EDUCATION - OECD · 2018-03-01 · OECD countries scored between 400 and 600. In 2009 PISA survey, with a slightly wider range of OECD countries, the average score changed for each

OUTCOMES INTERNATIONAL STUDENT ASSESSMENT

DISADVANTAGES IN SCHOOLS CAREER ASPIRATIONS OF 15-YEAR-OLDS

YOUTH INACTIVITY HOW MANY STUDENTS STUDY ABROAD?

EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT

RESOURCES EDUCATIONAL EXPENDITURE PER STUDENT

PRIVATE EXPENDITURE IN TERTIARY EDUCATION EDUCATION EXPENDITURE

EDUCATION

INTERNATIONAL STUDENT ASSESSMENTHow effective are school systems at providing youngpeople with a solid foundation in the knowledge andskills that will equip them for life and learning beyondschool? The OECD Programme for International StudentAssessment (PISA) assesses student knowledge and skillsat age 15, i.e. toward the end of compulsory education.The PISA 2009 survey focused on reading, but for the firsttime, also assessed the ability of students to read,understand and use digital texts.

DefinitionThe PISA survey covers reading, mathematics andscience. In the 2009 round of PISA, one hour of testingtime was devoted to reading, half an hour was devoted tomathematics and half an hour to science. Each studentspent two hours on the assessment items. In 19countries, students were given additional questions viacomputer to assess their capacity to read digital texts.

Reading literacy is the capacity to understand, use andreflect on written texts in order to achieve one’s goals,develop one’s knowledge and potential, and participatein society. Mathematical literacy is the capacity toidentify and understand the role that mathematics playsin the world, make well-founded judgements, and usemathematics in ways that meet the needs of concernedand reflective citizens. Scientific literacy is the capacityto use scientific knowledge to identify questions, acquirenew knowledge, explain scientific phenomena, and drawevidence-based conclusions about science-related issues.

The original PISA scales for reading (major domain in2000 PISA survey), mathematics (major domain in 2003PISA survey) and science (major domain in 2006 PISAsurvey) were set at 500 points for participating OECDcountries as approximately two-third of students acrossOECD countries scored between 400 and 600. In 2009 PISAsurvey, with a slightly wider range of OECD countries,the average score changed for each domain: 493 pointsfor reading, 496 for mathematics and 501 for science.

OverviewThe graph shows the difference between the OECDaverage score in reading (493 score points) and the meanscores of individual countries. As it did in PISA 2006,Korea tops all participating OECD countries in reading.The reading scores of the United States, Sweden,Germany, Ireland, France, Denmark, the United Kingdom,Hungary and Portugal are not significantly different fromthe OECD average. The graph also shows results formathematics relative to the OECD average (496 scorepoints). While most countries that do well in one subjectalso do well in the other, some countries show significantdifferences: Switzerland, for example, has better scores inmathematics than in reading, while the opposite is truefor Indonesia.The table presents scores by gender. As in PISA 2006, girlsdo significantly better in reading than boys in allcountries, with an average gender gap of 39 score points.Conversely, boys outperform girls in mathematics by anaverage of 12 score points. On average, there is no gendergap in science performance, although in some countries,there are significant differences. For example, in theUnited States, boys perform significantly better in sciencethan girls, while in Finland the opposite is true.

ComparabilityLeading experts in countries participating in PISA adviseon the scope and nature of the assessments, with finaldecisions taken by OECD governments. Substantialefforts and resources are devoted to achieving culturaland linguistic breadth and balance in the assessmentmaterials. Stringent quality assurance mechanisms areapplied in translation, sampling and data collection.

Over 520 000 15-year-old students in 75 participatingcountries or economies were assessed in PISA 2009.Because the results are based on probability samples,standard errors (S.E.) are normally shown in the tables.

Sources• OECD (2010),

PISA 2009 Results: What Students Know and Can Do:Student Performance in Reading, Mathematics andScience (Volume I), PISA, OECD Publishing.

• OECD (2007),PISA 2006: Science Competencies for Tomorrow’s World:Volume 1: Analysis, PISA, OECD Publishing.

Further informationAnalytical publications• OECD (2010), PISA 2009 Results (series), OECD

Publishing.• OECD (2012), Education at a Glance, OECD Publishing.• OECD (2012), Highlights from Education at a Glance,

OECD Publishing.

Statistical publications• OECD (2010), PISA 2009 at a Glance, OECD Publishing.

Methodological publications• OECD (2009),

PISA 2009 Assessment Framework: Key Competencies inReading, Mathematics and Science, PISA, OECDPublishing.

• OECD (2009),PISA Data Analysis Manual: SAS, Second Edition, PISA,OECD Publishing.

• OECD (2009),PISA Data Analysis Manual: SPSS, Second Edition, PISA,OECD Publishing.

Online databases• OECD PISA Database.

Websites• Programme for International Student Assessment

(PISA), www.pisa.oecd.org.

EDUCATION • OUTCOMES

OECD Factbook 2013 © OECD 2012 - Preliminary Version

Mean scores by gender in PISA2009

Reading scale Mathematics scale Science scaleFemales Males Females Males Females Males

Meanscore

S.E. Meanscore

S.E. Meanscore

S.E. Meanscore

S.E. Meanscore

S.E. Meanscore

S.E.

Australia 533 (2.6) 496 (2.9) 509 (2.8) 519 (3.0) 528 (2.8) 527 (3.1)Austria 490 (4.0) 449 (3.8) 486 (4.0) 506 (3.4) 490 (4.4) 498 (4.2)Belgium 520 (2.9) 493 (3.4) 504 (3.0) 526 (3.3) 503 (3.2) 510 (3.6)Canada 542 (1.7) 507 (1.8) 521 (1.7) 533 (2.0) 526 (1.9) 531 (1.9)Chile 461 (3.6) 439 (3.9) 410 (3.6) 431 (3.7) 443 (3.5) 452 (3.5)Czech Republic 504 (3.0) 456 (3.7) 490 (3.0) 495 (3.9) 503 (3.2) 498 (4.0)Denmark 509 (2.5) 480 (2.5) 495 (2.9) 511 (3.0) 494 (2.9) 505 (3.0)Estonia 524 (2.8) 480 (2.9) 508 (2.9) 516 (2.9) 528 (3.1) 527 (3.1)Finland 563 (2.4) 508 (2.6) 539 (2.5) 542 (2.5) 562 (2.6) 546 (2.7)France 515 (3.4) 475 (4.3) 489 (3.4) 505 (3.8) 497 (3.5) 500 (4.6)Germany 518 (2.9) 478 (3.6) 505 (3.3) 520 (3.6) 518 (3.3) 523 (3.7)Greece 506 (3.5) 459 (5.5) 459 (3.3) 473 (5.4) 475 (3.7) 465 (5.1)Hungary 513 (3.6) 475 (3.9) 484 (3.9) 496 (4.2) 503 (3.5) 503 (3.8)Iceland 522 (1.9) 478 (2.1) 505 (1.9) 508 (2.0) 495 (2.0) 496 (2.1)Ireland 515 (3.1) 476 (4.2) 483 (3.0) 491 (3.4) 509 (3.8) 507 (4.3)Israel 495 (3.4) 452 (5.2) 443 (3.3) 451 (4.7) 456 (3.2) 453 (4.4)Italy 510 (1.9) 464 (2.3) 475 (2.2) 490 (2.3) 490 (2.0) 488 (2.5)Japan 540 (3.7) 501 (5.6) 524 (3.9) 534 (5.3) 545 (3.9) 534 (5.5)Korea 558 (3.8) 523 (4.9) 544 (4.5) 548 (6.2) 539 (4.2) 537 (5.0)Luxembourg 492 (1.5) 453 (1.9) 479 (1.3) 499 (2.0) 480 (1.6) 487 (2.0)Mexico 438 (2.1) 413 (2.1) 412 (1.9) 425 (2.1) 413 (1.9) 419 (2.0)Netherlands 521 (5.3) 496 (5.1) 517 (5.1) 534 (4.8) 520 (5.9) 524 (5.3)New Zealand 544 (2.6) 499 (3.6) 515 (2.9) 523 (3.2) 535 (2.9) 529 (4.0)Norway 527 (2.9) 480 (3.0) 495 (2.8) 500 (2.7) 502 (2.8) 498 (3.0)Poland 525 (2.9) 476 (2.8) 493 (3.2) 497 (3.0) 511 (2.8) 505 (2.7)Portugal 508 (2.9) 470 (3.5) 481 (3.1) 493 (3.3) 495 (3.0) 491 (3.4)Slovak Republic 503 (2.8) 452 (3.5) 495 (3.4) 498 (3.7) 491 (3.2) 490 (4.0)Slovenia 511 (1.4) 456 (1.6) 501 (1.7) 502 (1.8) 519 (1.6) 505 (1.7)Spain 496 (2.2) 467 (2.2) 474 (2.5) 493 (2.3) 485 (2.3) 492 (2.5)Sweden 521 (3.1) 475 (3.2) 495 (3.3) 493 (3.1) 497 (3.2) 493 (3.0)Switzerland 520 (2.7) 481 (2.9) 524 (3.4) 544 (3.7) 512 (3.0) 520 (3.2)Turkey 486 (4.1) 443 (3.7) 440 (5.6) 451 (4.6) 460 (4.5) 448 (3.8)United Kingdom 507 (2.9) 481 (3.5) 482 (3.3) 503 (3.2) 509 (3.2) 519 (3.6)United States 513 (3.8) 488 (4.2) 477 (3.8) 497 (4.0) 495 (3.7) 509 (4.2)EU27 .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..OECD 513 (0.5) 474 (0.6) 490 (0.6) 501 (0.6) 501 (0.6) 501 (0.6)Brazil 425 (2.8) 397 (2.9) 379 (2.6) 394 (2.4) 404 (2.6) 407 (2.6)China .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..India .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..Indonesia 420 (3.9) 383 (3.8) 372 (4.0) 371 (4.1) 387 (4.0) 378 (4.2)Russian Federation 482 (3.4) 437 (3.6) 467 (3.5) 469 (3.7) 480 (3.5) 477 (3.7)South Africa .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..

