Oecd Report On Education Policy
Uploaded by
Jacob02Oecd Report On Education Policy
Uploaded by
Jacob02Education at a Glance 2025
OECD Indicators
Education at a Glance
2025
OECD INDICATORS
This work is published under the responsibility of the Secretary-General of the OECD. The opinions expressed and
arguments employed herein do not necessarily reflect the official views of the Member countries of the OECD.
This document, as well as any data and map included herein, are without prejudice to the status of or sovereignty over
any territory, to the delimitation of international frontiers and boundaries and to the name of any territory, city or area.
The statistical data for Israel are supplied by and under the responsibility of the relevant Israeli authorities. The use of
such data by the OECD is without prejudice to the status of the Golan Heights, East Jerusalem and Israeli settlements in
the West Bank under the terms of international law.
Please cite this publication as:
OECD (2025), Education at a Glance 2025: OECD Indicators, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/1c0d9c79-en.
ISBN 978-92-64-89238-5 (print)
ISBN 978-92-64-81156-0 (PDF)
ISBN 978-92-64-53498-8 (HTML)
Education at a Glance
ISSN 1563-051X (print)
ISSN 1999-1487 (online)
Photo credits: Cover © Monkey Business Images/Shutterstock.com.
Corrigenda to OECD publications may be found at: https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/support/corrigenda.html.
© OECD 2025
Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0)
This work is made available under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International licence. By using this work, you accept to be bound by the terms of this licence
(https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Attribution – you must cite the work.
Translations – you must cite the original work, identify changes to the original and add the following text: In the event of any discrepancy between the original work and the
translation, only the text of the original work should be considered valid.
Adaptations – you must cite the original work and add the following text: This is an adaptation of an original work by the OECD. The opinions expressed and arguments employed in
this adaptation should not be reported as representing the official views of the OECD or of its Member countries.
Third-party material – the licence does not apply to third-party material in the work. If using such material, you are responsible for obtaining permission from the third party and for
any claims of infringement.
You must not use the OECD logo, visual identity or cover image without express permission or suggest the OECD endorses your use of the work.
Any dispute arising under this licence shall be settled by arbitration in accordance with the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) Arbitration Rules 2012. The seat of arbitration shall
be Paris (France). The number of arbitrators shall be one.
3
Foreword
Governments are increasingly looking to international comparisons of education systems as they develop policies to
enhance individuals’ social and economic prospects, provide incentives for greater efficiency in schooling, and help to
mobilise resources to meet rising demands. The OECD Directorate for Education and Skills contributes to these efforts
by developing and analysing quantitative, internationally comparable indicators that it publishes annually in Education
at a Glance. Together with OECD policy work, these indicators assist governments in building more effective and
equitable education systems. Beyond government officials, Education at a Glance also aims to support researchers
with data for further analysis and help the general public understand how their countries’ education systems compare
internationally.
Education at a Glance is the product of a long-standing, collaborative effort between OECD governments, the experts
and institutions working within the framework of the OECD Indicators of Education Systems (INES) programme, and
the OECD Secretariat. It was prepared within the Innovation and Measuring Progress Division of the OECD Directorate
for Education and Skills under the responsibility of Edmund Misson. The production of Education at a Glance 2025
was led by Abel Schumann and contains statistical and analytical contributions from Étienne Albiser, Maria Paula
Caldas, Éric Charbonnier, Sophia de Berardinis, Darien Dinaro, Carsten Dolle, Sofía Gómez, Jaione González Yubero,
Yanjun Guo, Corinne Heckmann, Viktoria Kis, Qi Kuang, Erika Lee, Bernardo Mayorga, Mara Merca, Alberto Naretto,
Simon Normandeau, Maïa Pécaut, Giannina Rech, Gara Rojas González, Özge Özcan Sahin, Giovanni Maria
Semeraro, Choyi Whang and Hajar Sabrina Yassine. Administrative support was provided by Ameline Besin and
Spencer Matthews. Rachel Linden supported the editorial and production process. The development of the publication
was steered by INES member countries through the INES Working Party and facilitated by the INES networks. The
members of the various bodies as well as the individual experts who have contributed to this publication and to the
INES programme more generally are listed at the end of this publication.
INES member countries and the OECD continue to strive to provide internationally comparable data to meet policy
needs. The OECD will develop new indicators where this is feasible and will work to advance in areas where conceptual
progress is needed before indicators can be produced. This effort takes place not only within the INES Programme,
but also in the OECD Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA), in the Programme for the International
Assessment of Adult Competencies (PIAAC), as well as in the OECD Teaching and Learning International Survey
(TALIS).
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
4
Editorial
The transition to a more digital and knowledge-intensive economy is increasing demand for advanced skills and higher
qualifications across the OECD as well as partner countries. This demand will continue to grow as population aging
leads to skills shortages.
In response, educational attainment is at an all-time high, with 48% of young adults in OECD countries now completing
tertiary education – up from just 27% in 2000. These graduates tend to enjoy higher earnings, more stable employment,
better health and greater civic participation.
Although tertiary graduates demonstrate higher skill levels on average, as measured by the OECD Survey of Adult
Skills, holding a tertiary qualification does not always equate to strong skills. Across the 29 OECD countries and
economies covered, 13% of tertiary-educated adults failed to reach even the baseline literacy proficiency level in 2023,
meaning they could understand only short texts on familiar topics. This illustrates the need for countries to both expand
tertiary access, and raise the quality and relevance of the education provided.
Low tertiary completion rates are another challenge that undermine the return on public investment, deepen skills
shortages and limit access to opportunities. Across 32 OECD and partner countries, only 43% of bachelor’s students
graduate on time, rising to just 70% within three additional years, with relatively lower rates among men (63%
compared to 75% for women). Policy interventions to improve completion rates can include strengthening academic
preparation and career guidance in secondary education, as well as designing tertiary programmes with clearly defined
course sequences and support measures for those at risk of falling behind.
More inclusive and flexible tertiary educational options are also needed. These should include tailored programmes
for vocational students, admissions processes that better recognise diverse learner profiles, and shorter, targeted
offerings such as microcredentials.
The impact of family educational background on tertiary attainment has remained persistent over the past decade. In
2012, just 23% of young adults whose parents had not completed upper secondary education attained a tertiary
degree, compared to 65% of those with at least one tertiary-educated parent. This gap remained significant in 2023:
only 26% of young adults from families with lower educational attainment had completed tertiary education, compared
to around 70% from highly educated households.
Some countries show that this dynamic can be reversed. Denmark, England and Belgium’s Flemish Community have
managed to shrink the divide in achieving tertiary education through targeted interventions. 1
In primary and secondary education, socio-economic status also continues to play a significant role in academic
achievement - accounting for 20% or more of the variation in maths scores in some countries, according to PISA data.
To prevent these disparities from deepening, disadvantaged students and schools require further support. Persistent
teacher shortages disproportionately affect disadvantaged learners and should also be addressed.
1
The magnitude of this change is subject to larger statistical uncertainty than other estimates in the report due to small
sample sizes.
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
5
The OECD recommends a comprehensive approach to ensuring equality of opportunity across all levels of education,
as we increase both enrolment and quality to meet pressing skills needs. This begins with strong early childhood
education systems, which are associated with better academic performance, and better outcomes for people, our
societies and our economies.
Mathias Cormann,
OECD Secretary-General
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
6
Table of contents
Foreword 3
Editorial 4
Reader’s guide 11
Executive summary 18
PIAAC. Proficiency in key information-processing skills among adults 21
Part A. The output of educational institutions and the impact of learning 47
Chapter A1. To what level have adults studied? 48
Chapter A2. Transition from education to work: Where are today’s youth? 66
Chapter A3. How does educational attainment affect participation in the labour
market? 80
Chapter A4. What are the earnings advantages to education? 104
Chapter A5. To what extent do adults participate in education and training? 125
Chapter A6. How are social outcomes related to education? 142
Part B. Access to education, participation and progression 158
Chapter B1. How does the provision of and participation in early childhood education
and care vary across countries? 159
Chapter B2. How do different education systems shape student pathways in primary
and lower secondary education? 181
Chapter B3. How do upper secondary and post-secondary non-tertiary education
systems support students' progression to tertiary education? 202
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
7
Chapter B4. How do student profiles, study choices and mobility trends shape
tertiary education? 221
Chapter B5. Who is expected to complete tertiary education? 245
Part C. Financial resources invested in education 269
Chapter C1. Key system-level indicators of education finance 270
Chapter C2. How is early childhood education financed? 288
Chapter C3. How are primary and lower secondary education financed? 303
Chapter C4. How are upper secondary and post-secondary non-tertiary education
financed? 314
Chapter C5. How is tertiary education financed? 325
Part D. Teachers, the learning environment and the organisation of schools 344
Chapter D1. How much time do students spend in the classroom? 345
Chapter D2. How do student-teacher ratios and class sizes vary across education
levels up to upper secondary education? 365
Chapter D3. How much are teachers and school heads paid? 381
Chapter D4. Which factors influence teachers' salary cost? 405
Chapter D5. How do academic staff profiles and institutional characteristics shape
tertiary education? 422
Chapter D6. What admission systems are used in tertiary education? 442
Chapter D7. How much are academic staff in tertiary institutions paid? 465
Chapter D8. How severe are teacher shortages across countries? 482
Annex 1. Characteristics of education systems 507
Annex 2. Reference statistics 512
Tables
Table 1. Adults’ mean literacy proficiency, by educational attainment level and gender (2023) 42
Table 2. Distribution of adults by literacy proficiency levels, by educational attainment and gender (2023) 43
Table 3. Adults' mean literacy proficiency, by educational attainment and age group (2023) 44
Table 4. Distribution of adults by literacy proficiency levels, by educational attainment and age group (2023) 45
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
8
Table 5. Adults' mean literacy proficiency, by educational attainment, immigrant background and language
spoken at home (2023) 46
Table A1.1. Educational attainment of adults (2024) 63
Table A1.2. Trends in the educational attainment of 25-34 year-olds, by gender (2019 and 2024) 64
Table A1.3. Field of study among tertiary-educated adults (2024) 65
Table A2.1. Share of young adults in education/not in education, by age group and labour-force status (2024) 77
Table A2.2. Trends in the share of 18-24 year-olds in education/not in education, by work status and gender
(2019 and 2024) 78
Table A2.3. Share of young adults in education/not in education, by age group, labour-force status and
duration of unemployment (2024) 79
Table A3.1. Employment rates of adults, by educational attainment (2024) 99
Table A3.2. Trends in employment rates of 25-34 year-olds, by educational attainment and gender (2019 and
2024) 100
Table A3.3. Employment rates of tertiary-educated adults, by field of study (2024) 101
Table A3.4. Trends in the rates for 25-34 year-olds unemployed or outside the labour force, by educational
attainment (2019 and 2024) 102
Table A3.5. Unemployment rates for adults and distribution of unemployment by duration, by educational
attainment (2024) 103
Table A4.1. Relative earnings of workers compared to those with upper secondary attainment, by educational
attainment and age group (2023) 121
Table A4.2. Distribution of workers by educational attainment and level of earnings relative to the median
(2023) 122
Table A4.3. Women’s earnings as a percentage of men's earnings, by educational attainment and age group
(2023) 123
Table A4.4. Relative earnings of tertiary-educated adults, by field of study (2023) 124
Table A5.1. Share of adults participating in education and training, by literacy proficiency level and educational
attainment (2023) 139
Table A5.2. Share of adults participating in education and training, by educational attainment and frequency of
use of ICT and reading skills in everyday life (2023) 140
Table A5.3. Share of adults participating in education and training, by educational attainment and frequency of
use of reading and numeracy skills at work (2023) 141
Table A6.1. Self-reported health status, by educational attainment (2021, 2022, 2023 or 2024) 155
Table A6.2. Self-reported smoking status, by educational attainment and age group (2021, 2022 or 2023) 156
Table A6.3. Share of adults who responded "all or almost all the time" or "most of the time" to items assessing
their mental health during the past week, by educational attainment (2021 or 2023) 157
Table B1.1. Enrolment rates in early childhood education (ISCED 0), other ECEC services (outside ISCED)
and primary education, by age (2023) 177
Table B1.2. Trends in enrolment rates of children in early childhood education and care and pre-primary
education, by age group (2013 and 2023) 178
Table B1.3. Characteristics of early childhood education and care programmes not classified as ISCED
programmes (other ECEC services) (2023) 179
Table B2.1. Trends in enrolment rates of 6-14 year-olds, by level of education (2013 and 2023) 199
Table B2.2. Trends in the share of students over-age for their grade and share of repeaters, by level of
education (2015 and 2023) 200
Table B2.3. Profile of lower secondary students (2023) 201
Table B3.1. Enrolment rates of 15-19 year-olds, by level of education (2023) 218
Table B3.2. Profile of upper secondary students (2023) 219
Table B3.3. Profile of post-secondary non-tertiary students (2023) 220
Table B4.1. Profile of first-time entrants into tertiary education (2013 and 2023) 241
Table B4.2. Distribution of tertiary graduates, by level of education and selected field of study (2023) 242
Table B4.3. Profile of international or foreign students in tertiary education (2013, 2018 and 2023) 243
Table B4.4. Profile of tertiary graduates who had a temporary international study or work period (2023) 244
Table B5.1. Completion rates of new entrants into tertiary education, by level of education and timeframe
(2023) 266
Table B5.2. Completion rates of new entrants into bachelor's programmes, by type of institution, timeframe
and gender (2023) 267
Table B5.3. Completion rates of new entrants into bachelor's programmes by the end of the theoretical
duration of their programme plus three years, by selected fields of study and gender (2023) 268
Table C1.1. Expenditure on educational institutions per student, by level of education (2022) 284
Table C1.2. Expenditure on educational institutions as a percentage of GDP, by level of education (2022) 285
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
9
Table C1.3. Change in expenditure on education, by level of education (2015 to 2022) 286
Table C1.4. Distribution of government funds devoted to education, by level of government and level of
education (2022) 287
Table C2.1. Total expenditure and government expenditure on early childhood education per child as a
percentage of GDP per capita and as a percentage of GDP (2022) 300
Table C2.2. Distribution of expenditure on early childhood educational institutions, by source of expenditure
(2022) 301
Table C2.3. Distribution of expenditure on early childhood education, by type of educational institution (2022) 302
Table C3.1. Expenditure on primary and lower secondary educational institutions (2022) 311
Table C3.2. Distribution of expenditure on primary and lower secondary educational institutions, by source of
funds (2022) 312
Table C3.3. Change in expenditure on primary and lower secondary education (2015 to 2022) 313
Table C4.1. Expenditure on upper secondary and post-secondary non-tertiary educational institutions per
student (2022) 323
Table C4.2. Distribution of expenditure on upper secondary educational institutions, by source of funds, before
and after transfers (2022) 324
Table C5.1. Expenditure on tertiary educational institutions (2022) 340
Table C5.2. Change in total expenditure on tertiary institutions (2015 to 2022) 341
Table C5.3. Annual average (or most common) tuition fees charged by tertiary institutions to national and
foreign students (2022/23) 342
Table C5.4. Public financial support for students enrolled in tertiary programmes (2012/13 and 2022/23) and
types and eligibility of public grants/scholarships (2022/23) 343
Table D1.1. Instruction time in compulsory general education¹ (2025) 361
Table D1.2. Organisation of compulsory general education¹ (2025) 362
Table D1.3. Instruction time per subject in primary education (2025) 363
Table D1.4. Instruction time per subject in general lower secondary education (2025) 364
Table D2.1. Ratio of children to staff in early childhood education (ECE), by level of education and type of
institution (2023) 378
Table D2.2. Trends in the ratio of students to teaching staff from primary to upper secondary, by level of
education (2013 and 2023) 379
Table D2.3. Trends in average class sizes in primary and lower secondary education (2013 and 2023) 380
Table D3.1. Teachers' statutory salaries, based on the most prevalent qualifications at different points in
teachers' careers (2024) 402
Table D3.2. Teachers' and school heads' actual salaries relative to earnings of tertiary-educated workers
(2024) 403
Table D3.3. Teachers' and school heads' average actual salaries (2024) 404
Table D4.1. Salary cost of teachers per student, by level of education (2015 and 2023) 419
Table D4.2. Contribution of various factors to salary cost of teachers per student in primary education (2023) 420
Table D4.3. Contribution of various factors to salary cost of teachers per student in lower secondary education
(2023) 421
Table D5.1. Ratio of students to academic staff, by tertiary education level and type of institution (2023) 439
Table D5.2. Age distribution of academic staff, by tertiary education level (2013, 2018 and 2023) 440
Table D5.3. Share of women among academic staff, by tertiary education level and age group (2013, 2018
and 2023) 441
Table D6.1. Organisation of the admission system and application process for first degree tertiary
programmes (2024) 459
Table D6.2. Type of examinations used to determine admission to first degree tertiary programmes (2024) 461
Table D6.3. Additional criteria used for admission to first degree tertiary programmes (2024) 462
Table D6.4. Distribution of applicants and applications to first degree tertiary programmes (2024) 464
Table D7.1. Use of national statutory salaries for academic staff, by tertiary education level (2023) 479
Table D7.2. Minimum and maximum statutory salaries for academic staff, by tertiary education level (2023) 480
Table D7.3. Actual salaries of academic staff, by tertiary education level, category of staff and gender (2023) 481
Table D8.1. Trends in the age distribution of teachers, by level of education (2013 and 2023) 501
Table D8.2. Share of non-fully qualified teachers, by level of education (2014/15 and 2022/23) 502
Table D8.3. Unfilled teaching vacancies at the start of the year and prior-year teaching graduates, by level of
education (2014/15 and 2022/23) 503
Table D8.4. Share of fully qualified teachers who left the profession by resigning or retiring, by level of
education (2022/23) 505
Table X1.1. School year and financial year used for the calculation of indicators, OECD countries 509
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
10
Table X1.2. School year and financial year used for the calculation of indicators, partner and accession
countries 510
Table X1.3. Starting and ending age of students in compulsory education, ages of entitlement to early
childhood education and care, and theoretical starting age and duration of education levels (2023) 511
Table X2.1. Basic reference statistics in current prices (reference period: calendar year, 2015, 2020, 2021,
2022, 2023) 516
Table X2.2. Basic reference statistics (reference period: calendar year, 2015, 2020, 2021, 2022, 2023) 517
Table X2.3. Pre-primary and primary teachers' statutory salaries, in national currencies, based on the most
prevalent qualifications at different points in teachers' careers (2024) 518
Table X2.4. Secondary teachers' statutory salaries, in national currencies, based on the most prevalent
qualifications at different points in teachers' careers (2024) 519
Table X2.5. Trends in teachers' statutory starting salaries, in national currencies (2000 and 2005 to 2024) 520
Table X2.6. Trends in teachers' statutory salaries after 15 years of experience, in national currencies (2000
and 2005 to 2024) 522
Table X2.7. Trends in teachers' average actual salaries, in national currencies (2000, 2005 and 2010 to 2024)¹524
Table X2.8. Reference statistics used in calculating salaries of teachers and school heads (2000 and 2005 to
2024) 526
Table X2.9. Distribution of teachers, by minimum or most prevalent qualifications and level of education (2024)527
Table X2.10. Distribution of teachers aged 25-64, by educational attainment and level of education (2024) 528
Table X2.11. Distribution of school heads aged 25-64, by educational attainment and level of education (2024) 529
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
11
Reader’s guide
The structure and content of Education at a Glance
Education at a Glance is structured into four parts.
Part A The output of educational institutions and the impact of learning, contains indicators on the output, outcomes
and impact of education in the form of the overall attainment of the population, as well as the learning, economic and
social outcomes. Through this analysis, the indicators in this chapter provide context, for example, to shape policies
on lifelong learning. They also provide insights into the policy levers needed to address areas where outcomes and
impact may not be aligned with national strategic objectives.
Part B Access to education, participation and progression, considers the full education system from early childhood
to tertiary education and provides indicators on the enrolment, progression and completion of students at each level
of education. These indicators can be considered a mixture of output and outcome, to the extent that the output of
each education level serves as input to the next and that progression is the result of policies and practices at classroom,
institution and system levels. But they can also provide context to identify areas where policy intervention is necessary
to address issues of inequity, for example, or to encourage international mobility.
Part C Financial resources invested in education, provides indicators on expenditure in education and educational
institutions, how that expenditure is shared between public and private sources, the tuition fees charged by institutions,
and the financial mechanisms to support students. These indicators are mainly policy levers, but they also help to
explain specific learning outcomes. For example, expenditure on educational institutions per student is a key policy
measure that most directly affects individual learners, but it also acts as a constraint on the learning environment in
schools and learning conditions in the classroom.
Part D Teachers, the learning environment and organisation of schools, provides indicators on instruction time,
teachers’ and school heads’ working time, and teachers’ and school heads’ salaries. These indicators not only
represent policy levers that can be adjusted, but also provide context for the quality of instruction and for the outcomes
of individual learners. This part also presents data on the profile of teachers.
In addition to the regular indicators and core statistics published, Education at a Glance also contains analytical work
in textboxes. This work usually provides research elements that contribute to the understanding of the indicator, or
additional analysis of a smaller number of countries that complement the findings presented. Furthermore, the 2025
edition contains a special chapter with results from the OECD Survey of Adult Skills (PIAAC).
Sustainable Development Goal 4
In September 2015, world leaders gathered to set ambitious goals for the future of the global community. Goal 4 of
the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) seeks to ensure “inclusive and equitable quality education and promote
lifelong learning opportunities for all”. Each target of the SDG 4 framework has at least one global indicator and a
number of related thematic indicators designed to complement the analysis and the measurement of the target.
The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) oversees the education SDG agenda
in the context of the United Nations-led SDG framework. As the custodian agency for most of the SDG 4 indicators,
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
12
the UNESCO Institute of Statistics (UIS) is co-ordinating global efforts to develop the indicator framework to monitor
progress towards SDG 4 targets. In addition to collecting data, the UIS works with partners to develop new indicators,
statistical approaches and monitoring tools to better assess progress across the education-related SDG targets.
In this context, the OECD’s education statistics have a key role to play in the achievement of – and measuring progress
towards – SDG 4 and its targets. There is a high level of complementarity between the SDG 4 agenda and the data
collected and analysed by the OECD. The OECD is working with the UIS, the SDG 4 Steering Committee and the
technical working groups that have been put in place to help build a comprehensive data system for global reporting,
agree on the data sources and formulae used for reporting on the SDG 4 global indicators, and on selected thematic
indicators for OECD and partner countries.
Statistical coverage
Although a lack of data still limits the scope of the indicators in many countries, the coverage extends, in principle, to
the entire national education system (within the national territory), regardless of who owns or sponsors the institutions
concerned and regardless of how education is delivered. With one exception (described below), all types of students
and all age groups are included: children (including students with special needs), adults, nationals, foreigners and
students in distance learning, in special education programmes or in education programmes organised by ministries
other than the ministry of education, provided that the main aim of the programme is to broaden or deepen an
individual’s knowledge. Vocational and technical training in the workplace is not included in the basic education
expenditure and enrolment data, with the exception of combined school- and work-based programmes that are
explicitly deemed to be part of the education system.
Educational activities classified as “adult” or “non-regular” are covered, provided that the activities involve the same or
similar content as “regular” education studies, or that the programmes of which they are a part lead to qualifications
similar to those awarded in regular education programmes. Courses for adults that are primarily for general interest,
personal enrichment, leisure or recreation are excluded.
More information on the coverage of the indicators presented in Education at a Glance can be found in the OECD
Handbook for Internationally Comparable Statistics on Education 2018 (OECD, 2018[1]).
Comparability over time
The indicators in Education at a Glance are the result of a continuous process of methodological improvement aimed
at improving the robustness and international comparability of the indicators. As a result, data across different editions
of Education at a Glance may not be comparable. To analyse time trends, it is preferable to use the data for different
time periods from the latest edition of Education at a Glance or the data available online. All comparisons over time
presented in this report and on the Education at a Glance Database (https://data-explorer.oecd.org/) are based on
annual revisions of historical data and the methodological improvements which have been implemented in this edition.
Country coverage
This publication features data on education from all OECD countries and Brazil, a partner country that participates in
the INES programme, as well as other G20 and OECD accession countries that are not INES members (Argentina,
Bulgaria, Croatia, the People’s Republic of China, India, Indonesia, Peru, Romania, Saudi Arabia and South Africa).
Data sources for the non-INES participating countries come from the regular INES data collections or from other
international or national sources.
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
13
Note on terminology: “partner countries” and “economies”
Education at a Glance reports data on non-OECD countries. In particular, data on Brazil, which is a member of the
Indicators of Educational System (INES) programme, are reported throughout the publication. Data on other G20
countries are reported when available. These countries are referred to as “partner countries”.
In some instances, data on some subnational entities, such as England (United Kingdom), are included in country-
level data. In line with the agreed upon OECD terminology, these subnational entities are referred to as “economies”
throughout the publication. The Flemish Community of Belgium and the French Community of Belgium are abbreviated
in the tables and figures as “Flemish Comm. (Belgium)” and “French Comm. (Belgium)”.
Calculation of international means
For many indicators, an OECD average is presented; for some, an OECD total is shown. The OECD average is
calculated as the unweighted mean of the data values of all OECD countries for which data are available or can be
estimated. The OECD average therefore refers to an average of data values at the level of the national systems and
can be used to answer the question of how an indicator value for a given country compares with the value for a typical
or average country. It does not take into account the absolute size of the education system in each country.
If data from subnational entities are reported for some countries in an indicator, the subnational data are included in
the calculation of the OECD average. If data from only one subnational region of a country are available, the data point
will be used in the calculation of the OECD average as if the subnational region represents the entire country. If data
for more than one subnational region from a country are reported in an indicator, the unweighted average of all
subnational regions from the country is calculated. This unweighted average is then treated as the corresponding
country value for the calculation of the OECD average.
The OECD total is calculated as the weighted mean of the data values of all OECD countries for which data are
available or can be estimated. It reflects the value for a given indicator when OECD countries are considered as a
whole. This approach is taken for the purpose of comparing, for example, expenditure charts for individual countries
with those of all of the OECD countries for which valid data are available, considered as a single entity.
For tables using time series, the OECD average is calculated for countries providing data for all reference years used.
This allows the OECD average to be compared over time with no distortion due to the exclusion of some countries in
the different years.
For many indicators, an EU25 average is also presented. It is calculated as the unweighted mean of the data values
of the 25 countries that are members or accession countries of both the European Union and the OECD for which data
are available or can be estimated. The 25 countries are Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Czechia, Denmark,
Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, the Netherlands,
Poland, Portugal, Romania, the Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Spain and Sweden.
The EU25 total is calculated as the weighted mean of the data values of all OECD-EU countries for which data are
available or can be estimated. It reflects the value for a given indicator when the OECD-EU area is considered as a
single entity.
For some indicators, a G20 average is presented. The G20 average is calculated as the unweighted mean of the data
values of all G20 countries for which data are available or can be estimated (Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada,
China, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, Korea, Mexico, the Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia,
South Africa, the Republic of Türkiye, the United Kingdom and the United States; the European Union is the 20th
member of the G20 but is not included in the calculation). The G20 average is not computed if data for both China and
India are not available.
OECD, EU25 and G20 averages and totals can be significantly affected by missing data. In the case of some countries,
data may not be available for specific indicators, or specific categories may not apply. Therefore, readers should keep
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
14
in mind that the term “OECD/EU25/G20 average” refers to the OECD, EU25 or G20 countries included in the respective
comparisons. OECD, EU25 and G20 averages are not calculated if more than 40% of countries have missing
information or have information included in other columns. In this case, a regular average is presented, which
corresponds to the arithmetic mean of the estimates included in the table or figure.
Classification of levels of education
The classification of levels of education is based on the International Standard Classification of Education (ISCED),
an instrument for compiling statistics on education internationally. ISCED 2011 was formally adopted in November
2011 and is the basis of the levels presented in this publication.
Table A lists the ISCED 2011 levels used in Education at a Glance 2025 (OECD/Eurostat/UNESCO Institute for
Statistics, 2015[2]).
Table A. Education levels under the ISCED 2011 classification
Terms used in this publication ISCED classification
Early childhood education ISCED 0 (sub-categories: 01 for early
Refers to early childhood programmes that have an intentional education component and aim to develop cognitive, childhood educational development and
physical and socio-emotional skills necessary for participation in school and society. Programmes at this level are often 02 for pre-primary education)
differentiated by age.
Primary education ISCED 1
Designed to provide a sound basic education in reading, writing and mathematics and a basic understanding of some
other subjects. Entry age: between 5 and 7. Typical duration: six years.
Lower secondary education ISCED 2
Completes provision of basic education, usually in a more subject-oriented way with more specialist teachers.
Programmes may differ by orientation, general or vocational, though this is less common than at upper secondary level.
Entry follows completion of primary education and typical duration is three years. In some countries, the end of this level
marks the end of compulsory education.
Upper secondary education ISCED 3
Stronger specialisation than at lower secondary level. Programmes offered are differentiated by orientation: general or
vocational. Typical duration is three years.
Post-secondary non-tertiary education ISCED 4
Serves to broaden rather than deepen the knowledge, skills and competencies gained in upper secondary level.
Programmes may be designed to increase options for participants in the labour market, for further studies at tertiary level
or both. Programmes at this level are usually vocationally oriented.
Short-cycle tertiary education ISCED 5
Often designed to provide participants with professional knowledge, skills and competencies. Typically, they are
practically based, occupation-specific and prepare students to enter the labour market directly. They may also provide a
pathway to other tertiary education programmes (ISCED levels 6 or 7). The minimum duration is two years.
Bachelor’s or equivalent level ISCED 6
Designed to provide participants with intermediate academic and/or professional knowledge, skills and competencies,
leading to a first degree or equivalent qualification. Typical duration: three to four years full-time study. This level is
referred to as “bachelor’s” in the publication.
Master’s or equivalent level ISCED 7
Stronger specialisation and more complex content than bachelor’s level. Designed to provide participants with advanced
academic and/or professional knowledge. May have a substantial research component.
Programmes of at least five years’ duration preparing for a long-first degree/qualification are included at this level if they
are equivalent to a master’s level programme in terms of their complexity and content. This level is referred to as
“master’s” in the publication.
Doctoral or equivalent level ISCED 8
Designed to lead to an advanced research qualification. Programmes at this level are devoted to advanced study and
original research and exist in both academic and professional fields. This level is referred as “doctoral” in the publication.
In some indicators, intermediate programmes are also used. These correspond to recognised qualifications from
ISCED 2011 level programmes which are not considered as sufficient for ISCED 2011 completion and are classified
at a lower ISCED 2011 level.
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
15
Fields of education and training
Within ISCED, programmes and related qualifications can be classified by field of education and training as well as by
level. Following the adoption of ISCED 2011, a separate review and global consultation process took place on the
ISCED fields of education. The ISCED fields were revised, and the UNESCO General Conference adopted the ISCED
2013 Fields of Education and Training classification (ISCED-F 2013) (UNESCO Institute for Statistics, 2014[3]) in
November 2013 at its 37th session. The broad ISCED-F fields considered in this publication are education; arts and
humanities; social sciences, journalism and information; business, administration and law; natural sciences,
mathematics and statistics; information and communication technologies; engineering, manufacturing and
construction; and health and welfare. Throughout this publication, the term “field of study” is used to refer to the different
fields of this classification. The term STEM (science, technology, engineering and mathematics) refers to the
aggregation of the broad fields of natural sciences, mathematics and statistics; information and communication
technologies; and engineering, manufacturing and construction.
Standard error (S.E.)
Some of the statistical estimates presented in this report are based on samples of adults, rather than values that could
be calculated if every person in the target population in every country had answered every question. Therefore, each
estimate has a degree of uncertainty associated with sampling and measurement error, which can be expressed as a
standard error. The use of confidence intervals is a way to make inferences about the population means and
proportions in a manner that reflects the uncertainty associated with the sample estimates. In this report, confidence
intervals are stated at a 95% level. In other words, the result for the corresponding population would lie within the
confidence interval in 95 out of 100 replications of the measurement on different samples drawn from the same
population.
In tables showing standard errors, the column with the heading “%” indicates the average percentage, and the column
with the heading “S.E.” indicates the standard error. Given the survey method, there is a sampling uncertainty in the
percentages (%) of twice the standard error (S.E.). For example, for the values % = 10 and S.E. = 2.6, 10% has a 95%
confidence interval of approximately twice (1.96) the standard error of 2.6. Thus, the true percentage would probably
(error risk of 5%) be somewhere between 5% and 15% (“confidence interval”). The confidence interval is calculated
as: % +/−1.96 ∗ 𝑆. 𝐸., i.e. for the previous example, 10% − 1.96 ∗ 2.6 = 5% and 10% + 1.96 ∗ 2.6 = 15%.
Symbols for missing data and abbreviations
These symbols and abbreviations are used in the tables and figures:
a Data are not applicable because the category does not apply.
b There is a break in the series.
c There are too few observations to provide reliable estimates.
d Includes data from another category.
m Data are not available – either missing or the indicator could not be computed due to low respondent numbers.
q Data have been withdrawn at the request of the country concerned.
r Values are below a certain reliability threshold and should be interpreted with caution.
x Data are included in another category or column of the table (e.g. x(2) means that data are included in
Column 2 of the table).
The statistical software used in the computation of indicators in this publication may result in slightly different values
past the fourth significant digit after the decimal point when compared to national statistics.
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
16
Further resources
Education at a Glance: Sources, Methodologies and Technical Notes (https://doi.org/10.1787/fcfaf2d1-en) provides
information on the methods used to calculate the indicators, on the interpretation of the indicators in the respective
national contexts, and on the data sources involved. All post-production changes to this publication are listed at:
https://www.oecd.org/about/publishing/corrigenda.htm (corrections).
Education at a Glance uses the OECD’s StatLink service. A URL at the end of each chapter leads to a corresponding
Excel file containing the underlying data for the chapter. These URLs are stable and will not change. In addition,
readers of the Education at a Glance e-book will be able to click directly on these links and the workbook will open in
a separate window.
The Education Database on the OECD Data Explorer (https://data-explorer.oecd.org/) provides the raw data and
indicators presented in Education at a Glance, as well as the metadata that provide context and explanations for
countries’ data. It allows users to break down data in more ways than is possible in this publication in order to conduct
their own analyses of education systems in participating countries. It is also updated at regular intervals.
Layout of tables
In all tables, the numbers in parentheses at the top of the columns are used for reference. When a consecutive number
does not appear, that column is available online through the StatLink indicated at the end of the chapter.
Abbreviations used in this report
AES Adult Education Survey
ECEC Early childhood education and care
EEA European Economic Area
ESS European Social Survey
GDP Gross domestic product
ICT Information and communication technologies
ISCED International Standard Classification of Education
LFD Master’s long-first degree
NEET Neither employed nor in education or training
NPV Net present value
PIAAC Survey of Adult Skills
PISA Programme for International Student Assessment
PPP Purchasing power parity
R&D Research and development
S.E. Standard error
STEM Science, technology, engineering and mathematics
TALIS Teaching and Learning International Survey
UIS UNESCO Institute of Statistics
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
17
UOE Refers to the data collection managed by the three organisations, UNESCO, OECD, Eurostat
VET Vocational education and training
References
OECD (2018), OECD Handbook for Internationally Comparative Education Statistics: Concepts, Standards, [1]
Definitions and Classifications, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264304444-en.
OECD/Eurostat/UNESCO Institute for Statistics (2015), ISCED 2011 Operational Manual: Guidelines for [2]
Classifying National Education Programmes and Related Qualifications, OECD Publishing, Paris,
https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264228368-en.
UNESCO Institute for Statistics (2014), ISCED Fields of Education and Training 2013 (ISCED-F 2013): [3]
Manual to Accompany the International Standard Classificiation of Education 2011, UNESCO Institute
for Statistics, Montreal, https://doi.org/10.15220/978-92-9189-150-4-en.
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
18
Executive summary
Education at a Glance is the definitive guide to the state of education around the world. It analyses all levels of
education and provides data on topics such as attainment, enrolment, finance and the organisation of education
systems. The 2025 edition puts a special focus on tertiary education.
Educational attainment remains high, but unequal opportunities persist
With 48% of young adults holding a tertiary qualification across the OECD countries, educational attainment is higher
than ever. However, growth in tertiary attainment has slowed since 2021. Between 2000 and 2021, the average tertiary
attainment rate among young adults increased by about 1 percentage point per year across the OECD, while since
2021 the average annual increase has fallen to just 0.3 percentage points.
Unequal opportunities are holding back some learners who would benefit from a tertiary education. In all countries,
children from disadvantaged backgrounds are far less likely to reach higher levels of education than those from more
advantaged backgrounds. On average across the OECD, only 26% of young adults whose parents did not complete
upper secondary education hold a tertiary qualification, compared to 70% of young adults with at least one tertiary-
educated parent.
A few countries and economies have made progress in closing the opportunity gap. In Denmark, tertiary attainment
among young adults whose parents did not complete upper secondary education has increased by 20 percentage
points since 2012, reaching 49%, above the OECD average among young adults of all backgrounds. England and the
Flemish Community of Belgium have also seen progress in reducing the tertiary attainment gap. 2
Equitable access to education: a key driver of social mobility
Supporting equitable access to tertiary education remains crucial to strengthening social mobility as educational
attainment is closely reflected in labour market outcomes. While an upper secondary qualification offers good
protection against unemployment in most countries, many high-skilled and well-paid jobs require a tertiary qualification.
Adults with a tertiary qualification earn, on average, 54% more than those with only upper secondary education. Even
after accounting for the costs of a tertiary education, the average lifetime financial benefit of obtaining a tertiary
qualification exceeds USD 300,000 across the OECD. The earnings advantage is especially large for those with a
master’s or doctoral qualification, who earn on average 83% more than those with upper secondary attainment.
In order to give everyone an equal opportunity to access those jobs and increase social mobility, it is essential to break
the link between socio-economic background and educational achievement. At a time when skills shortages are
prevalent across many sectors this would also provide broader labour market benefits by increasing the pool of skilled
workers.
2
The magnitude of this change is subject to larger statistical uncertainty than other estimates in the report due to small
sample sizes.
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
19
Improving completion rates in tertiary education
Providing access to tertiary education is not enough if students do not complete their programmes. Newly collected
data from over 30 OECD and partner countries show that only 43% of new entrants to bachelor’s programmes graduate
within the expected programme duration; this rises to 59% after an additional year and 70% after three additional
years. Completion rates are particularly low among men, with only 63% completing a bachelor’s degree within three
years beyond the expected end date, compared to 75% of women.
Low completion rates have multiple causes, including a mismatch between students’ expectations and programme
content, inadequate preparation for programme demands, limited academic and social support and financial barriers.
Policy interventions to improve completion rates can include strengthening academic preparation and career guidance
in secondary education, as well as designing tertiary programmes with clearly defined sequences of courses and
support measures that guide students progressively towards graduation. In addition, giving people credentials for
specific skills they have learned - even if they do not complete their studies - can help them show employers what they
are capable of. This would make partial completion of tertiary programmes more valuable.
Beyond formal credentials: the skills gap challenge
Although attainment and completion rates offer valuable information on education system performance, equipping
learners with relevant skills is ultimately more important. Despite rising educational attainment, literacy and numeracy
skills of adults in most OECD countries stagnated or declined between 2012 and 2023, with a significant proportion of
the adult population in OECD countries having low skills. Among adults without upper secondary education, 61%
scored at or below Level 1 in literacy in the OECD Survey of Adult Skills, meaning they could understand, at most,
short texts on familiar topics. Among those with upper secondary attainment, 30% do not exceed Level 1, and even
among adults with tertiary attainment, 13% score at or below this level. These results underscore that simply expanding
educational opportunities is not enough; education systems must also ensure that learners develop the skills they
need to thrive.
Tertiary education systems should therefore maintain rigorous standards even as they expand access. However, they
must also adapt to a more diverse set of learners with different prior education and career expectations. This implies
providing a broader range of skills, including advanced applied skills. To help prospective students identify
programmes with the greatest benefits, tertiary education systems also need better ways to clearly signal the skills
that their graduates possess.
Tackling teacher shortages to strengthen education systems
Highly qualified teachers are essential for high-performing education systems at all levels, but teacher shortages make
it harder to recruit and retain well-trained educators. While most education systems can still fill nearly all open teaching
positions, they do not always attract the highest qualified candidates. At the start of the 2022/23 school year, only
Austria, the Netherlands, Sweden, and the Flemish and French Communities of Belgium reported more than 2% of
teaching positions being unfilled. However, on average, nearly 7% of secondary teachers across the OECD are not
fully qualified, meaning they do not hold all the required credentials.
High teacher turnover can further complicate recruitment. In most countries where data is available, 1% to 3% of
teachers retire annually. However, the proportion of teachers leaving the profession for reasons other than retirement
varies considerably, as it is influenced not only by teachers' working conditions and contractual arrangements, but also
by national labour market contexts and career mobility cultures. In Denmark, Estonia and England, nearly 10% of
teachers resign annually, necessitating a constant high level of recruitment. By contrast, fewer than 1% of teachers in
France, Greece and Ireland resign each year, which creates greater staffing stability but also limits the renewal of the
teaching workforce.
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
20
Attracting second-career teachers can help alleviate shortages while introducing broader skill sets into the profession.
Sixteen out of 28 countries and economies with available data offer dedicated alternative pathways for individuals
changing careers. Complementary measures to improve working conditions and provide opportunities for career
progression could further support teacher recruitment and retention.
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
21
PIAAC. Proficiency in key
information-processing skills among
adults
Highlights
• On average, 61% of adults with below upper secondary attainment in OECD countries do not reach Level 2
in literacy proficiency (where Level 5 is the highest), meaning they are not able to access and understand
information in long texts with some distracting information. This compares to 30% of those with upper
secondary or post-secondary non-tertiary attainment and only 13% of those with a tertiary qualification.
The wide literacy gap across education levels highlights the cumulative impact of formal education on adult
skills.
• Across OECD countries, tertiary-educated adults (25-64 year-olds) score around 283 points in literacy
proficiency on average, ranging from 249 score points in Chile to 314 in Finland, while those with below
upper secondary attainment score around 207 points, ranging from 162 score points in Chile to 240 in
Sweden. The proficiency gap between these two groups averages 76 points across the OECD.
• On average, 25-34 year-olds outperform their 45-54 year-old peers in literacy proficiency by 15 score
points across OECD countries. When broken down by educational attainment, however, the proficiency
gap by education level matters more than age.
Context
As economies and societies undergo rapid technological, demographic and environmental transformations, the
demand for strong foundational skills – such as literacy, numeracy and problem solving – has become more
pressing than ever. While Education at a Glance traditionally focuses on indicators of educational attainment and
participation, understanding the actual skills possessed by adults is essential for assessing the effectiveness of
education systems in preparing individuals for lifelong learning, employability and civic engagement. Literacy and
numeracy, in particular, are considered foundational skills, in that they are essential for other types of learning: first
people learn to read and then they learn through reading. Given that these skills are largely acquired and developed
through formal education, measuring proficiency in literacy and numeracy can give governments and policy makers
an indication of the effectiveness of their education systems. Literacy and numeracy have become core
requirements for navigating increasingly data-driven workplaces and everyday life, from managing personal
finances to interpreting public health information.
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
22
Figure 1. Proficiency in literacy among adults (2023)
Survey of Adult Skills (PIAAC); share of 25-64 year-olds scoring at each proficiency level in literacy
Below level 1 Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5
Japan
Sweden
Finland
Norway
Netherlands
Denmark
England (UK)
Flemish Region (Belgium)
Canada
Estonia
Ireland
Slovak Republic
Germany
Switzerland
New Zealand
Czechia
OECD average
Croatia
United States
France
Austria
Spain
Korea
Hungary
Latvia
Italy
Israel
Lithuania
Poland
Portugal
Chile
60 50 40 30 20 10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
For data, see Table 2. For a link to download the data, see Tables and Notes section.
Although closely related to each other, proficiency in literacy and numeracy and educational attainment measure
different things. Qualifications earned through formal education do not always reflect the level of an individual’s
literacy or numeracy skills – even at the point in life when those qualifications are acquired. Educational
qualifications also represent other types of skills that are not reflected in literacy and numeracy proficiency, such
as specialised (or practical) knowledge and work-specific skills as well as social and emotional skills and in
developing attitudes and motivations that, though crucial, are not directly captured in achievement tests.
Educational attainment has long been widely used as a proxy for skill levels in comparative education analysis.
However, findings from the OECD Survey of Adult Skills, a product of the OECD Programme for the International
Assessment of Adult Competencies (PIAAC), demonstrate that qualifications do not always align with functional
competencies. Many adults with similar levels of formal education exhibit markedly different proficiency levels,
depending on the quality of their schooling, the opportunities they’ve had to use and maintain their skills, and
broader socio-economic conditions. Conversely, some individuals with relatively low educational attainment may
demonstrate strong skill levels, acquired through informal learning, job experience or reskilling later in life.
The PIAAC report Do Adults Have the Skills They Need to Thrive in a Changing World? (OECD, 2024[1]) highlights
how large shares of adults in many countries perform below minimum proficiency in numeracy and literacy, limiting
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
23
their ability to fully participate in labour markets and society. The report also stresses that skill gaps between
countries – and within countries between socio-demographic groups – remain significant and persistent. For
example, foreign-born adults, older individuals and those with lower levels of formal education are
disproportionately represented among low-skilled populations. These findings underline the need to go beyond
qualifications and assess skills directly, particularly in the context of rapid labour-market change and growing
digitalisation.
This chapter uses data from both Cycle 1 (2012-15) and Cycle 2 (2023) of the Survey of Adult Skills to provide a
cross-national and longitudinal perspective on adult proficiency, particularly in literacy. The analysis examines how
skill levels are distributed across countries and demographic groups, how they have evolved over time, and how
they relate to educational attainment. By comparing results across the two survey cycles, the chapter also assesses
countries’ progress in addressing skill gaps over the past decade.
By integrating skill-based indicators into Education at a Glance, this chapter complements traditional attainment-
based metrics and enhances understanding of the real capabilities of adult populations. Doing so supports more
targeted policy interventions, particularly for countries seeking to improve lifelong learning systems, upskill low-
performing groups or align education provision with the evolving needs of the economy. As underscored in the
PIAAC international report, fostering a skilled adult population is not only a matter of individual opportunity – it is
also critical to building more productive, equitable and resilient societies.
Other findings
• On average across OECD countries, 60% of tertiary-educated adults score at or above Level 3 in literacy
proficiency, meaning they can interpret, evaluate, and integrate information across complex or lengthy
texts, reaching over 80% in Finland and Japan. This falls to only 12% on average among those with below
upper secondary attainment, with Chile recording the smallest share.
• On average across OECD countries, 25-64 year-old women outperform their male peers in literacy
proficiency. However, gender gaps in literacy are small on average, and mask larger cross-country
variations. They are widest among low-educated adults and vary in significance and direction across
countries.
• Literacy scores have declined slightly over the past decade on average across OECD countries, with the
largest falls among those with the lowest attainment. Average scores fell by 19 score points for adults with
below upper secondary education, 12 score points for those with upper secondary or post-secondary non-
tertiary attainment and 9 score points for those with tertiary attainment.
• Among foreign-born adults of foreign-born parents, those who speak the language of the host country at
home scored on average 247 points in literacy proficiency (a 19 point gap compared to native-born adults)
while those who do not scored 229 points (a 38 point gap). Countries such as Canada, Ireland, Lithuania,
New Zealand and the Slovak Republic have comparatively small gaps between native-born and foreign-
born adults, particularly among those who speak the host language at home. On average, the literacy
proficiency gap by immigration background is narrower among adults with a tertiary qualification (41 points)
than among those with upper secondary or post-secondary non-tertiary education (47 points) and below
upper secondary education (49 points).
Analysis
This chapter introduces the concept of information-processing skills and presents key indicators from the PIAAC
international report (OECD, 2024[1]). In the Survey of Adult Skills, information-processing skills refer to the cognitive
abilities required to understand, evaluate, use and engage with written and numerical information in daily life and work
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
24
contexts. These skills, comprising literacy, numeracy and problem solving, are essential for individuals to effectively
navigate and adapt to the demands of the modern information-based economy.
The first section provides an overview of the distribution of proficiency levels in literacy, numeracy and adaptive
problem-solving (see section on Definitions) across participating countries and subnational entities. Subsequent
sections break down these results by educational attainment, age group, gender and migrant background. For brevity,
the chapter focuses primarily on literacy, as the patterns observed are similar across the other skill domains. Additional
analyses of PIAAC data are presented in other chapters in Part A.
Data from Cycle 2 of the Survey of Adult Skills reaffirm the strong link between adults’ proficiency in literacy, numeracy
and adaptive problem-solving and a wide range of individual and societal outcomes. These foundational and
transversal skills not only support participation in the labour market, but also enable individuals to engage meaningfully
in civic life, navigate complex information environments, and manage their health, finances and daily tasks more
effectively. High levels of proficiency in these domains are associated with greater trust in others and institutions,
greater political efficacy and better self-reported health. Conversely, limited skills constrain life opportunities and
reinforce social disadvantage across generations (OECD, 2024[1]).
Across countries and demographic groups, greater proficiency in literacy, numeracy and adaptive problem-solving is
consistently associated with more favourable outcomes, regardless of formal educational attainment. Adults with
strong skills but lower qualifications often outperform their more educated but less proficient peers in many aspects of
life, underscoring the distinct and critical role of actual competencies (OECD, 2024[1]). This pattern highlights the
importance of focusing not just on access to education, but also on the quality and effectiveness of learning throughout
life. It also points to the potential for skills assessments to complement qualifications for recognising individual
capabilities.
Comparisons between Cycle 1 (2012-15) and Cycle 2 (2023) of the Survey of Adult Skills show that gaps in proficiency
have persisted or even widened in several countries, particularly across socio-economic and generational lines.
Although some countries and economies have made progress in raising overall performance or narrowing disparities,
others show signs of stagnation or increasing inequality. These findings reflect the combined influence of education
and training systems, labour-market structures and access to lifelong learning. They also underscore the urgency of
ensuring that all individuals – regardless of age, background or circumstance – have opportunities to develop and
maintain the skills needed to adapt, participate and thrive in a rapidly changing world.
Overview of skills proficiency among adults
The review of proficiency scores and levels shows similar results with regard to literacy, numeracy and adaptive
problem-solving. Although this section displays the results for all three types of skills, the remainder of the chapter
focuses on literacy. The analysis of labour-market and economic outcomes in Chapters A3 and A4 will be based on
numeracy proficiency levels instead. Box 1 summarises how the analytical power of the three skill domains differ, and
their recommended use in analysis.
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
25
Box 1. Choosing the right PIAAC domain for analysis: Literacy, numeracy and adaptive problem
solving
PIAAC Cycle 2 assessed the population aged 16 to 65 across three cognitive domains: literacy, numeracy and
adaptive problem solving (although this chapter focuses on 25-64 year-olds). These domains are designed to
capture distinct but interrelated skill sets that support individuals’ personal, civic and economic engagement. All
three domains display similar cross-national patterns in terms of average scores and subgroup distributions:
although the domains are psychometrically distinct, they are empirically correlated, particularly at the population
level.
The scores for the three domains appear similar but are measured using conceptually distinct units. As a result, it
is not meaningful to compare proficiency across domains. For instance, if someone scores 240 points in literacy
and 260 points in numeracy, it would be incorrect to conclude that they are “better at numeracy than at literacy” or
that they possess greater numeracy skills than literacy ones (OECD, 2025[2]).
The domain best suited for analysis depends on the research question, as the choice of domain can meaningfully
influence the interpretation of results. Both literacy and numeracy provide effective tools for comparing skills across
age, gender and educational attainment but have different strengths. Adaptive problem solving introduces a
forward-looking dimension reflecting digital literacy and cognitive flexibility, but its recent introduction and more
limited coverage means it is best used as a complementary domain. The PIAAC international report and its data
analysis manual support combining domains where possible to provide richer, more nuanced interpretations
(OECD, 2024[1]; OECD, 2025[2]).
Literacy is a foundational skill for assessing adult capability and civic engagement. It also tends to exhibit more
stable distributions than numeracy, making it particularly effective for monitoring equity and making comparisons
across demographic groups. Literacy is broadly communicable to non-specialist audiences, and for these reasons
it is the main focus of this chapter.
Numeracy stands out as the preferred domain for analysing economic and labour-market outcomes such as
employment prospects and relative earnings, particularly when used alongside educational attainment (OECD,
2014[3]). Numeracy proficiency is strongly linked to employment, earnings and job quality across countries and
population groups, even after adjusting for educational attainment (OECD, 2024[1]). Numeracy is often used in
regression models focused on employment-related outcomes, because of its closer alignment with the types of
quantitative reasoning tasks encountered in the modern workplace (OECD, 2025[2]). Average proficiency by
education level reveals consistent gradients in both literacy and numeracy, but numeracy often exposes wider
disparities, particularly among highly educated and low-educated adults, and more pronounced skill gradients,
particularly by occupation or field of study. Its greater variance and steeper proficiency gradients also makes it
more suitable for in-depth stratified or occupational analyses (OECD, 2024[1]). It is therefore the main focus of the
PIAAC analysis in Chapters A3 and A4.
Adaptive problem solving, introduced in PIAAC Cycle 2, adds breadth to the assessment framework by measuring
individuals' ability to solve complex, unfamiliar tasks in dynamic, technology-rich environments. Although
conceptually distinct from both literacy and numeracy, adaptive problem-solving correlates moderately with both
and serves as a useful indicator of cognitive flexibility (OECD, 2024[1]). However, its use in demographic analysis
has been limited, partly because it has fewer assessment items and narrower country coverage. Adaptive problem
solving should therefore be used as a supplementary indicator rather than a primary variable in disaggregated
cross-country or subgroup comparisons (OECD, 2025[2]).
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
26
Literacy
Literacy proficiency allows individuals to accessing, understanding, evaluating and reflecting on written texts in order
to achieve one’s goals, to develop one’s knowledge and potential, and to participate in society (see section on
Definitions). Data from the Survey of Adult Skills (OECD, 2024[1]) provide an updated profile of literacy skills among
adults aged 25 to 64, revealing how well countries are preparing their populations for these challenges.
According to the 2023 data, the average literacy score across OECD countries is 259 points, ranging from 214 score
points in Chile to 297 score points in Finland (Table 1). On average, 42% of adults performed at or above Level 3 for
literacy (30% at Level 3 and 12% at or above Level 4, see Box 2 for short descriptions of proficiency levels), meaning
they can understand and respond appropriately to dense or lengthy texts (see section on Definitions). Meanwhile,
about 27% of adults perform at or below Level 1, indicating difficulty with basic written information, and 31% at Level 2
indicating those who can, for example, integrate of information from multiple sources (see Box 2). These figures
highlight the persistence of significant literacy gaps even in high-income countries (Figure 1 and Table 2).
The highest average scores are observed in Finland, Japan, Norway and Sweden, each scoring well above the OECD
average. In these countries, over 60% of adults performed at or above Level 3, while less than 20% were at or below
Level 1. At the other end of the scale, Chile, Poland and Portugal report the lowest average literacy scores. In these
countries, 40% or more of adults perform at or below Level 1, and 22% or less were at or above Level 3 (Table 2).
These results reflect differences not just in education systems but also in broader patterns of adult learning, literacy
use in daily life and access to lifelong learning opportunities.
Box 2. Reporting the results
Proficiency levels
In each of the three domains assessed, proficiency is considered as a continuum of ability involving the mastery of
information-processing tasks of increasing complexity. The results are represented on a 500-point scale. To help
interpret the results, the reporting scales have been divided into “proficiency levels” defined by particular score-
point ranges. Six proficiency levels are defined for literacy and numeracy (Levels 1 through 5 plus below Level 1)
and five for problem solving in technology-rich environments (Levels 1 through 4 plus below Level 1). Each
proficiency level is described in terms of the characteristics of the types of tasks that can be successfully completed
by adults with proficiency scores in the range of scores that defines a level. Short descriptions of the types of tasks
related to each level are provided below, while more details can be found in the Definitions section and in
Tables 2.4, 2.5 and 2.6 in the PIAAC international report (OECD, 2024[1]).
Literacy and numeracy:
Below Level 1: Basic tasks involving simple text or numerical information.
Level 1 (scores equal to or higher than 176 points): Tasks requiring the identification of information in short texts
or simple mathematical operations.
Level 2 (scores equal to or higher than 226 points): Tasks involving integration of information from multiple sources
or application of basic mathematical concepts.
Level 3 (scores equal to or higher than 276 points): Tasks requiring interpretation and evaluation of complex texts
or more advanced mathematical reasoning.
Level 4 (scores equal to or higher than 326 points): Tasks involving complex reasoning and problem-solving with
intricate texts or mathematical information.
Level 5 (scores equal to or higher than 376 points): Tasks requiring the synthesis and critical evaluation of complex
information or advanced mathematical concepts.
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
27
Adaptive problem solving:
Below Level 1: Tasks involving simple problem solving in familiar contexts.
Level 1 (scores equal to or higher than 176 points): Tasks requiring the application of basic strategies to solve
problems in well-defined situations.
Level 2 (scores equal to or higher than 226 points): Tasks involving problem-solving in less familiar contexts with
some complexity.
Level 3 (scores equal to or higher than 276 points): Tasks requiring adaptive reasoning and problem solving in
complex and dynamic situations.
Level 4 (scores equal to or higher than 326 points): Tasks requiring complex reasoning and multi-step solutions to
one or more goals.
Numeracy
Numeracy proficiency reflects adults’ ability to access, use and reason critically with mathematical content, information
and ideas represented in multiple ways in order to engage in and manage the mathematical demands of a range of
situations in adult life (see section on Definitions). In an increasingly data-driven society, strong numeracy skills are
essential for economic resilience and adaptability.
Across OECD countries and economies, the average numeracy score is 262 points, ranging from 211 score points in
Chile to 294 score points in Finland (Table 8, available on line). On average, 44% of adults reach at least Level 3
proficiency (30% at Level 3 and 14% at or above Level 4, see Box 2 for short descriptions of proficiency levels),
demonstrating the ability to work with mathematical concepts and reasoning (see section on Definitions). Meanwhile,
although 30% reach Level 2 (i.e. those who can integrate concepts from different mathematical procedures, see
Box 2), approximately 25% score at or below Level 1, indicating difficulty with basic arithmetic tasks and limited ability
to apply numerical reasoning in everyday contexts (Table 9, available on line).
Similarly to literacy, Finland and Japan report the highest numeracy scores, averaging at or above 290 points, and a
majority of their adult populations score at or above Level 3. In contrast, adults in Chile, Poland and Portugal record
the lowest average scores, below 240 points. In these countries, at least 39% of adults score at or below Level 1, with
only a small fraction reaching Level 3 or above (Table 8 and Table 9, available on line). These findings point to
persistent gaps in basic numeracy that may limit individuals' participation in training, employment and civic life.
Adaptive problem-solving
In a rapidly evolving digital world, adaptive problem-solving is increasingly essential. This skill refers to the capacity to
achieve one’s goals in a dynamic situation, in which a method for reaching a solution is not immediately available. It
requires engaging in cognitive and metacognitive processes to define the problem, search for information, and apply
a solution in a variety of information environments and contexts (see section on Definitions). It is crucial for navigating
both the workplace and daily life, especially as technology becomes more embedded in social, financial and civic
activities.
The average score for adaptive problem solving is 249 points across participating OECD countries and economies
(Table 15, available on line). On average, 31% of adults reach at least Level 3 of proficiency in this domain (26% at
Level 3 and 5% at Level 4), meaning that they can integrate simultaneously several important variables and consider
the impact of several problem elements on each other, while 31% are at or below Level 1 (Table 16, available on line),
meaning they struggle with tasks that involve basic digital interfaces or routine problem solving (see section on
Definitions).
Finland, Japan and Sweden I record the highest average proficiency in this domain – above 270 score points – with
at least 52% of adults achieving at or above Level 3. In contrast, Chile reports the lowest average proficiency, at
214 score points, with only 10% of adults reaching at or above Level 3 (Table 15 and Table 16, available on line).
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
28
These differences suggest that efforts to improve problem solving must go beyond technical skills and address broader
issues of access, confidence and opportunities to practise such skills in daily life.
Literacy proficiency by educational attainment
Educational attainment is a major determinant of literacy proficiency in adulthood. Formal education lays the foundation
for reading comprehension, vocabulary development and the ability to analyse and synthesise text – skills that remain
essential well beyond the classroom. However, the extent to which educational qualifications translate into actual skills
can vary across countries, systems and demographic groups. Although higher education levels are associated with
higher literacy scores, there are cross-country variations in how pronounced these differences are.
Across participating OECD countries and economies, adults with tertiary education average around 283 score points
in literacy, compared to about 207 score points for those with below upper secondary education – a 76 point gap
(Figure 2). The share of those scoring at or above Level 3 is 60% among tertiary-educated adults, but only 12% among
those with below upper secondary attainment. Conversely, 61% of adults with below upper secondary education are
at or below Level 1, compared to just 13% of tertiary-educated adults (Table 2). These figures confirm the steep literacy
gradient by education level and underscore the cumulative effect of formal education on adult skill levels.
Finland, Japan, Norway and Sweden show particularly strong outcomes for tertiary-educated adults, with average
scores of 300 points or above and more than 70% reaching Level 3 and above in literacy (Table 1 and Table 2). The
literacy gap between low- and high-educated adults is relatively narrow in countries like Croatia and the
Slovak Republic, suggesting more equitable education and lifelong learning systems. In contrast, countries such as
Chile, Switzerland and the United States have much lower literacy scores among adults with below upper secondary
education and over 70% of low-educated adults at or below Level 1. Austria, France and Germany also show wide
gaps, highlighting systemic challenges in foundational education and limited opportunities for skill development among
low-qualified adults (Figure 2 and Table 2).
Figure 2. Adults’ mean literacy proficiency, by educational attainment (2023)
Survey of Adult Skills (PIAAC); 25-64 year-olds; in score points
Below upper secondary Upper secondary non-tertiary Tertiary
320
300
280
260
240
220
200
180
160
For data, see Table 1. For a link to download the data, see Tables and Notes section.
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
29
Literacy skills by age group
The Survey of Adult Skills found that in nearly all OECD countries and economies the highest average proficiency is
observed among younger age groups (16-24 year-olds, and especially 25-34 year-olds), while older age groups tend
to score the lowest (OECD, 2024[1]). This is true across different levels of educational attainment, with young adults
(25-34 year-olds) scoring on average 15 points higher than older adults (45-54 year-olds). High literacy scores for
young adults reflect a combination of age-related cognitive factors and cohort effects, particularly linked to the
expansion of education and training opportunities (Kautz et al., 2014[4]). Although the overall pattern is consistent
across countries, the size of the generational gap and the impact of educational attainment on literacy proficiency vary
considerably.
In all participating OECD countries and economies, tertiary-educated 25-34 year-olds outperform their older peers in
literacy proficiency, averaging 291 score points compared to 281 score points among tertiary-educated 45-54 year-
olds. Finland, Estonia and Japan lead in literacy scores among tertiary-educated young adults, averaging above 310
score points (Figure 3 and Table 3).
Tertiary-educated young adults also average 73 score points more than their peers with below upper secondary
attainment. Similar gaps are observed among 45-54 year-olds, with a 75 point difference between those with tertiary
and below upper secondary attainment (Figure 3 and Table 3).
The proficiency gap by education level is substantial across countries and seems to matter more than age factors. The
average difference between tertiary-educated and low-educated adults (73-75 points) far exceeds the average
15 point gap observed between younger and older adults. In Germany and Switzerland, the gap is over 99 score points
between young adults with tertiary education and those with below upper secondary education, showing pronounced
inequalities in proficiency outcomes linked to educational background. In contrast, countries like Italy, Lithuania and
Poland demonstrate relatively smaller gaps by attainment level, suggesting more equitable educational systems or
less stratification in literacy outcomes (Figure 3 and Table 3).
Figure 3. Adults' mean literacy proficiency, by educational attainment and age group (2023)
Survey of Adult Skills (PIAAC); in score points
25-34 year-olds with tertiary education 45-54 year-olds with tertiary education
25-34 year-olds with below upper secondary education 45-54 year-olds with below upper secondary education
330
310
290
270
250
230
210
190
170
150
For data, see Table 3. For a link to download the data, see Tables and Notes section.
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
30
Gender differences in literacy skills
Gender differences in proficiency are generally small across OECD countries (OECD, 2024[1]). The Survey of Adult
Skills found that, on average, women score 3 points higher than men in literacy proficiency. Among tertiary-educated
adults, men score 2.2 points higher than women in literacy proficiency, with minimal differences across countries
(Figure 4). In contrast, among those with lower educational attainment (below upper secondary), women score
1.1 points higher on average, but the gender gaps vary significantly in size and direction across countries and
economies (Figure 4).
Among adults with below upper secondary attainment, men outperform their female counterparts by 17 score points
in the Flemish Region (Belgium) and by 14 score points in Israel. Conversely, women outperform men in Czechia (16
points) and New Zealand (25 points). Among those with tertiary attainment, gender gaps are generally smaller. The
largest differences are in Chile and Japan, where highly educated men outperform women by more than 9 points
(Figure 4).
Educational attainment remains a stronger predictor of literacy proficiency than gender alone. Compared to the
average gender gap of just 3 points, on average across OECD countries and economies, the gap between tertiary-
educated women and those with below upper secondary attainment is 75 score points. For men, the corresponding
gap is 78 points. The largest education-related proficiency gaps are observed in Germany, Switzerland and
the United States, where differences exceed 106 points for men and 97 points for women. This underscores the critical
role of educational level in shaping literacy outcomes (Figure 4).
Figure 4. Adults' mean literacy proficiency, by educational attainment and gender (2023)
Survey of Adult Skills (PIAAC); 25-64 year-olds; in score points
Men (below upper secondary) Women (below upper secondary) Men (tertiary) Women (tertiary)
310
290
270
250
230
210
190
170
150
For data, see Table 1. For a link to download the data, see Tables and Notes section.
