Transcript EAG 2008 Master Powerpoint slides

Israel
Accession Seminar
PISA and INES projects, and
EAG 2011
11
PISA and INES projects
22-23 November 2011
Etienne Albiser
Israel
Accession Seminar
PISA and INES projects, and
EAG 2011
22
PISA 2009
Strong performers
and successful reformers
Quality of learning outcomes
Equity of learning outcomes
Factors that make a difference
Etienne Albiser
Israel
Accession Seminar
PISA and INES projects, and
EAG 2011
33
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
How proficient are students in reading?
44
%
100
PISA and INES projects, and
EAG 2011
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.
80
60
40
20
0
20
40
Israel
Seminar
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.
7.4%, similar
to OECD
average
60
Shanghai-China
Korea
Accession
Finland
Hong Kong-China
Canada
Singapore
Estonia
Japan
Australia
Netherlands
New Zealand
Macao-China
Norway
Poland
Denmark
Chinese Taipei
Liechtenstein
Switzerland
Iceland
Ireland
Sweden
Hungary
Latvia
United States
Portugal
Belgium
United Kingdom
Germany
Spain
France
Italy
Slovenia
Greece
Slovak Republic
Croatia
Czech Republic
Lithuania
Turkey
Luxembourg
Israel
Russian Federation
Austria
Chile
Dubai (UAE)
Serbia
Mexico
Romania
Bulgaria
Uruguay
Thailand
Trinidad and Tobago
Colombia
Jordan
Montenegro
Brazil
Tunisia
Argentina
Indonesia
Albania
Kazakhstan
Qatar
Peru
Panama
Azerbaijan
Kyrgyzstan
27%, compared with
19% for OECD average
80
100
Israel
Accession Seminar
PISA and INES projects, and
EAG 2011
55
Performance in reading (2009)
400
Shanghai-China 556
Korea 539
Finland 536
Hong Kong-China 533
Singapore 526
Canada 524
New Zealand 521
Japan 520
Australia 515
Netherlands 508
Belgium 506
Norway 503
Estonia 501
Switzerland 501
Poland 500
Iceland 500
United States 500
Liechtenstein 499
Sweden 497
Germany 497
Ireland 496
France 496
Chinese Taipei 495
Denmark 495
United Kingdom 494
Hungary 494
OECD average 493
Portugal 489
Italy 486
Slovenia 483
Greece 483
Spain 481
Czech Republic 478
Slovak Republic 477
Israel 474
Luxembourg 472
Austria 470
Turkey 464
Chile 449
Mexico 425
450
500
550
600
539
474
425
50
40
30
-20
-30
-40
Peru
Chile
Albania
Indonesia
Latvia
Israel
Poland
Portugal
Liechtenstein
Brazil
Korea
Hungary
Germany
Greece
Hong Kong-China
Switzerland
Mexico
OECD average-26
Belgium
Bulgaria
Italy
Denmark
Norway
Russian Federation
Japan
Romania
United States
Iceland
New Zealand
France
Thailand
Canada
Finland
Spain
Australia
Czech Republic
Sweden
Argentina
Ireland
PISA and INES projects, and
EAG 2011
Score point change
Israel
Accession Seminar
66
Change in reading performance
between 2000 and 2009
Reading
performance
improved
20
10
0
-10
Reading
performance
declined
Quality of learning outcomes
Israel
Accession Seminar
PISA and INES projects, and
EAG 2011
77
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
Equity of learning outcomes
Israel
Accession Seminar
PISA and INES projects, and
EAG 2011
88

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) …
Israel
Accession Seminar
100
20
0
-20
-100
Argentina
Trinidad and Tobago
Italy
Qatar
Turkey
Bulgaria
Israel
Panama
Germany
Peru
Hungary
Dubai (UAE)
Austria
Belgium
Luxembourg
Netherlands
Japan
Chile
Uruguay
Greece
Brazil
Czech Republic
Slovenia
Romania
Croatia
Serbia
United States
Mexico
Singapore
Jordan
Kyrgyzstan
Colombia
Montenegro
Hong Kong-China
Albania
Tunisia
Slovak Republic
Liechtenstein
Kazakhstan
Macao-China
Ireland
United Kingdom
Chinese Taipei
Korea
Switzerland
Australia
New Zealand
Portugal
Shanghai-China
Azerbaijan
Russian Federation
Canada
Sweden
Lithuania
Indonesia
Spain
Poland
Estonia
Iceland
Denmark
Norway
Finland
PISA and INES projects, and
EAG 2011
99
Variation in reading performance
between and within schools
Within-school variance explained
Between-school variance explained
80
60
40
Performance differences
between schools
Performance differences
within schools
-40
-60
-80
Equity of learning outcomes
Israel
Accession Seminar
PISA and INES projects, and
EAG 2011
10
10

