority of students who graduate from upper secondary education graduate from programmes designed to provide access to further tertiary education (ISCED 3A and 3B). Programmes to facilitate direct entry into tertiary-type A education are preferred by students in all countries except Germany, Switzerland and the partner country Slovenia, where both female and male students are more likely to graduate from upper secondary programmes leading to tertiary-type B programmes. The graduation rate for ISCED 3C (long programmes) is 16%, on average, among OECD countries (Table A2.1). It is interesting to compare the proportion of students who graduate from programmes designed as preparation for entry into tertiary-type A programmes with the proportion who actually enter these programmes. Chart A2.2 shows significant variation in patterns among countries. For instance, in Belgium, Chile, Finland, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Japan and the partner countries Estonia and Israel, the difference between graduation rates from upper secondary programmes designed for tertiary-type A programmes and eventual entry rates into such programmes is relatively large (more than 20 percentage points). This suggests that many students who achieve qualifications designed for university-level entrance do not in fact take up university studies; however, at least in Belgium, Japan and the partner countries Estonia and Israel, such upper secondary programmes also give access to tertiary-type B programmes. In addition, Japan has “junior colleges” which offer programmes that are similar to tertiary-type A programmes, but are classified as tertiary-type B because of two or three years’ shorter duration of study with more practical programmes (on the basis of ISCED 97). In Israel, the difference may be explained by the wide variation in the age of entry to university, which is due in part to the two to three years of military service students undertake before entering higher education. In Finland, the upper secondary level includes vocational education, and many graduates enter the labour market immediately after completing this level without any studies at the tertiary level. There is also a numerus clausus system in Finnish higher education, which means that the number of entry places is restricted. In addition, graduates from upper secondary general education may have to take a break of two to three years before getting a university or a polytechnic education study place. In Ireland, the majority of students at second level take the “Leaving Certificate Examination” (ISCED 3A). Although this is an ISCED 3A course designed for entry to tertiary education, not all of the students who take this examination intend to do so. Until recently, school leavers in Ireland had alternatives, such as participation in a strong labour market, and this also may have had an effect on the difference. In contrast, in Australia, Austria, Iceland, Norway, Switzerland and the partner countries the Russian Federation and Slovenia, the upper secondary graduation rate is markedly lower than tertiary-type A entry rates (more than 10 percentage points). Australia, Austria, Iceland, Norway and Switzerland attract high proportions of international/foreign students; their tertiary-type A entry rates are inflated by students who completed their upper secondary education in their own country but decided to pursue their education abroad (see below and Indicator C2). As mentioned, in Switzerland and the partner countries the Russian Federation and Slovenia, although many students are more likely to graduate from upper secondary programmes leading to tertiary-type B programmes, some may later choose to pursue university studies, thanks to pathways between the two types of tertiary programmes. 46



chapter A

Chart A2.2. Access to tertiary-type A education for upper secondary graduates (2008)

%

Graduation rates from upper secondary programmes designed to prepare students for tertiary-type A education

Entry rates into tertiary-type A education

100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 0

Ireland Finland Israel Poland Sweden Italy Chile Estonia Japan Slovak Republic Korea Australia1 Hungary Greece Netherlands EU19 average Belgium Iceland Czech Republic Norway OECD average Russian Federation Denmark Spain Luxembourg Germany Mexico Austria2 Slovenia Switzerland Turkey

10

1.Year of reference for graduation rates 2007. 2. Includes ISCED 4A programmes (Berufsbildende Höhere Schulen). Countries are ranked in descending order of graduation rates from upper secondary programmes designed to prepare students for tertiary-type A education in 2008. Source: OECD. Tables A2.1 and A2.3. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/edu/eag2010). 1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888932310111

