Education at a Glance - OCDE 2013

2013
Education at a Glance 2013
OECD indicators

Education at a Glance
2013
OECD indicators

The statistical data for Israel are supplied by and under the responsibility of the relevant Israeli authorities. The use
of such data by the OECD is without prejudice to the status of the Golan Heights, East Jerusalem and Israeli settlements
in the West Bank under the terms of international law.
Photo credits:
Stocklib Image Bank © Cathy Yeulet
Fotolia.com © Feng Yu
Getty Images © blue jean images
© OECD 2013
You can copy, download or print OECD content for your own use, and you can include excerpts from OECD publications, databases
and multimedia products in your own documents, presentations, blogs, websites and teaching materials, provided that suitable
acknowledgement of OECD as source and copyright owner is given. All requests for public or commercial use and translation rights
should be submitted to rights@oecd.org. Requests for permission to photocopy portions of this material for public or commercial use
shall be addressed directly to the Copyright Clearance Center (CCC) at info@copyright.com or the Centre français d’exploitation du droit
de copie (CFC) at contact@cfcopies.com.
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.
This document and any map included herein are without prejudice to the status of or
sovereignty over any territory, to the delimitation of international frontiers and boundaries
and to the name of any territory, city or area.
Please cite this publication as:
OECD (2013), Education at a Glance 2013: OECD Indicators, OECD Publishing.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/eag-2013-en
ISBN 978-92-64-20104-0 (print)
ISBN 978-92-64-20105-7 (PDF)

Education at a Glance 2013: OECD Indicators   © OECD 2013 3
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 and Skills 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 light of other countries’ performance
and, together with the OECD 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 country’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 Indicators of Education Systems
(INES) programme and the OECD Secretariat. The publication was prepared by the staff of the Innovation
and Measuring Progress Division of the OECD Directorate for Education and Skills, under the responsibility
of Dirk Van Damme and Corinne Heckmann and in co-operation with Etienne Albiser, Simone Bloem,
Rodrigo Castaneda-Valle, Eric Charbonnier, Estelle Herbaut, Karinne Logez, Koji Miyamoto, Joris Ranchin,
Cuauhtemoc Rebolledo-Gomez, Gara Rojas González, David Valenciano, and Jean Yip. Administrative support
was provided by Rhodia Diallo, editing of the report was undertaken by Marilyn Achiron, and additional
advice as well as analytical and editorial support were provided by Gwenaelle Barach, Marika Boiron,
Célia Braga‑Schich, Elizabeth Del Bourgo, Caroline Israël, Diane Lalancette and Ignacio Marin. The
authoring team benefited from the analytical review of Sam Abrams, Francesco Avvisati, Tracey Burns,
Sonia Guerriero, Hiroko Ikesako, David Istance, Marco Kools, Katarzyna Kubacka, Pauline Musset, Anna Pons,
Miho Taguma, Willam Thorn, Juliana Zapata and Pablo Zoido. Production of the report was co‑ordinated
by 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. This presents
various challenges and trade-offs. 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 should be as
comparable as possible, they also need to be as country-specific as is necessary to allow for historical, systemic
and cultural differences between countries. Third, the indicators need to be presented in as straightforward a
manner as possible, while remaining sufficiently complex to reflect multi-faceted 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.

Foreword
Education at a Glance 2013: OECD Indicators   © OECD 20134
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 Survey
of Adult Skills, a product of the Programme for the International Assessment of Adult Competencies (PIAAC),
as well as the OECD Teaching and Learning International Survey (TALIS), are major efforts to this end.

Table of Contents
Number of
the indicator
in the
2012 edition
Editorial ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 13
Introduction............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 17
Reader’s Guide..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 21
Chapter A The output of Educational institutions and the impact
of learning................................................................................................................................................................................................... 25
Indicator A1 To what level have adults studied?.................................................................................................................................... 26
Table A1.1a Educational attainment of 25-64 year-olds (2011).........................................................................................35
Table A1.2a Percentage of the population that has attained at least upper secondary
education, by age group (2011)....................................................................................................................................................36
Table A1.3a Percentage of the population that has attained tertiary education,
by type of programme and age group (2011)...........................................................................................................37
Table A1.4a Trends in educational attainment, by age group, and average annual
growth rate (2000-11)..............................................................................................................................................................................38
Table A1.5a Educational attainment of 25-64 year-olds, by programme orientation
and gender (2011)..........................................................................................................................................................................................40
Indicator A2 How many students are expected to complete upper secondary education?........ 42
Table A2.1a Upper secondary graduation rates and average ages (2011)..............................................................50
Table A2.1b Upper secondary graduation rates for students under 25 (2011)...................................................51
Table A2.2a Trends in first-time graduation rates at upper secondary level (1995-2011)..................52
Table A2.3a Distribution of upper secondary vocational graduates, by field of education
and gender (2011)..........................................................................................................................................................................................53
Indicator A3 How many students are expected to complete tertiary education?............................... 54
Table A3.1a Tertiary graduation rates and average ages (2011)..........................................................................................61
Table A3.1b Tertiary graduation rates among students under the typical age
at graduation (2011)...................................................................................................................................................................................62
Table A3.2a Trends in tertiary graduation rates (1995-2011)...............................................................................................63
Indicator A4 How many students complete tertiary education?.................................................................................. 64
Table A4.1 Completion rates in tertiary education (2011)......................................................................................................71
Table A4.2 Completion rates in tertiary-type A education, by status
of enrolment (2011)....................................................................................................................................................................................72
Indicator A5 How does educational attainment affect participation
in the labour market? .......................................................................................................................................................................... 74
Table A5.1a Employment rates among 25-64 year-olds, by educational
attainment (2011)..........................................................................................................................................................................................86
A1
A2
A3
A7

Table of Contents
Number of
the indicator
in the
2012 edition
Table A5.1b Employment rates among 25-64 year-olds, by educational attainment
and gender (2011)..........................................................................................................................................................................................87
Table A5.2a Unemployment rates among 25-64 year olds, by educational
attainment (2011)..........................................................................................................................................................................................89
Table A5.2b Unemployment rates among 25-64 year-olds, by educational attainment
and gender (2011)..........................................................................................................................................................................................90
Table A5.3a Employment rates, by educational attainment and age group
(2000, 2005, 2008 and 2011).........................................................................................................................................................92
Table A5.4a Unemployment rates, by educational attainment and age group
(2000, 2005, 2008 and 2011).........................................................................................................................................................94
Table A5.5a Labour market status among 25-64 year-olds, by educational attainment
and programme orientation (2011).......................................................................................................................................96
Table A5.6 Proportion of full-time, full-year earners among all earners, by educational
attainment and age group (2011).............................................................................................................................................97
Indicator A6 What are the earnings premiums from education?.............................................................................100
Table A6.1 Relative earnings of adults with income from employment, by educational
attainment, gender and age group (2011)...................................................................................................................111
Table A6.2a Trends in relative earnings of 25-64 year-olds with income from employment,
by educational attainment (2000-11).............................................................................................................................113
Table A6.2b Trends in relative earnings of 25-64 year-old men with income from employment,
Table A6.2c Trends in relative earnings of 25-64 year-old women with income
from employment, by educational attainment (2000-11).................................................................117
Table A6.3a Differences in earnings between women and men, by educational attainment
and age group (2011)..............................................................................................................................................................................119
Table A6.3b Trends in the differences in earnings between 25-64 year-old women and men,
Table A6.5a Relative earnings of 15-24 year-old students, by educational attainment
and gender (2011)......................................................................................................................................................................................122
Table A6.5b Share of young adults with income from employment among all young adults,
by gender, age group and student status (2011).............................................................................................124
Indicator A7 What are the incentives to invest in education?......................................................................................126
Table A7.1a Private costs and benefits for a man attaining upper secondary or post-secondary
non-tertiary education (2009)...................................................................................................................................................140
Table A7.1b Private costs and benefits for a woman attaining upper secondary
or post-secondary non-tertiary education (2009)........................................................................................141
Table A7.2a Public costs and benefits for a man attaining upper secondary or post-secondary
non-tertiary education (2009)....................................................................................................................................................142
Table A7.2b Public costs and benefits for a woman attaining upper secondary
or post-secondary non-tertiary education (2009)..........................................................................................143
Table A7.3a Private costs and benefits for a man attaining tertiary education (2009)..................144
A9
A8