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 socioeconomic background of the students is
stronger than the average…
Israel
Accession Seminar
PISA and INES projects, and
EAG 2011
11
11
Measures of the relationship between socioeconomic background and reading performance
Slope of the gradient
(score point difference associated with one unit increase in ESCS)
Performance gap between the advantaged
and
38.0
the disadvantaged is large compared with OECD
43.0
average.
Much larger than that in27.0
Shanghai-China…
OECD average
Israel
Shanghai-China
0
10
20
30
40
50
…but like Shanghai-China, the strength of association
Strength of and
the ESCS
gradient
between performance
is similar to the OECD
(% of variance explained by ESCS)
average.
About 12-13% of reading performance variation between
OECD average
14.0
students explained by differences in their socio-economic
across OECD
Israel background (compared with 14% on average 12.5
countries)
Shanghai-China
12.3
0
5
10
15
Israel
Accession Seminar
PISA and INES projects, and
EAG 2011
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Shanghai-China
Hong Kong-China
Korea
Macao-China
Singapore
Finland
Japan
Turkey
Canada
Portugal
Chinese Taipei
Poland
New Zealand
Spain
Liechtenstein
Estonia
Netherlands
Italy
Switzerland
Latvia
Australia
OECD average
France
Belgium
Ireland
Iceland
Mexico
United States
Greece
Thailand
Croatia
Tunisia
Norway
Hungary
Sweden
Slovenia
Indonesia
Denmark
Chile
United Kingdom
Israel
Colombia
Germany
Brazil
Czech Republic
Slovak Republic
Luxembourg
Lithuania
Austria
Russian Federation
Trinidad and Tobago
Uruguay
Serbia
Jordan
Albania
Argentina
Dubai (UAE)
Romania
Bulgaria
Panama
Montenegro
Kazakhstan
Peru
Azerbaijan
Qatar
Kyrgyzstan
12
12
Percentage of resilient students among
disadvantaged students
%
students who succeed despite social
disadvantage
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
What factors make a difference?

For the individual student


Israel
Accession Seminar
PISA and INES projects, and
EAG 2011
13
13


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 …
Israel
Accession Seminar
PISA and INES projects, and
EAG 2011
14
14
Policy
Policies and practices
R
R
System
E
School
Equity
Learning climate
Discipline

Teacher behaviour

Parental pressure
Teacher-student
relationships
Dealing with
heterogeneity
Grade repetition
Prevalence of
tracking
Expulsions
Ability grouping
(all subjects)
Standards
/accountability
Nat. examination
Standardised tests














Israel
Accession Seminar
PISA and INES projects, and
EAG 2011
15
15
What does it all mean?
Lessons from PISA
on successful education systems
Israel
Accession Seminar
PISA and INES projects, and
EAG 2011
16
16

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 delivery
Attract 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
Lessons from PISA
on successful education systems
Israel
Accession Seminar
PISA and INES projects, and
EAG 2011
17
17

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 system
An outward orientation of the system; Recognising challenges and
potential future threats to current success

Coherence of policies and practices
Alignment 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)
Israel
Accession Seminar
PISA and INES projects, and
EAG 2011
18
18
Further information
Education Directorate
www.oecd.org/edu
PISA
www.pisa.oecd.org
Email: [email protected]
[email protected]
Israel
Accession Seminar
PISA and INES projects, and
EAG 2011
19
19
INES
Methods, data collections
and publication
(Education at a Glance)
22-23 November 2011
Etienne Albiser
Israel
Accession Seminar
PISA and INES projects, and
EAG 2011
Indicators of Education Systems (INES)
20
20
Decisions/discussions bodies
Level 1: Governance and strategic co-ordination
Education Policy Committee
supported by an INES Advisory Group
EDPC governs INES drawing
Employment,
on advice of
Advisory Group
CERI
PISA
Labour and
elected from
EDPC on rotating
Governing
Governing
Social Affairs
members fromBoard
Board
Committee basis plus
ELSAC, CERI, PISA, BPCs
Manages the basic annual
INES data collection
Level 2: Operational Management
INES Working Party
for the annual INES data collection and
Outputs (including Education at a Glance)
Provides technical oversight
over respective analysis and
publications (EAG)
Level 3: Research, Development, Production
Expert Network
NESLI: network for the collection and adjudication
of system-level descriptive information on educational
structures, policies and practices
Expert Network
LSO: network for data development on
labour-market and social outcomes of education
Data collections