Statlink http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888932709396

Performance on the reading and mathematics scales in PISA 2009Mean score




DISADVANTAGES IN SCHOOLSThe successful integration of immigrant students inschools is an important policy goal in many OECDcountries. A country’s success in integrating immigrantstudents is a key measure of its education system’squality and equity, and also sheds light on the efficacy ofits broader social policies. The variance in performancegaps between immigrant and non-immigrant studentsacross countries, even after adjusting for socio-economicbackground, suggests that policy has an important roleto play in eliminating such gaps.

DefinitionPISA distinguishes between three types of studentimmigrant status: i) students without an immigrantbackground, also referred to as non-immigrant students,are students who were born in the country where theywere assessed by PISA or who had at least one parentborn in the country; ii) second-generation students arestudents who were born in the country of assessmentbut whose parents are foreign-born; and iii) first-generation students are foreign-born students whoseparents are also foreign-born. In this indicator, immigrantstudents include the students who are first- or second-generation immigrants.

Students are referred to as students with low-educatedmothers, when their mothers have attained less thanupper secondary education. The students whose mothershave a tertiary education are referred to as students withhighly educated mothers.

Each sampled school in a country has been placed into aquartile defined according to the estimated (weighted)percentage of students in the school with low-educated

OverviewThree different measures of concentration can beexamined to see which one affects students outcomes ingeneral, and those of the immigrant students inparticular. These measures are different percentages ofstudents in schools who are: i) immigrant students; ii)immigrant students speaking another language at home;and iii) students (whatever their origin) with low-educated mothers.For immigrant students’ performance in reading, thepercentage of students with low-educated mothers in aschool is more highly negatively correlated withindividual reading performance for the immigrantstudents in all countries assessed (except Estonia) thanthe two other concentration measures. In many Europeancountries, the association between immigrant outcomesand school disadvantage is especially high. Theexceptions are the Nordic countries, Ireland and Spain,although, in general, outcomes for immigrant students inthese countries are not always favourable compared tothose of non-immigrant students.Across OECD countries, there are more immigrantstudents than non-immigrant students with low-educated mothers in disadvantaged schools (56% and50% respectively), except in Ireland, Israel, Italy, NewZealand, Portugal and Spain. However immigrantstudents with highly educated mothers are more stronglyoverrepresented in disadvantaged schools (26% onaverage) than non-immigrant students (14.5% onaverage), except for Brazil, Estonia, Israel and Norway.The disadvantaged quartile is characterised not byimmigrant characteristics but, rather, by maternaleducational disadvantaged.

mothers. The disadvantaged schools correspond to the 4thquartile, with the largest proportion of students withlow-educated mothers. The advantaged schools are in the1st quartile, with the smallest proportion of studentswith low-educated mothers.

ComparabilityPISA covers students who are between 15 years 3 monthsand 16 years 2 months of age at the time of assessment,and who have completed at least 6 years of formalschooling, regardless of the type of institution in whichthey are enrolled and of whether they are in full-time orpart-time education, whether they attend general orvocational programmes, and whether they attend public,private or foreign schools within the country.

Sources• OECD (2012),

Untapped Skills: Realising the Potential of ImmigrantStudents, PISA, OECD Publishing.

Further informationAnalytical publications• Ebersold, S. (2012), Transitions to Tertiary Education

and Work for Youth with Disabilities,Education and Training Policy, OECD Publishing.

• OECD (2012),Equity and Quality in Education, SupportingDisadvantaged Students and Schools, OECD Publishing.

• OECD (2010), PISA 2009 Results, OECD Publishing.

Statistical publications• OECD (2010), PISA 2009 at a Glance, OECD Publishing.

Methodological publications• OECD (2009), PISA 2009 Assessment Framework: Key

Competencies in Reading, Mathematics andScience, PISA, OECD Publishing.

• OECD (2012b), PISA 2009 Technical Report, PISA,OECD Publishing.

Online databases• OECD PISA Database.

Websites• Programme for International Student Assessment

(PISA), www.pisa.oecd.org.



Percentage of students in disadvantaged schools and mean performance on the reading scale,by educational level of their mother

Results based on students’ self-reports

Students with low-educated mothers indisadvantaged schools, as a percentage of

all students with low-educated mothers

Students with highly educated mothers indisadvantaged schools, as a percentage ofall students with highly educated mothers

Mean performance on the reading scale ofstudents

Immigrant students Non-immigrantstudents

Immigrant students Non-immigrantstudents

With low-educatedmothers

With highly educatedmothers

% S.E. % S.E. % S.E. % S.E. Meanscore

S.E. Meanscore

S.E.

Australia 66.0 (6.3) 52.6 (4.3) 22.7 (4.0) 16.6 (2.3) 471 (4.3) 541 (2.8)Austria 64.2 (5.7) 51.7 (6.4) 39.1 (7.3) 14.5 (2.8) 404 (6.6) 499 (4.0)Belgium 76.5 (3.7) 47.0 (4.3) 30.6 (4.5) 16.0 (2.2) 465 (3.9) 535 (2.5)Canada 66.4 (6.3) 58.3 (4.4) 23.8 (3.9) 18.6 (2.0) 491 (4.7) 537 (1.7)Chile .. .. 46.7 (5.2) .. .. 7.3 (1.4) 416 (3.4) 487 (3.6)Czech Republic .. .. 72.2 (4.7) 25.5 (9.5) 21.6 (3.5) 432 (7.4) 496 (4.9)Denmark 68.3 (5.0) 44.4 (5.1) 36.4 (4.6) 18.6 (3.0) 451 (3.7) 512 (2.5)Estonia .. .. 56.1 (5.0) 13.4 (5.4) 21.5 (2.8) 467 (6.6) 511 (3.4)Finland .. .. 46.6 (5.2) 28.6 (8.0) 21.7 (3.3) 496 (4.7) 547 (2.4)France 62.8 (6.4) 43.8 (5.3) 36.5 (7.4) 13.1 (2.4) 456 (4.6) 529 (4.4)Germany 58.5 (6.4) 45.8 (4.9) 31.3 (5.3) 13.0 (2.5) 448 (4.2) 529 (4.2)Greece 56.8 (10.7) 49.6 (4.6) 30.6 (4.3) 14.1 (2.7) 444 (6.2) 506 (3.9)Hungary .. .. 60.8 (4.6) .. .. 9.1 (1.3) 421 (6.0) 534 (4.6)Iceland .. .. 43.2 (1.9) .. .. 17.6 (0.8) 477 (3.2) 520 (2.2)Ireland 26.2 (8.8) 47.2 (5.6) 28.6 (6.0) 15.6 (3.2) 461 (4.0) 519 (3.3)Israel 47.2 (7.1) 80.6 (2.7) 7.3 (3.0) 12.3 (1.6) 401 (6.3) 516 (3.8)Italy 40.1 (5.4) 43.7 (2.1) 18.7 (4.2) 11.0 (1.0) 459 (2.6) 503 (2.4)Japan .. .. 66.0 (4.4) .. .. 14.9 (1.6) 483 (7.3) 542 (3.6)Korea .. .. 54.7 (5.0) .. .. 14.7 (2.8) 504 (7.2) 555 (4.9)Luxembourg 48.7 (1.8) 27.4 (2.2) 15.7 (1.8) 11.1 (0.9) 436 (2.6) 503 (2.7)Mexico 52.5 (5.9) 35.7 (2.2) 25.8 (7.3) 7.5 (0.7) 408 (1.9) 455 (2.4)Netherlands 71.4 (6.0) 40.6 (5.2) 41.7 (9.1) 15.3 (2.7) 479 (5.8) 526 (5.5)New Zealand 40.1 (6.0) 47.3 (4.7) 18.0 (3.0) 17.3 (2.7) 493 (4.0) 551 (3.2)Norway 57.8 (8.0) 53.6 (5.6) 18.1 (4.8) 21.4 (3.0) 465 (6.0) 516 (2.8)Poland .. .. 55.3 (5.3) .. .. 14.9 (3.1) 444 (5.1) 553 (3.9)Portugal 12.4 (3.8) 37.0 (4.2) 10.8 (3.3) 6.7 (1.2) 470 (3.2) 531 (4.5)Slovak Republic .. .. 83.1 (3.7) .. .. 18.4 (3.0) 384 (11.3) 503 (4.2)Slovenia 71.1 (4.5) 56.0 (2.6) 29.4 (6.6) 11.0 (0.8) 440 (3.8) 516 (2.7)Spain 30.8 (5.0) 42.3 (4.1) 15.3 (3.6) 10.7 (1.5) 460 (2.5) 509 (2.8)Sweden 59.7 (8.1) 45.0 (5.1) 37.5 (6.7) 19.6 (2.8) 447 (6.1) 513 (3.2)Switzerland 49.3 (4.3) 39.7 (4.5) 25.1 (3.9) 14.2 (2.2) 463 (3.9) 522 (3.5)Turkey .. .. 30.0 (3.8) .. .. 2.7 (0.9) 454 (3.2) 523 (7.5)United Kingdom 79.8 (8.1) 57.1 (4.6) 42.5 (7.0) 17.7 (2.3) 454 (5.4) 516 (2.7)United States 79.0 (4.2) 42.3 (6.4) 25.4 (5.7) 12.8 (2.5) 458 (4.3) 525 (4.8)EU27 .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..OECD 55.9 (1.3) 50.1 (0.8) 26.1 (1.1) 14.5 (0.4) 453 (0.9) 520 (0.6)Brazil 49.1 (15.1) 37.6 (3.5) 0.9 (1.0) 9.6 (1.4) 393 (2.6) 437 (4.9)China .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..India .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..Indonesia .. .. 35.5 (4.6) .. .. 4.6 (1.4) 390 (3.2) 437 (8.3)Russian Federation .. .. 75.9 (6.1) 23.0 (5.6) 21.9 (3.6) 397 (12.3) 468 (3.2)South Africa .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..


