Informe de la Ocde 2009

Education at a Glance
2009

OECD INDICATORS

ORGANISATION FOR ECONOMIC CO-OPERATION
AND DEVELOPMENT

The OECD is a unique forum where the governments of 30 democracies work together to
address the economic, social and environmental challenges of globalisation. The OECD is also at
the forefront of efforts to understand and to help governments respond to new developments and
concerns, such as corporate governance, the information economy and the challenges of an
ageing population. The Organisation provides a setting where governments can compare policy
experiences, seek answers to common problems, identify good practice and work to co-ordinate
domestic and international policies.
The OECD member countries are: Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, the Czech Republic,
Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Korea,
Luxembourg, Mexico, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Portugal, the Slovak Republic,
Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, the United Kingdom and the United States. The Commission of
the European Communities takes part in the work of the OECD.
OECD Publishing disseminates widely the results of the Organisation’s statistics gathering and
research on economic, social and environmental issues, as well as the conventions, guidelines and
standards agreed by its members.

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

Also available in French under the title:
Regards sur l’éducation 2009
LES INDICATEURS DE L’OCDE

Revised version September 2009
Details of revisions available at: www.oecd.org/dataoecd/32/34/43541373.pdf.

Corrigenda to OECD publications may be found on line at: www.oecd.org/publishing/corrigenda.
© OECD 2009

You can copy, download or print OECD content for your own use, and you can include excerpts from OECD publications, databases and multimedia
products in your own documents, presentations, blogs, websites and teaching materials, provided that suitable acknowledgment of OECD as source
and copyright owner is given. All requests for public or commercial use and translation rights should be submitted to rights@oecd.org. Requests for
permission to photocopy portions of this material for public or commercial use shall be addressed directly to the Copyright Clearance Center (CCC)
at info@copyright.com or the Centre français d'exploitation du droit de copie (CFC) at contact@cfcopies.com.

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

Education at a Glance © OECD 2009 3

Foreword

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

4 Education at a Glance © OECD 2009

Table of ConTenTs
Name of
the indicator
in the
2008 edition
Foreword ................................................................................................................................................... 3
Editorial .................................................................................................................................................. 13
Introduction......................................................................................................................................... 17
Reader’s Guide .................................................................................................................................... 21

ChAptER A thE Output OF EduCAtIOnAl InstItutIOns
And thE ImpACt OF lEARnInG .......................................................... 25
Indicator A1 to what level have adults studied? ........................................................ 26 A1
Table A1.1a. Educational attainment: adult population (2007) ........................................ 37
Table A1.2a. Population with at least upper secondary education (2007) .......................... 38
Table A1.3a. Population with tertiary education (2007)..................................................... 39
Table A1.4. Trends in educational attainment: 25-64 year-old population
(1997-2007) ............................................................................................................ 40
Table A1.5. Annual average growth in 25-64 year-old population between 1998
and 2006 ................................................................................................................... 42
Table A1.6. Proportion of age cohorts in skilled jobs (ISCO 1-3) by educational
attainment (2006, 1998)...................................................................................... 43
Indicator A2 how many students finish secondary education and access
tertiary education?.......................................................................................... 44 A2
Table A2.1. Upper secondary graduation rates (2007) ..................................................... 56
Table A2.2. Trends in graduation rates (first-time) at upper secondary level
(1995-2007) ............................................................................................................ 57
Table A2.3. Post-secondary non-tertiary graduation rates (2007) ................................ 58
Table A2.4. Entry rates to tertiary education and age distribution
of new entrants (2007)......................................................................................... 59
Table A2.5. Trends in entry rates at tertiary level (1995-2007) .................................... 60
Indicator A3 how many students finish tertiary education ? ............................. 62 A3, A4
Table A3.1. Graduation rates in tertiary education (2007).............................................. 73
Table A3.2. Trends in tertiary graduation rates (1995-2007) ......................................... 74
Table A3.3. Graduation rate at different tertiary levels (2007) ...................................... 75
Table A3.4. Completion rates in tertiary education (2005) ............................................ 76
Indicator A4 What is the profile of 15-year-old top performers in science? ..... 78
Table A4.1a. Mean score and percentage of top performers in science, reading
and mathematics ..................................................................................................... 89
Table A4.1b. Percentage of top performers in science, reading and mathematics,
by gender ................................................................................................................... 90
Table A4.2a. Overlapping of top performers in science, reading and mathematics ...... 91
Table A4.2b. Overlapping of top performers in science, reading and mathematics,
by gender .................................................................................................................. 92
Table A4.3. Students’ socio-economic background, by performance group ............. 94


Table of ConTenTs

Name of
the indicator
in the
2008 edition
Table A4.4. Percentage of students by performance group, according to the
immigrant status ..................................................................................................... 95
Table A4.5. Percentage of students by performance group, according to the
language spoken at home ..................................................................................... 96
Indicator A5 What are the top performers’ attitudes and motivations
for science in PISA 2006?.............................................................................. 98
Table A5.1a. Index of enjoyment of science for strong performers and
top performers ..................................................................................................... 109
Table A5.2a. Index of students’ science-related activities for strong performers
and top performers ............................................................................................. 110
Table A5.3. Regular science lessons in school and out-of-school lessons
in science for strong performers and top performers.............................. 111
Table A5.4a. Indices of instrumental motivation and future-oriented motivation
to learn science for strong performers and top performers .................. 113
Table A5.5. Importance of doing well in science, mathematics and reading
for strong performers and top performers .................................................. 114
Table A5.6a. Indices of school preparation of science-related careers and student
information on science-related careers for strong performers and
top performers ..................................................................................................... 116
Table A5.7a. Enjoyment of learning science ......................................................................... 117
Table A5.7b. Science-related activities.................................................................................... 117
Table A5.7c. Instrumental motivation to learn science..................................................... 117
Table A5.7d. Importance of doing well in science .............................................................. 117
Table A5.7e. Future-oriented motivation to learn science .............................................. 117
Indicator A6 How does participation in education affect participation
in the labour market? .................................................................................. 118 A8
Table A6.1a. Employment rates and educational attainment, by gender (2007) ...... 129
Table A6.2a. Trends in employment rates of 25-64 year-olds by educational
attainment (1997-2007) .................................................................................... 130
Table A6.3a. Unemployment rates and educational attainment, by gender (2007) ...... 132
Table A6.4a. Trends in unemployment rates by educational attainment
(1997-2007) .......................................................................................................... 133
Indicator A7 What are the economic benefits of education?............................. 136 A9
Table A7.1a. Relative earnings of the population with income from employment
(2007 or latest available year) .......................................................................... 144
Table A7.2a. Trends in relative earnings: adult population (1997-2007) .................... 146
Table A7.2b. Trends in relative earnings: male population (1997-2007) .................... 147
Table A7.2c. Trends in relative earnings: female population (1997-2007)................. 148
Table A7.3. Trends in differences in earnings between females and males
(1997-2007) .......................................................................................................... 149
Indicator A8 What are the incentives to invest in education? .......................... 152 A10
Table A8.1. Private net present value for an individual obtaining upper secondary
or post-secondary non-tertiary education as part of initial education,
ISCED 3/4 (2005)............................................................................................... 165


