Education spending rising but access to higher education remains unequal in most countries, says OECD


US lags in access to preschool and college

Governments should increase investment in early childhood programmes and maintain reasonable costs for higher education in order to reduce inequality, boost social mobility and improve people’s employment prospects, according to a new OECD report.

 

Education at a Glance 2012 reveals stark differences between countries in the opportunities they offer young people to enter higher education, notably for children of poor families or whose parents have had a limited education.

 

“Countries need an increasingly educated and skilled workforce to succeed in today’s knowledge economy,” said OECD Secretary-General Angel Gurría. “Investing from an early age is crucial to lay the foundations of later success. High quality education and skills have to be among the number one priorities for governments, for economies and for societies. Supporting the poorest and ensuring equal access is another important pillar in an inclusive education policy strategy.”

 

Australia, Finland, Ireland and Sweden have the highest success rates in the OECD for young people with poorly-educated parents attaining a tertiary degree. But in Italy, Portugal, Turkey and the United States, more than 40% of young people from low educational backgrounds have not completed upper secondary education, and less than 20% have attained tertiary qualifications.

 

Enrolling children early in formal education and keeping schools mixed in terms of social backgrounds have more impact in boosting educational equality than other factors, such as parental support or the cost of tuition fees. Addressing inequality early is key as little can be done to remedy poor outcomes later in school, without compromising the quality of higher education, says the OECD.

 

Enrolment in early childhood education has risen over the past few years, from 64% of 3-year-olds in 2005 to 69% in 2010, and from 77% of 4-year-olds to 81% in 2010. Starting school at an early age pays off in the long run: OECD’s PISA tests of 15-year-olds show that, in most countries, pupils who have attended pre-primary education tend to perform better than those who have not. It also shows that longer pre-primary education, smaller pupil-to-teacher ratios and higher public expenditure per child all enhance the positive effects of pre-primary schooling.

New data also reveal the importance of a good education for social mobility and access to good, well-paid jobs. The earnings gap and employment rate between people with higher education and the less educated continued to rise during the global recession. A 25-64 year-old man with higher education earned 67% more in 2010 than one with upper secondary education, up from 58% in 2008. For women, the earnings premium grew to 59% in 2010 from 54% in 2008

 

The unemployment rate in 2010 was roughly one-third less for men with higher education than for men with upper secondary. For women, it was two-fifths less.

 

Countries gain long-term economic and social benefits from investing more in education, the report notes. On average, OECD countries receive a net return of over USD 100 000 in increased income tax and other savings for each man in higher education, almost 4 times their investment. For women the return is 2.5 times.

 

Well-educated people also live longer, are more likely to vote and have more supportive attitudes to equal rights for minorities, according to new data and analysis in this year’s edition.

 

Public and private spending on education continued to rise, even during the economic downturn. Between 2008 and 2009, total investment - by governments, enterprises and individuals - increased in 24 out of 31 OECD countries for which data are available. But while public spending on education as a percentage of total public expenditure remained at 13% on average across the OECD in both 2005 and 2009, it fell in 19 out of 32 countries over that period.

 

Private funding, mainly from households, represents on average 30% of total expenditure on tertiary education. This proportion ranges from less than 5% in Denmark, Finland and Norway, to more than 40% in Australia, Israel, Japan and the United States, and to over 70% in Chile, Korea and the United Kingdom.

 

The increasing costs of entry to higher education for many families may impede countries’ own goals of increasing educational attainment in their populations, warns the OECD.

 

Education at a Glance provides comparable national statistics about education for the 34 OECD member countries, as well as Argentina, Brazil, China, India, Indonesia, Russia, Saudi Arabia and South Africa.

 

This year’s report includes indicators on public and private spending on education, tuition fees, adult participation in education, class sizes, teacher salaries and decision-making powers of schools, and analysis of national exam systems and the criteria for attending tertiary education.

 
 

KEY FINDINGS

 Equity

 

  • Young women are five percentage points more likely than young men to become better educated than their parents (40% compared with 35%), while young men are more likely than young women to have lower educational attainment than their parents (15% compared with 11%).

 

  • The educational attainment of mothers has a stronger impact on students’ reading performance than the primary language at home or the proportion of immigrant students in a school.

 

  • Across OECD countries, more than one-third of immigrant students attend schools with the highest concentrations of students with low-educated mothers. In the European Union, more than half do.

 

 

Education spending

 

  • On average, OECD countries spend USD 9 252 annually per student from primary through tertiary education: USD 7 719 per primary student, USD 9 312 per secondary student and USD 13 728 per tertiary student.

 

  • The share of private funding for tertiary education increased between 2000 and 2009 in 18 out of 25 countries. The share increased by 5 percentage points on average, and by more than 12 percentage points in the Slovak Republic (from 8.8% to 30%) and the United Kingdom (from 32.3% to 70.4%).