Correlations between reading outcomes of immigrant students and various measures of stu-dent concentration in schools




CAREER ASPIRATIONS OF 15-YEAR-OLDSEducation’s impact on participating in labour markets,occupational mobility and the quality of life, has ledpolicy makers and educators to focus in reducingeducational differences between men and women.Significant progress has been achieved in weakening thegender gap in educational attainment, although incertain fields of study, such as mathematics andcomputer science, gender differences favouring men stillexist.

Students’ perceptions of what occupations lie ahead forthem can affect their academic decisions andperformance.

DefinitionOn the 2006 PISA assessment, 15-year-old students wereasked what they expect to be doing in early adulthood,around the age of 30. Across countries many genderdifferences can be seen over the different careeraspirations. This gender difference can be attributed to anumber of factors. These include students’ familycharacteristics and academic performance, but also thespecific national labour market conditions and thefeatures of national education systems that providedifferent options for 15 year-olds.

ComparabilityThe PISA target population is 15-year-old students.Operationally, these are students who were from 15years and 3 (completed) months to 16 years and 2(completed) months at the beginning of the testingperiod, and who were enrolled in an educationalinstitution, regardless of the grade level or type of

OverviewIn almost all OECD countries, girls have more ambitiousaspirations than boys. On average, girls are 11 percentagepoints more likely than boys to expect to work in high-status careers such as legislators, senior officials,managers and professionals. France, Germany and Japanwere the only OECD countries where similar proportionsof boys and girls aspired to these careers, while inSwitzerland, boys generally had slightly more ambitiousaspirations than girls. The gender gap in careerexpectations was particularly wide in Greece and Poland:in these two countries, the proportion of girls expectingto work as legislators, senior officials, managers andprofessionals was 20 percentage points higher than theproportion of boys expecting to work in thoseoccupations.In recent years, girls in many countries have caught upwith or even surpassed boys in science proficiency.However, better performance in science or mathematicsamong girls, does not necessarily mean that girls want topursue all types of science-related careers. In fact, careersin “engineering and computing” still attract relatively fewgirls. On average among OECD countries, fewer than 5%of girls, but 18% of boys, expected to be working inengineering and computing (including architects) asyoung adults. This fact may due to stereotypes with therepresentation of these fields as “masculine” andperceived to be more suited for men, whereas care-related fields, such as education or health, may beperceived as “feminine” and therefore more appropriatefor women. Indeed, almost 20% of girls expected to beworking in health and services, including nurses &midwifes, comparing to only 7% for boys.

institution and of whether they participated in schoolfull-time or part-time.

As far as occupational plans are concerned, studentpreferences tend to centre heavily on occupations thatrequire at least some tertiary study. Using thenomenclature presented in the International StandardClassification of Occupations (ISCO), this preference by 15-year-olds boys and girls to expect high status careersrefers mostly to categories 1 and 2 of the ISCO88classification. Most occupations grouped in ISCO88 underthe label of: 1) Legislators, senior officials and managers;or 2) Professionals, require a minimum of universitydegree at entry, high levels of numeracy and literacy aswell as excellent personal intercommunication skills.The occupations listed as 3) Technicians and associateprofessionals, require similar skills at a high level andusually require between one to three years of study in atertiary education institution. Few students see theirfuture in any of the occupations listed in the remainingmajor groups, i.e. 4) Clerks, 5) Service workers and shopand market sales workers, 6) Skilled, agricultural andfishery workers, 7) Craft and related workers, 8) Plant andmachine operators and assemblers and 9) Elementaryoccupations.

Sources• OECD (2012), Education at a Glance, OECD Publishing.• OECD (2012), “What Kinds of Careers do Boys and

Girls Expect for Themselves?”, PISA in Focus, No. 14.Further informationAnalytical publications• African Development Bank, et al. (2012),

African Economic Outlook 2012, Promoting YouthEmployment, OECD Publishing.

• OECD (2012), OECD Education Working Papers, OECDPublishing.

• OECD (2012),Post-Secondary Vocational Education and Training,Pathways and Partnerships, Higher Education inRegional and City Development, OECD Publishing.

• OECD (2010), Jobs for Youth, OECD Publishing.• OECD and National Center on Adult Literacy (2006),

ICT and Learning: Supporting Out-of-School Youthand Adults, Education and Training Policy, OECDPublishing.

• OECD (2000),From Initial Education to Working Life: MakingTransitions Work, OECD Publishing.

• Sikora, J. and A. Pokropek (2011), “Gendered CareerExpectations of Students: Perspectives from PISA2006”, OECD Education Working Papers, No. 57.

Statistical publications• OECD (2011),

Society at a Glance: OECD Social Indicators, OECDPublishing.

Online databases• OECD Education Statistics

Websites• OECD Education at a Glance (supplementary

material), www.oecd.org/edu/eag2012.



Career aspirations of 15-year-oldsPercentage of 15-year-old students who are:

Planning to work in International StandardClassification of Occupations (ISCO) major

occupational groups 1 and 2

Planning a career in engineering andcomputing, including architects

Expecting employment in health andservices, including nurses & midwifes

Boys Girls Boys Girls Boys Girls% S.E. % S.E. % S.E. % S.E. % S.E. % S.E.

Australia 49.6 (1.1) 59.4 (0.9) 16.3 (0.6) 2.8 (0.2) 8.3 (0.5) 18.3 (0.6)Austria 30.8 (2.1) 41.5 (2.2) 15.1 (1.6) 3.3 (0.5) 4.5 (0.7) 20.5 (1.4)Belgium 50.2 (1.6) 65.9 (1.3) 18.7 (0.9) 5.1 (0.4) 6.2 (0.5) 17.2 (0.7)Canada 51.2 (0.9) 66.6 (0.7) 18.8 (0.7) 3.2 (0.3) 11.8 (0.6) 30.1 (0.7)Chile 67.2 (2.1) 73.2 (1.3) 25.9 (1.4) 5.9 (0.5) 14.2 (0.8) 30.6 (1.8)Czech Republic 40.7 (1.8) 50.3 (1.9) 20.0 (1.6) 4.8 (1.2) 2.8 (0.4) 10.9 (1.3)Denmark 39.3 (1.2) 43.6 (1.5) 13.0 (0.8) 3.3 (0.5) 5.4 (0.5) 20.2 (1.0)Estonia 44.8 (1.4) 60.5 (1.4) 18.5 (1.0) 8.8 (0.7) 2.2 (0.3) 10.8 (0.9)Finland 31.6 (1.3) 49.6 (1.3) 10.5 (0.7) 2.1 (0.4) 4.7 (0.6) 15.6 (0.9)France 42.4 (1.9) 43.2 (1.6) 18.3 (1.1) 3.5 (0.5) 9.2 (0.8) 27.6 (1.0)Germany 33.3 (1.5) 33.9 (1.4) 14.2 (1.0) 3.6 (0.4) 4.1 (0.6) 15.4 (1.0)Greece 48.3 (1.8) 70.0 (1.2) 19.2 (1.0) 7.0 (0.7) 7.3 (0.8) 13.1 (0.8)Hungary 40.9 (2.1) 50.7 (2.0) 19.1 (1.6) 4.1 (0.5) 3.9 (0.6) 12.1 (1.1)Iceland 54.4 (1.4) 66.8 (1.2) 14.1 (0.9) 7.5 (0.7) 10.1 (0.8) 20.9 (1.1)Ireland 53.8 (1.5) 65.1 (1.4) 18.1 (1.0) 3.4 (0.5) 9.5 (0.9) 23.7 (0.8)Israel 65.3 (2.4) 79.9 (1.3) 15.6 (1.5) 6.8 (0.8) 14.3 (1.4) 26.7 (1.4)Italy 52.7 (1.3) 65.6 (1.0) 21.4 (1.3) 4.9 (0.5) 8.6 (1.0) 16.4 (0.8)Japan 42.5 (1.3) 43.0 (1.7) 15.1 (1.2) 3.2 (0.4) 6.4 (0.7) 16.4 (2.0)Korea 59.5 (1.2) 63.3 (1.2) 12.4 (0.8) 2.6 (0.4) 5.2 (0.4) 9.6 (0.8)Luxembourg 50.0 (0.9) 69.1 (1.1) 16.4 (0.9) 4.8 (0.5) 6.6 (0.6) 17.4 (1.0)Mexico 77.7 (1.0) 82.5 (0.7) 27.3 (0.9) 7.8 (0.5) 12.4 (0.8) 20.4 (0.8)Netherlands 43.2 (1.4) 47.8 (1.5) 7.8 (0.7) 2.4 (0.4) 6.0 (0.6) 25.2 (1.1)New Zealand 46.3 (1.3) 62.0 (1.0) 12.2 (0.9) 3.7 (0.4) 9.4 (0.8) 21.7 (1.0)Norway 44.4 (1.3) 58.4 (1.4) 19.4 (1.1) 7.4 (0.7) 4.7 (0.5) 21.8 (1.1)Poland 43.6 (1.3) 65.6 (1.4) 32.6 (1.2) 7.2 (0.6) 5.7 (0.5) 16.5 (0.8)Portugal 53.5 (1.7) 66.1 (1.2) 24.6 (1.3) 6.3 (0.6) 10.5 (0.9) 29.0 (1.0)Slovak Republic 52.1 (1.9) 64.3 (1.8) 23.1 (1.5) 3.1 (0.5) 3.3 (0.5) 11.9 (1.3)Slovenia 47.9 (1.1) 65.1 (1.1) 27.7 (0.9) 3.6 (0.6) 8.3 (0.7) 23.1 (1.0)Spain 52.3 (1.4) 69.6 (1.1) 23.8 (0.9) 6.1 (0.5) 7.4 (0.7) 21.4 (0.8)Sweden 34.1 (1.1) 44.9 (1.3) 15.3 (0.9) 4.4 (0.5) 4.6 (0.6) 15.8 (0.9)Switzerland 35.2 (0.9) 31.6 (1.2) 14.8 (0.6) 3.1 (0.4) 2.8 (0.3) 18.2 (0.9)Turkey 79.0 (1.4) 85.8 (1.3) 20.9 (1.4) 7.0 (0.8) 9.5 (0.9) 16.3 (1.4)United Kingdom 46.5 (1.1) 56.9 (1.1) 12.6 (0.6) 2.1 (0.2) 7.9 (0.6) 17.8 (0.7)United States 56.4 (1.4) 70.6 (1.3) 16.4 (0.8) 2.7 (0.4) 12.4 (0.8) 35.6 (1.0)EU27 .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..OECD 48.8 (0.3) 59.8 (0.2) 18.2 (0.2) 4.6 (0.1) 7.4 (0.1) 19.7 (0.2)Brazil 49.9 (1.3) 71.3 (1.0) 17.3 (0.9) 6.0 (0.6) 13.8 (1.0) 32.0 (1.2)China .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..India .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..Indonesia 60.0 (2.4) 66.2 (2.0) 11.8 (4.7) 6.6 (1.0) 15.1 (1.9) 22.3 (1.5)Russian Federation 54.7 (2.0) 73.5 (1.0) 20.9 (1.6) 5.3 (0.6) 3.6 (0.4) 14.4 (1.0)South Africa .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..