Comparatively, differences in numeracy and adaptive problem-solving proficiency are also relatively small, with men
displaying higher average scores. On average, men score 10 points higher than women in numeracy (see Table 8,
available on line) and 3 points higher in adaptive problem solving (see Table 15, available online). In numeracy, gender
gaps are more pronounced among tertiary-educated adults. Women are under-represented in STEM and less likely to
work in numeracy-intensive jobs, partly explaining numeracy gender performance (OECD, 2024[1]). These gaps mirror
patterns seen in PISA and highlight the lasting impact of educational and occupational trajectories on adult skill
development (OECD, 2024[1]).
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
31
Moreover, between Cycle 1 and Cycle 2 of the Survey of Adult Skills, literacy proficiency has declined more strongly
among men than women (OECD, 2024[1]). As a result, gender gaps in literacy have narrowed in many countries, with
women now outperforming men on average (OECD, 2024[1]). This shift is linked to the transversal nature of literacy
proficiency (OECD, 2019[5]). Unlike numeracy, which is more strongly tied to fields and occupations more commonly
pursued by men, literacy is less dependent on occupational context and thus less sensitive to gendered choices in
education and employment (Borgonovi, Choi and Paccagnella, 2021[6]; OECD, 2024[1]). In Chile, Germany and the
Flemish Region (Belgium), the gender gap in numeracy narrowed due to improvements in women’s proficiency,
whereas in most other countries, the narrowing resulted from significant declines in men’s numeracy scores (Table 17
on line).
Trends in adult literacy proficiency between PIAAC cycles
Monitoring changes in adult literacy proficiency over time helps assess the long-term effectiveness of education and
training systems, the impact of demographic and labour-market shifts, and whether adult learning opportunities are
keeping pace with societal needs. Comparisons between Cycle 1 (2012-15) and Cycle 2 (2023) provide insight into
whether literacy levels are improving, stagnating or declining (see Box 3 for the methodological considerations involved
in comparing the results of the two cycles). Average proficiency has remained relatively similar between cycles
although most countries experienced slight changes, with some seeing gains due to expanded educational attainment
in younger cohorts, and others declines due to population ageing or limited adult learning engagement.
On average across participating OECD countries and economies with data for all years, average literacy proficiency
among 25-64 year-olds fell by 9 score points since PIAAC Cycle 1, to 260 points (Table 6, available on line). However
some countries, such as Finland, recorded meaningful increases in average literacy scores – by 10 points – suggesting
sustained improvements in education quality or participation in adult learning. In contrast, Lithuania and Poland saw
declines of over 25 score points. These declines may reflect ageing populations or changes in the composition of the
adult population. Meanwhile, countries like Estonia, Norway and Flemish Region (Belgium) reported relatively stable
scores over time.
This pattern of slight overall decrease, coupled with diverging national trajectories, points to the importance of national
policy contexts in shaping adult skill levels. Countries investing in lifelong learning and inclusive education systems
appear better positioned to sustain or improve literacy skills over time (OECD, 2023[7]). The declines in scores over
time are disproportionally attributable to changes among adults with lower attainment. The average score declined by
19 score points for adults with below upper secondary education, by 12 score points for those with upper secondary
or post-secondary non-tertiary attainment and by 9 score-points for tertiary-educated adults (Figure 5 and Table 6,
available on line).
Comparing differences in literacy proficiency between Cycle 1 and Cycle 2 among adults in the same age group
reveals a general downward trend. On average across OECD countries and economies with data for both cycles,
adults aged 25-34 in 2023 scored 9 points lower than their counterparts in 2012-15, while 45-54 year-olds saw a
7 point decline. These declines are evident across most OECD countries, although the scale varies by country. Among
the younger age group, the largest falls are observed in Lithuania (26 points), New Zealand (23 points), Poland
(34 points) and the Slovak Republic (26 points) (Table 7, available on line).
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
32
Figure 5. Trends in adults' mean literacy proficiency, by educational attainment (2012 and 2023)
Survey of Adult Skills (PIAAC); 25-64 year-olds; in score points
Tertiary (2023) Tertiary (2012) Below upper secondary (2023) Below upper secondary (2012)
330
310
290
270
250
230
210
190
170
150
1. Year of reference: 2015 instead of 2012.
For data, see Table 6, available on line. For a link to download the data, see Tables and Notes section.
The decline in literacy proficiency is most pronounced among those with below upper secondary education, where
proficiency scores fell by an average of 17 points for younger adults and 20 points for older adults. Austria, Japan and
New Zealand stand out in this category: in Austria and Japan, the decline reaches 41 points for older adults, while in
New Zealand, both age groups experienced declines of over 40 points. For those with upper secondary education,
older adults showed on average a 11 point decline in literacy proficiency, compared to 9 points for the younger cohort.
Tertiary-educated adults also experienced declines, although to a lesser extent (8 points for younger adults and
7 points for older adults on average) (Table 7, available on line).
Comparing 25-34 year-olds in 2012-15 with 35-44 year-olds in 2023 and so on provides further insight into ageing
effects on skills on cohorts over time. Average literary proficiency among 35-44 year-olds in 2023 was 15 score points
lower than that for 25-34 year-olds in 2012-15, while 35-44 year-olds in 2012-15 had an average literacy proficiency
17-score points higher than 45-54 year-olds in 2023. For older adults – comparing those aged 45-54 in 2012-15 to
those aged 55-64 in 2023 – the decline reaches 21 points (Table 7, available on line). These findings confirm the
general pattern of skill attrition with age, which may reflect both natural cognitive decline and reduced opportunities for
skill use (OECD, 2019[5]).
However, the change in proficiency differs by educational attainment. Among adults with below upper secondary
education, the younger cohort (aged 25-34 in 2012-15) experienced an average decline in literacy proficiency of
26 score points, which was slightly larger than the 25-point decline experienced by the older cohort (aged 45-54 in
2012-15). There are a few exceptions to the general trend. In Estonia, the Flemish Region of Belgium and Japan, the
drop among older low-educated adults was over 20 points larger than among their younger peers. At higher attainment
levels, although both cohorts saw proficiency declines, these were more pronounced among older adults. For those
with upper secondary education, older adults showed on average a 21-point decline in literacy proficiency, compared
to 16 points for the younger cohort. Among tertiary-educated adults, the decline was 20 points for older adults
compared to 12 points for younger ones (Table 7, available on line). These smaller declines suggest that higher
educational attainment can buffer, but not entirely offset, skill loss over time.
Overall, the decline in literacy proficiency appears to be driven by a combination of factors affecting both younger and
older adults. Larger declines among younger adults with low educational attainment may point to weaknesses in initial
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
33
education, while skill loss among older adults suggests broader societal challenges, such as limited opportunities for
skill use. These dynamics also vary by country: for instance, in Estonia and Japan the older cohort showed a greater
decline in skills than the younger one across all education levels, whereas in Sweden and the Netherlands, the
steepest declines are observed among younger adults. These differences highlight the need for country-level analysis
to identify individual patterns that may be obscured by the overall averages.
Box 3. Comparability of results across PIAAC cycles
The 2023 Survey of Adult Skills (PIAAC) introduced several modifications to the design of the survey instruments
(both the background questionnaire and the cognitive assessment) and the data collection. These changes sought
either to adapt the instruments to societal and contextual developments that occurred between the two cycles, or
to correct and improve measurements (OECD, 2024[8]). Some caution is therefore advised when comparing results
across the two cycles.
A more detailed discussion of the differences between the first and second cycle of PIAAC can be found in the
Reader’s Companion (OECD, 2024[8]) as well as in the Data Analysis Manual (OECD, 2025[2]) and in the PIAAC
Technical Report (OECD (forthcoming)[9]).
Linking error
When comparing average proficiency scores between the first and second cycles of PIAAC, a linking error must
be taken into account due to changes in the set of assessment items. Although about one-third of the items used
in Cycle 2 were trend items used in Cycle 1, the same score does not have exactly the same meaning in both
cycles. This difference is modelled as a random variable known as the linking error (3.27 for literacy, 2.95 for
numeracy), which should be added to the standard error of any trend statistic expressed as a proficiency score
(OECD, 2025[2]). It should be noted that the linking error does not apply to changes in score-point differences
between subgroups (e.g. gender or age gaps in proficiency scores), as the associated uncertainty cancels out.
Doorstep interviews
In Cycle 2, respondents who could not complete the background questionnaire due to language barriers were
administered a short, self-completed doorstep interview available in over 40 languages. This collected key
demographic and background data (e.g. age, gender, education, employment status and migration history) to
generate plausible values, allowing these individuals to contribute to population-level estimates. In Cycle 1, similar
respondents were classified as literacy-related non-respondents and excluded from proficiency estimates. For
cross-cycle comparisons, adults who only completed the doorstep interview have been excluded, as they would
not have received a score in Cycle 1.
Adjusted differences
This chapter does not present adjusted differences between population subgroups. However, the Survey of Adult
Skills (PIAAC) provides an analysis of both adjusted and unadjusted differences. Unadjusted differences show the
observed gaps in proficiency between groups, while adjusted differences account for differences in socio-
demographic characteristics such as age, gender or immigrant background that are independently associated with
proficiency. These adjusted estimates, derived from linear regression models, offer insights into the extent to which
the observed gaps reflect underlying group differences rather than the effect of the characteristic being studied
(e.g. educational attainment). Readers interested in these analyses are referred to the PIAAC international report
for detailed results (OECD, 2024[1]) and the technical manual for more details (OECD, 2025[2]).
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
34
Skills gaps by migration and language background
Migration and language background can significantly influence adult skill levels, particularly literacy proficiency. Adults
born abroad or speaking a different language at home may face additional challenges in developing and maintaining
literacy skills in the language of their host country, especially if they had limited access to high-quality initial education
or encounter language barriers in everyday life. The Survey of Adult Skills sheds light on these disparities by
distinguishing between groups based on both migration status and the language spoken at home (OECD, 2024[1]).
Gaps persist between native-born and foreign-born adults, and are even wider between those who do or do not speak
the host country language at home.
On average across participating OECD countries and economies, native-born adults with native-born parents
averaged 266 score points in literacy, while foreign-born adults with foreign-born parents score averaged 247 points if
they speak the host country language at home (a 19 point gap) and 229 points if they do not (a 38 point gap). These
differences suggest that both language exposure and migration-related barriers (such as interrupted schooling or
credential recognition) might contribute or are related to lower proficiency. Countries such as Canada, Ireland,
Lithuania, New Zealand and the Slovak Republic show comparatively small gaps between native-born and foreign-
born adults, particularly among those who speak the host language at home. In these countries, inclusive education
policies and access to adult learning opportunities may help narrow disparities. In contrast, France, Germany and the
Flemish Region (Belgium) report much larger gaps, especially for foreign-born adults who do not use the host language
at home – often exceeding 70 points (Table 5). However, caution is needed when interpreting these figures, as in
some cases estimates may be based on relatively small samples.
The composition of immigrant populations significantly influences literacy outcomes across countries; although
inclusive education policies and access to adult learning opportunities are vital, educational backgrounds and language
proficiency among migrants also play crucial roles. For instance, Canada's immigration system employs a points-
based model that prioritises highly educated individuals with strong language skills. This approach has resulted in a
substantial proportion of immigrants possessing university degrees (Parisa Mahboubi, 2024[10]). In contrast, countries
like Germany and the Republic of Türkiye have experienced significant influxes of refugees, particularly from Syria,
with varied educational backgrounds and who may not speak the host country's language at home. For example,
studies show that Syrian refugees in Türkiye have educational distributions similar to those in pre-war Syria, with many
having limited formal education (OECD, 2024[11]; Güray Kirdar, Koç and Dayıoğlu, 2023[12]).
On average across OECD countries, the gap in literacy proficiency associated with educational attainment is wider
than that associated with migration background. The gap associated with migration background narrows slightly with
educational attainment. Among those with tertiary education, the gap between native-born adults with native-born
parents and foreign-born adults who do not speak the language of the host country at home is 41 score points,
widening to 47 score points among those with upper secondary or post-secondary non-tertiary attainment and
49 points for those with below upper secondary education (Figure 6 and Table 5).
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
35
Figure 6. Adults' mean literacy proficiency, by educational attainment, immigrant background and
language spoken at home (2023)
Survey of Adult Skills (PIAAC); 25-64 year-olds; in score points
Native-born of native-born parents (below upper secondary)
Native-born of native-born parents (tertiary)
Foreign-born of foreign-born parents: not speaking the language of the host country at home (below upper secondary)
Foreign-born of foreign-born parents: not speaking the language of the host country at home (tertiary)
340
320
300
280
260
240
220
200
180
160
140
120
For data, see Table 5. For a link to download the data, see Tables and Notes section.
Definitions
Age groups: Adults refer to 25-64 year-olds. Younger adults refer to 25-34 year-olds. Older adults refer to 45-
54 year-olds.
Educational attainment refers to the highest level of education successfully completed by an individual. See the
Reader’s Guide at the beginning of this publication for a presentation of all ISCED 2011 levels.
Literacy
Literacy in PIAAC Cycle 2 is defined as the ability to access, understand, evaluate and reflect on written texts to
achieve one's goals, develop knowledge and potential, and participate in society. This encompasses both traditional
print-based texts and digital texts, acknowledging the growing importance of navigating and interpreting information in
digital environments. Tasks may involve multiple sources and formats, including continuous (e.g. sentences,
paragraphs), non-continuous (e.g. charts, tables) and mixed texts, reflecting a range of genres and contexts.
Numeracy
Numeracy in PIAAC Cycle 2 is accessing, using and reasoning critically with mathematical content, information and
ideas represented in multiple ways in order to engage in and manage the mathematical demands of a range of
situations in adult life. The assessment covers engagement with mathematical information in both traditional and digital
environments, including tasks that require understanding and applying mathematical concepts in real-life contexts. An
additional assessment of numeracy components focuses on skills essential for achieving automaticity and fluency in
managing mathematical and numerical information.
Adaptive problem solving
Replacing the previous domain of problem solving in technology-rich environments, Cycle 2 introduced adaptive
problem solving, defined as the capacity to achieve one's goals in dynamic situations where a solution method is not
immediately apparent. This requires engaging in cognitive and metacognitive processes to define the problem, search
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
36
for information and apply a solution across various information environments and contexts. This broader construct
reflects the evolving nature of the problem-solving skills needed in today's complex and digital world.
Proficiency levels
In PIAAC Cycle 2, proficiency in each domain is measured on a continuous scale and categorised into levels to aid
interpretation. While the specific score ranges and descriptions for each level are detailed in the official assessment
framework, the general structure is as follows (see Tables 2.4, 2.5 and 2.6 in the PIAAC international report for more
detailed descriptions (OECD, 2024[1])).
Literacy Proficiency Levels
Below Level 1: Tasks at this level require the respondent to read brief texts on familiar topics and locate a single
piece of explicitly stated information. The text structure is simple and the information that needs to be located is
identical in form to what is in the question or directive. Only basic vocabulary knowledge is required. There is no need
to understand the structure of sentences or make inferences. Texts are short, and there is little competing information.
Level 1: Tasks at this level require the respondent to read relatively short digital or print texts to locate a single piece
of explicitly stated information. There is little, if any, competing information. The information in the question or directive
is identical to or synonymous with the information in the text. Some tasks may require the respondent to enter personal
information onto a document, such as a form. Only basic vocabulary knowledge is required, and the tasks rely mainly
on simple matching or locating strategies.
Level 2: At this level, tasks require respondents to make matches between the text and information, including some
that may require low-level inferences. Some competing information may be present. The texts may be continuous,
non-continuous, or mixed, and the task may require integration of two or more pieces of information. The information
may need to be compared or contrasted. There is some use of digital tools and navigation across pages may be
necessary.
Level 3: Tasks at this level require the respondent to integrate several pieces of information and to recognize the
relationship between different parts of a text, or to evaluate their relevance. There may be a need to perform multi-
step operations, compare and contrast or reason about the information. Texts are often dense or lengthy, and multiple
distractors are present. Navigation across a variety of digital environments or layout features may be required.
Level 4: Tasks at this level require the respondent to perform multiple-step operations to integrate, interpret, or
synthesize information from complex or lengthy texts. The texts may be unfamiliar in topic, with complex structures.
Competing information is often present, and a high level of inferencing is necessary. The tasks may require critical
evaluation of information and distinguishing relevant from irrelevant content.
Level 5: At this highest level, tasks require the respondent to search for and integrate information across multiple,
dense texts; construct syntheses; make high-level inferences or use specialised background knowledge. Texts are
complex and lengthy and may contain dense or ambiguous information. Tasks demand a high level of abstraction,
logic, and reasoning, and often require evaluating the reliability of different sources or resolving conflicting pieces of
information.
Numeracy Proficiency Levels
Below Level 1: Tasks at this level require the respondent to carry out simple processes such as counting, sorting,
performing basic arithmetic operations with whole numbers or understanding simple percentages, such as 50%. Tasks
are based on concrete, familiar contexts where the mathematical content is highly accessible. No interpretation of text
is required. Instructions and numerical information are straightforward and require minimal inference or problem
structuring.
Level 1: Tasks at this level involve basic mathematical content such as quantities and money, time, or simple
measurements. Respondents may be required to perform simple one-step operations such as arithmetic with whole
numbers or percentages in concrete contexts. The mathematical information is explicitly presented, and the tasks
require little or no text interpretation or complex reasoning.
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
37
Level 2: Tasks at this level require the application of two or more steps and may involve calculation with decimals,
percentages, and fractions. Respondents may need to interpret simple data representations such as tables or graphs
and understand proportional relationships. The contexts are more varied and may be less familiar. Tasks may involve
some reasoning and choosing appropriate arithmetic operations.
Level 3: Tasks at this level require respondents to understand and work with mathematical information that may be
embedded in less familiar contexts. They often require several steps and involve problem-solving, proportional
reasoning, or working with simple algebraic formulas. Respondents must interpret and evaluate data from various
sources and use appropriate strategies to identify relevant mathematical processes.
Level 4: Tasks at this level involve understanding a broad range of mathematical information, including formal and
abstract mathematical representations. Respondents may be required to integrate multiple sources of data, make
inferences based on quantitative evidence, or solve problems in unfamiliar contexts. Tasks demand reasoning,
analysis, and the ability to select and apply appropriate strategies flexibly.
Level 5: At this level, tasks require the respondent to conceptualise, evaluate and apply mathematical or statistical
information in complex and abstract settings. Problems may be highly unfamiliar and require the use of sophisticated
reasoning strategies and advanced quantitative tools. Tasks often involve modelling, structuring, and critically
assessing real-world problems using formal mathematics.
Adaptive Problem-Solving
Below Level 1: Tasks at this level require carrying out simple, routine procedures in highly familiar contexts. The
problem to be solved is immediately apparent and involves no unexpected developments or need for goal setting.
Success can be achieved through straightforward recognition and recall, with minimal need to adjust responses or
monitor progress. The environment is predictable, and only a single action or step is typically necessary.
Level 1: Tasks require executing a short sequence of steps in response to a clearly defined and concrete problem.
Situations are familiar, interfaces are standard, and the necessary knowledge is commonly held. There may be some
need to identify relevant options or perform simple adjustments, but no significant reasoning or re-planning is needed.
Respondents succeed by applying familiar strategies or known procedures with limited need for adaptation.
Level 2: Tasks involve resolving problems in somewhat unfamiliar situations. Respondents need to interpret the
problem context, plan steps, and monitor progress. Situations may involve partial or evolving information, moderate
amounts of irrelevant or distracting information, and the need to choose among alternatives. Success depends on
adaptive reasoning–identifying what is relevant, discarding what is not, and adjusting strategies mid-process.
Level 3: Tasks involve multiple steps, ambiguous goals, or constraints that emerge during the task. Respondents must
evaluate options, deal with unexpected information or outcomes, and show flexibility in problem-solving. Success
requires coordinated use of planning, reasoning, and monitoring, as well as learning from feedback. Respondents are
required to manage cognitive complexity and demonstrate self-regulation in dynamic situations.
Level 4: Tasks involve solving complex problems in unfamiliar and evolving situations with competing goals and
multiple constraints. Respondents must independently set objectives, plan multi-step strategies, evaluate the
relevance and reliability of information, and adjust their approach based on feedback or new conditions. High-level
reasoning, abstraction, and critical thinking are essential. These tasks reflect sophisticated real-life problem-solving
skills under uncertainty and require sustained cognitive effort and decision-making autonomy.
Methodology
The Survey of Adult Skills, part of the OECD Programme for the International Assessment of Adult Competencies
(PIAAC), evaluated the skills of adults aged 16 to 65 in three key areas: literacy, numeracy and adaptive problem
solving. These competencies are essential for navigating social contexts, succeeding in the labour market, engaging
in education and training, and participating fully in civic life.
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
38
In addition to assessing skills, the survey gathered detailed background information on respondents, including their
education, employment history and various outcomes such as health status. It also collected data on how frequently
adults engage in literacy and numeracy tasks, their use of digital technologies at work and in daily life, and the
importance of transversal skills such as collaboration and time management in their jobs. Respondents were also
asked whether their qualifications and skills matched their job requirements and if they had autonomy in key aspects
of their work.
The assessment was primarily conducted via computer, although respondents with little or no computer experience
were offered a paper-based version. The test was administered in the official language(s) of each country or, in some
cases, a widely spoken minority language.
Twenty-seven countries and economies participated in both cycles of the survey. While only one round of the second
cycle has been conducted so far (in 2022/23), the first cycle was carried out in three rounds: Round 1 in 2011/12,
Round 2 in 2014/15 and Round 3 in 2017. As different countries participated in the three rounds, the amount of time
that has elapsed between the two data collections is not the same for all countries and economies. The majority of
them (21 out of 27) participated in Round 1 of the first cycle, 11 years before the second cycle. For this reason, this
chapter often refers to changes that occurred “over the past decade”, for ease of exposition. Five countries participated
in Round 2 of Cycle 1, eight years before the second cycle. Hungary participated in Round 3 of Cycle 1, only six years
before the second cycle (the United States also participated in Round 3). Because of these differences, the size of the
change in proficiency between the cycles is not comparable across the participants in the different rounds of the first
cycle. All the figures in this chapter, therefore, group countries and economies according to when they participated in
the first cycle, and no results are given for the average across OECD countries.
The international report of the 2023 Survey of Adult Skills analyses skills more comprehensively also focusing on a
larger age range covering the population aged 16-65, while this Chapter mainly refers to adults aged 25 to 64. In
addition, Cycle 2 of the Survey of Adult Skills includes data from doorstep interviews to evaluate language barriers in
on order to administer the questionnaires: data from doorstep interviews are often included in Education at a Glance
tables, except when this was not possible due to methodology (for example, in tables comparing Cycle 1 and Cycle 2).
Notes under each table specify whether data from the doorstep interviews are included.
More information on sampling and methodology is available in the Technical Report of the Survey of Adult Skills (OECD
(forthcoming)[9]).
For further details, refer to the OECD Handbook for Internationally Comparative Education Statistics (OECD, 2018)
and the Education at a Glance 2025 Sources, Methodologies and Technical Notes (https://doi.org/10.1787/fcfaf2d1-
en).
Source
Data on proficiency levels and mean scores are based on the Survey of Adult Skills (PIAAC) (2012-15 and 2023).
PIAAC is the OECD Programme for the International Assessment of Adult Competencies.
References
Borgonovi, F., A. Choi and M. Paccagnella (2021), “The evolution of gender gaps in numeracy and literacy [6]
between childhood and young adulthood”, Economics of Education Review, Vol. 82, p. 102119,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econedurev.2021.102119.
Güray Kirdar, M., İ. Koç and M. Dayıoğlu (2023), “School integration of Syrian refugee children in Turkey”, [12]
Labour Economics, Vol. 85, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.labeco.2023.102448 (accessed on 2 June 2025).
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
39
Kautz, T. et al. (2014), “Fostering and Measuring Skills: Improving Cognitive and Non-cognitive Skills to [4]
Promote Lifetime Success”, OECD Education Working Papers, No. 110, OECD Publishing, Paris,
https://doi.org/10.1787/5jxsr7vr78f7-en.
OECD (2025), Survey of Adult Skills 2023 Data Analysis Manual, OECD Publishing, Paris, [2]
https://doi.org/10.1787/25a87a9d-en.
OECD (2025), Survey of Adult Skills 2023 Technical Report, OECD Publishing, [9]
Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/80d9f692-en.
OECD (2024), Do Adults Have the Skills They Need to Thrive in a Changing World?: Survey of Adult Skills [1]
2023, OECD Skills Studies, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/b263dc5d-en.
OECD (2024), International Migration Outlook 2024, OECD Publishing, Paris, [11]
https://doi.org/10.1787/50b0353e-en.
OECD (2024), Survey of Adult Skills – Reader’s Companion: 2023, OECD Skills Studies, OECD Publishing, [8]
Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/3639d1e2-en.
OECD (2023), OECD Skills Outlook 2023: Skills for a Resilient Green and Digital Transition, OECD [7]
Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/27452f29-en.
OECD (2019), Skills Matter: Additional Results from the Survey of Adult Skills, OECD Skills Studies, OECD [5]
Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/1f029d8f-en.
OECD (2014), Education at a Glance 2014: OECD Indicators, OECD Publishing, Paris, [3]
https://doi.org/10.1787/eag-2014-en.
Parisa Mahboubi (2024), Quality Over Quantity: How Canada’s Immigration System Can Catch Up With Its [10]
Competitors, C.D. Howe Institute, Toronto, https://cdhowe.org/publication/quality-over-quantity-how-
canadas-immigration-system-can-catch-its (accessed on 2 June 2025).
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
40
Tables and Notes
Chapter PIAAC Proficiency in key information-processing skills among adults Tables
Table 1 Adults’ mean literacy proficiency, by educational attainment level and gender (2023)
Table 2 Distribution of adults by literacy proficiency levels, by educational attainment and gender (2023)
Table 3 Adults' mean literacy proficiency, by educational attainment and age group (2023)
Table 4 Distribution of adults by literacy proficiency levels, by educational attainment and age group (2023)
Table 5 Adults' mean literacy proficiency, by educational attainment, immigrant background and language spoken at home (2023)
WEB Table 6 Adults’ mean literacy proficiency, by educational attainment and gender (2012 and 2023)
WEB Table7 Adults' mean literacy proficiency, by educational attainment and age group (2012 and 2023)
WEB Table 8 Adults’ mean numeracy proficiency, by educational attainment level and gender (2023)
WEB Table 9 Distribution of adults by numeracy proficiency levels, by educational attainment and gender (2023)
WEB Table 10 Adults mean numeracy proficiency, by educational attainment and age group (2023)
WEB Table 11 Distribution of adults by numeracy proficiency levels, by educational attainment and age group (2023)
WEB Table 12 Adults' mean numeracy proficiency, by educational attainment, immigrant background and language spoken at home
(2023)
WEB Table 13 Adults’ mean numeracy proficiency, by educational attainment and gender (2012 and 2023)
WEB Table 14 Adults mean numeracy proficiency, by educational attainment and age group (2012 and 2023)
WEB Table 15 Adults’ mean adaptive problem-solving proficiency, by educational attainment level and gender (2023)
WEB Table 16 Distribution of adults by adaptive problem-solving proficiency levels, by educational attainment and gender (2023)
WEB Table 17 Adults’ mean adaptive problem-solving proficiency, by educational attainment and age group (2023)
WEB Table 18 Distribution of adults by adaptive problem-solving proficiency levels, by educational attainment and age group (2023)
WEB Table 19 Adults' mean adaptive problem-solving proficiency, by educational attainment, immigrant background and language spoken
at home (2023)
StatLink 2 https://stat.link/m8lu47
Data Download
To download the data for the figures and tables in this chapter, click StatLink above.
Data cut-off for the print publication 13 June 2025.
Notes for Tables
Table 1. Adults’ mean literacy proficiency, by educational attainment level and gender (2023)
Note: Includes adults who were only administered the doorstep interview due to a language barrier. Columns showing
data for all levels of education is available for consultation on line.
Table 2. Distribution of adults by literacy proficiency levels, by educational attainment and gender (2023)
Note: Includes adults who were only administered the doorstep interview due to a language barrier. Columns showing
data for men and women, and for all levels of education are available for consultation on line.
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
41
Table 3. Adults' mean literacy proficiency, by educational attainment and age group (2023)
Note: Includes adults who were only administered the doorstep interview due to a language barrier. Columns showing
data for 35-44 and 55-64 year-olds, and for all levels of education are available for consultation on line.
Table 4. Distribution of adults by literacy proficiency levels, by educational attainment and age group (2023)
Note: Includes adults who were only administered the doorstep interview due to a language barrier. Columns showing
data for 35-44, 45-54 and 55-64 year-olds, and for all levels of education are available for consultation on line.
Table 5. Adults' mean literacy proficiency, by educational attainment, immigrant background and language
spoken at home (2023)
Note: Includes adults who were only administered the doorstep interview due to a language barrier. Columns showing
data for native-born of foreign-born parents and for all levels of education are available for consultation on line.
Control codes
a – category not applicable; b – break in series; c – there are too few observations to provide reliable estimates; d –
contains data from another column; m – missing data; r – values are below a certain reliability threshold and should
be interpreted with caution x – contained in another column (indicated in brackets). For further control codes, see the
Reader’s Guide.
For further methodological information, see Education at a Glance 2025: Sources, Methodologies and Technical Notes
( https://doi.org/10.1787/fcfaf2d1-en).
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
42
Table 1. Adults’ mean literacy proficiency, by educational attainment level and gender (2023)
Survey of Adult Skills (PIAAC); 25-64 year-olds; in score points
Upper secondary
Below upper secondary or post-secondary non-tertiary Tertiary
Men Women Total Men Women Total Men Women Total
Score S.E. Score S.E. Score S.E. Score S.E. Score S.E. Score S.E. Score S.E. Score S.E. Score S.E.
OECD countries (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9)
Austria 195 (4.6) 194 (3.7) 195 (2.8) 240 (2.6) 246 (2.2) 243 (1.7) 286 (2.5) 285 (2.1) 285 (1.7)
Canada 207 (5.8) 207 (6.7) 207 (3.9) 261 (2.2) 259 (2.3) 260 (1.7) 288 (2.1) 286 (1.6) 287 (1.2)
Chile 158 (3.9) 166 (2.6) 162 (2.5) 210 (2.9) 211 (2.8) 210 (2.1) 254 (3.3) 245 (2.0) 249 (2.3)
Czechia 192 (10.4) 208 (6.8) 201 (6.0) 252 (2.0) 252 (1.5) 252 (1.2) 293 (4.1) 287 (2.9) 290 (2.5)
Denmark 217 (4.4) 216 (4.0) 217 (3.2) 265 (2.2) 265 (3.0) 265 (1.7) 297 (1.8) 291 (1.2) 293 (1.0)
Estonia 234 (3.9) 231 (3.9) 233 (2.8) 257 (1.6) 257 (1.7) 257 (1.3) 292 (1.9) 296 (1.1) 294 (.9)
Finland 227 (8.5) 219 (9.1) 224 (6.1) 290 (2.3) 288 (2.6) 289 (1.7) 311 (3.1) 316 (2.1) 314 (1.9)
France 193 (3.3) 191 (3.6) 192 (2.3) 238 (1.4) 243 (1.6) 240 (.9) 290 (1.4) 285 (1.3) 287 (1.0)
Germany 187 (4.9) 197 (5.0) 192 (3.0) 254 (1.9) 264 (1.7) 259 (1.3) 293 (2.1) 296 (1.7) 294 (1.4)
Hungary 192 (3.7) 195 (3.5) 194 (2.6) 235 (1.7) 239 (1.5) 237 (1.2) 285 (2.2) 282 (1.7) 283 (1.4)
Ireland 210 (4.4) 209 (6.1) 210 (3.6) 252 (2.9) 249 (2.4) 250 (2.1) 281 (2.0) 281 (1.7) 281 (1.2)
Israel 196 (4.8) 182 (4.4) 191 (3.8) 224 (2.8) 227 (2.6) 226 (2.1) 265 (2.5) 262 (1.7) 263 (1.5)
Italy 217 (2.7) 217 (3.0) 217 (2.2) 252 (2.7) 253 (2.3) 252 (2.1) 272 (3.8) 271 (3.0) 271 (2.4)
Japan 223 (5.8) 217 (9.4) 221 (5.4) 272 (2.2) 278 (1.9) 275 (1.3) 314 (1.4) 304 (1.2) 309 (.9)
Korea 193 (4.6) 192 (3.3) 193 (2.8) 233 (1.8) 227 (1.9) 230 (1.4) 262 (1.4) 267 (1.5) 264 (1.0)
Latvia 199 (5.1) 211 (4.3) 205 (3.3) 233 (1.9) 229 (2.1) 231 (1.3) 274 (2.3) 269 (1.7) 271 (1.5)
Lithuania 201 (4.9) 210 (4.9) 204 (4.0) 226 (2.2) 227 (1.6) 226 (1.4) 258 (2.5) 254 (1.5) 256 (1.4)
Netherlands 225 (4.8) 230 (4.3) 227 (3.1) 273 (2.8) 275 (2.4) 274 (1.8) 300 (2.3) 299 (2.3) 299 (1.6)
New Zealand 195 (7.6) 220 (4.9) 207 (4.9) 251 (6.5) 259 (4.0) 255 (4.1) 280 (4.3) 286 (3.4) 283 (2.6)
Norway 221 (6.3) 229 (5.9) 225 (4.2) 264 (2.3) 266 (2.8) 264 (2.0) 302 (1.9) 298 (1.5) 300 (1.3)
Poland 204 (4.1) 200 (5.4) 203 (3.4) 228 (1.8) 229 (1.5) 228 (1.4) 255 (2.9) 255 (2.2) 255 (1.9)
Portugal 204 (4.1) 199 (3.1) 202 (3.1) 246 (2.6) 234 (2.3) 240 (1.8) 272 (4.0) 271 (2.2) 272 (2.0)
Slovak Republic 215 (4.6) 223 (4.0) 219 (3.2) 255 (1.8) 251 (1.4) 253 (1.3) 269 (3.0) 270 (2.4) 270 (1.9)
Spain 218 (2.0) 218 (2.0) 218 (1.6) 246 (2.4) 242 (2.4) 244 (1.7) 276 (1.7) 268 (1.6) 271 (1.2)
Sweden 243 (6.8) 236 (9.2) 240 (5.5) 286 (2.3) 280 (2.6) 283 (1.8) 303 (2.3) 299 (2.1) 300 (1.7)
Switzerland 185 (5.6) 191 (4.4) 188 (3.6) 256 (2.1) 258 (1.9) 257 (1.4) 291 (1.5) 288 (1.8) 289 (1.1)
United States 180 (7.2) 188 (5.0) 183 (4.8) 240 (3.4) 241 (3.1) 240 (2.3) 289 (3.3) 284 (3.1) 287 (2.3)
Other participants
England (UK) 225 (5.2) 213 (5.9) 219 (3.8) 265 (2.8) 258 (2.5) 262 (1.9) 291 (2.3) 291 (2.1) 291 (1.7)
Flemish Region (Belgium) 225 (5.0) 208 (4.6) 217 (3.3) 263 (2.2) 254 (2.3) 259 (1.7) 302 (2.3) 297 (1.6) 299 (1.3)
OECD average 206 207 207 251 250 250 284 282 283
Partner and/or accession countries
Croatia 221 (4.3) 230 (4.0) 226 (3.3) 247 (1.9) 252 (2.3) 249 (1.8) 271 (4.0) 275 (3.4) 273 (3.2)
Note: For notes on this table and a link to download the data, see Tables and Notes section above.
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
43
Table 2. Distribution of adults by literacy proficiency levels, by educational attainment and gender
(2023)
Survey of Adult Skills (PIAAC); 25-64 year-olds; in per cent
Below upper secondary Upper secondary or post-secondary non-tertiary Tertiary
Level 1 Level 1 Level 1
and below Level 2 Level 3 Level 4/5 and below Level 2 Level 3 Level 4/5 and below Level 2 Level 3 Level 4/5
OECD countries (33) (34) (35) (36) (37) (38) (39) (40) (41) (42) (43) (44)
Austria 71 22 6 1 33 41 24 3 12 24 43 20
Canada 60 31 9 0 23 35 34 7 12 24 42 21
Chile 92 7 1 c 62 29 8 0 30 42 25 4
Czechia 65 24 9 1 29 39 27 5 9 23 46 22
Denmark 53 28 17 1 18 37 37 8 8 20 48 24
Estonia 44 31 21 3 29 31 30 9 11 21 40 28
Finland 49 22 19 10 12 24 38 26 8 9 36 47
France 70 23 6 1 36 40 22 3 8 27 47 17
Germany 68 20 11 1 24 36 33 7 9 20 43 27
Hungary 74 24 2 0 39 42 17 2 9 31 46 14
Ireland 62 32 6 0 26 47 24 3 9 34 43 14
Israel 73 21 5 0 49 32 16 3 23 33 34 11
Italy 58 30 11 1 27 41 27 5 17 36 36 12
Japan 49 31 18 2 13 33 41 13 4 15 47 35
Korea 74 24 2 0 45 39 14 1 19 39 35 8
Latvia 67 25 7 0 46 36 15 3 16 36 38 10
Lithuania 69 27 4 0 48 42 10 0 22 47 27 4
Netherlands 45 34 19 2 14 32 44 11 8 17 45 30
New Zealand 59 28 12 2 26 36 30 8 13 27 39 21
Norway 46 27 23 4 21 33 37 10 7 17 46 30
Poland 65 31 5 0 45 39 14 1 24 42 28 6
Portugal 70 26 4 0 35 44 20 1 15 34 41 11
Slovak Republic 56 34 10 0 22 49 27 2 13 40 40 7
Spain 55 36 9 0 32 44 21 2 13 41 38 9
Sweden 34 33 28 5 9 29 47 15 7 18 45 30
Switzerland 74 19 6 1 25 35 34 7 10 23 43 24
United States 75 17 6 2 35 36 23 6 13 23 40 23
Other participants
England (UK) 50 37 13 1 21 38 33 8 9 24 44 23
Flemish Region (Belgium) 55 27 15 3 23 37 32 8 8 17 46 30
OECD average 61 27 11 2 30 37 27 6 13 28 40 19
Partner and/or accession countries
Croatia 49 37 12 2 30 39 25 5 16 33 37 15
Note: For notes on this table and a link to download the data, see Tables and Notes section above.
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
44
Table 3. Adults' mean literacy proficiency, by educational attainment and age group (2023)
Survey of Adult Skills (PIAAC); in score points
Below upper secondary Upper secondary or post-secondary non-tertiary Tertiary
25-34 year-olds 45-54 year-olds 25-34 year-olds 45-54 year-olds 25-34 year-olds 45-54 year-olds
Score S.E. Score S.E. Score S.E. Score S.E. Score S.E. Score S.E.
OECD countries (1) (3) (5) (7) (9) (11)
Austria 208 (8.8) 192 (6.5) 259 (3.3) 242 (3.1) 296 (3.1) 286 (2.9)
Canada 225 (9.8) 205 (7.5) 275 (3.2) 255 (4.6) 295 (2.2) 286 (2.8)
Chile 184 (7.1) 162 (4.1) 225 (3.3) 201 (3.5) 261 (3.1) 244 (4.2)
Czechia 210 (14.8) 205 (11.7) 260 (2.9) 252 (2.1) 296 (5.2) 294 (3.5)
Denmark 222 (6.2) 216 (7.4) 282 (3.3) 263 (2.6) 303 (2.1) 293 (2.0)
Estonia 264 (4.2) 220 (4.4) 289 (2.5) 250 (2.2) 318 (2.1) 288 (1.8)
Finland 246 (14.9) 215 (16.9) 313 (3.6) 292 (4.0) 320 (4.8) 314 (3.1)
France 213 (7.3) 187 (4.4) 255 (3.0) 236 (1.9) 295 (2.1) 284 (1.7)
Germany 203 (7.0) 178 (7.2) 273 (3.1) 254 (2.7) 303 (3.1) 297 (3.0)
Hungary 197 (5.3) 192 (4.1) 246 (2.7) 240 (1.7) 290 (2.7) 280 (2.5)
Ireland c 218 (6.4) 251 (4.6) 246 (3.9) 283 (2.8) 280 (2.4)
Israel 221 (7.0) 183 (6.1) 244 (3.2) 214 (3.2) 269 (2.7) 263 (3.2)
Italy 224 (5.5) 217 (3.5) 256 (3.4) 253 (3.3) 274 (4.4) 271 (3.8)
Japan c 219 (9.7) 284 (3.6) 276 (2.4) 317 (1.9) 308 (1.6)
Korea c 204 (6.9) 256 (4.7) 230 (2.1) 279 (2.2) 258 (1.8)
Latvia 216 (8.0) 206 (5.2) 250 (3.5) 230 (3.1) 287 (3.2) 265 (2.8)
Lithuania 219 (7.4) 201 (6.0) 242 (2.6) 224 (2.0) 266 (2.1) 252 (2.7)
Netherlands 234 (8.8) 229 (6.6) 282 (3.9) 279 (2.9) 306 (3.6) 301 (2.7)
New Zealand 205 (8.3) 209 (8.0) 251 (9.2) 261 (5.8) 282 (6.2) 284 (7.0)
Norway 236 (10.4) 214 (10.9) 274 (3.9) 266 (3.7) 306 (2.7) 298 (2.5)
Poland 208 (8.1) 214 (5.2) 236 (2.3) 233 (2.5) 259 (3.2) 253 (3.7)
Portugal 206 (6.6) 203 (4.5) 240 (4.0) 243 (3.1) 277 (3.6) 271 (5.1)
Slovak Republic 204 (6.4) 224 (7.7) 249 (2.6) 257 (2.2) 272 (2.9) 269 (3.9)
Spain 220 (3.7) 220 (2.8) 246 (3.5) 246 (3.4) 276 (2.3) 270 (2.0)
Sweden 233 (17.6) 250 (9.6) 287 (3.1) 281 (3.3) 303 (3.7) 299 (2.4)
Switzerland 201 (12.1) 183 (6.1) 273 (2.7) 257 (2.7) 301 (2.4) 285 (2.5)
United States 198 (13.7) 180 (9.0) 246 (4.0) 241 (5.1) 292 (3.9) 286 (4.6)
Other participants
England (UK) 235 (7.1) 212 (8.9) 272 (3.7) 254 (3.5) 300 (2.4) 285 (3.8)
Flemish Region (Belgium) 222 (8.5) 213 (7.4) 274 (3.7) 251 (3.6) 306 (2.6) 292 (2.6)
OECD average 217 206 262 249 291 281
Partner and/or accession countries
Croatia 234 (8.5) 225 (5.3) 256 (2.9) 250 (3.0) 277 (3.6) 275 (4.3)
Note: For notes on this table and a link to download the data, see Tables and Notes section above.
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
45
Table 4. Distribution of adults by literacy proficiency levels, by educational attainment and age
group (2023)
Survey of Adult Skills (PIAAC); in per cent
Below upper secondary Upper secondary or post-secondary non-tertiary Tertiary
Level 1 Level 1 Level 1
and below Level 2 Level 3 Level 4/5 and below Level 2 Level 3 Level 4/5 and below Level 2 Level 3 Level 4/5
OECD countries (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12)
Austria 61 23 14 2 20 42 32 6 9 18 45 28
Canada 50 30 18 2 11 37 42 10 8 22 44 26
Chile 80 18 2 c 47 37 14 1 19 44 32 6
Czechia 59 22 15 4 24 35 32 10 9 17 45 29
Denmark 46 35 17 2 10 29 45 16 7 13 46 34
Estonia c 35 41 c 10 25 45 20 c 10 39 46
Finland 34 14 33 19 6 12 37 45 11 4 26 59
France 53 34 12 1 22 43 31 4 5 24 48 23
Germany 58 22 19 1 18 29 39 14 8 16 40 36
Hungary 71 25 3 1 31 43 22 4 7 27 47 19
Ireland c c c c 24 51 20 5 8 33 45 14
Israel 50 35 13 1 36 31 26 7 19 33 37 11
Italy 49 32 c c 28 35 31 c 16 34 37 c
Japan c c c c 8 28 46 18 2 11 46 42
Korea c c c c 22 40 33 5 12 32 43 14
Latvia 58 29 12 1 31 38 25 7 9 27 47 16
Lithuania 55 35 8 1 30 51 18 1 14 47 33 6
Netherlands 41 29 25 4 11 26 48 15 9 9 43 39
New Zealand 64 24 11 2 28 35 27 10 15 25 38 22
Norway 36 28 29 8 18 27 42 14 6 12 47 34
Poland 60 32 8 c 39 42 16 2 22 41 30 8
Portugal 61 32 7 c 35 43 21 2 15 26 44 14
Slovak Republic 68 26 6 c 26 49 23 2 10 43 41 6
Spain 54 34 11 1 29 47 21 3 10 39 42 10
Sweden c 21 26 9 9 27 47 17 7 15 42 35
Switzerland 58 27 10 4 15 31 44 10 7 16 44 32
United States 66 24 7 3 34 33 25 8 11 19 44 26
Other participants
England (UK) 38 42 18 2 13 38 37 12 6 19 47 28
Flemish Region (Belgium) 48 30 20 2 16 32 39 13 6 13 46 35
OECD average 55 28 15 3 23 36 32 10 10 24 42 25
Partner and/or accession countries
Croatia 36 47 16 1 25 41 27 7 13 33 38 16
Note: For notes on this table and a link to download the data, see Tables and Notes section above.
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
46
Table 5. Adults' mean literacy proficiency, by educational attainment, immigrant background and
language spoken at home (2023)
Survey of Adult Skills (PIAAC); 25-64 year-olds; in score points
Upper secondary
Below upper secondary or post-secondary non-tertiary Tertiary
Foreign-born Foreign-born Foreign-born
of foreign-born parents of foreign-born parents of foreign-born parents
Speaking Not speaking Speaking Not speaking Speaking Not speaking
Native-born host country host country Native-born host country host country Native-born host country host country
of native-born language language of native-born language at language at of native-born language language
parents at home at home parents home home parents at home at home
OECD countries (1) (3) (4) (5) (7) (8) (9) (11) (12)
Austria 218 196 165 252 238 196 297 281 240
Canada 223 c 170 266 257 220 302 288 251
Chile 161 176 c 212 188 c 252 230 c
Czechia 225 c c 254 239 c 296 275 c
Denmark 239 190 189 274 242 217 303 280 265
Estonia 240 c c 264 235 c 306 269 273
Finland 249 c c 296 c c 326 c c
France 211 180 135 246 204 175 293 262 240
Germany 232 189 164 270 241 195 309 276 239
Hungary 196 c c 238 227 c 286 279 c
Ireland 212 c c 253 257 226 287 280 260
Israel 195 184 c 228 230 190 272 253 231
Italy 221 219 202 256 236 221 275 245 237
Japan 229 c c 277 c c 310 c c
Korea 196 c c 233 189 c 266 c c
Latvia 209 c c 233 229 c 271 272 c
Lithuania 200 c c 226 c 217 256 c 239
Netherlands 245 c c 284 238 239 312 289 255
New Zealand 218 207 171 263 254 208 301 286 240
Norway 258 c 171 277 234 224 312 279 255
Poland 203 c c 229 c c 255 c c
Portugal 207 193 c 247 229 c 282 257 257
Slovak Republic 222 c c 253 c c 271 c c
Spain 225 203 195 252 224 223 275 259 238
Sweden 266 c 181 293 258 232 317 286 269
Switzerland 225 192 180 269 247 206 302 289 266
United States 205 c 149 251 226 181 296 276 240
Other participants
England (UK) 230 204 162 270 245 198 303 282 252
Flemish Region (Belgium) 237 206 167 269 244 201 310 280 255
OECD average 221 195 171 256 234 209 291 273 250
Partner and/or accession countries
Croatia 230 221 c 250 243 c 277 260 c
Note: For notes on this table and a link to download the data, see Tables and Notes section above.
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
47
Part A. The output of
educational institutions and
the impact of learning
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
48
Chapter A1. To what level have adults
studied?
Highlights
• Although some countries have achieved near universal upper secondary attainment among 25-34 year-
olds, on average, 13% of younger adults in OECD countries still lack an upper secondary qualification.
Across OECD and partner countries, the rate is especially high in Costa Rica, India, Indonesia, Mexico,
Peru and South Africa where more than one in three 25-34 year-olds have not attained upper secondary
education.
• Parental education remains a strong determinant of young adults’ educational attainment. Across OECD
countries, 25-34 year-olds whose parents have a tertiary qualification are significantly more likely to obtain
a tertiary degree themselves (70%) than those whose parents did not complete upper secondary education
(26%).
• Although a master’s degree is associated with significantly improved earnings and employment prospects,
the prevalence of master’s attainment among 25-34 year-olds with tertiary qualifications varies widely
across OECD and partner countries, ranging from 4% in Brazil to 83% in the Slovak Republic.
Context
Educational attainment plays a pivotal role in democratic societies and the labour market. It is often used as a key
indicator of human capital. Higher levels of educational attainment are strongly linked to increased employment
rates (see Chapter A3) and a more skilled labour force. It is also associated with higher earnings (see Chapter A4)
and better health (see Chapter A6).
Over the past several decades, tertiary attainment has increased across most OECD countries. Individuals with
tertiary qualifications generally achieve higher employment rates and earn better wages than those with lower
educational levels. Even within tertiary education, this trend still holds: individuals with a master’s degree or
equivalent typically earn more and face lower unemployment rates than those with only a bachelor’s degree or
equivalent.
To enhance the educational attainment of their populations, governments in OECD countries have implemented
various policies aimed at retaining individuals within the education system and equipping them with the skills
demanded by the labour market (OECD, 2018[1]). However, the growing prevalence of non-formal and informal
education has introduced alternative pathways for adults to acquire these skills in non-traditional settings (see
Chapter A5).
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
49
Figure A1.1. Distribution of tertiary attainment levels among tertiary-educated 25-64 year-olds
(2024)
Short-cycle tertiary Bachelor's or equivalent Master's or equivalent Doctoral or equivalent
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
1. Year of reference differs from 2024.
For data, see Table A1.1. For a link to download the data, see Tables and Notes section.
Other findings
Upward educational mobility is considerably more widespread than downward mobility. Among 25-34 year-olds
whose parents attained upper secondary education, 44% have attained tertiary education on average across OECD
countries, while just 8% did not complete upper secondary.
• There are large differences in the prevalence of different fields of study among adults (25-64 year-olds)
with tertiary attainment in OECD countries. Across the OECD on average, 26% of tertiary-educated adults
had studied science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM), the most prevalent field of study.
• On average across OECD countries, the most common level of tertiary attainment for both women and
men aged 25–34 is a bachelor’s degree, held by 29% of women and 22% of men. A smaller share has
completed a master’s degree (19% of women and 13% of men), while only 1% of young adults have earned
a doctorate, regardless of gender.
Analysis
Educational attainment has steadily increased over recent decades across all OECD countries. Younger generations
generally exhibit higher levels of educational attainment, and women have long surpassed men in tertiary attainment
on average across OECD countries.
Not only is tertiary education associated with higher employment rates, better wages and better health, but within this
level, master's and doctoral degrees generally offer even greater employment prospects and earnings, although
outcomes vary by field of study. Notably, significant gender imbalances persist, with women often concentrated in
fields that tend to yield lower wages and employment rates compared to male-dominated disciplines (see Chapters
A3 and A4).
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
50
While labour force surveys are invaluable for cross-country comparisons, their design choices—such as the languages
in which interviews are conducted—can affect which populations are actually represented in the data. This, in turn,
has implications for how accurately educational attainment levels reflect the true composition of the population.
Box A1.1 explores how linguistic accessibility in national LFS affects data coverage, highlighting why this aspect is
important when interpreting attainment data for policymaking.
Tertiary education attainment
Among tertiary-educated 25-64 year-olds, the most common level of educational attainment is a bachelor’s or
equivalent degree, with about 48% of this population having a bachelor’s as their highest level of education. This is
followed by master’s attainment, with around 35% of tertiary-educated adults holding this degree as their highest
qualification. In contrast, only a small percentage – 3% – of them has attained a doctorate. Similarly, a relatively low
proportion holds short-cycle tertiary qualifications as their highest educational attainment – 17% (Table A1.1).
While a relatively low proportion of tertiary-educated 25-64 year-olds holds short-cycle tertiary qualifications as their
highest educational attainment, there is an exception worth pointing out. In Canada, over one fourth hold short-cycle
tertiary qualifications as their highest educational attainment. Also, the proportion that holds short-cycle tertiary
attainment matches or exceeds the proportion that holds bachelor’s attainment in Austria, France, Spain and China
(Table A1.1).
This pattern of attainment reflects the labour market's demand for highly skilled workers, with bachelor's and master's
degrees often serving as key pathways to employment in knowledge-intensive sectors. However, the lower share of
doctoral graduates suggests that although advanced research skills are valued, they remain a niche qualification
pursued by a smaller segment of the population (OECD, 2019[2]).
The share of 25-34 year-olds with tertiary attainment has increased between 2019 and 2024 in almost all OECD and
partner countries with available data for both years. The OECD average has increased by 3 percentage points, from
45% in 2019 to 48% in 2024. In Ireland, Luxembourg and Norway, the increase is 10 percentage points or more, while
Romania, the Slovak Republic, South Africa and Switzerland experience a decline of at least 2 percentage points (The
gender gap is also widening: 55% of 25-34 year-old women across the OECD have a tertiary degree, compared to
42% of men, a difference which has slightly increased between 2019 and 2024. Estonia is the only country with
comparable data for both 2019 and 2024 where the gender gap has narrowed by at least 5 percentage points over
this period (Table A1.2).
Looking at longer trends in tertiary attainment, between 2000 and 2021 the average rate of tertiary education among
young adults in OECD countries increased steadily by about 1 percentage point per year. However, since 2021, this
growth has slowed considerably, with the average annual increase dropping to just 0.3 percentage points. This
slowdown underscores ongoing challenges related to unequal access to higher education. On average, only 26% of
young adults whose parents did not complete upper secondary education hold a tertiary qualification, compared to
70% of those with at least one parent who attained tertiary education. These disparities highlight persistent barriers
that continue to limit educational opportunities for learners from disadvantaged backgrounds, despite overall progress
in tertiary attainment.
Master’s attainment
Just as the share of 25-34 year-olds with tertiary education has increased in recent years, so has the proportion of
those whose highest attainment is a master’s degree. Although the difference between 2019 and 2024 is not significant
in most countries, in Ireland and Luxembourg the share increased by at least 7 percentage points during this period.
However, in the Slovak Republic and Switzerland, the share of young adults attaining a master’s degree declined by
2 percentage points over the past five years (Figure A1.2).
Master’s programmes vary across OECD countries, reflecting different educational systems and labour-market needs.
One approach is the long first degree, where the undergraduate and graduate stages are integrated into a single,
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
51
extended programme. A second approach is where students first attain a bachelor’s degree before completing their
initial education with a master’s degree, a model widely adopted in many OECD countries, including those aligned with
the Bologna Process. In this model, the master’s programme typically lasts 1-2 years and prepares graduates for both
professional practice and research careers. A third approach is the master’s as lifelong learning, where individuals
pursue postgraduate education after gaining work experience, often in flexible formats such as part-time or online
programmes. This model is prevalent in programmes like the Master of Business Administration (Executive MBA) and
allows professionals to reskill or advance their careers. These different approaches highlight the diverse purposes of
master’s degrees, from early career development to ongoing professional growth, and their increasing role in adapting
to changing labour-market demands (OECD, 2023[3]).
Figure A1.2. Trends in the share of 25-34 year-olds with a master's or equivalent degree (2019 and
2024)
In per cent
2024 2019
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
1. Break in time series between 2019 and 2024.
2. Year of reference differs from 2024.
3. Year of reference differs from 2019.
For data, see Table A1.2. For a link to download the data, see Tables and Notes section.
Fields of study
Individuals typically pursue tertiary education in order to enter a specific career or sector and to acquire the skills they
need for their desired job. Breaking down tertiary attainment by field of study shows the variation across OECD
countries, with some fields being more popular than others (Figure A1.3). The most popular broad field overall is
science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM), but in 9 OECD countries, business, administration and
law remains the most common broad field. Traditional gender roles have also influenced the choice of field of study,
and certain fields have traditionally attracted more students from one gender than from the other. In most countries,
women dominate in health and welfare but are under-represented in the broad field of science, technology, engineering
and mathematics (STEM) (Table A1.3).
In an evolving job market, STEM fields are particularly valued due to the high demand for the skills they provide, both
in traditional industries and emerging sectors. STEM graduates typically see stronger labour-market and earnings
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
52
outcomes than their peers who studied other fields, highlighting the economic advantages of expanding access to
STEM education (see Chapter A3). Across OECD countries, 26% of tertiary-educated individuals are STEM graduates,
on average. However, the popularity of these fields varies by country, influenced by factors such as national industrial
needs, education policies and student preferences. In Germany, this share reaches 34% (Table A1.3). This pattern
highlights the increasing importance of STEM-related technical and analytical skills in the labour market, as well as
the role of STEM education in driving innovation and economic growth.
Figure A1.3. Field of study among 25-64 year-old tertiary-educated adults (2024)
Percentage of adults with tertiary attainment
Arts and
humanities
Science, (except
technology,
engineering Business, languages), Health Other
and administration social and Education fields
and law sciences, welfare
mathematics journalism
(STEM) and
information
Germany
Slovenia
Austria
Czechia
Chile¹
Finland
Sweden
Switzerland
Lithuania
Estonia
Spain
EU25 average
Slovak Republic
OECD average
Canada¹
United Kingdom¹
Mexico
France
Ireland¹
Italy
Portugal
Greece
Poland
United States¹
Australia
Luxembourg
Hungary
Belgium
Denmark¹
Norway
Netherlands
Latvia
Costa Rica
0 10 20 30 40 0 10 20 30 40 0 10 20 30 40 0 10 20 30 40 0 10 20 30 40 0 10 20 30 40
1. Year of reference differs from 2024.
For data, see Table A1.3. For a link to download the data, see Tables and Notes section.
Upper secondary or post-secondary non-tertiary attainment
Upper secondary attainment can lead to attractive career opportunities, particularly in countries with strong vocational
education and training (VET) systems. In these countries, completing upper secondary education often results in a
clear path to well-paying, skilled jobs in sectors like manufacturing, technology and services. However, in countries
without robust vocational pathways, the same level of education may not offer the same career prospects, which can
influence overall attainment levels. This disparity in career outcomes contributes to varying upper secondary
completion rates across OECD countries.
On average across OECD countries, 40% of adults (25-64 year-olds) have an upper secondary or post-secondary
non-tertiary qualification as their highest level of education. However, OECD countries show very different shares of
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
53
adults with this level of attainment: it is below 25% in Costa Rica, Mexico, Spain and Türkiye, and above 60% in
Czechia and the Slovak Republic (Table A1.1).
Among younger adults (25-34 year-olds) in OECD countries, the rates of upper secondary or post-secondary non-
tertiary attainment range from 23% in Spain to 59% in Czechia. On average across the OECD, this share has slightly
fallen, from 40% in 2019 to 39% in 2024, as younger adults are more likely to pursue tertiary education than they were
a decade ago. However, upper secondary or post-secondary non-tertiary represents the most commonly attained level
of education among 25-34 year-olds in about half of OECD countries (Table A1.2).
The gender difference is also widening at this level among 25-34 year-olds. Across OECD countries, on average, 44%
of younger men had upper secondary or post-secondary non-tertiary attainment in 2024, 10 percentage points more
than the rate for younger women (34%). In 2019, a similar gender gap was observed (45% for younger men and 36%
for younger women). This is a reversal of the pattern for tertiary attainment, where the average difference between the
share of 25-34 year-old women and men with tertiary attainment is 13 percentage points in favour of women. Notably,
Norway is the only country where the gender gap at this level is more than twice as large, with 33% of younger men
compared to just 16% of younger women attaining this level of education (Table A1.2).
Below upper secondary attainment
Attaining upper secondary education has become a minimum requirement for navigating the modern economy and
society. Early school leavers are also more likely to experience lower levels of social cohesion and civic engagement
compared to their more educated peers (OECD, 2023[3]). These disadvantages – both social and economic – are likely
to deepen as societies become more reliant on digital technologies.
Despite the educational expansion experienced over the past decades, on average across OECD countries, 19% of
adults (25-64 year-olds) still do not have an upper secondary qualification in 2024. In Brazil, China, Costa Rica, India,
Indonesia, Mexico, Portugal, South Africa and Türkiye, the most commonly held attainment level of education for the
adult population remains below upper secondary (Table A1.1). However, the share of adults with below upper
secondary attainment is gradually declining, particularly among younger generations. The share among 25-34 year-
olds has been steadily decreasing across OECD countries in recent years, from 15% in 2019 to 13% in 2024. Among
OECD countries, the highest proportion is found in Mexico (41%), while the lowest is in Korea (1%) (Table A1.2). This
trend highlights that those without upper secondary qualifications are predominantly older adults, with younger
generations increasingly achieving this level of education.
In most OECD and partner countries, young men are more likely than young women to lack an upper secondary
qualification, with an OECD average of 14% for young men and 11% for young women. The gender gap is
8 percentage points or higher in Costa Rica and Portugal. Bulgaria, Korea, and Mexico are the exceptions, where
there is no gender gap in the share of individuals with below upper secondary attainment (Table A1.2).
To address evolving labour-market demands and the need for new skills, OECD countries have been actively
implementing policies to encourage individuals to remain in the education system and achieve higher levels of
educational attainment (OECD, 2018[1]). These efforts have become increasingly important in the context of
digitalisation and the growing integration of artificial intelligence (AI) into the workplace. Recent OECD analysis
underscores the importance of aligning education and training systems with emerging skill needs, particularly by
strengthening access to high-quality learning opportunities throughout people’s lives (OECD, 2023[4]). In this context,
upper secondary and post-secondary education play a critical role in equipping learners with the competencies
necessary to engage with AI-driven technologies and remain resilient in an increasingly dynamic labour market (OECD,
2023[5]).
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
54
Box A1.1. Languages used in labour force surveys: National approaches and implications
In many countries, the national labour force survey (LFS) is a key source of labour-market statistics, providing
crucial information on educational attainment, employment, unemployment and workforce participation, among
other measures. Typically gathered monthly or quarterly, LFS data are widely used for economic analysis, policy
design and international comparisons. These surveys cover a significant proportion of the population, aiming to
reflect labour-market trends and inform policy decisions.
In Education at a Glance, LFS data are used extensively in Chapter A1 (on educational attainment), Chapter A2
(on the transition from school to work), Chapter A3 (on labour-market outcomes) and occasionally in other chapters
such as A5 (on adult education). The reliability, coverage and comparability of LFS data make them a fundamental
input to understanding how education influences labour-market dynamics across countries.
However, like any survey, the LFS can be affected by methodological challenges. One critical issue is linguistic
accessibility – if certain population groups are unable to participate due to language barriers, this could introduce
biases in the data. Given the increasing linguistic diversity in many OECD countries due to migration and
demographic shifts, ensuring that surveys are accessible to all residents, regardless of language proficiency, is an
important challenge for national statistical offices.
To explore this issue, the INES Network on Labour Market, Economic and Social Outcomes (LSO Network)
conducted an ad-hoc survey on how OECD countries address linguistic diversity in their national LFS. Table A1.1.a
presents the results, based on the responses received. These suggest there are three main approaches:
Table A1.1.a. Language use in the Labour Force Surveys (LFS)
Survey type Countries Rationale
Surveys conducted only in the Brazil, Canada, Czechia, the Netherlands, New Reflects linguistic norms; may face limitations
official language(s) Zealand, Poland, Portugal and the Slovak in capturing data from non-native speakers
Republic
Surveys conducted in the Flemish Community of Belgium (Belgium), English is included due to its role as a global
official language(s) and English Bulgaria, Costa Rica, Denmark, Finland, lingua franca, aiding participation among
Germany, Latvia, Luxembourg, Switzerland and international residents
Türkiye
Surveys conducted in the Austria, Estonia, Israel, Italy, Korea, Lithuania, Addresses significant minority languages to
official language(s), English Spain, Sweden, United Kingdom, United States improve inclusivity and data accuracy
and/or other languages
Note: The United States has no official language but conducts the survey in English and other prevalent languages.
Potential biases and country practices in addressing linguistic barriers
The choice of language in LFS administration can significantly impact data quality and representativeness. Some
countries, particularly those with skilled migration programmes (e.g. Canada, New Zealand and Portugal), conduct
their surveys only in their official languages, assuming that most foreign-born residents have sufficient proficiency.
However, this approach may result in under-representation of certain groups, particularly recent migrants or lower-
skilled workers.
Countries with multilingual survey options often tailor their approaches to local linguistic contexts. For instance,
Estonia conduct LFS in both the national language and Russian, reflecting the presence of large Russian-speaking
communities, while Latvia conducted it in both languages until the end of 2022. Similarly, in Canada, the LFS is
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
55
available in English and French, and when respondents do not speak either language, a knowledgeable household
member (often a child in immigrant families) may assist in translation, ensuring data collection is not compromised.
Some countries allow for technological solutions to facilitate multilingual participation. Germany, for example,
officially administers the LFS in German and English but acknowledges that some respondents rely on translation
software to complete the survey, even though no official recommendations exist for their use.
In certain cases, countries introduce supplementary measures to capture data on migrant populations more
accurately. For instance, the Slovak Republic conducts an additional survey module on migrants, as its LFS only
covers private households, thereby excluding many recent migrants who reside in collective housing. Similarly, in
the United States, the Census Bureau’s Current Population Survey (CPS) is conducted in English, but interviewers
offer assistance in Spanish and other commonly spoken languages (such as French, Mandarin, Korean and Arabic)
to enhance participation and reduce response bias. In Sweden the questionnaire is in Swedish with interpreter
assistance available online.
Key considerations
Ensuring that Labour Force Surveys (LFS) effectively capture data from all segments of the population is crucial
for accurate labour-market analysis. While multilingual survey options can enhance inclusivity, they also introduce
methodological challenges. Policy makers must balance linguistic accessibility with data consistency, ensuring that
LFS data accurately reflect workforce participation across diverse linguistic groups.
• Technical challenges:
o Conducting the LFS in multiple languages requires additional resources, trained personnel and
standardised methodologies to ensure data quality.
o Developing the LFS questionnaire in another language must also meet the same strong legal
requirements as a questionnaire in the national language. This often presents a legal challenge. It is
therefore sometimes easier to use lists or explanations in the other languages.