Table of ConTenTs

Name of
the indicator
in the
2008 edition
Table A8.2. Private net present value for an individual obtaining tertiary education
as part of initial education, ISCED 5/6 (2005) ............................................ 166
Table A8.3. Public net present value for an individual obtaining upper secondary
or post-secondary non-tertiary education as part of initial education
(2005)....................................................................................................................... 167
Table A8.4. Public net present value for an individual obtaining tertiary education
as part of initial education (2005)................................................................... 168
Indicator A9 What are the social outcomes of education?.................................. 170
Table A9.1. Marginal effects of education on self-reported health and
political interest .................................................................................................... 180
Table A9.2. Marginal effects of education on self-reported health (with and
without controls for age, gender and income) ........................................... 180
Table A9.3. Marginal effects of education on political interest (with and
Table A9.4. Marginal effects of education on interpersonal trust (with and
Table A9.5. Predicted shares of individuals expressing positive self-rated health,
political interest and interpersonal trust, by gender ................................ 182
political interest and interpersonal trust, by age ....................................... 183
political interest and interpersonal trust, by income ............................... 184

ChApter B FInAnCIAl And humAn resourCes Invested In
eduCAtIon ...................................................................................................... 185
Indicator B1 how much is spent per student? ........................................................... 188 B1
Table B1.1a. Annual expenditure on educational institutions per student
for all services (2006) ......................................................................................... 202
Table B1.2. Annual expenditure per student on core services, ancillary services
and R&D (2006)................................................................................................... 203
Table B1.3a. Cumulative expenditure on educational institutions per student
for all services over the theoretical duration of primary and
secondary studies (2006) ................................................................................... 204
Table B1.3b. Cumulative expenditure on educational institutions per student
for all services over the average duration of tertiary studies (2006) ....... 205
Table B1.4. Annual expenditure on educational institutions per student
for all services relative to GDP per capita (2006) ..................................... 206
Table B1.5. Change in expenditure on educational institutions for all services
per student relative to different factors, by level of education
(1995, 2000, 2006) ............................................................................................. 207
Indicator B2 What proportion of national wealth is spent on education? ..... 208 B2
Table B2.1. Expenditure on educational institutions as a percentage of GDP,
by level of education (1995, 2000, 2006) .................................................... 218
by level of education (2006) ............................................................................. 219


Table of ConTenTs

Name of
the indicator
in the
2008 edition
Table B2.3. Expenditure on educational institutions as a percentage of GDP (2006),
proportion of the population at basic ages of primary to tertiary
education (school year 2006/2007) and demographic trends
(2000-2015) .......................................................................................................... 220
by source of fund and level of education (2006) ........................................ 221
Indicator B3 How much public and private investment is there
in education?..................................................................................................... 222 B3
Table B3.1. Relative proportions of public and private expenditure on educational
institutions for all levels of education (2000, 2006) ................................. 231
Table B3.2a. Relative proportions of public and private expenditure on educational
institutions, as a percentage, by level of education (2000, 2006)......... 232
Table B3.2b. Relative proportions of public and private expenditure on educational
institutions, as a percentage, for tertiary education (2000, 2006) ....... 233
Table B3.3. Trends in relative proportions of public expenditure on educational
institutions and index of change between 1995 and 2006 (2000=100),
for tertiary education (1995, 2000, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006) ...... 234
Indicator B4 What is the total public spending on education? ....................... 236 B4
Table B4.1. Total public expenditure on education (1995, 2000, 2006) .................. 241
Indicator B5 How much do tertiary students pay and what public
subsidies do they receive?......................................................................... 242 B5
Table B5.1a. Estimated annual average tuition fees charged by tertiary-type A
educational institutions for national students
(academic year 2006/2007) ............................................................................. 255
Table B5.2. Distribution of financial aid to students compared to amount of tuition
fees charged in tertiary-type A education (academic year 2006/2007) .... 257
Table B5.3. Financial support to students through public loans in tertiary-type A
education (academic year 2004/2005) ......................................................... 258
Table B5.4. Public subsidies for households and other private entities
as a percentage of total public expenditure on education and GDP,
for tertiary education (2006) ........................................................................... 260
Indicator B6 On what resources and services is education funding spent? ...... 262 B6
Table B6.1. Expenditure on educational institutions by service category
as a percentage of GDP (2006)........................................................................ 270
Table B6.2a. Expenditure on educational institutions by resource category
in primary and secondary education (2006) ............................................... 271
Table B6.2b. Expenditure on educational institutions by resource category
and level of education (2006)........................................................................... 272
Indicator B7 Which factors influence the level of expenditure? .................... 274 B7
Table B7.1. Contribution of various factors to salary cost per student at primary
level of education (2006)................................................................................... 285
Table B7.2. Contribution of various factors to salary cost per student at lower
secondary level of education (2006) .............................................................. 287
Table B7.3. Contribution of various factors to salary cost per student at upper
secondary level of education (2006) ................................................................ 289