Graduation from post-secondary non-tertiary programmes

Post-secondary non-tertiary programmes of various kinds are offered in 26 OECD countries and 4 partner countries. These programmes straddle upper secondary and post-secondary education but may be considered either as upper secondary or post-secondary programmes in particular national contexts. Although the content of these programmes may not be significantly more advanced than upper secondary programmes, post-secondary non-tertiary programmes serve to broaden the knowledge of individuals who have already gained an upper secondary qualification. Students in these programmes tend to be older than those enrolled at the upper secondary level. For more information on post-secondary non-tertiary programmes, see Table A2.5 on line or Indicator A2 in Education at a Glance 2009. Overall access to tertiary education

Graduates from upper secondary programmes and those in the workforce who want to upgrade their skills can choose from a wide range of tertiary programmes.The higher the upper secondary graduation rate, the higher the expected entry rate into tertiary education.This indicator examines students’ orientation towards tertiary education and helps to understand the choices made by students at the end of upper secondary education. Furthermore, this orientation is extremely Education at a Glance   © OECD 2010

47

A2

chapter A

important and will affect not only dropout rates (see Indicator A4) but also unemployment rates (see Indicator A6) if the programmes proposed are not adjusted to labour market needs. It is estimated that 56% of young adults in OECD countries will enter tertiary-type A programmes during their lifetime if current patterns of entry continue. In Australia, Finland, Iceland, Korea, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Portugal and the Slovak Republic, 70% or more of young adults enter tertiary-type A programmes. Although Turkey has had a large increase in the number of students entering tertiary-type A programmes since 1995, its entry rate is only 30% and it remains, with Belgium, Luxembourg and Mexico, at the bottom of the range.The University of Luxembourg was established in 2003 to carry out three principal activities: teaching, research and valorisation, at the highest international level. Entry and graduation rates at tertiary level are low as many students continue to follow their studies outside their country (Chart A2.3 and see Indicators A3 and C2).

Chart A2.3. Entry rates into tertiary-type A education (1995, 2000 and 2008) 2008

%

2000

1995

100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0

Australia Poland Portugal Iceland Slovak Republic New Zealand Norway Korea Finland Russian Federation Sweden United States1 Netherlands Israel Denmark United Kingdom Hungary Czech Republic OECD average Slovenia EU19 average Italy Austria Japan Ireland Chile Greece Estonia Spain Switzerland Germany Mexico Belgium Turkey Luxembourg

A2


1. The entry rates for tertiary-type A programmes include the entry rates for tertiary-type B programmes. Countries are ranked in descending order of entry rates for tertiary-type A education in 2008. Source: OECD. Table A2.4. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/edu/eag2010). 1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888932310111

The proportion of students entering tertiary-type B programmes is generally smaller, mainly because these programmes are less developed in most OECD countries. In OECD countries for which data are available, 16% of young adults, on average, enter tertiary-type B programmes. The OECD country average differs somewhat from the EU19 country average (12%). The figures range from 3% or less in Italy, Luxembourg, Mexico, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal and the Slovak Republic to 30% or more in Belgium, Korea, the United Kingdom and 48



chapter A

the partner countries Estonia, the Russian Federation and Slovenia, and to more than 45% in Chile and New Zealand. Although the share of tertiary-type B programmes in the Netherlands is currently very small, it is expected to increase with the introduction of a new programme of associate degrees. Finland and Norway have respectively no longer or only one tertiary-type B programmes in their education systems (Chart A2.4). Chart A2.4. Entry rates into tertiary-type B education (1995, 2008) %

2008

1995

60 50 40 30 20 0

Chile New Zealand Korea Belgium Slovenia Estonia United Kingdom Russian Federation Japan Greece Israel Turkey Spain Denmark Ireland Switzerland OECD average Germany EU19 average Hungary Sweden Czech Republic Austria Iceland Mexico Slovak Republic Poland Italy Norway Finland

10

Countries are ranked in descending order of entry rates for tertiary-type B education in 2008. Source: OECD. Table A2.4. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/edu/eag2010). 1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888932310111

