PISA and INES projects
45
1 1 Israel Accession Seminar PISA and INES projects, and EAG 2011 PISA and INES projects 22-23 November 2011 Etienne Albiser
description
PISA and INES projects. 22-23 November 2011 Etienne Albiser. PISA 2009 Strong performers and successful reformers. Quality of learning outcomes Equity of learning outcomes Factors that make a difference. Etienne Albiser. PISA 2009 in brief. Over half a million students… - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Transcript of PISA and INES projects
11Is
rael
Acc
essi
on S
emin
arP
ISA
and
INE
S p
roje
cts,
and
E
AG
201
1
PISA and INES projects
22-23 November 2011
Etienne Albiser
22Is
rael
Acc
essi
on S
emin
arP
ISA
and
INE
S p
roje
cts,
and
E
AG
201
1
PISA 2009Strong performers
and successful reformers
Etienne Albiser
Quality of learning outcomesEquity of learning outcomes
Factors that make a difference
33 I
srae
lA
cces
sion
Sem
inar
PIS
A a
nd IN
ES
pro
ject
s, a
nd
EA
G 2
011
PISA 2009 in brief Over half a million students…
representing 28 million 15-year-olds in 74 countries/economies (about 87% of world economy)
… took an internationally agreed 2-hour test… Goes beyond testing whether students can reproduce,
what they were taught……to assess students’ capacity to extrapolate from what
they know and creatively apply their knowledge in novel situations
…and responded to questions on… their personal background, their schools and their engagement with learning and school
Parents, principals and system leaders provided data on…
school policies, practices, resources and institutional factors that help explain performance differences.
* Data for Costa Rica, Georgia, India, Malaysia, Malta, Mauritius, Venezuela and Vietnam will be published in December 2011
44 I
srae
lA
cces
sion
Sem
inar
PIS
A a
nd IN
ES
pro
ject
s, a
nd
EA
G 2
011
How proficient are students in reading?
Kyrg
yzst
an
Pana
ma
Qat
ar
Alba
nia
Arge
ntina
Braz
il
Jord
an
Trin
idad
and
Tob
ago
Uru
guay
Rom
ania
Serb
ia
Chile
Russ
ian
Fede
ratio
n
Luxe
mbo
urg
Lith
uani
a
Croa
tia
Gre
ece
Italy
Spai
n
Uni
ted
King
dom
Port
ugal
Latv
ia
Swed
en
Icel
and
Liec
hten
stei
n
Denm
ark
Nor
way
New
Zea
land
Aust
ralia
Esto
nia
Cana
da
Finl
and
Shan
ghai
-Chi
na
100
80
60
40
20
0
20
40
60
80
100
%
27%, compared with 19% for OECD average
7.4%, similar to OECD average
Students at Level 1a are capable of - locating pieces of explicitly stated information that are rather prominent in the text, - recognising a main idea in a text about a familiar topic, a- recognising the connection between information in such a text and their everyday experience.
Students at Level 5 can - handle texts that are unfamiliar in either form or content,- find information in such texts, demonstrate detailed understanding, and infer which information is relevant to the task. - critically evaluate such texts and build hypotheses about them, drawing on specialised knowledge and accommodating concepts that may be contrary to expectations.