Israel
Accession Seminar
PISA and INES projects, and
EAG 2011
Indicators
of
Education
Systems
(INES)
21
21
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


Statistics published at the national level are not
always comparable between countries
The criteria used to guide the choice of indicators:


Israel
Accession Seminar
PISA and INES projects, and
EAG 2011
Criteria to select an indicator at
22
22
the international level



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
Quick wins
Must haves
Developmental work in the
INES Networks
Indicators derived from UOE
and other established
data sources
In development,
improvement needed
Israel
Accession Seminar
PISA and INES projects, and
EAG 2011
23
23
High policy value
Established,
high technical standards
Indicators derived from UOE
and other established
data sources
Money pits
Low-hanging fruits
Low policy value
Israel
Accession Seminar
PISA and INES projects, and
EAG 2011
24
24
Education at a Glance 2011
Key results
Education at a Glance
PISA and INES projects, and
EAG 2011

Israel
Accession Seminar
25
25

Education at a Glance 2011



4 Chapters




Outcomes of education (Chapter A),
Financing (Chapter B)
Participation (Chapter C)
School environment (Chapter D)
Public release: September (2nd Tuesday)



495 pages, 29 Indicators, 132 tables, 119 charts
+web only: 1 Indicator and 100 tables
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
Israel
Accession Seminar
PISA and INES projects, and
EAG 2011
27
27
Education at a Glance 2011
some results
Expenditure on education is a priority
Expenditure on educational institutions as a percentage of GDP
% of GDP
2008
2000
1995
OECD Total
8
7
6
5
4
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%.
3
2
1
0
Iceland
Korea
Israel
Norway
United States
Denmark
Chile
Belgium
New Zealand
Sweden
Argentina
Canada
France
Finland
Mexico
Estonia
Poland
Switzerland
United Kingdom
Netherlands
Ireland
Slovenia
Austria
Brazil
Portugal
Australia
Spain
Japan
Italy
Germany
Hungary
Russian Federation
Czech Republic
Slovak Republic
China
Indonesia
Israel
Accession Seminar
PISA and INES projects, and
EAG 2011
28
28
Chart B2.1
Israel
Accession Seminar
PISA and INES projects, and
EAG 2011
29
29
Primary, secondary and
post-secondary non-tertiary
education
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
Index of change
(2000 = 100)
230
220
210
200
190
180
170
160
150
140
130
120
110
100
90
80
70
Change in expenditure
Change in the number of students (in full-time equivalents)
Change in expenditure per student
USD 8 169
USD 5 780
Brazil
Estonia
Slovak Republic
Ireland
Korea
Poland
Hungary
Czech Republic
United Kingdom
Iceland
Chile
OECD average
Spain
Finland
Australia
Netherlands
Canada
Sweden
Switzerland
Norway
Belgium
Mexico
United States
Japan
Israel
Austria
Denmark
Portugal
Germany
Italy
France
Israel
Accession Seminar
PISA and INES projects, and
EAG 2011
30
30
Chart B1.6
Israel
Accession Seminar
PISA and INES projects, and
EAG 2011
31
31
… Despite a large number of instruction hours…
Total number of intended instruction hours
in public institutions between the ages of 7 and 14 (2009)
Ages 7 to 8
Poland
Estonia
Finland
Slovenia
Russian Federation
Sweden
Korea
Czech Republic
Hungary
Norway
Slovak Republic
Greece
Japan
Germany
Iceland
Denmark
OECD average
Austria
Chile
Turkey
Belgium (Fl.)
England
Portugal
Luxembourg
Spain
Ireland
France
Mexico
Netherlands
Belgium (Fr.)
Israel
Australia
Italy
Ages 9 to 11
Ages 12 to 14
6732 hours
7 746 hours
0
Chart D1.1
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
7,000
8,000
9,000
Total number of intended instruction time in hours
… Despite a smaller number of teaching hours…
Net statutory contact time for teachers, in hours per year, in public institutions (2009)
Hours per year
1,600
Lower secondary education
Primary education
Upper secondary education, general programmes
Between 80 % and 84 % of the
OECD average teaching time at
lower and upper secondary
1,400
1,200
1,000
800
600
400
200
0
Argentina
Chile
United States
Mexico
Scotland
Australia
Brazil