• Data interpretation risks: Respondents answering in a non-native language may misinterpret survey
questions, leading to inconsistencies in responses. This issue requires careful consideration in data
validation and analysis.
• Policy context and relevance: Countries vary in their linguistic inclusion strategies depending on their
migration patterns. While some countries adapt surveys to capture recent migration trends, others account
for historically established linguistic minorities. Countries with skilled migration programmes may assume
that migrants already possess sufficient language skills, but this assumption should be monitored and
evaluated.
• Implications for labour-market and education policies: Understanding linguistic diversity in LFS is essential
for designing inclusive policies that adequately support migrants and non-native speakers. When surveys
are conducted in multiple languages, they are more likely to capture the experiences of a broader and
more diverse population. In contrast, surveys administered in only one language risk excluding linguistic
minorities, which may lead to their underrepresentation in the data and, consequently, in the policies
informed by those data.
Subnational variation in educational attainment
Educational attainment can vary significantly within countries. Capital regions, which often encompass the country’s
largest city, tend to have a more highly skilled workforce attracted by the job opportunities in the public and private
sector. In contrast, rural areas generally have a less-skilled workforce with lower levels of educational attainment
(OECD, 2023[6]). Internal migration patterns contribute to this disparity, as individuals move from rural areas to urban
centres in search of better educational opportunities and higher-skilled jobs. This movement concentrates skilled
labour in capital regions, reinforcing regional inequalities in education and employment. Capital regions and large
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
56
metropolitan regions also have more infrastructure (OECD, 2023[6]), and larger educational institutions are typically
concentrated in major economic and capital regions (Hermannsson, Scandurra and Graziano, 2019[7]). These areas
also have the services needed to support their populations effectively and attract more individuals. The following
analysis is of regions at the TL2 level, which are large subnational regions as defined by the OECD’s official regional
classification (OECD, 2023[8]).
In most OECD countries, overall tertiary attainment rates for 25-64 year-olds vary widely across subnational regions.
The most significant regional disparities are found in Canada and Hungary, where the difference between the highest
and lowest performing regions reaches 38 percentage points. In Canada, Ontario boasts a tertiary attainment rate of
71%, while Nunavut lags at just 33%. Similarly, in Hungary, tertiary attainment ranges from 59% in the capital,
Budapest, to only 21% in Northern Hungary. These disparities reflect deep-rooted urban-rural divides and suggest the
continuing need for region-specific educational policies and enhanced social support systems, particularly in remote
communities (Table A1.5, available on line).
Conversely, Ireland and Slovenia exhibit limited regional variation, with a gap of just 6 percentage points between the
highest and lowest performing regions in Ireland and of 8 percentage points in Slovenia. Ireland’s tertiary attainment
rates range from 53% (Southern) to 60% percent (Eastern and Midland), suggesting broadly uniform educational
outcomes. In Slovenia, the difference between Eastern Slovenia (31%) and Western Slovenia (39%) also indicates
modest disparities (Table A1.5, available on line).
Intergenerational mobility
Individuals’ educational attainment remains closely tied to that of their parents across OECD countries. Data from the
Survey of Adult Skills (PIAAC) (2024[9]) show that the likelihood of completing tertiary education is around 70% for
young adults with at least one tertiary-educated parent, while the likelihood of having the same level of education as
their parents corresponds to 48% and 27% for those with upper secondary or post-secondary non-tertiary and below
upper secondary, respectively (Table A1.4, available on line).
Figure A1.4 further illustrates the role of intergenerational transmission in shaping tertiary educational attainment. As
noted, young adults with at least one tertiary-educated parent are significantly more likely to also attain tertiary
education, while the probability drops considerably for those whose parents have lower levels of education (44% for
those whose parents have attained at most upper secondary or post-secondary non-tertiary education, and 26% for
those whose neither parent completed upper secondary. In Hungary, Lithuania, Poland and the Slovak Republic,
young adults with tertiary-educated parents are over 60 percentage points more likely to attain tertiary education than
those whose parents lack upper secondary education (Figure A1.4).
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
57
Figure A1.4. Share of 25-34 year-old adults with tertiary education, by parental educational
attainment (2023)
Survey of Adult Skills (PIAAC); in per cent
At least one parent attained tertiary education
At least one parent attained upper secondary or post-secondary non-tertiary education
Neither parent attained upper secondary education
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Note: The percentage in parentheses represents the share of tertiary-educated parents.
For data, see Table A1.4 (available on line). For a link to download the data, see Tables and Notes section.
The persistence of educational advantage is mirrored by “sticky floors” at the lower end (OECD, 2018[10]). In
the Slovak Republic, 55% of young adults whose parents lacked upper secondary education also remain below that
threshold, while this share is 48% in both Hungary and Spain (Table A1.4, available on line). These patterns highlight
how family background continues to shape educational trajectories across generations (OECD, 2024[11]). However,
given the relatively small sample sizes for some countries, the associated estimates carry a high degree of uncertainty,
and differences between countries may not be statistically significant. Results should therefore be interpreted as
indicative of broad patterns rather than precise rankings.
Despite this, intergenerational mobility remains evident in many countries. In all countries, upward mobility (i.e. adults
whose educational attainment is higher than that of their parents) is considerably more common than downward
mobility. Among young adults whose parents attained upper secondary education, 44% exceed this by completing
tertiary education on average, while just 8% fail to reach upper secondary. In Denmark, the share of young adults
whose parents did not complete upper secondary education but who themselves attained tertiary education has risen
by 20 percentage points since 2012, reaching 49%, which is above the OECD average for young adults of all
backgrounds. Similar progress has been observed in England and the Flemish Community of Belgium, where tertiary
attainment among this group has increased by 12 percentage points.
The contrast between strong upward mobility and limited downward mobility among young adults whose parents
attained upper secondary education is particularly pronounced in countries such as France, Ireland and Korea. In
these countries, both high levels of tertiary attainment among this group (upward mobility) and a low share of below
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
58
upper secondary attainment (downward mobility) combine to produce large differences. In Korea, for example, 78%
of young adults whose parents attained upper secondary education attain tertiary education, while just 1% attained
below upper secondary – a 77 percentage-point difference. Similarly, the difference reaches 56 points in Ireland and
50 points in France (Table A1.4, available on line).
At the same time, downward mobility is not uncommon. Despite the general expansion of tertiary attainment across
OECD countries, nearly 30% of young adults with tertiary-educated parents do not reach tertiary attainment
themselves, most often completing only upper secondary or post-secondary non-tertiary education. While this may
indicate constrained opportunities in some countries, it can also reflect high social mobility in others. In Sweden, for
example, over half (51%) of young adults with tertiary-educated parents do not attain tertiary education themselves;
combined with high levels of tertiary attainment among those with less educated parents, this suggests that tertiary
educational attainment is influenced by parents’ education to a smaller extent (Figure A1.4). Similarly, in Germany,
the strong VET system offers alternative pathways that may reduce the relevance of parental education to educational
outcomes.
Definitions
Age groups: Adults refer to 25-64 year-olds; younger adults refer to 25-34 year-olds.
Educational attainment refers to the highest level of education successfully completed by an individual.
Levels of education: See the Reader’s Guide at the beginning of this publication for a presentation of all ISCED 2011
levels.
Methodology
Educational attainment profiles are based on annual data on the percentage of the adult population (25-64 year-olds)
in specific age groups who have successfully completed a specified level of education.
In OECD statistics, recognised qualifications from ISCED 2011 level 3 programmes that are not of sufficient duration
for ISCED 2011 level 3 completion are classified at ISCED 2011 level 2 (see the Reader’s Guide). Where countries
have been able to demonstrate equivalencies in the labour-market value of attainment formally classified as the
“completion of intermediate upper secondary programmes” – such as achieving five good General Certificates of
Secondary Education (GCSEs) or equivalent in the United Kingdom (note that each GCSE is offered in a specific
school subject) – and “full upper secondary attainment”, attainment of these programmes is reported as ISCED 2011
level 3 completion in the tables that show three aggregate levels of educational attainment (UNESCO-UIS, 2012[12]).
Most OECD countries include people without formal education under the international classification ISCED 2011
level 0. Averages for the category “less than primary educational attainment” are therefore likely to be influenced by
this inclusion.
See the OECD Handbook for Internationally Comparative Education Statistics (OECD, 2018[13]) and Education at a
Glance 2025 Sources Methodologies and Technical Notes (https://doi.org/10.1787/fcfaf2d1-en) for more information.
Source
Data on educational attainment for most countries are taken from OECD databases, which are compiled from National
Labour Force Surveys by the OECD Labour Market, Economic and Social Outcomes of Learning (LSO) Network. Data
on educational attainment for Argentina, the People’s Republic of China, India, Indonesia and South Africa are taken
from the International Labour Organization (ILO) database.
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
59
Data on subnational regions for selected indicators are available in the OECD Regional Statistics Database (OECD,
2023[14]).
Data on intergenerational mobility are based on the Survey of Adult Skills (PIAAC) (2012-15 and 2023). PIAAC is the
OECD Programme for the International Assessment of Adult Competencies.
References
Hermannsson, K., R. Scandurra and M. Graziano (2019), “Will the regional concentration of tertiary [7]
education persist? The case of Europe in a period of rising participation”, Regional Studies, Regional
Science, Vol. 6/1, https://doi.org/10.1080/21681376.2019.1680313.
OECD (2024), Do Adults Have the Skills They Need to Thrive in a Changing World?: Survey of Adult Skills [9]
2023, OECD Skills Studies, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/b263dc5d-en.
OECD (2024), “Equity in education and on the labour market: Main findings from Education at a Glance [11]
2024”, OECD Education Policy Perspectives, No. 107, OECD Publishing, Paris,
https://doi.org/10.1787/b502b9a6-en.
OECD (2023), Education and Skills Policy Programme, OECD, [5]
https://www.oecd.org/en/about/programmes/education-and-skills-policy-programmes.html.
OECD (2023), Education at a Glance 2023: OECD Indicators, OECD Publishing, Paris, [3]
https://doi.org/10.1787/e13bef63-en.
OECD (2023), OECD Employment Outlook 2023: Artificial Intelligence and the Labour Market, OECD [4]
Publishing, Paris., https://doi.org/10.1787/08785bba-en.
OECD (2023), OECD Regional Database - Education, OECD, [14]
https://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DataSetCode=REGION_EDUCAT (accessed on 20 July 2022).
OECD (2023), OECD Regional Outlook 2023: The Longstanding Geography of Inequalities, OECD [6]
Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/92cd40a0-en.
OECD (2023), OECD Territorial Grids, OECD, Paris, [8]
https://www.oecd.org/content/dam/oecd/en/data/datasets/oecd-geographical-definitions/territorial-
grid.pdf.
OECD (2019), Education at a Glance 2019: OECD Indicators, https://doi.org/10.1787/f8d7880d-en. [2]
OECD (2018), A Broken Social Elevator? How to Promote Social Mobility, OECD Publishing, Paris, [10]
https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264301085-en.
OECD (2018), OECD Handbook for Internationally Comparative Education Statistics: Concepts, Standards, [13]
Definitions and Classifications, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264304444-en.
OECD (2018), “Preparing students for the future: Policy trends, progress and impact”, in Education Policy [1]
Outlook 2018: Putting Student Learning at the Centre, OECD Publishing, Paris,
https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264301528-en.
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
60
UNESCO-UIS (2012), International Standard Classification of Education (ISCED) 2011, UNESCO-UIS, [12]
Montreal, http://uis.unesco.org/sites/default/files/documents/international-standard-classification-of-
education-isced-2011-en.pdf.
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
61
Tables and Notes
Chapter A1 Tables
Table A1.1 Educational attainment of adults (2024)
Table A1.2 Trends in the educational attainment of 25-34 year-olds, by gender (2019 and 2024)
Table A1.3 Field of study among tertiary-educated adults (2024)
WEB Table A1.4 Intergenerational mobility in educational attainment (2012 and 2023)
WEB Table A1.5 Educational attainment of adults, by subnational region (2024)
StatLink 2 https://stat.link/vur4y1
Data Download
To download the data for the figures and tables in this chapter, click StatLink above.
To access further data and/or other education indicators, please visit the OECD Data Explorer: https://data-
explorer.oecd.org/.
Data cut-off for the print publication 13 June 2025. Please note that the Data Explorer contains the most recent
data.
Notes for Tables
Table A1.1. Educational attainment of adults (2024)
Note: In most countries data refer to ISCED 2011. For Argentina and India data refer to ISCED-97. Total might not
add up to 100% for the averages because of missing data for some levels for some countries. Data for Argentina,
China, India, and Indonesia are based on ILO (2025).
1. Year of reference differs from 2024: 2023 for Argentina, Brazil, Iceland, India and the United States; 2022 for
Chile and Indonesia; and 2020 for China.
Table A1.2. Trends in the educational attainment of 25-34 year-olds, by gender (2019 and 2024)
Note: In most countries data refer to ISCED 2011. For Argentina and India data refer to ISCED-97. Columns showing
data for men and women, and for short-cycle tertiary and doctoral or equivalent attainment are available for
consultation on line. Data for Argentina, China, India, and Indonesia are based on ILO (2025).
1. Year of reference differs from 2024: 2023 for Argentina, Brazil, Iceland, India and the United States; 2022 for
Chile and Indonesia.
2. Year of reference differs from 2019: 2020 for Chile; 2021 for Finland; and 2022 for Peru.
Table A1.3. Field of study among tertiary-educated adults (2024)
Note: Category totals may not be equivalent to the sum of the subcategories because some programmes cannot be
classified into a specific subcategory but are included in the total. In addition, data on humanities (except languages),
social sciences, journalism and information might refer to the broad field social sciences, journalism and information
only. Columns showing data for the categories Total are available for consultation on line.
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
62
1. Year of reference differs from 2024: 2022 for Chile; 2021 for Canada, Denmark, Ireland and the United
Kingdom; 2017 for the United States.
Control codes
a – category not applicable; b – break in series; c – there are too few observations to provide reliable estimates; d –
contains data from another column; m – missing data; r – values are below a certain reliability threshold and should
be interpreted with caution x – contained in another column (indicated in brackets). For further control codes, see the
Reader’s Guide.
For further methodological information, see Education at a Glance 2025: Sources, Methodologies and Technical Notes
(https://doi.org/10.1787/fcfaf2d1-en)
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
63
Table A1.1. Educational attainment of adults (2024)
Percentage of 25-64 year-olds with a given level of education as the highest level attained
Upper secondary or
Below upper secondary post-secondary non-tertiary Tertiary
secondary programmes
secondary programmes
All levels of education
of intermediate upper
of intermediate lower
Short-cycle tertiary
Less than primary
Lower secondary
Upper secondary
Post-secondary
or equivalent
or equivalent
or equivalent
non-tertiary
Completion
Completion
Bachelor's
Doctoral
Master's
Primary
Total
Total
Total
OECD countries (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) (15)
Australia 0 3 a 10 a 13 28 5 34 11 30 10 2 53 100
Austria x(2) 1d a 12 a 13 46 3 49 15 6 15 1 38 100
Belgium 3 3 a 11 a 17 36 2 38 1 25 18 1 45 100
Canada x(2) 2d a 5 a 6 19 9 29 26 26 13 d x(12) 65 100
Chile1 5 4 a 17 a 25 42 a 42 10 20 2 0 33 100
Colombia x(6) x(6) a m 4 33 m x(9) 37 x(14) m x(14) x(14) 31 100
Costa Rica 10 24 7 8 2 52 20 0 21 8 17 3 0 28 100
Czechia 0 0 a 6 a 6 67 d x(7) 67 0 7 19 1 27 100
Denmark x(2) 1d a 15 a 16 39 0 39 5 22 16 2 45 100
Estonia 0 1 a 9 a 10 38 10 48 5 15 22 1 43 100
Finland x(2) 1d a 10 a 11 45 2 46 7 18 17 1 43 100
France 1 3 a 12 a 16 40 0 41 15 12 16 1 43 100
Germany x(2) 6d a 10 a 16 36 13 50 1 19 12 2 34 100
Greece 1 9 a 8 0 18 37 10 47 0 24 10 1 35 100
Hungary 0 0 a 11 a 12 50 7 57 2 13 15 1 31 100
Iceland1 x(2) 0d a 20 a 20 29 6 35 6 20 17 1 44 100
Ireland 0 3 a 8 a 11 18 14 32 2 37 17 2 58 100
Israel 3 3 a 6 a 12 37 a 37 10 25 14 1 51 100
Italy 1 3 a 29 a 33 43 1 44 0 6 15 1 22 100
Japan x(7) x(7) a x(7) a m 43 d x(10) x(10) 21 d 36 x(14) x(14) 57 d 100
Korea x(2) 2d a 5 a 7 37 a 37 15 36 5d x(12) 56 100
Latvia 0 0 a 7 2 11 37 12 49 5 18 18 0 40 100
Lithuania 0 0 0 4 2 7 27 18 45 a 31 16 1 48 100
Luxembourg 1 7 a 10 a 18 26 2 28 4 17 30 3 54 100
Mexico 9 14 2 27 3 54 24 a 24 1 19 2 0 22 100
Netherlands 2 4 a 12 a 18 36 0 37 2 24 18 1 45 100
New Zealand x(4) x(4) a 17 d a 17 25 14 39 4 32 7 1 44 100
Norway m m a 17 a 17 32 0 32 11 22 17 0 50 100
Poland 0 1 a 4 a 5 53 3 55 0 9 30 1 39 100
Portugal 1 19 a 18 a 38 29 1 30 0 10 20 1 31 100
Slovak Republic 0 0 0 5 0 6 63 2 65 0 4 24 1 29 100
Slovenia x(6) x(6) x(6) x(6) a 11 54 a 54 m m m m 35 100
Spain 2 5 a 28 a 35 23 0 23 13 12 17 1 42 100
x(2) 2d a 6 3 12 28 8 36 10 21 18 2 52 100
Switzerland 0 1 a 12 a 14 40 d x(7) 40 m 25 18 3 46 100
Türkiye 4 30 a 15 a 50 23 a 23 7 17 2 1 27 100
United Kingdom c 0 c 17 11 17 18 a 29 9 28 15 2 54 100
United States1 1 2 a 5 a 8 41 d x(7) 41 10 25 13 2 51 100
OECD average 2 5 2 12 3 19 36 6 40 7 20 15 1 42 100
Partner and/or accession countries
Argentina1 3 14 m 16 m 32 44 a 44 x(11) 24 d x(11) m 24 100
Brazil1 11 15 a 13 a 40 m m 39 x(11) 20 d 1 0 22 100
Bulgaria 1 2 a 10 a 13 53 0 53 a 10 23 0 34 100
China1 2 17 a 44 a 63 18 0 18 10 8 1d x(12) 19 100
Croatia 0 0 a 9 a 10 60 a 60 3 7 20 1 30 100
India 1 30 14 a 31 a 75 9 1 11 x(11) 14 d x m 14 100
Indonesia 1 13 26 a 18 a 57 30 a 30 3 10 1 0 13 100
Peru 2 17 a m 41 61 m a m m 37 3d x(12) 39 100
Romania 1 3 a 16 5 25 53 3 56 m 19 m m 19 100
Saudi Arabia m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m
South Africa 8 4 4 6 27 49 34 8 42 1 7 1d x(12) 9 100
EU25 average 1 3 0 11 2 15 41 5 46 4 16 19 1 39 100
G20 average 7 10 m 16 m 34 31 5 33 9 20 8 m 34 100
Note: For notes on this table and a link to download the data, see Tables and Notes section above.
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
64
Table A1.2. Trends in the educational attainment of 25-34 year-olds, by gender (2019 and 2024)
Percentage of 25-34 year-olds with a given level of education as the highest level attained
Upper secondary Tertiary
or post-secondary
Below upper secondary non-tertiary Bachelor’s or equivalent Master’s or equivalent Total
2019 2024 2019 2024 2019 2024 2019 2024 2019 2024
OECD countries (3) (6) (9) (12) (21) (24) (27) (30) (39) (42)
Australia 9 8 38 35 32 36 10 11 52 57
Austria 11 10 48 46 11 14 14 15 42 44
Belgium 15 13 38 36 24 28 22 22 47 51
Canada 6 5 31 27 28 31 11 d 14 d 63 69
Chile1, 2 12 11 47 48 28 28 2d 2 41 41
Colombia 27 17 42 47 31d m x (39) x(42) 31 37
Costa Rica 46 34 22 31 21 21 1 1 31 35
Czechia 7 8 60 59 12 13 20 20 33 33
Denmark 18 15 35 33 23 25 19 20 47 51
Estonia 11 12 46 44 26 23 17 20 43 43
Finland 2 9 10 51 51 26 24 14 15 40 39
France 13 11 39 36 13 15 20 26 48 53
Germany 13 15 54 45 18 23 14 15 33 40
Greece 13 7 45 48 32 31 9 13 42 45
Hungary 13 12 57 55 12 9 15 21 31 32
Iceland1 22 19 36 38 25 22 15 17 42 44
Ireland 7 4 37 30 35 42 14 21 55 66
Israel 9 9 44 44 28 29 8 8 47 47
Italy 24 19 48 49 12 13 16 17 28 32
Japan m m m m 42 d 48 d x(21) x(24) 62 66
Korea 2 1 28 28 46 48 3d 3d 70 71
Latvia 11 10 45 44 24 25 12 12 44 45
Lithuania 7 6 38 36 39 41 16 16 55 58
Luxembourg 13 9 32 26 20 20 30 39 55 65
Mexico 49 41 28 30 22 27 1 2 24 29
Netherlands 12 10 38 35 29 31 19 22 50 56
New Zealand 13 11 43 41 35 36 5 6 44 48
Norway 17 16 34 25 22 27 15 19 49 59
Poland 6 5 51 49 13 14 30 31 43 46
Portugal 24 16 38 41 21 25 16 17 38 43
Slovak Republic 9 7 51 56 7 7 31 29 39 37
Slovenia 5 7 51 49 11 m 19 m 44 43
Spain 30 24 23 23 15 19 17 18 47 53
Sweden 16 12 35 32 23 26 13 18 48 56
Switzerland 6b 9 41 b 40 29 b, d 29 22 b, d 19 53 b 51
Türkiye 41 28 24 28 22 28 3 3 35 44
United Kingdom 14 12 34 28 30 35 14 17 52 60
United States1 7 6 42 42 28 29 10 11 50 52
OECD average 15 13 40 39 24 26 14 16 45 48
OECD average for
countries with available
and comparable data 16 13 40 39 24 26 15 17 45 49
for both years
Partner and/or accession countries
Argentina1 27 26 53 55 19 d 19 d x(21) x(24) 19 19
Brazil1 32 27 47 50 20 d 23 d 1 1 21 24
Bulgaria 18 12 50 48 14 18 19 22 33 40
China m m m m m m m m m m
Croatia 4 4 60 57 10 11 23 27 35 39
India1 66 61 13 16 20 d 23 d x(21) x(24) 20 23
Indonesia1 46 42 36 40 13 14 1 1 17 18
Peru 2 52 49 m m 47 50 1 2d 48 51
Romania 26 24 49 53 26 23 m x 26 23
Saudi Arabia m m m m m m m m m m
South Africa 50 43 36 49 6 7 1 1 14 9
EU25 average 13 11 45 43 20 22 18 21 42 45
G20 average 27 23 37 37 23 26 m m 38 42
Note: For notes on this table and a link to download the data, see Tables and Notes section above.
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
65
Table A1.3. Field of study among tertiary-educated adults (2024)
Percentage of 25-64 year-olds with tertiary attainment
Arts and humanities,
social sciences,
journalism and Business, administration Science, technology, engineering and
information and law mathematics (STEM) Health and welfare
Humanities Health
(except Information (nursing
languages), Natural and Engineering, and
social sciences, sciences, communication manufacturing Health associate
journalism and Business and mathematics technologies and (medical health
Education Arts information administration Law and statistics (ICT) construction and dental) fields) Other fields
OECD countries (1) (2) (3) (5) (6) (8) (9) (10) (12) (13) (15)
Australia 10 m m m m 4 7 12 m m 5
Austria 10 4 8 9 4 4 3 25 3 4 10
Belgium 10 m 12 m m 6 4 12 m m 5
Canada1 7 4 11 22 2 6 5 14 3 9 9
Chile1 16 4 14 22 3 25 4 1 m m 7
Colombia m m m m m m m m m m m
Costa Rica 18 4 8 47 8 1 7 11 m m 4
Czechia 16 4 25 m 5 7 7 19 4 3 10
Denmark1 9 3 12 12 3 5 5 13 m m 5
Estonia 11 5 8 21 4 5 5 18 3 5 11
Finland 6 4 8 18 2 4 8 19 2 10 7
France 5 m 7 m m 6 5 14 m m 7
Germany 13 3 7 10 3 5 5 25 4 2 6
Greece 9 m 15 m m 5 6 13 m m 11
Hungary 10 4 20 18 5 6 7 10 3 5 7
Iceland m m m m m m m m m m m
Ireland1 9 m 4 m m 7 8 10 m m 18
Israel m m m m m m m m m m m
Italy 5 5 16 12 9 8 2 15 m m 5
Japan m m m m m m m m m m m
Korea m m m m m m m m m m m
Latvia 12 3 17 20 6 3 4 13 7 1 8
Lithuania 7 4 14 22 6 4 5 19 4 4 8
Luxembourg 8 m 6 m m 6 8 9 m m 5
Mexico 13 3 9 24 9 3 7 15 4 6 5
Netherlands 9 4 12 24 5 5 5 11 4 7 7
New Zealand m m m m m m m m m m m
Norway 15 3 14 13 3 6 4 12 m m 7
Poland 13 1 19 18 3 6 5 14 m m 8
Portugal 12 m 10 m m 4 3 18 m m 7
Slovak Republic 16 m 18 m m 5 5 16 m m 8
Slovenia 18 3 17 12 6 5 4 23 m m 13
Spain 11 m 6 m m 5 7 15 m m 7
Sweden 14 3 11 13 3 4 4 21 4 9 5
Switzerland 7 3 7 24 4 6 4 20 3 9 7
Türkiye m m m m m m m m m m m
United Kingdom1 5 m 3 m m 2 4 19 m m 13
United States1 10 6 20 m m 10 4 10 m m 6
OECD average 11 m 12 m m 6 5 15 m m 8
Partner and/or accession countries
Argentina m m m m m m m m m m m
Brazil m m m m m m m m m m m
Bulgaria m m m m m m m m m m m
China m m m m m m m m m m m
Croatia m m m m m m m m m m m
India m m m m m m m m m m m
Indonesia m m m m m m m m m m m
Peru m m m m m m m m m m m
Romania m m m m m m m m m m m
Saudi Arabia m m m m m m m m m m m
South Africa m m m m m m m m m m m
EU25 average 11 m 13 m m 5 5 16 m m 8
G20 average m m m m m m m m m m m
Note: For notes on this table and a link to download the data, see Tables and Notes section above.
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
66
Chapter A2. Transition from education to
work: Where are today’s youth?
Highlights
• Across OECD countries, 54% of 18–24 year-olds are in education, and 19% combine work and study. This
is nearly twice the share observed among 25–29 year-olds (10%), highlighting that younger adults are
more likely to combine education with employment. The Netherlands stands out, with 51% of 18–24 year-
olds enrolled in education and employed.
• The shares of young people who are neither employed nor in education or training (NEET) are now below
pre-pandemic levels in about half of OECD and partner countries with available trend data. In 8 of these
16 countries, the decline exceeds 1 percentage point. Meanwhile NEET rates have risen in almost the
same number of OECD countries. Among the 17 countries where rates now exceed their pre-pandemic
benchmarks, 6 have seen increases of more than 2 percentage points.
• For most youth, unemployment tends to last only a short spell of time. Across the OECD, less than 2% of
18-24 and 25-29 year-olds are unemployed and have been out of work for 12 months or more, while
around 4% have been looking for work for under a year.
Context
The transition from education to employment is a complex process influenced by factors such as educational
attainment, economic conditions and labour-market demand. Although education plays a fundamental role in
improving young people’s employment prospects, it is crucial that the skills they acquire through education are
aligned with those needed in the labour market. Many young people stay in education to enhance their employability
but if their skills are not in demand, they may continue to face difficulties finding employment. Economic downturns
and weak labour markets can further limit opportunities, leaving even highly qualified individuals struggling to find
work and increasing the risk of prolonged unemployment.
Extended periods of unemployment can have serious consequences, particularly for young people whose working
lives may later be impacted by the consequences of such early joblessness. Being out of the labour market for an
extended period reduces their opportunities to gain work experience and develop essential soft skills, making it
increasingly difficult to secure employment. Employers may also perceive employment gaps negatively, further
compounding the challenge. This cycle of limited experience and prolonged unemployment can lead to persistent
labour-market and social exclusion, especially for those with lower levels of educational attainment or work
qualifications (Pohlan, 2024[1]).
In addition to the economic implications, long-term unemployment can have significant psychological effects,
including increased discouragement and mental health challenges such as anxiety and depression, which may
further reduce motivation to seek employment (see Chapter A6). Better co-ordination between education systems
and labour markets is needed to address these challenges and ensure that young people develop skills aligned
with workforce needs. Policy measures should also improve employment opportunities, providing career guidance
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
67
and offering mental health support. Strengthening the link between education and employment can help mitigate
the risks of long-term unemployment and social disengagement of young people.
Figure A2.1. Share of 18-24 year-old NEETs, by labour-force status (2024)
In per cent
Outside the labour force Unemployed
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
1. Year of reference differs from 2024.
For data, see Table A2.1. For a link to download the data, see Tables and Notes section.
Other findings
• Despite NEET rates largely returning to pre-pandemic levels, they remain high in several countries. On
average, 14 % of 18-24 year-olds are NEET across OECD countries, but the share exceeds 25% in
Colombia, the Republic of Türkiye and OECD partner country South Africa.
• Although average employment and NEET rates among 18-24 year-olds have remained virtually
unchanged between 2019 and 2024, several countries have seen large differences within the overall
figures. In Estonia, employment ratios fell by nearly 12 percentage points for men while increasing nearly
11 percentage points for women over the period. Meanwhile, Norway saw a 13 percentage-point decrease
in employment rates coupled with a 16 percentage-point increase in those in education.
• Across OECD countries, the gender gap in education among 18-24 year-olds continues to favour women
by more than 6 percentage points, with about 55% of women and 49% of men in education in both 2019
and 2024. In contrast, men were about 8 percentage points ahead of women in employment, with about
36% of men and 28% of women employed in both years.
Note
This chapter analyses the situation of young people in transition from education to work: those in education, those
who are employed and those who are NEET. The NEET group includes not only those who have not managed to
find a job (unemployed NEETs), but also those who are not actively seeking employment (NEETs outside the labour
force, or inactive). The analysis distinguishes between 18-24 year-olds and 25-29 year-olds, as a significant
proportion of those in the younger age group will be continuing their studies despite having completed compulsory,
or in some countries even beyond compulsory, education.
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
68
Analysis
Transition from education to work for 18-24 year-olds
Individuals aged 18-24 are generally engaged in either education or employment, as this age range often coincides
with participation in upper secondary or tertiary education, as well as initial entry into the labour market. This stage is
critical in shaping future career trajectories and developing key skills for workforce participation. Despite this, a share
of young people in this age group are neither in education nor employment and are classified as NEETs, suggesting
that they may face underlying barriers to labour-market entry or continued education (Table A2.1.).
NEET rates can result from limited job opportunities in difficult economic conditions or a mismatch between young
people’s skills and labour-market demands. For example, dual labour markets – offering stable, well-paid- positions to
some and precarious, low wage- jobs to others – exacerbate the risk of young people falling out of both work and study
(Marques and Salavisa, 2017[2]). The status of being NEET also often stems not only from these structural labour
market challenges or skills mismatches, but also from personal and social factors such as long term physical or mental
health issues, addiction, exposure to violence and weak support networks (Rahmani and Groot, 2023[3]).
NEET rates vary considerably across OECD and partner countries, ranging from 48% of 18-24 year-olds in South
Africa (about 22% unemployed and 25% outside the labour force) to as low as less than 5% in Iceland (about 1%
unemployed and 3% outside the labour force). Countries vary in the proportions of those who are actively looking for
employment and those who are outside the labour force. For example, in Türkiye (where 8% of 18-24 year-olds are
unemployed and 24% are outside the labour force) and Mexico (3% unemployed and 16% outside the labour force,
relatively large shares of youth not participating in the labour market may reflect country differences in education
enrolment, family responsibilities, or cultural factors that may affect youth engagement. In contrast, there are many
countries where the split is more balanced – for instance Greece and Spain, where in both cases around 9% are
unemployed and 8% are outside the labour force – indicating that the youths not in education or training are more
likely to be looking for jobs, even if they have not yet succeeded (Figure A2.1).
Figure A2.2. Trends in the share of 18-24 year-old NEETs (2019 and 2024)
In per cent
2019 2024
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
1. Year of reference differs from 2019.
2. Year of reference differs from 2024.
3. Break in series.
For data, see Table A2.2. For a link to download the data, see Tables and Notes section.
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
69
In 2024, after several years of recovery after the COVID-19 pandemic, the average NEET rate across OECD countries
was 14%, similar to the value recorded in 2019. Italy saw the most significant drop, with an 8 percentage-point
decrease, followed closely by Brazil and Chile. These decreases in NEET rates might indicate that mechanisms to
support youth transitions into work, education or training, such as Italy’s NEET Working Plan which was adopted in
2022, have been effective in improving individual pathways into employment or education for youth (Gaspani, Recchi
and Rio, 2025[4]). Meanwhile, Lithuania experienced the largest increase (7 percentage points), followed by Estonia,
Israel and Romania. These increases may point to emerging challenges such as structural shifts in the labour market,
economic transitions, or areas where education and training systems are lagging behind new job market demands.
Youth who become NEET repeatedly or for sustained periods face significantly greater long-term consequences than
those whose NEET episodes are brief (Kleif, 2020[5]). About one-third of OECD countries saw practically no change,
reflecting a return to similar levels of disengagement to those seen in 2019 (Figure A2.2).
However, stable averages at the OECD level can mask significant national shifts. For example, in Estonia, employment
ratios fell by about 10 percentage points for men (from 41% in 2019 to 29% in 2024) while increasing by about 10
percentage points for women over the same period (from 28% to 38%). In Norway, the share of 18–24 year-olds in
employment declined by about 13 percentage points (from 40% in 2019 to 27% in 2024), while the share in education
rose by about 15 percentage points (from 51% to 67%). These examples reflect how underlying gender and country-
specific trends can diverge substantially from aggregate figures (Table A2.2).
Youth and duration of unemployment
Youth unemployment, particularly among those aged 18 to 24, remains a significant concern as this age group is in a
critical transition phase. Schmillen and Umkehrer (2017[6]) find that each additional day unemployed in the first 8 years
on the job market leads to an extra half-day of unemployment over the next 16 years – clear evidence of persistent
scarring, especially for those with repeated or lengthy spells. Prolonged unemployment, particularly in the absence of
continued education or training, can limit young people’s prospects for securing employment aligned with their skills
and qualifications, while also undermining their long-term earning potential, well-being and motivation (Rahmani and
Groot, 2023[3]).
In response to employment challenges, some young people opt to continue their education, specialising or developing
skills that are in greater demand. Career guidance can be an effective intervention to support these decisions yet those
groups that are already excluded from the labour market are less likely to seek or use these services, highlighting the
need for more targeted outreach and support (OECD, 2021[7]).
Across OECD countries with available data, 1% of 18‑24 year‑olds are long-term unemployed (for 12 months or more)
and 4% are in short-term unemployment (less than 12 months). The majority of young people who are unemployed
across OECD countries have been so for the short term, ranging from 12% of 18-24 year-olds in Greece and 11% in
Colombia to under 2% in Czechia, Israel, the Netherlands and Norway. Prolonged spells are most prevalent in Greece,
Italy and the Slovak Republic, where rates exceed 3%. In contrast, less than 0.5% of youth in Canada, Costa Rica,
Denmark, Estonia, Lithuania, Mexico, Norway and Poland are experiencing long‑term unemployment (Figure A2.3).
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
70
Figure A2.3. Share of 18-24 year-olds who are unemployed and not in education, by duration of
unemployment (2024)
In per cent
1. Year of reference differs from 2024.
For data, see Table A2.3.. For a link to download the data, see Tables and Notes section.
Individuals who experience long-term unemployment are more likely to be perceived as less skilled, or productive than
their counterparts experiencing short-term spells of unemployment, making the duration of unemployment a crucial
indicator of young people’s labour market- engagement. Moreover, prolonged joblessness takes a serious
psychological toll, raising the risk of inpatient mental health treatment, so that long-term youth unemployment becomes
an indicator of distress both in economic and in health terms (Thern et al., 2017[8]). Employers may view youth who
have been briefly unemployed more favourably – valuing their immediate availability – an advantage which vanishes
for those experiencing extended joblessness, once again underscoring the powerful effect of longer spells of
unemployment (Wachter, 2020[9]).
Gender differences are also pronounced in education and employment patterns. Across OECD countries, women aged
18–24 are over 6 percentage points more likely than men to be enrolled in education (56% versus 49%), while men
are about 8 percentage points more likely to be employed (35% versus 28%). These persistent gender gaps suggest
different trajectories through education and into the labour market (Table A2.2. ).
Educational and labour-market status of 18-29 year-olds
Comparing the enrolment and employment patterns of 25-29 year-olds alongside 18-24 year-olds yields further
insights into labour-market transitions. Many of those in the younger age group will still be studying or just entering the
labour market for the first time. Those pursuing tertiary education may still be completing a bachelor's or master's
degree at the age of 24, while others are starting their professional careers. A smaller share may be engaged in
doctoral studies or equivalent qualifications. In contrast, a large majority of 25-29 year-olds will have completed their
initial education in most OECD countries and many will have acquired substantial labour-market experience. Among
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
71
those who are in education, some might be finishing their tertiary studies, while others might have re-entered education
to obtain further qualifications (see Chapter B4).
Figure A2.4. Share of 18-29 year-olds combining education with employment, by age group (2024)
In per cent
1. Year of reference differs from 2024.
For data, see Table A2.1. For a link to download the data, see Tables and Notes section.
Some young adults combine education with employment, particularly in tertiary education, where part-time work can
help cover tuition fees, accommodation and living expenses, or contribute to career development. Across OECD
countries, almost one-fifth of 18-24 year-olds (19%) are combining education and employment, compared with 10% of
25-29 year-olds. The gap is widest in the Netherlands, where the education system includes many apprenticeships
and a large number of students take on small, non-study-related side jobs; here over half of 18-24 year-olds (51%) are
both working and studying, compared to less than one-fifth- of their older peers (18%). Costa Rica, Israel, Italy and
Portugal are exceptions to this pattern, where the older cohort are slightly more likely to be both working and learning,
reflecting the spread of part-time master’s and up-skilling programmes. Meanwhile, in Colombia, Czechia, Greece,
Hungary, Italy, Portugal, Romania, the Slovak Republic and South Africa, less than 10% of either cohort combine
education and employment (Figure A2.4). These differences underscore institutional and cultural contrasts in tuition
regimes, labour regulations, campus job opportunities and even employers’ perspectives on hiring students.
Differences between younger and older cohorts can also reflect financial necessity or even the structure of higher
education programmes. For instance, high rates of study and work among 25-29 year-olds in Finland may be driven
by the expansion of apprenticeship and training models and stronger support for working learners (Eurydice, 2025[10]).
Large shares of young people combining work and study can benefit the labour market as they can increase or reduce
their hours on demand to cover peaks or emergencies in various sectors. Research suggests that exploiting student
populations for work ultimately creates a complementary labour force that drives the development of local economies
(Whittard, Drew and Ritchie, 2022[11]).For learners themselves, combining work with their studies offers valuable
practical experiences that may help with transitions into full-time employment, as well as helping them build
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
72
professional networks, resulting in positive labour-market outcomes especially when engaging in work related to their
field of study (Geel and Backes‑Gellner, 2012[12]). In some countries like Germany, Austria and Switzerland, where
dual study systems that blend academics with apprenticeships are widespread, combining education with employment
may even be part of the regular qualification process. Despite these benefits, work-study arrangements may limit the
time students have for academic work, potentially affecting their learning outcomes or well-being.
Subnational variation in NEET rates
Within OECD countries, the share of 18-24 year olds who are neither in employment nor in education or training
(NEET) can vary dramatically from one region to another. Subnational variation in the proportion of NEETs presents
critical challenges for policymakers seeking to promote inclusive labour markets and equitable access to opportunities.
The following analysis is of regions at the TL2 level, which are large subnational regions as defined by the OECD’s
official regional‑classification grid (OECD, 2024[13]).
The most pronounced regional disparities in NEET rates emerge in Canada, Italy, Mexico and Türkiye where the gaps
between the best- and worst-performing regions exceed 20 percentage points. In Canada, British Columbia reports a
NEET rate of 9%, while Nunavut records 41% (a 32 percentage-point difference), signalling the need for region-specific
labour-market strategies and social support in remote communities. Türkiye’s gap (19% in Istanbul versus 48% percent
in Eastern Anatolia – East) highlights regional disparities that may be influenced by differences in population density,
infrastructure, access to employment opportunities, and access to education and training. (Table A2.4, available on
line).
Conversely, Costa Rica, Ireland and Japan exhibit limited regional variation, with gaps of less than 5 percentage points
between the best- and worst-performing regions. Ireland’s NEET rates range from 8% (Northern and Western) to about
10% (Eastern and Midland), suggesting broadly uniform labour-market outcomes, while Japan ranges from 2%
(Hokuriku) to about 5% (Chugoku) highlighting its generally low NEET incidence. In Costa Rica, the difference between
Central (24%) and Huetar Caribbean (28%) also indicates modest disparities. Although countries with larger land areas
or populations often exhibit wider subnational differences – as in Türkiye and Canada – size alone does not account
for all the variation. Japan is large both geographically and demographically but has one of the smallest regional
differences, whereas Greece – considerably smaller by both measures – faces a 19 percentage point divide. This
contrast suggests that economic structures, education systems and social policies are more influential in driving NEET
differences than country size. Targeted policies for specific regions are therefore essential to narrowing these gaps
and ensuring that all young people have access to education and employment opportunities (Table A2.4, available on
line).
Definitions
Educational attainment refers to the highest level of education successfully completed by an individual.
Employed, outside the labour force/inactive and unemployed individuals: See Definitions section in Chapter A3.
Individuals in education are those who are receiving formal education and/or training.
Levels of education: See the Reader’s Guide at the beginning of this publication for a presentation of all ISCED 2011
levels.
NEET refers to young people neither employed nor in formal education or training.
Methodology
Data from the national labour force surveys usually refer to the second quarter of studies in a school year, as this is
the most relevant period for knowing if the young person is really studying or has left education for the labour force.
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
73
This second quarter corresponds in most countries to the first three months of the calendar year (i.e. January, February
and March), but in some countries to the second three months (i.e. April, May and June).
Education or training corresponds to formal education or training; therefore, someone not working but following non-
formal studies is considered NEET. However, the definition of NEET is different for subnational data collection for
countries taking part in the EU-LFS, where young adults who are in non-formal education or training are not considered
to be NEET. For OECD EU countries, NEET rates by subnational region are therefore not comparable to the rates at
national level presented in this chapter.
For further details, refer to the OECD Handbook for Internationally Comparative Education Statistics (OECD, 2018[14])
and the Education at a Glance 2025 Sources, Methodologies and Technical Notes (https://doi.org/10.1787/fcfaf2d1-
en).
Source
For information on the sources, see Chapter A1.
Data on subnational NEET rates is from the OECD Regions and Cities databases http://oe.cd/geostats. Data on
subnational NEET rates for Australia is from the Australian Bureau of statistics.
References
Eurydice (2025), Finland - National reforms in vocational education and training, Eurydice, [10]
https://eurydice.eacea.ec.europa.eu/eurypedia/finland/national-reforms-vocational-education-and-
training.
Gaspani, F., S. Recchi and A. Rio (2025), “Young people NEET in Italy: Exploring the phenomenon and [4]
evolving policies”, in Diversity and Inclusion Research, Diversity and Inclusion in Italy, Springer Nature
Switzerland, Cham, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-81938-4_29.
Geel, R. and U. Backes‑Gellner (2012), “Earning while learning: When and how student employment is [12]
beneficial”, LABOUR, Vol. 26/3, pp. 313-340, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9914.2012.00548.x.
Kleif, H. (2020), “The temporality of being NEET: A longitudinal study of NEET occurrences among young [5]
adults in Denmark”, YOUNG, Vol. 29/3, pp. 217-235, https://doi.org/10.1177/1103308820945098.
Marques, P. and I. Salavisa (2017), “Young people and dualization in Europe: A fuzzy set analysis”, Socio- [2]
Economic Review, Vol. 15/1, pp. 135-160, https://doi.org/10.1093/ser/mww038.
OECD (2024), OECD Territorial grids, [13]
https://www.bing.com/ck/a?!&&p=8fabc122880b662c83d4a17136ff8a47429fd40f0362e666a8f11e959c4
206d6JmltdHM9MTc0ODkwODgwMA&ptn=3&ver=2&hsh=4&fclid=28f17106-214d-64ec-2f17-
640220f965e6&psq=oecd+official+territorial+classification&u=a1aHR0cHM6Ly9zdGF0cy5vZWNkLm9.
OECD (2021), Career Guidance for Adults in a Changing World of Work, Getting Skills Right, OECD [7]
Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9a94bfad-en.
OECD (2018), OECD Handbook for Internationally Comparative Education Statistics: Concepts, Standards, [14]
Definitions and Classifications, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264304444-en.
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
74
Pohlan, L. (2024), “Unemployment’s long shadow: The persistent impact on social exclusion”, Journal for [1]
Labour Market Research, Vol. 58/1, https://doi.org/10.1186/s12651-024-00369-8.
Rahmani, H. and W. Groot (2023), “Risk factors of being a youth not in education, employment or training [3]
(NEET): A scoping review”, International Journal of Educational Research, Vol. 120,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2023.102198.
Schmillen, A. and M. Umkehrer (2017), “The scars of youth: Effects of early‑career unemployment on future [6]
unemployment experience”, International Labour Review, Vol. 156/3-4, pp. 465-494,
https://doi.org/10.1111/ilr.12079.
Thern, E. et al. (2017), “Long-term effects of youth unemployment on mental health: Does an economic [8]
crisis make a difference?”, Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, Vol. 71/4,
https://doi.org/10.1136/jech-2016-208012.
Wachter, T. (2020), “The persistent effects of initial labor market conditions for young adults and their [9]
sources”, Journal of Economic Perspectives, Vol. 34/4, pp. 168-194,
https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.34.4.168.
Whittard, D., H. Drew and F. Ritchie (2022), “Not just arms and legs: Employer perspectives on student [11]
workers”, Journal of Education and Work, Vol. 35/6-7, pp. 751-765,
https://doi.org/10.1080/13639080.2022.2126972.
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
75
Tables and Notes
Chapter A2 Tables
Table A2.1. Share of young adults in education/not in education, by age group and labour-force status (2024)
Table A2.2. Trends in the share of 18-24 year-olds in education/not in education, by work status and gender (2019 and 2024)
Table A2.3. Share of young adults in education/not in education, by age group, labour-force status and duration of unemployment
(2024)
Table A2.4. Youth not in education and unemployed or outside the labour force (NEET), by subnational region (2024)
(web only)
StatLink 2 https://stat.link/zl34tq
Data Download
To download the data for the figures and tables in this chapter, click StatLink above.
To access further data and/or other education indicators, please visit the OECD Data Explorer: https://data-
explorer.oecd.org/.
Data cut-off for the print publication 13 June 2025. Please note that the Data Explorer contains the most recent
data.
Notes for Tables
Table A2.1. Share of young adults in education/not in education, by age group and labour-force status (2024)
Note: NEET refers to young people neither employed nor in education or training. Data usually refer to the second
quarter of studies, which corresponds in most countries to the first three months of the calendar year, but in some
countries, to the second three months. Columns with data for 25-29 year-olds are available for consultation on line.
1. Year of reference differs from 2024: 2022 for Chile; 2023 for Brazil, Iceland and the United States.
Table A2.2. Trends in the share of 18-24 year-olds in education/not in education, by work status and gender
(2019 and 2024)
Note: NEET refers to young people who are neither employed nor in formal education or training. Data usually refer to
the second quarter of studies, which corresponds in most countries to the first three months of the calendar year, but
in some countries, to the second three months. Columns with data for the categories Total are available for consultation
on line.
1. Year of reference differs from 2019: 2018 for Argentina; 2020 for Chile; 2022 for Bulgaria and Peru.
Year of reference differs from 2024: 2022 for Chile; 2023 for Brazil, Iceland and the United States.
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
76
Table A2.3. Share of young adults in education/not in education, by age group, labour-force status and
duration of unemployment (2024)
Note: The figures on duration of unemployment may not add up to the total for all unemployed because of missing
data. Columns with data for 18-24 year-olds, and for duration of unemployment of less than 12 months are available
for consultation on line.
1. Year of reference for duration of unemployment differs from 2024: 2021 for Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Iceland
and the United States.
2. Year of reference for all other data differs from 2024: 2022 for Chile; 2023 for Brazil, Iceland and the United
States.
Control codes
a – category not applicable; b – break in series; c – there are too few observations to provide reliable estimates; d –
contains data from another column; m – missing data; r – values are below a certain reliability threshold and should
be interpreted with caution x – contained in another column (indicated in brackets). For further control codes, see the
Reader’s Guide.
For further methodological information, see Education at a Glance 2025: Sources, Methodologies and Technical Notes
(https://doi.org/10.1787/fcfaf2d1-en)
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
77
Table A2.1. Share of young adults in education/not in education, by age group and labour-force
status (2024)
In per cent; 18-24 year-olds
In education Not in education
Employed NEET
Outside
Students in the Outside
work-study Other labour the labour
programmes employed Total Unemployed force Total Employed Unemployed force Total Total Total
OECD countries (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) = (3) + (4) + (5) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) = (7) + (10) (12) = (6) + (11)
Australia 5 30 36 2 11 49 39 4 8 12 51 100
Austria 8 15 23 2 25 49 38 5 8 13 51 100
Belgium 2 9 12 1 54 67 23 4 6 10 33 100
Canada x(2) 24 d 24 2 24 50 38 5 7 12 50 100
Chile1 x(2) 10 d 10 5 40 55 25 6 14 20 45 100
Colombia a 7 7 2 23 33 40 10 17 27 67 100
Costa Rica a 11 11 2 29 42 34 10 15 24 58 100
Czechia 1 5 6 0 58 65 29 2 4 6 35 100
Denmark x(2) 35 d 35 6 16 56 34 4 6 11 44 100
Estonia c 20 20 3 28 52 34 7 7 14 48 100
Finland x(2) 23 d 23 8 29 60 26 4 10 14 40 100
France 10 8 18 2 34 53 30 8 8 17 47 100
Germany 15 19 33 1 24 59 31 3 7 10 41 100
Greece a 5 5 1 52 58 24 9 8 18 42 100
Hungary 1 4 5 0 47 53 32 6 9 15 47 100
Iceland1 a 36 36 4 14 53 42 1 3 5 47 100
Ireland a 29 29 2 26 57 34 4 5 9 43 100
Israel x(2) 9d 9 0 18 28 52 3 18 21 72 100
Italy m 4 4 1 54 59 23 7 10 17 41 100
Japan a m m m m m m m m m m m
Korea m m m m m m m m m m m m
Latvia a 16 16 1 42 60 29 6 6 11 40 100
Lithuania 0 12 12 1 37 51 30 6 13 19 49 100
Luxembourg a c c c 51 64 26 c c c 36 100
Mexico a 11 11 1 28 39 42 3 16 19 61 100
Netherlands x(2) 51d 51 4 12 67 28 2 3 5 33 100
New Zealand a 22 22 2 13 37 48 6 8 14 63 100
Norway 1 38 39 4 24 67 27 2 4 6 33 100
Poland a 11 11 1 47 59 29 4 8 12 41 100
Portugal a 6 6 2 46 55 30 9 6 15 45 100
Slovak Republic c 6 6 c 56 62 26 7 5 12 38 100
Slovenia m 23 23 2 42 67 25 3 6 8 33 100
Spain x(2) 11d 11 3 46 60 22 9 8 18 40 100
Sweden m 18 18 9 29 56 35 5 4 9 44 100
Switzerland 16 17 33 2 20 55 35 3 7 10 45 100
Türkiye a 12 12 3 18 33 36 8 24 31 67 100
United Kingdom 5 12 17 1 24 43 41 5 10 16 57 100
United States1 x(2) 18 d 18 1 25 44 42 4 10 14 56 100
OECD average 6 17 19 2 33 54 32 5 9 14 46 100
Partner and/or accession countries
Argentina m m m m m m m m m m m m
Brazil1 a 18 18 4 15 37 39 8 16 24 63 100
Bulgaria m 6 6 0 59 65 20 4 10 15 35 100
China m m m m m m m m m m m m
Croatia x(2) 4d 4 c 52 57 32 7 5 11 43 100
India m m m m m m m m m m m m
Indonesia m m m m m m m m m m m m
Peru 1 15 16 3 21 40 39 5 16 21 60 100
Romania x(2) 1d 1 c 50 51 27 6 16 22 49 100
Saudi Arabia m m m m m m m m m m m m
South Africa a 1 1 1 36 38 14 22 25 48 62 100
EU25 average m 14 16 2 41 58 29 5 8 13 42 100
G20 average m m m m m m m m m m m m
Note: For notes on this table and a link to download the data, see Tables and Notes section above.
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
78
Table A2.2. Trends in the share of 18-24 year-olds in education/not in education, by work status
and gender (2019 and 2024)
In per cent
Not in education
In education Employed NEET
2019 2024 2019 2024 2019 2024
Men Women Men Women Men Women Men Women Men Women Men Women
OECD countries (1) (2) (4) (5) (7) (8) (10) (11) (13) (14) (16) (17)
Australia 49 53 45 53 39 36 42 36 12 11 13 11
Austria 44 51 46 53 44 38 41 35 11 10 13 12
Belgium 57 65 62 72 27 24 26 20 15 11 12 9
Canada 44 54 45 56 42 36 41 34 13 10 14 10
Chile1, 2 54 56 54 57 23 15 29 21 23 29 18 22
Colombia 32 32 32 33 50 30 49 31 18 38 19 36
Costa Rica 48 53 40 45 34 19 40 26 19 27 20 29
Czechia m m 61 68 m m 35 23 m m 4 9
Denmark 55 62 54 58 33 26 36 31 12 12 10 11
Estonia 51 62 54 50 41 28 29 38 8 11 16 12
Finland 55 61 59 62 32 27 27 25 13 12 15 13
France 51 57 49 58 31 26 33 27 18 16 19 15
Germany 62 64 57 61 30 27 33 28 7 9 9 11
Greece 62 67 54 62 17 13 27 21 21 20 18 17
Hungary 46 54 50 56 42 28 37 28 11 18 13 17
Iceland2 52 61 48 60 40 34 46 37 8 5 6 3
Ireland 53 57 57 58 34 32 34 34 13 11 9 9
Israel 27 33 26 30 56 48 54 50 17 18 21 21
Italy 48 57 52 67 26 18 30 16 26 25 17 18
Japan m m m m m m m m m m m m
Korea m m m m m m m m m m m m
Latvia 49 70 57 62 36 23 34 24 15 7 9 14
Lithuania 58 64 48 54 30 24 32 28 12 12 19 18
Luxembourg 59 77 59 70 c c 31 c c c c c
Mexico 38 38 38 41 53 29 53 31 9 33 9 28
Netherlands 63 65 66 69 30 31 30 26 7 5 5 6
New Zealand 33 33 36 39 55 52 50 46 12 15 14 15
Norway 45 59 62 71 47 34 31 23 9 8 6 6
Poland 51 60 54 64 39 26 34 25 10 13 12 12
Portugal 52 58 52 58 36 28 33 27 12 14 15 15
Slovak Republic 49 66 54 71 42 22 34 17 9 12 12 12
Slovenia 57 72 58 77 35 18 32 15 8 9 9 7
Spain 56 62 56 65 24 18 25 19 20 19 19 16
Sweden 54 63 50 62 38 30 39 30 9 8 11 8
Switzerland 54 b 59 b 52 58 35 b 37 b 37 33 10 b 4b 11 9
Türkiye 42 35 31 34 36 23 46 24 22 42 22 42
United Kingdom 43 44 41 45 44 43 42 41 13 14 17 14
United States2 45 49 40 47 42 37 46 39 13 14 14 14
OECD average 49 55 49 56 36 27 35 28 13 15 13 15
OECD average for
countries with available 50 56 50 57 37 29 36 29 13 15 14 15
and comparable data
for both years
Partner and/or accession countries
Argentina1 43 51 m m 38 20 m m 19 29 m m
Brazil2 30 33 33 40 47 31 48 30 23 37 19 29
Bulgaria1 58 65 59 71 26 16 26 14 15 19 14 15
China m m m m m m m m m m m m
Croatia 42 58 50 64 42 27 39 24 16 16 11 11
India m m m m m m m m m m m m
Indonesia m m m m m m m m m m m m
Peru1 35 39 39 41 49 36 43 34 15 24 17 25
Romania 48 55 49 54 37 22 35 18 15 22 16 28
Saudi Arabia m m m m m m m m m m m m
South Africa 41 42 37 39 18 12 17 12 41 47 46 49
EU25 average 53 62 55 63 34 25 33 25 13 14 13 13
G20 average m m m m m m m m m m m m
Note: For notes on this table and a link to download the data, see Tables and Notes section above.
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
79
Table A2.3. Share of young adults in education/not in education, by age group, labour-force status
and duration of unemployment (2024)
In per cent; 25-29 year-olds
Not in education
NEET
Unemployed
3 months
Less than to less than 12 months Outside
In education Employed three months 12 months or more Total the labour force Total
OECD countries (10) (11) (12) (14) (15) (16) (17) (18) =(11) + (16) +(17)
Australia 16 72 m m 1 3 9 84
Austria 21 67 m m m 4 8 79
Belgium 11 72 2 3 3 8 9 89
Canada 12 73 4 2 1 6 8 88
Chile1, 2 17 63 6 1 0 7 13 83
Colombia1 10 65 m m 2 12 15 90
Costa Rica 19 56 4 2 0 8 18 81
Czechia 8 74 1 2 1 3 14 92
Denmark 29 59 2 1 1 4 8 71
Estonia 11 73 6 2 c 9 7 89
Finland 33 53 m m m 6 8 67
France 9 72 3 4 2 9 10 91
Germany 21 68 1 1 1 3 9 79
Greece 11 63 2 6 9 16 11 89
Hungary 7 80 1 1 1 5 8 93
Iceland1, 2 26 63 m m m m 7 74
Ireland 13 72 3 1 1 5 9 87
Israel 25 59 0 1 1 3 13 75
Italy 18 58 2 2 4 8 15 82
Japan m m m m m m m m
Korea m m m m m m m m
Latvia 10 76 1 2 1 5 9 90
Lithuania 7 77 27 47 20 7 10 93
Luxembourg 13 74 m m m c c 87
Mexico 8 68 2 0 0 3 21 92
Netherlands 23 68 c c c 3 6 77
New Zealand 13 73 2 1 0 4 10 87
Norway 24 67 c c c 2 7 76
Poland 6 81 1 1 1 4 10 94
Portugal 13 73 m m 2 7 6 87
Slovak Republic 8 77 1 2 3 6 9 92
Slovenia 19 73 1 1 1 3 5 81
Spain 17 61 5 4 3 12 10 83
Sweden 24 68 c c c 3 5 76
Switzerland 20 70 m m 1 4 6 80
Türkiye 14 54 3 2 1 8 24 86
United Kingdom 11 75 1 1 1 3 11 89
United States1, 2 11 73 3 2 1 6 13 89
OECD average 15 69 3 4 2 6 10 85
Partner and/or accession countries
Argentina m m m m m m m m
Brazil1, 2 19 59 m m m m 16 81
Bulgaria 9 73 1 1 3 5 13 91
China m m m m m m m m
Croatia 11 73 1 2 1 7 9 89
India m m m m m m m m
Indonesia m m m m m m m m
Peru 11 70 m m m m 13 89
Romania 5 71 1 2 2 5 19 95
Saudi Arabia m m m m m m m m
South Africa 7 38 3 5 11 32 23 93
EU25 average 14 70 3 5 3 6 10 86
G20 average m m m m m m m m
Note: For notes on this table and a link to download the data, see Tables and Notes section above.
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
80
Chapter A3. How does educational
attainment affect participation in the
labour market?
Highlights
• Employment rates among 25-64 year-olds increase steadily with higher levels of tertiary attainment,
reflecting strong labour-market returns to advanced qualifications. Individuals with a short-cycle tertiary
qualification have an employment rate of 83%, compared to 86% for those with a bachelor's degree, 90%
for those with a master’s and 93% for those with a doctoral or equivalent qualification.
• Among unemployed adults aged 25-64, long-term unemployment is more prevalent among those with
lower educational attainment: 36% of those with below upper secondary education have been unemployed
for 12 months or more, compared to 30% with upper secondary or post-secondary non-tertiary education,
and 25% with tertiary education.
• Adults’ employment prospects depend both on educational attainment and numeracy proficiency, although
the link highlighted by the second cycle of the Survey of Adult Skills is weaker than in the first cycle. Adults
with tertiary education and high proficiency levels (at or above Level 4) are significantly more likely to be
employed, while those with low educational attainment and weak proficiency levels (at or below Level 1)
face much higher risks of unemployment or exclusion from the labour force.
Context
Highly skilled workers remain vital for modern economies, and they in turn benefit from robust employment
opportunities linked to their education (Box A3.2). These advantages, coupled with expanded educational
opportunities, are some of the motivations for individuals across the OECD to pursue higher levels of education
and acquire more skills. As demand for skills has increased, labour markets have successfully absorbed the
growing number of highly skilled workers, providing them with better employment prospects. Conversely, adults
with lower qualifications continue to face challenging labour-market prospects, lower earnings (see Chapter A4)
and a greater risk of unemployment, exacerbated by growing automation and AI-driven labour-market
transformations. Concurrently, the impact of ageing populations disproportionately affects low-educated older
adults, often leading to early workforce exits and economic insecurity. Education systems must adapt proactively
to these changes, preparing learners for an evolving labour-market landscape.
Among tertiary-educated adults, employment rates differ depending on their field of study and resulting careers.
Careers in information and communication technologies (ICT) and engineering, manufacturing and construction
often exhibit higher employment rates and wages. This serves as a motivation for some individuals to pursue
careers in science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM).
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
81
Figure A3.1. Employment of tertiary-educated adults, by level of tertiary attainment (2024)
In per cent; 25-64 year-olds
Short-cycle tertiary Bachelor's or equivalent Master's or equivalent
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
1. Year of reference differs from 2024.
2. Data for upper secondary attainment include completion of a sufficient volume and standard of programmes that would be classified
individually as completion of intermediate upper secondary programmes (12% of adults aged 25-64 are in this group).
For data, see Table A3.1. For a link to download the data, see Tables and Notes section.
Other findings
In the vast majority of OECD countries, employment rates among young women (25-34 year-olds) are lower than
among young men, regardless of educational attainment. However, the difference falls as educational attainment
increases. On average across OECD countries, only 46% of 25-34 year-old women with below upper secondary
attainment are employed, 25 percentage points below their male peers. The gap narrows to 15 percentage points
for those with upper secondary or post-secondary non-tertiary attainment and to 6 percentage points for those with
a tertiary degree.
• Among tertiary-educated adults, those who studied ICT have the highest average employment rate (90%)
across the OECD, while the lowest rates are found among those who studied arts and humanities, social
sciences, journalism and information (84%).
• The unemployment rate for adults with tertiary education is as low as or lower than the unemployment rate
for adults with upper secondary or post-secondary non-tertiary education in almost all OECD and partner
countries except Denmark, Mexico, the Netherlands, South Africa and Switzerland.
• The field of study matters more for the employment prospects of adults with lower numeracy proficiency
than for those with higher skills. Employment rates vary widely, with particularly low rates for adults with a
tertiary education in arts and humanities and also, in some countries, for education and for business,
administration and law. In contrast, employment rates among adults with high numeracy proficiency levels
tend to converge across fields.
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
82
Note
People of working age can be classified into three groups based on their labour-force status: employed,
unemployed and those outside the labour force (also referred to as inactive). The employed and unemployed
together make up the labour force, which represents the total supply of labour available to contribute to economic
production. Individuals who are neither employed nor actively seeking work are considered outside the labour force
and are not included in the labour supply.
Analysis
There continues to be a strong relationship between labour-market participation and educational attainment that holds
whether participation is measured by employment, unemployment or inactivity rates. This relationship exists in nearly
all OECD and partner countries with available data. It is very rare to find a country where a subpopulation with lower
educational attainment has higher labour-market participation rates than a subpopulation with higher educational
attainment. This positive relationship between education and the labour market holds for both men and women and
has been stable over the decades, against the backdrop of the strong increase in attainment levels across the OECD
(Table A3.2).
When analysing employment rates by educational attainment, it is clear that educational pathways are not always
linear. In some cases, individuals may pursue upper secondary or post-secondary non-tertiary programmes, even if
they already hold a tertiary qualification, to acquire the necessary skills for the labour market. As labour-market needs
constantly evolve, individuals must continuously upskill and reskill. To do so, they may choose to pursue further
education at a different level or engage in informal or non-formal learning (see Chapter A5).
Educational attainment and employment rates
Across countries, there are substantial variations in employment rates by level of education. The highest employment
premiums for tertiary-educated adults over those with upper secondary or post-secondary non-tertiary education are
in Lithuania and Poland, where the difference between employment rates is 16 percentage points in both countries.
Conversely, in Czechia and Iceland, the average employment premium for tertiary-educated adults is 4 percentage
points or less over those with upper secondary or post-secondary non-tertiary education (Table A3.1). These
disparities suggest that the labour-market value of tertiary qualifications depends not only on the level of education
attained but also on national economic conditions, demand for skills and the structure of secondary and post-secondary
education systems.