55 I
srae
lA
cces
sion
Sem
inar
PIS
A a
nd IN
ES
pro
ject
s, a
nd
EA
G 2
011
Performance in reading (2009)400 450 500 550 600
Shanghai-China 556Korea 539
Finland 536Hong Kong-China 533
Singapore 526Canada 524
New Zealand 521J apan 520
Australia 515Netherlands 508
Belgium 506Norway 503Estonia 501
Switzerland 501Poland 500
I celand 500United States 500Liechtenstein 499
Sweden 497Germany 497I reland 496France 496
Chinese Taipei 495Denmark 495
United Kingdom 494Hungary 494
OECD average 493Portugal 489
I taly 486Slovenia 483Greece 483
Spain 481Czech Republic 478Slovak Republic 477
I srael 474Luxembourg 472
Austria 470Turkey 464
Chile 449Mexico 425
539
425
474
66 I
srae
lA
cces
sion
Sem
inar
PIS
A a
nd IN
ES
pro
ject
s, a
nd
EA
G 2
011
Change in reading performance between 2000 and 2009
Peru
Alba
nia
Latv
ia
Poland
Liec
hten
stein
Kore
a
Germ
any
Hong
Kong
-China
Mex
ico
Belgium
Italy
Norway
Japa
n
Unite
d St
ates
New Z
ealand
Thailand
Finlan
d
Austra
lia
Swed
en
Ireland
-40
-30
-20
-10
0
10
20
30
40
50
Scor
e po
int c
hang
e
Reading performance
improved
Reading performance
declined
77 I
srae
lA
cces
sion
Sem
inar
PIS
A a
nd IN
ES
pro
ject
s, a
nd
EA
G 2
011
Quality of learning outcomes
In Israel Average performance of 15-year-olds is:
Below the OECD average in Reading Below the OECD average in Maths Below the OECD average in Science
Trend data on average performance shows: Between 2000 and 2009 performance in
Reading increased significantly (by 22 score points)
No participation in PISA 2003, and no significant change in mean performance in Science between 2006 and 2009
88Is
rael
Acc
essi
on S
emin
arP
ISA
and
INE
S p
roje
cts,
and
E
AG
201
1Equity of learning outcomes
Low degree of equity in schooling outcomes in Israel Overall variation in reading performance is
high compared with OECD average (the largest among OECD countries) …
99 I
srae
lA
cces
sion
Sem
inar
PIS
A a
nd IN
ES
pro
ject
s, a
nd
EA
G 2
011
Variation in reading performance between and within schools
Arg
enti
na
Italy
Turk
ey
Isra
el
Germ
any
Hungary
Aust
ria
Luxem
bourg
Japan
Uru
guay
Bra
zil
Slo
venia
Cro
ati
a
Unit
ed S
tate
s
Sin
gapore
Kyrg
yzs
tan
Monte
negro
Alb
ania
Slo
vak R
epublic
Kaza
khst
an
Irela
nd
Chin
ese
Taip
ei
Sw
itze
rland
New
Zeala
nd
Shanghai-
Chin
a
Russ
ian F
edera
tion
Sw
eden
Indonesi
a
Pola
nd
Icela
nd
Norw
ay
-100
-80
-60
-40
-20
0
20
40
60
80
100Within-school variance explained Between-school variance explained
Performance differences between schools
Performance differences within schools
1010Is
rael
Acc
essi
on S
emin
arP
ISA
and
INE
S p
roje
cts,
and
E
AG
201
1Equity of learning outcomes
Low degree of equity in schooling outcomes in Israel Overall variation in reading performance is
high compared with OECD average (the largest among OECD countries) …
… and there is a large variation in performance between schools compared to other countries
Gender differences similar to OECD average– Girls outperform boys in reading (42 points)– No gender difference in mathematics– No gender difference in science
Relationship between performance and socio-economic background of the students is stronger than the average…
1111 I
srae
lA
cces
sion
Sem
inar
PIS
A a
nd IN
ES
pro
ject
s, a
nd
EA
G 2
011
Measures of the relationship between socio-economic background and reading
performance
OECD average
Israel
Shanghai-China
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
38.0
43.0
27.0
Slope of the gradient (score point difference associated with one unit increase in ESCS)
Performance gap between the advantaged and the disadvantaged is large compared with OECD average. Much larger than that in Shanghai-China…
OECD average
Israel
Shanghai-China
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
14.0
12.5
12.3
Strength of the gradient(% of variance explained by ESCS)
…but like Shanghai-China, the strength of association between performance and ESCS is similar to the OECD average.About 12-13% of reading performance variation between students explained by differences in their socio-economic background (compared with 14% on average across OECD countries)
1212 I
srae
lA
cces
sion
Sem
inar
PIS
A a
nd IN
ES
pro
ject
s, a
nd
EA
G 2
011
01020304050607080
%
Percentage of resilient students among disadvantaged students
More than 30% resilient students
among disadvantaged
students
Between 15%-30% of resilient students among
disadvantaged students
Less than 15% resilient
students among
disadvantaged students
students who succeed despite social disadvantage
1313Is
rael
Acc
essi
on S
emin
arP
ISA
and
INE
S p
roje
cts,
and
E
AG
201
1What factors make a difference?