In Belgium and Chile, broad access to tertiary-type B programmes counterbalances comparatively low entry rates into tertiary-type A programmes. Other OECD countries, most notably the United Kingdom and the partner country Slovenia, have entry rates around the OECD average for tertiary-type A programmes and comparatively high rates of entry for tertiary-type B programmes. New Zealand stands out, with entry rates at both levels that are among the highest in OECD countries. However, its entry rates are inflated by higher entry at older ages and a greater proportion of international students (see below). On average, in all OECD countries with comparable data, 9 percentage points more of today’s young adults enter tertiary-type A programmes than in 2000 and 22 percentage points more than in 1995. Entry rates in tertiary-type A education increased by more than 20 percentage points between 2000 and 2008 in Australia, the Czech Republic, Korea and the Slovak Republic. Hungary, New Zealand and Spain are the only OECD countries that show a real decrease in entry to tertiary-type A programmes, although in Hungary and Spain, the decrease is counterbalanced by a significant increase in entry rates into tertiary-type B programmes between 2000 and 2008. In New Zealand, the rise and fall of entry rates from 2000 to 2008 mirrored the rise and fall of the number of international students over the same period. Among OECD countries, overall net entry rates into tertiary-type B programmes between 1995 and 2008 have remained stable except in Greece, Korea, Spain and Turkey, where they have Education at a Glance   © OECD 2010

49

A2

chapter A

increased.The reclassification of tertiary-type B to tertiary-type A programmes in Denmark after 2000 partly explains the changes observed in this country between 1995 and 2008 (Charts A2.3 and A2.4). It is expected that 2.4% of today’s young adults in the 22 OECD countries with comparable data will enter advanced research programmes during their lifetime. The figures range from less than 1% in Chile, Luxembourg, Mexico and Turkey to 4% or more in Austria, Greece and Switzerland (Table A2.3). Rates of entry into tertiary education should also be considered in light of participation in postsecondary non-tertiary programmes, an important alternative to tertiary education in some OECD countries. Impact of international students on entry rates at tertiary-type A level

By definition all international students enrolling for the first time in a country are counted as new entrants, regardless of their previous education in other countries. The reason is that countries are less likely to know about the previous education of international students. Entry rates estimate the proportion of the population that will enter tertiary-type A programmes during their lifetime. To highlight the impact of international students on entry rates at the tertiary-type A education level, both unadjusted and adjusted entry rates (i.e. the entry rate when international students are excluded) are presented in Chart A2.5. Among countries for which data on international students are available, the impact of international students is significant in Australia, Austria, Iceland and New Zealand. For Australia, with adjustments of 26 percentage points, the impact is so great that its entry rates slip from the top to the fifth position. In Austria, Iceland and New Zealand, entry rates, with adjustments of 11, 10, 14 percentage points, respectively, are also affected by international students (Table A2.3).

Chart A2.5. Entry rates into tertiary-type A education: Impact of international students (2008) International students

%

Adjusted (excluding international students)

1. The entry rates for tertiary-type A programmes include the entry rates for tertiary-type B programmes. Countries are ranked in descending order of adjusted entry rates for tertiary-type A education in 2008. Source: OECD. Table A2.3. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/edu/eag2010). 1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888932310111

50


Switzerland

Germany

Mexico

Austria

Estonia

Ireland

Sweden

Netherlands

New Zealand

Australia

United States1

Iceland

Norway

100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Poland

A2



chapter A

The greatest impact of international students on indicators such as the entry rate and graduation rate (see Indicator A3) is naturally observed among countries with the largest proportions of international students (e.g. Australia and New Zealand). To improve the comparability of these indicators, which have generally a domestic focus, international students should be removed whenever possible. Unfortunately it is still difficult for many countries to collect reliable information on international students, adjustments for those countries are not always possible. Pathways between tertiary-type A and tertiary-type B programmes

In some countries, tertiary-type A and tertiary-type B programmes are provided by different types of institutions but this is changing. It is increasingly common for universities or other institutions to offer programmes of both types; furthermore, the two levels are gradually becoming more similar in terms of curriculum, orientation and learning outcomes. Graduates from tertiary-type B programmes often have the opportunity to gain admission to tertiary-type A programmes, either in the second or third year of the programme or even to a master’s programme. This path is often subject to conditions (special examination, personal or professional past achievements, completion of a “bridging” programme, etc.) depending on the country or programme. Conversely, students who leave tertiary-type A education without having graduated can in some cases be successfully re-oriented towards tertiary-type B programmes (see Indicator A4). Countries with high entry rates into tertiary education may also be countries that have pathways between the two types of programmes.