Within tertiary education, employment rates among 25-64 year-olds rise with higher levels of tertiary attainment, from
83% for short-cycle tertiary programmes to 93% for doctoral or equivalent qualifications (Figure A3.1). This pattern
reflects the increasing demand for advanced skills and qualifications in OECD and partner countries’ labour markets.
Higher levels of education often signal specialised expertise, which can improve employability and access to more
stable or higher-paying jobs. Although advanced degrees tend to offer better employment outcomes on average, the
returns may vary depending on the match between qualifications and labour-market needs.
This overall picture must also be viewed in the context of generational shifts in educational attainment. In all OECD
and partner countries, younger adults (aged 25-34) are better educated than the wider adult population (aged 25-64)
(see Chapter A1). However, their employment patterns remain similar on average across OECD countries: 87% of
both tertiary-educated younger adults and all adults are employed, as are 79% of younger adults with upper secondary
or post-secondary non-tertiary attainment and 60% of younger adults with below upper secondary attainment
(compared to 79% of all adults) (Table A3.1 and Table A3.2).
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
83
The employment gains for increasing educational attainment are particularly pronounced for women. Young women
(25-34 year-olds) with an upper secondary or post-secondary non-tertiary qualification have an employment rate that
is 24 percentage points higher than those with below upper secondary attainment, compared to a 14 percentage points
increase among young men. The advantage for young women of attaining tertiary education is even more pronounced:
their employment rate rises by a further 13 percentage points compared to those with only upper secondary attainment
whereas for young men the increase is only 5 percentage points (Table A3.2).
However, young women remain disadvantaged in the labour market with lower employment rates than their male peers
at all levels of educational attainment. Women aged 25-34 with below upper secondary attainment have employment
rates of 46% on average across the OECD, compared with 71% for similarly educated young men. Among tertiary-
educated young adults, the gap in favour of men narrows to 6 percentage points (Table A3.2). These persistent
disparities underscore the importance of addressing gender-specific barriers to employment, even as progress in
educational attainment continues.
Information on the quality of jobs and working conditions for Research and Innovation (R&I) professionals plays a
decisive role in driving personal development decisions, career choices and informing policies oriented towards
nurturing, attracting and retaining talent (Box A3.1).
Employment and fields of study
Employment rates for adults with tertiary attainment are high across all fields, but there are small differences depending
on what graduates chose to study. Overall, the STEM fields have the strongest employment outcomes. Within these
fields, employment rates are highest for people who studied ICT; on average 90% of adults (25-64 year-olds) with a
tertiary ICT degree are in employment in OECD countries. Similarly, the average employment rate of graduates in
engineering, manufacturing and construction is very high at 89%. Education has an average employment rate that is
somewhat lower, but still high at 87%. Arts and humanities, social sciences, journalism and information is the broad
field of study with the lowest employment rates among tertiary-educated 25-64 year-olds, at an average of 84%. To
put this into perspective, this employment rate is still 7 percentage points higher than the average for those with upper
secondary or post-secondary non-tertiary attainment across the OECD (Table A3.1 and Table A3.3).
Although the differences in employment rates between fields of study are small, they are very consistent across OECD
countries. For example, employment rates for adults with tertiary attainment in ICT are higher than for those with
tertiary attainment in arts and humanities and social sciences, journalism and information in all OECD countries. Within
the STEM fields, graduates in natural sciences, mathematics and statistics tend to have lower employment rates than
other STEM fields in almost all countries. The gap is especially large in Costa Rica, where the employment rate is on
average approximately 11 percentage points lower for adults with a qualification in natural sciences, mathematics and
statistics than for those who studied ICT (Table A3.3).
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
84
Box A3.1. Working conditions of doctorate holders – Evidence from the new Research and
Innovation Careers Observatory
In June 2025, the OECD launched the Research and Innovation Careers Observatory (ReICO) online platform (OECD,
2025[1]). This is the first major output of a new multi-year initiative with the European Union, aiming to support evidence-
based policy making to strengthen the development of research and innovation (R&I) talent, improve labour-market
conditions, and promote mutually beneficial talent circulation.
ReICO provides internationally comparable statistics on research and innovation careers across interconnected
themes that reflect the full working lives of R&I talent while also highlighting measurement gaps for the ReICO project
to address in partnership with relevant communities.
The 2025 edition draws mainly on existing official statistics, including OECD education and training data collections,
and the outcomes of a dedicated ReICO 2024 data collection on the career outcomes of doctorate holders,
benchmarked against those of master’s graduates (Table A3.12, available on line). Doctoral education plays a key
role in R&I talent development systems, as it explicitly prepares and accredits individuals to conduct and manage
research. The platform therefore offers valuable insights into the working conditions and career paths of these
individuals.
Earnings
Across the countries for which data are available, doctorate holders typically benefit from a notable earnings advantage
over those with master's degrees. In the Republic of Türkiye, employed doctorate holders earn 46% more on average
than those with a master’s degree, although in France and Norway the relative earnings advantage is less than 10%
(Figure A3.2). Although earnings might not be the sole factor in driving individuals' decisions to pursue a doctorate and
might not represent a positive rate of return on investment in all cases, this premium underscore the value attributed
by the labour market to advanced research skills in some fields.
Figure A3.2. Relative earnings of doctorate holders (2023)
Ratio of the average gross annual earnings of employed doctorate holders to those of employed master’s degree
holders; 25-64 year-olds
1.5
1.45
1.4
1.35
1.3
1.25
1.2
1.15
1.1
1.05
Note: The average includes only OECD countries, i.e. Brazil and Indonesia are excluded from the calculation.
1. Year of reference differs from 2023: 2022 for Ireland and Italy; 2021 for Brazil and Canada; 2020 for Greece and France.
For data, see Table A3.12, available on line. For a link to download the data, see Tables and Notes section.
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
85
Job Security
Employment stability can be an important factor in attracting and, especially, retaining high-level talent, particularly if
remuneration is capped. The share of employed doctorate holders with indefinite contracts remains slightly below that
for master’s holders in most countries (Figure A3.3).
Precarious employment has profound consequences for individuals’ career planning, well-being and the ability to
undertake long-term projects. In addition, fixed-term roles often prevent individuals from finding stable housing,
planning their families and pursuing sustained research agendas. Although indefinite contracts may offer different
levels of job security, this gap suggests potential areas for policy improvement to enhance work conditions and thus
the attractiveness of careers for doctorate holders (Auriol, 2013[2]). In response, many OECD countries are
implementing structural reforms such as expanding tenure-track positions, improving access to permanent contracts
and enhancing pathways to move into non-academic sectors (OECD, 2023[3]).
Figure A3.3. Job security of individuals with advanced qualifications, by level of tertiary attainment
(2023)
Share of employed doctorate and master’s degree holders who are in indefinite contracts; 25-64 year-olds
Doctorate Master's
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
1. Year of reference differs from 2023 for doctorate holders: 2022 for Estonia, France, Lithuania, Luxembourg and Romania; 2021 for Canada,
Greece and Slovenia; 2019 for Latvia, Netherlands and Poland.
2. Year of reference differs from 2023 for master's holders: 2022 for Bulgaria; 2021 for Canada; and 2020 for Latvia.
For data, see Table A3.12, available on line. For a link to download the data, see Tables and Notes section.
Working Hours
Doctorate holders generally work slightly more hours – approximately 2% more per year – than those with master’s
degrees (Table A3.13, available on line). This difference might reflect increased responsibilities and more competitive
working environments typically associated with doctoral-level positions. In academic research careers, this workload
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
86
intensity is associated with heightened stress – and is especially pronounced in early-career positions where teaching,
grant-writing and lab duties overlap (OECD, 2021[4])
The ReICO 2024 data collection highlights both the strong points and areas for further attention regarding working
conditions for doctorate holders, informing policies that aim to foster sustainable and attractive research and innovation
careers, as well as talent development early on in education and training systems.
Subnational variations in employment rates
Within OECD countries, employment rates among adults (25-64 year-olds) can vary dramatically from one region to
another. These subnational variations present critical challenges for policy makers seeking to promote inclusive labour
markets and equitable access to opportunities. The following analysis is of regions at the TL2 level, which are large
subnational regions as defined by the OECD’s official regional‑classification grid (OECD, 2023[5]).
On average across OECD countries, regional disparities in employment rates are markedly larger for adults with lower
educational attainment. In Italy, for instance, only 37% of 25-64 year-olds with below upper secondary education are
employed in Campania, compared to 75% in the Autonomous Province of Bolzano in 2024 – a difference of
39 percentage points. In contrast, among tertiary-educated adults, employment rates range from 71% in Calabria to
91% in Aosta Valley, a much narrower 20 percentage-point spread (Table A3.13, available on line).
The most pronounced regional disparities in employment rates among tertiary-educated adults are in Canada, Italy
and Mexico where the gap between the best- and worst-performing regions exceeds 12 percentage points. In contrast,
regional differences in employment rates for tertiary-educated adults do not exceed 1 percentage point in Lithuania,
Norway and Slovenia (Table A3.13, available on line).
Among partner countries, Romania has a significant range of employment outcomes by region and education levels.
In 2024, only 33% of adults with below upper secondary education were employed in Centru compared to 59% in
Bucharest – Ilfov. Among tertiary-educated adults, the disparity narrows, with employment rates ranging from 89% to
93% across regions (Table A3.13, available on line).
Educational attainment, unemployment rates and duration of unemployment
Higher educational attainment continues to shield individuals from unemployment. In many OECD and partner
countries, unemployment rates are especially high among younger adults with lower attainment. On average across
OECD countries, the unemployment rate for younger adults with below upper secondary attainment is 13%, almost
twice as high as for those with upper secondary or post-secondary non-tertiary attainment (7%). The unemployment
rate for tertiary-educated younger adults is only 5% (Table A3.4).
The situation is especially severe for younger adults with below upper secondary attainment in the Slovak Republic
and South Africa, where about 40% are unemployed. The unemployment rate is also high for this group in Finland,
Greece and Spain where at least 20% are unemployed (Table A3.4).
Having attained upper secondary education or post-secondary non-tertiary education reduces the risk of
unemployment in most OECD and partner countries. In Austria, Bulgaria, Czechia, Hungary, Romania and
the Slovak Republic, the unemployment rate for younger adults with upper secondary or post-secondary non-tertiary
education as their highest attainment is less than one-third the rate of younger adults with below upper secondary
attainment (Table A3.4).
Unemployment rates are often used as a proxy for labour-market health. However, this measure can be misleading if
interpreted in isolation. Unemployment only measures those without a job who are actively seeking work. It excludes
individuals who are out of work but not currently searching – those who are classified as inactive or outside the labour
force (see next section). This distinction matters. In some countries, low unemployment rates coexist with high inactivity
rates. This is often driven by discouraged workers – people who would like to work but have stopped searching due to
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
87
repeated failure, lack of opportunities, or structural barriers such as poor childcare support or health issues. In such
cases, a low unemployment rate can obscure significant labour-market dysfunction.
Overall, the average unemployment rate of 25–34 year-old adults in OECD countries has fluctuated significantly over
the past two decades, with notable peaks in 2005, between 2010 and 2013 following the 2008/09 financial crisis, and
again in 2020/21 as a consequence of the COVID-19 pandemic. This pattern was observed across most OECD
countries and across all levels of education, although the magnitude of the increases and decreases varied depending
on attainment level and on the specific countries. Tertiary-educated young adults, for example, were better shielded
from negative labour market shocks, experiencing lower overall unemployment rates and less pronounced spikes. On
average across the OECD, the unemployment rate among young adults without an upper secondary education rose
by 7 percentage points between 2008 and 2010 and remained relatively elevated until 2013. In contrast, the increase
among tertiary-educated 25–34 year-olds was more moderate, rising by just 3 percentage points between 2008 and
2013 (OECD, 2025[6]).
By 2023/24, unemployment rates for young adults had generally returned to pre-pandemic levels. In the most recent
years for which data are available, the unemployment gap between tertiary-educated individuals and those with lower
educational attainment has slightly narrowed but remains broadly in line with and does not break from long-term trends.
The following paragraphs provide a cross-country overview of recent unemployment figures compared to pre-COVID-
19 levels.
Figure A3.4. Trends in unemployment rates of tertiary-educated 25-34 year-olds (2019 and 2024)
In per cent
2024 2019
20
18
16
14
12
10
1.Year of reference differs from 2024.
2.Year of reference differs from 2019.
3.Break in time series between 2019 and 2024.
4.Data for upper secondary attainment include completion of a sufficient volume and standard of programmes that would be classified individually
as completion of intermediate upper secondary programmes (9% of adults aged 25-34 are in this group).
For data, see Table A3.4. For a link to download the data, see Tables and Notes section.
On average across OECD countries, unemployment rates have decreased or remained stable between 2019 and
2024 for each level of attainment. However, in a few countries, such as Finland and Romania, the unemployment rate
for 25-34 year-old adults who have not attained upper secondary education has increased by at least 6 percentage
points between 2019 and 2024. Argentina and Italy show the opposite pattern: the unemployment rate among 25-34
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
88
year-olds with below upper secondary attainment has fallen by at least 6 percentage points between 2019 and 2024.
However, this figure should be interpreted with caution, as this country has seen the inactivity rate of those with below
upper secondary attainment increase over the same period (Table A3.4).
Despite tertiary attainment rates among 25-34 year-olds increasing from 45% in 2019 to 48% in 2024 on average
across OECD countries (see Chapter A1), there are few signs that the labour-market benefits of a tertiary degree are
diminishing. Among 25-34 year-olds, the average gap in unemployment rates between those with tertiary attainment
and those with lower levels of attainment is almost the same in 2024 as it was in 2019. In aggregate across the OECD,
the labour market has absorbed a growing number of tertiary-educated workers without any noticeable effect on their
unemployment rates (Figure A3.4, Table A3.4 and see Table A1.2).
Unemployment rates and fields of study
Although unemployment rates can be low for tertiary-educated adults across all fields, they still show notable variation
by field of study, particularly in some countries. Within individual countries, the largest differences between
unemployment rates across fields of study are in Costa Rica, where unemployment rates among tertiary-educated
adults can vary by more than 35 percentage points, depending on the fields they studied. The remaining OECD
countries have smaller differences between fields (Figure A3.5 and Table A3.6, available on line).
Although the differences in unemployment rates between fields of study are small, they are very consistent across
OECD countries. For example, unemployment rates for adults with tertiary attainment in ICT are lower than for those
with tertiary attainment in arts and humanities and social sciences, journalism and information in all but six OECD
countries. STEM tertiary-educated graduates tend to have the lowest unemployment rates on average across OECD
countries, compared to other fields (Table A3.6, available on line).
Figure A3.5. Unemployment rates of tertiary-educated adults, by field of study (2024)
In per cent; 25-64 year-olds
Business, administration and law Science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) Arts and humanities, social sciences, journalism and information
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
1. Year of reference differs from 2024.
For data, see Table A3.6 (available on line). For a link to download the data, see Tables and Notes section.
Duration of unemployment
How long people remain unemployed offers a wider perspective on labour-market difficulties than overall
unemployment rates. Duration of unemployment tends to decrease with higher educational attainment. On average
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
89
across the OECD, 25% of unemployed adults with tertiary attainment have been unemployed for 12 months or longer,
compared to 30% of those with upper secondary or post-secondary non-tertiary attainment and 36% of those with
below upper secondary attainment. Tertiary-educated adults have a lower incidence of long-term unemployment than
adults with lower levels of educational attainment in about two-thirds of OECD countries. However, Figure A3.6 shows
only the share of long-term unemployment relative to unemployed adults. In countries with higher overall
unemployment, the total number of long-term unemployed – particularly among those with lower education levels –
can be significantly higher than the relative shares suggest (Figure A3.6).
Figure A3.6. Long-term unemployment (12 months or more) among unemployed adults, by
educational attainment (2024)
In per cent; 25-64 year-olds
Below upper secondary Upper secondary or post-secondary non-tertiary Tertiary
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Note: The numbers in parentheses represent the aggregated long-term unemployment rates across all levels of education
1. Year of reference differs from 2024.
2. Data for upper secondary attainment include completion of a sufficient volume and standard of programmes that would be classified
individually as completion of intermediate upper secondary programmes (12% of adults aged 25-64 are in this group).
For data, see Table A3.5. For a link to download the data, see Tables and Notes section.
Most unemployment is short term as the unemployed usually find new jobs within a few months. However, this pattern
does not hold for unemployed adults with below upper secondary attainment. Among this group, 36% have been
unemployed for more than 12 months compared to 30% who have been unemployed for 3-12 months and 34% who
have been unemployed for less than 3 months. This contrasts with individuals who have completed upper secondary
or tertiary education, where long-term unemployment (12 months or more) remains less common than shorter spells.
Among unemployed tertiary-educated adults, the share of long-term unemployed is significantly lower (25%) compared
to those unemployed for 3-12 months (35%), highlighting that individuals with higher levels of education, particularly
those with tertiary qualifications, are less likely to remain unemployed for extended periods (Table A3.5).
Educational attainment and adults outside the labour force
Labour-market inactivity, or individuals who are neither employed nor seeking employment, also differs significantly
by educational attainment. On average, the inactivity rate among young adults (25-34 year-olds) in 2024 was 9% for
those with tertiary attainment, compared to 15% for those with upper secondary or post-secondary non-tertiary
attainment and 31% for those with below upper secondary attainment (Figure A3.7). These differences underscore
the persistent labour-market disadvantages faced by low-educated individuals. In particular, young adults with below
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
90
upper secondary attainment are over three times more likely to be outside the labour force than their tertiary-educated
peers.
Despite the relatively low average for tertiary-educated young adults, labour-market inactivity rates among this group
can vary widely across OECD and partner countries – from as low as 4% in Lithuania to 32% in India (Table A3.4).
High inactivity rates can indicate deep structural challenges, such as long-term exclusion from the labour market, skills
mismatches, health inequities or ineffective job matching systems. These conditions may reduce economic output,
worsen inequality and erode individual well-being. High inactivity rates can also reflect social norms around gender
roles and caregiving responsibilities.
Figure A3.7. Shares of 25-34 year-olds outside the labour force, by educational attainment (2024)
In per cent
Below upper secondary Upper secondary or post-secondary non-tertiary Tertiary
60
50
40
30
20
10
1.Year of reference differs from 2024.
2.Data for upper secondary attainment include completion of a sufficient volume and standard of programmes that would be classified individually
as completion of intermediate upper secondary programmes (9% of adults aged 25-34 are in this group).
3. Year of reference differs from 2019.
For data, see Table A3.4. For a link to download the data, see Tables and Notes section.
Labour-market inactivity is correlated to prolonged illnesses. Studies indicate a strong correlation between poor health
and inactivity, with over one-third of economically inactive individuals in the United Kingdom experiencing long-term
health issues (Crawshaw et al., 2024[7]). Those with long-term illnesses consistently exhibit lower labour-market
participation and higher unemployment rates compared to their healthier counterparts. Among the economically
inactive, those who are long-term sick are more likely to want to work but less likely to actively seek or secure a job,
and the shift to homeworking during the pandemic has not reduced these disparities (Haskel and Martin, 2022[8]).
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
91
Box A3.2. Labour-market status by educational attainment and numeracy proficiency
Before the OECD Survey of Adult Skills (a product of the Programme for the International Assessment of Adult
Competencies; PIAAC), few studies had explored the labour-market returns to skills independent of formal educational
attainment. Instead, qualifications were typically used as proxies for skill levels, blurring the distinction between what
individuals know and what credentials they hold (OECD, 2024[9]; Barro and Lee, 2013[10]; Hanushek and Woessmann,
2011[11]). While there are sound theoretical reasons to expect a correlation – more skilled individuals are more likely
to pursue further education, and education itself develops skills – this relationship is not deterministic. Education may
also serve as a signal of ability or a way to navigate employers’ screening processes, rather than solely reflecting the
acquisition of skills (OECD, 2024[9]) .
The Survey of Adult Skills Cycle 2 (OECD, 2024[9]) confirms that both education and skills are positively associated
with employment status. Individuals with higher proficiency are more likely to be employed, and employment itself can
offer further opportunities to develop skills. However, the strength of this association varies across countries, potentially
reflecting differences in the “skills transparency” of qualifications – that is, how accurately formal credentials signal
actual skills.
Across participating OECD countries and economies, the Survey of Adult Skills found that average proficiency in
literacy, numeracy and adaptive problem solving is consistently higher among employed adults than among those who
are unemployed or inactive. High-skilled individuals are also less likely to face unemployment. On average, a one
standard deviation increase in numeracy proficiency (58 points) is associated with a 4 percentage point increase in
the likelihood of participating in the labour market (OECD, 2024[9]). However, the link between skills, education and
employment has weakened compared to ten years ago, when most countries participated in the first cycle of the
Survey. The analysis shows that in countries where unemployment fell between 2012 and 2023, the association
between numeracy proficiency and employment also diminished. This suggests that tighter labour markets in 2022/23
may have reduced the relative advantage of higher skills, bringing more individuals into employment regardless of
their proficiency. It is worth noting, however, that not all the effects found are statistically significant at the 5% level
(OECD, 2024[9]).
Data from the Survey of Adult Skills Cycle 2 confirm the link between labour-force status and both educational
attainment and numeracy proficiency. Adults with tertiary education and high proficiency levels (at or above Level 4)
are significantly more likely to be employed, while those with low educational attainment and low proficiency levels (at
or below Level 1) face much higher risks of unemployment or exclusion from the labour force. These findings reaffirm
the dual importance of formal qualifications and functional skills in ensuring employability and labour-market resilience
(OECD, 2024[9]).
The positive correlation between educational attainment and employment among 25-64 year-olds is illustrated in
Figure A3.8. Across the countries and economies taking part in the Survey of Adult Skills Cycle 2, employment rates
rise with educational attainment even when the numeracy skills is the same at or below Level 2: 60% for those with
below upper secondary education, 75% for those with upper secondary or post-secondary non-tertiary attainment and
83% for those with tertiary education.
There is also a positive correlation between numeracy proficiency and employment among 25-64 year-olds. Across
the countries and economies taking part in the Survey of Adult Skills Cycle 2, employment rates rise with each
proficiency and educational attainment level. This steep gradient reflects the central role of skills in enabling adults to
perform effectively in the labour market. On average across the OECD, the employment rate for adults with numeracy
proficiency at or below Level 1 ranges from 56% for those with below upper secondary attainment to 70% for those
with upper secondary or post-secondary non-tertiary qualifications and 77% for tertiary-educated adults. For adults
with numeracy proficiency at Level 2 and 3, employment rates range from 67% (Level 2) and 73% (Level 3) for those
with below upper secondary attainment to 85% (Level 2) and 89% (Level 3) for those with a tertiary qualification. At
the highest levels of proficiency (at or above Level 4), the employment rate reaches 88% on average for upper
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
92
secondary or post-secondary non-tertiary educational attainment and 92% for tertiary attainment (Table A3.7, available
on line).
Although the positive relationship between education, skills and employment prospects is observed across all
participating countries, the magnitude of the difference varies considerably. In Croatia and Israel, employment rates
among tertiary-educated adults are at least 30 percentage points higher than among those with below upper secondary
attainment across all numeracy proficiency levels – suggesting a strong impact of educational attainment. In contrast,
in Austria, Czechia and the Netherlands, adults with numeracy proficiency at or above Level 4 have employment rates
that are at least 24 percentage points higher than those scoring at or below Level 1, regardless of their level of
education. In these countries, proficiency appears to have a stronger association with employment outcomes than
formal qualifications (Table A3.7, available on line).
Figure A3.8. Employment rates of adults with numeracy proficiency at or below Level 2, by
educational attainment (2023)
Survey of Adult Skills (PIAAC); 25-64 year-olds; in per cent
Below upper secondary Upper secondary or post-secondary non-tertiary Tertiary
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Note: The numbers in parentheses represent the shares of 25-64 year-olds in employment with numeracy proficiency at or below Level 2 among
those with below upper secondary attainment, with upper secondary or post-secondary non-tertiary education, and with tertiary education
respectively.
For data, see Table A3.9 (available on line) and Table A3.11 (available on line). For a link to download the data, see Tables and Notes section.
Trends in employment, by educational attainment and numeracy proficiency
Table A3.8, available on line, tracks changes in employment rates between 2012 and 2023 across different levels of
educational attainment and numeracy proficiency. Overall, adults with higher levels of education and proficiency were
more likely to experience stable or improved labour-market outcomes. In many countries, employment rates increased
for tertiary-educated adults with proficiency at or above Level 3, even amid global economic disruptions. In contrast,
employment rates stagnated or declined for adults with low proficiency (at or below Level 1), particularly among those
who had not completed upper secondary education.
Country-level data show important differences. In Estonia, New Zealand and Sweden, employment among low-
educated adults with proficiency Level 3 remained relatively strong, reflecting more inclusive labour markets. In
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
93
contrast, England (United Kingdom), Finland and France display persistently low employment rates among adults with
both low educational attainment and low proficiency. These variations suggest that while skills matter universally,
national education systems and labour-market structures play a key role in shaping how proficiency translates into
employment opportunities (Table A3.8, available on line).
Employment, by field of study and numeracy proficiency
Among tertiary-educated adults, field of study significantly influences employment outcomes, especially when
combined with numeracy proficiency. On average across OECD countries, the employment rate ranges from 80% to
94% among adults who studied in the field of education, depending on their numeracy level; from 77% to 90% for
those who studied arts and humanities, social sciences, journalism and information; from 79% to 92% for business,
administration and law; from 81% to 93% for STEM fields; and from 80% to 93% for those in health and welfare fields.
Within each country and among adults who studied the same field, those with higher numeracy proficiency consistently
achieve higher employment rates (Table A3.10, available on line).
Patterns relating to the field of study differ across countries, underscoring the importance of aligning education and
skills development with local labour-market demand. The field of study seems to matter more for the employment
prospects of adults with lower numeracy proficiency than for those with higher skills. Among low-proficiency adults,
employment rates vary widely depending on the field, with particularly low rates for arts and humanities and also in
some countries for education and for business, administration and law. In contrast, employment rates among adults
with high numeracy proficiency levels tend to converge across fields, suggesting that strong numeracy skills may
compensate for any mismatch between labour-market demand and fields of study. These findings highlight the role of
national education and skills policies in shaping demand for qualifications and skill profiles, as well as the importance
of skills-based curricula and career guidance to help graduates succeed in the labour market (Table A3.10, available
on line).
Definitions
Age groups: Adults refer to 25-64 year-olds. Younger adults refer to 25-34 year-olds. Older adults refer to 55-
64 year-olds.
Educational attainment refers to the highest level of education successfully completed by an individual. See the
Reader’s Guide at the beginning of this publication for a presentation of all ISCED 2011 levels.
Employed individuals are those who, during the survey reference week, were either working for pay or profit for at
least one hour or had a job but were temporarily not at work. The employment rate refers to the number of persons in
employment as a percentage of the population.
Fields of study are categorised according to the ISCED fields of education and training (ISCED-F 2013). See the
Reader’s Guide for full listing of the ISCED fields used in this report.
Inactive individuals/those outside the labour force are those who, during the survey reference week, were outside
the labour force and classified neither as employed nor as unemployed. Individuals enrolled in education are also
considered as inactive if they are not looking for a job. The inactivity rate refers to inactive persons as a percentage of
the population (i.e. the number of inactive people is divided by the number of the population of the same age group).
Labour force (active population) is the total number of employed and unemployed persons, in accordance with the
definition in the Labour Force Survey.
Unemployed individuals are those who, during the survey reference week, were without work, actively seeking
employment and currently available to start work. The unemployment rate refers to unemployed persons as a
percentage of the labour force (i.e. the number of unemployed people is divided by the sum of employed and
unemployed people).
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
94
Methodology
For information on methodology, see Chapter A1. Note that the employment rates do not take into account the number
of hours worked.
For further details, refer to the OECD Handbook for Internationally Comparative Education Statistics (OECD, 2017[12])
and the Education at a Glance 2025 Sources, Methodologies and Technical Notes (https://doi.org/10.1787/fcfaf2d1-
en)
Source
For information on sources, see Chapter A1.
Data on subnational regions for selected indicators are available in the OECD Regional Statistics Database
http://oe.cd/geostats.
Data on proficiency levels and mean scores are based on the Survey of Adult Skills (PIAAC) (2012 and 2023). PIAAC
is the OECD Programme for the International Assessment of Adult Competencies.
References
Auriol, . (2013), “Careers of Doctorate Holders: Analysis of Labour Market and Mobility Indicators”, [2]
https://doi.org/10.1787/5k43nxgs289w-e.
Barro, R. and J. Lee (2013), “A new data set of educational attainment in the world, 1950–2010”, Journal of [10]
Development Economics, Vol. 104, pp. 184-198, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdeveco.2012.10.001.
Crawshaw, P. et al. (2024), “Health inequalities and health-related economic inactivity: Why good work [7]
needs good health”, Public Health in Practice, Vol. 8, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.puhip.2024.100555.
Hanushek, E. and L. Woessmann (2011), “The economics of international differences in educational [11]
achievement”, in Handbook of the Economics of Education, Elsevier, https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-0-
444-53429-3.00002-8.
Haskel, J. and J. Martin (2022), “Economic inactivity and the labour market experience of the long-term [8]
sick”, Imperial College.
OECD (2025), OECD Data Explorer, Unemployment rates of adults, by educational attainment, age group [6]
and gender, http://data-explorer.oecd.org/s/4s.
OECD (2025), Research and Innovation Careers Observatory, https://www.oecd.org/en/networks/research- [1]
and-innovation-careers-observatory.html.
OECD (2024), Do Adults Have the Skills They Need to Thrive in a Changing World?: Survey of Adult Skills [9]
2023, OECD Skills Studies, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/b263dc5d-en.
OECD (2023), OECD Territorial Grids, OECD, Paris, [5]
https://www.oecd.org/content/dam/oecd/en/data/datasets/oecd-geographical-definitions/territorial-
grid.pdf.
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
95
OECD (2023), Promoting diverse career pathways for doctoral and postdoctoral researchers, [3]
https://www.oecd.org/content/dam/oecd/en/publications/reports/2023/09/promoting-diverse-career-
pathways-for-doctoral-and-postdoctoral-researchers_9fdc38f5/dc21227a-
en.pdf?utm_source=chatgpt.com.
OECD (2021), Reducing the precarity of academic research careers, [4]
https://www.oecd.org/content/dam/oecd/en/publications/reports/2021/05/reducing-the-precarity-of-
academic-research-careers_2d4e2194/0f8bd468-en.pdf?utm_source=chatgpt.com.
OECD (2017), OECD Handbook for Internationally Comparative Education Statistics: Concepts, Standards, [12]
Definitions and Classifications, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264279889-en.
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
96
Tables and Notes
Chapter A3 Tables
Table A3.1 Employment rates of adults, by educational attainment (2024)
Table A3.2 Trends in employment rates of 25-34 year-olds, by educational
attainment and gender (2019 and 2024)
Table A3.3 Employment rates of tertiary-educated adults, by field of study (2024)
Table A3.4 Trends in the rates for 25-34 year-olds unemployed or outside the labour
force, by educational attainment (2019 and 2024)
Table A3.5 Unemployment rates for adults and distribution of unemployment by
duration, by educational attainment (2024)
WEB Table A3.6 Unemployment rates of tertiary-educated adults, by field of study (2024)
WEB Table A3.7 Labour-force status, by educational attainment and numeracy proficiency
level (2023)
WEB Table A3.8 Trends in employment rates of adults, by educational attainment and
numeracy proficiency level (2012 and 2023)
WEB Table A3.9 Labour force status, by gender, educational attainment and numeracy
proficiency level (2023)
WEB Table A3.10 Employment rates of tertiary-educated adults, by field of study and
numeracy proficiency level (2023)
WEB Table A3.11 Labour market status by educational attainment and numeracy
proficiency level (2023)
WEB Table A3.12 Earnings and employment conditions of adults with a master’s or doctoral
degree as their highest qualification (2023)
WEB Table A3.13 Employment rates of adults, by educational attainment and subnational
region (2024)
StatLink 2 https://stat.link/zpit2a
Data Download
To download the data for the figures and tables in this chapter, click StatLink above.
To access further data and/or other education indicators, please visit the OECD Data Explorer: https://data-
explorer.oecd.org/.
Data cut-off for the print publication 13 June 2025. Please note that the Data Explorer contains the most recent
data.
Notes for Tables
Table A3.1 Employment rates of adults, by educational attainment (2024)
Note: Data refer to ISCED 2011 for all countries except for Argentina and India. Data for Argentina, India, and
Indonesia from the International Labour Organization (ILO).
1. Year of reference differs from 2024: 2023 for Argentina, Brazil, Iceland, India and the United States; 2022 for
Chile and Indonesia.
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
97
2. Data for upper secondary attainment include completion of a sufficient volume and standard of programmes
that would be classified individually as completion of intermediate upper secondary programmes (12% of
adults aged 25-64 are in this group).
Table A3.2 Trends in employment rates of 25-34 year-olds, by educational attainment and gender (2019 and
2024)
Note: Totals might not add up to 100% for the averages because of missing data for some levels for some countries.
Data refer to ISCED 2011 for all countries except for Argentina and India. Data for Argentina, India, and Indonesia
from the International Labour Organization (ILO). Columns showing data for category totals are available for
consultation on line.
1. Year of reference differs from 2024: 2023 for Argentina, Brazil, Iceland, India and the United States; 2022 for
Chile and Indonesia.
2. Year of reference differs from 2019: 2022 for Peru; 2020 for Chile.
3. Data for upper secondary attainment include completion of a sufficient volume and standard of programmes
that would be classified individually as completion of intermediate upper secondary programmes (9% of adults
aged 25-34 are in this group).
Table A3.3 Employment rates of tertiary-educated adults, by field of study (2024)
Note: Data on humanities (except languages), social sciences, journalism and information might refer to the broad
field social sciences, journalism and information only. Data in column 14 might differ from data in Table A3.1 column
9 due to differences in country coverage and reference years.
1. Year of reference differs from 2024: 2021 for Canada, Denmark, Ireland and the United Kingdom; 2022 for
Chile.
Table A3.4 Trends in the rates for 25-34 year-olds unemployed or outside the labour force, by educational
attainment (2019 and 2024)
Note: Data refer to ISCED 2011 for all countries except for Argentina and India. Data for Argentina, India, and
Indonesia from the International Labour Organization (ILO).
1. Year of reference differs from 2024: 2023 for Argentina, Brazil, Iceland, India and the United States; 2022 for
Chile and Indonesia.
2. Year of reference differs from 2019: 2022 for Peru, 2020 for Chile.
3. Data for upper secondary attainment include completion of a sufficient volume and standard of programmes
that would be classified individually as completion of intermediate upper secondary programmes (9% of adults
aged 25-34 are in this group).
Table A3.5 Unemployment rates for adults and distribution of unemployment by duration, by educational
attainment (2024)
Note: Data refer to ISCED 2011 for all countries except for Argentina and India. Data for Argentina, India, and
Indonesia from the International Labour Organization (ILO). Columns showing data for less than 12 months and
showing data for all levels of education are available for consultation on line.
1. Year of reference differs from 2024: 2021 for Argentina, Brazil, Indonesia, Japan and the United States; 2022
for Chile, 2021 for Colombia.
2. Data for upper secondary attainment include completion of a sufficient volume and standard of programmes
that would be classified individually as completion of intermediate upper secondary programmes (12% of
adults aged 25-64 are in this group).
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
98
Control codes
a – category not applicable; b – break in series; c – there are too few observations to provide reliable estimates; d –
contains data from another column; m – missing data; r – values are below a certain reliability threshold and should
be interpreted with caution x – contained in another column (indicated in brackets). For further control codes, see the
Reader’s Guide.
For further methodological information, see Education at a Glance 2025: Sources, Methodologies and Technical Notes
(https://doi.org/10.1787/fcfaf2d1-en).
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
99
Table A3.1. Employment rates of adults, by educational attainment (2024)
Percentage of employed 25-64 year-olds among all 25-64 year-olds
Upper secondary
or post-secondary non-tertiary Tertiary
Post- All
Below upper Upper secondary Short-cycle Bachelor's Master's Doctoral levels
secondary secondary non-tertiary Total tertiary or equivalent or equivalent or equivalent Total of education
OECD countries (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10)
Australia 62 80 87 81 86 88 91 99 89 83
Austria 56 78 83 78 86 81 89 91 86 78
Belgium 49 73 86 74 82 86 90 91 88 76
Canada 57 72 82 75 81 84 86 d x(7) 83 79
Chile1 61 71 a 71 80 88 93 95 86 73
Colombia 64 m x(4) 70 d x(9) m x(9) x(9) 80 71
Costa Rica 63 71 c 71 72 81 86 c 79 69
Czechia 62 86 d x(2) 86 92 85 90 93 89 85
Denmark 61 82 91 82 87 87 91 94 88 81
Estonia 69 82 83 82 88 88 90 96 89 84
Finland 52 76 96 77 83 88 91 c 89 79
France 55 75 72 75 86 85 90 93 87 77
Germany 66 82 87 84 90 88 89 93 89 82
Greece 59 69 73 70 57 79 88 91 81 72
Hungary 62 84 92 85 90 90 93 97 92 84
Iceland1 77 86 91 86 87 88 94 97 91 86
Ireland 55 75 81 78 83 87 90 93 88 81
Israel 55 74 a 74 85 87 91 88 88 78
Italy 55 74 79 74 75 79 87 94 85 70
Japan x(2) 82 d x(5) m 84 d 90 d x(6) x(6) 88 85
Korea 61 72 a 72 79 80 87 d x(7) 80 76
Latvia 62 76 77 76 86 87 89 98 88 79
Lithuania 58 74 75 75 a 90 92 96 90 81
Luxembourg 57 73 79 73 80 80 89 88 85 77
Mexico 66 73 a 73 75 81 88 89 81 71
Netherlands 68 84 89 84 90 89 92 94 90 84
New Zealand 71 82 86 83 88 90 90 92 90 84
Norway 63 91 m 91 98 97 m m 98 90
Poland 49 75 78 76 76 89 92 97 92 81
Portugal 71 86 86 86 88 88 92 94 91 82
Slovak Republic 37 81 84 82 c 83 92 97 91 81
Slovenia 56 79 a 79 m m m m 91 81
Spain 62 74 64 74 82 83 87 91 84 74
Sweden 66 84 83 84 83 90 92 93 89 85
Switzerland 68 84 d x(2) 84 m 89 89 93 89 84
Türkiye 52 63 a 63 67 77 85 92 75 61
United Kingdom2 63 81 a 78 83 87 89 90 87 80
United States1 58 70 d x(2) 70 78 83 86 91 83 76
OECD average 60 78 83 78 83 86 90 93 87 79
Partner and/or accession countries
Argentina1 70 77 a 77 x(6) 88 d x(6) m 88 77
Brazil1 59 x(6) x(6) 74 x(6) 85 d 88 93 86 71
Bulgaria 50 81 88r 81 a 89 92 96 91 80
China m m m m m m m m m m
Croatia 42 76 a 76 80 85 92 96 89 76
India 1 67 67 79 68 x(6) 65 d x(6) m 65 67
Indonesia1 75 73 a 73 75 82 90 95 81 75
Peru 79 m a m m 81 92 d x(7) 82 80
Romania 48 77 86 78 x(6) 91 d x(6) x(6) 91 73
Saudi Arabia m m m m m m m m m m
South Africa 36 42 38 41 45 39 45 d x(7) 40 39
EU25 average 57 78 82 79 83 86 90 94 89 79
G20 average 60 72 75 72 m 80 m m 81 73
Note: For notes on this table and a link to download the data, see Tables and Notes section above.
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
100
Table A3.2. Trends in employment rates of 25-34 year-olds, by educational attainment and gender
(2019 and 2024)
Percentage of employed 25-34 year-olds among all 25-34 year-olds
Upper secondary
Below upper secondary or post-secondary non-tertiary Tertiary
Men Women Men Women Men Women
2019 2024 2019 2024 2019 2024 2019 2024 2019 2024 2019 2024
OECD countries (1) (2) (3) (4) (7) (8) (9) (10) (13) (14) (15) (16)
Australia 74 73 45 54 88 90 70 75 92 94 82 88
Austria 70 64 46 49 90 87 82 83 88 87 84 85
Belgium 62 61 39 42 87 82 72 71 90 89 86 88
Canada 68 63 41 43 83 82 71 70 89 88 84 84
Chile1, 2 68 77 44 46 71 79 51 56 83 91 77 81
Colombia 87 83 44 42 85 85 58 56 87 88 74 76
Costa Rica 86 83 42 45 90 85 60 63 88 85 77 74
Czechia 70 78 43 51 95 95 64 63 93 94 67 67
Denmark 64 65 45 48 84 85 72 73 87 90 82 85
Estonia 80 80 44 59 92 89 63 81 96 95 75 84
Finland 59 50 33 30 82 78 71 72 90 90 82 87
France 63 63 37 43 83 83 68 71 89 89 85 86
Germany 70 74 45 50 88 89 80 83 92 92 85 86
Greece 68 68 35 26 71 78 52 53 80 81 68 77
Hungary 75 74 41 45 91 90 70 81 94 93 77 93
Iceland1 79 86 79 68 86 87 80 78 89 91 89 88
Ireland 60 48 33 29 85 83 66 71 91 92 84 88
Israel 69 63 41 42 74 70 65 69 89 88 86 84
Italy 66 72 35 36 74 78 54 58 69 75 67 74
Japan m m m m m m m m 94 d 94 d 82 d 87 d
Korea 73 65 52 60 71 73 56 62 81 82 72 77
Latvia 74 69 49 51 85 84 70 70 92 93 87 86
Lithuania 67 69 30 19 84 86 71 67 95 94 90 91
Luxembourg 78 59 75 c 87 83 85 80 92 89 86 86
Mexico 91 90 44 47 90 90 55 58 88 90 75 78
Netherlands 77 77 57 56 89 90 81 82 93 94 90 91
New Zealand 77 75 61 57 90 91 72 70 93 93 85 88
Norway 69 78 55 58 88 m 77 m 89 97 90 m
Poland 61 63 23 38 92 93 60 67 95 95 85 89
Portugal 84 79 71 66 86 88 85 82 85 89 87 89
Slovak Republic 47 51 19 21 92 91 65 75 93 91 70 83
Slovenia 74 71 44 47 91 93 77 78 92 94 87 88
Spain 71 70 52 52 75 77 66 67 81 83 76 81
Sweden 75 73 51 57 86 84 79 76 89 89 86 86
Switzerland 81 b 79 56 b 53 88 b 89 84 b 84 93 b 92 87 b 89
Türkiye 79 82 26 24 82 86 34 37 83 87 62 62
United Kingdom3 78 69 54 53 92 88 76 77 93 93 88 88
United States 72 73 39 42 81 80 67 67 89 89 82 84
OECD average 72 71 45 46 85 85 68 70 89 90 81 84
OECD average for
countries with available 72 71 45 46 85 85 68 70 89 90 81 84
and comparable data
for both years
Partner and/or accession countries
Argentina1 81 88 42 52 83 85 60 65 94 95 85 88
Brazil1 78 80 44 44 85 87 63 64 90 92 83 85
Bulgaria 64 62 33 31 86 86 72 72 93 92 83 89
China m m m m m m m m m m m m
Croatia c c c c 86 86 65 73 80 83 80 87
India1 92 95 25 39 86 93 19 28 77 83 29 30
Indonesia1 91 90 49 48 91 90 53 48 91 91 77 74
Peru 2 93 91 66 62 m m m m 89 88 74 73
Romania 77 64 45 26 90 91 71 68 94 94 89 90
Saudi Arabia m m m m m m m m m m m m
South Africa 47 45 31 38 58 51 44 29 73 66 66 12
EU25 average 69 67 43 42 86 86 70 73 89 90 82 85
G20 average 75 75 41 45 82 83 58 60 86 88 75 74
Note: For notes on this table and a link to download the data, see Tables and Notes section above.
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
101
Table A3.3. Employment rates of tertiary-educated adults, by field of study (2024)
Percentage of employed 25-64 year-olds among all 25-64 year-olds
Arts and humanities, social
sciences, journalism and Business, administration Science, technology, engineering and
information and law mathematics (STEM) Health and welfare
Humanities
(except
languages),
social Information
sciences, Natural and Engineering, Health
journalism sciences, communication manufacturing Health (nursing and
and Business and mathematics technologies and (medical and associate
Education Arts information administration Law and statistics (ICT) construction dental) health fields) Total
OECD countries (1) (2) (3) (5) (6) (8) (9) (10) (12) (13) (15)
Australia 88 m 86 m m 86 91 91 m m 88
Austria 86 85 84 84 86 83 92 88 88 89 86
Belgium 89 m 86 m m 84 93 93 m m 89
Canada1 81 76 80 81 82 80 84 83 82 81 80
Chile1 86 85 83 84 88 84 88 85 m m 86
Colombia m m m m m m m m m m m
Costa Rica 74 58 70 55 55 77 88 83 m m 79
Czechia 87 90 87 m 89 90 95 93 91 85 88
Denmark1 90 77 86 90 92 82 87 90 x x 88
Estonia 90 90 91 87 85 89 93 90 91 93 89
Finland 89 87 89 89 91 88 90 90 96 92 89
France 89 m 82 m m 91 87 91 m m 87
Germany 88 86 85 88 88 86 91 90 89 87 89
Greece 78 m 81 m m 83 88 88 m m 82
Hungary 90 r c 70 86 c c c 74 r m c 76
Iceland m m m m m m m m m m m
Ireland1 86 x(4) 86 x(7) x(7) 87 89 95 x(14) x(14) 87
Israel m m m m m m m m m m m
Italy 84 75 83 85 86 83 86 88 m m 85
Japan m m m m m m m m m m m
Korea m m m m m m m m m m m
Latvia 86 81 86 88 89 89 87 89 94 81 88
Lithuania 89 84 93 90 94 91 93 88 95 93 90
Luxembourg 93 m 85 m m 80 87 80 m m 86
Mexico 80 81 79 81 82 78 86 85 83 79 81
Netherlands 90 90 90 92 90 89 92 92 91 91 91
New Zealand m m m m m m m m m m m
Norway 90 87 85 90 m 86 92 92 m m 89
Poland 87 91 91 92 92 91 95 94 m m 92
Portugal 92 m 91 m m 86 91 92 m m 91
Slovak Republic 91 m 90 m m 87 95 91 m m 91
Slovenia 88 88 89 91 91 93 93 94 m m 91
Spain 82 m 83 m m 85 87 87 m m 84
Sweden 91 84 89 89 86 85 93 92 90 93 90
Switzerland 90 87 87 88 88 88 91 93 90 90 89
Türkiye m m m m m m m m m m m
United Kingdom1 83 m 85 m m 83 85 87 m m 85
United States m m m m m m m m m m m
OECD average 87 m 85 m m 86 90 89 m m 87
Partner and/or accession countries
Argentina m m m m m m m m m m m
Brazil m m m m m m m m m m m
Bulgaria m m m m m m m m m m m
China m m m m m m m m m m m
Croatia 91 m 84 m m 86 94 92 m m 90
India m m m m m m m m m m m
Indonesia m m m m m m m m m m m
Peru 83 m 81 m m 80 84 88 m m 82
Romania 96 m 91 m m 92 96 90 m m 91
Saudi Arabia m m m m m m m m m m m
South Africa m m m m m m m m m m m
EU25 average 88 m 86 m m 87 91 90 m m 88
G20 average m m m m m m m m m m m
Note: For notes on this table and a link to download the data, see Tables and Notes section above.
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
102
Table A3.4. Trends in the rates for 25-34 year-olds unemployed or outside the labour force, by
educational attainment (2019 and 2024)
Rates for those outside the labour force are measured as a percentage of all 25-34 year-olds; unemployment rates
as a percentage of 25-34 year-olds in the labour force
Unemployment Outside the labour foce
Upper secondary Upper secondary
Below or post-secondary Below or post-secondary
upper secondary non-tertiary Tertiary upper secondary non-tertiary Tertiary
2019 2024 2019 2024 2019 2024 2019 2024 2019 2024 2019 2024
OECD countries (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12)
Australia 10 7 5 4 3 2 32 29 15 13 11 8
Austria 15 18 4 5 4 5 31 29 10 10 11 10
Belgium 17 17 6 9 4 4 38 36 14 15 9 7
Canada 12 15 7 8 5 6 35 35 15 15 10 9
Chile1, 2 17 12 15 11 10 6 33 28 29 24 12 8
Colombia 10 10 12 12 12 11 24 27 18 20 9 9
Costa Rica 14 9 12 8 9 8 22 27 16 20 10 14
Czechia 13 10 2 3 1 2 34 27 16 16 21 20
Denmark 10 12 6 6 7 7 37 34 16 14 9 6
Estonia 7 11 5 8 3 6 26 19 14 7 14 6
Finland 17 23 7 10 5 6 41 46 17 17 11 6
France 24 18 11 10 6 6 33 34 15 15 8 6
Germany 12 9 3 3 3 3 33 30 13 11 9 8
Greece 30 24 26 16 19 12 23 34 16 19 10 10
Hungary 11 15 3 4 2 2 34 28 16 10 14 5
Iceland1 6 6 5 4 4 2 16 15 12 12 7 8
Ireland 13 15 6 7 4 4 44 54 19 17 9 6
Israel 4 5 5 4 4 3 40 42 26 27 9 12
Italy 21 15 14 9 12 7 33 32 25 24 23 20
Japan m m m m 3d 3d m m m m 10 d 7d
Korea 6 5 7 4 6 4 34 34 29 27 19 17
Latvia 14 14 7 10 4 5 24 27 14 13 7 7
Lithuania 19 15 8 10 3 4 33 38 14 12 4 4
Luxembourg c c c c 4 5 c c 8 12 7 8
Mexico 3 3 4 4 6 4 31 31 25 24 14 13
Netherlands 7 6 4 3 3 3 27 27 11 10 6 5
New Zealand 7 8 4 5 2 3 26 27 15 14 9 7
Norway 8 7 3 7 3 3 31 26 13 11 8 7
Poland 13 9 4 4 3 2 46 40 18 14 9 6
Portugal 8 11 6 7 7 6 14 16 9 8 7 6
Slovak Republic 37 40 6 6 3 3 47 37 14 10 18 12
Slovenia 13 11 6 5 5 4 29 30 9 8 6 7
Spain 23 21 17 14 12 9 17 21 15 16 11 10
Sweden 17 19 5 7 4 5 22 17 13 13 9 8
Switzerland 10 11 5 5 4 4 23 24 9 9 6 6
Türkiye 16 11 15 10 15 11 38 41 28 27 15 18
United Kingdom3 7 9 3 4 2 3 28 32 13 14 7 7
United States1 10 9 6 6 2 3 37 34 21 21 13 11
OECD average 13 13 7 7 6 5 31 31 16 15 11 9
OECD average for
countries with available 13 13 7 7 6 5 31 31 16 15 11 9
and comparable data
for both years
Partner and/or accession countries
Argentina1 14 8 11 7 5 4 26 21 20 19 6 6
Brazil1 15 10 13 8 8 5 26 29 16 18 7 8
Bulgaria 17 18 5 5 3 2 41 42 16 15 11 8
China m m m m m m m m m m m m
Croatia c c 9 7 11 6 42 43 15 13 10 9
India 1 4 2 9 5 17 14 42 34 38 33 34 32
Indonesia1 3 3 4 4 5 5 28 29 23 26 13 15
Peru 2 4 5 m m 6 7 17 19 m m 13 14
Romania 9 18 4 5 2 2 33 45 15 16 7 6
Saudi Arabia m m m m m m m m m m m m
South Africa 43 39 33 43 21 56 31 33 24 30 12 19
EU25 average 16 16 7 7 5 5 33 33 14 13 10 8
G20 average 13 11 10 9 7 8 32 32 21 21 13 13
Note: For notes on this table and a link to download the data, see Tables and Notes section above.
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
103
Table A3.5. Unemployment rates for adults and distribution of unemployment by duration, by
educational attainment (2024)
Percentage of unemployed 25-64 year-olds among 25-64 year-olds in the labour force
Below upper secondary Upper secondary or post-secondary non-tertiary Tertiary
Distribution of unemployment Distribution of unemployment Distribution of unemployment
by its duration by its duration by its duration
3 months 3 months 3 months
Unemployment Less than to less than 12 months Unemployment Less than to less than 12 months Unemployment Less than to less than 12 months
rate 3 months 12 months or more rate 3 months 12 months or more rate 3 months 12 months or more
OECD countries (1) (2) (4) (5) (6) (7) (9) (10) (11) (12) (14) (15)
Australia 2.3 m m 39 2.1 m m 27 1.3 m m 15
Austria 11.1 30 37 34 4.2 41 36 23 3.4 39 40 20
Belgium 10.4 17 22 61 5.5 30 31 39 2.9 34 36 30
Canada 9.7 58 34 8 6.1 53 35 12 4.7 53 37 10
Chile1 8.4 88 12 1 8.1 84 15 1 5.5 76 22 2
Colombia1 10.3 m m 15 14.0 m m 19 11.6 m m 25
Costa Rica 5.9 80 15 6 6.1 61 26 13 5.4 59 21 20
Czechia 10.3 15 31 53 2.1 29 43 29 1.3 40 41 20
Denmark 6.8 34 42 25 4.3 45 38 17 4.6 36 43 21
Estonia 11.5 36 42 22 7.8 34 38 29 4.9 32 39 29
Finland 16.6 m m 30 8.2 m m 26 4.3 m m 27
France 11.0 30 34 36 6.6 38 33 29 4.4 41 36 23
Germany 6.3 26 35 39 2.6 31 35 35 2.5 37 40 24
Greece 11.7 17 27 56 11.0 14 29 58 6.9 14 29 56
Hungary 12.1 31 26 43 3.6 35 28 37 1.7 42 28 29
Iceland m m m m m m m m m m m m
Ireland 5.6 19 31 50 3.9 29 35 36 2.9 43 34 22
Israel 3.0 10 30 60 3.2 11 39 50 2.5 10 39 51
Italy 9.1 19 24 57 5.3 21 26 53 3.2 27 31 41
Japan1 m m m m m m m m 2.0 m m m
Korea 3.1 m m m 2.7 m m m 2.4 m m m
Latvia 14.0 22 33 45 8.0 27 38 36 3.9 33 40 28
Lithuania 13.9 17 33 50 9.1 22 41 37 4.1 27 46 26
Luxembourg 7.0 c c c 5.4 c c c 4.6 c 48 29
Mexico 1.7 87 11 2 2.5 79 17 3 2.9 74 23 3
Netherlands 3.2 41 32 27 2.4 49 31 21 2.4 53 31 16
New Zealand 5.1 37 m 17 3.5 45 m 14 2.3 53 m 9
Norway m 57 29 14 m 67 33 m m 62 23 15
Poland 8.1 c 34 45 3.0 27 41 32 1.3 39 42 19
Portugal 6.7 m m 50 5.7 m m 41 4.0 m m 32
Slovak Republic 36.3 3 13 85 4.0 8 29 63 1.9 18 33 49
Slovenia 5.6 17 37 46 3.5 23 35 43 1.9 28 36 36
Spain 15.6 30 30 41 10.6 34 29 37 6.3 37 32 31
Sweden 17.5 21 41 38 4.8 31 40 29 4.6 33 40 26
Switzerland 8.0 m m 45 3.3 m m 38 3.5 m m 34
Türkiye 7.3 46 36 19 8.1 40 36 24 7.5 34 39 27
United Kingdom2 4.7 27 36 38 2.8 40 33 27 2.3 48 35 17
United States1 9.9 36 39 25 7.3 37 41 22 4.0 31 42 27
OECD average 9.4 34 30 36 5.5 37 33 30 3.8 40 35 25
Partner and/or accession countries
Argentina1 8.6 m m 40 7.8 m m 46 3.1 m m 43
Brazil1 12.5 27 33 40 12.4 21 32 47 6.7 16 36 48
Bulgaria 14.3 23 22 56 3.7 24 24 52 1.6 18 30 52
China m m m m m m m m m m m m
Croatia 9.4 c c c 4.4 18 42 40 2.9 22 45 33
India m m m m m m m m m m m m
Indonesia1 1.6 38 37 25 3.2 24 38 37 3.0 21 34 45
Peru 4.0 100 m m m m m m 5.4 100 m m
Romania 12.0 16 43 41 3.0 16 47 37 1.4 23 38 39
Saudi Arabia m m m m m m m m m m m m
South Africa 46.1 m m 70 45.5 m m 72 53.2 m m 66
EU25 average 9.6 34 30 36 5.5 37 33 31 3.8 40 35 25
G20 average 10.2 35 30 39 5.8 34 34 34 3.8 39 36 28
Note: For notes on this table and a link to download the data, see Tables and Notes section above.
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
104
Chapter A4. What are the earnings
advantages to education?
Highlights
• On average across OECD countries, adults with a short-cycle tertiary degree earn 17% more than those
with upper secondary attainment. This earnings advantage rises to 39% for those with a bachelor’s degree
and 83% for those with a master’s or doctoral degree.
• For all countries with available data, the private net financial returns for a man or a woman obtaining a
bachelor's, master's, doctoral or equivalent degree are greater than from obtaining a short-cycle tertiary
degree. On average, the highest private returns for a man and a woman attaining a bachelor’s, master’s
or doctoral tertiary qualification are observed in Chile.
• On average, among adults with upper secondary or post-secondary non-tertiary attainment, those scoring
at or above Level 4 (where 5 is the highest) in numeracy proficiency in the Survey of Adult Skills (PIAAC)
– meaning that they can complete tasks requiring advanced mathematical concepts – earn 31% more than
those scoring at Level 2 (who are only able to apply basic mathematical concepts). This skills premium
rises to 40% among tertiary-educated adults.
Context
Higher levels of education are strongly associated with better employment opportunities (see Chapter A3) and
higher earnings. The expectation of greater financial returns – alongside broader social benefits – motivates
individuals to invest in education and training throughout their lives.
However, the earnings advantage of higher educational attainment is not uniform. For each country, it varies by
age, gender, programme type and field of study. Labour-market participation also plays a key role: individuals
working part time generally earn less, both in total and per hour, than their full-time counterparts. Likewise, those
with more work experience tend to earn more. Despite gains in education, gender pay gaps persist across all levels
of attainment and programme types.
Today, more young adults than ever before hold tertiary qualifications (see Chapter A1), and the expansion of
tertiary education continues. Although the labour markets in most countries have absorbed this growing supply of
highly educated workers, large differences in earnings remain, depending on the field of study. These differences
may reflect varying levels of demand for specific skills across sectors, as well as structural and cultural factors. As
economies evolve, education systems must ensure that graduates are equipped with knowledge and competencies
aligned with both labour-market needs and broader societal goals.
Earnings disparities are also shaped by broader economic and institutional factors. In some countries with a smaller
share of tertiary-educated adults, high earnings are more concentrated among this group, contributing to wider
income inequality and raising concerns about social mobility. Wage outcomes are also influenced by the interplay
of supply and demand for skills, minimum wage policies, labour-market regulation and institutional characteristics
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
105
such as the presence of trade unions, collective bargaining arrangements and the overall quality of working
conditions.
Figure A4.1. Relative earnings of tertiary-educated workers, by level of educational attainment
(2023)
25-64 year-old full-time full-year workers, upper secondary education = 100
Short-cycle tertiary Bachelor's Master's and doctoral
500
450
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
1. Year of reference differs from 2023.
2. Index 100 refers to the combined levels of upper secondary or post-secondary non-tertiary education
3. Includes part-time and part-year workers.
For data, see Table A4.1. For a link to download the data, see Tables and Notes section.
Other findings
• The returns for a man attaining a short-cycle tertiary qualification are highest in Austria and the Netherlands
while for a woman they are highest in France and Luxembourg (over USD 250 000).
• A few countries have a small share of tertiary-educated adults who enjoy high relative earnings on average
while in others tertiary attainment is more widespread and the differences in relative earnings are smaller.
A third group of countries have both a small share of tertiary-educated adults and a low earnings premium,
highlighting that there is room to improve the attractiveness of tertiary education.
• On average, women earn less than men and this is true for any educational attainment level and field of
study. Tertiary-educated women who studied business, administration and law earn between 10% and
33% less than their male peers, depending on the country. The gender gap across countries can reach
between less than 1% and to 38% among those who studied science, technology, engineering and
mathematics (STEM) fields, and between 9% and 43% for health and welfare.
Note
The analysis presents three types of relative earnings: 1) using the earnings of workers with upper secondary
education as the baseline; 2) using male workers’ earnings as the baseline; and 3) using earnings of tertiary-
educated workers from all fields of study as the baseline. In all cases, given the focus on relative earnings, any
increase or decrease in the results could reflect a change in the interest group (numerator) or in the baseline group
(denominator). Readers are advised to consider actual earnings in Tables A.A4.4 and A.A4.5 from Education at a
Glance 2025 Sources, Methodologies and Technical Notes when interpreting relative earnings
(https://doi.org/10.1787/fcfaf2d1-en).
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
106
Due to the difference in survey methods used to gather data from countries, the analysis of relative earnings is
based on full-time full-year workers to ensure better comparability across countries. Refer to Education at a Glance
2025 Sources, Methodologies and Technical Notes (https://doi.org/10.1787/fcfaf2d1-en) for more information on
the survey methods. Data on relative earnings for all workers (full- and part-time) are available for consultation on
line (http://data-explorer.oecd.org/s/4s).
Analysis
Earnings relative to those of workers with upper secondary attainment
Higher levels of educational attainment in general lead to higher earnings. The foundational skills, knowledge and
competencies provided by upper secondary education are essential in the labour market and ensure that individuals
have achieved a minimum level of literacy and numeracy, which are fundamental for most jobs. Without these basic
skills, individuals are often limited to low-paying jobs, although vocational education and training pathways can also
lead to stronger labour market outcomes, particularly when they are well aligned with employer needs and provide
access to quality jobs.
Tertiary education is key to achieving upward economic and social mobility, enabling individuals to improve their socio-
economic status through higher earnings. The in-depth knowledge and specialised skills provided by tertiary
programmes make individuals more competitive in the job market. A tertiary degree also opens up a wider range of
job opportunities, including those in professional and managerial roles, which typically offer higher salaries.
Universities and colleges also provide opportunities for students to network with their peers, professors and industry
professionals, which can lead to better job prospects and higher earnings.
The average earnings of tertiary-educated full-time full-year workers are substantially higher than those of workers
with only upper secondary attainment. This earnings premium for completing a tertiary degree is 54% on average
across OECD countries but individual countries have larger differences. The earnings advantage for tertiary-educated
workers is 25% or less in Denmark, Norway and Sweden, but over 100% in Chile and Colombia among OECD
countries and over 140% in Brazil and South Africa (Table A4.1).
Among tertiary-educated workers, the earnings advantage tends to increase with the level of attainment. In most OECD
and partner countries, full-time full-year workers with a master’s or doctoral or equivalent degree earn more than those
with a bachelor’s degree, who in turn earn more than those with a short-cycle tertiary degree. On average across
OECD countries, adults with a short-cycle tertiary degree earn 17% more than those with upper secondary attainment,
rising to 39% more for those with a bachelor’s degree and 83% more for those with a master’s or doctoral or equivalent
degree. Among OECD countries, the greatest earnings advantage over upper secondary attainment for adults with a
long tertiary degree is in Chile (128% more than the earnings of adults with upper secondary attainment for a bachelor’s
degree and 340% more for a master’s or doctoral degree) while for a short-cycle tertiary qualification the greatest
advantage is in Ireland (41% more) (Figure A4.1). The largest earnings premium among partner countries is observed
at bachelor’s level in South Africa.
Earnings advantages by educational attainment tend to increase among older workers. On average across OECD
countries, tertiary-educated 25-34 year-olds earn 39% more than their peers with upper secondary attainment while
45-54 year-olds earn 67% more. Within the levels of tertiary attainment, the earnings advantage of a short-cycle tertiary
qualification is 10% among 25-34 year-olds, compared to 20% for 45-54 year-olds on average across OECD countries.
For master’s or higher attainment, the advantage is 53% for the younger age group and 96% more for the older one
(Table A4.1. ).
Investing in education has a significant impact on earning potential and employment outcomes (see Chapter A3),
particularly when considering the type and level of tertiary qualifications attained. As more individuals pursue higher
education, understanding the economic returns of different tertiary pathways becomes increasingly important.
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
107
Box A4.1 examines the financial implications of pursuing various levels of tertiary education and highlights how these
choices shape individuals’ economic trajectories.
Box A4.1. Financial returns to education
Investing time and money in education is an investment in human capital. Better employment prospects (see
Chapter A3) and higher earnings are strong incentives for adults to pursue education and postpone employment.
Returns to education, however, are not limited to academic tertiary degrees. Vocational and professional programmes
at the upper secondary or post-secondary level can also provide strong financial incentives, especially when aligned
with labour-market needs and offering pathways to further learning or specialisation (OECD, 2020[1]).
This box provides information on the incentives for an individual to invest in education by considering three measures:
private net financial returns, internal rates of return and the benefit-cost ratio. It examines the financial consequences
for individuals from investing in tertiary education rather than entering the labour market with an upper secondary
qualification. Specifically, the benefits to tertiary education are the difference in tertiary-educated workers’ estimated
lifetime earnings from employment after paying income taxes and social contributions compared to those of individuals
who enter the labour force at the typical age for completing upper secondary education. While this analysis focuses
on returns to tertiary education, it does not capture the potentially high returns from other forms of human capital
investment, such as professional certifications or advanced vocational programmes. This analysis also accounts for
the costs of tertiary education as well as the forgone earnings while completing tertiary education (see Definitions
section). It estimates the financial returns on investment in education only up to a theoretical retirement age of 64 and
therefore does not take pensions into account (OECD, 2021[2]). Nor does it take into account either student loans or
part-time or part-year employment. In order to account for the fact that money earned tomorrow is worth less than
money today, this analysis computes the net present value (NPV) of estimated future financial flows. In the results
presented below, future financial flows are discounted at 2%.