For the individual student Reading for enjoyment
– 34% of students in Israel do not read for enjoyment…about the average but strongly related to performance
Diversity of reading materials– Students in Israel read a similar diversity of
material than on average in OECD countries Knowledge of strategies to summarise
information– Students in Israel are below the OECD
average in their knowledge of understanding, remembering and summarising information, but above the OECD average in their knowledge of the use of control strategies
And for system and school policies …
1414 I
srae
lA
cces
sion
Sem
inar
PIS
A a
nd IN
ES
pro
ject
s, a
nd
EA
G 2
011
Policies and practices
Learning climate
DisciplineTeacher behaviourParental pressureTeacher-student relationships
Dealing with heterogeneity
Grade repetitionPrevalence of trackingExpulsionsAbility grouping (all subjects)
Standards /accountability
Nat. examinationStandardised tests
PolicySystem
RSchool
REquity
E
1515Is
rael
Acc
essi
on S
emin
arP
ISA
and
INE
S p
roje
cts,
and
E
AG
201
1
What does it all mean?
1616 I
srae
lA
cces
sion
Sem
inar
PIS
A a
nd IN
ES
pro
ject
s, a
nd
EA
G 2
011
Lessons from PISA on successful education systems
Commitment to universal education and the belief that competencies can be learned and therefore all children can achieve
Universal educational standards and personalisation as the approach to heterogeneity ; Clear articulation who is responsible for ensuring student success and to whom
Clear ambitious goals that are shared across the system and aligned with high stakes gateways and instructional systems
Curricular goals translate into instructional systems, instructional practices and student learning (intended, implemented and achieved)
Capacity at the point of deliveryAttract develop and retain high quality teachers and school leaders; Instructional leadership and human resource management in schools; Keeping teaching an attractive profession; System-wide career development
1717 I
srae
lA
cces
sion
Sem
inar
PIS
A a
nd IN
ES
pro
ject
s, a
nd
EA
G 2
011
Lessons from PISA on successful education systems
Incentives, accountability, knowledge management
Aligned incentive structures (for students and teachers), balance between vertical and lateral accountability; Effective instruments to manage and share knowledge and spread innovation; A capable centre with authority and legitimacy to act
Investing resources where they can make most of a difference
Alignment of resources with key challenges e.g. attracting the most talented teachers to the most challenging classrooms); Effective spending choices that prioritise high quality teachers over smaller classes
A learning systemAn outward orientation of the system; Recognising challenges and potential future threats to current success
Coherence of policies and practicesAlignment of policies across all aspects of the system; Coherence of policies over sustained periods of time; Consistency of implementation; Fidelity of implementation (without excessive control)
1818Is
rael
Acc
essi
on S
emin
arP
ISA
and
INE
S p
roje
cts,
and
E
AG
201
1Further information
Education Directoratewww.oecd.org/edu
PISAwww.pisa.oecd.org Email: [email protected]
1919Is
rael
Acc
essi
on S
emin
arP
ISA
and
INE
S p
roje
cts,
and
E
AG
201
1
INES Methods, data collections
and publication (Education at a Glance)
22-23 November 2011
Etienne Albiser
2020 I
srae
lA
cces
sion
Sem
inar
PIS
A a
nd IN
ES
pro
ject
s, a
nd
EA
G 2
011
Education Policy Committee
Level 1: Governance and strategic co-ordination
Level 2: Operational Management
supported by an INES Advisory Group
Employment, Labour and
Social Affairs Committee
CERI Governing
Board
PISAGoverning
Board
Level 3: Research, Development, Production
Indicators of Education Systems (INES)Decisions/discussions bodies
EDPC governs INES drawing on advice of
Advisory Groupelected from EDPC on