Table of Contents
Number of
the indicator
in the
2012 edition
Table A7.3b Private costs and benefits for a woman attaining tertiary education (2009).........145
Table A7.4a Public costs and benefits for a man attaining tertiary education (2009).....................146
Table A7.4b Public costs and benefits for a woman attaining tertiary education (2009)............147
Indicator A8 What are the social outcomes of education?..................................................................................................148
Table A8.1 Proportion of obese adults, by level of educational attainment
and gender (2011)......................................................................................................................................................................................154
Table A8.2 Proportion of adults who smoke, by level of educational attainment
and gender (2011)......................................................................................................................................................................................155
Table A8.3 Percentage-point differences in the “likelihood of being obese” associated
with an increase in the level of educational attainment (2011)................................................156
Table A8.4 Percentage-point differences in the “likelihood of smoking” associated
with an increase in the level of educational attainment (2011)................................................157
Chapter B Financial and Human Resources Invested in Education...............159
Indicator B1 How much is spent per student?......................................................................................................................................162
Table B1.1a Annual expenditure per student by educational institutions
for all services (2010).............................................................................................................................................................................174
Table B1.2 Annual expenditure per student by educational institutions for core services,
ancillary services and R&D (2010)......................................................................................................................................175
Table B1.3a Cumulative expenditure per student by educational institutions for all services
over the average duration of tertiary studies (2010)................................................................................176
Table B1.4 Annual expenditure per student by educational institutions for all services,
relative to GDP per capita (2010).........................................................................................................................................177
Table B1.5a Change in expenditure per student by educational institutions for all services,
relative to different factors, at the primary, secondary and post-secondary
non-tertiary levels of education (1995, 2000, 2005, 2010)............................................................178
Table B1.5b Change in expenditure per student by educational institutions for all services,
relative to different factors, at the tertiary level of education
(1995, 2000, 2005, 2010)................................................................................................................................................................179
Table B1.6 Annual expenditure per student by educational institutions for all services,
by type of programme, at the secondary level (2010)..............................................................................180
Indicator B2 What proportion of national wealth is spent on education?................................................182
Table B2.1 Expenditure on educational institutions as a percentage of GDP,
by level of education (1995, 2000, 2005, 2010)...............................................................................................191
by level of education (2010).........................................................................................................................................................192
by source of fund and level of education (2010)..............................................................................................193
Table B2.4 Expenditure on educational institutions, by service category,
as a percentage of GDP (2010)..................................................................................................................................................194
Table B2.5 Change in public expenditure on educational institutions as a percentage
of GDP (2008, 2009, 2010)............................................................................................................................................................195
B1
A11
B2

Table of Contents
Number of
the indicator
in the
2012 edition
Indicator B3 How much public and private investment in education is there?.................................196
Table B3.1 Relative proportions of public and private expenditure on educational
institutions for all levels of education (2000, 2010)..................................................................................205
Table B3.2a Relative proportions of public and private expenditure on educational
institutions, by level of education (2000, 2010)..............................................................................................206
Table B3.2b Relative proportions of public and private expenditure on educational
institutions, for tertiary education (2000, 2010)..........................................................................................207
Table B3.3 Trends in relative proportions of public expenditure on educational institutions
and index of change between 1995 and 2010, for tertiary education..............................208
Table B3.4 Annual public expenditure on educational institutions per student,
by type of institution (2010).......................................................................................................................................................209
Indicator B4 What is the total public spending on education?....................................................................................210
Table B4.1 Total public expenditure on education (2010)...................................................................................................218
Table B4.2 Total public expenditure on education (1995, 2000, 2005 and 2010).............................219
Table B4.3 Sources of public educational funds, for primary, secondary and post-secondary
non-tertiary education, by level of government (2010).......................................................................220
Indicator B5 How much do tertiary students pay and what public support
do they receive?...........................................................................................................................................................................................222
Table B5.1 Estimated annual average tuition fees charged by tertiary-type A educational
institution for national students (2011)....................................................................................................................232
Table B5.2 Distribution of financial aid to students compared to amount of tuition fees
charged in tertiary-type A education, national students and first degree
programmes (2011)..................................................................................................................................................................................234
Table B5.3 Average tuition fees charged by institutions, by field of education (2011)...............235
Table B5.4 Public support for households and other private entities as a percentage of total
public expenditure on education and GDP, for tertiary education (2010) ................236
Indicator B6 On what resources and services is education funding spent?.............................................238
Indicator B7 Which factors influence the level of expenditure on education?...................................240
Table B7.1 Salary cost of teachers per student, by level of education (2011)...........................................250
Table B7.2a Factors used to compute the salary cost of teachers per student,
in primary education (2000, 2005 and 2011).....................................................................................................251
Table B7.2b Factors used to compute the salary cost of teachers per student,
in lower secondary education (2000, 2005, 2011).......................................................................................253
Table B7.3 Contribution of various factors to salary cost of teachers per student,
in primary education (2000, 2005 and 2011).....................................................................................................255
Table B7.4a Contribution of various factors to salary cost of teachers per student,
in lower secondary education (2000, 2005 and 2011)............................................................................256
Table B7.5a Contribution of various factors to salary cost of teachers per student,
in upper secondary education (2011).............................................................................................................................257
B4
B3
B5
B6
B7
Web