On average across the OECD, the private net financial returns to tertiary education from a full-time full-year job are
USD 364 200 for a man and USD 300 900 for a woman. The private net financial returns to tertiary education are
higher for men than for women in most OECD countries with available data (Table A4.5, available on line). Despite
these lower returns, young women are more likely than young men to complete tertiary education (see Chapter A1).
This is partially related to the fact that the differences in earnings and employment between upper secondary and
tertiary educational attainment are higher for women than they are for men.
The highest returns for both men and women for all levels of tertiary attainment combined are in the United States,
although Chile has the highest benefit-cost ratio and internal rate of return (i.e. the discount rate that would equalise
the NPV of benefits and costs) (Table A4.5, available on line).
The returns for tertiary education can be broken down into short-cycle tertiary attainment, and bachelor's, master's
and doctoral or equivalent level. The composition of the population with qualifications at each tertiary level differs
between countries (see Chapter A1), and the mix of qualifications can have a significant effect on the financial returns
to education for tertiary education overall. For nearly all countries with available data, the private net financial returns
from obtaining a bachelor's, master's, doctoral or equivalent degree are greater than from obtaining a short-cycle
tertiary degree. Although the total costs of a higher degree tend to be larger than for a short-cycle tertiary qualification,
the total benefits accrued during individuals’ working lives compensate for the higher initial costs (Figure A4.2 and
Table A4.5, available on line).
The returns for a man attaining a short-cycle tertiary qualification are highest in Austria and the Netherlands while for
a woman they are highest in France and Luxembourg (over USD 250 000). Sometimes the earnings, employment and
cost data breakdowns by level of tertiary education are misaligned and the different data sources may suffer from
small sample sizes, especially for short-cycle tertiary attainment. This may explain the negative average figures in
some countries, for example for men in Sweden and for women in the United Kingdom. The average returns of
attaining a long tertiary qualification (bachelor’s, master’s or doctoral) are USD 394 000 for a man and USD 320 500
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
108
for a woman, with the highest returns observed in Chile for both genders (Figure A4.2 and Table A4.5, available on
line).
Figure A4.2. Private financial returns for a woman attaining a short-cycle tertiary degree or a
bachelor's or higher degree (2022)
As compared with returns to a woman attaining upper secondary education; in equivalent USD converted using
PPPs for GDP; future costs and benefits are discounted at a rate of 2%
Bachelor's, master's and doctoral Short-cycle tertiary Tertiary programmes (all combined)
700 000
600 000
500 000
400 000
300 000
200 000
100 000
-100 000
1. Year of reference differs from 2022. Refer to the OECD Data Explorer (http://data-explorer.oecd.org/s/4s) for more details.
2. Only net earnings are available, therefore calculations use these values as if they were gross earnings.
For data, see Table A4.5. For a link to download the data, see Tables and Notes section.
Calculating the financial returns of education means choosing a specific discount rate to estimate the current worth of
future financial flows. The choice of discount rate is challenging, and it makes a considerable difference when analysing
the returns to long-term investments, as is the case with investment in education. Table A4.6, available on line, shows
how the private financial returns for men and women attaining tertiary education change when three different discount
rates are used. Changing from a discount rate of 2% (assumed in the analysis above) to a rate of 3.75% reduces the
NPV for men by at least 33% in all countries with available data. If a discount rate of 8% is used, the NPV falls by over
72% in all countries. These comparisons highlight the sensitivity of the NPV results to changes in the discount rate.
Distribution of earnings among workers by educational attainment
Relative earnings by educational attainment level are not only a measure of how much the labour market rewards
further education, but also reflect broader patterns of income distribution and social inequality (OECD, 2024[3]). Higher
relative earnings for tertiary-educated adults indicate strong individual incentives to pursue education, but they can
also signal wider income inequalities, or wage dispersion – particularly when wages at the lower end of the attainment
scale remain stagnant. Although education can be a powerful equaliser, unequal access and outcomes may reinforce
existing socio-economic disparities (UNESCO, 2020[4]).
This trade-off is evident in countries where high earnings premiums coexist with greater income inequality. For
example, Chile, Colombia and Costa Rica are among the OECD countries with the highest earnings premiums for
tertiary-educated adults, as well as the highest levels of wage dispersion. Conversely, in countries with more
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
109
compressed wage structures, such as the Nordic countries, the earnings advantage of tertiary education is smaller,
but overall income inequality is also lower (Table A4.1).
A key indicator of education-related labour-market inequality is the proportion of individuals at each attainment level
who earn significantly more or less than the median. On average across OECD countries, 28% of workers with below
upper secondary attainment earn at or below half the median wage, compared to 17% of those with upper secondary
or post-secondary non-tertiary education and just 10% of tertiary-educated workers. Conversely, only 26% of workers
with below upper secondary attainment earn more than the median, compared to 42% of those with upper secondary
or post-secondary non-tertiary attainment and 68% of tertiary-educated workers (Table A4.2).
These disparities are even more pronounced at the top of the earnings distribution. On average across OECD
countries, just 3% of workers with below upper secondary attainment earn more than twice the median wage,
compared to 6% of those with upper secondary or post-secondary non-tertiary attainment and 22% of tertiary-educated
workers. Among OECD and partner countries, more than 40% of tertiary-educated 25-64 year-olds earn more than
twice the median in Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica and South Africa (Table A4.2).
Figure A4.3 compares relative earnings for tertiary graduates with tertiary attainment rates. In Brazil, Colombia and
Costa Rica, where less than 30% of adults hold a tertiary qualification, they enjoy high relative earnings. In these
countries, investing in education yields strong labour-market returns, with an earnings premium over upper secondary
attainment of 99% or more. At the other end of the spectrum are countries where tertiary attainment is more widespread
and the wage dispersion is lower, resulting in smaller relative earnings differences. This is the case in Australia,
Canada, Korea and the United Kingdom, where more than half of adults hold a tertiary qualification, but the earnings
premium is below 40% – and similarly only a small share earn over twice the median (Table A4.2). In these countries,
tertiary education has become the norm and is associated with a more equitable income distribution. In contrast, in
countries such as Italy and Romania, less than one-quarter of adults have completed tertiary education yet the
earnings premium is no more than 41%. These countries need to make efforts to strengthen the value of tertiary
qualifications in the labour market and ensure that economic conditions encourage individuals to attain a tertiary
education.
Figure A4.3. Adults' tertiary educational attainment and relative earnings (2023)
25-64 year-old adults and full-time full-year workers
Tertiary-educated workers'
earnings, upper secondary
education = 100
280
Estonia Switzerland
Brazil Colombia Spain France¹ Netherlands
260 OECD average Belgium¹
Portugal Latvia United States
240 Bulgaria¹ Lithuania¹
Peru¹ Israel¹
Costa Rica
220
Hungary Chile³ Luxembourg
200
Slovak Republic Ireland¹
EU25 average
180 Argentina United Kingdom
Austria
160 Mexico
Canada¹
Czechia
140 Slovenia² Korea
Türkiye New Zealand Finland¹
120 Romania Italy¹ Australia
Germany Poland¹ Denmark Norway Sweden
100
15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65
Tertiary educational attainment, in per cent
1. Year of reference differs from 2023.
2. Includes part-time and part-year workers.
3. Year of reference for educational attainment: 2022.
For data, see Table A4.1 and OECD Data Explorer: https://data-explorer.oecd.org/. For a link to download the data, see Tables and Notes
section.
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
110
Gender disparities in earnings
Although increasing educational attainment narrows gender differences in employment rates (see Chapter A3), the
gender gap in earnings does not vary much across educational attainment levels. On average across OECD countries,
tertiary-educated women working full time and for the full year earn 23% less than their male peers, while those with
upper secondary or post-secondary non-tertiary attainment earn 20% less and those with below upper secondary
attainment earn 21% less (Table A4.3). As women are more likely to work part time or only for part of the year than
men, the gender differences in earnings are wider among all workers than among full-time full-year workers (OECD,
2025[5]).
For all education levels, the gender gap in earnings widens with age up until age 54. Among full-time full-year 25-
34 year-old workers, young women earn between 17% and 18% less than their male peers, depending on the level of
educational attainment, while 45-54 year-old women earn between 20% and 24% less. On average, the gender gap
is between 2 and 7 percentage points wider for 45-54 year-old women than for 25-34 year-old ones. However,
differences across educational attainment levels vary by country and are relatively small on average (Table A4.3).
There is no single explanation for why the gender pay gap persists despite women outpacing men in educational
attainment (see Chapter A1). It reflects various complex factors including occupational segregation, biased hiring
practices and unequal opportunities for career advancement (World Economic Forum, 2024[6]). Women are less likely
than men to be promoted or to get substantial wage increases when they change employers. Moreover, career breaks
for women around the age of childbirth remain an important contributor to wage differences between men and women
in many OECD countries (OECD, 2022[7]) (Rabaté et al., 2021[8]). Women are more likely to seek less competitive
paths and greater flexibility at work in order to deal with their family commitments. This leads to lower earnings than
men with the same educational attainment. As a result, although there have been improvements in gender pay equality,
significant disparities still exist globally, with women often earning less than men for similar work due to ongoing
discrimination and structural biases (ILO, 2022[9]).
Differences in earnings by field of study
A tertiary degree yields better earnings, but as Figure A4.4 shows, there are substantial differences depending on the
field of study. Among the OECD countries with available data, STEM fields are most commonly associated with the
highest earnings. In the United States, having a tertiary qualification in a STEM field can be associated with earnings
that are up to 20% higher than the average. In other countries, different broad fields attract the highest relative
earnings. Denmark and Sweden have the highest earnings premium for business, administration and law compared
to other fields (19% more) while Slovenia is the country where health and welfare offers the greatest relative increase
(28% more). The lowest earnings tend to be associated with qualifications in the fields of arts and humanities and of
education (Table A4.4. ).
Figures on relative earnings by field of study provide important insights into the labour-market outcomes of graduates,
but they should be interpreted with caution. One key limitation is that these figures do not necessarily reflect earnings
within the same field of work. Although graduates from STEM fields are more likely to work in STEM-related
occupations, this is less true for other disciplines. For example, education-related jobs are often filled by individuals
with degrees in a wide range of subjects – including humanities, social sciences and languages – especially teachers
in primary and lower secondary (OECD, 2022[10]).
The high relative earnings associated with some fields of study may relate to a potential mismatch between the supply
of current graduates and labour-market needs. With rapid digitalisation, the relatively high earnings associated with an
information and communication technologies (ICT) degree may reflect the imbalance between strong labour-market
demand for ICT workers and the very small share of graduates who studied this field (see Chapter A1). However,
labour-market demand could be met by exploring other skills that may substitute for the lack of an ICT degree. For
example, using job posting data, a recent study suggests that tertiary-educated workers who had studied engineering
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
111
or business management have technical skills that are suitable for filling vacancies in some ICT occupations (Brüning
and Mangeol, 2020[11]).
Figure A4.4. Relative earnings of tertiary-educated adults, by field of study (2023)
25-64 year-old full-time full-year workers, percentage difference from average earnings (all fields)
Science, Technology, Engineering et Mathematics (STEM) Arts and humanities, social sciences, journalism and information
Business, administration and law Health and welfare
40
30
20
10
-10
-20
-30
1. Year of reference differs from 2023.
For data, see Table A4.4. For a link to download the data, see Tables and Notes section.
Disaggregating earnings advantages by narrower fields of study helps to highlight the differences that may exist within
a broader field. In the OECD countries with available data, the differences in earnings across the individual STEM
fields are quite small except in Estonia and Latvia, where they are primarily driven by higher employment rates for
those with a degree in information and communication technologies (ICT). However, there are wide differences within
the broad field of health and welfare. Although average relative earnings overall are often modest, this masks
significant variation between the subfields of medical and dental, and nursing and associate health fields (Table A4.4).
Moreover, relative earnings by field of study are closely intertwined with gender patterns in higher education and the
labour market. Medical degrees typically lead to high-earning careers as medical doctors, while nursing degrees, more
commonly pursued by women, often lead to lower-paid positions ( (OECD, 2021[2]); (OECD, 2023[12])). In countries
with strong occupational segregation, such differences may amplify gender wage gaps and influence perceptions of
the value of certain fields.
Across OECD countries with available data, tertiary-educated women who studied business, administration and law
earn between 10% (Costa Rica) and 33% (Latvia) less than their male peers (Figure A4.5). The gender gap ranges
between less than 1% (Costa Rica) to 38% (Germany) for those with a STEM background and between 9%
(the United Kingdom) and 43% (Estonia) for those who studied health and welfare. Women who studied arts,
humanities, social sciences, journalism and information earn less than their male peers (up to 29% less in Portugal)
in all OECD countries with the exception of Costa Rica, where they earn 27% more).
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
112
Figure A4.5. Tertiary-educated women's relative earnings, by field of study (2023)
25-64 year-old full-time full-year workers; percentage difference between women's and men's earnings
Science, Technology, Engineering et Mathematics (STEM) Arts and humanities, social sciences, journalism and information
Business, administration and law Health and welfare
40
30
20
10
0
-10
-20
-30
-40
-50
1. Year of reference differs from 2023.
For a link to download the data, see Tables and Notes section.
Differences in relative earnings by level of educational attainment or field of study are metrics based on that both
attainment and fields of study are proxies for skill levels and, in this case, for how well people with different skills do
on the labour market. The newly-published data from the Survey of Adult Skills, a product of the OECD Programme
for the International Assessment of Adult Competencies (PIAAC) (OECD, 2024[13]) sheds light on earnings differences
by skill levels (Box A4.2).
Box A4.2. Earnings by numeracy proficiency levels
Skills enable adults to perform tasks more efficiently, contributing to higher productivity and, in turn, higher wages. The
link between skills and earnings is well established in economic theory and supported by empirical evidence. According
to standard microeconomic theory, wages reflect workers’ productivity; individuals with higher skills are therefore
expected to earn more. The first cycle of the Survey of Adult Skills (administered in 2012-17) confirmed this
relationship, showing that proficiency in literacy and numeracy is positively associated with wages, even after
accounting for formal educational attainment.
Although education and skills are correlated – education develops skills and individuals with greater skills tend to
pursue more education – attainment in formal education fails to capture differences in programme quality and individual
skill differences within levels. Moreover, returns to education may reflect not only skills but also other factors such as
signalling, screening or access to restricted opportunities (OECD, 2024[13]).
Further analysis of PIAAC data has shown that while the earnings premium associated with formal education tends to
decline with educational expansion, the association between skills and wages remains robust (Araki, 2020[14]). Skills
also become more important later in life, as employers shift from relying on educational credentials to observing actual
performance – a process known as employer learning (Hanushek et al., 2015[15]).
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
113
Findings from the 2023 Survey of Adult Skills suggests that the effects of educational attainment are greater than those
of information-processing skills, although both remain positively associated with wages. This may be because formal
qualifications reflect not just cognitive skills but also a broader set of competencies, including social and emotional
attributes like perseverance and conscientiousness (OECD, 2024[13]).
The OECD average monthly earnings for 25-64 year-old adults with below upper secondary education range from
USD 3 100 for those scoring at or below Level 1 in numeracy proficiency (those who are not able to tasks involving
the application of basic mathematical concepts) to USD 4 200 for those at Level 3 (those who are able to complete
tasks involving more advanced mathematical reasoning). For those with upper secondary or post-secondary non-
tertiary education, average earnings range from about USD 3 300 (at or below Level 1) to USD 4 900 (at or above
Level 4, which includes those who are able to complete tasks involving problem-solving with intricate mathematical
information) while for tertiary-educated adults the range is between USD 4 000 and USD 6 400 by skill level. Compared
with 25-64 year-olds with upper secondary or post-secondary non-tertiary attainment, adults with below upper
secondary education earn between 4% less (Level 3) and 8% less (at or below Level 2), while tertiary-educated adults
earn between 23% more (at or below Level 1) and 34% more (at or above Level 4) (Table A4.7, available on line).
On average across OECD countries and economies with available data, high performers in numeracy (at or above
Level 4) earn 31% more than those with proficiency Level 2 among those with upper secondary or post-secondary
non-tertiary attainment and 40% more among those with tertiary education. Among tertiary-educated adults with high
proficiency levels, the highest relative earnings are in Estonia and Japan, with an earnings premium of at least 70%.
The lowest are recorded in Korea, the Slovak Republic and the United States, with 20% or less (Figure A4.6).
At the other end of the spectrum, low performers in numeracy (at or below Level 1) earn on average 14% less than
those with Level 2 proficiency among those with a tertiary education, 13% less among those with upper secondary or
post-secondary non-tertiary attainment and 10% less among those with below upper secondary education
(Figure A4.6).
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
114
Figure A4.6. Adults’ relative earnings, by numeracy skills proficiency level and educational
attainment (2023)
Survey of Adult Skills; earnings of adults with proficiency skill Level 2 = 100; 25-64 year-olds
Below upper secondary
1 and below
180
160
140
120
100 Proficiency skill level 2 = 100
80
60
Upper secondary or post-secondary non-tertiary
1 and below 4 and above
180
160
140
120
100 Proficiency skill level 2 = 100
80
60
Tertiary
1 and below 4 and above
180
160
140
120
100 Proficiency skill level 2 = 100
80
60
For data, see Table A4.7, available on line. For a link to download the data, see Tables and Notes section.
Definitions
Adults refer to 25-64 year-olds; young adults refer to 25-34 year-olds. The analysis on financial returns to education
considers the net present value of earnings over the lifetime of an individual limited to ages 16-64.
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
115
The benefit-cost ratio is total benefits relative to total costs, representing the financial benefits of attaining an
additional level of education for each USD invested in it.
Direct costs are the direct expenditure on education per student during the time spent in school. Direct costs of
education do not include student loans. Private direct costs are the total expenditure by households on education.
They include net payments to educational institutions as well as payments for educational goods and services outside
of educational institutions (school supplies, tutoring, etc.). Forgone earnings are the net earnings an individual not in
education can expect.
Earnings include annual money earnings as direct payment for labour services provided, before taxes, plus work-
related payments such as annual bonuses, result-related bonuses, extra pay for holidays and sick-leave pay from
employer(s). Earnings do not include income from other sources, such as government social transfers, investment
income, net increase in value of an owner operated business and any other income not directly related to work.
Educational attainment refers to the highest level of education successfully completed by an individual.
Fields of study are categorised according to the ISCED fields of education and training (ISCED-F 2013). See the
Reader’s Guide for full listing of the ISCED fields used in this report.
Individuals with zero earnings refer to individuals who have earnings, but the result of their business activities is
exactly zero.
Individuals with negative earnings refer to individuals who reported deficits in their business activities.
Gross earnings benefits are the discounted sum of earnings premiums over the course of a working-age life
associated with a higher level of education. The income tax effect is the discounted sum of additional levels of income
tax paid by the private individual over the course of a working-age life associated with a higher level of education. The
social contribution effect is the discounted sum of additional employee social contributions paid by the private
individual over the course of a working-age life and associated with a higher level of education.
The internal rate of return is the (hypothetical) real interest rate equalising the costs and benefits related to the
educational investment. It can be interpreted as the interest rate an individual can expect to receive every year during
a working-age life on the investment made on a higher level of education.
Levels of education: See the Reader’s Guide at the beginning of this publication for a presentation of all International
Standard Classification of Education (ISCED) 2011 levels.
Net financial returns are the net present value of the financial investment in education, the difference between the
discounted financial benefits and the discounted financial cost of education, representing the additional value that
education produces over and above the 2% real interest that is charged on these cash flows.
Methodology
The analysis of relative earnings of the population with specific educational attainment and of the distribution of
earnings does not control for hours worked, although the number of hours worked is likely to influence earnings in
general and the distribution in particular. For the definition of full-time earnings, countries were asked whether they
had applied a self-designated full-time status or a threshold value for the typical number of hours worked per week.
Earnings data are based on an annual, monthly or weekly reference period, depending on the country. This chapter
presents annual data, and earnings data with a reference period shorter than a year are adjusted. Please refer to
Table A.A4.1 in Education at a Glance 2025 Sources, Methodologies and Technical Notes, for more information on
the adjustment methods (https://doi.org/10.1787/fcfaf2d1-en). Data on earnings are before income tax for most
countries. Earnings of self-employed people are excluded for many countries and, in general, there is no simple and
comparable method to separate earnings from employment and returns to capital invested in a business.
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
116
This chapter does not take into consideration the impact of effective income from free government services. Therefore,
although incomes could be lower in some countries than in others, the state could be providing both free health care
and free schooling, for example. The total average for earnings (men plus women) is not the simple average of the
earnings figures for men and women. Instead, it is the average based on earnings of the total population. This overall
average weights the average earnings separately for men and women by the share of men and women with different
levels of educational attainment.
In the earnings data, individuals with zero and/or negative earnings should be reported as earners. Individuals with
negative earnings should also be considered in the calculation of the overall median earnings. However, data on
individuals with zero and/or negative earnings are not available for all countries. Individuals with zero earnings are
included for Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Germany, Ireland, New Zealand, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, the Republic of
Türkiye and the United States. Individuals with negative earnings are included for Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Italy,
New Zealand, Norway, Spain, Sweden and the United States. Refer to the Definitions section for the definition of
individuals with zero and negative earnings. Note that the share of both zero and negative earners are very low among
full-time full-year workers in countries with available data, and this finding holds true when looking at the breakdown
by educational attainment levels. The impact of the inclusion/exclusion of zero and/or negative earners is negligible
on the relative earnings and the distribution of earnings.
For more information see the OECD Handbook for Internationally Comparative Education Statistics (OECD, 2018[16])
and Education at a Glance 2025 Sources, Methodologies and Technical Notes ((https://doi.org/10.1787/fcfaf2d1-en).
In calculating the returns to education in Box A4.1, the approach taken here is the net present value (NPV) of the
investment. To allow direct comparisons of costs and benefits, the NPV expresses the present value for cash transfers
happening at different times. In this framework, costs and benefits during a working-age life are transferred back to
the start of the investment. This is done by discounting all cash flows back to the beginning of the investment with a
fixed interest rate (discount rate). The model assumes that tax rates and social contribution rates remain at today's
values. Similarly, earnings and employment rates by age and educational attainment are assumed to remain at the
most recent observed values.
Source
This chapter is based on the data collection on education and earnings by the OECD Network for data development
on labour market, economic and social outcomes of education (LSO Network). The data collection takes account of
earnings for individuals working full time and for the full year, as well as part time or part of the year, during the
reference period. This database contains data on dispersion of earnings from work and on student earnings versus
non-student earnings. The source for most countries is national household surveys such as Labour Force Surveys,
the European Union Statistics on Income and Living Conditions (EU-SILC), or other dedicated surveys collecting data
on earnings. About one-quarter of countries use data from tax or other registers. See Education at a Glance 2025
Sources, Methodologies and Technical Notes, for country-specific notes on national sources
((https://doi.org/10.1787/fcfaf2d1-en). Various sources have been used for Box A4.1 on financial returns to education:
• The source for the direct costs of education is the joint data collection by UNESCO, the OECD and Eurostat
(UOE) on finance (year of reference 2022 unless otherwise specified in the tables). The data on gross
earnings are based on the earnings data collection by the OECD Network for data development on labour
market, economic and social outcomes of education (LSO Network), which compiles data from national
Labour Force Surveys (LFS), the EU Statistics on Income and Living Conditions (EU-SILC), Structure of
Earnings Surveys, and other national registers and surveys. Earnings are age, gender and attainment-level
specific.
• Income tax data are computed using the OECD Taxing Wages model, which determines the level of taxes
based on a given level of income. This model computes the level of the tax wedge on income for several
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
117
household composition scenarios. For this indicator, a single worker with no children is used. For country-
specific details on income tax in this model, see Taxing Wages 2025 (OECD, 2025[17]).
• Employee social contributions are computed using the OECD Taxing Wages model scenario of a single
worker aged 40 with no children. For country-specific details on employee social contributions in this model,
see Taxing Wages 2025 (OECD, 2025[17]).
Data on proficiency levels and mean scores are based on the Survey of Adult Skills (PIAAC) (2012 and 2023). PIAAC
is the OECD Programme for the International Assessment of Adult Competencies.
References
Araki, S. (2020), “Educational expansion, skills diffusion, and the economic value of credentials and skills”, [14]
American Sociological Review, Vol. 85/1, pp. 128-175, https://doi.org/10.1177/0003122419897873.
Brüning, N. and P. Mangeol (2020), “What skills do employers seek in graduates?: Using online job posting [11]
data to support policy and practice in higher education”, OECD Education Working Papers, No. 231,
OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/bf533d35-en.
Hanushek, E. et al. (2015), “Returns to skills around the world: Evidence from PIAAC”, European Economic [15]
Review, Vol. 73, pp. 103-130, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euroecorev.2014.10.006.
ILO (2022), Global Wage Report 2022-23: The Impact of Inflation and COVID-19 on Wages and Purchasing [9]
Power, International Labour Organization, Geneva, https://doi.org/10.54394/ZLFG5119.
OECD (2025), Education and earnings, OECD Data Explorer, http://data-explorer.oecd.org/s/4s. [5]
OECD (2025), Taxing Wages 2025: Decomposition of Personal Income Taxes and the Role of Tax Reliefs, [17]
OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/b3a95829-en.
OECD (2024), Do Adults Have the Skills They Need to Thrive in a Changing World?: Survey of Adult Skills [13]
2023, OECD Skills Studies, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/b263dc5d-en.
OECD (2024), Education at a Glance 2024: OECD Indicators, OECD Publishing, Paris, [3]
https://doi.org/10.1787/c00cad36-en.
OECD (2023), Health at a Glance 2023: OECD Indicators, https://doi.org/10.1787/7a7afb35-en. [12]
OECD (2022), Education at a Glance 2022: OECD Indicators, OECD Publishing, Paris, [10]
https://doi.org/10.1787/3197152b-en.
OECD (2022), “Same skills, different pay: Tackling gender inequalities at firm level”, Policy Brief, OECD, [7]
Paris, https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/same-skills-different-pay_a4d18506-en.html.
OECD (2021), Education at a Glance 2021: OECD Indicators, OECD Publishing, Paris, [2]
https://doi.org/10.1787/b35a14e5-en.
OECD (2020), Education at a Glance 2020: OECD Indicators, OECD Publishing, Paris, [1]
https://doi.org/10.1787/69096873-en.
OECD (2018), OECD Handbook for Internationally Comparative Education Statistics 2018: Concepts, [16]
Standards, Definitions and Classifications, OECD Publishing, Paris,
https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264304444-en.
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
118
Rabaté, S. et al. (2021), “The Child Penalty in the Netherlands and its Determinants The Child Penalty in [8]
the Netherlands and its Determinants *”, https://doi.org/10.34932/trkz-qh66.
UNESCO (2020), Global Education Monitoring Report 2020: Inclusion and Education: All Means All, United [4]
Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, Paris, https://doi.org/10.54676/jjnk6989.
World Economic Forum (2024), Global Gender Gap Report 2024, World Economic Forum, [6]
https://www.weforum.org/publications/global-gender-gap-report-2024/ (accessed on 10 June 2025).
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
119
Tables and Notes
Chapter A4 Tables
Table A4.1. Relative earnings of workers compared to those with upper secondary attainment, by educational attainment and age group
(2023)
Table A4.2. Distribution of workers by educational attainment and level of earnings relative to the median (2023)
Table A4.3. Women’s earnings as a percentage of men's earnings, by educational attainment and age group (2023)
Table A4.4. Relative earnings of tertiary-educated adults, by field of study (2023)
WEB Table A4.5. Private costs and benefits for a man or a women attaining tertiary education, by level of education (2022)
WEB Table A4.6. Net financial returns for a man and a woman attaining tertiary education, by discount rate (2022)
WEB Table A4.7. Monthly earnings including bonuses for wage and salary earners and self-employed by educational attainment and
numeracy proficiency level (2023)
StatLink 2 https://stat.link/x78130
Data Download
To download the data for the figures and tables in this chapter, click StatLink above.
To access further data and/or other education indicators, please visit the OECD Data Explorer: https://data-
explorer.oecd.org/.
Data cut-off for the print publication 13 June 2025. Please note that the Data Explorer contains the most recent
data.
Notes for Tables
Table A4.1. Relative earnings of workers compared to those with upper secondary attainment, by educational
attainment and age group (2023)
Note: There are cross-country differences in the inclusion/exclusion of zero and negative earners. Columns showing
data on relative earnings for workers with upper secondary attainment, and for 45-54 year-olds are available for
consultation on line.
1. Year of reference 2022.
2. Index 100 refers to the combined levels of upper secondary or post-secondary non-tertiary education (levels
3 and 4 in the ISCED 2011 classification).
3. Includes part-time and part-year workers.
4. Earnings net of income tax for Türkiye and a combination of gross (self-employed) and net (employees)
earnings for Argentina.
Table A4.2. Distribution of workers by educational attainment and level of earnings relative to the median
(2023)
Note: There are cross-country differences in the inclusion/exclusion of zero and negative earners. For a given level of
educational attainment, the figures by level of earnings relative to median earnings may not add up to 100% because
of missing data. Columns showing data broken down by gender are available for consultation on line.
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
120
1. Year of reference: 2022.
2. Earnings net of income tax for Türkiye and a combination of gross (self-employed) and net (employees)
earnings for Argentina.
Table A4.3. Women’s earnings as a percentage of men's earnings, by educational attainment and age group
(2023)
Note: There are cross-country differences in the inclusion/exclusion of zero and negative earners. Columns showing
data for other age groups are available for consultation on line.
1. Year of reference: 2022.
2. Includes part-time and part-year workers.
3. Earnings net of income tax for Türkiye and a combination of gross (self-employed) and net (employees)
earnings for Argentina.
Table A4.4. Relative earnings of tertiary-educated adults, by field of study (2023)
Note: Cross-country differences in the inclusion/exclusion of zero and negative earners. See Methodology section for
more information. Columns showing data for the categories Total and more data breakdowns are available for
consultation on line.
1. Year of reference differs from 2023: 2022 for Finland, 2020 for Australia, Canada, Germany, Portugal,
Slovenia and the United Kingdom.
2. Earnings refer to academic programmes only.
3. Arts and humanities, social sciences, journalism and information does not include the subfield of Languages.
Control codes
a – category not applicable; b – break in series; c – there are too few observations to provide reliable estimates; d –
contains data from another column; m – missing data; r – values are below a certain reliability threshold and should
be interpreted with caution x – contained in another column (indicated in brackets). For further control codes, see the
Reader’s Guide.
For further methodological information, see Education at a Glance 2025: Sources, Methodologies and Technical Notes
(https://doi.org/10.1787/fcfaf2d1-en)
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
121
Table A4.1. Relative earnings of workers compared to those with upper secondary attainment, by
educational attainment and age group (2023)
Adults with income from employment (full-time full-year workers); upper secondary attainment for each age
group = 100
Tertiary
Post-secondary Master's, doctoral
Below upper secondary non-tertiary Short-cycle tertiary Bachelor's or equivalent or equivalent Total
25-34 25-64 25-34 25-64 25-34 25-64 25-34 25-64 25-34 25-64 25-34 25-64
year-olds year-olds year-olds year-olds year-olds year-olds year-olds year-olds year-olds year-olds year-olds year-olds
OECD countries (1) (3) (7) (9) (10) (12) (13) (15) (16) (18) (19) (21)
Australia 95 97 108 106 98 107 120 130 118 145 116 129
Austria 84 78 119 115 111 126 112 105 136 169 121 143
Belgium1 c 82 c c c c 116 121 140 153 129 137
Canada1 88 85 124 114 112 113 135 148 145 170 129 139
Chile 84 76 a a 114 123 197 228 263 440 176 212
Colombia2 72 70 m m m m m m m m 205 250
Costa Rica 84 81 c c 135 128 191 199 c 317 182 199
Czechia 83 79 m m 97 107 123 132 143 170 135 160
Denmark 93 91 c 123 102 108 109 112 128 141 116 122
Estonia 78 85 93 93 m 94 123 137 151 156 135 142
Finland1 100 100 112 117 c 122 113 122 143 166 124 140
France1, 2 c 86 m m 120 129 118 146 169 198 144 160
Germany 74 73 139 122 123 122 133 142 146 176 135 150
Greece m m m m m m m m m m m m
Hungary 78 77 117 124 109 122 132 148 172 210 150 173
Iceland m m m m m m m m m m m m
Ireland1 c 90 103 99 c 141 151 156 196 188 168 165
Israel1 77 78 a a 103 105 145 154 142 183 135 153
Italy1, 2 95 81 m m m m 118 105 129 141 125 133
Japan m m m m m m m m m m m m
Korea 109 84 a a 104 110 116 133 152 176 114 131
Latvia 62 84 86 r 96 96 123 133 143 156 172 135 154
Lithuania1 88 93 100 104 a a 145 149 171 187 152 169
Luxembourg 79 75 c 115 115 125 143 143 157 162 151 155
Mexico 85 r 81 r a a c c 143 r 149 r c 222 r 145 r 156 r
Netherlands 91 86 114 110 109 129 119 129 142 168 129 145
New Zealand 99 91 104 101 110 110 123 131 119 146 121 132
Norway 84 86 106 99 104 118 99 106 115 133 106 118
Poland1 89 86 98 103 a a 133 142 139 158 137 154
Portugal 87 84 115 114 119 113 m m m m 158 174
Slovak Republic 2 92 84 m m 106 124 115 125 129 158 127 154
Slovenia3 85 83 a a 113 129 125 136 151 179 133 157
Spain 90 82 c 96 r 116 111 139 140 168 176 145 149
Sweden 91 86 96 113 104 108 107 115 124 143 112 125
Switzerland 2 83 82 m m x(13, 16) x(15, 18) 127 d 134 d 144 d 167 d 135 150
Türkiye2, 4 81 77 a a m m m m m m 133 149
United Kingdom2 57 72 a a 106 107 128 137 157 154 135 138
United States 100 79 m m 111 113 157 164 195 218 157 171
OECD average 85 83 106 109 109 117 131 139 151 183 138 154
Partner and/or accession countries
Argentina 4 90 87 a a 126 130 157 175 240 246 151 163
Brazil2 77 74 a a m m m m m m 213 248
Bulgaria1 63 71 c 117 r a a 133 144 173 191 151 176
China m m m m m m m m m m m m
Croatia m m m m m m m m m m m m
India m m m m m m m m m m m m
Indonesia m m m m m m m m m m m m
Peru 1, 2 76 73 m m m m m m m m 146 167
Romania 96 91 123 124 m m m m m m 138 141
Saudi Arabia m m m m m m m m m m m m
South Africa 60 r 54 r c 203 r c c c 320 r c c 294 r 351 r
EU25 average 85 84 m 111 110 120 126 133 151 170 137 151
G20 average m m m m m m m m m m m m
Note: For notes on this table and a link to download the data, see Tables and Notes section above.
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
122
Table A4.2. Distribution of workers by educational attainment and level of earnings relative to the
median (2023)
Median earnings from work for 25-64 year-olds with income from employment (full- and part-time workers)
Below upper secondary Upper secondary or post-secondary non-tertiary Tertiary
More More More
More More than 1.5 More More than 1.5 More More than 1.5
than than the times the than than the times the than than the times the
half the median median half the median median half the median median
At or median but at or but at or More At or median but at or but at or More At or median but at or but at or More
below but at or below 1.5 below than below but at or below 1.5 below than below but at or below 1.5 below than
half the below the times the twice the twice the half the below the times the twice the twice the half the below the times the twice the twice the
median median median median median median median median median median median median median median median
OECD countries (1) (4) (7) (10) (13) (16) (19) (22) (25) (28) (31) (34) (37) (40) (43)
Australia 19 46 22 7 6 17 44 23 10 7 12 32 27 15 13
Austria 30 46 19 3 1 17 33 31 12 7 13 20 22 20 26
Belgium 28 52 17 2 1 16 48 28 6 3 7 26 38 17 12
Canada1 38 31 19 8 5 29 29 22 10 10 22 22 21 16 19
Chile 29 50 15 4 2 16 44 22 9 8 6 18 19 16 42
Colombia 44 35 13 6 2 23 31 26 14 6 7 13 15 22 43
Costa Rica 25 46 23 4 2 17 37 30 10 7 6 12 22 14 47
Czechia 14 64 18 3 1 6 52 32 8 3 2 21 39 18 20
Denmark 33 38 23 4 2 17 38 33 8 4 14 26 37 13 10
Estonia 23 45 21 6 5 20 40 23 9 8 13 23 27 16 20
Finland1 31 38 22 6 4 20 41 29 7 3 12 24 33 17 15
France1 33 38 22 5 3 20 33 32 9 5 10 16 30 20 25
Germany 44 40 13 2 2 19 41 28 7 4 12 21 29 18 20
Greece m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m
Hungary 27 54 15 3 1 9 48 28 10 6 4 21 31 17 28
Iceland m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m
Ireland1 36 33 18 7 7 24 35 24 9 9 14 20 20 19 27
Israel1 27 47 18 5 3 20 41 21 9 9 11 23 24 15 27
Italy1 28 37 24 7 4 19 31 29 12 9 12 23 28 17 20
Japan m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m
Korea 22 56 19 c c 11 50 29 7 3 6 33 34 14 13
Latvia 26 46 20 c c 15 49 22 8 5 5 29 29 16 21
Lithuania1 20 51 21 6 2 17 48 23 8 4 12 22 25 18 22
Luxembourg 34 54 c c c 16 46 24 9 c 5 19 28 26 21
Mexico 28 39 22 7 5 16 r 34 r 29 r 10 r 11 r 7r 16 r 29 r 16 r 32 r
Netherlands 32 37 23 6 2 21 37 26 11 5 12 21 28 19 19
New Zealand 26 37 26 7 5 22 34 27 10 8 15 24 27 16 18
Norway 53 30 13 3 1 24 37 28 8 4 17 24 37 13 10
Poland1 0 74 19 4 2 0 61 26 8 4 0 30 35 16 19
Portugal 9 57 24 6 3 7 46 30 9 8 3 15 27 20 36
Slovak Republic 27 45 21 5 2 m m m m m 9 16 27 22 27
Slovenia 9 71 17 2 1 6 56 29 7 3 3 24 31 22 20
Spain 28 42 22 5 3 22 36 23 9 9 12 22 21 17 27
Sweden 25 46 23 4 1 16 37 34 9 4 13 25 37 15 10
Switzerland 27 54 17 1 c 21 42 30 5 2 9 23 34 19 15
Türkiye2 28 50 17 3 2 17 40 26 11 7 12 19 24 23 23
United Kingdom 18 58 18 3 2 14 51 25 6 4 7 34 32 14 13
United States 42 42 11 2 2 25 42 19 7 6 12 24 22 16 25
OECD average 28 47 19 5 3 17 42 27 9 6 10 22 28 17 22
Partner and/or accession countries
Argentina 2 35 34 18 7 5 24 34 25 8 8 12 20 22 18 28
Brazil 57 25 10 4 3 35 29 17 8 11 17 11 14 12 45
Bulgaria1 43 38 13 4 1 18 38 24 11 9 7 20 19 19 36
China m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m
Croatia m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m
India m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m
Indonesia m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m
Peru1 48 18 16 9 9 34 14 20 14 18 26 8 14 12 40
Romania c 73 20 7 c 0 59 29 11 0 c 18 34 46 2
Saudi Arabia m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m
South Africa 35 r 40 r 12 r 5r 8r 13 r 29 r 14 r 7r 37 r 3r 6r 4r 5r 83 r
EU25 average 26 49 20 5 2 15 43 28 9 5 9 22 29 19 21
G20 average m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m
Note: For notes on this table and a link to download the data, see Tables and Notes section above.
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
123
Table A4.3. Women’s earnings as a percentage of men's earnings, by educational attainment and
age group (2023)
Average earnings of adults with income from employment (full-time full-year workers)
Below upper secondary Upper secondary or post-secondary non-tertiary Tertiary
25-64 year-olds 25-34 year-olds 45-54 year-olds 25-64 year-olds 25-34 year-olds 45-54 year-olds 25-64 year-olds 25-34 year-olds 45-54 year-olds
OECD countries (1) (2) (4) (6) (7) (9) (11) (12) (14)
Australia 89 100 92 83 85 85 86 92 88
Austria 80 82 80 85 85 81 77 86 79
Belgium1 78 r c c 81 92 r 76 r 85 91 88
Canada1 73 74 77 72 71 73 77 84 76
Chile 83 83 82 79 84 74 73 85 69
Colombia 86 82 88 85 89 83 80 87 75
Costa Rica 84 93 80 85 89 78 92 77 95
Czechia 85 91 82 84 84 82 74 80 70
Denmark 81 79 80 80 79 78 78 86 74
Estonia 75 82 66 73 71 72 77 82 77
Finland1 81 88 78 79 83 75 76 85 72
France1 80 c 82 79 81 76 73 82 67
Germany 79 c c 81 78 84 74 88 61
Greece m m m m m m m m m
Hungary 87 93 86 86 85 86 68 75 64
Iceland m m m m m m m m m
Ireland1 71 c c 89 98 r 91 68 78 75
Israel1 65 c c 69 68 64 68 64 72
Italy1 80 79 81 84 87 83 76 85 74
Japan m m m m m m m m m
Korea 75 c 75 75 85 70 74 88 70
Latvia 64 c c 71 60 80 71 67 67
Lithuania1 84 81 79 83 80 81 80 82 79
Luxembourg 79 c 77 91 89 97 82 90 83
Mexico 79 r 79 r 78 r 79 r 78 r 83 r 82 r 86 r 76 r
Netherlands 87 100 80 85 87 86 82 90 88
New Zealand 82 80 86 81 78 83 80 89 74
Norway 83 84 80 79 78 78 77 86 76
Poland1 76 77 74 78 77 76 72 76 70
Portugal 82 90 78 79 85 75 73 80 72
Slovak Republic 79 89 81 79 79 78 75 81 72
Slovenia2 85 86 84 85 82 85 82 79 83
Spain 76 77 75 79 83 79 81 88 79
Sweden 85 85 83 83 84 81 80 86 76
Switzerland 84 91 84 85 92 83 82 92 84
Türkiye3 73 76 74 78 79 78 81 88 83
United Kingdom 73 65 69 75 70 80 80 80 81
United States 72 57 85 77 82 75 75 79 69
OECD average 79 83 80 80 82 80 77 83 76
Partner and/or accession countries
Argentina3 55 55 51 72 71 79 75 75 78
Brazil 75 78 71 71 79 65 68 73 68
Bulgaria 1 99 90 r 93 85 88 81 78 64 84
China m m m m m m m m m
Croatia m m m m m m m m m
India m m m m m m m m m
Indonesia m m m m m m m m m
Peru1 66 58 69 73 71 65 78 82 78
Romania 83 81 84 88 87 89 93 88 94
Saudi Arabia m m m m m m m m m
South Africa 69 r c 67 r 78 r 79 r 75 r 76 r c c
EU25 average 81 85 80 82 83 81 77 82 76
G20 average m m m m m m m m m
Note: For notes on this table and a link to download the data, see Tables and Notes section above.
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
124
Table A4.4. Relative earnings of tertiary-educated adults, by field of study (2023)
25-64 year-olds with income from employment (full-time full-year workers); all fields = 100
Arts and humanities, social
sciences, journalism and Business, Science, Technology, Engineering
information administration and law et Mathematics (STEM) Health and welfare
Health
Social (nursing
sciences, Natural Information and Engineering, and
Humanities journalism sciences, communication manufacturing Health associate
(except and Business and mathematics technologies and (medical health Other
Education Arts languages) information administration Law and statistics (ICT) construction and dental) fields) fields
OECD countries (1) (2) (3) (4) (6) (7) (9) (10) (11) (13) (14) (16)
Australia1 88 m m 96 m m 103 99 110 m m 84
Austria 83 m m 94 m m 102 106 100 m m 76
Belgium m m m m m m m m m m m m
Canada1 85 74 91 98 110 141 105 108 109 120 88 84
Chile 70 m m 112 m m 125 r 106 120 m m 73
Colombia m m m m m m m m m m m m
Costa Rica 107 71 53 101 91 99 138 118 100 m m 79
Czechia m m m m m m m m m m m m
Denmark 81 m m 107 m m 111 105 110 m m 92
Estonia 83 76 84 112 95 105 105 167 95 178 91 88
Finland1 85 81 88 106 100 146 103 113 116 166 78 90
France m m m m m m m m m m m m
Germany1, 2 73 68 71 81 105 108 97 96 120 139 117 78
Greece m m m m m m m m m m m m
Hungary m m m m m m m m m m m m
Iceland m m m m m m m m m m m m
Ireland m m m m m m m m m m m m
Israel m m m m m m m m m m m m
Italy m m m m m m m m m m m m
Japan m m m m m m m m m m m m
Korea 92 84 86 100 m m 106 106 110 m m 86
Latvia 74 75 108 100 110 98 93 167 105 110 102 84
Lithuania m m m m m m m m m m m m
Luxembourg 99 65 108 95 102 118 94 102 97 m m 90
Mexico 84 93 93 93 108 97 109 101 106 119 90 88
Netherlands m m m m m m m m m m m m
New Zealand m m m m m m m m m m m m
Norway 78 78 85 107 110 114 111 107 119 141 82 101
Poland m m m m m m m m m m m m
Portugal1, 3 70 70 81 93 108 112 101 113 108 m m 78
Slovak Republic m m m m m m m m m m m m
Slovenia1 84 89 79 96 97 110 108 107 104 169 112 89
Spain m m m m m m m m m m m m
Sweden 79 82 86 92 117 125 100 104 112 131 85 92
Switzerland 84 73 96 107 108 124 104 107 98 140 80 76
Türkiye m m m m m m m m m m m m
United Kingdom1 83 m m 91 m m 92 117 122 m m 84
United States 65 77 96 101 107 90 117 118 122 m m 80
OECD average m m m m m m m m m m m m
Partner and/or accession countries
Argentina m m m m m m m m m m m m
Brazil m m m m m m m m m m m m
Bulgaria m m m m m m m m m m m m
China m m m m m m m m m m m m
Croatia m m m m m m m m m m m m
India m m m m m m m m m m m m
Indonesia m m m m m m m m m m m m
Peru m m m m m m m m m m m m
Romania m m m m m m m m m m m m
Saudi Arabia m m m m m m m m m m m m
South Africa m m m m m m m m m m m m
EU25 average m m m m m m m m m m m m
G20 average m m m m m m m m m m m m
Note: For notes on this table and a link to download the data, see Tables and Notes section above.
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
125
Chapter A5. To what extent do adults
participate in education and training?
Highlights
• On average, there is a 45 percentage point difference in the rates of participation in adult learning between
those with the highest literacy proficiency levels (at or above Level 4) and those with the lowest (at or
below Level 1), as determined by the Survey of Adult Skills.
• Even among those with the same level of education, skills proficiency helps drive engagement in adult
learning. On average, 74% of tertiary-educated adults with the highest proficiency levels in adaptive
problem-solving (Level 4) participated in adult learning compared to just 42% of their similarly educated
peers with the lowest levels (at or below Level 1).
• Educational attainment amplifies the connection between the regular use of skills and participation in adult
learning. Among adults who read the most frequently in their everyday lives, 68% of those with tertiary
education engage in training, compared to just 42% of those whose highest qualification is below upper
secondary.
Figure A5.1. Participation in education and training, by literacy proficiency level (2023)
Survey of Adult Skills (PIAAC); 25-64 year olds; participation in the last 12 months; in per cent
Level 1 and below Level 2 Level 3 Level 4/5
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
For data, see Table A5.1. For a link to download the data, see Tables and Notes section.
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
126
Context
Participation in adult learning provides adults who have finished their initial education with additional skills that may
help keep them connected to an ever-evolving technological landscape. In the current global economy, adults are
likely to need to keep upskilling and reskilling throughout their lives in response to this rapid technological change
in order to maintain a favourable position in the labour market (Kazepov, Cefalo and Pot, 2019[1]). As well as the
benefits of increased human capital and employability, adult learning also has potential non-monetary returns such
as increased civic participation, which in turn often promotes social cohesion at a societal level (Rüber, Rees and
Schmidt-Hertha, 2018[2]). These economic and social benefits underscore the importance of adult learning as a
vital component of lifelong education systems.
Many OECD and partner countries have identified adult learning, or lifelong learning, as important for economic
growth and equal access to opportunity. For example, the European Pillar of Social Rights Action Plan set the goal
of having 60% of all adults in the European Union participating in adult learning by 2030 (European Commission,
2021[3]). The United States’ Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act, and Canada’s regional adult learning
initiatives aim to increase access to the labour market as well as to monitor the success of adult learning initiatives
(Sekmokas et al., 2024[4]).
Adult learning programmes and initiatives are not guaranteed to bridge educational and skills gaps (Lee and Morris,
2016[5]). Although participation in adult learning can help close those gaps and better prepare the workforce, skills
disparities are persistent and inequalities are evident when looking at skills proficiency and participation in adult
learning (Janmaat and Green, 2013[6]). There are several data sources available with data on internationally
comparable indicators of adult learning participation, of which three are discussed in Box A5.1. This chapter
highlights the results of the 2023 Survey of Adult Skills (a product of the Programme for the International
Assessment of Adult Competencies; PIAAC) which provides insight on participation in adult learning in relation to
skills proficiency and use (OECD, 2024[7]).
Other findings
• Reported rates of participation in adult learning vary across the Survey of Adult Skills (PIAAC), the EU
Adult Education Survey (EU-AES) and the EU Labour Force Survey (EU-LFS); however, the demographic
patterns revealed through these data are consistent across the three surveys (Box A5.1).
• Work by the Nordic-Baltic PIAAC network connecting PIAAC data with national register data finds that
individuals who achieved higher grades in lower secondary education are more likely to demonstrate
numeracy proficiency at or above Level 3 in the Survey of Adult Skills (Box A5.2).
• The use of skills and participation in adult learning show similar patterns regardless of the context of skills
use. Adults who use reading skills infrequently in everyday life have virtually the same participation in adult
learning (24%) as those who report using them infrequently in the workplace (27%), on average across
the OECD.
Analysis
Adult learning sits at the intersection of human capital development and social inclusion. Participation in formal and/or
non-formal education and training may provide adults with the skills they need to succeed and thrive in the labour
market. Research, however, reveals the persistence of the “Matthew effect” of cumulative advantage and
disadvantage. As a result of persistent barriers and non-participation, adults with lower skills proficiency or lower levels
of formal education remain difficult to engage in adult-learning opportunities, while those with higher skills proficiency
and educational attainment may continue to benefit from well-established learning networks (Broek et al., 2023[8]).
This challenge is now compounded by the rapid spread of artificial intelligence (AI) in both the workplace and everyday
life. While there remains debate over precisely how AI will affect the labour market and need for skills, the consensus
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
127
is that transformations will take place – and indeed have already begun. It is likely that AI will change the tasks people
perform in their jobs and therefore affect the skills they need. This will include increasing the need for basic digital and
data science skills combined with complementary cognitive skills (OECD, 2023[9]). Additional research into workplace
task changes between 2012 and 2024 shows that demand has especially increased for tasks that were already
important in 2012, such as analytical tasks like mathematics and problem-solving, with evidence indicating that
problem-solving skills improve mainly through informal adult learning in the workplace (Weel, 2025[10]). These skills,
as well as literacy, numeracy and adaptive problem-solving skills will remain critical for individuals and economies in
the era of AI (OECD, 2024[7]). Recent OECD work on AI capability indicators has introduced a framework for assessing
the development of AI in relation to human capabilities, helping policymakers anticipate which human skills will remain
essential or become more valuable as AI systems advance (OECD, 2025[11])
Participation in adult learning and skills proficiency
To prepare for a changing skills landscape, it is useful to understand the relationship between skills proficiency and
participation in adult learning. Adults with higher proficiency levels in literacy have higher rates of participation in adult
learning across all OECD countries. On average 26% of adults with low literacy proficiency (at or below Level 1)
participate in adult learning compared to 70% of adults with high literacy proficiency (at or above Level 4). That makes
adults with high literacy skills more than 2.5 times more likely to participate in formal and/or non-formal education and
training. While it is true for all OECD countries that participation increases with proficiency level, there are differences
in overall rates of participation between countries. For example, in Korea, even adults with a literacy proficiency of
Level 4 and above participate less frequently than the OECD average for adults with Level 2 (Figure A5.1). This could
be due to the common practice of working long hours which leaves reduced time for participating in additional training
or learning opportunities (Hijzen and Thewissen, 2020[12]).
Adults with higher educational attainment are also more likely to participate in adult learning, but by isolating
participation rates to a given attainment level, it is possible to see that the relationship between proficiency and
participation persists. Across all participating OECD countries and economies there are differences by skill proficiency
level among people with the same level of education. For example, on average, 74% of tertiary-educated adults with
Level 4 proficiency in adaptive problem-solving participate in formal and/or non-formal education and training,
32 percentage points more than among tertiary-educated adults with proficiency at or below Level 1 (42%). For most
countries, the difference in participation rates is smaller between tertiary-educated adults with proficiency Levels 2, 3
or 4 and most pronounced between these three levels of proficiency and those who are at or below Level 1. It is
important to note that socio-demographic factors, such as language proficiency and migration background, can
influence skill assessment outcomes. These factors may vary between countries and could partly explain differences
in participation rates among tertiary-educated adults by proficiency level (Figure A5.2).
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
128
Figure A5.2. Participation of tertiary-educated adults in education and training, by adaptive
problem-solving proficiency level (2023)
Survey of Adult Skills (PIAAC); 25-64 year olds; participation in the last 12 months; in per cent
Level 1 and below Level 2 Level 3 Level 4
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
For data, see Table A5.1. For a link to download the data, see Tables and Notes section.
Having a higher level of educational attainment does not equalise participation rates, as skill proficiency still helps to
drive engagement. Belief in one’s abilities, or self-efficacy, is key motivator for participating in lifelong learning initiatives
and those with lower proficiency may feel less confident to up- or reskill (Boeren, 2017[13]). Moreover, adults with lower
proficiency levels may be more likely to be outside the labour force or to be in precarious working conditions that
provide less frequent or inconsistent training opportunities (Cedefop, 2017[14]). Understanding how individuals navigate
adult learning systems is therefore crucial as it reveals how to shape policies that both empower learners and
strengthen an adult learning system’s capacity to deliver effective upskilling (Broek et al., 2023[8]).
Box A5.1. Comparing participation rates in adult learning across international surveys
Studying adult participation in education and training is crucial for developing effective lifelong learning policies.
International surveys are valuable tools for developing relevant adult learning indicators, but methodological
differences significantly affect the comparability of surveys. Understanding these differences may strengthen the
development of adult learning indicators and help clarify the best use cases for each survey’s data.
The three surveys covered in this box – the Survey of Adult Skills (PIAAC), the EU Adult Education Survey (EU-
AES) and the EU Labour Force Survey (EU-LFS) – all cover 25-64 year-olds and provide participation rates in
formal and/or non-formal education over a 12 month period. Historically, the EU-LFS measured participation in the
4 weeks prior to the survey; however, since 2021, EU-LFS is obligated to at least biannually collect data on
participation in the last 12 months (Regulation (EU) 2019/1700). Accordingly, this box uses EU-LFS data based on
the 12 month reference period.
Overall, the three surveys differ in their definitions, question wording, survey design, primary objectives and data
collection methods. These methodological differences can lead to differences in reported participation rates across
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
129
the surveys. Furthermore, while the Survey of Adult Skills is input harmonised (using identical questionnaires and
methods across countries), EU-AES and EU-LFS are output harmonised, allowing for national adaptations to data
collection methods and question ordering, which can further affect comparability.
One significant way in which these three surveys differ is when taking into account guided on-the-job training, a
form of workplace training in which a trainee receives real-time feedback or demonstrations as they perform their
tasks. The Survey of Adult Skills and EU-AES both count guided on-the-job training but the EU-LFS survey does
not, thus creating a potential source of discrepancy between reported levels of participation. This difference is
apparent across most countries participating in all three surveys.
Figure A5.3. Average participation in education and training, by survey, gender, age group,
educational attainment and labour force status
Survey of Adult Skills (PIAAC) 2023; EU-AES 2022 and EU-LFS 2022
Note: Education and training refers to formal and/or non-formal education and training. EU-AES is the EU Adult Education Survey; EU-LFS
is the EU Labour Force Survey. The data in the chart refer to participation over the past 12 months for all three surveys.
Despite the differences in participation rates among the three surveys, they all show the following demographic
patterns in participation in education and training (Figure A5.3):
• Gender: Across all surveys, women typically exhibit slightly higher rates of participation than men. Estonia,
Finland, Latvia and Sweden consistently show substantial gender differences favouring women, whereas
Czechia and Italy report higher rates for men.
• Age: Younger adults (25-34 year-olds) consistently have higher participation than older adults (55-64 year-
olds). Participation rates decline with age across all surveys and countries.
• Educational attainment: Adults with tertiary education participate significantly more than those with lower
education levels, emphasising persistent disparities. This is evident across all surveys and countries.
• Labour-force status: Adults in employment participate significantly more than those who are unemployed
or outside the labour force. This is evident across almost all surveys and countries.
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
130
These consistent demographic patterns show that despite differences in their reported rates, all three surveys are
able to capture important underlying trends in adult learning participation. Nevertheless, identifying the unique
strengths of each survey is important for making the best use of their data for the development of relevant indicators
on adult learning. According to Eurostat, for example, the EU-AES generally provides a more accurate measure of
overall participation in adult learning, while the EU-LFS could be particularly valuable for analysing trends and
conducting detailed cross-sectional analyses due to its larger sample size and more frequent data collection
(Eurostat, 2024[15]). Meanwhile, the Survey of Adult Skills uniquely links participation in adult learning to skills
proficiency and use, offering insights which the other two surveys can not.
Recognising the differences in reported rates, efforts are underway at the European level to improve data collection
methods, including revisions to survey instruments. Belgium, for example, recently introduced changes in the 2024
Labour Force Survey to improve how non-formal learning is captured, which may introduce a break in the series,
but will improve the measurement of adult learning over time (Statistics Belgium, 2025[16]). Better data are essential
to build a more complete and nuanced understanding of how, where and why adults engage in learning throughout
their lives.
Participation in adult learning and frequency of use of skills in everyday life
Use of core skills outside of the workplace such as reading instructions, managing personal finances or navigating the
Internet reinforces the learning gained from initial education. Research suggests that the relationship between
proficiency and engagement in practice is reciprocal, meaning that increased use of a skill is likely to increase an
individual’s proficiency, which in turn further increases that individual’s likelihood of continuing to use the skill and
engage in learning (Reder, Gauly and Lechner, 2020[17]).
Across all levels of education, adults who use reading skills the most frequently in their everyday lives are about
2.4 times more likely to participate in adult learning than those who use them the least frequently. However, as
Figure A5.4 shows, educational attainment further increases participation in adult learning among people who
frequently exercise their skills. On average across OECD countries and economies, 68% of tertiary-educated adults
who make high use of their reading skills participate in adult learning compared to about 42% of adults of the highest
frequency of use but with below upper secondary attainment. That is a 26 percentage point difference in participation
between the highest and lowest levels of educational attainment (Figure A5.4 and Table A5.2. ).
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
131
Figure A5.4. Participation in education and training among adults who use reading skills the most
frequently in everyday life, by educational attainment (2023)
Survey of Adult Skills (PIAAC); 25-64 year olds; participation in the last 12 months; in per cent
Below upper secondary Upper secondary or post-secondary non-tertiary Tertiary
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
For data, see Table A5.2. For a link to download the data, see Tables and Notes section.
The same phenomenon is found among adults who use reading skills the least in the context of everyday life. On
average, 44% of adults with tertiary attainment who use reading skills the least frequently in everyday life participate
in adult learning compared to only 14% of adults in the same situation with below upper secondary attainment
(Figure A5.5).
Figure A5.5. Participation in education and training among adults who use reading skills the least
frequently in everyday life, by educational attainment (2023)
Survey of Adult Skills (PIAAC); 25-64 year olds; participation in the last 12 months; in per cent
Below upper secondary Upper secondary or post-secondary non-tertiary Tertiary
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
For data, see Table A5.2. For a link to download the data, see Tables and Notes section.
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
132
Differences in participation rates based on the frequency of everyday skill use among adults with the same levels of
attainment highlight how both factors work together to drive engagement. For example, among tertiary-educated
adults, those who read the least frequently in everyday life are about 1.6 times less likely to participate in adult learning
than their peers who read the most frequently. This gap increases to about 2.1 times less for those who have upper
secondary attainment and 3 times less for those with below upper secondary attainment (Table A5.2. ).
Box A5.2. Tracking PIAAC respondents using register data: Analysis from Denmark, Norway
and Sweden
Integrating data from the Survey of Adult Skills (PIAAC) with data from national registers - centralized government
databases containing demographic, civil‑status, and residential information - provides powerful analytical tools for
exploring the relationship between adult skills, educational outcomes and labour-market trajectories. The Nordic-
Baltic PIAAC Network has pioneered efforts to use such linked data, enhancing the depth and accuracy of
longitudinal analyses. This textbox will provide an example of how these combined data may be useful in
understanding skills and lifelong learning.
The approach developed by the network involves matching individual survey respondents with their corresponding
register data using personal identification numbers. This method enables individuals’ education pathways and
labour-market experiences to be tracked over an extended timeframe, from 1990 to 2023. The registers provide
valuable background information such as grade point averages (GPAs) from lower secondary school.
The analyses demonstrate the possibility of combining cross-sectional data from the Survey of Adult Skills with
annual administrative data from registers to establish a longitudinal picture of individuals both before and after they
took part in the survey:
• Before participating: Education pathways from lower secondary school to tertiary education, grade point
average from lower secondary education and labour-market experience.
• PIAAC information: Detailed information from the background questionnaire and measured adult skills.
• After participating: Participation in further education (second chance, post-secondary and tertiary
education), being neither employed nor in education or training (NEET), labour-market status, weak or
strong affiliation to the labour market, total hours worked and earnings.
Analyses based on PIAAC Cycle 2 (2023) data in Sweden have revealed important relationships (Figure A5.6)
(Statistics Sweden, n.d.[18]):
• There is a strong link between GPA at the end of lower secondary education (15-16 years-old) and adult
skills (16-29 years-old). Individuals who achieved higher GPAs in lower secondary education are more
likely to demonstrate numeracy proficiency at or above Level 3 as adults.
• Conversely, those who had lower GPAs during adolescence (15-16 years-old) are more likely to have
numeracy proficiency at or below Level 1, highlighting the predictive nature of early skills.
• Irrespective of GPAs, a greater share of 25-29 year-olds performed at or above Level 3 in numeracy
proficiency, compared to the 16-19 year-old cohort.
Two further studies also combined data from Cycle 1 of the Survey of Adult Skills with register data: one conducted
in Denmark and one in Norway (Nordic Baltic PIAAC Network, 2024[19]).
The Norwegian study investigated the relationship between adult skills among 16-24 year-olds as measured in
Cycle 1 of the Survey of Adult Skills and their NEET status in 2013, two years after the cycle was conducted (Barth
et al., 2019[20]). Analysts found that young adults’ skills measured in PIAAC Cycle 1 are highly correlated with skills
acquired early in life, measured as their GPA at the end of compulsory school. These results are consistent with
the results from the Swedish study based on PIAAC Cycle 2. The study also found that early skills, as measured
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
133
by the GPA, protect more against being NEET in 2013, compared to adult skills measured in PIAAC Cycle 1,
despite these adult skills having been measured more recently.
Figure A5.6. Share of young adults in Sweden with numeracy proficiency at or above Level 3, by
lower secondary grades and age group (2023)
Survey of Adult Skills (PIAAC)
16 - 19 year-olds 20 - 24 year-olds 25 - 29 year-olds
100
% with proficiency level 3 or above in numeracy
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0 - 200 201 - 240 241 - 320
Grade point average (GPA)
Note: GPAs in lower secondary education are measured from 0 to 320.
Source: Swedish National Registry.
The Danish study investigated whether skill levels and use of skills made a difference to low-skilled workers’
employment. The target population for the study was low-skilled unemployed workers in PIAAC Cycle 1. The study
combined data from Cycle 1 with register data about total hours worked over the period 2012-19 (Rotger, Jeppesen
and Larsen, 2022[21]). The study found that use of IT skills outside work was one of the most predictive factors for
the number of hours worked by this group during this period. The more these individuals used IT skills outside
work, the greater their likelihood of working many hours during 2012-19. Other factors which affect the likelihood
positively were their hourly wages in their previous job, number of job-search activities within four weeks and
whether they were in full-time employment before they became unemployed.
In summary, linking PIAAC and register data provides unique research possibilities. The relationship between skills
acquired early in life, adult skills and subsequent labour-market outcomes underscores the value of investing in
early education and continuous skill development through lifelong learning initiatives.
Participation in adult learning and frequency of use of skills in the workplace
Adults working in a role which is well matched to their skills will be asked to use their skills frequently in the workplace.
This gives them a structural motivation to engage in skills use compared to their everyday lives, where they will have
greater autonomy over which skills they engage with and how often they do so. Despite this, skill use in both the
workplace and everyday life produce similar patterns in participation in adult learning. On average across OECD
countries and economies, 59% of those who make use of their reading skills the most frequently in everyday life
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
134
participate in adult learning, compared to 66% among those who do so in the workplace. Participation rates fall to 24%
among adults who use reading skills the least frequently in everyday life and 27% among those who rarely or never
do so in the workplace (Table A5.2. and Table A5.3.).
Motivation, opportunity and engagement form an interconnected system that spans both everyday life and the
workplace with recent technological shifts only deepening that connection. As remote and hybrid work arrangements
turn many homes into offices, the boundary between personal and professional learning contexts has begun to blur.
At the same time, the digital revolution and expansion of digital access has transformed how adult learning is created
and delivered, enabling programmes to reach learners wherever they are and helping reach individuals who are most
difficult to reach (ITC, 2021[22]). Technology alone, however, is not enough to transform adult learning systems.
Although engagement varies by skills proficiency and educational attainment, participation in adult education remains
insufficient at all levels as training struggles to meet the pace of technological change. Effective adult learning systems
must engage all populations by offering accessible, high-quality learning opportunities that meet diverse needs in
response to rapidly changing demands.
Definitions
Adults refer to 25-64 year-olds.
Adult learning means the participation of adults in lifelong learning. In this chapter, the term “adult learning” is used
interchangeably with the term “education and training” and refers to formal and/or non-formal education and training.