Table of ConTenTs

Name of
the indicator
in the
2008 edition
Chapter C aCCess to eDuCation, partiCipation anD
progression ................................................................................................. 291
indicator C1 Who participates in education? ............................................................. 292 C2
Table C1.1. Enrolment rates, by age (2007) ....................................................................... 301
Table C1.2. Trends in enrolment rates (1995-2007) ....................................................... 302
Table C1.3. Transition characteristics from age 15-20, by level of education
(2007) ...................................................................................................................... 303
Table C1.4. Upper secondary enrolment patterns (2007) ............................................. 304
Table C1.5. Students in primary and secondary education by type of institution
or mode of study (2007).................................................................................... 305
Table C1.6. Students in tertiary education by type of institution or mode
of study (2007) ..................................................................................................... 306
indicator C2 Who studies abroad and where? ............................................................ 308 C3
Table C2.1. Student mobility and foreign students in tertiary education
(2000, 2007).......................................................................................................... 327
Table C2.2. Distribution of international and foreign students in tertiary education,
by country of origin (2007) .............................................................................. 328
Table C2.3. Citizens studying abroad in tertiary education, by country
of destination (2007)........................................................................................... 330
by level and type of tertiary education (2007) ........................................... 332
by field of education (2007).............................................................................. 333
Table C2.6. Trends in the number of foreign students enrolled outside
their country of origin (2000 to 2007) ......................................................... 334
indicator C3 how successful are students in moving from education
to work? ............................................................................................................... 336 C4
Table C3.1a. Expected years in education and not in education
for 15-29 year-olds (2007) ............................................................................... 347
Table C3.2a. Percentage of the youth population in education and
not in education (2007) ..................................................................................... 349
Table C3.3. Percentage of the cohort population not in education
and unemployed (2007) ..................................................................................... 351
Table C3.4a. Trends in the percentage of the youth population in education
and not in education (1995, 1997-2007) ..................................................... 353
Table C3.5. Proportion of long-term unemployed among unemployed
25-34 year-olds (2003 and 2007) ................................................................... 355
Table C3.6. Part-time and involuntary part-time work among 25-34 year-olds,
by educational attainment (2007) ................................................................... 356
Chapter D the Learning environment anD organisation
of sChooLs ..................................................................................................... 357
indicator D1 how much time do students spend in the classroom?............. 358 D1
Table D1.1. Compulsory and intended instruction time in public institutions (2007) ..... 366


Table of ConTenTs

Name of
the indicator
in the
2008 edition
Table D1.2a. Instruction time per subject as a percentage of total compulsory
instruction time for 9-11 year-olds (2007) ................................................. 367
Table D1.2b. Instruction time per subject as a percentage of total compulsory
instruction time for 12-14 year-olds (2007) ............................................... 368
Indicator D2 What is the student-teacher ratio and how big are classes? ....... 370 D2
Table D2.1. Average class size, by type of institution and level of education (2007)..... 382
Table D2.2. Ratio of students to teaching staff in educational institutions (2007)......... 383
Table D2.3. Ratio of students to teaching staff, by type of institution (2007) ................ 384
Table D2.4a. Teaching staff and non-teaching staff employed in primary and secondary
educational institutions (2007) ........................................................................... 385
Table D2.4b. Teaching staff and non-teaching staff employed in tertiary educational
institutions (2007) ................................................................................................. 386
Indicator D3 How much are teachers paid? ................................................................. 388 D3
Table D3.1. Teachers’ salaries (2007) ................................................................................... 399
Table D3.2. Change in teachers’ salaries (between 1996 and 2007) ........................... 401
Table D3.3a. Decisions on payments for teachers in public institutions (2007)........ 402
Indicator D4 How much time do teachers spend teaching? .............................. 404 D4
Table D4.1. Organisation of teachers’ working time (2007) ......................................... 412
Table D4.2. Number of teaching hours per year (1996, 2007) .................................... 413
Indicator D5 How much appraisal and feedback do teachers receive,
and what is the impact? .............................................................................. 414
Table D5.1. Frequency and type of school evaluations (2007-08) ............................... 423
Table D5.2. Outcomes of teacher appraisal and feedback (2007-08) ......................... 424
Table D5.3. Teacher perceptions of the appraisal and/or feedback they received
(2007-08) ............................................................................................................... 425
Table D5.4. Teacher perceptions of the personal impact of teacher appraisal
and feedback (2007-08) ..................................................................................... 426
Table D5.5. Teacher appraisal and feedback and school development (2007-08) ...... 427
Indicator D6 How do teacher practices, beliefs and attitudes
measure up? ....................................................................................................... 428
Table D6.1. Correlation between time on task and classroom disciplinary climate
about teaching (2007-08) .................................................................................. 443
Annex 1 CHArACterIstICs of eDuCAtIonAl systems .................. 445
Table X1.1a. Upper secondary graduation rate: typical graduation ages and
method used to calculate graduation rates (2007) .................................... 446
Table X1.1b. Post-secondary non-tertiary graduation rate: typical graduation ages
and method used to calculate graduation rate (2007) .............................. 448
Table X1.1c. Tertiary graduation rate: typical graduation ages and method used
to calculate graduation rates (2007) .............................................................. 449
Table X1.2a. School year and financial year used for the calculation of indicators,
OECD countries .................................................................................................. 451
Table X1.2b. School year and financial year used for the calculation of indicators,
partner countries ................................................................................................. 452
Table X1.3. Summary of completion requirements for upper secondary
programmes ........................................................................................................... 453


Table of ConTenTs

Name of
the indicator
in the
2008 edition
Annex 2 referenCe stAtIstICs ............................................................................ 455
Table X2.1. Overview of the economic context using basic variables
(reference period: calendar year 2006, 2006 current prices) ............... 456
Table X2.2. Basic reference statistics (reference period: calendar year 2006,
2006 current prices) ........................................................................................... 457
Table X2.3a. Reference statistics used in the calculation of teachers’ salaries,
by level of education (1996, 2007)................................................................. 458
Table X2.3b. Reference statistics used in the calculation of teachers’ salaries
(1996, 2007) .......................................................................................................... 460
Table X2.3c. Teachers’ salaries (2007) ................................................................................... 461
Annex 3 sourCes, metHoDs AnD teCHnICAl notes ...................... 463

references............................................................................................................................................ 465
Contributors to this Publication............................................................................................ 467
related oeCD Publications....................................................................................................... 471


Editorial
By Barbara Ischinger, Director for Education

Investing and Innovating in Education for Recovery

This year’s edition of Education at a Glance is published at a time when all eyes are focused on the
financial crisis and its economic and social fallout. Presenting data up to 2007, this edition cannot
yet assess the impact of the crisis on education systems, but it does provide indicators that inform
the debate about how investments in human capital can contribute to economic recovery.