rotating basis plus members from
ELSAC, CERI, PISA, BPCs
Manages the basic annual INES data collection
Provides technical oversight over respective analysis and publications (EAG)
INES Working Party for the annual INES data collection and
Outputs (including Education at a Glance)
Expert NetworkNESLI: network for the collection and adjudication of system-level descriptive information on educational structures, policies and practices
Expert NetworkLSO: network for data development on labour-market and social outcomes of education
2121 I
srae
lA
cces
sion
Sem
inar
PIS
A a
nd IN
ES
pro
ject
s, a
nd
EA
G 2
011
Indicators of Education Systems (INES)Data collections
Joint UNESCO-OECD-Eurostat (UOE) data collection on Education systems
Data on Enrolment, Entrant, Graduates, Class size, Education personnel, Education expenditure and ISCED mapping
INES Networks data collections NESLI network
– the OECD data collection on teachers and the curriculum,
LSO network– the OECD data collections on labour market outcomes
(NEAC), – transitions from education to work (TRANS), and – Earnings;
Some other non regular data collections
2222 I
srae
lA
cces
sion
Sem
inar
PIS
A a
nd IN
ES
pro
ject
s, a
nd
EA
G 2
011
Criteria to select an indicator at the international level
Statistics published at the national level are not always comparable between countries
The criteria used to guide the choice of indicators: Policy relevance – key measure of one of the cells in
the indicator framework Coherence - can be used together to present a
coherent picture of the education systems between countries and available for most countries
Accuracy and credibility - comparably measured across countries
Timeliness - regularly updated Indicators reviewed by members of INES Working
Party and also Education Policy Committee in a priority rating exercice
2323 I
srae
lA
cces
sion
Sem
inar
PIS
A a
nd IN
ES
pro
ject
s, a
nd
EA
G 2
011
Low policy value
High policy value
In development, improvement needed
Established, high technical standards
Money pits
Must haves
Low-hanging fruits
Quick wins
Indicators derived from UOE and other established
data sources
Indicators derived from UOE and other established
data sources
Developmental work in the INES Networks
2424 I
srae
lA
cces
sion
Sem
inar
PIS
A a
nd IN
ES
pro
ject
s, a
nd
EA
G 2
011
Education at a Glance 2011Key results
2525 I
srae
lA
cces
sion
Sem
inar
PIS
A a
nd IN
ES
pro
ject
s, a
nd
EA
G 2
011
Education at a Glance Education at a Glance 2011
495 pages, 29 Indicators, 132 tables, 119 charts +web only: 1 Indicator and 100 tables
4 Chapters Outcomes of education (Chapter A), Financing (Chapter B) Participation (Chapter C) School environment (Chapter D)
Public release: September (2nd Tuesday) Press conferences: Paris; Brussels; London; Berlin; Mexico Media coverage: Good coverage in media; BBC; CNN; Economist; etc.
On-line dissemination Whole book (tables, charts, text) available free EAG “navigator” tool Country notes Simultaneous release of Highlights from Education at a Glance
2010 Update of the public OECD.stat database with UOE 2010 data
2727Is
rael
Acc
essi
on S
emin
arP
ISA
and
INE
S p
roje
cts,
and
E
AG
201
1
Education at a Glance 2011
some results
2828 I
srae
lA
cces
sion
Sem
inar
PIS
A a
nd IN
ES
pro
ject
s, a
nd
EA
G 2
011
Expenditure on education is a priorityExpenditure on educational institutions as a percentage of GDP
Ice
lan
d
Isra
el
Un
ite
d S
tate
s
Ch
ile
Ne
w Z
ea
lan
d
Arg
en
tin
a
Fra
nce
Me
xic
o
Po
lan
d
Un
ite
d K
ing
do
m
Ire
lan
d
Au
stri
a
Po
rtu
ga
l
Sp
ain
Ita
ly
Hu
ng
ary
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
2008 2000 1995% of GDP
Chart B2.1
7.3% of GDP is devoted to education in 2008 (compared with 6.1% for OECD as a whole) But this share has decreased slightly between 2000 and 2008 (-0.3 percentage point), as expenditure on education increased by 21% whereas GDP increased by 29%.