Adult learning usually refers to learning activities after the end of initial education. The participation in education and
training covers participation in both formal and non-formal education and training, defined in the Classification of
Learning Activities (CLA) (Eurostat, 2016[23]) as:
• Formal education and training is defined as “education that is institutionalised, intentional and planned
through public organisations and recognised private bodies, and - in their totality - constitute the formal
education system of a country. Formal education programmes are thus recognised as such by the relevant
national education or equivalent authorities, e.g. any other institution in cooperation with the national or sub-
national education authorities. Formal education consists mostly of initial education [...]. Vocational education,
special needs education and some parts of adult education are often recognised as being part of the formal
education system. Qualifications from formal education are by definition recognised and, therefore, are within
the scope of ISCED. Institutionalised education occurs when an organisation provides structured educational
arrangements, such as student-teacher relationships and/or interactions, that are specially designed for
education and learning”.
• Non-formal education and training is defined as “education that is institutionalised, intentional and planned
by an education provider. The defining characteristic of non-formal education is that it is an addition,
alternative and/or complement to formal education within the process of lifelong learning of individuals. It is
often provided in order to guarantee the right of access to education for all. It caters to people of all ages but
does not necessarily apply a continuous pathway structure; it may be short in duration and/or low-intensity;
and it is typically provided in the form of short courses, workshops or seminars. Non-formal education mostly
leads to qualifications that are not recognised as formal or equivalent to formal qualifications by the relevant
national or sub-national education authorities or to no qualifications at all. Nevertheless, formal, recognised
qualifications may be obtained through exclusive participation in specific non-formal education programmes;
this often happens when the non-formal programme completes the competencies obtained in another
context”.
Methodology
For methodological information, please see the Survey of Adult Skills (PIAAC) 2023 – Reader’s Companion (OECD,
2024[24]).
The tables in this chapter present only the estimated percentages. The corresponding standard errors are available in
the online version of the tables, accessible via the StatLinks provided in the Tables and Notes section. Readers are
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
135
highly encouraged to consult these online tables, as the precision of the estimates varies, and in some cases, standard
errors are relatively large.
Source
Survey of Adult Skills (PIAAC) Cycle 2 (2023).
References
Barth, E. et al. (2019), “NEET status and early versus later skills among young adults: Evidence From [20]
linked register-PIAAC data”, Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, Vol. 65/1, pp. 140-152,
https://doi.org/10.1080/00313831.2019.1659403.
Boeren, E. (2017), “Understanding adult lifelong learning participation as a layered problem”, Studies in [13]
Continuing Education, Vol. 39/2, pp. 161-175, https://doi.org/10.1080/0158037x.2017.1310096.
Broek, S. et al. (2023), “What makes adults choose to learn: Factors that stimulate or prevent adults from [8]
learning”, Journal of Adult and Continuing Education, Vol. 29/2, pp. 620-642,
https://doi.org/10.1177/14779714231169684.
Cedefop (2017), “Investing in skills pays off: The economic and social cost of low-skilled adults in the EU”, [14]
Cedefop Research Paper, No. 60, Publications Office of the European Union,
https://doi.org/10.2801/23250.
European Commission (2021), European Pillar of Social Rights Action Plan, [3]
https://op.europa.eu/webpub/empl/european-pillar-of-social-rights/en/ (accessed on 1 May 2025).
Eurostat (2024), “Participation in education and training during the last 12 months – differences between [15]
data available from two sources”, Information Note, European Commission,
https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/databrowser-backend/api/public/explanatory-
notes/get/Info_note_TRNG_AL_20240423.pdf.
Eurostat (2016), Classification of Learning Activities (CLA) Manual: 2016 Edition, Publications Office of the [23]
Euorpean Union, https://doi.org/10.2785/874604.
Hijzen, A. and S. Thewissen (2020), “The 2018-2021 working time reform in Korea: A preliminary [12]
assessment”, OECD Social, Employment and Migration Working Papers, No. 248, OECD Publishing,
Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/0e828066-en.
ITC (2021), Digital Inclusion in Adult Learning: Practices and Recommendations, International Training [22]
Center of the ILO, https://www.itcilo.org/sites/default/files/2021-
04/Digital%20Inclusion%20publication_Final_0.pdf.
Janmaat, J. and A. Green (2013), “Skills inequality, adult learning and social cohesion In The United [6]
Kingdom”, British Journal of Educational Studies, Vol. 61/1, pp. 7-24,
https://doi.org/10.1080/00071005.2012.756161.
Kazepov, Y., R. Cefalo and M. Pot (2019), “A social investment perspective on lifelong learning:”, in [1]
Lifelong Learning Policies for Young Adults in Europe, Policy Press,
https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctvt6rk3z.9.
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
136
Lee, M. and P. Morris (2016), “Lifelong learning, income inequality and social mobility in Singapore”, [5]
International Journal of Lifelong Education, Vol. 35/3, pp. 286-312,
https://doi.org/10.1080/02601370.2016.1165747.
Nordic Baltic PIAAC Network (2024), Main findings from Nordic studies combining PIAAC and other data [19]
sources, https://nll.org/artikler/main-findings-from-nordic-studies-combining-piaac-and-other-data-
sources/ (accessed on 26 May 2025).
OECD (2025), Introducing the OECD AI Capability Indicators, OECD Publishing, Paris, [11]
https://doi.org/10.1787/be745f04-en.
OECD (2024), Do Adults Have the Skills They Need to Thrive in a Changing World?: Survey of Adult Skills [7]
2023, OECD Skills Studies, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/b263dc5d-en.
OECD (2024), Survey of Adult Skills – Reader’s Companion: 2023, OECD Skills Studies, OECD Publishing, [24]
Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/3639d1e2-en.
OECD (2023), OECD Employment Outlook 2023: Artificial Intelligence and the Labour Market, OECD [9]
Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/08785bba-en.
Reder, S., B. Gauly and C. Lechner (2020), “Practice makes perfect: Practice engagement theory and the [17]
development of adult literacy and numeracy proficiency”, International Review of Education, Vol. 66/2-3,
pp. 267-288, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11159-020-09830-5.
Rotger, G., T. Jeppesen and M. Larsen (2022), The importance of basic skills for employment, VIVE, [21]
https://www.vive.dk/da/udgivelser/basale-faerdigheders-betydning-for-beskaeftigelse-yxdj10xg/
(accessed on 1 May 2025).
Rüber, I., S. Rees and B. Schmidt-Hertha (2018), “Lifelong learning – lifelong returns? A new theoretical [2]
framework for the analysis of civic returns on adult learning”, International Review of Education,
Vol. 64/5, pp. 543-562, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11159-018-9738-6.
Sekmokas, M. et al. (2024), “Updated framework for monitoring adult learning: Enhancing data identification [4]
and indicator selection”, OECD Education Working Papers, No. 317, OECD Publishing, Paris,
https://doi.org/10.1787/02bbacdc-en.
Statistics Belgium (2025), Break in the time series of lifelong learning in 2024, [16]
https://statbel.fgov.be/sites/default/files/files/documents/Werk%20%26%20opleiding/9.3%20Opleidingen
%20onderwijs/9.3.6%20Levenslang%20leren/Nota%20breuk%20LLL%202024%20gebruikers-E.pdf
(accessed on 18 June 2025).
Statistics Sweden (n.d.), PIAAC Den internationella undersökningen av vuxnas färdigheter [PIAAC The [18]
International Adult Skills Survey],
https://www.scb.se/contentassets/43fec92b83c24a60aebb22150d6d59fa/uf0546_2022a01_br_a40br24
04.pdf (accessed on 17 June 2025).
Weel, B. (2025), TAKEN EN VAARDIGHEDEN OP HET WERK, 2012-2024 [Tasks and skills at work, 2012- [10]
2024], https://www.seo.nl/publicaties/taken-en-vaardigheden-op-het-werk-2012-2024-ontwikkeling-van-
vraag-en-aanbod-van-werktaken-op-basis-van-de-nederlandse-skills-survey/ (accessed on
10 June 2025).
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
137
Tables and Notes
Chapter A5 Tables
Table A5.1. Share of adults participating in education and training, by skills proficiency level and educational attainment (2023)
Table A5.2. Share of adults participating in education and training, by educational attainment and frequency of use of ICT and reading
skills in everyday life (2023)
Table A5.3. Share of adults participating in education and training, by educational attainment and frequency of use of reading and
numeracy skills at work (2023)
StatLink 2 https://stat.link/583dnw
Data Download
To download the data for the figures and tables in this chapter, click StatLink above.
Data cut-off for the print publication 13 June 2025.
Notes for Tables
Table A5.1. Share of adults participating in education and training, by skills proficiency level and educational
attainment (2023)
Note: Does not include adults who were only administered the doorstep interview due to a language barrier. Education
and training refers to formal and/or non-formal education and training. Literacy proficiency is reported on a scale of six
proficiency levels with below Level 1 being the lowest and Level 5 the highest. Adaptative problem-solving proficiency
is reported on a scale of five proficiency levels being Level 4 the highest. This table aggregates below Level 1 and
Level 1, and Levels 4 and 5. Columns showing the standard errors, and data on all levels of education and adaptative
problem-solving proficiency are available for consultation on line.
Table A5.2. Share of adults participating in education and training, by educational attainment and frequency
of use of ICT and reading skills in everyday life (2023)
Note: Does not include adults who were only administered the doorstep interview due to a language barrier. Education
and training refers to formal and/or non-formal education and training. Frequency of use reflects how often respondents
report performing tasks related to each skill domain. In this table, lowest practice refers to the bottom 20% of
respondents on the skill use scale, while highest practice refers to the top 20% (80% and above) of respondents on
the scale. Columns showing the standard errors and data on all levels of education are available for consultation on
line.
Table A5.3. Share of adults participating in education and training, by educational attainment and frequency
of use of reading and numeracy skills at work (2023)
Note: Does not include adults who were only administered the doorstep interview due to a language barrier. Education
and training refers to formal and/or non-formal education and training. Frequency of use reflects how often respondents
report performing tasks related to each skill domain. In this table, lowest practice refers to the bottom 20% of
respondents on the skill use scale, while highest practice refers to the top 20% (80% and above) of respondents on
the scale. Columns showing the standard errors and data on all levels of education are available for consultation on
line.
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
138
Control codes
a – category not applicable; b – break in series; c – there are too few observations to provide reliable estimates; d –
contains data from another column; m – missing data; r – values are below a certain reliability threshold and should
be interpreted with caution x – contained in another column (indicated in brackets). For further control codes, see the
Reader’s Guide.
For further methodological information, see Education at a Glance 2025: Sources, Methodologies and Technical Notes
(https://doi.org/10.1787/fcfaf2d1-en)
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
139
Table A5.1. Share of adults participating in education and training, by literacy proficiency level and
educational attainment (2023)
Survey of Adult Skills (PIAAC); in per cent; 25-64 year-olds
Below upper secondary Upper secondary or post-secondary non-tertiary Tertiary
Level 1 Level 1 Level 1
or below Level 2 Level 3 Level 4/5 or below Level 2 Level 3 Level 4/5 or below Level 2 Level 3 Level 4/5
OECD countries (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12)
Austria 8 26 55 c 18 34 44 46 33 52 61 67
Canada 16 32 29 c 31 48 57 59 47 63 74 77
Chile 18 9 c c 32 45 66 c 51 67 76 86
Czechia 8 22 c c 22 35 50 62 24 60 64 73
Denmark 16 44 46 c 31 49 62 79 25 69 73 78
Estonia 27 48 53 c 28 45 56 68 35 63 73 80
Finland 11 23 44 c 40 50 68 76 17 64 77 84
France 13 23 25 c 23 33 40 51 31 44 54 66
Germany 14 20 39 c 25 42 50 68 39 55 68 76
Hungary 9 15 c c 16 23 36 57 31 47 57 62
Ireland 26 36 c c 38 46 55 77 55 65 76 78
Israel 7 18 22 c 20 31 55 78 33 48 59 67
Italy 6 13 c c 23 26 36 56 32 50 65 73
Japan 7 18 31 c 20 28 34 42 24 38 46 54
Korea 9 12 c c 13 13 20 c 17 20 25 30
Latvia 14 26 c c 21 33 47 58 58 67 70 75
Lithuania 14 21 c c 16 23 33 c 39 45 62 75
Netherlands 22 35 41 c 34 51 55 68 30 59 71 78
New Zealand 30 30 46 c 43 56 58 75 49 68 80 80
Norway 31 48 50 c 42 55 62 79 64 70 78 77
Poland 10 9 c c 11 16 25 45 26 40 54 69
Portugal 17 27 29 c 34 42 55 c 39 66 74 82
Slovak Republic 7 12 19 c 21 25 31 38 35 50 59 60
Spain 18 28 34 c 32 44 52 68 44 58 67 74
Sweden 29 37 46 c 40 49 57 72 59 58 69 73
Switzerland 13 35 c c 28 40 53 61 33 57 68 74
United States 17 33 c c 35 52 67 72 60 77 83 88
Other economies
England (UK) 18 28 34 c 39 51 59 67 47 67 73 76
Flemish Region (Belgium) 20 32 46 c 22 42 55 60 22 56 67 74
OECD average 16 26 37 m 28 39 50 64 38 57 66 73
Partner and/or accession countries
Croatia 5 3 3 c 14 14 14 25 40 47 47 61
Note: For notes on this table and a link to download the data, see Tables and Notes section above.
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
140
Table A5.2. Share of adults participating in education and training, by educational attainment and
frequency of use of ICT and reading skills in everyday life (2023)
Survey of Adult Skills (PIAAC); in per cent; 25-64 year-olds
Below upper secondary Upper secondary or post-secondary non-tertiary Tertiary
ICT skills Reading skills ICT skills Reading skills ICT skills Reading skills
Lowest Highest Lowest Highest Lowest Highest Lowest Highest Lowest Highest Lowest Highest
practice practice practice practice practice practice practice practice practice practice practice practice
OECD countries (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12)
Austria 10 c 9 43 20 46 17 44 43 64 39 64
Canada 17 30 16 37 31 57 37 56 37 74 50 73
Chile 14 30 13 34 27 47 25 54 47 69 55 71
Czechia 8 c 11 c 26 47 20 48 46 67 39 68
Denmark 18 66 19 49 30 58 25 66 58 79 61 79
Estonia 26 51 27 53 30 62 26 57 52 73 42 79
Finland 10 c c c 42 71 38 69 63 86 62 83
France 13 24 8 30 26 38 25 34 46 53 50 54
Germany 14 c 13 35 29 54 23 52 44 73 40 70
Hungary 7 c 10 c 14 44 15 37 34 63 38 59
Ireland 23 44 23 41 36 58 37 54 57 73 35 73
Israel 9 5 6 25 17 42 14 54 38 57 33 61
Italy 5 c c c 19 47 c 44 33 71 c 66
Japan 10 c 14 c 24 43 24 42 39 53 36 57
Korea 8 15 9 c 9 21 11 22 17 24 15 28
Latvia 17 29 13 49 19 43 19 43 58 68 55 71
Lithuania 15 c 12 c 10 36 12 40 39 64 39 63
Netherlands 19 37 24 49 31 59 29 64 54 70 42 73
New Zealand 20 39 17 45 49 55 31 61 63 75 44 77
Norway 26 45 c 59 43 66 40 63 72 78 c 79
Poland 9 c 8 c 9 29 6 29 33 40 24 49
Portugal 12 33 12 38 35 46 25 53 56 71 50 76
Slovak Republic 10 c 7 c 19 34 12 34 46 57 25 54
Spain 18 30 17 38 30 49 24 60 36 67 39 71
Sweden 33 48 c 54 46 54 33 66 59 71 c 75
Switzerland 16 52 15 37 31 53 29 53 59 70 58 70
United States 15 33 10 29 27 63 24 62 67 83 60 82
Other economies
England (UK) 18 30 17 30 32 59 43 58 48 75 53 72
Flemish Region (Belgium) 23 51 17 56 28 53 26 53 47 73 48 71
OECD average 15 36 14 42 27 49 25 51 48 67 44 68
Partner and/or accession countries
Croatia 6 c 3 c 5 29 6 39 31 57 26 62
Note: For notes on this table and a link to download the data, see Tables and Notes section above.
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
141
Table A5.3. Share of adults participating in education and training, by educational attainment and
frequency of use of reading and numeracy skills at work (2023)
Survey of Adult Skills (PIAAC); in per cent; 25-64 year-olds
Below upper secondary Upper secondary or post-secondary non-tertiary Tertiary
Reading skills Numeracy skills Reading skills Numeracy skills Reading skills Numeracy skills
Lowest Highest Lowest Highest Lowest Highest Lowest Highest Lowest Highest Lowest Highest
practice practice practice practice practice practice practice practice practice practice practice practice
OECD countries (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12)
Austria 9 c 11 c 21 53 25 45 29 67 54 65
Canada 19 c 31 45 34 71 49 60 49 79 62 77
Chile 12 c 17 21 24 55 32 49 46 73 63 74
Czechia 11 c 22 c 23 66 30 57 61 77 64 79
Denmark 27 c 32 47 43 71 56 58 34 80 71 81
Estonia 34 c 37 55 30 68 37 62 38 81 68 74
Finland c c c c 46 73 58 78 c 82 75 82
France 22 c 23 51 26 44 32 40 38 62 44 56
Germany 11 c 10 c 22 63 35 59 43 73 56 69
Hungary 12 c 11 c 15 51 18 44 33 60 46 60
Ireland 43 c 54 c 40 62 46 64 68 78 68 79
Israel 11 c 14 15 24 50 31 45 31 63 48 54
Italy 8 c c c 25 47 27 48 c 67 51 64
Japan 5 c 12 c 15 56 21 50 22 64 39 61
Korea 8 c 13 c 13 19 12 18 16 26 22 24
Latvia 20 c 13 47 20 61 22 42 48 77 71 70
Lithuania 14 c 22 c 12 42 23 44 23 66 49 61
Netherlands 22 56 21 61 40 65 45 61 c 76 60 71
New Zealand 20 66 14 70 30 70 58 73 39 81 63 76
Norway c c 44 c 46 74 59 68 66 81 75 79
Poland 13 c 12 c 13 26 13 22 27 50 35 46
Portugal 17 43 14 42 26 61 30 57 54 77 59 78
Slovak Republic 11 c 6 c 19 38 19 35 41 58 48 59
Spain 19 44 22 39 39 60 42 61 52 73 59 72
Sweden 30 c 41 c 45 66 57 64 41 72 60 69
Switzerland 13 c 17 c 26 55 40 52 44 72 62 70
United States 26 c 18 43 33 75 44 68 74 90 77 87
Other economies
England (UK) 20 c 25 22 31 67 53 62 37 80 66 77
Flemish Region (Belgium) 24 c 30 c 26 62 34 62 57 74 59 71
OECD average 18 m 22 m 28 58 36 53 43 71 58 68
Partner and/or accession countries
Croatia 5 c 9 c 7 33 12 29 23 54 44 56
Note: For notes on this table and a link to download the data, see Tables and Notes section above.
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
142
Chapter A6. How are social outcomes
related to education?
Highlights
• Tertiary-educated adults (25-64 year-olds) report better self-perceived health than those with lower levels
of attainment. On average, 51% of tertiary-educated adults rated their health as very good or excellent,
compared to just 26% of those with below upper secondary education.
• Smoking prevalence varies significantly by country, educational attainment and age. Individuals with lower
levels of education tend to smoke more frequently than their tertiary-educated counterparts, reflecting
persistent socio-economic disparities in health behaviours. On average about 11% of tertiary-educated
adults smoke every day, compared to about 38% of those with below upper secondary education.
• In general, tertiary-educated adults are most likely to report enjoying life but the difference between them
and adults with upper secondary attainment is very small. It is larger between adults with below upper
secondary education and tertiary education: 61% of adults with below upper secondary attainment report
enjoying life all or most of the time compared to about 74% of those with tertiary attainment.
Context
Health is not simply a means of economic participation but a cornerstone of human well-being. Good health enables
individuals to thrive, pursue personal goals and engage fully with family and community, thus fostering
psychological resilience and social inclusion (Arslan, 2021[1]). Students with good physical and mental health are
more engaged with their education and more likely to pursue it, underpinning their long-term skill development and
employability (Kharroubi et al., 2024[2]). Incorporating health metrics into international education indicators provides
a more comprehensive framework for tracking learning environments and targeting interventions that bridge
education and labour-market outcomes.
After they complete compulsory education, health status can have a strong bearing on individuals’ participation in
the labour market and their earning potential (Jusot, Or and Sirven, 2012[3]). Poor physical or mental health can
impair people’s ability to engage in work or education, thereby limiting opportunities for skill development. High-
skilled occupations – ranging from managerial roles to specialised professions in sectors such as health care,
education and information and communications technology (ICT) (OECD, 2024[4]) – are generally less physically
demanding, and these positions are more frequently held by individuals with higher incomes who typically have
better access to healthcare services (Aggarwal et al., 2011[5]). Conversely, those in lower-skilled roles are more
frequently exposed to physically demanding tasks and associated health risks, which may further compound
existing inequalities (ILO, 2021[6]). Individuals with lower educational attainment are more likely to face mental
health challenges due to greater exposure to stressors and limited access to treatment and support resources.
These disadvantages can create a negative feedback loop, where poor mental health undermines academic
engagement, further reinforcing socio-economic and educational disparities.
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
143
Mental health plays a critical role in labour-market outcomes, with mental illness negatively affecting employment
rates, labour-force participation and job retention. Individuals experiencing mental health issues are more likely to
work fewer weeks per year and have higher rates of absenteeism (OECD, 2021[7]). Moreover, mental illness
significantly limits workforce participation and occupational progression (OECD, 2021[7]). The effects of poor mental
health on labour-market engagement are particularly pronounced among women and older adults (OECD, 2021[8]).
This chapter explores the relationship between education and a number of key health indicators.
Figure A6.1. Share of adults who reported being in excellent or very good health in the previous
week (2021 or 2023)
In per cent; 25-64 year-olds
Survey of Adult Skills (PIAAC) 2023, International Social Survey Programme (ISSP) or other surveys (2021 or 2022)
Tertiary Upper secondary or post-secondary non-tertiary Below upper secondary
80 80
70 70
60 60
50 50
40 40
30 30
20 20
10 10
0 0
1. Source is the Australia’s National Health Survey (2022).
2. Source is the International Social Survey Programme for South Africa, Slovenia and Mexico.
For data, see Table A6.1 For a link to download the data, see Tables and Notes section.
Other findings
• Higher educational attainment is linked to more positive mental health outcomes when considering
depressive symptoms. On average, tertiary-educated individuals report more favourable indicators of
mental well-being on this measure than those with lower attainment.
• In Sweden and Poland, adults with below upper secondary education have the highest reported levels of
life enjoyment, indicating that other factors beyond education can play major roles in affecting average
levels of mental well-being.
• The link between higher educational attainment and lower rates of smoking among 25-64 year-olds is also
reflected in the young adult population (18-24 year-olds), though data related to tertiary attainment in this
age group should be interpreted with caution as many will still be completing their education.
Note
Care should be taken when interpreting results from different survey sources, as differences in data collection
methods and reference periods can affect comparability. This is especially important when examining data on
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
144
individuals’ mental health status (Table A6.3 and Figure A6.3) where the timing and geographical coverage of data
collection may influence the outcomes reported.
In Table A6.2, the data on smoking frequency from most sources refer specifically to tobacco smoking, but data
from the EU Statistics on Income and Living Conditions (EU-SILC) include the use of electronic cigarettes (vapes).
Analysis
Educational attainment affects health (both physical and mental) in a multitude of ways. Individuals with higher levels
of educational attainment are more likely to be well informed about the implications of their choices on their health and
therefore have more positive health-related behaviour, probably due to greater access to health education or increased
health literacy (Murakami, Kuriyama and Hashimoto, 2023[9]). Those with higher levels of education are also more
likely to work in knowledge-intensive occupations, which are generally less physically demanding. These roles can
reduce the risk of work-related injuries and may support mental health through providing intellectually stimulating
environments (Ford and Wiggins, 2012[10]). The combined effects of these two factors may protect more highly
educated adults from some of the negative health impacts experienced by those with lower educational attainment but
they may still face other health-related issues, such as sedentary behaviour, high stress levels or long working hours
(Waters et al., 2016[11]).
Higher educational attainment is also often linked to greater earning potential (see Chapter A4), which may enable
better access to healthcare services, including preventive care and specialised treatment (Jusot, Or and Sirven,
2012[3]). Research indicates that this higher earning potential also facilitates access to improved nutrition, as
individuals can afford higher-quality food, which is often more costly (Aggarwal et al., 2011[5]).
In addition to these tangible benefits, higher income is associated with improved subjective wellbeing and mental
health, particularly at lower to moderate income levels where material security plays a crucial role in meeting basic
needs (OECD, 2023[12]). Moreover, perceptions of financial security relative to one’s peers–social comparison–can
influence mental wellbeing, highlighting that it is not only absolute income but also relative standing that shapes
psychological outcomes (OECD, 2009[13]).
Conversely, individuals with lower educational attainment may face barriers to accessing health care and nutritious
food, which can exacerbate health disparities. The link between educational attainment and nutrition-related health is
well researched. One study in Brazil finding that neighbourhoods classified as food deserts – areas with limited or no
access to food retailers – have lower per capita incomes and a smaller mean number of literate individuals (Honório
et al., 2021[14]). Wider access to health care and improved food quality would help bridge the health gap between
individuals with different educational backgrounds, promoting better outcomes across the population. Addressing
these disparities is essential for enhancing public health and ensuring that all individuals have the opportunity to
achieve optimal health, regardless of their educational status (WHO, 2010[15]).
Self-rated health status and educational attainment
Self-reported health offers a proxy for assessing both physical and mental health. It also reflects individuals’ awareness
of their own health status. Considering that self-reported health is influenced by factors such as education, income
and working conditions, it serves as an important tool for identifying health inequalities across socio-economic groups
and, in this context, among individuals with different levels of educational attainment (Schram et al., 2021[16]).
Figure A6.1 presents the share of adults (25-64 year-olds) who reported their physical and mental health as “very
good” or “excellent” on average across the OECD in the Survey of Adult Skills (PIAAC), based on the question: “In
general, would you say your health is excellent, very good, good, fair, or poor?” Data for other countries in the right-
hand panel of Figure A6.1 were drawn from the International Social Survey Programme (ISSP), or other sources using
comparable questions.
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
145
The results indicate that, on average across the OECD countries and economies participating in the Survey of Adult
Skills, tertiary-educated adults have the most positive perception of their health (both physical and mental), with about
51% reporting excellent or very good health, followed by those with upper secondary or post-secondary non-tertiary
educational attainment (37%). In contrast, only about 26% of adults with below upper secondary education report
having very good or excellent health. The countries with the highest shares reporting very good or excellent health
among this group were Israel (47%), Australia and New Zealand (38%), and Denmark and Ireland (36%). The lowest
shares are in Korea (6%), Japan and Latvia (11%) and Chile (12%) (Figure A6.1).
It is important to note the slight difference in the relationship between educational attainment and (self)-reported
physical and mental health between Figure A6.1 and that shown in Figure A6.3, which asks adults about their
enjoyment of life. Figure A6.1 shows a clear gradient: the higher the level of educational attainment, the greater the
share of individuals reporting excellent or very good health. The pattern in Figure A6.3 is more nuanced, with several
countries where tertiary-educated adults do not report the highest levels of enjoyment in some cases, those with the
lowest educational attainment report greater life enjoyment.
Health behaviours and educational attainment among adults
Health behaviours play a crucial role in determining an individual’s overall health status, as they reflect both awareness
of healthy habits and the ability to maintain a healthy lifestyle.
Tobacco and alcohol are major risk factors for at least two of the leading causes of premature mortality – cardiovascular
diseases and cancer. Furthermore, research done under the Global Burden of Disease study has found smoking and
tobacco use to be strongly associated with eight negative health outcomes including lung cancer, laryngeal cancer
and diseases of the arteries (Dai et al., 2022[17]). Over the past decade, daily smoking rates among adults have fallen
considerably in most OECD countries, with the exception of Luxembourg, the Slovak Republic and the Republic of
Türkiye (OECD, 2024[4]). This decline may be due to the spread of tobacco control policies, although smoking may still
be culturally embedded in many countries (OECD, 2023[18]).
Figure A6.2 presents the share of daily smokers among adults across countries and economies, broken down by
educational attainment. It excludes those who vape, except in Luxembourg, whose survey also covers adults who use
electronic cigarettes. Smoking prevalence decreases as educational attainment increases. Among OECD countries
and economies with data from the European Social Survey (ESS), about 38% of 25-64 year-olds with below upper
secondary education are daily smokers on average, compared with about 25% for those with upper secondary or post-
secondary non-tertiary education and about 11% for those with tertiary education.
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
146
Figure A6.2. Share of adults who smoke every day, by educational attainment (2021, 2022 or 2023)
In per cent; 25-64 year-olds
European Social Survey (ESS) 2023, International Social Survey Programme (ISSP) or other surveys (2021, 2022 or 2023)
Tertiary Upper secondary or post-secondary non-tertiary Below upper secondary
80 80
70 70
60 60
50 50
40 40
30 30
20 20
10 10
0 0
Note: The average includes only countries participating in the 2023 European Social Survey, not all OECD countries.
1. Source is the International Social Survey Programme (ISSP) for Mexico, South Africa, the United States, Japan, Denmark and New Zealand.
2. Korea Welfare Panel Study Survey (2023).
3. Source is the EU Statistics on Income and Living Conditions (EU-SILC) (2022).
4. Source is the Australia’s National Health Survey (2022).
5. Source is the Canadian Community Health Survey (CCHS) (2023).
For data, see Table A6.2. For a link to download the data, see Tables and Notes section.
Although the overall average across OECD countries is low, there is wide cross-country variation in the share of adults
smoking every day. Among countries with ESS data, Bulgaria has the highest share of daily smokers among tertiary-
educated adults, at 37%, while Sweden has the lowest (3%), followed by England, the Netherlands, and Norway (4%).
Among countries with ISSP data, the share of daily smokers ranges from 4% of tertiary-educated adults in
New Zealand, to 27% in Mexico. For each data source, smoking rates fall as educational attainment increases in most
countries, but not all (Figure A6.2).
There is a parallel trend with educational attainment evident among individuals who have never smoked, with the share
of those who report having never smoked increasing as educational attainment increases. About 34% of 25-64 year-
olds with below upper secondary education report never having smoked, compared to about 39% of those with upper
secondary or post-secondary non-tertiary education and about 50% of those with tertiary education (Table A6.2).
Bulgaria (29%) and Greece (34%) have the highest shares of young adults (18-24 year-olds) with upper secondary or
post-secondary non-tertiary attainment who smoke daily. Among young adults with below upper secondary educational
attainment, the highest share of daily smokers can be found in Hungary(45%) and the lowest share in Czechia (5%)
(Table A6.2).
Data for tertiary-educated 18-24 year-olds are harder to interpret due to small sample sizes and the fact that some of
this age group may be actively pursuing a tertiary degree despite not having yet attained one (Table A6.2).
These patterns highlight the relationship between smoking and educational attainment, suggesting that higher levels
of education may be associated with greater awareness of the health risks of smoking and greater adherence to
healthier lifestyles.
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
147
Mental health and educational attainment
Since the COVID-19 pandemic, mental health has garnered significant attention in OECD countries, emerging as a
crucial topic for policy development. The lockdowns implemented during the pandemic had a negative impact on
mental health, leading to increased rates of anxiety, depression and other mental health disorders (OECD, 2021[8]).
Previous OECD work on mental health has drawn on the widely recognised definition provided by the World Health
Organization (WHO), which defines mental health as “a state of well-being in which the individual realises his or her
own abilities, can cope with the normal stresses of life, can work productively and fruitfully, and is able to contribute to
his or her community” (OECD, 2023[19]).
Despite increasing recognition of its importance, mental health care remains excluded from universal public healthcare
provision in many OECD countries, exacerbating disparities by socio-economic status and by gender, as women report
higher rates of anxiety and depression (OECD, 2021[8]). Individuals earning lower incomes also face barriers to care,
as out-of-pocket costs make therapy unaffordable when not covered by insurance (Reiss et al., 2021[20]). The stigma
surrounding mental health also remains a barrier to seeking help for many. In some countries, there is a belief that
discussing mental health issues or visiting a therapist is a sign of weakness, which can deter individuals from pursuing
the care they need (Corrigan, 2004[21]). As a result, individuals struggling with mental illness face even greater
challenges in accessing education and participating fully in the labour market, further compounding the barriers to their
social and economic inclusion.
The relationship between educational attainment and mental health outcomes is well established. Research indicates
that individuals with lower educational levels are more likely to experience mental health challenges and have less
access to effective treatment options (Demange et al., 2023[22]; Silverman and Teachman, 2022[23]). Sociological
perspectives, such as Pearlin’s stress process model, highlight that stressors contributing to mental health challenges
are not randomly distributed but are shaped by social and economic conditions (Pearlin, 1989[24]). Individuals with
lower educational attainment or in lower socio-economic strata often face more frequent and severe stressors, while
also having fewer personal and social resources to cushion their impact. These unequal distributions contribute to
persistent disparities, affecting both the motivation and the willingness to pursue education, and creating a negative
feedback loop in the relationship between mental health and academic engagement (Brännlund, Strandh and Nilsson,
2017[25]).
Figure A6.3 illustrates the share of adults who reported that they enjoyed life during the past week, using data from
the ESS, based on the CES-D 8 scale, which is used to assess depressive symptoms (see Definitions section). The
CES-D 8 is a standardised, internationally comparable scale with strong reliability (OECD, 2023[19]).
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
148
Figure A6.3. Share of adults who reported enjoying life during the past week, by educational
attainment (2023)
In per cent; 25-64 year-olds; enjoyed life all the time, almost all the time or most of the time
European Social Survey (ESS) 2023 or national survey (2023)
Tertiary Upper secondary or post-secondary non-tertiary Below upper secondary
100 100
90 90
80 80
70 70
60 60
50 50
40 40
30 30
20 20
10 10
0 0
Note: The average includes only countries participating in the 2023 European Social Survey, not all OECD countries.
1. Korea Welfare Panel Study Survey (2023).
For data, see Table A6.3. For a link to download the data, see Tables and Notes section.
Among countries and economies with ESS data available, tertiary-educated 25-64 year-olds generally reported the
highest rates of life enjoyment, with 75% on average reporting that they enjoyed life almost all or most of the time. This
share decreases with lower educational attainment, with 71% of those holding an upper secondary qualification and
61% of those with below upper secondary education reporting that they enjoyed life almost all or most of the time
(Table A6.3).
In many countries, higher educational attainment does not correlate with greater life enjoyment. For instance, in
Sweden, only 64% of tertiary-educated adults reported enjoying life, compared to 84% of those with below upper
secondary attainment and 79% of those with upper secondary or post-secondary non-tertiary education. These low
relative levels of enjoyment among those with tertiary education could be in part due to high levels of workplace stress
and job involvement (Azila-Gbettor, Atsu and Quarshie, 2022[26]) (Figure A6.3 and Table A6.3).
These results may reflect the multifaceted context-dependent nature of subjective health. Although higher levels of
education are often associated with better physical and mental health outcomes – linked to higher income, improved
access to health care and healthier lifestyles choices – the enjoyment of life is influenced by a broader range of social,
cultural and psychological factors (Aggarwal et al., 2011[5]; Jusot, Or and Sirven, 2012[3]). For instance, individuals with
lower educational attainment may benefit from stronger local social networks and greater reliance on community
support, protective factors that can foster a greater sense of belonging and emotional stability. Life satisfaction is also
influenced by personal expectations and cultural norms, which can vary widely across socio-economic groups. In some
settings, lower educational groups may adopt more pragmatic or community-oriented definitions of success and
happiness, which may contribute positively to their sense of enjoyment (Maass et al., 2016[27]; Inaba et al., 2015[28]).
Thus, although education often enhances material well-being and health, its relationship with subjective life enjoyment
is more complex and not necessarily linear.
Data from the ISSP provide insights into the share of individuals who reported feeling depressed in the past four weeks,
by educational attainment. Among those with below upper secondary education, the highest rate was reported in Korea
(27%), while the lowest was observed in South Africa (4%). For individuals with upper secondary or post-secondary
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
149
non-tertiary education, Korea reported the highest rate (21%) and Mexico the lowest (3%). Among tertiary-educated
individuals, rates were generally lower, ranging from 17% in Korea to just 1% in the United States. These data are
consistent with those from ESS, which consistently found higher rates of adults reporting feeling depressed among
those with below upper secondary education than those with tertiary educational attainment (Table A6.3).
Definitions
Age group: Although there is explicit reference to 18-24 year-olds throughout this chapter, the term adult is used only
in reference to 25-64 year-olds.
Educational attainment refers to the highest level of education successfully completed by an individual.
Levels of education: See the Reader’s Guide at the beginning of this publication for a presentation of all ISCED 2011
levels.
Mental health enables individuals to manage life’s challenges, realise their potential, perform effectively in learning
and work, and contribute to their communities. It is an essential component of overall health, supporting both individual
and collective capacities to make decisions, form relationships and shape the world around us (WHO, 2022[29]).
Self-rated health refers to an individual's own assessment of their health status, typically expressed through a survey
or questionnaire. It is usually rated on a scale (e.g. from "excellent" to "poor") and reflects the person's perception of
their physical and mental health.
The CES-D-8 is an eight-item version of the Centre for Epidemiologic Studies (CES) scale for assessing depressive
symptoms. The scale is used to measure the frequency and severity of depressive feelings. Respondents of the scale
were asked to indicate how often in the week previous to the survey they felt or behaved: felt depressed, felt that
everything was an effort, slept poorly, felt lonely, felt sad, could not get going, enjoyed life, felt happy. Respondents
chose their response from a 4 Likert scale ranging from "none" or "almost none of the time" to "all" or "almost all of the
time". Scale scores are assessed using a non-weighted summed ranging from 0 to 24, the higher scores indicating a
higher frequency and severity of depressive symptoms. Table A6.3 provides the remaining items from the scale.
Methodology
Different questions were asked to survey respondents, depending on the data source:
Table A6.1.
1. Survey of Adult Skills (PIAAC) (2023) question: "In general, how would you rate your health: excellent, very
good, good, fair, or poor?"
2. International Social Survey Programme (ISSP) (2021) question: "In general, would you say your health is:
excellent, very good, good, fair, poor, can't choose".
3. EU Statistics on Income and Living Conditions (EU-SILC) (2024) question: "How is your health in general? Is
it… very good, good, fair, bad, very bad".
Table A6.2.
1. European Social Survey (ESS) Round 11 (2023) question: “Now thinking about smoking cigarettes. Which of
the descriptions on this card best describes your smoking behaviour?” The interviewer gave different options.
2. International Social Survey Programme (ISSP) (2021) question: “Do you smoke cigarettes, and if so, about
how many cigarettes a day?” The interviewer gave different options.
3. EU Statistics on Income and Living Conditions (EU-SILC) (2022) question: “In the last 12 months, did you use
tobacco (including water pipes, heated tobacco, chewing tobacco, etc.) or any other related products
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
150
(electronic cigarettes with or without nicotine, nicotine pouches, etc.)?” Response categories include “Yes,
daily; Yes, a few times a week; Yes, a few times a month; Yes, a few times a year; Not at all”.
Table A6.3.
1. European Social Survey (ESS) Round 11 (2023) question: “How much of the time during the past week did
you feel this way…You felt depressed?, You could not get going?, You enjoyed life?, You felt that everything
you did was an effort?, You were happy?, You felt lonely?, You felt sad?, Your sleep was restless?”.
Respondents could choose from the following options: “None or almost none of the time”, “Some of the time”,
“Most of the time”, “All or almost all the time”.
2. International Social Survey Programme (ISSP) (2021) question: “During the past 4 weeks how often… have
you felt unhappy and depressed?”. Respondents could choose from the following options: “very often”, “often”,
“sometimes”, “seldom”, “never”, “can’t choose”.
Source
• Australia’s National Health Survey (2022) – Tables A6.1 and A6.2.
• Canadian Community Health Survey (CCHS) (2023) – Tables A6.2 and A6.3.
• Canadian Social Survey (CSS) (2023) – Table A6.3.
• European Social Survey (ESS) round 11 (2023) – Tables A6.2 and A6.3.
• EU Statistics on Income and Living Conditions (EU-SILC) (2024) – Table A6.1.
• EU Statistics on Income and Living Conditions (EU-SILC) (2022) – Table A6.2.
• International Social Survey Programme (ISSP) (2021) – Tables A6.1, A6.2 and A6.3.
• Korea Welfare Panel Study Survey (2023) conducted by Korea institute for Health and Social Affairs (KIHASA)
– Table A6.2.
• Survey of Adult Skills (PIAAC) Cycle 2 (2023) – Table A6.1.
For more information, please refer to Education at a Glance 2025 Sources, Methodologies and Technical Notes
(https://doi.org/10.1787/fcfaf2d1-en)
References
Aggarwal, A. et al. (2011), “Does diet cost mediate the relation between socioeconomic position and diet [5]
quality?”, European Journal of Clinical Nutrition, Vol. 65/9, https://doi.org/10.1038/ejcn.2011.72.
Arslan, G. (2021), “School belongingness, well-being, and mental health among adolescents: Exploring the [1]
role of loneliness”, Australian Journal of Psychology, Vol. 73/1, pp. 70-80,
https://doi.org/10.1080/00049530.2021.1904499.
Azila-Gbettor, E., E. Atsu and A. Quarshie (2022), “Job stress and job involvement among tertiary interns: [26]
The buffering role of perceived coworker support”, Heliyon, Vol. 8/9, p. e10414,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2022.e10414.
Brännlund, A., M. Strandh and K. Nilsson (2017), “Mental-health and educational achievement: The link [25]
between poor mental-health and upper secondary school completion and grades”, Journal of Mental
Health, Vol. 26/4, https://doi.org/10.1080/09638237.2017.1294739.
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
151
Corrigan, P. (2004), “How stigma interferes with mental health care”, American Psychologies, Vol. 59/7, [21]
pp. 614-625, https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.59.7.614.
Dai, X. et al. (2022), “Health effects associated with smoking: A burden of proof study”, Nature Medicine, [17]
Vol. 28/10, pp. 2045-2055, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41591-022-01978-x.
Demange, P. et al. (2023), “Evaluating the causal relationship between educational attainment and mental [22]
health”, European Neuropsychopharmacology, Vol. 75, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euroneuro.2023.08.044.
Ford, M. and B. Wiggins (2012), “Occupational-level interactions between physical hazards and cognitive [10]
ability and skill requirements in predicting injury incidence rates”, Journal of Occupational Health
Psychology, Vol. 17/3, https://doi.org/10.1037/a0028143.
Honório, O. et al. (2021), “Social inequalities in the surrounding areas of food deserts and food swamps in a [14]
Brazilian metropolis”, International Journal for Equity in Health, Vol. 20/1,
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12939-021-01501-7.
ILO (2021), World Employment and Social Outlook: Trends 2021, International Labour Organization, [6]
Geneva, https://www.ilo.org/publications/world-employment-and-social-outlook-trends-2021.
Inaba, Y. et al. (2015), “Which part of community social capital is related to life satisfaction and self-rated [28]
health? A multilevel analysis based on a nationwide mail survey in Japan”, Social Science and
Medicine, Vol. 142, pp. 169-182, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2015.08.007.
Jusot, F., Z. Or and N. Sirven (2012), “Variations in preventive care utilisation in Europe”, European Journal [3]
of Ageing, Vol. 9/1, pp. 15-25, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10433-011-0201-9.
Kharroubi, S. et al. (2024), “Assessing the relationship between physical health, mental health and [2]
students’ success among universities in Lebanon: A cross-sectional study”, International Journal of
Environmental Research and Public Health, Vol. 21/5, p. 597, https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph21050597.
Maass, R. et al. (2016), “The impact of neighborhood social capital on life satisfaction and self-rated health: [27]
A possible pathway for health promotion?”, Health and Place, Vol. 42, pp. 120-128,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healthplace.2016.09.011.
Murakami, K., S. Kuriyama and H. Hashimoto (2023), “Economic, cognitive, and social paths of education [9]
to health-related behaviors: Evidence from a population-based study in Japan”, Environmental Health
and Preventive Medicine, Vol. 28/0, pp. 9-9, https://doi.org/10.1265/ehpm.22-00178.
OECD (2024), Society at a Glance 2024: OECD Social Indicators, OECD Publishing, Paris, [4]
https://doi.org/10.1787/918d8db3-en.
OECD (2023), Health at a Glance 2023: OECD Indicators, OECD Publishing, Paris, [18]
https://doi.org/10.1787/7a7afb35-en.
OECD (2023), How to Make Societies Thrive? Coordinating Approaches to Promote Well-being and Mental [12]
Health, https://doi.org/10.1787/fc6b9844-en.
OECD (2023), Measuring Population Mental Health, OECD Publishing, Paris, [19]
https://doi.org/10.1787/5171eef8-en.
OECD (2021), Fitter Minds, Fitter Jobs: From Awareness to Change in Integrated Mental Health, Skills and [7]
Work Policies, Mental Health and Work, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/a0815d0f-en.
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
152
OECD (2021), Health at a Glance 2021: OECD Indicators, OECD Publishing, Paris, [8]
https://doi.org/10.1787/ae3016b9-en.
OECD (2009), Income distribution and subjective happiness: a survey, [13]
https://doi.org/10.1787/218860720683.
Pearlin, L. (1989), “The sociological study of stress”, Journal of Health and Social Behavior, Vol. 30/3, [24]
pp. 241-256, https://doi.org/10.2307/2136956.
Reiss, V. et al. (2021), “The influence of socio-economic factors on community mental health”, Jurnal [20]
Sosial, Sains, Terapan dan Riset (Sosateris), Vol. 10/1, https://doi.org/10.35335/v2zpxv28.
Schram, J. et al. (2021), “Working conditions and health behavior as causes of educational inequalities in [16]
self-rated health: An inverse odds weighting approach”, Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment
and Health, Vol. 47/2, pp. 127-135, https://doi.org/10.5271/sjweh.3918.
Silverman, A. and B. Teachman (2022), “The relationship between access to mental health resources and [23]
use of preferred effective mental health treatment”, Journal of Clinical Psychology, Vol. 78/6, pp. 1020-
1045, https://doi.org/10.1002/jclp.23301.
Waters, C. et al. (2016), “Assessing and understanding sedentary behaviour in office-based working adults: [11]
A mixed-method approach”, BMC Public Health, Vol. 16/1, https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-016-3023-z.
WHO (2022), Mental health, World Health Organization, https://www.who.int/news-room/fact- [29]
sheets/detail/mental-health-strengthening-our-response.
WHO (2010), “A conceptual framework for action on the social determinants of health”, Social Determinants [15]
of Health Discussion Paper, No. 2, World Health Organization, Geneva,
https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789241500852.
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
153
Tables and Notes
Chapter A6 Tables
Table A6.1 Self-reported health status, by educational attainment (2021, 2022, 2023 or 2024)
Table A6.2 Self-reported smoking status, by educational attainment and age group (2021, 2022 or 2023)
Table A6.3 Share of adults who responded "all or almost all the time" or "most of the time" to items assessing their mental health
during the past week, by educational attainment (2021 or 2023)
StatLink 2 https://stat.link/m6ny83
Data Download
To download the data for the figures and tables in this chapter, click StatLink above.
Data cut-off for the print publication 13 June 2025.
Notes for Tables
Table A6.1. Self-reported health status, by educational attainment (2021, 2022, 2023 or 2024)
Note: The question in the Survey of Adult Skills (PIAAC) is: “The next question is about your health. Overall, would
you say your health is excellent, very good, good, fair, or poor? By health, we mean both physical and mental health”.
Does not include adults who were only administered the doorstep interview due to a language barrier.
The question in the International Social Survey Programme (ISSP) is: "In general, would you say your health is:
excellent, very good, good, fair, poor, can't choose".
The question in EU-SILC is: "How is your health in general? Is it… very good, good, fair, bad, very bad".
Columns showing the standard errors, the categories very good and excellent together, and those showing data for
All levels of education are available for consultation on line.
1. Source is the Australia’s National Health Survey (2022). S.E. refers to the relative standard errors.
2. Source is the EU Statistics on Income and Living Conditions (EU-SILC) (2024).
Table A6.2. Self-reported smoking status, by educational attainment and age group (2021, 2022 or 2023)
Note: The question in the International Social Survey Programme (ISSP) is: “Do you smoke cigarettes, and if so about
how many cigarettes a day?” with response options as follows: Do not smoke and never did; Do not smoke now but
smoked in the past; Smoke 1–5 cigarettes per day; Smoke 6–10 cigarettes per day; Smoke 11–20 cigarettes per day;
Smoke 21–40 cigarettes per day; Smoke more than 40 cigarettes per day; Can’t choose.
The question in EU-SILC is: “In the last 12 months, did you use tobacco (including water pipes, heated tobacco,
chewing tobacco, etc.) or any other related products (electronic cigarettes with or without nicotine, nicotine pouches,
etc.)?” Response categories include: Yes, daily; Yes, a few times a week; Yes, a few times a month; Yes, a few times
a year; Not at all.
Columns showing data for 18-24 year-olds and for all levels of education are available for consultation on line. ESS
website last consultation: June, 2nd 2025.
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
154
1. Source is the Australia’s National Health Survey (2022).
2. Source is the Canadian Community Health Survey (CCHS) (2023).
3. Source is the Korea Welfare Panel Study Survey (2023).
4. Source is the EU Statistics on Income and Living Conditions (EU-SILC) (2022).
Table A6.3. Share of adults who responded "all or almost all the time" or "most of the time" to items assessing
their mental health during the past week, by educational attainment (2021 or 2023)
Note: The question in the International Social Survey (ISSP) is: "During the past 4 weeks how often. have you felt
unhappy and depressed?" The shares show the individuals who responded "very often".
Columns showing data for "Could not get going", "Felt everything is an effort", and "Felt sad", and for all levels of
education are available for consultation on line. ESS website last consultation: June, 2nd 2025.
1. Source is the Canadian Community Health Survey (CCHS) and the Canadian Social Survey (CSS) (2023).
2. Source is the Korea Welfare Panel Study Survey (2023).
Control codes
a – category not applicable; b – break in series; c – there are too few observations to provide reliable estimates; d –
contains data from another column; m – missing data; r – values are below a certain reliability threshold and should
be interpreted with caution x – contained in another column (indicated in brackets). For further control codes, see the
Reader’s Guide.
For further methodological information, see Education at a Glance 2025: Sources, Methodologies and Technical Notes
[(https://doi.org/10.1787/fcfaf2d1-en)
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
155
Table A6.1. Self-reported health status, by educational attainment (2021, 2022, 2023 or 2024)
In per cent; 25-64 year-olds
Survey of Adult Skills (PIAAC) (2023)
Upper secondary
Below upper secondary or post-secondary non-tertiary Tertiary
Very Very Very
Poor Fair Good good Excellent Poor Fair Good good Excellent Poor Fair Good good Excellent
OECD countries (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (13) (14) (15) (16) (17)
Austria 10 22 36 24 8 5 16 32 30 17 1 10 28 40 21
Canada 15 19 39 20 7 5 17 33 30 16 2 9 29 40 20
Chile 10 45 33 5 7 4 34 44 11 7 2 20 48 21 9
Czechia 10 30 37 14 7 4 13 40 29 14 1 5 29 44 21
Denmark 13 28 23 25 12 6 20 27 32 14 3 11 23 41 23
Estonia 12 34 32 14 7 8 31 37 16 8 3 19 40 28 10
France 14 28 36 13 7 9 21 38 23 10 3 12 36 32 17
Finland 6 39 41 10 4 4 20 44 24 8 1 11 38 35 14
Germany 14 32 30 17 6 9 24 40 20 6 4 15 38 31 12
Hungary 12 38 27 13 10 6 26 39 17 11 1 13 36 32 17
Ireland 12 19 33 27 9 3 12 31 37 17 2 7 23 44 24
Israel 12 17 24 17 30 5 10 20 25 41 2 6 18 31 43
Italy 4 21 43 24 8 2 12 38 36 12 1 13 32 41 14
Japan 17 37 36 9 2 7 30 42 15 5 6 23 44 21 6
Korea 23 46 25 6 1 11 46 29 11 3 6 37 37 15 4
Lithuania 16 43 27 7 7 8 35 35 12 10 3 20 39 26 12
Latvia 14 43 32 7 4 9 41 38 10 2 2 22 51 20 5
Netherlands 8 28 42 15 8 5 18 42 21 14 3 12 34 31 21
New Zealand 14 19 29 27 11 5 18 34 29 14 3 10 28 36 24
Norway 15 26 29 21 10 8 17 36 29 9 4 10 31 38 17
Poland 8 21 48 20 3 2 10 47 35 6 0 3 36 50 11
Portugal 11 38 32 12 7 4 19 40 24 13 2 13 33 36 15
Slovak Republic 8 22 41 21 9 3 13 41 33 11 1 9 32 41 17
Spain 8 24 39 20 9 4 16 40 28 12 3 14 35 36 12
Sweden 8 29 28 24 12 7 15 32 31 15 2 10 27 40 21
Switzerland 7 21 39 26 7 3 12 36 35 13 1 7 30 41 20
United States 7 30 33 19 11 6 22 35 26 11 3 11 28 38 21
Other economies
England (UK) 18 22 28 22 10 8 18 32 28 14 4 11 28 37 20
Flemish Region (Belgium) 10 20 42 21 7 4 20 42 25 9 3 11 34 36 17
OECD average 12 29 34 17 8 6 21 37 25 12 2 13 33 35 17
Partner and/or accession countries
Croatia 11 23 36 19 11 4 11 30 33 21 1 7 20 42 30
International Social Survey Programme (ISSP) (2021) or other surveys (2022 or 2024)
Upper secondary
Below upper secondary or post-secondary non-tertiary Tertiary
Very Very Very
Poor Fair Good good Excellent Poor Fair Good good Excellent Poor Fair Good good Excellent
OECD countries (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (13) (14) (15) (16) (17)
Australia1 28 x(1) 35 25 13 13 x(7) 31 38 18 9 x(13) 25 41 25
Luxembourg2 16 40 37 7 m 7 22 58 13 a 2 14 57 27 m
Mexico 8 41 29 13 10 1 30 42 20 7 1 18 44 32 5
Slovenia 14 21 49 2 15 5 26 43 22 5 1 9 44 37 10
Partner and/or accession countries
South Africa 5 24 36 23 12 3 15 41 28 14 1 4 32 31 31
Note: For notes on this table and a link to download the data, see Tables and Notes section above.
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
156
Table A6.2. Self-reported smoking status, by educational attainment and age group (2021, 2022 or
2023)
In per cent
European Social Survey (ESS) (2023)
Upper secondary
Below upper secondary or post-secondary non-tertiary Tertiary
Used to Have Used to Have Used to Have
smoke, smoked Have smoke, smoked Have smoke, smoked Have
but not a few never but not a few never but not a few never
Daily Frequently anymore times smoked Daily Frequently anymore times smoked Daily Frequently anymore times smoked
OECD countries (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (16) (17) (18) (19) (20) (26) (27) (28) (29) (30)
Austria 42 2 11 3 42 25 3 26 9 36 12 7 21 5 54
Belgium 37 8 23 6 26 21 4 21 11 42 9 3 18 16 53
Czechia c c c c c 23 5 22 9 41 5 4 19 17 55
Finland 22 0 44 8 25 17 8 36 17 23 5 4 27 24 40
France 25 3 26 7 39 24 3 33 6 35 10 4 23 14 49
Germany 51 4 12 7 26 28 5 24 10 34 7 6 21 18 48
Greece 52 1 14 5 28 49 3 14 6 28 35 3 17 5 40
Hungary 46 5 6 3 39 28 3 10 7 52 13 4 14 8 62
Iceland c c c c c 7 2 42 13 36 5 1 28 19 46
Ireland 34 1 17 4 44 15 3 22 4 56 10 3 19 8 59
Israel c c c c c 36 3 10 2 49 16 4 10 6 64
Italy 30 4 16 9 41 25 4 17 9 44 24 5 13 10 48
Latvia 55 0 6 4 34 34 6 24 6 29 12 10 24 13 41
Lithuania 56 6 8 13 17 36 9 14 16 25 21 9 22 22 26
Netherlands 36 7 25 7 25 15 4 32 9 39 4 5 27 17 47
Norway 23 3 40 10 23 13 3 34 15 35 4 3 27 22 45
Poland 39 1 30 6 24 30 4 23 8 36 13 4 19 12 52
Portugal 21 1 13 1 64 23 1 12 2 62 18 2 16 5 59
Slovak Republic 78 5 5 0 12 26 7 18 7 41 13 5 18 10 55
Slovenia 35 4 21 7 33 29 5 19 9 38 11 7 15 11 57
Spain 35 3 27 3 32 26 4 21 6 43 11 4 24 10 52
Sweden c c c c c 6 2 37 22 33 3 2 25 34 35
Switzerland 24 8 14 6 49 27 6 20 10 38 8 7 18 18 49
Other economies
England (UK) 27 3 19 3 48 16 3 26 6 48 4 4 22 14 56
Average 38 3 19 6 34 25 4 22 9 39 11 5 20 14 50
Partner and/or accession countries
Bulgaria 51 4 11 5 28 51 5 16 6 22 37 9 21 6 26
Croatia 44 1 13 7 34 37 3 14 6 40 22 6 16 7 49
International Social Survey Programme (ISSP) (2021) or other surveys (2022 or 2023)
Upper secondary
Below upper secondary or post-secondary non-tertiary Tertiary
Used to Have Used to Have Used to Have
smoke, smoked Have smoke, smoked Have smoke, smoked Have
but not a few never but not a few never but not a few never
Daily Frequently anymore times smoked Daily Frequently anymore times smoked Daily Frequently anymore times smoked
OECD countries (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (16) (17) (18) (19) (20) (26) (27) (28) (29) (30)
Australia1 30 x(6) 35 m 35 17 x(16) 32 m 51 7 x(26) 25 m 69
Canada2 25 2 29 5 39 16 3 27 8 46 6 3 18 12 62
Denmark 29 m 35 m 36 24 m 32 m 44 11 m 27 m 62
Japan 34 m 49 m 17 26 m 27 m 48 14 m 24 m 62
Korea3 22 m 0 m 78 28 m 0 m 72 17 m 0 m 83
Luxembourg4 31 4 a 1 65 22 5 a 4 69 11 5 a 4 81
Mexico 27 m 22 m 51 31 m 19 m 51 27 m 16 m 57
New Zealand 11 m 48 m 41 13 m 41 m 46 4 m 14 m 82
United States 42 m 4 m 54 26 m 24 m 50 15 m 21 m 65
Partner and/or accession countries
South Africa 23 m 4 m 72 26 m 4 m 70 22 m 12 m 66
Note: For notes on this table and a link to download the data, see Tables and Notes section above.
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
157
Table A6.3. Share of adults who responded "all or almost all the time" or "most of the time" to
items assessing their mental health during the past week, by educational attainment (2021 or 2023)
In per cent; CES-D 8 scale items assessing individuals' mental health; 25-64 year-olds
European Social Survey (ESS) (2023)
Upper secondary
Below upper secondary or post-secondary non-tertiary Tertiary
Felt Enjoyed Felt Felt Restless Felt Enjoyed Felt Felt Restless Felt Enjoyed Felt Felt Restless
depressed life happy lonely sleep depressed life happy lonely sleep depressed life happy lonely sleep
OECD countries (1) (3) (5) (6) (8) (9) (11) (13) (14) (16) (17) (19) (21) (22) (24)
Austria 8 55 55 11 20 2 66 75 3 7 4 70 77 5 10
Belgium 11 74 72 11 33 10 79 79 10 28 3 83 86 4 19
Czechia 16 29 56 29 27 12 64 77 8 11 9 66 81 7 6
Finland 3 57 60 3 17 3 75 73 3 13 1 74 73 2 9
France 11 82 78 14 35 6 83 78 7 29 5 89 83 4 18
Germany 17 47 51 12 41 9 69 73 4 27 3 68 78 3 13
Greece 5 52 53 12 6 4 64 59 7 7 3 71 68 6 7
Hungary 21 51 55 10 28 8 74 80 8 16 3 83 85 7 10
Iceland 13 61 68 14 24 8 71 83 3 26 5 79 84 4 18
Ireland 5 73 73 5 14 4 80 81 4 14 1 86 87 3 13
Israel 12 46 42 12 38 16 46 46 12 21 8 49 54 8 17
Italy 6 26 51 11 11 3 45 64 5 6 1 51 72 3 4
Latvia 7 46 42 4 21 11 48 57 8 19 5 60 65 4 13
Lithuania 14 50 51 11 32 9 64 63 8 15 3 75 79 4 9
Netherlands 7 75 77 7 24 2 86 86 2 18 3 87 89 1 17
Norway 7 83 67 3 27 2 86 74 4 13 2 84 72 3 11
Poland 11 81 70 12 22 9 79 77 8 16 7 82 80 6 14
Portugal 15 60 61 14 29 5 66 68 7 20 3 71 73 5 17
Slovak Republic 11 52 55 13 10 5 70 70 7 10 4 81 77 2 7
Slovenia 4 75 73 5 25 3 87 89 3 14 3 87 88 4 14
Spain 9 64 70 8 23 6 70 77 6 21 5 74 82 4 17
Sweden 5 79 68 5 16 5 72 77 5 16 3 64 77 3 14
Switzerland 4 74 80 4 20 6 81 85 4 15 2 82 83 4 15
Other economies
England (UK) 12 67 65 8 34 8 75 75 7 28 5 77 78 4 18
Average 10 61 62 10 24 7 71 74 6 17 4 75 78 4 13
Partner and/or accession countries
Bulgaria 9 45 42 9 13 6 57 56 9 12 4 71 68 9 11
Croatia 10 69 80 10 23 5 81 89 4 10 1 89 90 3 9
International Social Survey Programme (ISSP) (2021) or other surveys (2023)
Upper secondary
Below upper secondary or post-secondary non-tertiary Tertiary
Felt Enjoyed Felt Felt Restless Felt Enjoyed Felt Felt Restless Felt Enjoyed Felt Felt Restless
depressed life happy lonely sleep depressed life happy lonely sleep depressed life happy lonely sleep
OECD countries (1) (3) (5) (6) (8) (9) (11) (13) (14) (16) (17) (19) (21) (22) (24)
Canada1 10 m m 20 21 9 m m 15 20 6 m m 11 16
Denmark 11 m m m m 4 m m m m 3 m m m m
Japan 6 m m m m 5 m m m m 5 m m m m
Korea 2 27 98 99 26 41 21 98 99 17 30 17 98 99 12 27
Mexico 11 m m m m 3 m m m m 3 m m m m
New Zealand 8 m m m m 5 m m m m 4 m m m m
United States 5 m m m m 5 m m m m 1 m m m m
Partner and/or accession countries
South Africa 4 m m m m 5 m m m m 4 m m m m
Note: For notes on this table and a link to download the data, see Tables and Notes section above.
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
158
Part B. Access to education,
participation and progression
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
159
Chapter B1. How does the provision of
and participation in early childhood
education and care vary across
countries?
Highlights
• Most children aged 3 to 5 (85%) attend early childhood education (ECE) programmes across the OECD,
yet only 29% of those aged 0 to 2 are enrolled in ECE programmes on average.
• Participation in ECE has grown over the past decade, with enrolment in ECE programmes increasing by
9 percentage points to 29% among children under 3, and enrolment in ECE programmes for children aged
3 and above rising by 5 percentage points to 85% on average across OECD countries.
• Between 2013 and 2023, many countries experienced plateauing or declining numbers of children under
5, and population projections from 2023 to 2033 suggest the number of young children in most OECD
countries will continue to decline.
Context
Education in the early years has a crucial role in children’s development and well-being. An expanding body of
scientific research indicates that early childhood education and care (ECEC) substantially improves children’s
language, cognitive, social and emotional skills while fostering the self-regulation and confidence they need for a
smooth transition into primary school in the short term, particularly for children from low socio-economic
backgrounds (Yoshikawa, Weiland and Brooks-Gunn, 2016[1]; Shuey and Kankaraš, 2018[2]; OECD, 2020[3]; OECD,
2021[4]). Furthermore, the progress that children make in their first years can have a lasting impact on their
educational attainment, academic performance, well-being and earnings in later life (García et al., 2020[5]; Heckman
and Karapakula, 2019[6]).
ECEC services are diverse across countries, reflecting a variety of organisational structures, funding mechanisms
and governance models. Provision can occur both inside and outside the formal boundaries of ISCED
classifications, depending on national systems. In some countries, ECEC programmes are classified within
ISCED 0, while in others, services such as childcare centres or family day care, particularly for children under the
age of 3, are not considered part of the education system. The scope and quality assurance mechanisms governing
these diverse services can differ significantly, influencing access, enrolment and outcomes (OECD, 2017[7]).
While enrolment rates in ECEC have increased substantially over the past decade in many OECD and partner
countries, differences remain, particularly for children under the age of 3. Participation also varies by socio-
economic background, with children from disadvantaged families - who stand to benefit the most from participating
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
160
in early childhood education - being the least likely to attend (OECD, 2025[8]; OECD, 2024[9]). These gaps are often
influenced by factors such as availability, affordability, cultural preferences and policy priorities.
Demographic trends among young children also present important challenges for the ECEC sector. In many OECD
countries, the declining birth rate has led to a shrinking population of young children, affecting demand for ECEC
services (OECD, 2024[10]). While reduced child populations may ease pressures on resources in some contexts,
they can also pose financial sustainability challenges for providers and reduce economies of scale. At the same
time, demographic change offers opportunities to improve the quality of services by allowing for smaller group sizes
and more individualised attention if resources are effectively reallocated.
Figure B1.1. Enrolment rates of children in early childhood education (ISCED 0) and other ECEC
services (outside ISCED), by age groups (2023)
Age 0-2 in ISCED programmes Age 0-2 in other ECEC services Age 3-5
% Panel B. Enrolment rates in ECE services (outside ISCED is missing)
Panel A. Enrolment rates in ECEC services (outside ISCED included)
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
Note: Some countries have other registered ECEC services that are considered to be an integral part of their ECEC provision but do not
comply with all the ISCED11 level 0 criteria to qualify as educational programmes. Panel A shows the countries which either have enrolment
data for these other registered ECEC services or where such programmes do not exist. Panel B shows countries where such programmes
exist but they only have enrolment data for ISCED 0 programmes.