Table of Contents
Number of
the indicator
in the
2012 edition
Chapter C Access to Education, participation and progression........................259
Indicator C1 Who participates in education?.........................................................................................................................................260
Table C1.1a Enrolment rates, by age (2011)................................................................................................................................................269
Table C1.2 Trends in enrolment rates (1995-2011)......................................................................................................................270
Table C1.3 Upper secondary and post-secondary non-tertiary enrolment patterns (2011).......271
Table C1.4 Students in primary and secondary education, by percent share in type
of institution or mode of enrolment (2010)..........................................................................................................272
Table C1.5 Students in tertiary education, by percent share in type of institution
or mode of enrolment (2011).....................................................................................................................................................273
Table C1.6a Expected years in education from age 5 through age 39 (2011)...............................................274
Indicator C2 How do early childhood education systems differ around the world?...................276
Table C2.1 Enrolment rates in early childhood and primary education, by age
(2005, 2011).......................................................................................................................................................................................................286
Table C2.2 Characteristics of early childhood education programmes (2010, 2011)....................287
Table C2.3 Characteristics of education-only and integrated early childhood education
programmes (2011)..................................................................................................................................................................................288
Indicator C3 How many students are expected to enter tertiary education?.......................................290
Table C3.1a Entry rates into tertiary education and average age of new entrants (2011)....................299
Table C3.1b Entry rates into tertiary education of students under the typical
age of entry (2011)....................................................................................................................................................................................300
Table C3.2a Trends in entry rates at the tertiary level (1995-2011)........................................................................301
Table C3.3a Distribution of tertiary new entrants, by field of education (2011)...................................302
Indicator C4 Who studies abroad and where?........................................................................................................................................304
Table C4.1 International student mobility and foreign students in tertiary education
(2005, 2011)........................................................................................................................................................................................................317
Table C4.2 Distribution of international and foreign students enrolled in tertiary
programmes, by field of education (2011)...............................................................................................................318
Table C4.3 Distribution of international and foreign students in tertiary education,
by country of origin (2011)..............................................................................................................................................................319
Table C4.4 Citizens studying abroad in tertiary education, by country of destination (2011)......321
Table C4.5 Mobility patterns of foreign and international students (2011).............................................323
Table C4.6 Trends in the number of foreign students enrolled in tertiary education,
by region of destination and origin (2000 to 2011)...................................................................................324
Indicator C5 Transition from school to work: Where are the 15-29 year-olds?................................326
Table C5.1a Expected years in education and not in education for 15-29 year-olds,
by work status (2011).............................................................................................................................................................................337
Table C5.2a Percentage of 15-29 year-olds in education and not in education, by work status,
including duration of unemployment (2011)......................................................................................................338
Table C5.3a Percentage of 15-29 year-olds in education and not in education,
by work status, including part-time workers (2011).................................................................................339
C2
C3
C1
C5
C4

Table of Contents
Number of
the indicator
in the
2012 edition
Table C5.4a Trends in the percentage of young people in education and not in education,
employed or not, by 5-year age group (1997-2011)...................................................................................340
Table C5.5a Percentage of 15-29 year-olds in education and not in education, by educational
attainment and work status, including duration of unemployment (2011)............343
Table C5.6 Percentage of 15-29 year-olds in education and not in education, by educational
attainment and work status, including part-time (PT) workers (2011).........................346
Table C5.7 Trends in the percentage of 15-29 year-old part-time (PT) and full-time (FT)
workers in education and not in education (2006-11)...........................................................................349
Chapter D The Learning Environment and Organisation of Schools..........351
Indicator D1 How much time do students spend in the classroom?....................................................................352
Table D1.1 Compulsory and intended instruction time in public institutions (2011).................360
Table D1.2a Instruction time per subject in primary education (2011)...............................................................361
Table D1.2b Instruction time per subject in lower secondary education (2011)......................................362
Indicator D2 What is the student-teacher ratio and how big are classes?..................................................364
Table D2.1 Average class size, by type of institution and level of education (2011).......................374
Table D2.2 Ratio of students to teaching staff in educational institutions (2011)...........................375
Table D2.3 Ratio of students to teaching staff by type of institution (2011)...........................................376
Indicator D3 How much are teachers paid?................................................................................................................................................378
Table D3.1 Teachers’ statutory salaries at different points in their careers (2011)..........................388
Table D3.2 Comparison of teachers’ salaries (2011).....................................................................................................................390
Table D3.3 Average actual teachers’ salaries (2011)......................................................................................................................391
Table D3.4 Trends in teachers’ salaries between 2000 and 2011...............................................................................392
Indicator D4 How much time do teachers spend teaching?..............................................................................................394
Table D4.1 Organisation of teachers’ working time (2011)................................................................................................401
Table D4.2 Number of teaching hours per year (2000 and 2005-11)...................................................................402
Indicator D5 Who are the teachers?......................................................................................................................................................................404
Annex 1 Characteristics of education systems.................................................................................407
Table X1.1a Upper secondary graduation rate: Typical graduation ages and method
used to calculate graduation rates (2011).................................................................................................................408
Table X1.1b Post-secondary non-tertiary graduation rates: Typical graduation ages
and method used to calculate graduation rates (2011)..........................................................................410
Table X1.1c Tertiary graduation rate: Typical graduation ages and method used
to calculate graduation rates (2011).................................................................................................................................411
Table X1.1d Tertiary entry rate: Typical age of entry and method used to calculate
entry rates (2011).......................................................................................................................................................................................413
Table X1.2a School year and financial year used for the calculation of indicators,
OECD countries.............................................................................................................................................................................................414
Table X1.2b School year and financial year used for the calculation of indicators,
other G20 countries.................................................................................................................................................................................415
D2
D1
D3
D4
D5Web

Table of Contents
Number of
the indicator
in the
2012 edition
Annex 2 Reference statistics...........................................................................................................................................................417
Table X2.1 Overview of the economic context using basic variables
(reference period: calendar year 2010, 2010 current prices).........................................................418
Table X2.2a Basic reference statistics (reference period: calendar year 2010,
2010 current prices)................................................................................................................................................................................419
Table X2.2b Basic reference statistics (reference period: calendar year 1995, 2000,
2005, 2010)..........................................................................................................................................................................................................420
Table X2.3a Teachers’ statutory salaries at different points in their careers (2011)..........................421
Table X2.3b Trends in teachers’ salaries, between 2000 and 2011.............................................................................423
Table X2.3c Reference statistics used in calculating teachers’ salaries (2000, 2005-11)..............425
Annex 3 Sources, methods and technical notes...............................................................................427
Contributors to this publication.........................................................................................................................................................................................429
Related OECD publications..........................................................................................................................................................................................................435
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.

Editorial
Learning their way out:
Youth, education and skills in the midst
of the crisis
This edition of Education at a Glance comes at a time when youth unemployment keeps policy makers awake
at night. Between 2008 and 2011 – the years to which most data in this volume refer – unemployment rates
climbed steeply in most countries and have remained high ever since. Young people have been particularly
hard-hit by un- and underemployment as a result of the global recession. In 2011, the average proportion of
15-29 year-olds neither in employment nor in education or training (NEET) across OECD countries was 16%;
among 25-29 year-olds, 20% were NEET. (Among this latter group, 40% were unemployed, more than half of
them for more than six months; the rest did not participate in the labour market at all.) In some countries
the figures are much higher, with more than one in three people between the ages of 25 and 29 neither in
education nor in work. These young people are forced to pay a very high price for a crisis that was not of their
making, with long-lasting consequences for their skills, work morale and social integration. The demoralising
short‑term effects for individuals, families and communities demand urgent policy responses, while the longer-
term ramifications, in terms of skills loss, scarring effects and de-motivation, are real and affect countries’
potential for sustainable recovery.
The distribution of unemployment within the younger generation sheds light on some of the factors that may
increase the risk of joblessness, which, in turn, offers insights for policy responses. Most notably, educational
attainment has a huge impact on employability, and the crisis has strengthened this impact even further. On
average across OECD countries, 4.8% of individuals with a tertiary degree were unemployed in 2011, while
12.6% of those lacking a secondary education were. Between 2008 and 2011 the unemployment gap between
those with low levels of education and those with high levels of education widened: across all age groups, the
unemployment rate for low-educated individuals increased by almost 3.8 percentage points, while it increased
by only 1.5 percentage points for highly educated individuals. Without the foundation skills provided by a
minimum level of education, people find themselves particularly vulnerable in an insecure labour market.
The crisis has also produced ample evidence that a good education provides valuable insurance against a lack of
work experience: the impact of educational attainment on unemployment is much greater for younger people
than it is for older adults. Across OECD countries, an average of 18.1% of 25-34 year-olds without secondary
education were unemployed in 2011, compared with 8.8% of 55-64 year-olds. Among 25-34 year-olds with a
tertiary qualification, an average of 6.8% were unemployed, compared with 4.0% of 55-64 year-olds with a
similar level of education.
Nevertheless, that fact that these troubling trends are far from universal indicates that they are not
inevitable. There are large differences between countries in the way the recession has shaped the social reality
for young people. The steep increases in youth unemployment between 2008 and 2011, especially among
low-educated young people, in countries such as Estonia (a 17.6 percentage-point increase in unemployment
among 25‑34 year‑olds without a secondary education), Greece (15.0 percentage-point increase), Ireland
(21.5 percentage-point increase) and Spain (16.0 percentage-point increase) are well-known. Less known
is that, during the same period, some countries saw drops in unemployment among low-skilled youth,
including Austria (-3.3 percentage points), Chile (-3.6 percentage points), Germany (-2.1 percentage points),
Israel (-0.9 percentage point), Korea (-1.6 percentage points), Luxembourg (-1.0 percentage point) and
Turkey (-1.7 percentage points). Several other countries were able to contain the increases within more or
less tolerable levels.