Education has always been a critical investment for the future, for individuals, for economies
and for societies at large. Across OECD countries, the net public return from an investment
in tertiary education exceeds USD 50 000 on average for a student (Indicator A8). Moreover,
the incentives for individuals to stay on in education are likely to rise over the next years: for
instance, the opportunity costs for education decline as the difficulties of finding employment
increase and opportunity costs or lost earnings while studying tend to be the largest of all cost
components for students (except in the United States where tuition fees are high) (Indicator A8).
Declining opportunity costs also strengthen the case for more private investments in education
and, as the more educated have a stronger attachment to the labour market (Indicator A6), this
also increases the benefits of education. Last but not least, graduating and entering the labour
market in an economic downturn can be expected to become more difficult, as employers cut
jobs and young graduates compete with more experienced workers.

There are also important equity-related considerations which arise from the deteriorating job
prospects for the less-well qualified. While enrolments for 15-19 year-olds have been steadily
rising in most countries (Indicator C1), this still leaves an important minority who leave education
without acquiring a baseline qualification. Across OECD countries, over 40% with less than an
upper secondary qualification are not even employed (Indicator A6). Even those with higher
levels of education are vulnerable if they become unemployed. Around half of the unemployed
young adults aged 25-34 with lower and upper secondary attainments are long-term unemployed
(Indicator C3). Opportunities for continuing education and training are often designed to make
up for deficiencies in initial education, but the reality is that participation among individuals with
strong initial qualifications is significantly higher than among the least qualified, such that these
opportunities often do not reach those who need them most.

Moreover, if, as the data in this volume suggest, the demand for education and qualifications
continues to rise as labour market prospects weaken, the gaps in educational attainment between
the younger and older adult cohorts are likely to widen further. The vulnerability of older, often
less qualified, adults to chronic long-term economic inactivity may thus become more acute.
In contrast with much higher levels of educational participation among those in their twenties,
less than 6% (5.9%) of the 30-39 year-old population across OECD countries are enrolled full-
or part-time (Indicator C1). While in some countries it is significantly higher than this, at more
than 1 in 10 (Australia, Finland, Iceland, New Zealand and Sweden), in others participation is


Editorial

less than 3% of 30-39 year-olds (France, Germany, Korea, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, and
Turkey and partner country the Russian Federation), with even lower levels for over 40s in
Austria, the Czech Republic, France, Germany, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Korea, Luxembourg,
Mexico, the Netherlands, Portugal, the Slovak Republic, Switzerland and Turkey. With lifelong
learning more essential than ever, public policy needs to ask how adequately education and
training systems are addressing the learning needs of older adults who are in need of new skills.

As far-reaching as the labour market impacts of the crisis are, the potential social consequences
may last even longer. Educational attainment seems to be positively associated with such
social outcomes as better health, political interest and interpersonal trust and this is bound
to feature in public policy discussions about spending priorities (Indicator A9). Education can
therefore be a powerful lever to moderate the social consequences too.

At a time when it is so important to invest in knowledge, skills and capacities that are relevant
to economies and societies, particular pressures will be faced in those systems which rely on
a major component of work-based training as part of vocational education and training at the
secondary or tertiary levels. Companies struggling to cut costs and avoid lay-offs may well
find it increasingly hard to place trainees. Systems differ in terms of the scale of combined
work/study programmes. In Denmark, Germany, Hungary, Ireland, Switzerland and the
partner country Estonia around 75% of upper secondary students in vocational educational
programmes are enrolled in programmes which involve school- and work-based elements
(Indicator C1). In Australia, Denmark, Iceland, Netherlands and Switzerland, young people
are expected to spend more than 3.9 years between the ages of 15 and 29 in programmes
combining education and employment (Indicator C3). Hence, sustained policy responses
will be needed involving both education and employment authorities to avoid declining
opportunities for effective vocational education and training involving a work-based
component.

All this being said, it is inevitable that the significant public and private investments in
education are being scrutinised. OECD countries as a whole spend 6.1% of their collective
GDP on education, all levels combined. In Denmark, Iceland, Korea and the United States,
and the partner country Israel, it has reached over 7% (Indicator B2). As a share of total
public expenditure, the 2006 OECD average for education stood at 13.3%, ranging from less
than 10% in Germany, Italy and Japan to the far higher figure of 22% in Mexico. The case
for education’s role in the recovery will not simply be based on protecting these spending
levels as a privileged status quo, but will require a demonstration that education is capable of
transforming itself to do a better job and to achieve more with less. Demographic developments
may help to alleviate some of the acute budgetary problems such as in those countries where
falling rolls of around 20% are expected in schools over the next decade; these countries are
concentrated – though not exclusively – in Central and Eastern Europe and Asia (the Czech
Republic, Hungary, Korea, Poland, the Slovak Republic, and partner countries Estonia and the
Russian Federation). Moreover, not all countries are expecting falling school enrolments – in
Ireland, Spain and the partner country Israel, the 5-14 year-old population is set to rise by more
than 15% by 2015 (Indicator B2) and in tertiary education it is not clear how demographic
trends will interact with rising enrolment.


Editorial

This editorial identifies some of the immediate challenges likely to be faced by education,
recognising that a longer-term future needs to be built. Establishing solutions will require the
insights of many and close collaboration among countries. For this purpose, the Education
Directorate has established the online collaborative platform “educationtoday: OECD’s education
lighthouse for the way out of the crisis” where countries can share their experience and jointly
work on solutions over the years to come.