Box A2.1. Age of new entrants into tertiary education The age structure of new entrants into tertiary education varies among OECD countries for various reasons: the differences in the typical graduation ages from upper secondary education, the opportunity offered to students to enter the labour market before enrolling in tertiary education. People entering tertiary-type B programmes may also enter tertiarytype A programmes later in their lives. Adding tertiary-type A and B entry rates together to obtain overall tertiary-level entry rates would therefore result in overcounting. Traditionally, students enter tertiary-type A programmes immediately after having completed upper secondary education, and this remains true in many OECD countries. For example, in Belgium, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Mexico, the Netherlands, Poland, Spain and the partner country Slovenia, 80% of all first-time entrants into tertiary-type A programmes are under 23 years of age (Table A2.3). In other OECD and partner countries, the transition from upper secondary to tertiary education may happen at a later age, due to time spent in the labour force for example. In such cases, first-time entrants into tertiary-type A programmes typically represent a much wider age range at entry. In Denmark, Iceland, Luxembourg, Portugal, Sweden, Switzerland, and the partner country Israel, the median age of students is over 21.5 when they start tertiary education.


51

A2

chapter A

A2


The proportion of older first-time entrants into tertiary-type A programmes may reflect, among other factors, the flexibility of these programmes (i.e. in the United States) and their suitability to students outside the typical age cohort. It may also reflect a view of the value of work experience for higher education studies, which is characteristic of the Nordic countries and common in Australia, the Czech Republic, Hungary, New Zealand and Switzerland, where a sizeable proportion of new entrants are much older than the typical age of entry. It may also reflect some countries’ mandatory military service, which postpones entry into tertiary education. For example, the partner country Israel, with more than half of students entering the tertiary-type A level for the first time at the age of 23 or older, has mandatory military service for 18-21 year-old males and 18-20 year-old females. Nevertheless, entering at a later stage into tertiary education has also some consequence on the economy (i.e. foregone tax revenue). Some governments are taking measures to encourage students to make the most of their capacities by moving more rapidly into and through tertiary education, and to provide universities with more incentives to promote on-time completion (Table A2.3).

Definitions and methodologies

Data refer to the academic year 2007-08 and are based on the UOE data collection on education statistics administered by the OECD in 2009 (for details see Annex 3 at www.oecd.org/edu/eag2010). Upper secondary graduation rates (Tables A2.1 and A2.2) are calculated as net graduation rates (i.e. as the sum of age-specific graduation rates) for the years 2005-09. Net graduation rates represent the estimated percentage of the age cohort that will complete upper secondary education (based on current patterns of graduation). Gross graduation rates are presented for the years 1995 and 2000-04. Similarly, gross graduation rates are presented in the coming years (2005-08) 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. The number of graduates, regardless of their age, is divided by the population at the typical graduation age. The graduation rates take into account students graduating from upper secondary education at the typical graduation ages, as well as older students (e.g. those in “second chance” programmes) or younger students. Information on the methods used to calculate graduation rates – gross versus net rates - are presented for each level of education in Annex 1. The count of first-time graduates (Columns 1-4 in Table A2.1) is calculated by netting out students who graduated from another upper secondary programme in a previous year. As for the others columns of the tables, the net rate is calculated when data are available. Graduates of ISCED 3A, 3B and 3C programmes are not considered as first-time counts.Therefore, gross graduation rates cannot be added, as some individuals graduate from more than one upper secondary programme and would be counted twice.The same applies for graduation rates according to programme orientation, i.e. general or vocational. Moreover, the typical graduation ages are not necessarily the same for the different programme types (see Annex 1). Pre-vocational and vocational programmes include both school-based programmes and combined school- and work-based 52