Career aspirations of 15-year-oldsPercentage of 15-year old students




YOUTH INACTIVITYYoung people who are neither in employment nor ineducation and training (the “NEET” population) are atrisk of becoming socially excluded – individuals withincome below the poverty-line and lacking the skills toimprove their economic situation.

DefinitionThe indicator presents the share of young people whoare neither in education and training nor in employment,as a percentage of the total number of young people inthe corresponding age group. Young people in educationinclude those attending part-time as well as full-timeeducation, but exclude those in non-formal educationand in educational activities of very short duration.Employment is defined according to the ILO Guidelinesand covers all those who have been in paid work for atleast one hour in the reference week of the survey orwere temporarily absent from such work.

ComparabilityIn some countries, young people performing compulsorymilitary service are considered as being neither inemployment nor in education. However, the duration ofmilitary services is in most countries generally short;hence, the reallocation of military conscripts to theemployment/education category would not result in agreat change of the figures shown here.

In Korea, the NEET population includes some people whoare not classified as being in formal education, but whoare training (in education) for employment or for tertiaryentrance examinations.

OverviewOn average across OECD countries, 18.5% of the 20-24year-olds and 8.1% of the 15-19 year-olds were neither inschool nor at work in 2010.For OECD countries as a whole, the proportion of the20-24 year-olds who were neither in employment nor ineducation increased by 2.5 percentage points between2008 and 2010, whereas it decreased by 1.6 percentagepoints between 2000 and 2008. The share of 15-19 year-olds who were not in employment nor in education alsodeclined between 2000 and 2008 (by 1.5 percentagepoints), while between 2008 and 2010 it has remainedbroadly stable.Differences across countries are large: in Luxembourgand the Netherlands less than 8% of young people in theage group 20-24 belonged to the NEET population. Theratio is substantially higher in Ireland, Israel, Italy,Mexico and Spain, where this figure exceeded 25%, and inTurkey, where the share exceeded 40%.The ageing of the population and the declining size of thepopulation of 15-19 year-olds in OECD countries shouldfavour employment among young adults. However,during recessionary periods, high general unemploymentrates make the transition from school to worksubstantially more difficult for the younger population,as those with more work experience are favoured overnew entrants into the labour market. In addition, whenlabour market conditions are unfavourable, youngerpeople often tend to stay in education longer, becausehigh unemployment rates drive down the opportunitycosts of education.

Youth who are not in education nor in em-ployment in G7

As a percentage of persons in that age group, 2010


Sources• OECD (2012), Education at a Glance, OECD Publishing.• OECD (2012), OECD Economic Outlook, OECD

Publishing.Further informationAnalytical publications• African Development Bank, et al. (2012),

African Economic Outlook 2012, Promoting YouthEmployment, OECD Publishing.

• OECD (2012), OECD Education Working Papers, OECDPublishing.

• OECD (2010), Jobs for Youth, OECD Publishing.• OECD and National Center on Adult Literacy (2006),

ICT and Learning: Supporting Out-of-School Youthand Adults, Education and Training Policy, OECDPublishing.

• OECD (2000),From Initial Education to Working Life: MakingTransitions Work, OECD Publishing.

Statistical publications• OECD (2011),

Society at a Glance: OECD Social Indicators, OECDPublishing.

Online databases• OECD Education Statistics

Websites• OECD Education at a Glance (supplementary




Youth who are not in education nor in employmentAs a percentage of persons in that age group

Youth aged between 15 and 19 Youth aged between 20 and 242000 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2000 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Australia 6.82 7.05 6.49 6.31 8.34 8.06 13.29 11.49 10.74 10.71 11.58 11.21Austria .. 6.55 5.25 5.63 6.50 5.32 .. 12.51 10.95 11.45 11.84 12.60Belgium 6.52 7.11 5.21 5.47 5.67 5.95 16.04 16.87 15.41 14.14 16.10 18.02Canada 8.20 7.34 7.27 7.26 8.15 8.23 15.73 13.04 13.70 13.02 15.17 15.32Chile .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..Czech Republic 7.89 4.52 2.89 2.72 3.51 3.76 20.33 14.14 11.04 10.56 13.13 13.59Denmark 2.72 4.42 4.10 4.01 5.03 5.54 6.61 5.87 7.99 8.16 10.13 12.12Estonia .. 3.69 5.74 4.86 7.96 6.12 .. 15.36 15.30 10.65 19.79 22.45Finland .. 3.58 3.53 5.08 5.13 5.11 .. 13.31 13.28 12.01 15.05 15.79France 6.99 6.98 6.29 5.81 6.81 7.93 17.60 18.99 17.94 16.59 19.95 20.65Germany 5.71 4.21 4.15 3.71 3.76 3.68 16.95 16.73 15.24 13.97 13.73 13.67Greece 9.33 7.85 8.49 8.38 7.95 7.52 25.92 18.37 17.73 17.12 18.24 21.55Hungary 8.63 6.02 5.00 5.70 5.63 4.64 21.99 18.51 16.91 18.39 20.90 21.51Iceland .. .. .. .. .. 6.82 .. .. 6.38 .. 9.39 10.54Ireland 4.38 5.01 5.10 8.49 11.00 10.45 9.65 11.76 12.12 14.57 20.83 26.44Israel .. 24.27 25.75 22.24 24.68 22.48 .. 40.58 39.65 37.51 37.45 36.94Italy 13.13 11.79 10.17 9.59 11.22 12.47 27.47 22.82 22.58 22.02 24.76 27.10Japan 8.76 9.08 7.63 7.37 8.46 9.87 8.76 9.08 7.63 7.37 8.46 9.87Korea .. .. .. 7.04 6.95 8.47 .. .. .. 22.20 23.01 23.51Luxembourg .. 4.07 2.93 2.12 2.71 6.26 8.23 10.25 9.21 9.84 8.67 7.52Mexico 18.31 17.82 17.55 17.75 18.42 18.60 27.14 26.64 26.52 26.50 27.59 26.62Netherlands 3.71 3.04 3.62 2.06 3.57 3.77 8.23 7.29 6.95 5.63 7.91 7.79New Zealand .. 8.97 9.66 8.50 12.38 10.44 .. 13.66 14.24 15.27 18.32 18.43Norway .. 3.43 3.67 3.98 4.18 3.49 8.03 9.08 8.76 7.05 9.40 9.03Poland 4.52 3.79 2.46 2.38 3.63 3.59 30.76 20.67 18.34 15.56 16.44 17.66Portugal 7.73 7.75 8.55 7.07 6.92 7.44 10.95 13.34 15.20 13.46 15.72 16.38Slovak Republic 26.26 6.69 5.43 5.66 4.55 4.58 33.10 22.75 19.85 16.59 17.13 22.14Slovenia .. 4.23 4.29 4.38 2.53 3.18 .. 13.71 10.45 10.26 11.38 9.25Spain 7.96 10.09 10.94 10.54 13.43 12.84 15.05 16.85 17.24 19.44 26.27 27.40Sweden 3.63 5.30 5.45 4.40 5.54 5.39 10.69 15.20 13.11 12.92 16.50 14.32Switzerland 7.90 7.57 8.16 9.38 7.95 4.77 5.92 10.79 10.36 9.14 10.73 11.06Turkey 31.17 35.04 34.47 37.06 28.69 25.60 44.18 48.77 46.25 46.07 46.12 43.67United Kingdom 8.04 10.92 10.70 9.77 9.60 9.99 15.37 18.24 18.07 18.33 19.14 19.34United States 7.00 6.33 6.32 7.25 8.80 7.65 14.44 15.60 16.22 17.23 20.07 19.43EU27 7.95 6.08 5.73 5.61 6.32 6.45 17.35 15.41 14.52 13.89 16.36 17.49OECD 9.39 8.18 7.99 7.89 8.42 8.13 17.65 17.11 16.06 16.01 17.89 18.53Brazil .. .. 14.72 13.78 14.02 .. .. .. 23.44 22.50 23.29 ..China .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..India .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..Indonesia .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..Russian Federation .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..South Africa .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..