 

  • An increasing number of OECD countries are charging higher tuition fees for international students than for national students, and many also differentiate tuition fees by field of education, largely because of the difference in the public cost of studies.

 

  • Between 2000 and 2009, in 24 of the 29 countries for which data are available, expenditure per primary, secondary and post-secondary non-tertiary student increased spending by at least 16%. The increase exceeded 50% in Brazil, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Ireland, Korea, Poland, the Slovak Republic and the United Kingdom. By contrast, in France, Israel and Italy, this expenditure increased by only 10% or less between 2000 and 2009.

 

School environment

 

  • Salaries for teachers with at least 15 years of experience average USD 35 630 at the pre-primary level, USD 37 603 at the primary level, USD 39 401 at the lower secondary level and USD 41 182 at the upper secondary level.

 

  • Teachers’ salaries increased in real terms in most countries between 2000 and 2010. In Denmark, Estonia, Ireland, Portugal and Scotland, salaries increased by at least 20%. In the Czech Republic (primary and lower secondary levels) and in Turkey, salaries doubled over the past decade. Only in France and Japan did teachers’ salaries decrease in real terms, by more than 5%.

 

  • The number of teaching hours per teacher in public schools in 2010 averages 782 hours per year in primary education, 704 hours in lower secondary education, and 658 hours in upper secondary education. This is little changed from 2000 but has changed dramatically in a few countries. It increased by more than 25% in the Czech Republic at the primary level and in Portugal and Spain at the secondary level.

 

  • Some two-thirds of teachers and academic staff are women on average in the OECD, but the proportion of female teachers decreases as the level of education increases: ranging from 97% at pre-primary to 41% at tertiary level.

 

  • 58% of primary teachers are at least 40 years old on average in OECD countries. The proportion exceeds 70% in the Czech Republic, Germany, Italy and Sweden. At secondary level, 63% of teachers are at least 40, and 70% or more in Austria, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Germany and Italy.

 

For comment only journalists are invited to contact Andreas Schleicher (tel. + 33 1 45 24 93 66) in the OECD’s Education Directorate. To get a copy of the report please send an email to news.contact@oecd.org. The report is available to journalists on the OECD’s password-protected site.

 

Further information on Education at a Glance 2012, including country notes, key data and a new visualization tool to compare countries’ performance, is available at www.oecd.org/edu/eag2012.

A mobile-friendly version of the report, compatible with smartphones and tablets, is available at http://oe.cd/EAG2012

Country briefings are available for Australia, Brazil, Canada, European Union, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Korea, Mexico, Portugal, Russian Federation, Spain, Sweden, United Kingdom and the United States. 

The OECD and visualizing.org have launched a data visualization competition around Education at a Glance 2012. The focus is on the economic costs and returns on education. Find out how to enter at http://visualizing.org/contests/oecd-education-challenge.

You have read this article with the title . You can bookmark this page URL https://universosportinguista.blogspot.com/2012/09/education-spending-rising-but-access-to.html. Thanks!

Boosting the Quality and Efficiency of Special Education


Special education consumes a growing share of increasingly tight district budgets but academic achievement among students with special needs continues to lag. How are districts spending their special education dollars? Does spending more translate to better results for their students with special needs?

In this study, the District Management Council’s Nate Levenson uses the largest database of information on special education spending and staffing ever assembled to uncover significant variance in how districts staff for special education. Levenson concludes that if the high-spending districts studied reduce their staffing in this area to the national median the public could save $10 billion. He offers no proof, however, that he national median represents an adequate level of funding. Levenson does offer clear recommendations for improving special-education quality and efficiency.

You have read this article with the title . You can bookmark this page URL https://universosportinguista.blogspot.com/2012/09/boosting-quality-and-efficiency-of.html. Thanks!

PISA: Poverty Is Schools' Achilles heel

From the National Association of Secondary School Principals blog:

National Association of Secondary School Principals Executive Director, Dr. Gerald N. Tirozzi has taken "a closer look at how the U.S. reading scores on PISA compared with the rest of the world’s, overlaying it with the statistics on how many of the tested students are in the government’s free and reduced lunch program for students below the poverty line." Tirozzi pointed out, “Once again, we’re reminded that students in poverty require intensive supports to break past a condition that formal schooling alone cannot overcome.” Tirozzi demonstrates the correlation between socio-economic status and reading by presenting the PISA scores in terms of individual American schools and poverty.  While the overall PISA rankings ignore such differences in the tested schools, when groupings based on the rate of free and reduced lunch are created, a direct relationship is established.

Free and Reduced Meal Rate

PISA Score

Schools with < 10%

551

Schools with 10-24.9%

527

Schools with 25-49.9%

502

Schools with 49.9-74.9%

471

Schools with >75%

446

U.S. average

500

OECD average

493

With strong evidence that increased poverty results in lower PISA scores the next question to be asked is what are the poverty rates of the countries being tested?  (Listed below are the countries that were tested by PISA along with available poverty rates. Some nations like Korea do not report poverty rates.)