chapter A

programmes that are recognised as part of the education system. Entirely work-based education and training that are not overseen by a formal education authority are not taken into account. In Table A2.2 (trends in graduation rates at upper secondary level) or Table A2.4 (trends in entry rates), data for the years 1995, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003 and 2004 are based on a special survey carried out in OECD countries and four of the six partner countries in January 2007. Entry rates distinguish among different categories of tertiary qualifications: programmes at tertiary-type B level (ISCED 5B); programmes at tertiary-type A level (ISCED 5A); and advanced research programmes at the doctorate level (ISCED 6). Tertiary-type A programmes are largely theory-based and designed to provide qualifications for entry into advanced research programmes and highly skilled professions.Tertiary-type B programmes are classified at the same level of competence as tertiary-type A programmes, but are more occupationally oriented and provide direct access to the labour market.They tend to be of shorter duration than tertiary-type A programmes (typically two to three years) and are generally not designed to lead to university degrees. The institutional location of programmes can give a relatively clear idea of their nature (e.g. university or non-university institution of higher education), but these distinctions have become blurred and are therefore not applied in the OECD indicators. Tables A2.3 and A2.4 show the sum of net entry rates for all ages. The net entry rate for a specific age is obtained by dividing the number of first-time entrants of that age 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 agespecific entry rates continue. Table A2.3 also shows the 20th, 50th and 80th percentiles of the age distribution of first-time entrants, i.e. the age below which 20%, 50% and 80% of first-time entrants are found. Finally, data on the impact of international students on tertiary entry rates are based on a special survey carried out by the OECD in December 2009. New (first-time) entrants are students who enrol at the relevant level of education for the first time. International/foreign students enrolling for the first time in a postgraduate programme are considered first-time entrants. Not all OECD countries can distinguish between students entering a tertiary programme for the first time and those transferring between different levels of tertiary education or repeating or reentering a level after an absence. Thus first-time entry rates for each level of tertiary education cannot be added to form a total tertiary-level entrance rate because it would result in counting entrants twice. Further references

The following additional material relevant to this indicator is available on line at: 1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888932310111

• Table A2.5. Post-secondary non-tertiary graduation rates (2008) • Table A2.6. Percentage of new entrants in tertiary education and proportion of females, by field of education (2008)


53

A2

chapter A


44

45

49

52

53

Brazil China Estonia India Indonesia Israel Russian Federation Slovenia

m m m m m 90 m 85

m m m m m 86 m 78

m m m m m 93 m 93

63 m 57 m 28 58 54 33

53 52 74 m m m 56 45 70 m m m 28 27 30 58 52 65 m x(5) x(5) 33 25 41

9 m 19 m 16 32 39 67

(10) (11) (12) 19 37 41 68 84 64 50 63 74 m 8 7 31 30 31 m 68 62 28 43 49 47 81 95 58 63 61 m 60 51 m 33 23 15 19 13 29 54 57 43 41 70 m 72 56 m 26 20 m 26 25 43 44 45 3 3 4 57 68 69 m m m 25 46 35 33 41 26 19 21 20 62 68 63 m 37 40 43 46 40 m 77 64 9 11 7 m m m x(2) x(3) x(4)

(13) 67 17 61 74 69 61 53 93 51 42 64 64 61 99 75 72 68 42 41 63 m 61 77 x(1) 71 45 76 27 26 m x(1)

(16) x(19) 53 a a a n a a 13 55 a a 1 a n 1 a 9 a a m a a x(1) a a n 69 a m x(1)

(19) 39 1 20 8 a 26 45 a 4 a 28 16 38 6 a 22 25 20 3 42 m 41 12 x(1) 17 20 n 6 a m x(1)

(22) x(19) 20 25 a a a n a 46 n x(19) x(19) 19 24 23 x(19) a 2 a a m m a x(1) 1 18 n x(13) m m x(1)