IntroductIon: the IndIcators
and theIr Framework
The organising framework
Education at a Glance – OECD Indicators 2009 provides a rich, comparable and up-to-date array
of indicators that reflect a consensus among professionals on how to measure the current state
of education internationally. The indicators provide information on the human and financial
resources invested in education, on how education and learning systems operate and evolve, and
on the returns to educational investments. The indicators are organised thematically, and each
is accompanied by information on the policy context and the interpretation of the data. The
education indicators are presented within an organising framework that:
• distinguishes between the actors in education systems: individual learners and teachers,
instructional settings and learning environments, educational service providers, and the
education system as a whole;
• groups the indicators according to whether they speak to learning outcomes for individuals
or countries, policy levers or circumstances that shape these outcomes, or to antecedents or
constraints that set policy choices into context; and
• identifies the policy issues to which the indicators relate, with three major categories
distinguishing between the quality of educational outcomes and educational provision, issues
of equity in educational outcomes and educational opportunities, and the adequacy and
effectiveness of resource management.
The following matrix describes the first two dimensions:

1. Education and 2. Policy levers and 3. Antecedents or
learning outputs contexts shaping constraints that
and outcomes educational contextualise
outcomes policy
I. Individual 1.I The quality and 2.I Individual attitudes, 3.I Background
participants in distribution of engagement, and characteristics of the
education and individual educational behaviour to teaching individual learners and
learning outcomes and learning teachers
II. Instructional 1.II The quality of 2.II Pedagogy, learning 3.II Student learning
settings instructional delivery practices and conditions and teacher
classroom climate working conditions

III. Providers of 1.III The output of 2.III School environment 3.III Characteristics of the
educational educational institutions and organisation service providers and
services and institutional their communities
performance
IV. The education 1.IV The overall 2.IV System-wide 3.IV The national
system as a whole performance of the institutional settings, educational, social,
education system resource allocations, economic, and
and policies demographic contexts


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 sub-
heading output and outcomes of education and learning;
• the sub-heading policy levers and contexts groups activities seeking information on the policy
levers or circumstances 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.


IntroductIon

Policy issues
Each of the resulting cells in the framework can then be used to address a variety of issues from
different policy perspectives. For the purpose of this framework, policy perspectives are grouped
into three classes that constitute the third dimension in the organising framework for INES:
• quality of educational outcomes and educational provision;
• equality of educational outcomes and equity in educational opportunities; and
• adequacy, effectiveness and efficiency of resource management.

In addition to the dimensions mentioned above, the time perspective as an additional dimension in
the framework, allows dynamic aspects in the development of education systems to be modelled
also.
The indicators that are published in Education at a Glance 2009 fit within this framework, though
often they speak to more than one cell.
Most of the indicators in Chapter A The output of educational institutions and the impact of learning
relate to the first column of the matrix describing outputs and outcomes of education. Even so,
indicators in Chapter A measuring educational attainment for different generations, for instance,
not only provide a measure of the output of the educational system, but also provide context for
current educational policies, helping to shape polices on, for example, lifelong learning.
Chapter B Financial and human resources invested in education provides indicators that are either
policy levers or antecedents to policy, or sometimes both. For example, expenditure per
student is a key policy measure which most directly impacts on the individual learner as it acts
as a constraint on the learning environment in schools and student learning conditions in the
classroom.
Chapter C Access to education, participation and progression provides indicators that are a mixture
of outcome indicators, policy levers and context indicators. Internationalisation of education and
progression rates are, for instance, outcomes measures to the extent that they indicate the results
of policies and practices in the classroom, school and system levels. But they can also provide
contexts for establishing policy by identifying areas where policy intervention is necessary to, for
instance, address issues of inequity.
Chapter D The learning environment and organisation of schools provides indicators on instruction
time, teachers working time and teachers’ salaries that not only represent policy levers which can
be manipulated but also provide contexts for the quality of instruction in instructional settings
and for the outcomes of learners at the individual level. It also, for the first time, presents data
from the Teaching and Learning International Survey (TALIS) on teacher beliefs, practices, and job
satisfaction as well as the role of teacher appraisal and feedback and the school evaluation system.


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

Calculation of international means
For many indicators an OECD average is presented and for some an OECD total.
The OECD average is calculated as the unweighted mean of the data values of all OECD
countries for which data are available or can be estimated. The OECD average therefore
refers to an average of data values at the level of the national systems and can be used
to answer the question of how an indicator value for a given country compares with the
value for a typical or average country. It does not take into account the absolute size of the
education system in each country.
The OECD total is calculated as a weighted mean of the data values of all OECD countries
for which data are available or can be estimated. It reflects the value for a given indicator
when the OECD area is considered as a whole. This approach is taken for the purpose of
comparing, for example, expenditure charts for individual countries with those of the entire
OECD area for which valid data are available, with this area considered as a single entity.
Note that both the OECD average and the OECD total can be significantly affected by
missing data. Given the relatively small number of countries, no statistical methods are
used to compensate for this. In cases where a category is not applicable (code “a”) in a
country or where the data value is negligible (code “n”) for the corresponding calculation,
the value zero is imputed for the purpose of calculating OECD averages. In cases where
both the numerator and the denominator of a ratio are not applicable (code “a”) for a
certain country, this country is not included in the OECD average.


ReadeR’s Guide

For financial tables using 1995 and 2000 data, both the OECD average and OECD total
are calculated for countries providing 1995, 2000 and 2006 data. This allows comparison
of the OECD average and OECD total over time with no distortion due to the exclusion
of certain countries in the different years.
For many indicators an EU19 average is also presented. It is calculated as the unweighted
mean of the data values of the 19 OECD countries that are members of the European Union
for which data are available or can be estimated. These 19 countries are Austria, Belgium,
the Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Ireland,
Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, the Slovak Republic, Spain, Sweden and
the United Kingdom.

Classification of levels of education
The classification of the levels of education is based on the revised International Standard
Classification of Education (ISCED-97). The biggest change between the revised ISCED
and the former ISCED (ISCED-76) is the introduction of a multi-dimensional classification
framework, allowing for the alignment of the educational content of programmes using
multiple classification criteria. ISCED is an instrument for compiling statistics on education
internationally and distinguishes among six levels of education. The glossary available at
www.oecd.org/edu/eag2009 describes in detail the ISCED levels of education, and Annex 1
shows corresponding typical graduation ages of the main educational programmes by
ISCED level.

Symbols for missing data
Six symbols are employed in the tables and charts to denote missing data:
a Data is not applicable because the category does not apply.
c There are too few observations to provide reliable estimates (i.e. there are fewer
than 3% of students for this cell or too few schools for valid inferences). However,
these statistics were included in the calculation of cross-country averages.
m Data is not available.
n Magnitude is either negligible or zero.
S.E. Standard Error.
w Data has been withdrawn at the request of the country concerned.
x Data included in another category or column of the table (e.g. x(2) means that data
are included in column 2 of the table).
~ Average is not comparable with other levels of education.