Editorial
Though many factors play a role in a country’s capacity to contain the rise in youth unemployment in
times of crisis, the way institutional arrangements between education and work facilitate transitions
into employment is perhaps one of the most important. This year’s Education at a Glance provides more
detailed data on programme orientation (general versus vocational) in secondary and tertiary education.
Countries with relatively high numbers of 25-34 year-old graduates from vocationally oriented programmes
succeeded in reducing the risk of unemployment among young people with upper secondary education as
their highest level of attainment. Countries that have a higher-than-average (32%) proportion of graduates
from vocational programmes, such as Austria, the Czech Republic, Germany and Luxembourg, were all
able to keep the increases in unemployment rates among this age group to below 8 percentage points.
Conversely, countries such as Greece, Ireland and Spain, where less than 25% of young adults graduate
from vocational upper secondary education, saw increases in unemployment rates of 12 percentage points
or more among 25-34 year-olds with only secondary education. For young people who do not continue into
tertiary education, vocational education clearly offers better prospects for their employability than general,
more academically oriented upper secondary education.
Vocational education and training (VET) systems thus play a critical role in strengthening countries’ capacity
to deal with rapidly changing labour-market conditions. Several OECD countries have developed policies to
improve and expand VET programmes at the upper secondary and post-secondary non-tertiary levels in order
to equip young people with the skills the labour market demands. These programmes often include intensive
workplace training and are based on extensive partnerships between schools and enterprises. Between 2005
and 2011, the number of students graduating from upper secondary vocational programmes increased by
an average of 4.3% across OECD countries. In several countries, notably Austria, Belgium, Finland, Ireland,
Portugal and Spain, this increase exceeded 10%.
We can further improve our understanding of how qualifications are related to labour-market outcomes
by delving into the actual content of qualifications, rather than simply classifying them by level. This
year’s edition explores some data on graduates’ field of study. While data from only a limited number of
countries are examined, these data show a wide variation in unemployment rates among tertiary graduates
in different fields of study. Interestingly, this variation does not fully reflect the segmentation in labour
demand and wages found more broadly in the economy and in the labour market. For example, in the
United States, the unemployment rate for graduates from the high-paying field of computer and information
systems (5.3%) was higher than the unemployment rate for graduates of relatively low-paying secondary
teaching programmes (2.4%), which had one of the lowest unemployment figures of any programme. The
relationship between students’ career choices, skill development in a particular field of study, and actual
employability is more complex than often assumed.
Educational attainment not only affects employability, as EducationataGlance shows, but also has an impact on
income from employment. On average, the relative earnings of tertiary-educated adults is over 1.5 times that
of adults with upper secondary education, while individuals without an upper secondary education earn 25%
less, on average, than their peers who have attained that level of education. The crisis has widened this wage
gap: the average difference between earnings from employment between low-educated and highly educated
individuals was 75% across OECD countries in 2008, increasing to 90% in 2011.
Individuals lacking the foundation skills provided by a complete secondary education cannot expect their
incomes to rise substantially as they grow older. Indeed, the wage gap between those with low and high levels
of education tends to increase with age. Without a secondary education, 25-34 year-olds earn 80% of what
their colleagues with a secondary education earn, on average, but 55-64 year-olds earn only 72% of what their
more-educated peers earn. The wage premium for higher education increases with age. A 25-34 year-old with
a tertiary education earns 40% more, on average, than an adult of the same age who has only a secondary
education, while a 55-64 year-old earns 76% more. Educational attainment – besides a successful start in
employment – thus has long-lasting and mutually reinforcing effects over a lifetime. A higher education degree
clearly pays off in the long run.

Editorial
Given the close relationship between education, employment and earnings, young people develop strategies
to improve their life chances by investing in education. In recent years, they literally learned their way out
of the crisis. When opportunity costs declined and it seemed better to postpone entry into an insecure
labour market, many young adults opted to equip themselves with more competitive skills before trying to
enter the world of work. In most countries, increased demand for post-compulsory education more than
compensated for the demographic decline in these age groups. In 2011, the OECD average for 15-19 year‑olds
enrolled in education was 85%; and the proportion of 20-29 year-olds in education climbed from 23% in
2000 to 29% in 2011. As a consequence, the proportion of adults with tertiary-level qualifications rose by
more than 10 percentage points between 2000 and 2011, while the share of adults without a secondary
education qualification dropped by the same rate. Across OECD countries, 39% of 25-34 year-olds had a
tertiary qualification in 2011.
The changes in enrolment rates, employment rates and investment in education observed in the first years of
the recession indicate how education and skills determine the way individuals, families and societies as a whole
fared during the most challenging economic and social crisis in recent history. Highly educated young people
from fields of study in high demand found a job easily, ending up in a “high skills – high wage” equilibrium, and
could envisage a prosperous life ahead of them. For others, a tertiary qualification did not bring the expected
rewards, either because the labour market was contracting too much – often protecting older generations
at the expense of the youngest generation of workers – or because their chosen field of study was already
saturated or not aligned with the needs of the labour market. Over-schooling and under-employment then
resulted in frustration. Young adults with an upper secondary qualification were able to survive the jobs crisis
if they were the beneficiaries of programmes that prepared them well for work. Those who hadn’t attained a
complete secondary education, and so lacked the foundation skills needed to survive in a complex economy,
often found themselves at the wrong end of the skills-based polarisation, stuck in a “low skills – low wage”
equilibrium or in long-term unemployment with very little prospects for improvement.
High youth unemployment is not inevitable, even during an economic crisis; it is the product of the interaction
between the economic context and particular policies. And, as the data collected during the early years of this
crisis show, the amount of public spending on education has little to do with a country’s success or failure in
containing youth unemployment: nearly all governments maintained more or less their level of investment
in education throughout the crisis. What matters more are the choices countries make in how to allocate that
spending and the policies they design to improve the efficiency and relevance of the education they provide.
Data and policy experiences in countries show which kinds of policies are effective in boosting young people’s
employability: ensuring that all young people achieve both a good level of foundation skills and “soft” skills,
such as teamwork, communication and negotiation, that will give them the resilience they need to succeed in
an ever-changing labour market; reducing school dropout rates and making sure that as many young people
as possible complete at least an upper secondary education (if necessary, through second-chance education
opportunities); making secondary education relevant to the skill needs of the labour market; developing
vocational education and training, and bridging education to the world of work by including work-based
learning; securing flexible pathways into tertiary education; and providing good study and career guidance
services so that young people can make sound, informed career decisions. These are exactly the policies that
the OECD Youth Action Plan, adopted at the OECD Ministerial Meeting in May 2013, is advocating to improve
the prospects for young people and for societies as a whole.
Angel Gurría
OECD Secretary-General