Youth aged between 20 and 24 who are not in education nor in employmentAs a percentage of persons in that age group




HOW MANY STUDENTS STUDY ABROAD?As national economies become more interconnected,governments and individuals are looking to highereducation to broaden students’ horizons. It is throughthe pursuit of high level studies in countries other thantheir own that students may expand their knowledge ofother cultures and languages, and to better equipthemselves in an increasingly globalised labour market.Some countries, particularly in the European Union, haveestablished policies and schemes that promote suchmobility to foster intercultural contacts and help buildsocial networks.

OverviewOver the past three decades, the number of studentsenrolled outside their country of citizenship has risendramatically, from 0.8 million worldwide in 1975 to 4.1million in 2010, more than a fivefold increase. Growth inthe internationalisation of tertiary education hasaccelerated during the past several decades, reflectingthe globalisation of economies and societies, and also theexpansion of tertiary systems and institutionsthroughout the world.Language as well as cultural considerations, quality ofprogrammes, geographic proximity and similarity ofeducation systems are determining factors drivingstudent mobility. The destinations of internationalstudents highlight the attractiveness of specificeducation systems, whether because of their academicreputation or because of subsequent immigrationopportunities.Foreign students enrolled in G20 countries account for83% of total foreign students, and students in the OECDarea represent 77% of the total foreign students enrolledworldwide. European countries in the OECD were thedestination for 40% of foreign students in 2010 followedby North American countries (21%). Despite the strongincrease in absolute numbers, these proportions haveremained stable during the last decade. In the OECD area,the number of foreign students in tertiary education isnearly three times as high as the number of nationalcitizens enrolled abroad. In the 21 European countrieswho are OECD members there is a ratio of 2.7 foreignstudents per each citizen from an European countrystudying abroad.More than 9 out of 10 OECD students enrol in anotherOECD country when pursuing tertiary studies outsidetheir country of citizenship. Students from other G20countries not in OECD also prefer to study in OECDcountries, with 83% of them enrolled in an OECD country.European citizens from OECD countries are also mostlyenrolled in another European country (76%), while inNorth America a large majority of students are citizens ofa country from a different region.Tertiary-type A programmes (largely theory-based) arefar more internationalised than tertiary-type B (shorter,and vocationally oriented) programmes in most OECDcountries. The large presence of international studentsalso has a significant impact on graduation rates in somecountries. When international students are excluded,Australia’s first time tertiary-type A graduation ratedrops by 16 percentage points and New Zealand’s ratedrops by 9 percentage points. This effect is also evident insecond-degree programmes, such as master’s degrees, inAustralia and the United Kingdom, where graduationrates drop by 11 percentage points, when internationalgraduates are excluded.

DefinitionStudents are classified as “international” if they left theircountry of origin only for the purpose of study. Studentsare classified as “foreign” when they are not citizens ofthe country where they are enrolled. This includes somestudents who are permanent residents, albeit notcitizens, of the countries in which they are studying suchas young people from immigrant families. Consequently,foreign graduation rates are not comparable with data oninternational graduation rates and are thereforepresented separately.

ComparabilityData on international and foreign students refer to theacademic year 2009/2010, based on data collected oneducation statistics, annually by the OECD. Additionaldata from the UNESCO Institute for Statistics are alsoincluded. Data on the impact of international studentson tertiary graduation rates are based on a special surveyconducted by the OECD in December 2011.

Sources• OECD (2012), Education at a Glance, OECD Publishing.Further informationAnalytical publications• OECD (2012),

Higher Education in Regional and City Development,OECD Publishing.

• OECD (2012), Higher Education Management and Policy,OECD Publishing.

• Keeley, B. (2009),International Migration: The Human Face ofGlobalisation, OECD Insights, OECD Publishing.

• OECD(2008), Tertiary Education for the Knowledge Society,OECD Review of Tertiary Education, OECDPublishing.

• OECD (2004),Internationalisation and Trade in Higher Education:Opportunities and Challenges, OECD Publishing.

Online databases• OECD Education Statistics.

Websites• OECD Education at a Glance,

www.oecd.org/edu/eag2012



Evolution by destination in the number of students enrolled outside their country of citizen-ship

Thousand of persons


Impact of international/foreign students on graduation rate at tertiary-type A levelPercentage, 2010 or latest available year




EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENTEducational attainment is a commonly used proxy forthe stock of human capital – that is, the skills available inthe population and the labour force. As globalisation andtechnology continue to re-shape the needs of the globallabour market, the demand for individuals who possess abroader knowledge base, more specialised skills,advanced analytical capacities, and complexcommunication skills continues to rise. As a result, moreindividuals are pursuing higher levels of education thanin previous generations, leading to significant shifts inattainment levels over time within countries.

At the same time, the rise of new economic powers – andsustained efforts by some countries to build and invest intheir tertiary education systems – has shifted the globallandscape of educational attainment as well. In recentyears, countries with strong and long-held leads inattainment have seen their positions erode as individualsin other countries have increased their attainment at anextremely fast pace.

DefinitionEducational attainment refers to the highest level ofeducation completed by a person, shown as a percentageof all persons in that age group. Tertiary educationincludes both tertiary-type A programmes, which arelargely theoretically-based and designed to providequalifications for entry to advanced researchprogrammes and professions with high skillrequirements; and tertiary-type B programmes, whichare generally not intended to lead to further university-

OverviewAn indication of long-term trends in educationalattainment can be obtained by comparing the currentattainment levels of younger and older age cohorts.Tertiary attainment levels have increased considerablyover the past 30 years. On average across OECD countries,38% of 25-34 year-olds have a tertiary attainment,compared with 23% of 55-64 year-olds. Canada, Japan,Korea and the Russian Federation lead OECD and G20countries in the proportion of young adults (25-34 year-olds) with a tertiary attainment, with 55% or more havingreached this level of education. In France, Ireland, Japan,Korea and Poland, there is a difference of 25 percentagepoints or more between the proportion of young adultsand older adults who have attained this level ofeducation.In 2010, over 30% of the population aged between 25 and64 has attained tertiary level education in more than halfof the OECD countries. In Canada, Israel, Japan, NewZealand and the United States, this share is significantlyhigher, the share of the population between the ages of25 to 64 with tertiary attainment is below 15%.On average across OECD countries, 26% of adults nowhave only primary or lower secondary levels of education,44% have upper secondary education and 31% have atertiary qualification. Over the past decade most of thechanges in educational attainment have occurred at thelow and high ends of the attainment distribution.Between 2000 and 2010 the share of those who had notattained an upper secondary education decreased by 10percentage points while the proportion with tertiaryeducation increased by 9 percentage points across OECDcountries. This largely reflects the fact that older workerswith low levels of education have moved out of thelabour force, and that many countries have expandedtheir focus on higher education in recent years.

level degrees, but rather directly to the labour market.Upper secondary education typically follows completionof lower secondary schooling. Lower secondaryeducation completes provision of basic education,usually in a more subject-oriented way and with morespecialised teachers.

ComparabilityThe International Standard Classification of Education(ISCED-97) is used to define the levels of education in acomparable way across countries. The OECD Handbook forInternationally Comparative Education Statistics describesISCED-97 education programmes and attainment levelsand their mappings for each country.

Sources• OECD (2012), Education at a Glance, OECD Publishing.Further informationAnalytical publications• Hansson, B. (2007), “Effects of Tertiary Expansion:

Crowding-out effects and labour market matchesfor the higher educated”,OECD Education Working Papers, No. 10.

• OECD (2012),Let’s Read Them a Story! The Parent Factor in Education,PISA, OECD Publishing.

• OECD (2012),OECD Reviews of Evaluation and Assessment inEducation, OECD Publishing.

• OECD (2012),Higher Education in Regional and City Development,OECD Publishing.

• OECD (2012), Reviews of National Policies for Education,OECD Publishing.

• OECD (2010), Trends Shaping Education, OECDPublishing.


OECD Handbook for Internationally ComparativeEducation Statistics: Concepts, Standards, Definitions andClassifications, OECD Publishing.