Further resources
The website www.oecd.org/edu/eag2009 provides a rich source of information on the
methods employed for the calculation of the indicators, the interpretation of the indicators
in the respective national contexts and the data sources involved.The website also provides
access to the data underlying the indicators as well as to a comprehensive glossary for
technical terms used in this publication.


ReadeR’s Guide

All post-production changes to this publication are listed at www.oecd.org/edu/eag2009.
The website www.pisa.oecd.org provides information on the OECD Programme for
International Student Assessment (PISA), on which many of the indicators in this publication
draw. The website www.oecd.org/edu/talis gives information on the Teaching and Learning
International Survey (TALIS), on which two indicators are based (Indicators D5 and D6).
Education at a Glance uses the OECD’s StatLinks service. Below each table and chart in
Education at Glance 2009 is a url which leads to a corresponding Excel workbook containing
the underlying data for the indicator. These urls are stable and will remain unchanged over
time. In addition, readers of the Education at a Glance e-book will be able to click directly
on these links and the workbook will open in a separate window.

Codes used for territorial entities
These codes are used in certain charts. Country or territorial entity names are used in the
text. Note that throughout the publication, the Flemish Community of Belgium and the
French Community of Belgium may be referred to as “Belgium (Fl.)” and “Belgium (Fr.)”
respectively.

AUS Australia ITA Italy
AUT Austria JPN Japan
BEL Belgium KOR Korea
BFL Belgium (Flemish Community) LUX Luxembourg
BFR Belgium (French Community) MEX Mexico
BRA Brazil NLD Netherlands
CAN Canada NZL New Zealand
CHL Chile NOR Norway
CZE Czech Republic POL Poland
DNK Denmark PRT Portugal
ENG England RUS Russian Federation
EST Estonia SCO Scotland
FIN Finland SVK Slovak Republic
FRA France SVN Slovenia
DEU Germany ESP Spain
GRC Greece SWE Sweden
HUN Hungary CHE Switzerland
ISL Iceland TUR Turkey
IRL Ireland UKM United Kingdom
ISR Israel USA United States


Chapter

A
The OuTpuT Of
educaTiOnal insTiTuTiOns
and The impacT Of learning


INDICATOR A1 TO WHAT LEVEL HAVE ADULTS STUDIED?
This indicator profiles the educational attainment of the adult population as
captured through formal educational qualifications. As such, it provides a proxy
for the knowledge and skills available to national economies and societies. To gauge
the evolution of available skills, trend data on growth in the number of people with
different levels of educational attainment have been added this year. This indicator
also provides data related to the supply of and demand for skilled workers across
OECD countries.

Key results
Chart A1.1. Average annual growth in the population with tertiary education
(1998-2006)
The chart depicts the annual average growth rate in the number of 25-64 year-olds
with tertiary education related to the increase in attainment levels and
to the overall population growth.
Average annual increase in the number of individuals with tertiary education due to:
Attainment rate growth
Overall population growth
The overall growth in the number of individuals who have completed tertiary education provides
a complementary picture to that of attainment levels alone. Countries with growing populations
will not only have to cope with more young individuals eager to invest in tertiary education but
also an increasing overall demand linked to a growing population. The number of individuals that
have attained tertiary education has increased by 7% per year or more in Ireland, Poland, Portugal,
Spain, and Turkey. In Ireland, Spain and Turkey the overall population growth has put additional
strains on the higher education system, whereas this has been of less concern in countries such
as Germany and Japan.

%
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
-1
United States

Greece
Ireland

United Kingdom
Poland
France
Sweden
Austria
Belgium

Italy
Denmark
Netherlands
Finland
Germany
Japan
Slovak Republic

Czech Republic
Canada
Portugal

Australia
OECD average

New Zealand

Switzerland
Hungary
Turkey
Spain

Mexico

Korea

Countries are ranked in descending order of the average annual increase in the number of individuals with tertiary
education due to overall population growth.
Source: OECD. Table A1.4 and Table A1.5. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/edu/eag2009).
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/664024334566


Other highlights of this indicator INDICATOR A1
• With the exception of Germany, Japan, Mexico, Poland, Turkey and the United
States, the number of individuals available to the labour market with below
secondary education decreased between 1998 and 2006, and in some countries
substantially so.
• Upper secondary education has become the norm among younger cohorts in
almost all OECD countries. On average across OECD countries, the proportion
of 25-34 year-olds having attained upper secondary education is 22 percentage
points higher than that of 55-64 year-olds.
• Since 1998, tertiary attainment levels among young adults have also increased
significantly, to 34% among 25-34 year-olds, on average across OECD countries.
This suggests that overall tertiary attainment levels will continue to rise in
the coming years. In France, Ireland, Japan and Korea, there is a difference of
25 percentage points or more in the tertiary attainment of the oldest and youngest
age cohorts.
• Tertiary educated young individuals in the Czech Republic, Hungary, Iceland,
Luxembourg, the Netherlands, and the Slovak Republic and in the partner
country Slovenia continue to have good prospects of finding a skilled job. In these
countries, 85% or more of tertiary educated 25-34 year-olds are employed in
skilled occupations, indicating that those with higher education are in strong
demand.
• Since 1998, young tertiary educated individuals in Austria, Finland, Germany
and Switzerland have improved their prospects of finding a skilled job. At the
same time, young workers without a tertiary education appear to have a good
chance relative to older workers in finding a skilled job, indicating a potential gap
between supply and demand of high-end skills in these countries.