Introduction:
the Indicators and their Framework
The organising framework
Education at a Glance 2013: OECD Indicators offers a rich, comparable and up-to-date array of indicators that
reflects a consensus among professionals on how to measure the current state of education internationally. The
indicators provide information on the human and financial resources invested in education, how education and
learning systems operate and evolve, and the returns to 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 address 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
and distribution
of individual
educational
outcomes
2.I. Individual attitudes,
engagement,
and behaviour
to teaching and
learning
3.I. Background
characteristics
of the individual
learners and
teachers
II. Instructional
settings
1.II. The quality
of instructional
delivery
2.II. Pedagogy, learning
practices and
classroom climate
3.II. Student learning
conditions and
teacher working
conditions
III. Providers of
educational services
1.III. The output of
educational
institutions and
institutional
performance
2.III. School environment
and organisation
3.III. Characteristics
of the service
providers and
their communities
IV. The education
system as a whole
1.IV. The overall
performance of
the education
system
2.IV. System-wide
institutional
settings, resource
allocations, and
policies
3.IV. The national
educational,
social, economic,
and demographic
contexts

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. Therefore, past analyses
that have relied on macro-level data alone have sometimes led to misleading conclusions.
Outcomes, policy levers and antecedents
The second dimension in the organising framework further groups the indicators at each of the above levels:
• indicators on observed outputs of education systems, as well as indicators related to the impact of knowledge
and skills for individuals, societies and economies, are grouped under the sub-heading output and outcomes of
education and learning;
• the sub-heading policy levers and contexts groups activities seeking information on the policy levers or
circumstances 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.
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.

Introduction
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 as well.
The indicators that are published in Education at a Glance 2013 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 education 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 that
most directly affects the individual learner, as it acts as a constraint on the learning environment in schools and
learning conditions in the classroom.
Chapter C, Access to education, participation and progression, provides indicators that are a mixture of outcome
indicators, policy levers and context indicators. Internationalisation of education and progression rates are,
for instance, outcomes measures to the extent that they indicate the results of policies and practices at the
classroom, school and system levels. But they can also provide contexts for establishing policy by identifying
areas where policy intervention is necessary to, 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
individual learners. It also presents data on the profile of teachers, the levels of government at which decisions
in education systems are taken, and pathways and gateways to gain access to secondary and tertiary education.
The reader should note that this edition of Education at a Glance covers a significant amount of data from non-
OECD G20 countries (please refer to the Reader’s Guide for details).

Reader’s Guide
Coverage of the statistics
Although a lack of data still limits the scope of the indicators in many countries, the coverage extends,
in principle, to the entire national education system (within the national territory), regardless of who
owns or sponsors the institutions concerned and regardless of how education is delivered. With one
exception (described below), all types of students and all age groups are included: children (including
students with special needs), adults, nationals, foreigners, and students in open-distance learning,
in special education programmes or in educational programmes organised by ministries other than
the Ministry of Education, provided that the main aim of the programme is to broaden or deepen an
individual’s knowledge. However, children below the age of three are only included if they participate
in programmes that typically cater to children who are at least three years old. Vocational and technical
training in the workplace, with the exception of combined school- and work-based programmes that are
explicitly deemed to be part of the education system, is not included in the basic education expenditure
and enrolment data.
Educational activities classified as “adult” or “non-regular” are covered, provided that the activities
involve the same or similar content as “regular” education studies, or that the programmes of which
they are a part lead to qualifications similar to those awarded in regular 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 34 OECD member countries, two non-OECD
countries that participate in the OECD Indicators of Education Systems programme (INES), namely
Brazil and the Russian Federation, and the other G20 countries that do not participate in INES
(Argentina, China, India, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia and South Africa). When data for these latter six
countries are available, data sources are specified below the tables and charts.
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; for some, an OECD total is shown.
The OECD average is calculated as the unweighted mean of the data values of all OECD countries for
which data are available or can be estimated. The OECD average therefore refers to an average of data
values at the level of the national systems and can be used to answer the question of how an indicator
value for a given country compares with the value for a typical or average country. It does not take into
account the absolute size of the education system in each country.
The OECD total is calculated as the weighted mean of the data values of all OECD countries for which
data are available or can be estimated. It reflects the value for a given indicator when the OECD area is
considered as a whole. This approach is taken for the purpose of comparing, for example, expenditure
charts for individual countries with those of the entire OECD area for which valid data are available,
with this area considered as a single entity.

Reader’s Guide
Both the OECD average and the OECD total can be significantly affected by missing data. Given the
relatively small number of countries surveyed, no statistical methods are used to compensate for this.
In 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, 2000 and 2005 data, both the OECD average and OECD total are
calculated for countries providing 1995, 2000, 2005 and 2009 data. This allows for a 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 EU21 average is also presented. It is calculated as the unweighted mean of the
data values of the 21 countries that are members of both the European Union and the OECD for which
data are available or can be estimated. These 21 countries are Austria, Belgium, the Czech Republic,
Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, the
Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Slovenia, the Slovak Republic, Spain, Sweden and the United Kingdom.
For some indicators, a G20 average is presented. The G20 average is calculated as the unweighted mean
of the data values of all G20 countries for which data are available or can be estimated (Argentina,
Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, Korea, Mexico, the
Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, Turkey, the United Kingdom and the United States; the
European Union is the 20th member of the G20 but is not included in the calculation). The G20 average
is computed if data for either China or India, or both, are available.
Classification of levels of education
The classification of the levels of education is based on the International Standard Classification
of Education (ISCED 1997). ISCED 1997 is an instrument for compiling statistics on education
internationally and distinguishes among six levels of education. ISCED 1997 was recently revised, and
the new International Standard Classification of Education (ISCED 2011) was formally adopted in
November 2011. This new classification will be implemented in the data collection in May 2014.
Term used in this publication ISCED classification (and subcategories)
Pre-primary education
The first stage of organised instruction designed to introduce very
young children to the school atmosphere. Minimum entry age of 3.
ISCED 0
Primary education
Designed to provide a sound basic education in reading, writing
and mathematics and a basic understanding of some other
subjects. Entry age: between 5 and 7. Duration: 6 years.
ISCED 1
Lower secondary education
Completes provision of basic education, usually in a more subject
oriented way with more specialist teachers. Entry follows 6 years
of primary education; duration is 3 years. In some countries, the
end of this level marks the end of compulsory education.
ISCED 2 (subcategories: 2A prepares students for
continuing academic education, leading to 3A; 2B
has stronger vocational focus, leading to 3B; 2C
offers preparation of entering workforce)
Upper secondary education
Stronger subject specialisation than at lower secondary level, with
teachers usually more qualified. Students typically expected to
have completed 9 years of education or lower secondary schooling
before entry and are generally 15 or 16 years old.
ISCED 3 ISCED 3 (subcategories: 3A prepares
students for university-level education at level
5A; 3B for entry to vocationally oriented tertiary
education at level 5B; 3C prepares students for
workforce or for post-secondary non-tertiary
education at level ISCED 4)