43

60

8

16

9

51

62

8

15

11

5 7 10 m m m 18 25 13 m m m 16 18 13 32 35 28 m x(9) x(9) 67 69 65

63 m 74 m 28 87 54 35

9 m a m 16 a 13 41

a m a m a 3 22 22

a m 2 m a a 4 2

Males

M+F

53

37

M+F

41

43

M+F

47

87

M+F

84

80

Females

76

83

M+F

80

EU19 average

Females

OECD average

Males

(3) m m m 72 65 85 75 89 m 97 89 74 74 92 83 94 92 69 40 m 69 84 79 55 78 67 74 92 29 88 77

m m m m m 90 m m

of which

Education at a Glance 2010: OECD Indicators

Education At A Glance: Oecd Indicators, 2004 Edition (Education at a Glance Oecd Indicators)

Education at a Glance 2008: OECD Indicators (Education at a Glance Oecd Indicators)

Education at a Glance: OECD Indicators - 2006 Edition (Education at a Glance Oecd Indicators)

Education at a Glance: OECD Indicators - 2003 Edition (Education at a Glance Oecd Indicators)

Education at a Glance 2009: OECD Indicators

Health at a Glance 2009. OECD Indicators

Society at a Glance: OECD Social Indicators

Health at a Glance 2005: OECD Indicators

Highlights from Education at a Glance 2010

Society at a Glance 2011: OECD Social Indicators

Society at a Glance: Oecd Social Indicators: Edition 2002

Society at a Glance 2009: OECD Social Indicators

Health at a Glance: Oecd Indicators 2003 (Health at a Glance)

Health at a Glance 2007: OECD Indicators (Health at a Glance)

Society at a Glance 2009: OECD Social Indicators

Entrepreneurship at a Glance 2010

OECD Regions at a Glance, 2007 ed

Education at a Glance 2011: OECD Indicators (Centre for Educational Research and Innovation )

OECD Government at a Glance 2009

OECD Regions at a Glance, 2005 ed

OECD Regions at a Glance 2009

Health at a Glance : Europe 2010

Health at a Glance: Asia Pacific 2010

Highlights from Education at a Glance 2009

Highlights from Education at a Glance 2008

National Accounts at a Glance 2010

Obstetrics and Gynecology at a Glance (At a Glance (Blackwell))

Haematology at a Glance, 2nd edition (At a Glance)

Neuroscience At A Glance

Fossils at a Glance

Education at a Glance 2010: OECD Indicators

Education At A Glance: Oecd Indicators, 2004 Edition (Education at a Glance Oecd Indicators)

Education at a Glance 2008: OECD Indicators (Education at a Glance Oecd Indicators)

Education at a Glance: OECD Indicators - 2006 Edition (Education at a Glance Oecd Indicators)

Education at a Glance: OECD Indicators - 2003 Edition (Education at a Glance Oecd Indicators)

Education at a Glance 2009: OECD Indicators

Health at a Glance 2009. OECD Indicators

Society at a Glance: OECD Social Indicators

Health at a Glance 2005: OECD Indicators

Highlights from Education at a Glance 2010

Society at a Glance 2011: OECD Social Indicators

Society at a Glance: Oecd Social Indicators: Edition 2002

Society at a Glance 2009: OECD Social Indicators

Health at a Glance: Oecd Indicators 2003 (Health at a Glance)

Health at a Glance 2007: OECD Indicators (Health at a Glance)

Society at a Glance 2009: OECD Social Indicators

Entrepreneurship at a Glance 2010

OECD Regions at a Glance, 2007 ed

Education at a Glance 2011: OECD Indicators (Centre for Educational Research and Innovation )

OECD Government at a Glance 2009

OECD Regions at a Glance, 2005 ed

OECD Regions at a Glance 2009

Health at a Glance : Europe 2010

Health at a Glance: Asia Pacific 2010

Highlights from Education at a Glance 2009

Highlights from Education at a Glance 2008

National Accounts at a Glance 2010

Obstetrics and Gynecology at a Glance (At a Glance (Blackwell))

Haematology at a Glance, 2nd edition (At a Glance)

Neuroscience At A Glance

Fossils at a Glance

Recommend Documents