Websites• OECD Centre for Educational Research and

Innovation (CERI), www.oecd.org/edu/ceri.• OECD Education at a Glance (supplementary




Educational attainmentAs a percentage of total population in that age group

Population with tertiary education Population aged 25-6425-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 Below upper secondary Upper secondary and post-

secondary non-tertiaryTertiary education

2010 or latest available year 2000 2005 2010 2000 2005 2010 2000 2005 2010Australia 44.4 39.5 34.8 29.6 41.2 35.0 26.8 31.3 33.3 35.6 27.5 31.7 37.6Austria 20.8 20.8 18.6 16.5 23.9 19.4 17.5 62.2 62.8 63.2 13.9 17.8 19.3Belgium 43.8 39.4 30.9 25.6 41.5 33.9 29.5 31.4 35.1 35.5 27.1 31.0 35.0Canada 56.5 56.8 46.8 42.2 19.3 14.8 11.6 40.6 39.2 37.8 40.1 45.9 50.6Chile 38.5 27.5 21.5 18.9 .. .. 28.6 .. .. 44.6 .. .. 26.8Czech Republic 22.6 16.3 15.9 11.5 14.1 10.1 8.1 75.0 76.9 75.2 11.0 13.1 16.8Denmark 37.6 36.8 31.2 27.9 21.5 19.0 24.3 52.4 47.5 42.4 26.2 33.5 33.3Estonia 37.8 33.2 38.5 30.7 .. 10.9 10.9 .. 55.8 53.8 .. 33.3 35.3Finland 39.2 45.8 38.9 30.1 27.5 21.2 17.0 40.5 44.2 44.8 32.0 34.6 38.1France 42.9 33.8 21.7 18.3 37.0 33.2 29.2 40.9 41.4 41.8 22.0 25.4 29.0Germany 26.1 28.1 26.6 25.4 18.3 16.9 14.2 58.2 58.6 59.2 23.5 24.6 26.6Greece 30.9 26.6 23.1 16.5 50.7 42.5 34.8 31.6 36.1 40.6 17.7 21.3 24.6Hungary 26.0 19.1 18.3 16.5 30.8 23.6 18.7 55.2 59.3 61.2 14.0 17.1 20.1Iceland 36.2 38.8 30.5 22.5 44.7 37.1 33.5 32.1 32.3 34.0 23.2 30.5 32.5Ireland 48.2 42.3 29.8 21.5 54.0 35.5 26.5 27.5 35.4 36.2 18.5 29.1 37.3Israel 44.2 48.8 44.4 44.6 .. 20.8 17.9 .. 33.4 36.5 .. 45.8 45.6Italy 20.7 15.8 12.0 10.7 57.9 49.9 44.8 32.7 37.9 40.4 9.4 12.2 14.8Japan 56.7 49.6 45.8 29.0 17.1 .. .. 49.2 60.1 55.2 33.6 39.9 44.8Korea 65.0 46.9 26.7 12.8 31.7 24.5 19.6 44.4 43.9 40.7 23.9 31.6 39.7Luxembourg 44.2 41.4 27.9 25.3 43.9 34.1 22.3 37.8 39.3 42.2 18.3 26.5 35.5Mexico 21.8 16.2 16.3 12.0 70.9 68.4 63.8 14.5 16.6 18.8 14.6 15.0 17.4Netherlands 40.8 33.5 30.2 26.0 35.1 28.2 27.0 41.5 41.7 40.6 23.4 30.1 32.4New Zealand 46.4 42.5 39.1 33.8 36.8 31.6 27.0 34.3 29.4 32.4 28.9 39.0 40.7Norway 47.3 41.0 33.4 27.3 14.8 22.8 19.4 56.8 44.5 43.3 28.4 32.7 37.3Poland 37.4 23.4 15.1 12.9 20.1 14.9 11.3 68.5 68.2 65.8 11.4 16.9 22.9Portugal 24.8 16.2 10.4 8.9 80.6 73.5 68.1 10.5 13.6 16.5 8.8 12.8 15.4Slovak Republic 24.0 15.9 14.6 12.7 16.2 12.1 9.0 73.4 73.9 73.6 10.4 14.0 17.3Slovenia 31.3 26.7 20.0 16.3 .. 19.7 16.7 .. 60.1 59.6 .. 20.2 23.7Spain 39.2 35.3 25.6 17.8 61.7 51.2 47.1 15.7 20.6 22.2 22.6 28.2 30.7Sweden 42.2 37.2 30.0 27.5 20.8 17.1 13.5 54.4 53.9 52.4 24.8 29.0 34.2Switzerland 40.5 38.2 33.3 27.7 16.1 14.8 13.9 59.7 56.5 51.0 24.2 28.8 35.2Turkey 17.4 12.2 9.4 9.5 76.7 71.9 68.8 14.9 17.8 18.1 8.3 10.2 13.1United Kingdom 46.0 40.6 35.2 30.0 37.4 33.2 24.9 36.9 37.1 36.9 25.7 29.7 38.2United States 42.3 43.4 40.0 41.0 12.6 12.2 11.0 50.9 48.7 47.3 36.5 39.0 41.7EU27 .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..OECD 37.8 33.2 27.5 22.9 35.8 29.8 26.0 42.5 44.1 44.1 21.7 27.0 30.7Brazil 11.6 11.3 10.7 8.9 .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..China 6.1 4.8 3.0 3.1 .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..India .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..Indonesia .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..Russian Federation 55.5 58.1 54.3 44.5 .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..South Africa .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..


Population that has attained tertiary educationPercentage, 2010 or latest available year




EDUCATIONAL EXPENDITURE PER STUDENTPolicy makers must balance the importance of improvingthe quality of educational services with the desirability ofexpanding access to educational opportunities,specifically at the tertiary level. In many OECD countriesthe expansion of enrolments, particularly in tertiaryeducation, has not been paralleled by similar rises ineducational expenditures. In primary, secondary andpost-secondary non-tertiary education, enrolments arestable but expenditure has increased more than at thetertiary level.

DefinitionThe indicator shows change in expenditure oneducational institutions in relation to the number of full-time equivalent students enrolled in these institutions.The indicator includes only those educationalinstitutions, both public and private, and programmesfor which both enrolment and expenditure data areavailable. Public subsidies for students’ living expensesare excluded to ensure international comparability of thedata.

Educational expenditure in national currency for 2009 isconverted into equivalent USD by dividing the nationalcurrency figure by the purchasing power parity (PPP)index for GDP. PPP exchange rates are used becausemarket exchange rates are affected by many factors thatare unrelated to the purchasing power of currencies indifferent countries.

OverviewIn 2009, the average level of expenditure per tertiarystudent, across OECD countries, was USD 13 728.Spending per student at tertiary level ranged fromUSD 7 000 or less in Chile, Estonia, Indonesia, the SlovakRepublic and South Africa to more than USD 20 000 inCanada, Switzerland and the United States. OECDcountries in which most R&D is performed by tertiaryeducational institutions tend to report higher tertiaryexpenditure per student than countries in which a largepart of research and development is performed in otherpublic institutions or by industry.The expenditure for tertiary education increased in realterms across OECD countries by an average of 46%between 2000 and 2009, when student enrolment at thislevel increased by an average of 28%. Spending perstudent at tertiary level increased by 15% on average.However, spending per student fell in Iceland, Israel andthe United States, and public expenditure per student fellalso in Brazil, Hungary and Switzerland (data on privateexpenditure are not available). In all of these countriesthe decline was mainly the result of a rapid increase (by20% or more) in the number of tertiary students. Japanwas the only country in which the number of tertiarystudents decreased between 2000 and 2009.In 2009, the OECD average level of annual expenditureper student for primary, secondary and post-secondarynon-tertiary education was USD 8 617. Between 2000 and2009, a period of relatively stable student enrolment atthese levels, spending per students increased in everycountry, rising by 36% on average. Over this period,expenditure per student increased by at least 16% in 24 ofthe 29 OECD and partner countries with available data.The rise exceeded 50% in Brazil, the Czech Republic,Estonia, Hungary, Ireland, Korea, Poland, the SlovakRepublic and the United Kingdom.

ComparabilityThe data on expenditures were obtained by a specialsurvey conducted in 2011 which applied consistentmethods and definitions. Expenditure data are based onthe definitions and coverage of the UNESCO-OECD-Eurostat data collection programme on education. Theuse of a common survey and definitions ensures goodcomparability of results across countries.

In all cases, 2009 data is 2009 or latest year available.

Sources• OECD (2012), Education at a Glance, OECD Publishing.Further informationAnalytical publications• OECD (2013), Trends Shaping Education, OECD

Publishing.• OECD (2012), Highlights from Education at a Glance,

OECD Publishing.• OECD (2012), Higher Education Management and Policy,

OECD Publishing.• OECD (2012), OECD Economic Surveys, OECD

Publishing.• OECD (2012), Reviews of National Policies for Education,

OECD Publishing.• OECD (2012),

Strengthening Integrity and Fighting Corruption inEducation: Serbia, OECD Publishing.

• OECD (2011),Designing for Education, Compendium of ExemplaryEducational Facilities 2011, OECD Publishing.



• UNESCO Institute for Statistics (UIS), OECD andEurostat (2011),UOE Data Collection on Education Systems, UIS,Montreal.



www.oecd.org/edu/eag2012.