Reader’s Guide
Post-secondary non-tertiary education
Internationally, this level straddles the boundary between upper
secondary and post-secondary education, even though it might be
considered upper secondary or post-secondary in a national context.
Programme content may not be significantly more advanced than
that in upper secondary, but is not as advanced as that in tertiary
programmes. Duration usually the equivalent of between 6 months
and 2 years of full-time study. Students tend to be older than those
enrolled in upper secondary education.
ISCED 4 ISCED 4 (subcategories: 4A may
prepare students for entry to tertiary education,
both university level and vocationally oriented;
4B typically prepares students to enter the
workforce)
Tertiary education ISCED 5 (subcategories: 5A and 5B; see below)
Tertiary-type A education
Largely theory-based programmes designed to provide sufficient
qualifications for entry to advanced research programmes and
professions with high skill requirements, such as medicine, dentistry
or architecture. Duration at least 3 years full-time, though usually
4 or more years. These programmes are not exclusively offered
at universities; and not all programmes nationally recognised
as university programmes fulfil the criteria to be classified as
tertiary-type A. Tertiary-type A programmes include second-degree
programmes, such as the American master’s degree.
ISCED 5A
Tertiary-type B education
Programmes are typically shorter than those of tertiary-type
A and focus on practical, technical or occupational skills for
direct entry into the labour market, although some theoretical
foundations may be covered in the respective programmes. They
have a minimum duration of two years full-time equivalent
at the tertiary level.
ISCED 5B
Advanced research programmes
Programmes that lead directly to the award of an advanced research
qualification, e.g. Ph.D. The theoretical duration of these programmes
is 3 years, full-time, in most countries (for a cumulative total of
at least 7 years full-time equivalent at the tertiary level), although
the actual enrolment time is typically longer. Programmes are
devoted to advanced study and original research.
ISCED 6
The glossary available at www.oecd.org/edu/eag.htm also describes these levels of education in detail, and
Annex 1 shows the typical age of graduates of the main educational programmes, by ISCED level.
Symbols for missing data and abbreviations
These symbols and abbreviations are used in the tables and charts:
a Data is not applicable because the category does not apply.
c There are too few observations to provide reliable estimates (e.g. in PISA, there are fewer than
30 students or fewer than five schools with valid data). However, these statistics were included
in the calculation of cross-country averages.
m Data is not available.
n Magnitude is either negligible or zero.
r Values are below a certain reliability threshold and should be interpreted with caution (see
Annex 3 for country-specific definitions).
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.

Reader’s Guide
Further resources
The website www.oecd.org/edu/eag.htm is a rich source of information on the methods used to calculate
the indicators, on the interpretation of the indicators in the respective national contexts, and on the
data sources involved. The website also provides access to the data underlying the indicators and to a
comprehensive glossary for technical terms used in this publication.
All post-production changes to this publication are listed at www.oecd.org/edu/eag.htm.
Education at a Glance uses the OECD StatLinks service. Below each table and chart in Education at a
Glance 2013 is a URL that 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.
ARG Argentina LUX Luxembourg
AUS Australia MEX Mexico
AUT Austria NLD Netherlands
BEL Belgium NOR Norway
BFL Belgium (Flemish Community) NZL New Zealand
BFR Belgium (French Community) POL Poland
BRA Brazil PRT Portugal
CAN Canada RUS Russian Federation
CHE Switzerland SAU Saudi Arabia
CHL Chile SCO Scotland
CHN China SVK Slovak Republic
CZE Czech Republic SVN Slovenia
DEU Germany SWE Sweden
DNK Denmark TUR Turkey
ENG England UKM United Kingdom
ESP Spain USA United States
EST Estonia ZAF South Africa
FIN Finland
FRA France
GRC Greece
HUN Hungary
IDN Indonesia
IND India
IRL Ireland
ISL Iceland
ISR Israel
ITA Italy
JPN Japan
KOR Korea

The Output of
Educational Institutions
and the Impact of Learning
A
Chapter
Indicator A1 To what level have adults studied?
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888932847982
Indicator A2 How many students are expected to complete upper secondary education?
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888932848191
Indicator A3 How many students are expected to complete tertiary education?
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888932848343
Indicator A4 How many students complete tertiary education?
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888932848476
Indicator A5 How does educational attainment affect participation in the labour market?
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888932848533
Indicator A6 What are the earnings premiums from education?
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888932848856
Indicator A7 What are the incentives to invest in education?
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888932849084
Indicator A8 What are the social outcomes of education?
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888932849255

Indicator A1
To what level have adults studied?
• The rate of tertiary education attainment among adults in OECD countries has increased by
almost 10 percentage points since 2000.
• In most OECD countries, 25-34 year-olds have the highest rate of tertiary attainment among
all adults by an average of 7 percentage points.
• Gender gaps in educational attainment are not only narrowing, in some cases, they are
reversing.
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888932846215
Context
Educational attainment is frequently used as a measure of human capital and the level of an
individual’s skills, in other words, a measure of the skills available in the population and the labour
force. The level of educational attainment is the percentage of a population that has reached a
certain level of education. Higher levels of educational attainment are strongly associated with
higher employment rates and are perceived as a gateway to better labour opportunities and earnings
premiums. Individuals have strong incentives to pursue more education, and governments have
incentives to build on the skills of the population through education, particularly as national
economies continue to shift from mass production to knowledge economies.
Overthepastdecades,almostallOECDcountrieshaveseensignificantincreasesintheeducational
attainment of their populations. Tertiary education has expanded markedly, and in most OECD
countries, an upper secondary qualification (ISCED 3) has become the most common education
level attained by young people. Some countries have introduced policy initiatives to more closely
align the development of particular skills with the needs of the labour market through vocational
education and training (VET) programmes. These policies seem to have had a major impact on
educational attainment in several OECD countries where upper secondary VET qualifications are
the most common qualifications held among adults.
Indicators in this volume show that gender differences persist in educational attainment,
employment rates and earnings. In OECD countries, younger women have higher attainment
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
%
Korea
Japan
Canada
RussianFederation
Ireland
UnitedKingdom
Norway
Luxembourg
NewZealand
Israel
Australia
UnitedStates
France
Sweden
Belgium
Chile
Switzerland
Netherlands
Finland
Iceland
Poland
Spain
Estonia
OECDaverage
Denmark
Slovenia
Greece
Hungary
Germany
Portugal
SlovakRepublic
CzechRepublic
Mexico
Austria
Italy
Turkey
Brazil
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/eag.htm).
25-34 year-olds 25-64 year-olds
Chart A1.1. Population that has attained tertiary education (2011)
Percentage, by age group

Indicator A1
rates than younger men in upper secondary and tertiary education. Nonetheless, overall, adult
men have higher attainment rates than adult women in upper secondary education. Despite
the fact that a larger proportion of women than men now have a tertiary education, women’s
employment rates and wages are lower than those of tertiary-educated men (see Indicators A5
and A6).
The relationship between education and demand for skills is explored further in labour-market
indicators on employment and unemployment (see Indicator A5), earnings (see Indicator A6),
incentives to invest in education (see Indicator A7) and transitions from school to work (see
Indicator C5).
Other findings
• The proportion of adults with no upper secondary education shrank by about 10 percentage
points over the past decade.
• Even if tertiary attainment rates have increased in recent years, less than 35% of both men
and women attain tertiary education.
• Among 30-34 year-olds, more than 40% of women have a tertiary education – surpassing
the rate of men with that level of education by about 8 percentage points.
Trends
Since 2000, tertiary attainment rates have been increasing in both OECD and non-OECD
G20 countries; upper secondary and post-secondary non-tertiary attainment levels have
remained stable; and the proportion of people with below upper secondary education decreased
in most OECD countries. Between 2000 and 2011 the proportion of adults with below upper
secondary education shrank by almost 10 percentage points while tertiary attainment increased
by about the same degree. However, changes in attainment rates vary greatly between age groups.
The differences in tertiary attainment rates between 25-34 year-olds and 55-64 year-olds can
range from over 50 percentage points in Korea to the inverse (i.e. fewer younger adults than older
adults with tertiary attainment) in Israel.
Note
In this publication, different indicators show the level of education among individuals, groups
and countries. Indicator A1 shows the level of attainment, i.e. the percentage of a population
that has successfully completed a given level of education. Graduation rates in Indicators A2 and
A3 measure the estimated percentage of younger adults who are expected to graduate from a
particular level of education during their lifetimes. Completion rates from tertiary programmes
in Indicator A4 estimate the proportion of students who enter a programme and complete it
successfully within a certain period of time.