2929 I
srae
lA
cces
sion
Sem
inar
PIS
A a
nd IN
ES
pro
ject
s, a
nd
EA
G 2
011
Primary, secondary and post-secondary non-tertiary
education
3030 I
srae
lA
cces
sion
Sem
inar
PIS
A a
nd IN
ES
pro
ject
s, a
nd
EA
G 2
011
Bra
zil
Est
on
iaS
lova
k R
ep
ub
licIr
ela
nd
Ko
rea
Po
lan
dH
un
ga
ryC
zech
Re
pu
blic
Un
ite
d K
ing
do
mIc
ela
nd
Ch
ileO
EC
D a
ve
rag
eS
pa
inFin
lan
dA
ust
ralia
Ne
the
rla
nd
sC
an
ad
aS
we
de
nS
wit
zerl
an
dN
orw
ay
Be
lgiu
mM
exic
oU
nit
ed
Sta
tes
Jap
an
Isra
el
Au
stri
aD
en
ma
rkPo
rtu
ga
lG
erm
an
yIt
aly
Fra
nce
70
90
110
130
150
170
190
210
230
Change in expenditureChange in the number of students (in full-time equivalents)Change in expenditure per student
Index of change (2000 = 100)
Chart B1.6
Expenditure per student is still below the OECD average
Index of changes between 2000 and 2008 (2000=100, 2008 constant prices), primary, secondary, post-secondary non-tertiary level
USD 5 780 USD 8 169
3131 I
srae
lA
cces
sion
Sem
inar
PIS
A a
nd IN
ES
pro
ject
s, a
nd
EA
G 2
011
ItalyAustralia
IsraelBelgium (Fr.)Netherlands
MexicoFranceIreland
SpainLuxembourg
PortugalEngland
Belgium (Fl.)Turkey
ChileAustria
OECD averageDenmark
IcelandGermany
JapanGreece
Slovak Repub-lic
NorwayHungary
Czech RepublicKorea
Sweden
Russian Federation
SloveniaFinlandEstoniaPoland
0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000 8,000 9,000
Ages 7 to 8 Ages 9 to 11 Ages 12 to 14
Chart D1.1Total number of intended instruction time in hours
… Despite a large number of instruction hours…
Total number of intended instruction hours in public institutions between the ages of 7 and 14 (2009)
6732 hours
7 746 hours
3232 I
srae
lA
cces
sion
Sem
inar
PIS
A a
nd IN
ES
pro
ject
s, a
nd
EA
G 2
011
… Despite a smaller number of teaching hours…
Net statutory contact time for teachers, in hours per year, in public institutions (2009)
Arg
en
tin
a
Un
ite
d S
tate
s
Sco
tla
nd
Bra
zil
Ge
rma
ny
Ire
lan
d
En
gla
nd
OE
CD
ave
rag
e
Be
lgiu
m (
Fl.)
No
rwa
y
Slo
va
k R
ep
ub
lic
Lu
xe
mb
ou
rg
Cze
ch R
ep
ub
lic
Ko
rea
Au
stri
a
Hu
ng
ary
Isra
el
Po
lan
d
0
200
400
600
800
1,000
1,200
1,400
1,600
Lower secondary educationPrimary educationUpper secondary education, general programmesHours per year
Chart D4.2
Between 80 % and 84 % of the OECD average teaching time at lower and upper secondary
3333 I
srae
lA
cces
sion
Sem
inar
PIS
A a
nd IN
ES
pro
ject
s, a
nd
EA
G 2
011
Ch
ina
Ch
ileK
ore
aJa
pa
nIs
rae
lIn
do
ne
sia
Arg
en
tin
aT
urk
ey
Bra
zil
Un
ite
d K
ing
do
mIr
ela
nd
Au
stra
liaU
nit
ed
Sta
tes
Fra
nce
Ge
rma
ny
Sp
ain
Hu
ng
ary
Po
rtu
ga
lB
elg
ium
(Fr.