EDUCATION • RESOURCES


Expenditure on educational institutions per student and change in expenditurePrimary, secondary and post-secondary non-tertiary education Tertiary education

Spendingper

student,USD, 2009,

PPPs

Index of change, year 2005 = 100 Spendingper

student,USD, 2009,

PPPs

Index of change, year 2005 = 100

Expenditure Number ofstudents

Expenditure perstudent

Expenditure Number ofstudents

Expenditure perstudent

2009 2000 2009 2009 2000 2009 2009 2000 2009 2009 2000 2009Australia 9 139 82 127 100 89 127 16 074 83 124 117 .. 106Austria 11 681 97 109 97 95 112 14 257 75 117 133 73 87Belgium 9 783 94 113 96 103 118 15 443 98 123 107 104 114Canada 8 997 86 113 99 87 115 20 932 86 109 .. .. ..Chile 2 935 .. 118 94 .. 124 6 863 .. 156 149 .. 104Czech Republic 5 615 76 111 91 71 123 8 237 65 141 127 90 111Denmark 11 094 86 105 101 91 104 18 556 86 109 104 88 104Estonia 6 149 80 117 86 66 137 6 373 92 150 99 108 151Finland 8 314 81 108 100 85 108 16 569 86 112 97 91 115France 8 861 100 103 100 98 104 14 642 93 116 99 98 116Germany 8 534 100 105 94 97 112 15 711 94 119 109 101 109Greece .. 78 .. .. 77 .. .. 42 .. .. 63 ..Hungary 4 506 69 88 91 64 97 8 518 81 109 91 122 119Iceland 9 309 72 101 102 77 100 9 939 69 110 112 103 98Ireland 9 615 68 138 107 70 130 16 420 100 143 105 118 136Israel 5 464 95 116 106 101 110 11 214 90 97 104 110 94Italy 8 943 96 100 100 97 101 9 562 93 110 98 104 113Japan 8 502 99 101 96 91 105 15 957 94 108 95 95 113Korea 8 122 69 130 96 68 136 9 513 79 129 101 84 128Luxembourg 18 018 .. 108 105 .. 103 .. .. .. .. .. ..Mexico 2 339 80 104 104 85 99 8 020 73 123 114 88 108Netherlands 10 030 83 114 102 86 112 17 849 86 117 114 101 103New Zealand 7 556 92 120 101 .. 120 10 619 84 133 130 .. 102Norway 12 971 89 114 102 95 112 19 269 86 106 102 98 104Poland 5 167 89 118 85 81 139 7 776 57 117 96 96 122Portugal 7 288 98 109 103 90 106 10 481 70 105 103 78 103Slovak Republic 4 781 73 129 87 68 148 6 758 67 125 125 94 99Slovenia 8 670 .. 104 91 .. 113 9 311 .. 110 107 .. 102Spain 8 818 93 120 104 87 116 13 614 88 123 109 82 113Sweden 9 709 88 103 94 90 109 19 961 86 112 98 105 114Switzerland 13 411 87 108 99 89 109 21 577 77 99 122 97 81Turkey .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..United Kingdom 9 602 70 105 100 62 105 16 338 65 127 105 70 120United States 11 831 92 116 100 95 116 29 201 85 95 114 96 83EU27 .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..OECD 8 617 85 112 98 85 115 13 728 81 118 110 95 109Brazil 2 304 66 156 94 67 166 11 741 79 128 117 112 109China .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..India .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..Indonesia 418 .. .. .. .. .. 972 .. .. .. .. ..Russian Federation 4 325 66 139 88 .. 158 7 749 44 168 175 .. 96South Africa 1 697 .. .. .. .. .. 3 616 .. .. .. .. ..


Changes in expenditure on educational institutions in tertiary education by factorChanges in 2000-09 or latest available period, 2010 = 100




PRIVATE EXPENDITURE IN TERTIARY EDUCATIONEducational institutions in OECD countries are mainlypublicly funded, although there are substantial andgrowing levels of private funding at the tertiary level. Atthis level, the contribution to the costs of education byindividuals and other private entities is more and moreconsidered an effective way to ensure funding isavailable to students regardless of their economicbackgrounds.

DefinitionThis indicator covers private expenditure on schools,universities and other private institutions delivering orsupporting educational services. Other private entitiesinclude private businesses and non-profit organisations,e.g. religious organisations, charitable organisations andbusiness and labour associations. Expenditure by privatecompanies on the work-based element of school- andwork-based training of apprentices and students is alsotaken into account.

Private expenditure is recorded net of public subsidies toeducational institutions; it also includes expendituresmade outside educational institutions.

ComparabilityThe broad definition of educational institutions usedhere ensures that expenditures on services are covered

OverviewIn all countries, the proportion of private expenditure oneducation is far higher for tertiary education – an averageof 30% of total expenditure at this level – than it is forprimary, secondary and post-secondary non-tertiaryeducation (9%).The share of expenditure on tertiary institutions coveredby individuals, businesses and other private sources,including subsidised private payments, ranges from lessthan 5% in Denmark, Finland and Norway, to more than40% in Australia, Israel, Japan and the United States, toover 70% in Chile, Korea and the United Kingdom. Ofthese countries, in Korea and the United Kingdom, moststudents are enrolled in private institutions (around 80%in private universities in Korea; 100% in government-dependent private institutions in the United Kingdom),and most of the budget of educational institutions comesfrom tuition fees (more than 49% in Korea, and more than58% in the United Kingdom).On average across OECD countries, contribution fromprivate entities other than households to financingeducational institutions is higher for tertiary educationthan for other levels of education. In Australia, Canada,the Czech Republic, Israel, Japan, Korea, the Netherlands,the Slovak Republic, Sweden, the United Kingdom andthe United States, 10% or more of expenditure on tertiaryinstitutions is covered by private entities other thanhouseholds. For example, in Sweden these contributionsare largely directed to sponsoring research anddevelopment.Between 2000 and 2009, 18 out of the 25 countries forwhich comparable data are available showed an increasein the share of private funding for tertiary education. Theshare increased by seven percentage points, on average,and by more than ten percentage points in Mexico,Portugal, the Slovak Republic and the United Kingdom(which saw a 38 percentage point increase). While theshare of private funding for tertiary education rosesubstantially in some countries during the period, thiswas not the case for other levels of education.

by schools and universities (as it occurs in many OECDcountries) or by agencies other than schools (as ithappens in other countries).

The data on expenditure were obtained by a surveyconducted in 2011 which applied consistent methods anddefinitions. Expenditure data are based on the definitionsand coverage for the UNESCO-OECD-Eurostat datacollection programme on education; they have beenadjusted to 2009 prices using the GDP price deflator. Theuse of a common survey and definitions ensures goodcomparability of results across countries.


Publishing.• OECD (2012), Highlights from Education at a Glance,

OECD Publishing.• OECD (2012), Higher Education Management and Policy,

OECD Publishing.• OECD (2012), Reviews of National Policies for Education,

OECD Publishing.









Public and private expenditure on tertiary educational institutionsPercentage

As a percentage of total expenditure Index 2000 = 100Public sources Private sources Public

sourcesPrivatesources

Total Householdexpenditure

Other Total Of which:Subsidised

2000 2009 or latestavailable year

2000 2009 or latest available year 2009 or latestavailable year

2009 or latestavailable year

Australia 49.9 45.4 50.1 39.1 15.4 54.6 0.5 135.0 161.4Austria 96.3 87.7 3.7 2.9 9.4 12.3 8.8 142.2 517.7Belgium 91.5 89.7 8.5 5.5 4.8 10.3 3.9 122.6 150.5Canada 61.0 62.9 39.0 20.2 16.9 37.1 .. 130.5 120.5Chile .. 23.4 .. 68.1 8.5 76.6 9.3 .. ..Czech Republic 85.4 79.9 14.6 8.8 11.3 20.1 .. 202.4 298.3Denmark 97.6 95.4 2.4 .. .. 4.6 .. 120.7 236.4Estonia .. 80.2 .. 18.2 1.6 19.8 .. 163.3 ..Finland 97.2 95.8 2.8 .. .. 4.2 .. 127.3 198.0France 84.4 83.1 15.6 9.7 7.3 16.9 .. 121.7 134.3Germany 88.2 84.4 11.8 .. .. 15.6 .. 119.9 166.1Greece 99.7 .. 0.3 .. .. .. .. .. ..Hungary 76.7 .. 23.3 .. .. .. .. 134.7 ..Iceland 91.8 92.0 8.2 7.4 0.6 8.0 .. 159.4 154.5Ireland 79.2 83.8 20.8 13.8 2.4 16.2 .. 151.5 111.3Israel 58.5 58.2 41.5 27.3 14.6 41.8 5.0 107.8 109.3Italy 77.5 68.6 22.5 23.8 7.6 31.4 8.5 103.9 164.4Japan 38.5 35.3 61.5 50.7 14.1 64.7 .. 104.8 120.3Korea 23.3 26.1 76.7 49.2 24.8 73.9 1.4 182.9 157.5Luxembourg .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..Mexico 79.4 68.7 20.6 30.9 0.4 31.3 1.8 145.9 256.3Netherlands 76.5 72.0 23.5 14.9 13.1 28.0 0.4 126.9 160.9New Zealand .. 67.9 .. 32.1 .. 32.1 .. 157.2 ..Norway 96.3 96.1 3.7 3.0 .. 3.9 .. 123.6 130.6Poland 66.6 69.7 33.4 22.8 7.5 30.3 .. 211.4 182.7Portugal 92.5 70.9 7.5 22.3 6.8 29.1 .. 109.0 548.4Slovak Republic 91.2 70.0 8.8 11.7 18.3 30.0 2.0 138.9 619.6Slovenia .. 85.1 .. 10.8 4.2 14.9 .. .. ..Spain 74.4 79.1 25.6 16.8 4.1 20.9 1.7 149.3 114.8Sweden 91.3 89.8 8.7 .. 10.2 10.2 .. 125.3 149.7Switzerland .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 128.9 ..Turkey 95.4 .. 4.6 .. .. .. .. .. ..United Kingdom 67.7 29.6 32.3 58.1 12.3 70.4 10.8 116.7 334.2United States 31.1 38.1 68.9 45.3 16.6 61.9 .. 137.5 100.9EU27 .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..OECD 77.1 70.0 22.9 .. .. 30.0 3.2 138.0 215.9Brazil .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 162.5 ..China .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..India .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..Indonesia .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..Russian Federation .. 64.6 .. 27.4 8.0 35.4 .. 378.8 ..South Africa .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..