Country

Poverty Rate

PISA Score

Denmark

2.4%

495

Finland

3.4%

536

Norway

3.6%

503

Belgium

6.7%

506

Switzerland

6.8%

501

Czech Republic

7.2%

478

France

7.3%

496

Netherlands

9.0%

508

Germany

10.9%

497

Australia

11.6%

515

Greece

12.4%

483

Hungary

13.1%

494

Austria

13.3%

471

Canada

13.6%

524

Japan

14.3%

520

Poland

14.5%

500

Portugal

15.6%

489

Ireland

15.7%

496

Italy

15.7%

486

United Kingdom

16.2%

494

New Zealand

16.3%

521

United States

21.7%

500

Leveling the playing field

A more accurate assessment of the performance of U.S. students would be obtained by comparing the scores of American schools with comparable poverty rates to those of other countries.

Schools in the United States with less than a 10% poverty rate had a PISA score of 551.  When compared to the ten countries with similar poverty numbers, that score ranked first. 

Country

Poverty Rate

PISA Score

United States

<10%

551

Finland

3.4%

536

Netherlands

9.0%

508

Belgium

6.7%

506

Norway

3.6%

503

Switzerland

6.8%

501

France

7.3%

496

Denmark

2.4%

495

Czech Republic

7.2%

478

In the next category (10-24.9%) the U.S. average of 527 placed first out of the ten comparable nations. 

 

Country

Poverty Rate

PISA Score

United States

10%-24.9%

527

Canada

13.6%

524

New Zealand

16.3%

521

Japan

14.3%

520

Australia

11.6%

515

Poland

14.5%

500

Germany

10.9%

497

Ireland

15.7%

496

Hungary

13.1%

494

United Kingdom

16.2%

494

Portugal

15.6%

489

Italy

15.7%

486

Greece

12.4%

483

Austria

13.3%

471



 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

For the remaining U.S. schools, their poverty rates over 25% far exceed any other country tested.  However, when the U.S. average of 502 for poverty rates between 25-49.9% is compared with other countries it is still in the upper half of the scores.

Mathematically Speaking

The results of the latest PISA testing should raise serious concerns.  However, the overall ranking of 14th in reading is not the reason to be concerned. The problem is not as much with our educational system as it is with our high poverty rates. The real crisis is the level of poverty in too many of our schools and the relationship between poverty and student achievement. Our lowest achieving schools are the most under-resourced schools with the highest number of disadvantaged students. We cannot treat these schools in the same way that we would schools in more advantaged neighborhoods or we will continue to get the same results. The PISA results point out that the U.S. is not alone in facing the challenge of raising the performance of disadvantaged students.

 

U.S. % Poverty

Other Countries

PISA Score

U.S. (<10%)

 

551

 

Korea

539

 

Finland

536

U.S. (10-24.9%)

 

527

 

Canada

524

 

New Zealand

521

 

Japan

520

 

Australia

515

 

Netherlands

508

 

Belgium

506

 

Norway

503

U.S. (25-49.9%)

 

502

 

Estonia

501

 

Switzerland

501

 

Poland

500

 

Iceland

500

U.S. (Average)

 

500

 

Sweden

497

 

Germany

497

 

Ireland

496

 

France

496

 

Denmark

495

 

United Kingdom

494

 

Hungary

494

 

Portugal

489

 

Italy

486

 

Slovenia

483

 

Greece

483

 

Spain

481

 

Czech Republic

478

 

Slovak Republic

477

 

Israel

474

 

Luxembourg

472

U.S. (50-74.9%)

 

471

 

Austria

471

 

Turkey

464

 

Chile

449

U.S. (over 75%)

 

446

 

Mexico

425

 

Additional observations from PISA results:

·      Shanghai, China topped the list with 556 but is not included in this analysis because Shanghai is a city not a country and because only 35% of Chinese students ever enter high school and because "when you spend all your time preparing for tests, and when students are selected based on their test-taking abilities, you get outstanding test scores."

·      Of all the nations participating in the PISA assessment, the U.S. has, by far, the largest number of students living in poverty--21.7%. The next closest nations in terms of poverty levels are the United Kingdom and New Zealand have poverty rates that are 75% of ours.

·      U.S. students in schools with 10% or less poverty are number one country in the world.

·      U.S. students in schools with 10-24.9% poverty are third behind Korea, and Finland.

·      U.S. students in schools with 25-50% poverty are tenth in the world.

·      U.S. students in schools with greater than 50% poverty are near the bottom.

·      There were other surprises. Germany with less than half our poverty, scored below the U.S. as did France with less than a third our poverty and Sweden with a low 3.6% poverty rate.

·     

You have read this article with the title . You can bookmark this page URL https://universosportinguista.blogspot.com/2012/09/pisa-poverty-is-schools-achilles-heel.html. Thanks!