)C
zech
Re
pu
blic
Me
xic
oFin
lan
dS
wit
zerl
an
dD
en
ma
rkA
ust
ria
Ita
lyPo
lan
dS
love
nia
Slo
va
k R
ep
ub
licE
sto
nia
Ice
lan
dG
ree
ceR
uss
ian
Fe
de
rati
on
Lu
xe
mb
ou
rg
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
2009 2000Number of studentsper classroom
Chart D2.1
…but because of bigger class sizes…
Average class size in primary education (2000, 2009)
In 2009 , 27.4 pupils per classroom: 6 more than on average in OECD countries
3434 I
srae
lA
cces
sion
Sem
inar
PIS
A a
nd IN
ES
pro
ject
s, a
nd
EA
G 2
011
… And lower than average teachers salaries…
Annual statutory teachers’ salaries (minimum, after 15 years experience, and maximum) in public institutions in lower secondary education, in equivalent USD converted using PPPs
Lu
xe
mb
ou
rg
Ge
rma
ny
Ne
the
rla
nd
s
Ko
rea
Sco
tla
nd
Au
stra
lia
Be
lgiu
m (
Fl.)
Un
ite
d S
tate
s
Fin
lan
d
Po
rtu
ga
l
Ita
ly
Fra
nce
Gre
ece
Isra
el
Cze
ch R
ep
ub
lic
Po
lan
d
Hu
ng
ary
Ind
on
esi
a
0
20,000
40,000
60,000
80,000
100,000
120,000
140,000
Starting salary/ minimum training
Salary at the top of scale/ minimum training
Salary after 15 years of experience/ minimum training
Equivalent USD converted using PPPs
Chart D3.1
3535 I
srae
lA
cces
sion
Sem
inar
PIS
A a
nd IN
ES
pro
ject
s, a
nd
EA
G 2
011
…even if teachers’ salaries have increased
Lower secondary teachers’ statutory salaries after 15 years of experience/minimum training, index of change between 1995 and 2009 (2005 = 100, constant prices)
Est
on
iaC
zech
Re
pu
blic
De
nm
ark
Ire
lan
dN
eth
erl
an
ds
Ice
lan
dIs
rae
lN
orw
ay
Port
ug
al
Sp
ain
Luxe
mb
ou
rgB
elg
ium
(Fr.
)G
ree
ceA
ust
ria
Be
lgiu
m (
Fl.)
Fin
lan
dS
we
de
nO
EC
D a
ve
rag
eM
exi
coE
ng
lan
dS
wit
zerl
an
dS
cotl
an
dIt
aly
Ko
rea
Un
ite
d S
tate
sA
ust
ralia
Jap
an
Fra
nce
Hu
ng
ary
50
60
70
80
90
100
110
120
130
140
150
2009 1995 2000Index of change
2005=100
Chart D3.2
3636 I
srae
lA
cces
sion
Sem
inar
PIS
A a
nd IN
ES
pro
ject
s, a
nd
EA
G 2
011
Baseline qualifications are more widespread than in most other
countriesApproximated by percentage of persons with upper secondary or equivalent qualifications in the age groups 55-64, 45-55, 45-44 and 25-34 years (2009)
Un
ite
d S
tate
s
Est
on
ia
Ge
rma
ny
Ca
na
da
Po
lan
d
Isra
el
Hu
ng
ary
Ru
ssia
n F
ed
era
tio
n
De
nm
ark
Un
ite
d K
ing
do
m
Ne
w Z
ea
lan
d
Au
stra
lia
Fra
nce
Ire
lan
d
Ko
rea
Ita
ly
Bra
zil
Tu
rke
y
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
1002000's 1990's 1980's 1970's%
TA1.2a
81% of 25-64 year-olds 73% of 25-64 year-
olds
3737 I
srae
lA
cces
sion
Sem
inar
PIS
A a
nd IN
ES
pro
ject
s, a
nd
EA
G 2
011 Tertiary education
3838 I
srae
lA
cces
sion
Sem
inar
PIS
A a
nd IN
ES
pro
ject
s, a
nd
EA
G 2
011
University-level qualifications are more prevalent in two other countries
only