chapter A The Output of Educational Institutions and the Impact of Learning
A1
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
%
CzechRepublic
SlovakRepublic
Poland
Austria
Hungary
Slovenia
Germany2
Japan3
Estonia
Sweden4
UnitedStates3
OECDaverage
Luxembourg
Finland
Denmark
Switzerland
Norway
Chile3
France
Italy
NewZealand
Greece
Korea3
RussianFederation3
Netherlands
Iceland
Canada
UnitedKingdom3
Ireland
Belgium
Israel
Australia
Brazil3
Spain
Mexico3
Turkey
Portugal3
1. Excluding ISCED 3C short programmes.
2. Persons with ISCED 4A attainment in Germany have successfully completed both a general and a vocational programme. In this chart they have
been allocated to vocational.
3. Countries for which no information about programme orientation is available.
4. Figures for Sweden include about 10% of 25-64 year-olds who have attained ISCED 3 or 4 in programmes that cannot be allocated by orientation.
Countries are ranked in descending order of the percentage of 25-64 year-olds with upper secondary or post-secondary non-tertiary attainment (ISCED 3/4)
regardless of the orientation of the programmes.
Upper secondary or post-secondary non-tertiary (ISCED 3/4) with general orientation
Upper secondary or post-secondary non-tertiary (ISCED 3/4) with vocational orientation
Upper secondary or post-secondary non-tertiary (ISCED 3/4) with no distinction by orientation
Chart A1.2. Population whose highest level of attainment is upper secondary
or post-secondary non-tertiary education (2011)1
Percentage of 25-64 year-olds who have attained ISCED level 3 or 4 as the highest level, and programme orientation
Analysis
Attainment levels in OECD countries
Upper secondary attainment and the weight of vocational education and training (VET)
Moreadults(25-64year-olds)haveattaineduppersecondaryeducation(includingpost-secondarynon-tertiary
education, but excluding upper secondary short programmes, i.e. ISCED levels 3A, 3B, 3C long and 4; see the
Reader’s Guide for definitions of ISCED levels) than have attained any other level of education across OECD
countries. More than a third of the population in most OECD countries, and more than half the population
in Austria, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Germany, Hungary, Japan, Poland, the Slovak Republic, Slovenia and
Sweden have attained an upper secondary education as the highest level of attainment (Table A1.4a).
Only in Mexico, Portugal and Turkey, less than 20% of the population attained upper secondary education
as the highest level of education; and these countries, together with Italy and Spain, are the sole countries in
which the proportion of people with below upper secondary education is larger than the proportion of adults
with upper secondary education or with tertiary attainment (Table A1.4a).
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888932846234
Chart A1.2 shows that the difference in upper secondary attainment rates between adults in vocational and
general tracks is substantial in many OECD countries. In Austria, the Czech Republic, Germany, Poland, the
Slovak Republic and Slovenia, at least half the population has attained upper secondary or post-secondary
non-tertiary VET qualifications as the highest level of attainment; however in these countries, people tend to
leave education after attaining upper secondary qualifications (Table A1.5a).

A1
To what level have adults studied? – Indicator A1 chapter A
Box A1.1. Public-private partnership in VET
In some countries, such as Austria, Germany, Luxembourg and Switzerland, public-private partnerships
in vocational education and training (VET) are a longstanding tradition and play an important
role in preparing students for the labour market. Their importance is reflected in the high levels of
upper secondary attainment, graduation and enrolment in these countries (Tables A1.1a, A1.5a and
Indicators A2 and C1).
Also known as “dual” or “co-operative” systems of vocational education and training, these partnerships
are characterised by:
• their links between work- and school-based learning to prepare apprentices for a successful transition
to full-time employment;
• the high degree of engagement on the part of employers and other social partners;
• the opportunity for governments to share education costs with the private sector;
• the opportunity for enterprises to acquire a young, employable workforce and reduce advertising,
hiring and induction costs; and
• the opportunity for trainees to benefit from highly motivating earning and learning situations, to
take responsibility, and to develop personally and professionally.
One of the strengths of dual VET systems is that several stakeholders, including experts from workplace
practice and from VET schools, employers and trade unions, are involved in developing vocational training
regulations and curricular frameworks. While the private sector generally assumes responsibility for
practical training, the vocational school inculcates the theoretical knowledge necessary for practicing a
profession. This partnership ensures that the needs of both companies and employees are met. The binding
requirements of the training regulations and the curricular framework guarantee a national standard while
giving companies the flexibility to agree a training plan with trainees. This is largely why the transition from
education to first employment is notably smooth (Table C5.2a, Tables C5.2b, c and d [available on line]) and
the youth unemployment rate is below the OECD average across these countries.
Nevertheless, labour-market initiatives and systemic measures are needed to balance the effects of
economic downturns and to support particular sub-groups, such as migrants and students with special
needs. In Austria, for example, graduates of compulsory schooling who do not have a place at an upper
secondary school or cannot find a place in a company-based apprenticeship programme are given the
opportunity to learn an apprenticeship trade at a supra-company training institution financed by Public
Employment Service Austria (Arbeitsmarktservice, AMS).
Thesesystemsshowthatobtaininganacademicqualificationisnottheonlywayforindividualstogainthe
skills needed in today’s labour market. Upgraded training for higher positions provides a real alternative
to a degree in higher education, and is highly regarded both by individuals and society in general. In
Germany and Switzerland, qualifications obtained through advanced vocational training and from trade
and technical schools lead to recognised occupational certificates and titles, providing a means of career
advancement without a university degree. Advanced vocational training builds on initial training and
leads to qualifications such as “master craftsman” that are regarded as equivalent to academic degrees.
To emphasise the equivalence of general and vocational education, new pathways to tertiary education
have been opened for VET graduates.
However, despite the similarities of systems in Austria, Germany, Luxembourg and Switzerland,
the international diversity of VET systems is large. The OECD has carried out extensive work in the
assessment of the challenges of VET systems throughout OECD countries in the reviews Learning for Jobs
(OECD, 2010) and Skills beyond School (OECD, 2013).