chapter a The OuTpuT Of educaTiOnal insTiTuTiOns and The impacT Of learning

Policy context
A1
A well-educated and well-trained population is essential for the social and economic well-being
of countries. Education plays a key role in providing individuals with the knowledge, skills and
competencies needed to participate effectively in society and in the economy. It also contributes
to the expansion of scientific and cultural knowledge. Educational attainment is a commonly
used proxy for the stock of “human capital”, that is, the skills available in the population and
the labour force. International comparisons of educational attainment assume that the skills and
knowledge taught at each level of education are similar among countries.
In fact, the skill composition of populations varies substantially among countries, depending on
their industry structure and general level of economic development. It is important to understand
the mix of skills available, as well as changes in the skill structure among different age groups, in
order to gain an idea of the current and future supply of skills in the labour market. While the
current economic downturn makes it difficult to forecast future skill demands, it will increase
the incentives for individuals to invest in education, as worsening labour market prospects lower
the opportunity costs of education, such as earnings foregone while studying.
As overall demand for education is likely to rise, thus increasing the supply of more highly
educated individuals to the labour market, it will be crucial to track the demand for these more
skilled workers in the coming years. The International Standard Classification of Occupations
(ISCO) provides an opportunity to relate what is produced by the education system to the
demands of the labour market. In essence, occupational classifications relate to the level of
economic development and demand for skills, and as such provide a measure of the overall need
for education. A key issue for any education system is to supply the labour market with the level
and diversity of skills that employers require. The match between educational attainment and
occupations can thus be seen as a signal of demand for education.

Evidence and explanations
Attainment levels in OECD countries
On average across OECD countries, fewer than one-third of adults (30%) have attained only
primary or lower secondary levels of education, 44% of the adult population has attained an
upper secondary education and more than one-quarter (27%) have attained a tertiary level
qualification (Table A1.1a). However, countries differ widely in the distribution of educational
attainment across their populations.
In 23 out of 29 OECD countries – as well as in the partner countries Estonia, Israel, the Russian
Federation and Slovenia – 60% or more of the population aged 25 to 64 has completed at least
upper secondary education (Table A1.2a). Some countries show a different profile, however. For
instance, in Mexico, Portugal and Turkey and the partner country Brazil, more than two thirds of
the population aged 25 to 64 has not completed upper secondary education. Overall, a comparison
of the levels of educational attainment in younger versus older age groups indicates marked progress
with regard to attainment of upper secondary education, except in the United States (Chart A1.2).
On average across OECD countries, the proportion of 25-34 year-olds having attained at least upper
secondary education is 22 percentage points higher than that of 55-64 year-olds. This increase has
been particularly dramatic in Belgium, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Korea, Portugal and Spain, as well as
in the partner country Chile, all of which have seen an increase in upper secondary attainment of
30 percentage points or more.


To What Level Have Adults Studied ? – INDICATOR A1 chapter a

Chart A1.2. Population that has attained at least upper secondary education (2007)
Percentage, by age group
A1
% 25-34 year-olds 55-64 year-olds
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
United States

Ireland

Greece
Russian Federation1

United Kingdom
Czech Republic
Slovak Republic

Netherlands
Belgium
Australia
New Zealand
OECD average
Luxembourg

Iceland

Spain
Korea

Slovenia
Poland
Canada
Sweden

Finland
Switzerland

Austria
Estonia

France

Italy

Mexico
Chile2
Brazil
Portugal

Turkey
Israel
Hungary
Denmark
Germany

Norway

1.Year of reference 2002.
Countries are ranked in descending order of the percentage of the 25-34 year-olds who have attained at least upper secondary
education.
Source: OECD. Table A1.2a. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/edu/eag2009).
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/664024334566

In countries where the adult population generally has a high level of educational attainment,
differences among age groups are less pronounced (Table A1.2a). In the 10 OECD countries
where more than 80% of 25-64 year-olds have at least upper secondary attainment, the difference
in the proportion of 25-34 year-olds and 55-64 year-olds having attained at least upper secondary
level is, on average, 13 percentage points. In Germany and the United States, the proportion of
population with upper secondary education and more is almost the same for all age groups. For
countries with more room for growth, the average gain in attainment between these age groups
is typically large, but situations differ widely. In Norway, the difference between 25-34 year-olds
and 55-64 year-olds is 7 percentage points; in Korea it is 59 percentage points.
In almost all countries, 25-34 year-olds have higher tertiary attainment levels than the generation
about to leave the labour market (55-64 year-olds). On average across OECD countries, 34% of
the younger cohort has completed tertiary education, compared with 20% of the oldest cohort,
while the average for the total population of 25-64 year-olds is 28%. The expansion of tertiary
education differs substantially among countries. In France, Ireland, Japan and Korea there is a
difference of 25 percentage points or more in tertiary attainment of the oldest and youngest age
cohorts (Table A1.3a).



This rapid expansion of the tertiary sector has put Japan and Korea in the top group together
A1 with Canada and the partner country the Russian Federation with over 50% of the younger
cohort having attained tertiary education (Chart A1.3). Attainment levels between the youngest
and oldest cohorts have changed by 5 percentage points or less in Austria, the Czech Republic,
the United States and the partner country Brazil and close to zero or negative in Germany and
the partner country Israel. Attainment levels in the total population are still substantially above
the OECD average in the United States and Israel, whereas in the case of the other four countries
in this group, attainment levels are below the OECD average.

Chart A1.3. Population that has attained at least tertiary education (2007)
Percentage, by age group

% 25-34 year-olds 55-64 year-olds
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Ireland

United States

Greece
Russian Federation1

Slovak Republic
Czech Republic
Canada
Korea

Japan
New Zealand

Finland

United Kingdom

Mexico
Norway
Israel
France
Belgium
Australia

Denmark
Sweden

Spain

Netherlands
Luxembourg
Switzerland
Estonia
OECD average
Iceland
Slovenia
Poland

Germany
Hungary
Portugal

Austria
Italy
Chile2

Turkey
Brazil

Countries are ranked in descending order of the percentage of the 25-34 year-olds who have attained at least tertiary education.
Source: OECD. Table A1.3a. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/edu/eag2009).
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/664024334566

Trends in attainment levels in OECD countries
Measurements of the progress in attainment levels across age cohorts provide a rough
representation of the evolution of human capital in different countries. Trends in attainment
levels provide a more nuanced picture, enabling examination of the evolution of attainment over
time. Trends will in some circumstances reveal slight differences from analyses of attainment
levels by age cohorts, because attainment levels are not evenly distributed within an age cohort.