Percentage of the population that has attained tertiary-type A education in the age groups 25-34 years and 55-64 years (2009)
Ko
rea
Jap
an
Ire
lan
d
Ne
w Z
ea
lan
d
Un
ite
d K
ing
do
m
De
nm
ark
Isra
el
Sw
ed
en
Ne
the
rla
nd
s
Fin
lan
d
OE
CD
ave
rag
e
Ice
lan
d
Ch
ile
Gre
ece
Hu
ng
ary
Au
stri
a
Cze
ch R
ep
ub
lic
Ita
ly
Bra
zil0
10
20
30
40
50
60
7025-34 year-olds 55-64 year-olds
%
Chart A1.1
45% of 25-64 year-olds
30% of 25-64 year-olds
4040 I
srae
lA
cces
sion
Sem
inar
PIS
A a
nd IN
ES
pro
ject
s, a
nd
EA
G 2
011
Po
lan
dK
ore
aS
pa
inPo
rtu
ga
lE
sto
nia
Un
ite
d K
ing
do
mA
ust
ria
Cze
ch R
ep
ub
licFin
lan
dJa
pa
nFra
nce
Me
xic
oD
en
ma
rkIr
ela
nd
Ca
na
da
OE
CD
ave
rag
eN
orw
ay
Be
lgiu
mIt
aly
Au
stra
liaG
erm
an
yS
we
de
nS
lova
k R
ep
ub
licIc
ela
nd
Ne
the
rla
nd
sU
nit
ed
Sta
tes
Bra
zil
Isra
el
Hu
ng
ary
Ch
ile
708090
100110120130140150160170180190200210
Change in expenditureChange in the number of students (in full-time equivalents)Change in expenditure per student
Chart B1.6
Index of change (2000 = 100)
Expenditure per student is below the OECD average and decreases
Index of change between 2000 and 2008 (2000=100, 2008 constant prices), tertiary
education
USD 12 568USD 13 718
4141 I
srae
lA
cces
sion
Sem
inar
PIS
A a
nd IN
ES
pro
ject
s, a
nd
EA
G 2
011
Ire
lan
dFin
lan
dIs
rae
lC
zech
Re
pu
blic
Po
lan
dS
lova
k R
ep
ub
licS
we
de
nIt
aly
Ne
w Z
ea
lan
dJa
pa
nH
un
ga
ryB
elg
ium
Ch
ileA
ust
ralia
Ne
the
rla
nd
sK
ore
aO
EC
D a
ve
rag
eIc
ela
nd
No
rwa
yE
sto
nia
De
nm
ark
G2
0 a
ve
rag
eG
erm
an
yR
uss
ian
Fe
de
ra..
.S
pa
inT
urk
ey
Arg
en
tin
aM
exic
oS
love
nia
Ch
ina
Au
stri
aS
wit
zerl
an
dIn
do
ne
sia
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Graduation rates from upper secondary and post-secondary non-tertiary programmes designed to prepare students for tertiary-type A education
Entry rates into tertiary-type A education
Chart A2.2
%
Below average access to University education
Access to tertiary-type A education for upper secondary and post-secondary non-tertiary graduates (2009)
4242 I
srae
lA
cces
sion
Sem
inar
PIS
A a
nd IN
ES
pro
ject
s, a
nd
EA
G 2
011
Average relative earnings from employment…
Relative earnings from employment by level of educational attainment for 25-to-64 year-olds
(upper secondary and post-secondary non-tertiary education = 100) (2009 or latest available year)
Bra
zil
Hu
ng
ary
Slo
ve
nia
Cze
ch
Re
pu
bli
cS
lova
k R
ep
ub
lic
Un
ite
d S
tate
sP
ort
ug
al
Po
lan
dLu
xe
mb
ou
rgIr
ela
nd
Un
ite
d K
ing
do
mN
eth
erl
an
ds
Ge
rma
ny
Au
str
iaS
wit
ze
rla
nd
Isra
el
OE
CD
ave
rag
eG
ree
ce
Ita
lyT
urk
ey
Jap
an
Fra
nce
Fin
lan
dS
pa
inC
an
ad
aE
sto
nia
Au
str
ali
aB
elg
ium
Ko
rea
No
rwa
yD
en
ma
rkS
we
de
nN
ew
Ze
ala
nd
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
220
Below upper secondary education Tertiary education
Chart A8.1
Index256
4343 I