Share of private expenditure on tertiary educational institutionsPercentage




EDUCATION EXPENDITUREExpenditure on education is an investment that canfoster economic growth, enhance productivity,contribute to personal and social development andreduce social inequality. The proportion of total financialresources devoted to education is one of the key choicesmade by governments, enterprises, students and theirfamilies.

DefinitionThe indicator covers expenditure on schools, universitiesand other public and private institutions delivering orsupporting educational services. Expenditure oninstitutions is not limited to expenditure on instructionservices but includes public and private expenditure onancillary services for students and their families, wherethese services are provided through educationalinstitutions. At the tertiary level, spending on researchand development can also be significant and is includedin this indicator, to the extent that the research isperformed by educational institutions.

In principle, public expenditure includes both directexpenditure on educational institutions and educational-related public subsidies to households administered byeducational institutions. Private expenditure is recordednet of these public subsidies attributable to educationalinstitutions; it also excludes expenditure made outsideeducational institutions (such as textbooks purchased byfamilies, private tutoring for students and student livingcost).

OverviewExpenditure on educational institutions represents afinancial burden for society as a whole. This burden,however, does not fall on public funding alone. In 2009,taking into account both public and private sources,OECD countries spent 6.2% of their GDP on educationalinstitutions at the pre-primary, primary, secondary andtertiary levels. More than three-quarters of this amountcame from public sources. The highest spending oneducational institutions is in Denmark, Iceland, Israel,Korea, New Zealand and the Unites States, with at least7% of GDP accounted for by public and private spendingon educational institutions. Seven out of 37 countrieswith available data spent 5% or less of GDP oneducational institutions; in India and Indonesia theseshares are at or below 4%.Nearly one-quarter of OECD expenditure on educationalinstitutions is accounted for by tertiary education. At thislevel, the pathways available to students, the tuition feespaid by student, the duration of programmes and theorganisation of teaching vary greatly among OECDcountries, resulting in significant differences in theexpenditure allocated to tertiary education. On the onehand, Canada, Chile, Korea and the United States spendbetween 2.4% and 2.6% of their GDP on tertiaryinstitutions; these countries are also among those withthe highest proportion of private expenditure on tertiaryeducation. On the other hand, in Belgium, Brazil, France,Iceland, Norway, Switzerland and the United Kingdomexpenditure on tertiary institutions, as a portion of GDP,is below the OECD average; yet, these countries areamong those with a share of GDP spent on primary,secondary and post-secondary non-tertiary educationhigher than the OECD average.

ComparabilityThe broad definition of educational institutions usedhere ensures coverage of expenditures on services byschools and universities (as it occurs in many OECDcountries) or by agencies other than schools (as ithappens in other countries).

The data on expenditure were obtained by a specialsurvey conducted in 2011 which applied consistentmethods and definitions. Expenditure data are based onthe definitions and coverage for the UNESCO-OECD-Eurostat data collection programme on education; theyhave been adjusted to 2009 prices using the GDP pricedeflator. The use of a common survey and definitionsensures good comparability of results across countries.

No data for private expenditure are currently collectedfor countries ranked separately on the left-hand side ofthe chart.

Data for India, Indonesia and South Africa are based onUNESCO Institute for Statistics (World EducationIndicators Programme).


Publishing.• OECD (2012),

Quality Matters in Early Childhood Education and Care,OECD Publishing.

• OECD (2012), Reviews of National Policies for Education,OECD Publishing.

• OECD (2012),Strengthening Integrity and Fighting Corruption inEducation: Serbia, OECD Publishing.

• OECD (2011),Designing for Education, Compendium of ExemplaryEducational Facilities 2011, OECD Publishing.

• OECD (2006),Starting Strong III: Early Childhood Education and Care,OECD Publishing.

• OECD (2006), Schooling for Tomorrow, OECDPublishing.

• OECD and Edebé Ediciones Internacionales S.A deC.V. Mexico (2008),Students with Disabilities, Difficulties andDisadvantages: Statistics and Indicators of OASCountries, OECD Publishing.








Public and private expenditure on education2009 or latest available year

As a percentage of GDP Index of change, year 2000 = 100Primary, secondaryand post-secondary

non-tertiary education

Tertiary education All levels of education Primary, secondaryand post-secondary

non-tertiary education

Tertiary education All levels of education

Public Private Public Private Public Private Public Private Public Private Public PrivateAustralia 3.6 0.6 0.7 0.9 4.5 1.5 155.0 150.4 135.0 161.4 150.8 157.9Austria 3.8 0.1 1.4 0.1 5.7 0.2 112.4 114.6 142.2 517.7 118.2 175.5Belgium 4.3 0.2 1.4 0.1 6.4 0.3 121.4 108.1 122.6 150.5 123.5 122.3Canada 3.2 0.4 1.5 0.9 4.8 1.3 127.6 188.2 130.5 120.5 123.1 133.3Chile 2.9 0.8 0.8 1.6 4.3 2.6 .. .. .. .. .. ..Czech Republic 2.6 0.3 1.0 0.2 4.2 0.6 144.9 159.4 202.4 298.3 158.1 193.5Denmark 4.7 0.1 1.8 0.1 7.5 0.3 120.9 139.0 120.7 236.4 122.6 129.8Estonia 4.1 0.1 1.3 0.3 5.9 0.4 146.8 .. 163.3 .. 150.0 ..Finland 4.1 .. 1.8 0.1 6.3 0.1 132.7 160.3 127.3 198.0 131.8 157.4France 3.8 0.2 1.3 0.2 5.8 0.5 103.4 109.5 121.7 134.3 108.1 120.8Germany 2.9 0.4 1.1 0.2 4.5 0.8 106.2 101.9 119.9 166.1 112.6 123.1Greece .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..Hungary 3.0 .. 1.0 .. 4.8 .. 127.8 .. 134.7 .. 130.3 ..Iceland 5.0 0.2 1.2 0.1 7.3 0.7 139.4 141.8 159.4 154.5 148.4 134.9Ireland 4.6 0.1 1.4 0.3 6.0 0.4 207.7 116.0 151.5 111.3 190.6 111.7Israel 3.8 0.2 1.0 0.6 5.8 1.3 121.6 142.1 107.8 109.3 120.8 125.3Italy 3.3 0.1 0.8 0.2 4.5 0.4 107.7 146.4 103.9 164.4 103.9 177.2Japan 2.7 0.3 0.5 1.0 3.6 1.7 102.9 96.4 104.8 120.3 103.1 118.0Korea 3.6 1.1 0.7 1.9 4.9 3.1 177.8 234.0 182.9 157.5 187.1 181.5Luxembourg 3.2 0.1 .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..Mexico 3.3 0.7 1.0 0.4 5.0 1.2 121.8 177.9 145.9 256.3 129.5 203.5Netherlands 3.7 0.4 1.2 0.5 5.3 0.9 138.6 125.8 126.9 160.9 135.3 139.6New Zealand 4.5 0.7 1.1 0.5 6.1 1.3 130.5 .. 157.2 .. 138.9 ..Norway 4.2 .. 1.3 0.1 6.1 .. 127.2 .. 123.6 130.6 138.4 50.9Poland 3.5 0.2 1.1 0.5 5.0 0.8 131.2 154.0 211.4 182.7 142.4 177.3Portugal 4.0 .. 1.0 0.4 5.5 0.4 111.7 85.0 109.0 548.4 112.5 534.0Slovak Republic 2.7 0.3 0.7 0.3 4.1 0.6 149.8 881.5 138.9 619.6 146.8 751.1Slovenia 3.6 0.3 1.1 0.2 5.3 0.7 .. .. .. .. .. ..Spain 3.1 0.2 1.1 0.3 4.9 0.7 128.5 129.4 149.3 114.8 142.3 147.5Sweden 4.2 .. 1.6 0.2 6.6 0.2 116.4 51.1 125.3 149.7 124.4 107.9Switzerland 3.8 0.6 1.4 .. 5.5 .. 120.6 153.8 128.9 .. 122.1 153.8Turkey .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..United Kingdom 4.5 .. 0.6 0.7 5.3 0.7 132.9 283.2 116.7 334.2 117.0 302.9United States 3.9 0.3 1.0 1.6 5.3 2.1 126.5 118.1 137.5 100.9 129.1 103.1EU27 .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..OECD 3.7 0.3 1.1 0.5 5.4 0.9 130.8 170.7 138.0 215.9 133.2 185.9Brazil 4.3 .. 0.8 .. 5.5 .. 237.3 .. 162.5 .. 215.4 ..China .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..India 2.2 .. 1.3 .. 3.5 .. .. .. .. .. .. ..Indonesia 2.0 0.4 0.5 0.2 3.0 0.6 .. .. .. .. .. ..Russian Federation 2.3 0.1 1.2 0.6 4.7 0.8 212.0 .. 378.8 .. 244.1 ..South Africa 3.9 .. 0.6 .. 4.8 .. .. .. .. .. .. ..


Public and private expenditure on education for all levels of educationAs a percentage of GDP, 2009 or latest available year




Documents

EDUCATION - OECD · 2018-03-01 · OECD countries scored between 400 and 600. In 2009 PISA survey, with a slightly wider range of OECD countries, the average score changed for each