Portugal
Germany
Netherlands
Ireland
Indonesia
England
Spain
OECD average
Slovenia
Belgium (Fl.)
Belgium (Fr.)
Norway
Denmark
Slovak Republic
France
Luxembourg
Estonia
Czech Republic
Italy
Korea
Iceland
Austria
Japan
Hungary
Finland
Israel
Russian…
Poland
Greece
Israel
Accession Seminar
PISA and INES projects, and
EAG 2011
32
32
Chart D4.2
Chart D2.1
China
Chile
Korea
Japan
Israel
Indonesia
Argentina
Turkey
Brazil
United Kingdom
Ireland
Australia
United States
France
Germany
Spain
Hungary
Portugal
Belgium (Fr.)
Czech Republic
Mexico
Finland
Switzerland
Denmark
Austria
Italy
Poland
Slovenia
Slovak Republic
Estonia
Iceland
Greece
Russian Federation
Luxembourg
Israel
Accession Seminar
PISA and INES projects, and
EAG 2011
33
33
…but because of bigger class sizes…
Average class size in primary education (2000, 2009)
Number of students
per classroom
40
15
10
2009
2000
35
30
25
20
In 2009 , 27.4 pupils per
classroom: 6 more than on
average in OECD countries
… 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
Equivalent USD
converted using
PPPs
140,000
Starting salary/ minimum training
Salary at the top of scale/ minimum training
Salary after 15 years of experience/ minimum training
120,000
100,000
80,000
60,000
40,000
20,000
0
Luxembourg
Switzerland
Germany
Ireland
Netherlands
Denmark
Korea
Spain
Scotland
Japan
Australia
England
Belgium (Fl.)
Belgium (Fr.)
United States
Austria
Finland
Norway
Portugal
OECD average
Italy
Sweden
France
Slovenia
Greece
Iceland
Israel
Mexico
Czech Republic
Chile
Poland
Estonia
Hungary
Slovak Republic
Indonesia
Israel
Accession Seminar
PISA and INES projects, and
EAG 2011
34
34
Chart D3.1
Estonia
Czech Republic
Denmark
Ireland
Netherlands
Iceland
Israel
Norway
Portugal
Spain
Luxembourg
Belgium (Fr.)
Greece
Austria
Belgium (Fl.)
Finland
Sweden
OECD average
Mexico
England
Switzerland
Scotland
Italy
Korea
United States
Australia
Japan
France
Hungary
Israel
Accession Seminar
PISA and INES projects, and
EAG 2011
35
35 …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)
Index of change
2005=100
150
Chart D3.2
2009
1995
2000
140
130
120
110
100
90
80
70
60
50
TA1.2a
United States
Czech Republic
Estonia
Slovak Republic
Germany
Switzerland
Canada
Norway
Poland
Sweden
Israel
Slovenia
Hungary
Austria
Russian Federation
Luxembourg
Denmark
Finland
United Kingdom
Netherlands
New Zealand
OECD average
Australia
Iceland
France
Belgium
Ireland
Chile
Korea
Greece
Italy
Spain
Brazil
Mexico
Israel
Accession Seminar
PISA and INES projects, and
EAG 2011
36
36
Baseline qualifications are more
widespread than in most other countries
Approximated 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)
%
100
2000's
30
20
10
1990's
1980's
1970's
90
80
70
60
50
40
81% of 25-64 year-olds
73% of 25-64 year-olds
0
Israel
Accession Seminar
PISA and INES projects, and
EAG 2011
37
37
Tertiary education
10
Korea
Canada
Japan
Russian Federation
Ireland
Norway
New Zealand
Luxembourg
United Kingdom
Australia
Denmark
France
Israel
Belgium
Sweden
United States
Netherlands
Switzerland
Finland
Spain
OECD average
Estonia
Iceland
Poland
Chile
Slovenia
Greece
Germany
Hungary
Portugal
Austria
Slovak Republic
Czech Republic
Mexico
Italy
Turkey
Brazil
Israel
Accession Seminar
PISA and INES projects, and
EAG 2011
38
38
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)
70
0
Chart A1.1
25-34 year-olds
45% of 25-64 year-olds
55-64 year-olds
60
50
40
30
20
30% of 25-64 year-olds
Index of change between 2000 and 2008 (2000=100, 2008 constant prices), tertiary education
Index of change
(2000 = 100)
210
200
190
180
170
160
150
140
130
120
110
100
90
80
70
Change in expenditure
Change in the number of students (in full-time equivalents)
Change in expenditure per student
USD 13 718
USD 12 568
Poland
Korea
Spain
Portugal
Estonia
United Kingdom
Austria
Czech Republic
Finland
Japan
France
Mexico
Denmark
Ireland
Canada
OECD average
Norway
Belgium
Italy
Australia
Germany
Sweden
Slovak Republic
Iceland
Netherlands
United States
Brazil
Israel
Hungary
Chile
Israel
Accession Seminar
PISA and INES projects, and
EAG 2011
40
40