srae
lA
cces
sion
Sem
inar
PIS
A a
nd IN
ES
pro
ject
s, a
nd
EA
G 2
011
… and lower than average labour costs…Deviation from the OECD mean in annu al labour costs, by level of education
(in USD for 25-64 year-olds)
Po
lan
d
Esto
nia
Hu
ng
ary
Slo
va
k R
ep
ub
lic
Po
rtu
ga
l
Isra
el
Gre
ece
Ko
rea
Ne
w Z
ea
lan
d
Slo
ve
nia
Cze
ch
Re
pu
bli
c
Sp
ain
Ca
na
da
Ice
lan
d
Fra
nce
Fin
lan
d
Au
str
ali
a
Un
ite
d K
ing
do
m
Be
lgiu
m
Sw
ed
en
Ge
rma
ny
Ita
ly
De
nm
ark
Un
ite
d S
tate
s
No
rwa
y
Ire
lan
d
Ne
the
rla
nd
s
Au
str
ia
Lu
xe
mb
ou
rg
-50,000
-30,000
-10,000
10,000
30,000
50,000
70,000Below upper secondary education Upper secondary education
Chart A10.2
USD
4444 I
srae
lA
cces
sion
Sem
inar
PIS
A a
nd IN
ES
pro
ject
s, a
nd
EA
G 2
011
…As well as below average net income
Net income in USD for 25-64 year-olds with a tertiary education (2009 or latest year available)
Lu
xe
mb
ou
rgU
nit
ed
Sta
tes
Au
stri
aIr
ela
nd
Ne
the
rla
nd
sA
ust
ralia
Un
ite
d K
ing
do
mC
an
ad
aK
ore
aN
orw
ay
Ge
rma
ny
Ita
lyS
we
de
nO
EC
D A
ve
rag
eC
zech
Re
pu
blic
Ne
w Z
ea
lan
dD
en
ma
rkFin
lan
dIc
ela
nd
Fra
nce
Be
lgiu
mS
pa
inIs
rae
lS
love
nia
Po
rtu
ga
lG
ree
ceS
lova
k R
ep
ub
licH
un
ga
ryPo
lan
dE
sto
nia
0
10,000
20,000
30,000
40,000
50,000
60,000
70,000
80,000
90,000
Net income 3-year-average exchange rate
Net income (Purchasing Power Parity-adjusted)
Chart A10.4
USD
4545 I
srae
lA
cces
sion
Sem
inar
PIS
A a
nd IN
ES
pro
ject
s, a
nd
EA
G 2
011
Positive relation between education and employment
Percentage of 25-64 year-olds in employment, by level of education (2009)
No
rwa
y
Slo
ve
nia
Sw
ed
en
De
nm
ark
Au
stri
a
Bra
zil
Lu
xe
mb
ou
rg
Fin
lan
d
Au
stra
lia
Ne
w Z
ea
lan
d
Fra
nce
Est
on
ia
Gre
ece
Ca
na
da
Sp
ain
Jap
an
Hu
ng
ary
Ko
rea
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Tertiary education
Upper secondary and post-secondary non-tertiary
Below upper secondary
Chart A7.1
%
Since the start of the recession in 2007, employment rates did not decreased much in Israel, compared to other OECD countries
4646 I
srae
lA
cces
sion
Sem
inar
PIS
A a
nd IN
ES
pro
ject
s, a
nd
EA
G 2
011
When the crisis hit
Percentage point change between 2008-09 in unemployment rate for the 25-64 year-olds
Germany
Chile
Norway
Italy
Brazil
Australia
Mexico
Slovenia
Greece
Slovak Republic
Poland
OECD average
Turkey
Hungary
Denmark
United States
Spain
-2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
Tertiary education Below upper secondary
Table A7.4a
Unemployment rates in 2009Below upper secondary attainment: 10.8% in Israel (OECD average of 11.5%)Tertiary attainment: 5.2% in Israel (OECD average of 4.4%)
4747Is
rael
Acc
essi
on S
emin
arP
ISA
and
INE
S p
roje
cts,
and
E
AG
201
1Further information
Education Directoratewww.oecd.org/edu
Education at a Glance 2011www.oecd.org/edu/eag2011