To What Level Have Adults Studied ? – IndIcAtor A1 chapter a

Attainment levels have also risen as a consequence of 25-64 adults having acquired higher
qualifications after completing initial education. Furthermore, immigration can in some countries
A1
make a big impact on attainment levels over time.
Trends in attainment levels over time thus provide a complementary picture of the progress of
human capital available to the economy and society. Table A1.4 presents the trends in educational
attainment in the adult population (25-64 year-olds). In 1997, on average across OECD
countries, 37% of the population had not completed upper secondary education, 43% had
completed upper secondary and post-secondary non-tertiary education and another 20% had
completed tertiary education. These figures have changed quite dramatically over the past ten
years as a consequence of efforts to move people into higher educational levels. The proportion
of the adult population with below upper secondary education has fallen to 30%, the proportion
with tertiary attainment has risen to 27%, while the proportion of the population with upper
secondary and post-secondary non-tertiary education has remained unchanged at 43%.
The big change in the educational attainment of the adult population over the past decade has thus
been at the low and high ends of the skill distribution. The average annual growth rate in tertiary
attainment levels has exceeded 5% in Italy, Poland, and Portugal, although it should be noted that
overall levels of tertiary attainment in these countries were low at the beginning of the decade.The
proportion of the population with below upper secondary education decreased by 5% or more
per year in the Czech Republic, Finland, Hungary and Poland. Only Portugal and Spain have seen
growth rates above 5% for upper secondary and post-secondary non-tertiary attainment.
Attainment levels offer good overall assessment of the skill distribution and how this distribution
has evolved over time. However, as noted in Chart A1.1 the actual production of the education
system can, in many instances, diverge quite substantially from what is apparent in measures of
attainment levels.Table A1.5 provides estimates of the average annual growth of the total number
of individuals in the adult population in different educational levels between 1998 and 2006. The
number of individuals with tertiary education available to the labour market has grown by an
average of 4.5% per year across OECD countries. Some of this growth is due to individuals in
older age cohorts, with lower levels of tertiary attainment, having retired. Nevertheless, the
total investments made in human capital and the overall change in the supply of highly educated
individuals during this period is impressive.
The average annual growth in the adult population with an upper secondary and post-secondary
non-tertiary education has been substantially below that of tertiary education. This reflects the
fact that many individuals have already achieved this level of education. The total number of
individuals who have not completed an upper secondary education has decreased by an average of
1.9% per year during this period.With the exception of Germany, Japan, Mexico, Poland,Turkey
and the United States, the number of individuals with below secondary education available to the
labour market decreased between 1998 and 2006, and in some countries substantially so.

Attainment levels and links with skilled jobs
Governments that seek to expand tertiary education have often considered that an advanced
knowledge economy needs more high-level skills and thus requires educating a much greater
proportion of the workforce beyond the secondary level. The capacity of the labour market to
accommodate increasing numbers of individuals with tertiary education depends on industry



structure as well as the general level of economic development.The composition of occupational
A1 categories in a country captures these factors to some extent. The distribution of occupations
reflects the importance of different sectors and of high-end skills for the economy. The ISCO
classification of occupations thus provides a further opportunity to look more closely at the
match between the education system and the labour market in different countries.
The prospect of higher educated individuals finding a skilled job depends to a large extent on
tertiary attainment levels relative to skilled jobs in the country and the change in these two
components of supply and demand over time. Table A1.6 presents the proportion of tertiary and
below tertiary educated individuals in skilled occupations, by age cohorts.The ISCO occupational
categories 1-3 are classified as skilled jobs and include: Legislators, senior officials and managers
(ISCO 1); Professionals (ISCO 2); and Technician and associate professionals (ISCO 3). For more
extensive explanations on occupational distributions see Education at a Glance 2008. Table A1.6
confirms expectations that higher education provides greater access to more skilled occupations.
On average across OECD countries, about a quarter of those without a tertiary qualification
succeed in obtaining a skilled job; for those with tertiary qualifications this figure rises to more
than 80%. The overall proportions of individuals holding skilled jobs have been relatively stable
over the period (1998 and 2006) for both tertiary and below tertiary educated individuals,
suggesting that the demand-side has kept up with the influx of more educated individuals.
Younger cohorts are typically more sensitive to changes in supply and demand for skills as they
try to get a foothold in the labour market. Column 6 in Table A1.6 shows the percentage point
change in the proportion 25-34 year-olds with tertiary education holding skilled jobs between
1998 and 2006. There has been a marginal decrease in the proportion of young individuals
who have succeeded in obtaining skilled jobs during the period, but this differs widely among
countries. Chart A1.4 shows these changes (on the right-hand side) and the percentage of the
25-34 year-old cohort currently (2006) employed in skilled jobs (on the left-hand side).
Young tertiary educated individuals in Sweden, Poland and Portugal have seen the labour market
for skilled jobs deteriorate over the period with 13, 11 and 8 percentage point decreases in the
proportion of 25-34 year-olds employed in skilled jobs. At the other extreme, tertiary educated
25-34 year-olds in Austria, Finland, Germany and Switzerland have seen their prospects of finding
a skilled job improved between 4 and 9 percentage points over the period. Both of these groups
of countries have reverted to the OECD mean, where countries now cluster just above or at the
OECD average, with 79% of the younger tertiary educated cohort employed in skilled jobs.
Higher educated young individuals in the Czech Republic, Hungary, Iceland, Luxembourg, the
Netherlands, and the Slovak Republic and in the partner country Slovenia continue to have good
prospects for finding a skilled job. In these countries, 85% or more of the tertiary educated
25-34 year-olds are employed in skilled jobs, indicating that those with higher education are still
in strong demand. Tertiary educated individuals in Canada, Ireland, Spain and the United States
generally have more difficulty in finding jobs to match their skill levels.
Another way to look at the supply of and demand for high-end skills is to examine how access
to skilled jobs changes across age cohorts. As individuals accumulate more human capital over
time, from a lifelong learning perspective one would expect more individuals to move up into
skilled jobs progressively across age cohorts.This seems particularly true in countries with strong
vocational training systems.


Informe de la Ocde 2009

Recomendados

Recomendados

Más contenido relacionado

Destacado

Destacado (17)

Similar a Informe de la Ocde 2009

Similar a Informe de la Ocde 2009 (20)

Más de Luis Huesca

Más de Luis Huesca (13)

Último

Último (20)

Informe de la Ocde 2009