1. There are no ECEC services that fall outside ISCED classification.
2. Year of reference differs from 2023.
3. Early childhood education excludes early childhood educational development programmes (ISCED 01).
For data, see Table B1.2. For a link to download the data, see Tables and Notes section. .
Other findings
• In 24 OECD and partner countries, there are different programmes for children aged 0 to 2 and those aged
3 to 5, while 16 countries have integrated systems providing a single ECEC framework from birth or age 1
to the start of primary education.
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
161
• Enrolment rates for children aged 0 to 2 vary greatly across OECD countries, with over 60% participation
in Korea, Luxembourg, the Netherlands and Norway, and less than 5% in Mexico and the Republic of
Türkiye, though rates rise notably as children age.
• The largest increases in enrolment for children aged 3 to 5 over the past decade occurred in Costa Rica,
Croatia, Poland and Türkiye, where rates grew by over 20 percentage points, driven by policies such as
expanded compulsory pre-primary education and guaranteed access to ECEC services.
• Over the next decade, countries such as Argentina, Greece, Italy, Japan and Korea are expected to see
a slowing in the decline in the numbers of young children, while Eastern European countries like Bulgaria,
Poland and the Slovak Republic may face declines of over 15% due to low fertility and emigration. In
contrast, Israel’s young population is projected to grow by 15%, reflecting high fertility rates.
Note
This chapter only covers formal education and care. Informal care services (generally unregulated care arranged
by the child’s parents either in the child’s home or elsewhere, provided by relatives, friends, neighbours, babysitters
or nannies) are not covered (see Definitions section for more details). In some countries, children under the age of
3 are also likely to be enrolled in other registered ECEC services which do not meet ISCED 2011 criteria. The
enrolment rates of those children should be interpreted with caution, given the limited availability of data for these
services. As a result, the analysis of this chapter concentrates on the children at the age of 3 and above at pre-
primary level where data are more available and comparable.
Analysis
Differences in the structure of ECEC systems
In light of the numerous benefits associated with participation in early childhood education and care (ECEC), all OECD
countries acknowledge the need to develop high-quality ECEC programmes. Yet, there is notable variation in how
ECEC systems are structured, the types of services offered, and the broader parental leave, social and family policies
designed to promote participation.
A key distinction at the system level lies in the governance and organisation of ECEC services, specifically, whether
they are administered through a split or integrated system. In split systems, separate ECEC services are provided for
younger and older children, often dividing the group at the age of 3, prior to primary education. In contrast, integrated
systems offer a continuous approach to ECEC across the entire 0-5 or 0-6 age range, under a unified framework
leading up to primary school.
Split systems are used by 24 OECD and partner countries, with distinct programmes for 0-2 year-olds and 3-5 year-
olds. This distinction is not solely for international reporting purposes, but reflects national ECEC frameworks. For
instance, Spain organises early childhood education into two cycles: the first one covers age 0 to 3 and the second,
age 3 to 6. In many of these countries, it is common for different ministries or authorities to oversee services for
different age groups. Typically, services for the older group fall under the regulations of countries’ ministries of
education, while those for younger children are managed by other bodies, such as health or social welfare ministries.
In many cases, they are offered in different institutions and the required qualifications for teachers are different.
In contrast, 16 OECD and partner countries have adopted integrated systems, offering a single ECEC framework from
birth or the age of 1 to the start of primary education. For instance, in Estonia and Latvia, there is a single ECE
programme for children aged from 1.5 to 7, which is offered in centre-based settings, and is also regulated by a single
curriculum framework. These systems are generally overseen by a single authority, most often an education ministry,
which is responsible for the entire ECEC framework and for ensuring continuity and quality across age groups. In such
cases, any categorisation of ECEC by age group (e.g. as ISCED 01 and ISCED 02) is typically made to facilitate
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
162
international comparison rather than reflecting governance or structural divisions within the national system.
Additionally, split and integrated systems coexist in some countries.
Split system: Austria, Belgium, Brazil, Bulgaria, Chile, Colombia, Czechia, France, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Israel,
Italy, Korea, Mexico, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania, the Slovak Republic, Spain, Switzerland, Türkiye
and the United States.
Integrated system: Australia, Canada, Costa Rica, Croatia, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Iceland, Latvia, Lithuania,
Luxembourg, New Zealand, Norway, Slovenia, Sweden and the United Kingdom.
Both: Germany and Japan.
There are differences in several other aspects of ECEC systems, including the age at which children enter ECEC, the
number of hours they attend and who is responsible for regulating the services. Differences can also be seen in where
services are delivered - whether in dedicated centres, schools or home-based settings - as well as whether the services
include structured educational activities (Box B1.1).
Varieties of ECEC provision across countries
Other registered ECEC services (classified as outside ISCED) for children aged below 3
According to ISCED 2011 definitions, an early childhood education (ECE) programme/service must meet specific
criteria to be classified as ISCED level 0. These include having an intentional educational component (such as a
curriculum or defined learning objectives), being institutionalised (centre or home-based but structured for a group of
children), maintaining a minimum level of educational component intensity (at least 2 hours per day and/or 100 days
per year), being regulated by an education-oriented authority and being staffed by educators with defined qualifications
(UNESCO UIS, 2012[11]). Many childcare services for children under the age of 3 do not fulfil all of these criteria. For
instance, a private home-based childminder might provide excellent care but follow no structured curriculum or
guidelines. Similarly, a crèche run by a ministry of social affairs might prioritise nutrition and care over learning
outcomes. Even if these services are not formally considered “educational”, they inevitably support children’s
development: through play, social interaction, and routine, children learn motor skills, language, and social norms.
These types of ECEC provisions are considered as “other registered ECEC services” outside ISCED level 0.
In 10 OECD and partner countries and economies, all ECEC services for children below 3 are provided through such
services outside of ISCED. For example, France and the French Community of Belgium have split systems: childcare
services for younger children (such as crèches, halte-garderies, or accueil familial) are managed by social or family
affairs authorities and not considered ISCED 0 services, whereas écoles maternelles (from age 2.5 or 3) are under
education authorities and are considered ISCED 0 services. Consequently, even though these countries offer
extensive childcare provision, their governance structure and educational content means they are classified differently
from similar services in other countries. Likewise, Bulgaria, the Netherlands, Poland and Switzerland primarily provide
early childcare for younger children through services that remain outside the ISCED classification (Table B1.3).
In some countries, ECEC programmes outside the ISCED level 0 classification serve functions other than being the
main provision for children under the age of 3. For example, in Denmark, New Zealand and Norway, these services
often operate on a drop-in basis and are designed to complement the main ECEC system. Their primary role is to
support parents, particularly those working or studying, by offering flexible, safe childcare options. As drop-in services,
they allow for flexible attendance based on families’ needs, providing a more adaptable form of support for early care
(Table B1.3).
There are also some services outside formal early childhood education that serve as alternatives to standard early
childhood care options. While many of these are delivered in a caregiver’s home or other home-like settings as
regulated home-based provisions, in several countries such settings are covered by an official curriculum and therefore
qualify as ISCED level 0. These programmes are designed to broaden the range of available choices for families. For
instance, amas in Portugal function as regulated, home-based childminders who provide essential ECEC services for
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
163
up to 4 children simultaneously. Their role complements centre-based childcare options, ensuring that families have
diverse and adaptable choices to meet their specific needs. In Australia, In Home Care services provide care by
approved educators in the child's home. It is restricted to families who cannot access other types of approved care
due to non-standard or variable work hours, geographical isolation from other types of care, or complex or challenging
needs. Australia also offers an alternative home-based model that provides care in an educator’s home, called Family
Day Care. Such home-based models appeal to many families due to their intimate, home-like settings, which often
align more closely with the child’s everyday living environment. Compared to larger, centre-based facilities, home-
based arrangements typically involve fewer children, enabling caregivers to offer more personalised attention and
fostering stronger relationships. These home-based settings are particularly valued for its ability to respond more
effectively to the individual needs of each child. Furthermore, mixed-age groupings are common in home-based care,
allowing siblings to be looked after together and offering parents more convenient scheduling and logistics (European
Commission / EACEA / Eurydice, 2025[12]).
Distinct ECEC provision for specific groups
While mainstream ECEC services aim to serve the general population of young children, many countries have
developed specialised provisions to address the needs of groups that may require different forms of support,
adaptation or access. These distinct types of ECEC provision reflect broader efforts toward inclusion, equity and
responsiveness to diverse family and societal contexts.
In several countries, targeted ECEC programmes have been developed to support children with special educational
needs (SEN). In Czechia, children aged 4 to 6 with physical, mental, or sensory disabilities may attend Preparatory
Stage of Special Basic School that offers tailored support to prepare children for compulsory education (Eurydice,
2025[13]). The Flemish Community of Belgium offers Special Nursery Education that provides tailored ECEC for
children aged 2.5 to 6 years with specific educational needs. This system is designed to support children whose
developmental requirements cannot be adequately met within mainstream preschool settings (Eurydice, 2025[14]). In
Japan, Kindergarten Departments of Special Needs Education Schools are integral to Japan's special needs education
system and deliver individualised education and care for 3-5 year-olds with a range of disabilities (NIC-Japan, 2025[15]).
Targeted ECEC provisions also exist for children from ethnic, linguistic and cultural minority populations. In
the Netherlands, Voorschoolse educatie (VE), is designed to support children aged 2.5 to 4 years who are at risk of
educational disadvantage, particularly in language development. This programme aims to prepare children for a
successful start in primary school by enhancing their language, social and cognitive skills through structured play-
based learning (Government of the Netherlands, 2022[16]). In Colombia, for instance, Etnoeducación Preescolar is a
specialised early childhood education approach designed to serve indigenous, Afro-Colombian and other ethnic
communities. Rooted in the country's commitment to cultural diversity and inclusion, this model integrates ancestral
knowledge, native languages and community values into the educational experience of children aged 3 to 5. Similarly,
in New Zealand, Kōhanga Reo (meaning "language nest") are ECEC centres that immerse children from birth to school
age in te reo Māori (the Māori language) and tikanga Māori (Māori customs) aiming to revitalise the language and
culture through intergenerational transmission (Government of New Zealand, 2025[17]).
A number of unique and context-specific ECEC arrangements also exist. Workplace nurseries in Hungary provide
flexible childcare options close to parents' places of employment, facilitating work-life balance. Homeschooling is
recognised as an early learning arrangement under specific conditions in Luxembourg, allowing families to take a lead
role in their child’s early education. Additionally, European Nursery Schools in Belgium and Luxembourg offer
multilingual and multicultural ECEC services for children of EU institution employees, aligning with the European
Schools’ curriculum and governance (for further information about all of these arrangements see Box B1.1).
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
164
Box B1.1. Interactive visualisations of the structure of ECEC programmes
An interactive online platform is available to provide complementary contextual information on early childhood
education and care (ECEC) programmes. It gives information on the different types of programmes, their duration
and starting ages as well as information regarding their governance, curriculum frameworks and monitoring
methods.
The platform can be accessed via the Early Childhood Education and Care (ECEC) Systems Dashboard.
Enrolment of children under 3
Children under the age of 2 had the lowest participation rates in formal early childhood education (ECE) programmes
across OECD countries – only 21% on average in 2023. Enrolment rates among the youngest children can be
influenced by a range of factors including the number of places available, parental employment and leave, and the
cost of ECEC services or their free provision. Some countries, including Israel, Korea and Luxembourg, report notably
higher participation by children under the age of 2, with enrolment rates exceeding 45%. For 2-year-olds, the average
enrolment across OECD countries rises to 52%, though this figure masks substantial differences. While some
countries, such as India, the Netherlands and Switzerland, provide no ECE programmes classified as ISCED for 2-
year-olds, enrolment in formal services exceeds 90% in Iceland, Korea, Norway and Sweden (Table B1.1).
Some countries have high levels of enrolment in other registered ECEC services which are an integral part of ECEC
provision, but do not comply with the criteria for ECE (ISCED level 0) (e.g. crèches in France and amas in Portugal).
In the Netherlands, for example, 88% of 2-year-olds and 65% of children under the age of 2 attend such services.
Although such programmes exist in many countries, particularly for children under 3, not all countries are able to report
the number of children enrolled in them (Table B1.1).
Even when looking at rates in all ECEC programmes, regardless of whether they meet the ISCED standards or not,
enrolment rates for children aged 0 to 2 vary widely across OECD and partner countries. In Korea, Luxembourg,
the Netherlands and Norway, participation is relatively high, with over 60% of children under 3 enrolled in some form
of ECEC. In contrast, enrolment remains below 5% in Mexico and Türkiye for this age group, although it increases
significantly as children grow older (Table B1.2 and Figure B1.1).
Although almost all OECD countries provide free access to at least one year of ECEC before children start primary
education (Annex Table X1.3), ECEC services for children under the age of 3 are typically not fully funded by the
government. This reflects the fact that within constrained public budgets for ECEC, priority is often given to pre-primary
education (OECD, 2017[18]; OECD, 2024[19]). As a consequence, out-of-pocket costs for ECEC can be an important
barrier to enrolment in many OECD countries, particularly for lower income households. On the other hand, in the
11 OECD and partner countries where free ECEC services are available to children under the age of 3 (Annex Table
X1.3), enrolment rates are notably high for this age group. For instance, in Korea, where the enrolment rate is 95%
among 2-year-olds, children are entitled to some free ECEC services from birth (Table B1.1).
Other factors such as women’s labour-market participation, the duration and accessibility of parental leave, and the
availability of informal social networks for childcare, are also likely have an impact on enrolment rates among young
children. The traditional role of women as principal caregiver can be a determining factor in the use of childcare
services. For example, in countries where female labour-force participation remains relatively low, such as Mexico
(47%) and Türkiye (36%) respectively, enrolment rates in ECEC are also comparatively low (International Labour
Organization, 2025[20]). The length of parental leave is another important determinant. In Hungary and
the Slovak Republic, where mothers are entitled to more than three years of paid leave, the enrolment rate for children
under the age of 3 stood at 21% in Hungary and 5% in the Slovak Republic in 2023 (OECD, 2025[21]) (Table B1.2).
Lastly, in some countries, lower participation in formal ECEC may reflect the widespread reliance on informal childcare
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
165
arrangements, often provided by extended family, neighbours or friends. Such informal mechanisms can significantly
supplement or substitute formal ECEC provision.
Trends in enrolment of children under the age of 3
Enrolment rates for children under the age of 3 in ECE programmes increased by 9 percentage points on average
across OECD countries over the past decade, reaching 29% in 2023. The growth has been particularly pronounced in
Hungary, Israel, Korea and Lithuania, each recording increases of more than 15 percentage points (Table B1.2). In
Korea, the surge is largely the result of substantial increases in public spending on ECEC, which has expanded service
availability and reduced the financial burden on families. In addition, the government’s broader policy agenda to
address persistently low fertility rates has included enhanced parental support measures, notably through improved
childcare services and reduced education-related costs (Yang, Hwang and Pareliussen, 2024[22]). Similarly, in
Lithuania, policy initiatives have made ECEC available from birth, underpinned by significant public funding that offsets
much of the cost for families. There has also been targeted government action to reduce inequalities between urban
and rural areas through the creation of multi-functional centres in rural communities and the provision of dedicated
transportation to improve access (OECD, 2017[23]).
Figure B1.2. Trends in enrolment rates of 3-5 year-olds in early childhood education (ISCED 0)
(2013 and 2023)
2023 2013
%
100
80
60
40
20
1. Early childhood education excludes early childhood educational development programmes (ISCED 01).
2. Year of reference differs from 2013.
3. Year of reference differs from 2023.
For data, see Table B1.2. For a link to download the data, see Tables and Notes section.
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
166
In many European countries, increases in enrolment may be attributed to the further impetus provided by the European
Union (EU) after the original targets set at the Barcelona 2002 meeting. The EU initially aimed for enrolment rates of
at least 33% of children under the age of 3 by 2010. These objectives were revised as part of the wider European Care
Strategy in 2022 to ensure more enrolment in ECEC, enhance the social and cognitive development of disadvantaged
children, and encourage parents' involvement in the labour market. The revised Barcelona targets for 2030 are for a
minimum of 45% of children under the age of 3 to be enrolled in formal childcare (European Comission, 2023[24]).
Enrolment of children aged 3 to 5
Although participation in ECE is not compulsory in all OECD countries, enrolment among children aged 3 and over is
widespread. On average across OECD countries, 79% of 3-year-olds, 90% of 4-year-olds and 86% of 5-year-olds are
enrolled in ECE. The comparatively lower ECE enrolment rate for 5-year-olds reflects national differences in the
starting age for primary education. In countries such as Australia, Ireland, New Zealand and the United Kingdom,
primary schooling typically begins at age 5 (Box B1.2), which shifts some enrolment from ECE to primary education.
When total enrolment of 5-year-olds is considered, regardless of whether children are enrolled in ECE or primary
education, the average enrolment rate across OECD countries rises to 97% (Table B1.1).
In more than half of OECD countries with available data, the enrolment of children in ECE between the ages of 3 and
5 is nearly universal, reaching at least 90% (Table B1.2). The highest enrolment rates of 4-year-olds in either ECE or
primary education are in Costa Rica, France, Israel and Peru, where they equal or exceed 99%. In contrast, 50% or
less are enrolled in education in Switzerland and Türkiye (Table B1.1). In Switzerland, this lower rate may be partly
due to differences across cantons, as each canton sets its own starting age for compulsory education. In some
cantons, children start formal education later than in others, which affects enrolment figures at national level. In Türkiye,
while the enrolment rate for 4-year-olds remains below 50%, it rises to 98% for 5-year-olds (Table B1.1). This notable
increase reflects national education policies that prioritize preschool education for 5-year-olds, one year before the
start of compulsory education.
Trends in enrolment of children aged 3 to 5
Between 2013 and 2023, enrolment rates for children aged 3 to 5 in early childhood education rose by 5 percentage
points, reaching 85% across OECD countries. The most notable increases were in Costa Rica, Croatia, Poland and
Türkiye where enrolment grew by more than 20 percentage points. A major factor behind the gain in Costa Rica has
been the 2018 policy extending compulsory education to include two years of pre-primary education for children aged
4 to 6. Consequently, the enrolment rate of 3-5 year-olds in early childhood education increased from 50% to 71%
over the last decade (Table B1.2). The largest gains occurred among children aged 4 and older, with enrolment
exceeding 95%, effectively achieving universal coverage. However, participation among 3-year-olds remains
comparatively low at 6% in 2023 (Table B1.1). This illustrates how compulsory education reforms in pre-primary
education can successfully accelerate enrolment growth, ensuring that more children benefit from critical early learning
opportunities during their foundational years. In Poland, the increase in enrolment of 3-5 year-olds from 71% in 2013
to 94% in 2023 has been due to the gradual extension of the legal entitlement to age 3 starting from 2014, combined
with capped fees for additional hours beyond the standard free provision and expansions in preschool infrastructure
(Polish Eurydice Unit, 2014[25]; UNHCR, 2025[26]; Eurydice, 2025[27]).
Box B1.2. Specific educational programmes aiming to facilitate transition to primary education
All OECD countries have established pre-primary education programmes to support the development, well-being
and early learning of young children. A key objective of these programmes is to facilitate a smooth and confident
transition from early childhood education into primary education. While this goal is inherent to most pre-primary
settings, some countries offer a specific (mostly one-year) preparatory programme immediately before primary
school entry. These programmes, often referred to as “reception,” “bridging year,” or simply the final year of
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
167
kindergarten, are designed to build essential foundational skills. They focus on socialisation, early literacy and
numeracy, language acquisition, and classroom behaviours such as following routines and participating in
structured activities. The aim is to ensure that children are well prepared and experience a positive start to their
formal educational journey.
In Australia, the foundation year serves as the formal entry point into primary education for children aged
approximately 5. While attendance is optional in several states and territories, children typically start school around
the age of 5, with compulsory schooling beginning by age 6. The foundation year aims to establish essential skills
in literacy, numeracy and socialisation through structured yet child-centred activities. This model positions the
preparatory stage firmly within the primary education framework (Australian Curriculum, 2025[28]) .
Denmark’s kindergarten class, also known as preschool class (Børnehaveklasse), caters to 6-year-olds and has
acted as a mandatory bridge between early childhood education and primary school since 2009. Denmark
distinguishes itself with its strong emphasis on play-based learning, promoting social and emotional development
alongside early academic exposure (Blomgren, 2022[29]).
Romania’s preparatory grade (Clasa Pregătitoare), introduced in 2012 for 6-year-olds, formalises what was
previously an informal transition phase. Romania’s model aligns closely with school-readiness objectives, focusing
on bridging the gap between kindergarten and formal school through basic literacy, numeracy and behavioural
norms (Eurydice, 2025[30]).
In contrast, Ireland implements a two-stage preparatory system within its primary education cycle: Junior and
Senior Infants programmes, spanning ages 4 to 6. This model stands out for introducing children to formal schooling
at an earlier age than most OECD peers, blending play with structured learning to cultivate both cognitive and
social skills (Government of Ireland, 2025[31]).
Similarly, in England and Wales (United Kingdom), the Early Years of Foundation Stage within primary education
spans two years and serves as a transition from play-based nursery to formal schooling. Its second year is also
known as the reception year. It promotes holistic development across personal, social, emotional and academic
domains, balancing structured learning with child-initiated exploration (UK Government, 2025[32]).
Policy approaches to increasing enrolment in ECEC
The benefits of ECEC for children’s development, well-being and the transition to primary education have led many
policy makers to introduce targeted measures to increase participation. These measures include lowering the starting
age of compulsory education, establishing legal entitlements to ECEC services, offering free hours, or providing
substantial financial support for childcare services. Countries may adopt different policies or combinations of policies,
tailored to specific age groups and target populations. Additional strategies that complement these measures include
ECEC network planning, data and monitoring mechanisms for needs identification, flexibility of ECEC provision,
information services and administrative accessibility, and efforts to foster family and community engagement and trust
(OECD, 2025[8]).
Expansion of compulsory education to include pre-primary
Establishing a legal obligation to attend ECEC by lowering the starting age of compulsory education to cover some
pre-primary education has become a common strategy to increase enrolment rates with several countries adopting
this approach in the past decade. Costa Rica and Hungary lowered the compulsory starting age by two years, from 6
to 4, while eight other OECD and partner countries have lowered it by one year. Countries with already high enrolment
rates at the national level may implement such policies in order to strategically target disadvantaged subpopulations.
For instance, Belgium aims to increase regular attendance among migrant children with low-educated parents in large
cities through the inclusion of one year of pre-primary education in compulsory education (European Commission,
2019[33]). Similarly, starting from the 2019/2020 school year, France lowered the starting age of compulsory education,
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
168
making early childhood education compulsory for children aged 3 to 5 to ensure access for all. This measure, combined
with smaller class sizes in pre-primary education, aims to strengthen foundational learning and reduce inequalities in
Priority Education Network schools (REP and REP+) (OECD, 2020[34]). Lithuania has also adopted a targeted
approach, mandating compulsory pre-school education for children under the age of 5 living in households at socio-
economic risk (Eurydice, 2023[35]).
As a result, pre-primary education is now compulsory for one or more years in 24 OECD and partner countries. The
age at which compulsory education begins varies. In 11 countries, it starts just one year before entry into primary
education, while in others it starts earlier – at 3 in France, Hungary, Israel and Mexico; at 4 in Argentina, Brazil,
Bulgaria, Costa Rica, Greece and Luxembourg; and between the ages 4 and 5 in Switzerland (Table B1.2).
Legal entitlement to guaranteed ECEC places
Participation in ECEC is not compulsory for children under the age of 3 in any OECD country. However, some countries
offer a legal entitlement to an ECEC place, obligating public authorities to guarantee access to services for any child
within the relevant age range, upon parental request (Eurydice, 2023[36]). For example, Czechia and Poland have
gradually extended the entitlement to start from the age of 3 (fully implemented in Poland from 2017 and in Czechia
from 2018), despite only mandating one year of pre-primary education before primary education (European
Commission / EACEA / Eurydice, 2025[12]). Other countries, including Brazil, Canada, Hungary, Korea, Mexico and
New Zealand, offer this legal entitlement from birth. This approach allows families to choose early education options
that suit their needs while promoting widespread participation (Annex Table X1.3.).
Enhanced capacity for more places in ECEC services
Countries are also making widespread efforts to expand capacity in order to increase enrolment rates for children aged
3 and below. For example, Spain is using the funds from the European Recovery and Resilience Facility (RRF) to
create over 60 000 places by 2025. This initiative is intended to meet all demands for early education for children
under the age of 3 and to reduce regional disparities in participation (Government of Spain, 2024[37]).
Free ECEC hours
Affordability plays a critical role in ensuring that ECEC services are accessible to as many children as possible. In
recent years, many countries, particularly in Europe, have introduced free or partially subsidised ECEC services, often
targeting disadvantaged groups. For example, children aged 1 to 4 in Luxembourg are entitled to 20 hours of free
ECEC per week, with parents paying for any additional hours. In Lithuania, children from birth to primary education
receive 20 free hours per week, with any additional costs covered by government and municipal funds. Romania offers
free ECEC for all children from birth, both for the full-day programme (10 hours) and the short programme (5 hours).
In 2022, Bulgaria abolished fees for ECEC for all children from the age of 3 (European Commission / EACEA /
Eurydice, 2025[12]). Sweden obliges municipalities to provide ECEC places to children regardless of the duration of
their stay in the country or whether parents have formally requested enrolment. In Croatia, Roma parents are exempt
from kindergarten fees (Eurydice, 2023[36]).
Financial support mechanisms to enhance affordability
In countries with integrated ECEC systems, additional measures have been taken to enhance affordability and
accessibility through substantial financial support and subsidies for parents. In Denmark, for instance, although ECEC
services are not fully free before age 6, parental fees are capped at no more than 25% of the setting’s estimated gross
operating costs. Financial allowances are also available for low-income families, which can cover part or all of the
parental payment (økonomisk fripladstilskud). In Iceland, decisions on parental fees are made by individual
municipalities but cannot be higher than the total cost of the services provided. However, in the largest municipalities
it is common for parents to pay 10-20% of the cost of ECEC services. Finland introduced a maximum monthly fee of
EUR 311 as of August 2024, with over half of families exempt from any charges. In Sweden, the majority of ECEC
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
169
funding for children aged 1 to 6 comes from municipal budgets. Parents pay a small income-dependent contribution,
which is further capped based on the number of children per household (European Commission / EACEA / Eurydice,
2025[12]).
Since 2006, Japan introduced centres for early childhood education and care (Nintei Kodomo-en). These centres
combine the advantages of both kindergartens and day care centres, performing functions such as: to provide pre-
school children education and care, regardless of whether their guardians are working or not, and to support parenting
in the community through services such as parenting consultations and places where parents and children gather
(Imoto, 2007[38]). This reform has been implemented in light of diversifying needs in ECEC.
Demographic trends among young children
From 2013 to 2023, many countries have seen the number of children aged 0 to 4 plateauing or even declining. In
particular, several countries in Asia (e.g. China, Korea and Japan) and Southern Europe (e.g. Greece, Italy and Spain)
experienced substantial decreases in this age group, ranging from 22% to 40% (Figure B1.3). While some of these
changes are driven by country-specific factors such as emigration, they largely mirror global trends in declining birth
rates. On average across OECD countries, fertility rates fell from about 1.7 in the early 2010s to around 1.5 by 2022
(OECD, 2024[39]). A few countries have experienced growing populations of young children between 2013 and 2023,
often due to higher fertility or immigration. For instance, Israel maintained a fertility rate close to 3, leading to an
increase in its under-5 population (OECD, 2024[39]). In Austria, Germany, Luxembourg and Switzerland, despite
persistently low fertility rates, the number of young children has risen, primarily as a result of immigration (Figure B1.3).
Austria, Luxembourg and Switzerland report some of the highest shares of non-national children among those under
5, at 21% of 0-4 year-olds in Austria, 28% in Luxembourg and 47%, in Switzerland (Eurostat, 2025[40]).
Looking ahead to the period from 2023 to 2033, population projections suggest these trends will continue, with most
OECD countries expected to see further declines in their populations of young children. However, the extent of these
declines will vary across countries. In Greece, Italy, Japan and Korea, the rate of decrease is expected to slow relative
to the previous decade. In contrast, several Eastern European countries, including Bulgaria, Poland and
the Slovak Republic, are projected to see sharper drops of over 15%, driven by persistent low fertility and ongoing
emigration. Similarly, Latin American countries like Argentina, Brazil, Colombia and Costa Rica are expected to
experience declines in their young child populations of over 9%, largely due to falling birth rates. Meanwhile, Israel’s
young population is projected to keep growing by 15% due to its high fertility rate. In addition, several Northern
European countries (e.g. Denmark, Iceland, the Netherlands and Norway), along with Australia might offset low fertility
rates with immigration, stabilising and even increasing the number of children under 5 (Figure B1.3).
Declines in the numbers of young children can pose some challenges in ECEC systems. In areas where child
populations fall below sustainable levels, ECEC centres, particularly private providers reliant on fee income, may
struggle to remain operational, potentially leading to unequal access to high-quality early education (European
Commission / EACEA / Eurydice, 2025[12]).
Despite declining enrolment in pre-primary education in many countries, recent trends indicate that public expenditure
per child in ECEC has increased (see Figure C2.3 in Chapter C2). This presents an opportunity to optimise education
systems by reallocating resources more efficiently, focusing on quality over quantity (OECD, 2024[10]). Smaller group
sizes may enable lower child-to-teacher ratios, more manageable workloads, reduced staff stress and improved
learning environments (see Chapter D2). Therefore, the demographic shift may be reflected in a stronger policy
emphasis on improving quality.
Another consideration is the geographical distribution of demographic change. Even if the number of young children
declines at national level, certain cities (often capitals or economically strong regions) may still experience increases
due to internal migration or differing fertility patterns, while other regions see big falls. This regional disparity
underscores the need for targeted policy responses to address the unique demographic challenges across different
areas. For example, in Germany, some eastern Länder have faced consistent population declines among children,
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
170
whereas major cities such as Munich and Berlin have experienced baby booms in certain years, leading to uneven
demand for ECEC services (Pastuszka, 2023[41]).
Figure B1.3. Historical and projected changes in the population of 0-4 year-olds (2013 to 2023 and
2023 to 2033)
2013-2023 2023-2033
%
25
15
-5
-15
-25
-35
-45
For data, see OECD Society Statistics – Demography Indicators at OECD Data Explorer (OECD, 2025[42]).
Definitions
Early childhood education (ECE): ECEC services in adherence with the criteria defined in the ISCED 2011
classification (see ISCED 01 and 02 definitions) are considered early childhood education programmes and are
therefore referred to as ECE in this chapter. Others registered ECEC services are considered an integral part of
countries’ ECEC provision but are not in adherence with all the ISCED criteria. Therefore, the term of ECE excludes
the programmes that do not meet the ISCED 2011 criteria.
ISCED 01 refers to early childhood educational development services which mostly serve children aged 0 to 2
and ISCED 02 refers to pre-primary education which mostly serves children aged 3 to 5.
ECEC services: The types of ECEC services available to children and parents differ greatly. Despite those differences,
most ECEC settings typically fall into one of the following categories (for more information see Education at a Glance
2025 Sources, Methodologies and Technical Notes (https://doi.org/10.1787/fcfaf2d1-en)).
1. Regular centre-based ECEC: More formalised ECEC centres typically belong to one of these three
subcategories:
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
171
a. Centre-based ECEC for children under age 3: Often called “crèches”, these settings may have an
educational function, but they are typically attached to the social or welfare sector and associated with
an emphasis on care. Many of them are part-time and provided in schools, but they can also be provided
in designated ECEC centres.
b. Centre-based ECEC for children from the age of 3: Often called kindergarten or pre-school, these
settings tend to be more formalised and are often linked to the education system.
c. Age-integrated centre-based ECEC for children from birth or age 1 up to the beginning of primary school:
These settings offer a holistic pedagogical provision of education and care (often full-day).
2. Family childcare ECEC: Licensed home-based ECEC, which is most prevalent for children under age 3.
These settings may or may not have an educational function and be part of the regular ECEC system.
3. Licensed or formalised drop-in ECEC centres: Often receiving children across the entire ECEC age
bracket and even beyond, these drop-in centres allow parents to complement home-based care by family
members or family childcare with more institutionalised services on an ad hoc basis (without having to apply
for a place).
Informal care services: Generally unregulated care arranged by the child’s parent either in the child’s home or
elsewhere, provided by relatives, friends, neighbours, babysitters or nannies; these services are not covered in this
chapter.
Methodology
Enrolment rates
Net enrolment rates are calculated by dividing the number of children of a particular age / age group enrolled in ECEC
by the size of the population of that age / age group. While enrolment and population figures refer to the same period
in most cases, mismatches may occur due to data availability and different sources used in some countries. Therefore,
population data is adjusted in the calculation of enrolment rates by age. This adjustment method ensures that if the
cumulative enrolment data across all ISCED levels exceeds the population data for a particular age, the population
data for that age is adjusted to match the total enrolment for the corresponding age.
Source
Data refer to the reference year 2023 (school year 2022/23) and are based on the UNESCO-UIS/OECD/Eurostat data
collection on education statistics administered by the OECD in 2025. For more information, see Education at a Glance
2025 Sources, Methodologies and Technical Notes (https://doi.org/10.1787/fcfaf2d1-en)
Data from Argentina, the People’s Republic of China, India, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia and South Africa are from the
UNESCO Institute of Statistics (UIS).
Data on historical and projected changes in the population of 0-4 year-olds are available in the OECD Society Statistics
(OECD, 2025[42]).
References
Australian Curriculum (2025), F-10 Curriculum Overview, https://v9.australiancurriculum.edu.au/f-10- [28]
curriculum/f-10-curriculum-overview/ (accessed on 12 May 2025).
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
172
Blomgren, H. (2022), “Let’s hide it! – Unfolding play and peer culture in a Danish prep class”, BUKS - [29]
Tidsskrift for Børne- & Ungdomskultur, Vol. 38/66, p. 18, https://doi.org/10.7146/buks.v38i66.133775.
European Comission (2023), Education and Training Monitor 2023, Publications Office of the European [24]
Union, Luxembourg, https://doi.org/10.2766/810689.
European Commission (2019), Education and Training Monitor 2019: Belgium, Publications Office of the [33]
European Union, Luxembourg, https://doi.org/10.2766/64426.
European Commission / EACEA / Eurydice (2025), “Key data on early childhood education and care in [12]
Europe - 2025”, Eurydice Report, Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg,
https://doi.org/10.2797/004435.
Eurostat (2025), Population on 1 January by age, sex and broad group of citizenship, [40]
https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/databrowser/view/migr_pop2ctz__custom_16540148/default/table?lang=e
n (accessed on 12 May 2025).
Eurydice (2025), Belgium - Flemish Community -Separate special education needs provision in early [14]
childhood and school education, https://eurydice.eacea.ec.europa.eu/eurypedia/belgium-flemish-
community/separate-special-education-needs-provision-early-childhood-and.
Eurydice (2025), Czechia - Separate special education needs provision in early childhood and school [13]
education, https://eurydice.eacea.ec.europa.eu/eurypedia/czechia/separate-special-education-needs-
provision-early-childhood-and-school-education.
Eurydice (2025), Poland - Early childhood education and care access, [27]
https://eurydice.eacea.ec.europa.eu/eurypedia/poland/access (accessed on 12 May 2025).
Eurydice (2025), Romania - Primary education, [30]
https://eurydice.eacea.ec.europa.eu/eurypedia/romania/primary-education (accessed on 13 May 2025).
Eurydice (2023), Lithuania - Organisation of the education system and of its structure, [35]
https://eurydice.eacea.ec.europa.eu/national-education-systems/lithuania/organisation-education-
system-and-its-structure (accessed on 22 May 2024).
Eurydice (2023), Structural Indicators for Monitoring Education and Training Systems in Europe 2023: Early [36]
Childhood Education and Care, Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg,
https://doi.org/10.2797/868638.
García, J. et al. (2020), “Quantifying the life-cycle benefits of an influential early-childhood program”, [5]
Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 128/7, pp. 2502-2541, https://doi.org/10.1086/705718.
Government of Ireland (2025), Education, Department of Education, https://www.gov.ie/en/department-of- [31]
education/policies/education/ (accessed on 13 May 2025).
Government of New Zealand (2025), Definitions - Early learning services, [17]
https://www.educationcounts.govt.nz/find-an-els/els/definitions (accessed on 25 June 2025).
Government of Spain (2024), Spain: Biennial progress report on the implementation of the European Child [37]
Guarantee, Ministerio de Juventud e Infancia,
https://www.juventudeinfancia.gob.es/sites/default/files/infancia/garantia/2025-01-
14/Spain.%20Biennial%20progress%20report%20ECG.pdf (accessed on 12 May 2025).
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
173
Government of the Netherlands (2022), Accessing early childhood education (VVE) for native Dutch [16]
speaking toddlers and pre-school-age children, https://www.government.nl/topics/language-
disadvantage/early-childhood-education-for-native-dutch-speaking-toddlers-and-pre-school-age-
children.
Heckman, J. and G. Karapakula (2019), “The Perry preschoolers at late midlife: A study in design-specific [6]
inference”, NBER Working Papers, No. 25888, National Bureau of Economic Research,
https://doi.org/10.3386/w25888.
Imoto, Y. (2007), “The Japanese preschool system in transition”, Research in Comparative and [38]
International Education, Vol. 2/2, pp. 88-101, https://doi.org/10.2304/rcie.2007.2.2.88.
International Labour Organization (2025), ILO modelled estimates database (ILOEST), International Labour [20]
Organization, http://ilostat.ilo.org/data.
NIC-Japan (2025), Overview of the Education System, National Information Center for Academic [15]
Recognition in Japan, https://www.nicjp.niad.ac.jp/en/japanese-system/about.html.
OECD (2025), Indicator PF2.1. Parental leave systems, OECD Family Database, [21]
https://www.oecd.org/content/dam/oecd/en/data/datasets/family-
database/pf2_1_parental_leave_systems.pdf (accessed on 16 July 2024).
OECD (2025), OECD Society Statistics - Demography Indicators, OECD Data Explorer, http://data- [42]
explorer.oecd.org/s/1u1 (accessed on 15 May 2025).
OECD (2025), Reducing Inequalities by Investing in Early Childhood Education and Care, Starting Strong, [8]
OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/b78f8b25-en.
OECD (2024), Education at a Glance 2024: OECD Indicators, OECD Publishing, Paris, [9]
https://doi.org/10.1787/c00cad36-en.
OECD (2024), “How are demographic changes affecting education systems?”, Education Indicators in [10]
Focus, No. 87, OECD, Paris, https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/how-are-demographic-changes-
affecting-education-systems_158d4c5c-en.html (accessed on 12 May 2025).
OECD (2024), “International evidence to support the reform of Early Childhood Education and Care in [19]
Brazil in 2024”, OECD Education Policy Perspectives, No. 97, OECD Publishing, Paris,
https://doi.org/10.1787/b820e627-en.
OECD (2024), Society at a Glance 2024: OECD Social Indicators, OECD Publishing, Paris, [39]
https://doi.org/10.1787/918d8db3-en.
OECD (2021), Starting Strong VI: Supporting Meaningful Interactions in Early Childhood Education and [4]
Care, Starting Strong, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/f47a06ae-en.
OECD (2020), Early Learning and Child Well-being: A Study of Five-year-Olds in England, Estonia, and the [3]
United States, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/3990407f-en.
OECD (2020), “Education policy outlook in France”, OECD Education Policy Perspectives, No. 15, OECD, [34]
Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/debad1c1-en (accessed on 12 May 2025).
OECD (2017), Education in Lithuania, Reviews of National Policies for Education, OECD Publishing, Paris, [23]
https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264281486-en.
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
174
OECD (2017), Starting Strong 2017: Key OECD Indicators on Early Childhood Education and Care, [18]
Starting Strong, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264276116-en.
OECD (2017), Starting Strong V: Transitions from Early Childhood Education and Care to Primary [7]
Education, Starting Strong, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264276253-en.
Pastuszka, S. (2023), “Regional demographic differences in Germany”, Studia Prawno-Ekonomiczne, [41]
Vol. 128, https://doi.org/10.26485/SPE/2023/128/7.
Polish Eurydice Unit (2014), The System of Education in Poland, Foundation for the Development of the [25]
Education System, Warsaw, https://education.org.pl/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/the-
system_2014_www.pdf (accessed on 12 May 2025).
Shuey, E. and M. Kankaraš (2018), “The power and promise of early learning”, OECD Education Working [2]
Papers, No. 186, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/f9b2e53f-en.
UK Government (2025), Early years foundation stage, https://www.gov.uk/early-years-foundation-stage [32]
(accessed on 13 May 2025).
UNESCO UIS (2012), International Standard Classification of Education: ISCED 2011, UNESCO Institute [11]
for Statistics, https://uis.unesco.org/sites/default/files/documents/international-standard-classification-of-
education-isced-2011-en.pdf.
UNHCR (2025), Poland - Facilities for children aged 3-6, https://help.unhcr.org/poland/information-for-new- [26]
arrivals-from-ukraine/education-in-poland/facilities-for-children-aged-3-6/ (accessed on 12 May 2025).
Yang, Y., H. Hwang and J. Pareliussen (2024), “Korea’s unborn future: Lessons from OECD experience”, [22]
OECD Economics Department Working Papers, No. 1824, OECD Publishing, Paris,
https://doi.org/10.1787/75aa749c-en.
Yoshikawa, H., C. Weiland and J. Brooks-Gunn (2016), “When does preschool matter?”, The Future of [1]
Children, Vol. 26/2, pp. 21-35, https://doi.org/10.1353/foc.2016.0010.
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
175
Tables and Notes
Chapter B1 Tables
Table B1.1 Enrolment rates in early childhood education (ISCED 0), other ECEC services (outside ISCED) and primary education, by
age (2023)
Table B1.2 Trends in enrolment rates of children in early childhood education and care and pre-primary education, by age group (2013
and 2023)
Table B1.3 Characteristics of early childhood education and care programmes not classified as ISCED programmes (other ECEC
services) (2023)
StatLink 2 https://stat.link/mpa650
Data Download
To download the data for the figures and tables in this chapter, click StatLink above.
To access further data and/or other education indicators, please visit the OECD Data Explorer: https://data-
explorer.oecd.org/.
Data cut-off for the print publication 13 June 2025. Please note that the Data Explorer contains the most recent
data.
Notes for Tables
Table B1.1. Enrolment rates in early childhood education (ISCED 0), other ECEC services (outside ISCED) and
primary education, by age (2023)
Note: Early childhood education (ECE) = ISCED 0, other registered ECEC services = ECEC services outside the
scope of ISCED 0, because they are not in adherence with all ISCED criteria. To be classified in ISCED 0, ECEC
services should: 1) have adequate intentional educational properties; 2) be institutionalised (usually school-based or
otherwise institutionalised for a group of children); 3) have an intensity of at least 2 hours per day of educational
activities and a duration of at least 100 days a year; 4) have a regulatory framework recognised by the relevant national
authorities (e.g. curriculum); and 5) have trained or accredited staff (e.g. requirement of pedagogical qualifications for
educators).
1. In other registered ECEC services, 2-year-olds includes children under the age of 2, and 3-year-olds includes
children aged 3 to 5.
2. Early childhood education excludes early childhood educational development programmes (ISCED 01).
3. Early childhood education includes only early childhood educational development programmes (ISCED 01)
for the ages 2 and below.
4. Enrolment of 2 year-olds covers only children started to compulsory pre-primary education earlier than
theoretical starting age.
5. Year of reference differs from 2023: 2022 for Saudi Arabia.
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
176
Table B1.2. Trends in enrolment rates of children in early childhood education and care and pre-primary
education, by age group (2013 and 2023)
Note: Early childhood education (ECE) = ISCED 0, other registered ECEC services = ECEC services outside the
scope of ISCED 0, because they are not in adherence with all ISCED criteria. To be classified in ISCED 0, ECEC
services should: 1) have adequate intentional educational properties; 2) be institutionalised (usually school-based or
otherwise institutionalised for a group of children); 3) have an intensity of at least 2 hours per day of educational
activities and a duration of at least 100 days a year; 4) have a regulatory framework recognised by the relevant national
authorities (e.g. curriculum); and 5) have trained or accredited staff (e.g. requirement of pedagogical qualifications for
educators).
1. The legal age at which school becomes compulsory is 6, but children are allowed in legislation to attend school
from age 5, and most do.
2. Year of reference differs from 2013: 2014 for Croatia, Estonia, Japan and Türkiye; 2015 for Colombia, Hungary
and Romania; and 2017 for Ireland.
3. Enrolment of 2 year-olds covers only children started to compulsory pre-primary education earlier than
theoretical starting age.
4. Year of reference differs from 2023: 2022 for Saudi Arabia.
Table B1.3. Characteristics of early childhood education and care programmes not classified as ISCED
programmes (other ECEC services) (2023)
Note: Table excludes programmes outside ISCED that are designed to serve before/after school and during school
holidays. More data on outside ISCED programmes available at the Dashboard on Early Education and Care (ECEC)
Systems. A regulatory framework for ISCED level 0 programmes is defined as legislation, guidelines, standards or
instructions issued or recognised by whichever relevant authority governs the provision of educational programmes to
very young children (e.g. a ministry of education, other relevant ministry or affiliated institution). Educational activities
are activities that are designed and organised to achieve pre-determined learning objectives or to accomplish a specific
set of educational tasks over a sustained period. They are deliberate activities intended to bring about learning. They
are planned in a pattern or sequence with explicit or implicit aims, involving a providing agency (person/body) that
facilitates a learning environment, and a method of instruction.
1. There is, however, a national charter that must be applied to all childcare plans. This charter sets out the
principles applicable to the care of young children, whatever the type of care, in application of article L. 214-
1-1 of the French Code de l'action sociale et des familles.
Control codes
a – category not applicable; b – break in series; d – contains data from another column; m – missing data; x – contained
in another column (indicated in brackets). For further control codes, see the Reader’s Guide.
For further methodological information, see Education at a Glance 2025: Sources, Methodologies and Technical Notes
(https://doi.org/10.1787/fcfaf2d1-en)
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
177
Table B1.1. Enrolment rates in early childhood education (ISCED 0), other ECEC services (outside
ISCED) and primary education, by age (2023)
Under age 2 Age 2 Age 3 Age 4 Age 5
Early Other Early Other Early Other Early Early
childhood registered childhood registered childhood registered childhood childhood
education ECEC education ECEC education ECEC education Primary education Primary
(ISCED 0) services (ISCED 0) services (ISCED 0) services (ISCED 0) education (ISCED 0) education
OECD countries (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10)
Australia 37 4 67 3 79 3 91 1 24 76
Austria1 8 x(4) 49 7d 81 1d 94 0 98 0
Belgium2 m m 54 m 98 m 98 0 98 1
Canada3 20 18 45 23 m m m 0 93 0
Chile 14 0 32 0 53 0 81 0 92 0
Colombia 3 m 21 m 47 m 71 0 84 16
Costa Rica 2 m 4 m 6 m 100 0 97 0
Czechia a m 10 m 74 m 88 0 94 0
Denmark 40 m 87 m 95 m 96 0 95 1
Estonia 8 3 65 8 87 4 92 0 92 0
Finland 23 m 74 m 86 m 90 0 91 0
France4 a m 10 m 100 m 100 0 99 1
Germany 26 a 72 a 92 a 96 0 98 0
Greece m m m m m m 99 0 100 0
Hungary 5 a 52 a 97 a 98 0 98 0
Iceland 29 11 95 0 96 0 96 0 96 1
Ireland 12 m 32 m 91 m 76 18 1 98
Israel 50 a 76 a 100 a 99 0 96 1
Italy 0 m 14 m 91 m 94 0 89 7
Japan 32 a 74 a 91 a 98 0 99 0
Korea 55 a 95 a 98 a 95 0 95 0
Latvia 10 m 80 m 92 m 95 0 98 0
Lithuania 12 a 84 a 94 a 96 0 97 0
Luxembourg 60 0 81 0 91 m 98 0 98 1
Mexico 3 a 8 a 41 a 81 0 75 24
Netherlands a 65 a 88 86 4 95 0 98 0
New Zealand 32 5 66 5 80 4 84 0 8 88
Norway 45 m 95 m 97 m 97 0 97 0
Poland a 11 7 27 85 3 96 0 100 0
Portugal m m m m 83 m 97 0 100 0
Slovak Republic a m 14 m 69 m 81 0 92 0
Slovenia 31 m 84 m 91 m 94 0 95 0
Spain 33 m 71 m 97 m 98 0 98 0
Sweden 27 0 91 1 94 1 96 0 96 0
Switzerland a m 0 m 2 m 49 0 99 1
Türkiye 0 a 2 a 15 a 43 0 98 2
United Kingdom 1 m 54 m 100 m 98 2 0 100
United States m m m m m m m 0 m 4
OECD average 22 m 52 m 79 m 90 1 86 11
Partner and/or accession countries
Argentina 2 m 12 m 47 m 90 0 94 0
Brazil 15 a 42 a 60 a 76 0 91 1
Bulgaria a 5 15 43 81 0 86 0 93 0
China a m 5 m 76 m 95 a 100 0
Croatia 18 m 57 m 76 m 81 0 85 0
India a m a m 36 m 63 45 51 60
Indonesia m m m m m m m m m m
Peru 3 m 13 m 83 m 99 0 100 0
Romania 2 m 22 m 68 m 78 0 81 0
Saudi Arabia5 m m m m m m m a m 5
South Africa m m m m m m m a m 0
EU25 average 20 m 51 m 87 m 92 1 91 4
G20 average 17 m 41 m 71 m 85 3 77 18
Note: For notes on this table and a link to download the data, see Tables and Notes section above.
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
178
Table B1.2. Trends in enrolment rates of children in early childhood education and care and pre-
primary education, by age group (2013 and 2023)
Typical Under age 3 Age 3 to 5
Starting starting Early childhood Early childhood
age of age of educational educational
compulsory primary development Pre-primary Early childhood development Pre-primary Early childhood
education education (ISCED 01) (ISCED 02) education (ISCED 0) (ISCED 01) (ISCED 02) education (ISCED 0)
2023 2013 2023 2013 2023 2013 2023 2013 2023 2013 2023 2013 2023
OECD countries (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14)
Australia1 6 5 m 47 m 0 m 47 m 1 m 64 m 65
Austria 5 6 12 20 2 2 15 22 3 5 83 86 86 91
Belgium 5 6 m m 17 18 m m a a 98 98 m m
Canada 6 6 m 28 m m m m m 0 m 93 m 93
Chile 6 6 17 20 1 0 18 20 2 2 73 73 75 75
Colombia2 5 6 33 9 0 0 33 9 0 0 80 67 80 67
Costa Rica 4 6 1 3 0 0 1 3 2 2 48 69 50 71
Czechia 5 6 a a 6 3 6 3 a a 77 85 77 85
Denmark 6 6 60 55 0 0 61 55 2 1 95 95 97 95
Estonia 2 7 7 x(7) x(8) x(7) x(8) 23 28 x(13) x(14) x(13) x(14) 90 91
Finland 6 7 28 40 0 0 28 40 0 0 74 89 74 89
France3 3 6 a a 4 4 4 4 a a 99 100 99 100
Germany 6 6 33 42 0 0 33 42 0 0 96 95 96 95
Greece 4 6 m m 0 0 m m m m 49 67 m m
Hungary 2 3 6 5 21 0 0 5 21 1 4 91 93 92 97
Iceland 6 6 44 51 0 0 44 51 0 0 96 96 96 96
Ireland1, 2 6 5 m 18 0 0 8 18 m 0 54 55 54 55
Israel 3 6 31 58 0 0 31 58 0 0 100 99 100 99
Italy 6 6 a a 5 5 5 5 a a 94 91 94 91
Japan 2 6 6 a 43 0 3 0 46 a 0 91 96 91 96
Korea 6 6 52 69 0 0 52 69 0 0 93 96 93 96
Latvia 5 7 24 35 0 0 24 35 0 0 90 95 90 95
Lithuania 6 7 21 37 0 0 21 37 0 0 79 96 79 96
Luxembourg 4 6 a 67 2 0 2 67 a 0 88 96 88 96
Mexico 3 6 2 3 0 1 2 4 1 0 68 65 69 66
Netherlands 5 6 a a 0 0 0 0 a a 94 93 94 93
New Zealand1 6 5 39 44 0 0 39 44 0 0 61 57 61 57
Norway 6 6 55 61 0 0 55 61 0 0 97 97 97 97
Poland 6 7 a a 2 2 2 2 a a 71 94 71 94
Portugal 6 6 m m 0 0 m m m m 88 93 m 93
Slovak Republic 5 6 a a 4 5 4 5 a a 72 81 72 81
Slovenia 6 6 37 49 0 0 37 49 0 0 88 93 88 93
Spain 6 6 32 46 0 0 32 46 0 0 97 98 97 98
Sweden 6 7 46 49 0 0 46 49 0 0 94 95 94 95
Switzerland 4-5 6 a a 0 0 0 0 a a 47 50 47 50
Türkiye2 5.75 6 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 28 54 28 54
United Kingdom 5 5 11 19 0 0 11 19 0 0 53 67 53 67
United States 5 6 m m 0 0 m m m m 64 64 m m
OECD average 28 36 1 1 20 29 1 1 79 84 80 85
Partner and/or accession countries
Argentina 4 6 4 6 0 0 5 6 1 0 73 77 73 77
Brazil 4 6 16 25 0 0 16 25 16 23 50 53 65 75
Bulgaria 4 7 a a 3 5 3 5 a a 78 87 78 87
China 6 6 a a m 2 m 2 a a m 92 m 92
Croatia 2 5.5 7 17 28 2 3 19 31 1 3 57 77 59 80
India 6 6 a a m m m m a a m 50 m 50
Indonesia 7 7 m m m m m m m m m m m m
Peru 5 6 m 6 m 0 m 6 m 0 m 94 m 94
Romania 2 4 6 3 4 4 5 7 9 0 0 84 75 85 76
Saudi Arabia4 6 6 m m m m m m m m 13 19 m m
South Africa 7 7 m m m 0 m m m m m 10 m m
EU25 average 27 36 2 2 17 26 1 1 83 89 84 90
G20 average 17 28 m 1 m 24 2 2 m 68 m 79
Note: For notes on this table and a link to download the data, see Tables and Notes section above.
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
179
Table B1.3. Characteristics of early childhood education and care programmes not classified as
ISCED programmes (other ECEC services) (2023)
Theoretical starting
for a minimum level
duration (in years)
of attendance
age (in years)
Requirement
Theoretical
Existence
of
Programme name regulatory
in English General practice for level of attendance Institutional setting type framework
OECD countries (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7)
Australia In home care 0 5 No m Conducted in the home Yes
of the child
Austria Regulated home-based 0 6 No m Home-based Yes
care
Canada Child care programmes 0-2 1-3 m m Home or centre-based m
Costa Rica National Child Care and 0 m m m m m
Development Network
Child Care and Protection 0.5 m m m m m
Czechia Day nursery 0 2 m m m m
Centre-based setting 0 3 m m m m
Private childcare
Denmark arrangements 0.5 5.5 No Flexible attendance depending on the needs of parents Home or centre-based Yes
Conducted in the home of the
Estonia Childcare service 0 3 No Flexible attendance depending on the needs and age child or elsewhere suitable for Yes
of child decided by service provider and parents childcare
Finland Open ECEC activities 0-6 a No Typically random attendance m Yes
Creches 0 3 No m Centre-based Yes
France1 Micro-creches 0 3 No m Centre-based Yes
Childminders 0 3 No m Home-based Yes
Greece Child centre 2.5 3.5 Yes Minimum 4.5 hours per day/225 days m Yes
per year depending on parents’ decision
89% of children stay for 8 hours or more per day,
Iceland Home-based provision 1 0.8-5 No up to 48 weeks per year depending Home-based Yes
on parents’ decision
Latvia Child supervision services 1.5 3.5 No Part-time up to 4 hours a day, or full-time longer Home-based or centre-based Yes
than 4 hours a day depending on parents’ decision
Private day care centres 0 3 No Less than 40 hours per week depending on the number Centre-based Yes
of hours that the parents work
Netherlands
In-home care by 0 4 No Less than 40 hours per week depending on the number Home-based Yes
childminders of hours that the parents work
New Zealand Playgroups 0-4 a No Maximum 4 hours per day Community-based and parent-run Yes
organisations
Norway Open kindergartens 1 m No Flexible attendance depending on the needs of parents Centre-based No
Care for children aged 0-3
Poland years 0-3 2.0 No m Home-based or centre-based Yes
Day care, home-based
Portugal provision (childminder) 0 3 No m Home-based m
Childcare facilities
Slovak Republic up to 3 years of age 0.0 3.0 No m Centre-based Yes
Slovenia Care of preschool children 1 5 No m Home-based Yes
Spain Centre-based provision 0.0 3.0 No m Centre-based No
Sweden Pedagogical care 1 5 No Flexible attendance depending on the needs of parents Home-based Yes
Centre-based ECEC 0.5 3.5 No m Centre-based Yes
Switzerland
Home-based ECEC 0.5 3.5 No m Home-based Yes
United States Day care 0-5 1-3 No m Home, community or centre- No
based
Other participants
Home-based settings 0 2.5 No Mostly 2 days/week and up to 5 days/week depending Home-based Yes
on parents’ decision
French Comm. (Belgium)
Centre-based settings 0 2.5 No Mostly 2 days/week and up to 5 days/week depending Centre-based Yes
on parents’ decision
England (UK) Non-registered providers 0 5 No m a No
Northern Ireland (UK) Sure Start 0 3 No m Centre-based Yes
Full day care 0 5 No A continuous period of 4 hours or more in any day Centre-based Yes
A continuous period of 4 hours or less in any day,
Wales (UK) Sessional day care 0 5 No mainly used by children aged from 3 to 5 rather Centre-based Yes
than babies or toddlers
Creches 0 5 No Flexible attendance depending on the needs of parents Centre-based Yes
Partners and/or accession countries
Bulgaria Day nursery 0.25 2.6 No by component authority should be presented Centre-based Yes
Romania Day care centres 0 1.5 No m Centre-based Yes
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
180
enrolled students
Number of
Regulatory body Educational activities Function of the programme
OECD countries (8) (9) (10) (11)
Australia A combination of subnational and national frameworks No educational activities prescribed m Alternative for parents who can’t access to other
approved care
Austria Another relevant ministry (e.g. Health or Welfare) Recommended but not mandatory 7 370 Alternative to other approved care for parents
Canada m Recommended but not mandatory 219 100 Alternative to other approved care for parents
Costa Rica m m m Alternative to other approved care for parents
m m m Alternative to other approved care for parents
Czechia m m m Main ECEC provision for children under the age of 3
m m m
Operating on a drop-in basis for parents and
Denmark The Ministry of Education Recommended but not mandatory m complementing the main ECEC sector
Alternative or complementary to the main ECEC
Estonia Another relevant ministry (e.g. Health or Welfare) No educational activities prescribed 2 729 sector for parents
Finland The Ministry of Education Mandatory activities prescribed m Alternative for parents who take care of their child at
home instead enrolling the main ECEC sector
Another relevant ministry (e.g. Health or Welfare) No educational activities prescribed m Main ECEC provision for children under the age of 3
France1 Another relevant ministry (e.g. Health or Welfare) No educational activities prescribed m
Another relevant ministry (e.g. Health or Welfare) No educational activities prescribed m
Greece The Ministry of Education No educational activities prescribed m Alternative to other approved care for parents
Alternative for parents to use after the end of parental
Iceland Another relevant ministry (e.g. Health or Welfare) No educational activities prescribed 1 013 leave until the start of pre-school
Latvia A combination of subnational and national frameworks No educational activities prescribed m Alternative to other approved care for parents
Another relevant ministry (e.g. Health or Welfare) Recommended but not mandatory m Main ECEC provision for children under the age of 3
Netherlands and 4 and not at the risk of disadvantage
Another relevant ministry (e.g. Health or Welfare) Recommended but not mandatory m
New Zealand The Ministry of Education No educational activities prescribed m Operating on a drop-in basis for parents and
complementing the main ECEC sector
Norway Not regulated by a nationally-recognised framework No educational activities prescribed m Operating on a drop-in basis for parents and
complementing the main ECEC sector
Poland Another relevant ministry (e.g. Health or Welfare) Recommended but not mandatory 186 317 Main ECEC provision for children under the age of 3
Portugal m Recommended but not mandatory m Alternative to other approved care for parents
Slovak Republic Another relevant ministry (e.g. Health or Welfare) Mandatory activities prescribed m Main ECEC provision for children under the age of 3
Slovenia The Ministry of Education No educational activities prescribed m Alternative to other approved care for parents
Spain Another relevant ministry (e.g. Health or Welfare) No educational activities prescribed m Alternative to other approved care for parents
Sweden The Ministry of Education Recommended but not mandatory 6 810 Alternative to other approved care for parents
A combination of subnational and national frameworks Recommended but not mandatory m Main ECEC provision for children under the age of 4
Switzerland
A combination of subnational and national frameworks Recommended but not mandatory m
United States Not regulated by a nationally-recognised framework No educational activities prescribed m Alternative to other approved care for parents
Other participants
Another relevant ministry (e.g. Health or Welfare) Recommended but not mandatory m Main ECEC provision for children under the age of 2.5
French Comm. (Belgium)
Another relevant ministry (e.g. Health or Welfare) Recommended but not mandatory m
England (UK) Not regulated by a nationally-recognised framework No educational activities prescribed m Alternative to other approved care for parents
Northern Ireland (UK) The Ministry of Education Mandatory activities prescribed m Main ECEC provision for children under the age of 3
Another relevant ministry (e.g. Health or Welfare) Recommended but not mandatory m Main ECEC provision for children under the age of 3
Another relevant ministry (e.g. Health or Welfare) Recommended but not mandatory m Main ECEC provision for children under the age of 3
Wales (UK)
Another relevant ministry (e.g. Health or Welfare) No educational activities prescribed m Operating on a drop-in basis for parents and
complementing the main ECEC sector
Partners and/or accession countries
Bulgaria Another relevant ministry (e.g. Health or Welfare) No educational activities prescribed m Main ECEC provision for children under the age of 3
Romania Another relevant ministry (e.g. Health or Welfare) No educational activities prescribed m Alternative to other approved care for parents
Note: For notes on this table and a link to download the data, see Tables and Notes section above.
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
181
Chapter B2. How do different education
systems shape student pathways in
primary and lower secondary education?
Highlights
• Most OECD countries have effectively achieved near-universal enrolment for children aged 6 to
14, with enrolment rates exceeding 98%.
• On average across OECD countries, 2% of students in primary education and near 4% of those
in general lower secondary programmes are over-age for their grade, meaning they are at least
two years older than the intended age for that grade. This is primarily due to grade repetition
and, to a lesser extent, late school entry.
• Countries offering vocational lower secondary programmes target different populations and
pursue diverse objectives, based on the needs and expectations of relevant groups, including
early tracked students in general versus vocational programmes in initial education, students
with special educational needs and adult learners.
Context
The way education systems structure and manage primary and lower secondary education has a
profound influence on how student pathways develop. These stages typically span ages 6 to 14 and lay
the foundation for future academic achievement, personal development and transitions into further
education. Differences in enrolment policies, progression criteria and support systems determine
whether students remain on track or face early disruptions in their learning trajectories. Understanding
how these systems shape pathways begin with analysing how students enter, move through and
complete these foundational stages.
One of the visible markers of system variation is the age-grade alignment. While most children in OECD
countries are enrolled in school by age 6, some systems allow flexibility over starting ages, and practices
around grade repetition differ considerably. In countries where repetition is common, students may be
more likely to fall behind their peers and lose motivation. In contrast, systems that promote automatic
progression often implement support mechanisms to ensure students acquire the expected skills without
being held back. These choices reflect differing beliefs about how best to support learning and address
underperformance, and they shape student experiences from the earliest years of schooling.
Another key factor influencing student pathways is the structure of lower secondary education. Some
countries provide a single common track for all students through the end of compulsory education, while
others introduce tracking or programme differentiation – sometimes as early as age 10 or 11. Early
tracking in lower secondary education is most commonly implemented as differentiation by programme
orientation, such as general versus vocational tracks, similar to what is seen in upper secondary
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
182
education. It can channel students into more specialised educational routes, but it may also restrict
flexibility and reinforce socio-economic disparities. The presence and design of special education
provision, and the extent to which students with additional needs are included in mainstream settings
or placed in separate programmes, also reflect national approaches to equity and student diversity.
The transition from lower to upper secondary education is a pivotal moment that either sustains or alters
the trajectory established in earlier stages. In some systems, this transition is automatic; in others, it is
selective and based on academic performance or institutional capacity. How countries manage this
transition – through counselling, curriculum alignment or flexible programme options – can make the
difference between smooth progression and early disengagement. Thus, analysing these mechanisms
offers key insights into how education systems influence the continuity, quality and equity of student
pathways (Santos and Vitoria, 2023[1]).
Figure B2.1. Enrolment rates of 6-14 year-olds, by level of education (2023)
Pre-primary Primary Lower secondary Upper secondary
%
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
1. Year of reference differs from 2023.
For data, see Table B2.1. For a link to download the data, see Tables and Notes section.
Other findings
• In some countries the share of over-age students in lower secondary education has fallen; for
example targeted reforms aimed at restricting grade repetition have reduced the proportion by
around 2 percentage points in Chile, 4 percentage points in Belgium and 5 percentage points in
Spain.
• As of 2023, on average, 7% of lower secondary students in OECD countries were enrolled in
vocational programmes. Largely due to the inclusion of certain adult programmes in the
classification, these tracks serve a wider age range of students – with an average age ranging
from 11 years in some countries to as high as 45 years, compared to 12-18 years in general
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
183
programmes. They also tend to be more male dominated, whereas general programmes are
more gender balanced.