A1
Through upper secondary VET programmes, students can acquire the skills, knowledge and practical
experience relevant to specialised occupations, and young people can prepare for entry into the labour market
(see Box A1.1, which provides details on the VET systems in Austria, Germany, Luxembourg and Switzerland).
However, reliable data on these systems is scarce and international comparisons are difficult to establish,
especially for tertiary programmes. Not only do VET systems vary greatly among countries, but even when
VET education is an important part of an education system, as it is in several countries, it is usually eclipsed
in prestige by general education (OECD, 2010 and 2013) (see Table A1.5a and Table A1.5b, available on line).
Tertiary attainment
Over the past decade, tertiary attainment (including advanced research programmes, i.e. ISCED levels 5A, 5B
and 6) has increased by almost 10 percentage points across OECD countries. On average, 33% of adult women
and 30% of adult men have attained tertiary education (Table A1.3b, available on line). In most OECD countries,
younger adults have a higher rate of tertiary attainment than all adults by an average of 7 percentage points. In
15 countries, this difference is larger than the OECD average, and is larger than 10 percentage points in Chile,
France, Japan, Korea and Poland (Chart A1.1).
Despite this increase, only in Australia, Canada, Ireland, Israel, New Zealand, Spain and the United Kingdom
are attainment rates for tertiary education higher than those for upper secondary education. In Korea, rates
for both upper secondary and tertiary education are almost equal. Spain is the only country in this group
where there are more adults with below upper secondary education than adults who have attained a tertiary
education (Table A1.4a).
There is an important difference between upper secondary and tertiary education attainment. Data show that
high upper secondary attainment rates do not necessarily imply high tertiary education attainment rates. This
is particularly true for countries with strong upper secondary or post-secondary non-tertiary (ISCED levels 3
and 4) VET systems.
One reason for this are the strong links between upper secondary attainment and the labour market, links that
are likely to have an effect on an individual’s decision to continue in education. This disparity may also reflect
the difficulties encountered when switching between programme tracks in the transition to tertiary level,
the dissuasive effects of tuition fees and related loans, or the feeling that studies beyond compulsory or VET
education will delay entry into the labour market and wage-earning.
Trends in attainment levels in OECD countries
Evolution of educational attainment
Nowadays there are more people participating in education than ever before. Differences between generations
in educational attainment and growth in tertiary and secondary attainment are reflected in the trends in
attainment rates. On average, since 2000 the proportion of people with no upper secondary education decreased
and the proportion of people with tertiary education grew in most OECD countries. Upper secondary and post-
secondary non-tertiary attainment levels have remained stable in most OECD countries during the same period.
Australia, Canada, Ireland, Japan, Korea, Luxembourg, Poland, Switzerland and the United Kingdom have
reported a growth in tertiary attainment rates of more than 10 percentage points between 2000 and 2011.
As shown in Chart A1.3, countries in the upper right quadrant not only have already-high attainment levels
but the difference between generations is considerable: attainment rates among younger adults (25-34 year-
olds) are higher than those among older adults (55-64 year-olds). In Japan, Poland and most notably Korea, the
gap between the two age groups in tertiary attainment is larger than 25 percentage points. In contrast, there is
less than a 10 percentage-point difference between the two age groups in Austria, Brazil, Estonia, Finland, the
Russian Federation and Turkey. In Germany and the United States, the difference in attainment rates between
the two age groups is slightly more than 1 percentage point, while in Israel, the proportion of older adults
with tertiary education is slightly larger than that of younger adults. The lower left quadrant shows countries
where tertiary attainment rates are below the OECD average and where rates have not increased much from
one generation to the next (Chart A1.3).

A1
To what level have adults studied? – Indicator A1 chapter A
Between 2000 and 2011, in Australia, Belgium, Finland, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Korea,
Luxembourg, New Zealand, Portugal, Spain and the United Kingdom, the share of adults who have only a
below upper secondary education decreased by more than 10 percentage points. At the opposite extreme, the
share of people in Denmark and Norway without an upper secondary education grew by about 3 percentage
points in the same period (Table A1.4a).
Generational differences and gender
In most OECD countries, younger adults (25-34 year-olds) have attained higher levels of education than older
adults (55-64 year-olds). On average, 82% of younger adults have attained at least upper secondary education
compared to 64% of older adults (Table A1.2a). Younger adults also have higher tertiary attainment rates
than older adults by about 15 percentage points. In some countries, the difference between generations is
significant. In Korea, for example, there is a 51 percentage-point gap between these two age groups in tertiary
attainment levels. Belgium, Chile, France, Ireland, Japan, Luxembourg, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Slovenia,
Spain and the United Kingdom also have above-average differences in attainment rates between the two age
groups. By contrast, in Germany and the United States, differences between age groups are very small; and
in Israel, the proportion of younger adults with a tertiary education is slightly smaller than the proportion of
older adults with that level of education (Table A1.3a).
Austria
Belgium
Canada
Chile
Estonia
Germany
Greece
Ireland
Israel
Italy
Japan
Korea
Mexico
Poland
Portugal
Turkey
Brazil
Hungary Sweden
Slovenia
Denmark
Russian
Federation
United States
France
Czech Republic
Slovak Republic
Netherlands
Luxembourg
Switzerland
New Zealand
Norway
Finland
United Kingdom
OECD
average Spain
Iceland
OECDaverage
OECD average
Australia
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
-10
Diﬀerence between the populations of 25-34 and 55-64 year-olds
with tertiary education (percentage points)
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Proportion of 25-64 year-olds
with tertiary education (%)
Chart A1.3. Proportion of population with tertiary education and difference in attainment
between 25-34 and 55-64 year-olds (2011)
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888932846253

A1
Chart A1.4, which focuses on the population with at least upper secondary education, i.e. those individuals with
upper secondary or post-secondary non-tertiary education or tertiary education, shows how attainment levels
vary between men and women across countries and generations. Generational differences are particularly
striking among women. On average, there is a 24 percentage-point difference in attainment rates in upper
secondary and tertiary education between younger (84%) and older (60%) women. This gap suggests that
there has been strong growth in upper secondary and tertiary education attainment rates among the younger
generations of women in most OECD countries (Chart A1.4, and Table A1.3b, available on line).
Generational differences in attainment rates among men are similar to those among women but less
pronounced. Across almost all OECD countries, except Estonia, Germany, Iceland, Norway and the
United States, the proportion of younger men who have attained at least upper secondary education is equal
to or larger than the proportion of older men with the same attainment level (Chart A1.4).
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
%
Korea
Slovenia
Poland
RussianFederation
SlovakRepublic
CzechRepublic
Canada
Finland
Sweden
Israel
UnitedStates
Estonia
Switzerland
Chile
Ireland
Hungary
Austria
Germany
Australia
Norway
France
UnitedKingdom
Luxembourg
Netherlands
OECDaverage
Denmark
Greece
Belgium
NewZealand
Iceland
Italy
Spain
Portugal
Brazil
Mexico
Turkey
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
%
Korea
Slovenia
Poland
RussianFederation
SlovakRepublic
CzechRepublic
Canada
Finland
Sweden
Israel
UnitedStates
Estonia
Switzerland
Chile
Ireland
Hungary
Austria
Germany
Australia
Norway
France
UnitedKingdom
Luxembourg
Netherlands
OECDaverage
Denmark
Greece
Belgium
NewZealand
Iceland
Italy
Spain
Portugal
Brazil
Mexico
Turkey
Note: These calculations exclude ISCED 3C short programmes.
Countries are ranked in descending order of the attainment rates of 25-34 year-old women who have attained at least upper secondary education.
Source: OECD. Table A1.2b, available on line. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/edu/eag.htm).
55-64 year-olds25-34 year-olds
Men
Women
Chart A1.4. Population that has attained at least upper secondary education (2011)
Percentage, by age group and gender
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888932846272

Education at a Glance - OCDE 2013

Education at a Glance - OCDE 2013

Recomendados

Recomendados

Más contenido relacionado

La actualidad más candente

La actualidad más candente (20)

Destacado

Destacado (20)

Similar a Education at a Glance - OCDE 2013

Similar a Education at a Glance - OCDE 2013 (20)

Más de FLE Liberdade de Educação

Más de FLE Liberdade de Educação (20)

Último

Último (20)

Education at a Glance - OCDE 2013