Expenditure per student
is below the OECD average and decreases
Chart B1.6
Below average access to University education
Access to tertiary-type A education for
upper secondary and post-secondary non-tertiary graduates (2009)
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
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Ireland
Finland
Israel
Czech Republic
Poland
Slovak Republic
Sweden
Italy
New Zealand
Japan
Hungary
Belgium
Chile
Australia
Netherlands
Korea
OECD average
Iceland
Norway
Estonia
Denmark
G20 average
Germany
Russian Federation
Spain
Turkey
Argentina
Mexico
Slovenia
China
Austria
Switzerland
Indonesia
Israel
Accession Seminar
PISA and INES projects, and
EAG 2011
41
41
Chart A2.2
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)
Index
220
256
Below upper secondary education
Tertiary education
200
180
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
Brazil
Hungary
Slovenia
Czech Republic
Slovak Republic
United States
Portugal
Poland
Luxembourg
Ireland
United Kingdom
Netherlands
Germany
Austria
Switzerland
Israel
OECD average
Greece
Italy
Turkey
Japan
France
Finland
Spain
Canada
Estonia
Australia
Belgium
Korea
Norway
Denmark
Sweden
New Zealand
Israel
Accession Seminar
PISA and INES projects, and
EAG 2011
42
42
Chart A8.1
Chart
A10.2
Poland
Estonia
Hungary
Slovak Republic
Portugal
Israel
Greece
Korea
New Zealand
Slovenia
Czech Republic
Spain
Canada
Iceland
France
Finland
Australia
United Kingdom
Belgium
Sweden
Germany
Italy
Denmark
United States
Norway
Ireland
Netherlands
Austria
Luxembourg
Israel
Accession Seminar
PISA and INES projects, and
EAG 2011
43
43
… 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)
USD
70,000
Below upper secondary education
Upper secondary education
Tertiary education
50,000
30,000
10,000
-10,000
-30,000
-50,000
Luxembourg
United States
Austria
Ireland
Netherlands
Australia
United Kingdom
Canada
Korea
Norway
Germany
Italy
Sweden
OECD Average
Czech Republic
New Zealand
Denmark
Finland
Iceland
France
Belgium
Spain
Israel
Slovenia
Portugal
Greece
Slovak Republic
Hungary
Poland
Estonia
Israel
Accession Seminar
PISA and INES projects, and
EAG 2011
44
44
…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)
Net income 3-year-average exchange rate
USD
90,000
Chart A10.4
Net income (Purchasing Power Parity-adjusted)
80,000
70,000
60,000
50,000
40,000
30,000
20,000
10,000
0
Positive relation between education and employment
Percentage of 25-64 year-olds in employment, by level of education (2009)
Tertiary education
Upper secondary and post-secondary non-tertiary
%
Below upper secondary
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
Since the start of the recession in 2007, employment
rates did not decreased much in Israel, compared to
other OECD countries
0
Norway
Switzerland
Slovenia
Iceland
Sweden
Netherlands
Denmark
Portugal
Austria
Germany
Brazil
Poland
Luxembourg
United Kingdom
Finland
Czech Republic
Australia
Belgium
New Zealand
OECD average
France
Slovak Republic
Estonia
Israel
Greece
Ireland
Canada
Mexico
Spain
United States
Japan
Italy
Hungary
Chile
Korea
Turkey
Israel
Accession Seminar
PISA and INES projects, and
EAG 2011
45
45
Chart A7.1
Israel
Accession Seminar
PISA and INES projects, and
EAG 2011
46
46
When the crisis hit
Percentage point change between 2008-09 in unemployment rate for the 25-64 year-olds
Tertiary education
Estonia
Spain
Ireland
United States
Czech Republic
Denmark
United Kingdom
Hungary
Canada
Turkey
Sweden
OECD average
Portugal
Poland
New Zealand
Slovak Republic
Austria
Greece
France
Slovenia
Finland
Mexico
Switzerland
Australia
Belgium
Brazil
Israel
Italy
Luxembourg
Norway
Netherlands
Chile
Korea
Germany
Table A7.4a
Below upper secondary
Unemployment rates in 2009
Below upper secondary attainment:
10.8% in Israel (OECD average of 11.5%)
Tertiary attainment:
5.2% in Israel (OECD average of 4.4%)
-2
3
8
13
Israel
Accession Seminar
PISA and INES projects, and
EAG 2011
47
47
Further information
Education Directorate
www.oecd.org/edu
Education at a Glance 2011
www.oecd.org/edu/eag2011
[email protected]