• The share of fourth grade students reporting they were absent from school at least once a week
rose modestly across countries, increasing from 11% in 2019 on average to 13% in 2023. The
rate is notably higher in Saudi Arabia (32%) and exceeds 15% in Brazil, Chile and South Africa.
The lowest levels of absenteeism were in Japan and Korea, with rates below 5%.
• In Iceland, Ireland, Japan, Norway, and Poland, over 95% of students start upper secondary
education at the expected age, indicating strong age-grade alignment. In contrast, in Hungary,
the Netherlands, and Switzerland, 35% or fewer do so, suggesting widespread delayed entry.
Analysis
Enrolment of students aged 6 to 14
The age range 6-14 corresponds broadly to primary and lower secondary education, which are part of
compulsory schooling in all OECD countries. This has contributed to the effective achievement of universal
enrolment among this age group, with two thirds of countries enrolling over 98% of 6-14 year-olds. These
high enrolment levels are a direct outcome of policies ensuring free and compulsory basic education and
consistent investment in physical and human resources. Minor shortfalls in enrolment can signal specific
challenges. For instance, if a country’s enrolment rate for 6-14 year-olds is slightly below 100%, it may
indicate that the school system is not fully reaching certain groups (perhaps children with special
educational needs, or those in remote communities or from low-income families). Although most partner
countries have closed the gap in basic enrolment, some continue to face challenges in reaching the
remaining children. This includes India, Romania, Saudi Arabia and South Africa where enrolment among
this age group is under 90% (Figure B2.1).
The distribution of enrolment by education level reflects structural differences in education systems.
Typically, primary education lasts six years in OECD countries, but it ranges from four years in several
countries (e.g. Austria and Hungary) to eight years in Ireland. Lower secondary education generally lasts
three years, ranging from two years in Belgium and Chile to six years in Germany and Lithuania (Annex
Table X1.3). As a result, around two-thirds of students aged 6 to 14 are enrolled in primary education on
average across OECD countries. Countries where primary education starts later, or upper secondary
education starts earlier, may see greater shares of 6-14 year-olds enrolled at pre-primary or upper
secondary levels. For example, in Finland and Sweden primary education begins at the age of 7 and over
10% of students aged 6 to 14 are enrolled in pre-primary education in these countries. Similarly, in all
countries where upper secondary education starts at the age of 14, over 8% of students aged 6 to 14 are
enrolled in upper secondary education (Figure B2.1).
The arrangement and duration of a country’s primary, lower secondary and upper secondary schooling
(e.g. 4+4+4 or four years at each level, 6+3+3 or 4+6+3) can reflect a combination of historical factors and
educational philosophies. For instance, the 4+6+3 system in Germany (four years of primary, six years of
lower secondary and three years of upper secondary education) results in a longer lower secondary phase
that supports early tracking, where students begin to specialise in academic or vocational pathways at a
relatively young age. Conversely, Finland delays tracking until after nine years of comprehensive education
(i.e. 6+3+3), allowing all students to receive the same education before specialising. Meanwhile, countries
such as Hungary and the Republic of Türkiye have adopted the 4+4+4 structure, reflecting a more even
division of time spent in primary, lower secondary and upper secondary education (Annex Table X1.3).
Over the past decade, Poland stands out among OECD and partner countries as the only one to have
significantly changed its primary and secondary education structure. In 2017, the country implemented a
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
184
major reform that restructured its education system. Previously organised in a 6+3+4 model, the new
system adopted an 8+4 structure. This reform extended primary education to eight years, introduced a
uniform curriculum for this entire period and abolished lower secondary schools (gimnazjum). For the sake
of international comparability, however, education data of Poland are broken down into 4+4+4,
redistributing enrolment figures between primary and lower secondary levels (Table B2.1). The main goal
of the reform was to equip students with a solid foundation of general education that supports both personal
development and the demands of a modern labour market (Wojniak and Majorek, 2018[2]).
Poland’s move aligns with a broader trend in Nordic countries, which have long favoured comprehensive
education systems and delay academic tracking until upper secondary education. For example, Sweden
already has a nine-year comprehensive primary education system and plans to introduce a ten-year model
by 2028, incorporating the current final year of compulsory early childhood education and care (ECEC)
into the first year of primary education (Government of Sweden, 2024[3]).
Over-age students in initial education
In 2023, on average across OECD countries, 2% of students in primary education and near 4% of those
in general lower secondary programmes were over-age for their grade, meaning they are at least two years
older than the intended age for that grade. There is considerable variation across OECD countries in the
proportion of over-age students. At primary level, in Colombia, Hungary and the Slovak Republic, more
than 6% of students are over-age. In contrast, in countries such as Iceland, Ireland, Japan, Norway,
Sweden and the United Kingdom, nearly all students progress through primary education at the intended
age or just one year older. At the lower secondary level, more than 8% of students in general programmes
are over-age in Austria, Brazil, Colombia, Costa Rica, Hungary and Luxembourg, while the shares are
negligible in Ireland, Korea and Sweden (Table B2.2).
In nearly all OECD and partner countries, the primary reason students are over-age for their grade is grade
repetition (see next section), however other policies and factors can compound the rates. Once students
become over-age at the primary level for any reason, they tend to remain so in subsequent levels of
education. One of the reasons for being over-age is late entry into primary education. This can result from
parents choosing to delay school entry or from a lack of access to education at the appropriate starting
age. In some countries, regulations regarding school entry age vary across regions (e.g. across cantons
in Switzerland), allowing for flexible entry into primary education. These regional differences can contribute
to a higher share of over-age students at primary level. Regions that permit later school entry than the
national average may thus have disproportionately higher rates of over-age students.
Reception or integration classes for newly arrived migrant students can also contribute to this trend. For
example, in Switzerland, non-German/French/Italian-speaking newcomers, sometimes as old as 13, may
be placed in Grades 2 to 6 Aufnahmeklassen (admission classes) for up to two years to acquire language
skills before joining age-appropriate classes, increasing the share of students being over-age at the
primary level (Canton of Zurich, 2025[4]). Similarly, in Luxembourg, the presence of a diverse student
population, particularly those from immigrant backgrounds facing language barriers and cultural
adjustments, often results in late school entry or enrolment in cours d'accueil (welcome courses),
contributing to a high share of over-age students (Government of Luxembourg, 2025[5]).
Grade repeaters
Grade repetition occurs when a student does not meet the requirements to advance to the next grade and
must repeat the year, reinforcing age disparities as they progress through the education system. In 2023,
on average, 1.4% of primary students in OECD countries and 2.5% of lower secondary students in general
programmes were repeating their grade. This marks a slight increase at the primary level compared to
2015 (rising from 1.3 to 1.4), but a decline at the lower secondary level (falling from 3.0 to 2.5). Countries
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
185
such as Belgium, Chile and Spain, which historically had high repetition rates in lower secondary education,
have seen consistent declines due to targeted policy reforms. As a result, fewer students were over-age
in 2023 than in 2015 in these systems. Colombia, however, presents an exception. Despite increases in
grade repetition in both primary and general lower secondary education partly due to post-pandemic
issues, the share of over-age students has declined. This atypical pattern may reflect progress in
addressing other factors that contribute to being over-age, such as improved access to education at the
appropriate starting age (Figure B2.2).
Grade repetition policies
In some countries, the concept of grade repetition either does not exist or is very rare in practice. For
example, in many Nordic education systems, students typically progress automatically to the next grade
at the end of the school year at both primary and lower secondary levels, regardless of their academic
performance (OECD, 2023[6]). As a result, the proportion of over-age students is close to zero, except
where children started school late or because of student transfers. Although grade repetition is legally
allowed in countries like Finland and Sweden, it is rarely implemented. Instead, students who receive failing
grades are generally offered remedial support – such as summer school or additional tutoring – to help
them catch up without having to repeat the year (Finnish National Agency for Education, 2025[7]; Jönsson,
2018[8]).
Among the countries which do use grade repetition and have data available, 17 have restrictions on the
practice. These restrictions may apply in certain grades or specific types of programmes or schools, or
there may be limits on the number of times a student can repeat a grade in their current level of education
(see Table B3.4.2 in (OECD, 2023[9])). For instance, in Romania, repetition is not permitted in the first two
grades of primary education, while in Germany, it generally does not occur during these early years. In
both France and Germany, repetition is typically limited to once per educational cycle (e.g. primary or lower
secondary) (DEPP, 2014[10]; Eurydice, 2025[11]). In Spain, students are allowed to repeat a maximum of
twice during their whole compulsory education (Eurydice, 2025[12]).
In contrast, some education systems have historically relied more heavily on grade repetition as a policy
tool. However, even in these systems, new regulations over the past decade have significantly reduced
the use of repetition. Chile and Spain have challenges with over-age enrolment stemming from both
repetition and delayed school entry. In Chile, a 2018 law eliminated automatic grade retention. While the
new regulation does not prohibit grade repetition outright, it mandates that it should be used only as an
exceptional measure (López, Vandecandelaere and Allende González, 2025[13]). Similarly, in Spain, grade
repetition is now regarded as a last resort, applied only after all ordinary reinforcement and support
measures have been exhausted to address a student’s learning difficulties (Eurydice, 2025[12]).
The impact of grade repetition and being-over age on educational outcomes
Grade repetition is intended to help struggling students before they move on to the next grade. However,
its effectiveness is disputed and may depend on the level of education being repeated. Research indicates
that, below upper secondary level, grade repetition mostly results in negative student outcomes. Students
who repeat a grade in their current level of education tend to perform worse academically, have more
negative attitudes towards school at age 15, are less likely to obtain a secondary or higher education
qualification and are more likely to drop out of school altogether, even after accounting for socio-economic
background and individual characteristics (OECD, 2023[6]; Moulin and Sari, 2025[14]). Other research
shows that the negative effects are disproportionately greater for disadvantaged students and students
from ethnic minorities (Education Endowment Foundation, 2025[15]). Students who are over-age due to
grade repetition may feel stigmatised or isolated, which can contribute to them leaving school early
(UNESCO-UIS, 2012[16]). Teachers may also face challenges in teaching mixed-aged classes, as they
have to handle a wider range of maturity and skill levels (Cronin, 2019[17]).
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
186
Figure B2.2. Trends in the share of general lower secondary students over-age for their grade (2015
and 2023)
2023 2015
%
25
20
15
10
1. Year of reference differs from 2015.
For data, see Table B2.2. For a link to download the data, see Tables and Notes section.
Profile of lower secondary students
In most OECD and partner countries, lower secondary education is comprehensive, with all students
following a general curriculum. However, in some systems, students are tracked earlier into different
programme. Early tracking is most commonly implemented as differentiation by programme orientation,
such as general versus vocational tracks, even before they start upper secondary education. In addition,
several countries offer vocational lower secondary programmes specifically designed for students with
special education needs and adult learners. As of 2023, an average of 7% of lower secondary students
across OECD countries were enrolled in vocational programmes. In countries where these vocational
pathways are available, there are notable differences in the student profiles between general and
vocational tracks. Students in general lower secondary programmes tend to be younger, with their average
age ranging from 12 to 18 years across countries. In contrast, vocational lower secondary programmes
serve a broader age range, with the average age spanning from 11 to 45 years, largely due to the inclusion
of certain adult programmes in the classification. The gender distributions also vary. Male and female
students are represented in roughly equal proportions in general lower secondary programmes, while male
students account for a larger share of those enrolled in vocational lower secondary pathways (Table B2.3).
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
187
Target groups and objectives of lower secondary vocational programmes
Countries offering vocational lower secondary programmes target different populations and pursue diverse
objectives, based on the needs of and expectations from relevant target groups. Key target groups often
include early tracked students in initial education, students with special educational needs and adult
learners.
Early tracking in initial education
Programmes that are mainly designed for early tracked students may aim to provide practical, job-related
skills from an early age and improve school engagement through more hands-on and relevant learning.
They also aim to align education with local and national labour-market needs by addressing skills shortages
and creating a clear pathway to upper secondary vocational or technical education, rather than solely
preparing students for immediate employment.
In Costa Rica, one-fifth of lower secondary students were following a vocational track in their initial
education in 2023 (Table B2.3). Most technical schools offering these programmes provide a combined
curriculum of academic and vocational subjects for students aged 12 to 14. In Croatia, around 10% of
lower secondary students are enrolled in arts education (music and dance), which is classified as a
vocational lower secondary programme. Students who wish to pursue a career in the arts and meet
compulsory education requirements must complete this specialised programme.
Early tracking in Germany takes place for all students after fourth grade (with a few exceptions in some
Länder). Students are assigned into three distinct lower secondary tracks, two of them specifically
designed to lead to a vocational upper secondary education. About 4% of lower secondary students are
enrolled in vocational programmes that prepare them for upper secondary vocational education and
support those who have not completed general lower secondary education. Most of these one-year pre-
vocational programmes are intended for students who have completed 9 or 10 years of general education
but have not secured a place in the Dual System - Germany’s vocational training model that combines
company-based training with predominantly public vocational schooling. These programmes prepare
students for upper secondary vocational education and also support those who have not completed
general lower secondary education but still need to fulfil compulsory schooling requirements.
Early tracking into vocational pathways raises important concerns about students’ outcomes and equity.
Dividing students into distinct tracks at a young age can reinforce existing achievement gaps and
exacerbate social inequalities. Students from disadvantaged backgrounds or those with learning difficulties
are often disproportionately placed in vocational tracks, while academically advantaged students tend to
dominate general tracks. This stratification can limit the long-term opportunities of vocational students,
particularly if the vocational track is perceived as lower status or lacks strong academic content.
International evidence suggests that in systems where students are selected into different programmes at
a younger age, there tends to be a stronger correlation between socio-economic background and
academic performance. Early tracking has been shown to increase both overall inequality and the influence
of family background on learning outcomes (OECD, 2023[6]; Contini and Cugnata, 2020[18]; Piopiunik,
2013[19]).
Another consideration is what happens after lower secondary education. In systems using early vocational
tracks, lower secondary vocational students typically continue into upper secondary vocational pathways.
If lower secondary vocational education is of high quality and well aligned with further education and
training, students can still achieve strong outcomes, including well-recognised qualifications and better
labour-market prospects. Countries like Germany and the Netherlands, which have well-established
apprenticeship systems, often view early vocational pathways as effective in their contexts. These systems
provide students with respected vocational credentials by the age of 18. Nonetheless, there is growing
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
188
emphasis even in these countries on maintaining pathways to further education such as tertiary-level
options to ensure that early tracking decisions do not limit students’ future prospects.
Students with special education needs
The objectives of vocational lower secondary programmes for students with special educational needs
often differ from those for the general student population. These programmes are designed to provide
individualised learning tailored to the abilities and needs of each student. They also aim to support social
inclusion and prepare learners for further education, training or employment.
In Czechia, special vocational schools at lower secondary offer one- or two-year programmes focused on
practical training for simple tasks. These programmes lead to a final certificate but do not provide access
to upper secondary education, reflecting a focus on functional skills and basic employability rather than
academic progression.
In the Flemish Community of Belgium, special vocational lower secondary education is offered to children
who need temporary or permanent additional support. The system is organised into types of education
based on the nature of the disability and the student's capabilities. For example, Education Type 3
combines general, social and vocational training to support students’ integration into everyday life and the
regular labour market.
In Spain, vocational programmes for students with special educational needs aim to promote equal
opportunities and reduce educational inequalities. These programmes are tailored to individual needs and
are also available to other learners requiring specific support. Their goal is to enable students to continue
their education and transition successfully into training or employment.
Adult education
Vocational lower secondary programmes often serve as a second-chance education for adults who left
school early. These programmes help them gain basic qualifications, improve their employment prospects
or support career changes. By aligning adult learning with national and regional economic priorities, these
programmes open pathways for continued personal and professional development.
Mexico has the highest share of students enrolled in vocational lower secondary education among OECD
and partner countries, with 24% of students in this track (Table B2.3). Mexico offers a three-year advanced
vocational programme designed specifically for adults and leads to the Diploma of Job Training
qualification. It focuses heavily on practical skills and includes at least one year of required hands-on
experience. Aimed at direct entry into the labour market, the programme does not provide access to higher
education. The mean age of participants is 32, reflecting this focus on adult learners.
Ireland offers a range of targeted initiatives for adult learners, especially those with limited formal education
or those returning to the workforce. One key provision is community-based training through Community
Training Centres, aimed at early school leavers aged 16 to 21. These centres offer personalised learning
plans and combine personal, social and vocational development. Also important are the Bridging and
Foundation Courses, designed for adults who have been out of the labour market or education for extended
periods. These courses help build confidence, support personal development and provide basic vocational
skills. The average age of adult learners in Irish vocational programmes is around 42, underscoring the
country’s strong emphasis on lifelong learning (Table B2.3).
Some countries integrate both students in initial education and adult learners into the same vocational
tracks. In the United Kingdom, for instance, the same vocational qualifications at the lower secondary level
can be pursued from the age of 14 onwards or by adult learners. The average age of those enrolled in
lower secondary vocational programmes is 24, which is relatively young compared to other countries.
These programmes account for 13% of all students in lower secondary education and the qualifications
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
189
focus on practical technical skills for employment or further study. Similarly, in Australia, the vocational
education and training (VET) system is open to both young students and adult learners, with 10% of lower
secondary students enrolled in VET programmes. The average age of participants is 35, reflecting a strong
presence of adult learners. Unlike traditional school-based models, most VET students in Australia are
trained through registered training organisations rather than in schools. The system offers clear pathways
to further vocational education at the upper secondary level, making it a flexible and inclusive approach to
lifelong learning (Table B2.3).
Figure B2.3. Trends in the share of students enrolled in vocational lower secondary education
(2013 and 2023)
2023 2013
%
25
20
15
10
1. Year of reference differs from 2013.
For data, see Table B2.3. For a link to download the data, see Tables and Notes section.
Trends in the share of students enrolled in vocational lower secondary programmes
The share of students enrolled in vocational lower secondary programmes is relatively stable over the last
decade, accounting for 6% of lower secondary students in 2013 and 7% in 2023. Some countries where
the share of vocational lower secondary education has historically been higher than the OECD average,
have seen notable declines over the past decade. Australia, for example, saw an 11 percentage point drop
since 2013, falling to 10% in 2023, primarily due to a shift in enrolment patterns towards stand-alone
vocational subjects and upper secondary level qualifications. There were also decreases of 5 percentage
points in Bulgaria (from 7% to 2%) and in Portugal (from 9% to 4%) (Figure B2.3). In Portugal, this decline
has been largely attributed to severe cuts in funding for adult learning. These financial constraints led to
the discontinuation of the New Opportunities programme, the closure of adult education centres and a
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
190
reduction in the number of adult educators, significantly weakening the country's support system for adult
vocational education (Lindeboom, 2023[20])
In contrast, some countries have maintained or even increased enrolment in vocational tracks at the lower
secondary level, often due to strong ties to national education strategies or labour market needs. In
Costa Rica, early tracking programmes – targeted exclusively at students in initial education – have grown
by 3 percentage points over the past decade, reaching 20% in 2023. Similarly, Mexico's Job Training
programme, designed specifically for adult learners, increased by 3 percentage points and now stands at
24%, reflecting a growing emphasis on adult vocational pathways (Figure B2.3).
Box B2.1. Student absenteeism and academic achievement: Insights from TIMSS 2023
The Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) 2023 results provide valuable
insights into the extent of student absenteeism and its connection to academic performance in
mathematics and science among fourth and eighth grade students. Understanding the patterns of
student absenteeism and its relationship with the academic achievement is essential for shaping policies
aimed at improving student engagement and learning outcomes.
Studies suggest that absenteeism can stem from multiple factors, including socio-economic challenges,
health issues, lack of parental involvement or disengagement from the curriculum (Akkus and Cinkir,
2022[21]; Attwood and Croll, 2006[22]). In 2023, Saudi Arabia had the highest share of fourth grade
students reporting they were absent weekly (32%), where lenient past enforcement and culturally
tolerated absences played a role (AlSayyari and AlBuhairan, 2020[23]). Brazil, Chile and South Africa,
where the shares of students who were absent weekly exceed 15%, face challenges such as poverty,
inequality, unsafe environments or long commutes (Moloele and Lekalakala, 2024[24]; Soto Uribe et al.,
2023[25]). Latvia and the Slovak Republic were also above the international average of 13%, with
absenteeism linked to poor school climate and marginalisation, particularly among Roma students
(OECD, 2016[26]; Vasilevich, 2024[27]). In contrast, Japan and Korea recorded the lowest levels of
absenteeism, at below 5%, indicating a strong culture of regular attendance (Figure B2.4).
The share of fourth grade students who reported being absent from school at least once a week has
increased slightly on average across countries, from 11% in 2019 to 13% in 2023. While most countries
saw only minor changes during this period, Latvia, Lithuania and Saudi Arabia recorded the greatest
increases in absenteeism over the period, rising by at least 5 percentage points. In contrast, a few
systems registered small improvements in attendance, with Italy, South Africa and Spain, each
experiencing a 1 percentage point decline in absenteeism (Figure B2.4).
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
191
Figure B2.4. Trends in the share of fourth grade students who were absent at least once a week
(2019 and 2023)
2023 2019
35
30
25
20
15
10
Note: The TIMSS 2019 and 2023 Student Questionnaires asked students to report on their frequency of absence from school; students
could choose “never or almost never,” “once every two months,” “once a month,” “once every two weeks,” or “once a week”.
Source: (von Davier et al., 2024[28]).
The COVID-19 pandemic is believed to be the main factor disrupting schooling in all OECD countries,
but its impact on absenteeism has been uneven (OECD, 2024[29]). Some of the countries with sharp
increases experienced extended periods of remote learning; for instance, Saudi Arabia had the longest
school closure, lasting well into 2021 (Jack and Oster, 2023[30]). In contrast, countries where
absenteeism declined despite being strongly affected by the pandemic, like Italy and Spain,
implemented an intense post-COVID recovery strategy involving addressing learning gaps, targeted
remedial support, financial incentives and community outreach to re-engage vulnerable students
(OECD, 2021[31]). According to the research, there is no clear and consistent relationship between pre-
pandemic attendance levels, the length of school closures and post-pandemic trends, suggesting there
are more nuances about national dynamics and policy effectiveness to be considered (OECD, 2024[29]).
This helps explain the modest international average increase in absenteeism despite the global shock
of COVID-19, and the varied patterns emerging across countries.
Differences in post-pandemic absenteeism levels can also be seen at a subnational level. For example,
in Canada, weekly absentee rates in Ontario rose to 10% in 2023, widening the gap with Quebec, where
they only reached 5% (Figure B2.4). This divergence reflects differences in provincial education
systems, pandemic responses and attendance monitoring. Ontario experienced longer school closures
and more post-COVID disengagement, while Quebec prioritised school reopening and student support.
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
192
Differences in how absenteeism is recorded and addressed also contribute to this gap (Gallagher-
Mackay et al., 2021[32]; Mathieu, 2021[33]; Kom Mogto et al., 2012[34]).
Missing school is negatively correlated with academic performance in mathematics, highlighting the
cumulative effect of absenteeism on mathematics performance, and emphasising how gaps in
foundational skills grow over time (Gottfried, 2015[35]). TIMSS 2023 results are consistent with broader
evidence that links chronic absenteeism to lower grades, higher dropout risk and long-term
disadvantages such as reduced employment prospects, poor health and increased likelihood of
engaging in risky behaviours (OECD, 2024[29]). In 2023, countries with higher shares of students absent
at least once a week – such as Brazil, Saudi Arabia and South Africa – also tended to report lower
average performance in mathematics, while systems with consistently low absenteeism – like Korea,
Japan and the Netherlands – performed comparatively well.
Chronic absenteeism also has broader implications, affecting students’ social-emotional development,
motivation and future educational attainment. Absenteeism has a negative impact on students'
academic performance as it weakens student-teacher relationships, disrupts classroom management
and diverts school administrators' focus from educational priorities (Akkus and Cinkir, 2022[21]). Socio-
economic disadvantages exacerbate absenteeism, with students from low-income backgrounds, those
with disabilities and non-native speakers being disproportionately affected (Santibañez and Guarino,
2021[36]). Research further links absenteeism to long-term educational setbacks, including lower
graduation rates and reduced employment prospects (Ansari, Hofkens and Pianta, 2020[37]; Hutt and
Gottfried, 2019[38]).
Transition into upper secondary education
Many OECD countries aim to ensure universal completion of upper secondary education, with some
making all or part of this level compulsory. In most OECD and partner countries, compulsory education
ends at least one year after the theoretical starting age for upper secondary education (Annex Table X1.3).
Nevertheless, the transition from lower to upper secondary can be shaped by a range of contextual factors.
Late school entry, grade repetition and differences in programme structures may delay some students’
entry into upper secondary education. These delays, however, often reflect system-level features rather
than issues with the transition process itself.
Figure B2.5 highlights enrolment rates at the theoretical starting age for upper secondary education and
one year later. Although the theoretical age indicates when students are typically expected to start upper
secondary education, actual student progression often varies. In Iceland, Ireland, Japan, Norway and
Poland, over 95% of those at the expected age for starting upper secondary education are enrolled at that
level, suggesting close alignment between age and grade progression. In contrast, in Hungary, the
Netherlands and Switzerland, 35% or less are enrolled in upper secondary education at the expected time,
indicating delayed entry for a substantial share of students. However, these delayed entries are not
necessarily signs of poor transitions but may instead reflect higher shares of over-age students or systems
where progression pathways are more flexible. For instance, in Denmark, the Flemish Community of
Belgium, Germany, Israel and the Netherlands, the duration of lower secondary programmes varies, and
this is not always reflected in the theoretical starting age of upper secondary education. Consequently,
delayed transitions in these systems would often be expected and built into the structure.
One year after the theoretical starting age, patterns of enrolment reflect both delayed progression and
early school leaving. In systems with relatively high grade repetition or extended lower secondary
programmes, many students transition to upper secondary education after a delay, and these countries
record increased upper secondary enrolment rates one year after the theoretical transition year. In
countries like Denmark, Hungary and Switzerland, enrolment rates one year on increase by over
45 percentage points, suggesting that delays are temporary, and most students eventually transition. In
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
193
Denmark, for instance, it is common for lower secondary graduates to enrol in the 10th grade, either at a
boarding school or at a local 10th grade facility. In the 2022/2023 school year, 54% of 9th grade graduates
enrolled in 10th grade the following year. As a result, what appears as a delayed transition in the data often
reflects a deliberate educational choice rather than disengagement from schooling. In contrast, in countries
such as Colombia, Luxembourg and the Netherlands, over 20% of students remain in lower secondary
education a year after the expected transition, which may reflect both structural delays and more significant
retention issues. (Figure B2.5).
At the same time, a portion of students will have left education a year after the transition age, whether due
to dropping out or completing short programmes. High rates of non-enrolment at or one year after this point
are particularly concerning. In China, India, Mexico, Romania and Saudi Arabia, over 20% of young people
of the starting age for upper secondary are not enrolled in any secondary education programme and the
non-enrolment rate generally increases after a year. In Colombia, early school leaving is even more
pronounced one year after the theoretical starting age for upper secondary, with a non-enrolment rate of
21% in secondary education(Figure B2.5).These figures are particularly concerning in countries where
upper secondary education is part of compulsory schooling. For instance, in Romania, compulsory
education ends with completion of upper secondary education. Similarly, in Mexico, it ends with the
attainment of a secondary education diploma (OECD, 2024[39]).
Figure B2.5. Distribution of students at and one year after the theoretical starting age of upper
secondary education, by enrolment status (2022 and 2023)
Enrolled in upper secondary education Enrolled in lower secondary education Not in secondary education
Panel A: At the theoretical starting age of upper secondary education (2022) Panel B: One year after the theoretical starting age of upper secondary education (2023)
Hungary [14]
Switzerland [15]
Netherlands [15]
Denmark [16]
Colombia [15]
Austria [14]
Slovak Republic [15]
Costa Rica [15]
Czechia [15]
Germany [16]
China [15]
Luxembourg [15]
India [14]
Brazil [15]
Saudi Arabia¹ [15]
Mexico [15]
Romania [15]
United States [15]
Estonia [16]
Chile [14]
Australia [16]
Spain [15]
Portugal [15]
Argentina [15]
New Zealand [15]
Latvia [16]
Israel [15]
Peru [15]
France [15]
Bulgaria [14]
Slovenia [15]
Finland [16]
Türkiye [14]
Canada [15]
Greece [15]
United Kingdom [14]
Italy [14]
Lithuania [17]
Korea [15]
Croatia [15]
Sweden [16]
Norway [16]
Poland [15]
Ireland [16]
Iceland [16]
Japan [15]
100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
How to read: Panel A presents the enrolment rates of students in lower and upper secondary education at the theoretical starting age of upper
secondary education in 2022. Panel B shows the enrolment rates of students in lower and upper secondary education one year after that
theoretical starting age, in 2023. The share of students classified as “not in secondary education” is calculated as: (100 - enrolment rate in lower
secondary - enrolment rate in upper secondary), for both panels. For example, in Austria, the theoretical starting age for upper secondary
education is 14. Therefore, Panel A displays enrolment rates of 14-year-olds in lower and upper secondary education in 2022, while Panel B
shows enrolment rates of 15-year-olds in 2023.
Note: Numbers in square brackets indicate the theoretical starting ages for upper secondary education.
1. Year of reference differs from 2023.
For data, see OECD Education and Skills Statistics – Enrolment Rate Indicator at OECD Data Explorer.
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
194
Definitions
Repeater refers to a student who is not promoted to the next grade or does not complete an educational
programme and who remains in the same grade the following school year.
Initial education is the education of individuals before their first entrance to the labour market, i.e. when
they will normally be in full-time education. It thus targets individuals who are regarded as children, youth
and young adults by their society. It typically takes place in educational institutions in a system designed
as a continuous educational pathway.
Adult education is specifically targeted at individuals who are regarded as adults by their society to
improve their technical or professional qualifications, further develop their abilities, enrich their knowledge
with the purpose of completing a level of formal education, or to acquire, refresh or update their knowledge,
skills and competencies in a particular field. This also includes what may be referred to as “continuing
education”, “recurrent education” or “second-chance education”.
Methodology
Net enrolment rates are calculated by dividing the number of children of a particular age / age group
enrolled by the size of the population of that age / age group. While enrolment and population figures refer
to the same period in most cases, mismatches may occur due to data availability and different sources
used in some countries. Therefore, population data are adjusted in the calculation of enrolment rates by
age. This adjustment method ensures that if the cumulative enrolment data across all ISCED levels exceed
the population data for a particular age, the population data for that age are adjusted to match the total
enrolment for the corresponding age.
The share of over-age students is the percentage of students in each level of education (primary and
lower secondary general education) who are at least two years above the intended age for their grade.
The intended age for a given grade is the age at which students would enter the grade if they had started
school at the official primary entrance age, had studied full-time and had progressed without repeating or
skipping a grade.
Source
Data refer to the reference year 2023 (school year 2022/23) and are based on the UNESCO-
UIS/OECD/Eurostat data collection on education statistics administered by the OECD in 2025 (for details,
see Education at a Glance 2025 Sources, Methodologies and Technical Notes
(https://doi.org/10.1787/fcfaf2d1-en).
Data from Argentina, the People’s Republic of China, India, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia and South Africa are
from the UNESCO Institute of Statistics (UIS).
Data on student absenteeism are available in TIMSS 2023 International Results (von Davier et al., 2024[28])
References
Akkus, M. and Ş. Cinkir (2022), “The problem of student absenteeism, its impact on educational [21]
environments, and the evaluation of current policies”, International Journal of Psychology and
Educational Studies, Vol. 9, pp. 978-997, https://doi.org/10.52380/ijpes.2022.9.4.957.
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
195
AlSayyari, A. and F. AlBuhairan (2020), “Prevalence and correlations of school-absenteeism among [23]
intermediate and secondary students in Saudi Arabia”, Children and Youth Services Review, Vol. 111,
p. 104778, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2020.104778.
Ansari, A., T. Hofkens and R. Pianta (2020), “Absenteeism in the first decade of education forecasts civic [37]
engagement and educational and socioeconomic prospects in young adulthood”, Journal of Youth and
Adolescence, Vol. 49/9, pp. 1835-1848, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-020-01272-4.
Attwood, G. and P. Croll (2006), “Truancy in secondary school pupils: Prevalence, trajectories and pupil [22]
perspectives”, Research Papers in Education, Vol. 21/4, pp. 467-484,
https://doi.org/10.1080/02671520600942446.
Canton of Zurich (2025), Admission classes in Switzerland, https://www.zh.ch/de/bildung/informationen- [4]
fuer-schulen/informationen-volksschule/schulinfo-schule-migration/schulinfo-einschulung-
neuzugezogene/aufnahmeklassen.html (accessed on 19 May 2025).
Contini, D. and F. Cugnata (2020), “Does early tracking affect learning inequalities? Revisiting difference-in- [18]
differences modeling strategies with international assessments”, Large-scale Assessments in
Education, Vol. 8/1, p. 14, https://doi.org/10.1186/s40536-020-00094-x.
Cronin, Z. (2019), “To mix or not to mix: A critical review of literature on mixed-age groups in primary [17]
schools”, Cambridge Open-Review Educational Research, Vol. 6, pp. 165-179,
https://cerj.educ.cam.ac.uk/archive/v62019/CORERJ-Journal-Volume6-10-ToMixOrNotToMix.pdf
(accessed on 20 May 2025).
DEPP (2014), Forte baisse du redoublement : un impact positif sur la réussite des élèves, Note [10]
d’information No.14.36, Direction de l’évaluation, de la prospective et de la performance,
https://www.education.gouv.fr/forte-baisse-du-redoublement-un-impact-positif-sur-la-reussite-des-
eleves-1958 (accessed on 20 May 2025).
Education Endowment Foundation (2025), Repeating a year, [15]
https://educationendowmentfoundation.org.uk/education-evidence/teaching-learning-toolkit/repeating-a-
year (accessed on 20 May 2025).
Eurydice (2025), Germany: Assessment in general lower secondary education, [11]
https://eurydice.eacea.ec.europa.eu/eurypedia/germany/assessment-general-lower-secondary-
education (accessed on 20 May 2025).
Eurydice (2025), Spain: Assessment in general lower secondary education, [12]
https://eurydice.eacea.ec.europa.eu/eurypedia/spain/assessment-general-lower-secondary-education
(accessed on 20 May 2025).
Finnish National Agency for Education (2025), Basic information about primary and lower secondary [7]
education, https://www.oph.fi/en/education-and-qualifications/bacic-information-about-primary-and-
lower-secondary-education (accessed on 20 May 2025).
Gallagher-Mackay, K. et al. (2021), “COVID-19 and education disruption in Ontario: Emerging evidence on [32]
impacts”, Science Briefs, Ontario COVID-19 Science Advisory Table,
https://doi.org/10.47326/ocsat.2021.02.34.1.0.
Gottfried, M. (2015), “Can center-based childcare reduce the odds of early chronic absenteeism?”, Early [35]
Childhood Research Quarterly, Vol. 32, pp. 160-173, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2015.04.002.
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
196
Government of Luxembourg (2025), Schooling of newly arrived pupils in primary education, Ministry of [5]
National Education, https://men.public.lu/en/systeme-educatif/scolarisation-eleves-etrangers.html
(accessed on 20 May 2025).
Government of Sweden (2024), The Government’s budget investments in schools in 2025, Ministry of [3]
Education and Research, https://www.regeringen.se/artiklar/2024/09/regeringens-budgetsatsningar-pa-
skolan-2025/ (accessed on 23 May 2025).
Hutt, E. and M. Gottfried (2019), Absent from School: Understanding and Addressing Student Absenteeism, [38]
Harvard Education Press.
Jack, R. and E. Oster (2023), “COVID-19, school closures, and outcomes”, Journal of Economic [30]
Perspectives, Vol. 37/4, pp. 51-70, https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.37.4.51.
Jönsson, A. (2018), “Meeting the needs of low-achieving students in Sweden: An interview study”, Frontiers [8]
in Education, Vol. 3, https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2018.00063.
Kom Mogto, C. et al. (2012), “School absenteeism as an adjunct surveillance indicator: Experience during [34]
the second wave of the 2009 H1N1 pandemic in Quebec, Canada”, PLoS ONE, Vol. 7/3, p. e34084,
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0034084.
Lindeboom, G. (2023), Case Study Portugal: The Future of Vocational Education and Training in Europe: [20]
Volume 4: Delivering Lifelong Learning: The Changing Relationship Between IVET and CVET, Cedefop,
Thessaloniki, https://www.cedefop.europa.eu/files/portugal_future_of_vet_vol.4.pdf (accessed on
22 May 2025).
López, V., M. Vandecandelaere and C. Allende González (2025), Understanding Grade Retention in Chile, [13]
https://ppw.kuleuven.be/onderwijskunde/en/projects/longitudinal-studies-students-school-
careers/zittenblijven_Chili (accessed on 20 May 2025).
Mathieu, S. (2021), “Unpacking the childcare and education policy response to the COVID-19 pandemic: [33]
Insights from the Canadian Province of Quebec”, Journal of Childhood Studies, pp. 63-78,
https://doi.org/10.18357/jcs463202120002.
Moloele, R. and M. Lekalakala (2024), “Navigating the dynamics of learner absenteeism in South African [24]
urban secondary schools: An in-depth management analysis and strategic framework”, E-Journal of
Humanities, Arts and Social Sciences, pp. 2866-2875, https://doi.org/10.38159/ehass.202451615.
Moulin, L. and F. Sari (2025), “The long-term effects of grade retention: Empirical analysis on French data”, [14]
Documents de travail, No. 301, INED, Aubervilliers, https://doi.org/10.48756/ined-dt-301.0225.
OECD (2024), Education at a Glance 2024: OECD Indicators, OECD Publishing, Paris, [39]
https://doi.org/10.1787/c00cad36-en.
OECD (2024), “Evaluating post-pandemic education policies and combatting student absenteeism beyond [29]
COVID-19”, OECD Education Policy Perspectives, No. 101, OECD Publishing, Paris,
https://doi.org/10.1787/a38f74b2-en.
OECD (2023), PISA 2022 Results (Volume II): Learning During – and From – Disruption, PISA, OECD [6]
Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/a97db61c-en.
OECD (2023), “PISA 2022 system-level indicators”, in PISA 2022 Results (Volume II): Learning During – [9]
and From – Disruption, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/86342ac9-en (accessed on
6 June 2024).
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
197
OECD (2021), The State of School Education: One Year into the COVID Pandemic, OECD Publishing, [31]
Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/201dde84-en.
OECD (2016), Education in Latvia, Reviews of National Policies for Education, OECD Publishing, Paris, [26]
https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264250628-en.
Piopiunik, M. (2013), “The effects of early tracking on student performance: Evidence from a school reform [19]
in Bavaria”, ifo Working Paper Series, No. 153, Leibniz Institute for Economic Research at the University
of Munich, https://ideas.repec.org/p/ces/ifowps/_153.html (accessed on 22 May 2025).
Santibañez, L. and C. Guarino (2021), “The effects of absenteeism on academic and social-emotional [36]
outcomes: Lessons for COVID-19”, Educational Researcher, Vol. 50/6, pp. 392-400,
https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189x21994488.
Santos, P. and A. Vitoria (2023), “Managing student transitions into upper secondary pathways”, OECD [1]
Education Working Papers, No. 289, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/663d6f7b-en.
Soto Uribe, C. et al. (2023), “Chile: Universal collection, open access, and innovation in the use of [25]
attendance and absenteeism data”, Orbis Scholae, Vol. 16/3, pp. 45-60,
https://doi.org/10.14712/23363177.2023.2.
UNESCO-UIS (2012), “Opportunities lost: The impact of grade repetition and early school leaving”, Global [16]
Education Digest, UNESCO Institute of Statistics,
https://uis.unesco.org/sites/default/files/documents/opportunities-lost-the-impact-of-grade-repetition-
and-early-school-leaving-en_0.pdf (accessed on 20 May 2025).
Vasilevich, H. (2024), “Roma educational discrimination in the Czech Republic and Slovakia”, in Minority [27]
Rights and Social Change, Routledge, London, https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003394280-10.
von Davier, M. et al. (2024), TIMSS 2023 International Results in Mathematics and Science, [28]
https://doi.org/10.6017/lse.tpisc.timss.rs6460.
Wojniak, J. and M. Majorek (2018), “Polish education system under 2017 reform: Assumptions, aims and [2]
controversies”, SHS Web of Conferences, Vol. 48, p. 01043,
https://doi.org/10.1051/shsconf/20184801043.
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
198
Tables and Notes
Chapter B2 Tables
Table B2.1 Trends in enrolment rates of 6-14 year-olds, by level of education (2013 and 2023)
Table B2.2 Trends in the share of students over-age for their grade and share of repeaters, by level of education (2015 and 2023)
Table B2.3 Profile of lower secondary students (2023)
StatLink 2 https://stat.link/u2yqkg
Data Download
To download the data for the figures and tables in this chapter, click StatLink above.
To access further data and/or other education indicators, please visit the OECD Data Explorer:
https://data-explorer.oecd.org/.
Data cut-off for the print publication 13 June 2025. Please note that the Data Explorer contains the most
recent data.
Notes for Tables
Table B2.1. Trends in enrolment rates of 6-14 year-olds, by level of education (2013 and 2023)
1. Year of reference differs from 2013: 2014 for Croatia and Estonia; and 2015 for South Africa.
2. Year of reference differs from 2023: 2022 for Saudi Arabia.
Table B2.2. Trends in the share of students over-age for their grade and share of repeaters, by level
of education (2015 and 2023)
Note: Students are over-age for their grade in initial education if they are at least two years older than the
intended age for their grade. The intended age for a given grade is the age at which students would enter
the grade if they had started school at the official primary entrance age, had studied full time and had
progressed without repeating or skipping a grade.
1. Year of reference for repeaters differs from 2015: 2016 for Colombia; 2017 for the United States;
and 2018 for Portugal.
2. Year of reference for repeaters differs from 2023: 2022 for Argentina, Saudi Arabia and South
Africa; and 2021 for China.
Table B2.3. Profile of lower secondary students (2023)
1. Year of reference differs from 2013: 2014 for Croatia and Greece; and 2015 for the Netherlands.
2. Year of reference differs from 2023: 2022 for Saudi Arabia.
Control codes
a – category not applicable; b – break in series; d – contains data from another column; m – missing data;
x – contained in another column (indicated in brackets). For further control codes, see the Reader’s Guide.
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
199
For further methodological information, see Education at a Glance 2025: Sources, Methodologies and
Technical Notes (https://doi.org/10.1787/fcfaf2d1-en)
Table B2.1. Trends in enrolment rates of 6-14 year-olds, by level of education (2013 and 2023)
Pre-primary Primary Lower secondary Upper secondary All levels
2013 2023 2013 2023 2013 2023 2013 2023 2013 2023
OECD countries (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10)
Australia 0 0 73 68 27 30 0 0 100 99
Austria 5 5 44 45 44 43 6 5 99 98
Belgium 1 1 68 66 23 23 7 8 98 98
Canada 0 0 65 63 34 33 0 0 100 96
Chile 2 3 66 66 21 22 8 8 97 99
Colombia m 1 59 54 36 36 1 1 96 92
Costa Rica 0 0 65 67 25 27 0 0 91 95
Czechia 6 6 57 54 36 39 0 0 99 99
Denmark 1 1 78 76 21 23 0 0 99 99
Estonia1 10 12 65 65 18 20 0 0 97 97
Finland 11 10 66 66 21 22 0 0 99 98
France 0 0 56 55 42 44 0 0 99 100
Germany 4 5 44 46 52 49 0 0 99 100
Greece 0 0 66 64 31 35 0 0 97 100
Hungary 8 6 44 46 42 42 3 3 97 97
Iceland 0 0 77 75 22 23 0 0 99 98
Ireland 0 0 75 72 25 26 0 0 100 98
Israel 2 1 67 66 29 29 0 0 98 96
Italy 0 0 54 51 34 35 10 12 99 98
Japan 0 0 65 66 35 34 0 0 100 100
Korea 0 0 60 65 38 33 0 0 98 99
Latvia 12 12 67 65 18 21 0 0 98 98
Lithuania 9 10 42 45 48 45 0 0 100 100
Luxembourg 1 4 64 66 31 28 1 1 97 99
Mexico 0 0 69 64 29 31 1 2 98 97
Netherlands 0 0 70 68 29 31 0 0 100 99
New Zealand 0 0 55 54 43 44 0 0 98 98
Norway 0 0 77 76 23 23 0 0 100 99
Poland 9 11 65 43 22 40 0 5 96 100
Portugal 1 2 69 66 30 32 0 0 100 100
Slovak Republic 5 5 43 46 47 47 1 0 96 99
Slovenia 1 1 66 65 32 32 0 0 98 99
Spain 0 0 68 65 29 34 0 0 98 98
Sweden 12 11 67 67 20 22 0 0 99 100
Switzerland 6 6 63 68 30 26 0 0 100 100
Türkiye 0 0 45 45 45 42 9 12 99 99
United Kingdom 0 0 56 56 32 34 10 10 98 100
United States 2 3 65 63 29 30 1 1 98 97
OECD average 3 3 62 61 31 32 2 2 98 98
Partner and/or accession countries
Argentina 0 0 71 68 29 32 0 0 100 100
Brazil 1 2 54 55 39 40 2 1 97 96
Bulgaria 10 10 44 41 36 33 6 11 96 94
China m 1 m 67 28 29 0 0 m m
Croatia1 8 8 42 41 47 48 3 3 99 100
India m m 52 48 27 28 8 12 m 89
Indonesia m m m m m m m m m m
Peru m 0 m 69 m 31 m 0 m 100
Romania 2 2 48 46 40 36 2 1 93 84
Saudi Arabia2 0 2 52 58 20 23 0 0 92 83
South Africa1 6 5 75 72 11 9 2 0 92 86
EU25 average 5 5 59 57 33 34 2 2 98 98
G20 average m 1 60 59 33 33 3 3 m 96
Note: For notes on this table and a link to download the data, see Tables and Notes section above.
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
200
Table B2.2. Trends in the share of students over-age for their grade and share of repeaters, by level
of education (2015 and 2023)
Share of students at least 2 years over-age Share of boys
for their grade in initial education Share of repeaters among all repeaters
General
lower
Primary General lower secondary Primary General lower secondary Primary secondary
2015 2023 2015 2023 2015 2023 2015 2023 2023 2023
OECD countries (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10)
Australia 0.2 0.1 1.9 0.4 m m m m m m
Austria 4.1 5.8 6.5 9.1 2.7 3.3 2.2 3.1 57 58
Belgium 1.4 0.9 6.7 2.7 m 2.2 6.9 4.3 50 57
Canada m m m m m m m m m m
Chile 5.4 2.2 9.1 6.8 3.6 1.6 4.2 1.5 61 60
Colombia1 14.7 11.7 22.8 19.6 2.0 8.3 3.0 10.5 59 61
Costa Rica m 3.3 m 10.0 3.1 2.1 12.7 6.2 57 59
Czechia 3.4 4.5 5.5 5.1 0.6 0.6 0.9 0.6 55 56
Denmark 0.4 0.2 0.9 0.4 1.0 0.6 1.1 0.8 62 55
Estonia 0.7 0.9 4.2 2.8 0.5 0.6 2.2 1.9 64 57
Finland m 0.2 m 0.5 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.3 57 51
France m m 1.1 0.4 m 1.1 2.3 1.1 54 58
Germany m m m m 0.4 0.5 2.4 2.5 53 57
Greece 1.7 1.8 4.8 4.6 0.7 1.3 3.8 5.4 52 63
Hungary 1.4 7.7 3.2 10.8 1.7 2.1 2.1 1.6 58 59
Iceland 0.0 0.0 m m m m m m m m
Ireland 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.4 0.3 0.1 0.1 53 49
Israel 0.5 0.4 1.0 0.8 1.0 0.8 1.4 1.1 68 68
Italy 0.4 0.2 2.5 0.7 0.4 0.3 3.2 1.6 58 63
Japan 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 m m m m m m
Korea 0.2 0.1 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 66 67
Latvia 1.5 0.9 4.1 2.6 0.7 0.8 2.3 1.6 67 63
Lithuania 0.3 0.2 1.5 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.6 0.4 59 72
Luxembourg 1.9 2.2 7.5 8.1 4.0 3.4 9.9 9.3 51 57
Mexico 2.3 0.8 3.7 1.1 0.8 0.5 0.7 0.5 55 52
Netherlands m m m m m m m m m m
New Zealand 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.2 m m m m m m
Norway 0.0 0.0 m m 0.0 0.0 a a a a
Poland m 1.1 m 1.8 0.8 0.9 2.6 1.6 61 62
Portugal1 m 2.9 m 7.0 3.7 1.9 6.2 3.2 58 61
Slovak Republic m 7.8 m 8.2 3.1 2.2 1.9 1.3 54 55
Slovenia 0.6 1.2 0.8 1.2 0.7 1.3 0.8 1.1 60 63
Spain 0.2 0.2 9.4 4.6 2.1 1.1 10.1 7.0 56 61
Sweden 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.3 57 49
Switzerland 5.1 3.6 12.8 8.0 1.1 1.0 1.5 1.0 53 56
Türkiye m 2.3 m 2.6 1.8 3.3 2.0 3.5 54 50
United Kingdom 0.0 0.0 m m 0.0 a a a a a
United States1 3.5 4.0 4.1 4.1 1.6 1.8 1.9 1.8 51 55
OECD average 1.8 2.0 4.3 3.8 1.3 1.4 3.0 2.5 57 58
Partner and/or accession countries
Argentina 2 m m m m 2.0 2.3 11.0 5.5 50 56
Brazil 8.8 4.0 18.1 9.9 m m m m m m
Bulgaria 1.3 1.1 5.9 3.8 0.1 0.5 3.3 2.3 54 60
China2 m m m m 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 61 58
Croatia 0.3 0.3 2.0 0.4 0.2 0.1 0.4 0.1 26 74
India m m m m 0.8 1.2 0.5 1.0 53 53
Indonesia m m m m m m m m m m
Peru m 1.6 m 4.4 3.2 0.2 4.1 0.2 56 52
Romania 0.1 3.2 m 4.9 0.9 1.7 3.7 3.6 60 59
Saudi Arabia2 m m m m 1.3 0.4 1.5 0.3 68 72
South Africa 2 m m m m 9.2 3.0 16.4 10.6 50 68
EU25 average 1.1 2.0 3.7 3.5 1.2 1.1 2.9 2.3 56 59
G20 average m m m m 1.7 1.3 3.8 2.6 56 59
Note: For notes on this table and a link to download the data, see Tables and Notes section above.
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
201
Table B2.3. Profile of lower secondary students (2023)
Share of female students Target groups and objective of lower secondary
Mean age in lower secondary in lower secondary vocational programmes
Share of students enrolled Initial Students
in vocational lower secondary General Vocational General Vocational education / with special Adult
programmes programmes programmes programmes programmes Early tracking education needs education
2013 2023 2023 2023 2023 2023 2023 2023 2023
OECD countries (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9)
Australia 21 10 14 35 49 38 Yes No Yes
Austria a a 12 a 48 a a a a
Belgium 20 17 18 m 50 52 No Yes Yes
Canada a a 13 a 49 a a a a
Chile 2 a 13 a 48 a a a a
Colombia a a 14 a 49 a a a a
Costa Rica 17 20 17 13 50 48 Yes No No
Czechia 1 1 13 26 49 42 No Yes No
Denmark a a 14 a 49 a a a a
Estonia 1 3 14 29 49 45 Yes No Yes
Finland a a 14 a 49 a a a a
France a a 13 a 49 a a a a
Germany 2 4 13 17 49 40 Yes No No
Greece1 1 2 14 17 48 33 No Yes No
Hungary 0 a 13 a 48 a a a a
Iceland a a 14 a 48 a a a a
Ireland m 6 14 42 49 59 No Yes Yes
Israel 0 a 13 a 49 a a a a
Italy a a 13 a 48 a a a a
Japan a a 13 a 49 a a a a
Korea a a 13 a 48 a a a a
Latvia 1 0 14 28 49 13 No Yes Yes
Lithuania 2 1 14 21 49 37 Yes No No
Luxembourg a a 14 a 48 a a a a
Mexico 21 24 13 32 50 61 No No Yes
Netherlands1 6 7 14 17 48 44 Yes Yes No
New Zealand a a 13 a 49 a a a a
Norway a a 14 a 49 a a a a
Poland 1 a 12 a 48 a a a a
Portugal 9 4 14 31 49 50 Yes No Yes
Slovak Republic 2 2 13 19 49 46 Yes Yes Yes
Slovenia a a 13 a 49 a a a a
Spain 0 2 14 29 48 44 No Yes Yes
Sweden a a 16 a 50 a a a a
Switzerland 0 a 14 a 49 a a a a
Türkiye a a 13 a 49 a a a a
United Kingdom 12 13 12 24 49 49 Yes No Yes
United States a a 13 a 50 a a a a
OECD average 6 7 14 25 49 44
Partner and/or accession countries
Argentina a a 15 a 49 a a a a
Brazil 0 0 14 40 49 56 No No Yes
Bulgaria 7 2 12 45 48 63 No No Yes
China a a 13 a 46 a a a a
Croatia1 9 10 12 11 49 63 Yes No No
India a 0 12 20 48 69 a a a
Indonesia a a m a m a a a a
Peru 2 3 14 26 49 57 m m m
Romania a a 13 a 48 a a a a
Saudi Arabia2 a a 14 a 49 a a a a
South Africa a a 15 a 49 a a a a
EU25 average 4 4 14 25 49 45
G20 average 11 7 13 28 49 52
Note: For notes on this table and a link to download the data, see Tables and Notes section above.
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
202
Chapter B3. How do upper secondary
and post-secondary non-tertiary
education systems support students'
progression to tertiary education?
Highlights
• Across OECD countries, the vast majority of students enrolled in general upper secondary education –
90% on average – attend programmes that lead to a full qualification and access to tertiary education.
• On average, 42% of students from general upper secondary tracks who start a bachelor’s programme
complete it on time, compared to 39% from vocational tracks, suggesting vocational students may struggle
more with the academic demands of tertiary education.
• Although overall bachelor’s completion rates improve significantly after an additional three years,
differences by programme orientation persist. The average completion rate across OECD countries rises
to 72% for students from general programmes and 65% for those from vocational programmes.
Context
An upper secondary qualification (ISCED level 3) is often considered the minimum credential for successful entry
into the labour market and essential for pursuing higher education. Young people who leave school before
completing upper secondary education tend to have worse employment prospects (see Chapters A3 and A4).
For many students, the transition from lower to upper secondary education involves choosing between general
education and vocational education and training (VET). These different programme orientations vary in both their
duration and educational focus: general programmes typically prepare students for tertiary education, while
vocational programmes are designed to develop occupation-specific skills for direct entry into the labour market.
However, education systems increasingly offer pathways that allow students to move between tracks, so that early
choices do not necessarily limit future educational or career opportunities. Ensuring that students are well informed
about the structure and implications of different educational pathways is crucial to supporting successful transitions
and minimising the risk of students dropping out.
As well as upper secondary education, some countries offer post-secondary non-tertiary programmes, which
provide advanced vocational qualifications or alternative pathways into further education. These programmes are
distinct from upper secondary programmes as they usually require prior completion of secondary education and
offer more specialised content.
After completing upper secondary education, students can choose among several options: entering the labour
market, continuing into further education or taking a gap year. Taking a gap year can bring benefits such as greater
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
203
maturity, clearer academic goals and improved academic performance upon entering tertiary education. However,
it can also present risks, particularly for students from vocational tracks who may face stronger financial pressures
or lose academic momentum.
Figure B3.1. Distribution of students enrolled in upper secondary vocational education, by type
of programme (2023)
In per cent
Programmes giving full level completion with access to tertiary education Programmes giving full level completion without access to tertiary education
Programmes giving partial completion or insufficient for completion
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
For data, see Table B3.2. For a link to download the data, see Tables and Notes section.
Other findings
• Despite the benefits of work-based learning, its use in vocational programmes varies widely. In some
countries, work-based learning is widespread, with 90% or more of students enrolled in combined school-
and work-based programmes, mostly through apprenticeships.
• Across OECD countries, female students enrolled in vocational upper secondary programmes are, on
average, two years older than their male counterparts (22 years compared to 20). The gender age gap
exceeds four years in Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Iceland, New Zealand, Spain and Sweden, indicating
significant gender differences in the timing of enrolment.
• Vocational programmes dominate provision at the post-secondary non-tertiary level across almost all
OECD countries. In systems offering programmes at this level, vocational pathways account for a large
majority of enrolments, often exceeding 80%.
• Across OECD countries, 44% of new tertiary entrants had taken a gap of at least a year after completing
upper secondary education, with the rate higher among graduates from vocational programmes. While
42% of general track students delayed entry, 58% of vocational track students did so.
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
204
Analysis
Upper secondary education differs from earlier levels of education, as it offers students more varied, specialised and
in-depth instruction and content. It typically lasts three years, but the duration ranges from two years (as in Australia,
Colombia, Costa Rica, Ireland, Lithuania and Peru) to five years (as in Bulgaria and Italy). The typical starting age is
15, but in some countries, students start earlier, at age 14 (as in Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Chile, Hungary, India,
Italy, the Republic of Türkiye and United Kingdom), or far later, at 17 (as in Lithuania). Although students complete
upper secondary education at the age of 17 or 18 in most countries, they do so at 16 in Colombia, Costa Rica and
Peru and at the age of 19 in Iceland (Annex Table X1.3).
Participation of 15-19 year-olds in education
Enrolment patterns among 15-19 year-olds vary considerably across countries, both in terms of overall enrolment rates
and the level at which students are studying. The average enrolment rate across OECD countries is 84% – and in
seven OECD and partner countries, at least nine out of ten teenagers in this age group are enrolled in education.
However, at the other end of the spectrum, there are five countries where less than two-thirds of 15-19 year-olds are
in education (Figure B3.2).
The level at which 15-19 year-olds are enrolled reflects the different structures of national education systems. Students
in this age group might be pursuing lower secondary, upper secondary, post-secondary non-tertiary or tertiary
education, although the majority are enrolled in upper secondary education. Enrolment in lower secondary education
is also relatively common in Australia, Denmark, Estonia, Germany, Lithuania and South Africa, where over one-
quarter of 15-19 year-olds are studying at this level (Figure B3.2).
In 13 OECD and partner countries, vocational programmes account for the largest share of upper secondary enrolment
among 15-19 year-olds. In these countries, VET is the main initial upper secondary education pathway. In contrast,
the very small share of vocational upper secondary students in this age group in New Zealand reflects the fact that
vocational education is delivered outside the initial education system. Students typically complete general upper
secondary education and then might pursue a vocational programme at upper secondary level, as an alternative to
post-secondary or tertiary education (Table B3.1).
Mainly vocationally oriented, post-secondary non-tertiary programmes are relatively less common among OECD
countries than other levels of education. About 1% of 15-19 year-olds were enrolled in post‑secondary non‑tertiary
education in 2023 on average, with 11 OECD and partner countries not offering this level of education at all. In
New Zealand, which has the highest share of this age group studying at this level (6%), post-secondary non-tertiary
education consists of apprenticeships where some off-the-job learning is offered to students (Table B3.1).
Enrolment in tertiary education is limited among this age group: it accounts for only 11% of 15-19 year-olds on average
across OECD countries. However, rates do vary significantly, ranging from 1% in Denmark and Luxembourg to 31%
in Korea, where enrolment in tertiary programmes typically starts at an earlier age (Table B3.1) and a large majority of
young adults attain a tertiary qualification (see Chapter A1).
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
205
Figure B3.2. Enrolment rates of 15-19 year-olds, by level of education (2023)
In per cent
Lower secondary Upper secondary Post-secondary non-tetiary Tertiary
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
1. Year of reference differs from 2023.
For data, see Table B3.1. For a link to download the data, see Tables and Notes section.
Profile of upper secondary students
General programmes
General programmes at the upper secondary level are primarily designed to prepare students for tertiary education,
emphasising theoretical knowledge across a broad range of academic subjects. These programmes typically do not
include vocational training components and are structured to facilitate progression to higher education.
Gender and average age
In 2023, on average across OECD countries, 54% of students enrolled in general upper secondary programmes were
female, indicating a higher participation rate among women in these academically oriented tracks. Among OECD and
partner countries, this trend is particularly pronounced in Croatia, Italy, Poland and Slovenia, where women constitute
over 60% of enrolments. At the other end of the scale, in Israel and the United States, the gender distribution is in
favour of men, with women making up only 47% of students (Table B3.2).
Across OECD countries, the average age of students enrolled in general upper secondary programmes is
approximately 17 years for both women and men, indicating minimal gender differences in age at this educational
level. However, in a few countries, there are notable differences. In Belgium, Costa Rica and Sweden, the average
age of female students exceeds that of male students by more than one year. These three countries, along with Iceland
and Türkiye, also have a higher average age of all students at this level – over 19 years for both male and female
students except in Belgium, where the average age of male students is slightly below 19. Older average ages in these
countries could be explained by the enrolment of adults pursuing upper secondary general qualifications through
dedicated programmes, such as the Académica Nocturna (Evening Academic Programme) in Costa Rica, the
Secundair volwassenenonderwijs (Secondary Adult Education) in the Flemish Community of Belgium, the Komvux
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
206
(Municipal adult education) in Sweden and the Açıköğretim Lisesi (Open High School) in Türkiye. These types of
programmes tend to attract a higher share of women than men, as men without qualifications are generally less
disadvantaged in the labour market than women, both in terms of employment prospects and earnings (Table B3.2).
Access to higher levels of education
The type of completion offered by general upper secondary programmes plays a crucial role in shaping students'
educational and professional opportunities. Across OECD countries, the vast majority of students enrolled in general
upper secondary education – 91% on average – attend programmes that lead to full level completion and grant access
to tertiary education. These programmes are designed to provide students with a comprehensive academic foundation
and a qualification formally recognised for entry into higher education. In contrast, a notable share of students – 8%
on average – are enrolled in programmes that result in partial completion or provide insufficient credits for full upper
secondary completion, and 1% are enrolled in programmes giving full level completion without access to tertiary
education (Table B3.2).
Several general programmes classified as offering insufficient level completion share similar characteristics across
countries. The category “insufficient for level completion” refers to programmes that are too short to meet the
requirements for full or partial level completion (OECD/Eurostat/UNESCO Institute for Statistics, 2015[1]). These
programmes provide students with a recognised certificate or diploma after the first phase of upper secondary
education but do not grant full completion nor eligibility for direct entry into tertiary education. Students holding such
certificates can generally continue their education either by entering more advanced general academic programmes
or by transitioning to vocational education and training. However, the initial qualification alone does not provide
eligibility for direct entry into tertiary education (see the Definitions section for a more detailed explanation of these
different types of completion).
In particular, six countries stand out with more than 40% of students enrolled in programmes leading to partial or
insufficient completion: Belgium, Bulgaria, Chile, Peru, Spain and the United Kingdom (Table B3.2). In these countries,
upper secondary education is often structured in two or more stages: students typically complete an initial phase that
awards them a qualification and may pursue further learning opportunities afterwards. Those who wish to access
tertiary education must continue to gain full completion of upper secondary education and comply with the necessary
academic requirements for higher education entry. This structure contributes to the higher share of students
temporarily recorded as completing only part of upper secondary education. In the Flemish Community of Belgium,
this high share also reflects the structure of upper secondary education, which is divided into several stages. Many
students are still in an intermediate stage (tweede graad) that does not yet lead to a qualification giving access to
higher education, although most of them continue to the final stage (derde graad). n the French Community of Belgium,
students are awarded the Certificat d'Études du Deuxième Degré (CE2D) upon completion of the second degree of
secondary education (after the fourth year). While the CE2D certifies the acquisition of basic competencies, it does
not confer full upper secondary graduation nor direct access to tertiary education pathways. In Spain, students
complete the Educación Secundaria Obligatoria – Segundo ciclo (4º curso) at the end of compulsory education;
however, further studies in general’s or vocational tracks are required to qualify for tertiary education entry. In
the United Kingdom, students typically obtain the General Certificate of Secondary Education (GCSE) around the age
of 16. The GCSE marks the completion of lower secondary education. To access tertiary education, students must
obtain further qualifications, such as A-levels or equivalent vocational programmes. In Chile, the Ciclo General de
Enseñanza Media represents the general cycle within upper secondary education; however, students must complete
an additional cycle of specialisation to achieve full secondary graduation. Similarly, in Bulgaria, students complete the
First High School Stage of General and Profiled Secondary Education after grade 10, which certifies partial completion
of upper secondary education but requires progression to a second stage to obtain a full diploma.
Ensuring that students successfully complete upper secondary programmes with eligibility for tertiary education
remains a key priority for education systems. Policy makers should pay particular attention to supporting students in
transitional phases, strengthening guidance mechanisms and offering flexible pathways that allow for the continuation
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
207
of studies without unnecessary barriers. Facilitating smoother progression from partial qualifications to full upper
secondary completion can help improve overall educational attainment and equity in access to tertiary education.
Vocational programmes
Vocational education and training programmes represent an important pathway at the upper secondary level, offering
students practical skills and preparing them for entry into the labour market. In 2023, on average across OECD
countries, 44% of upper secondary students were enrolled in vocational programmes. Participation in VET is
particularly prominent in some countries, with more than two-thirds of upper secondary students following vocational
tracks in Austria, Croatia, Czechia, Finland, the Netherlands, the Slovak Republic and Slovenia. Overall, the share of
students enrolled in vocational programmes has remained relatively stable across OECD countries since 2013.
However, notable national trends have emerged. In Hungary, the proportion of students enrolled in VET programmes
has doubled over the past decade and now represents more than half of the upper secondary cohort. Part of this
increase is due to the reclassification of some general programmes as vocational, but a significant share is also
attributable to a genuine rise in the number of students choosing vocational pathways. Similarly, Brazil has recorded
significant growth in VET enrolment, although the share was still only 14% in 2023, well below the OECD average.
This increase is linked to recent reforms aimed at expanding access by making vocational education an optional
component of upper secondary programmes and allowing more flexible, locally adapted programmes. However,
progress has varied across states and municipalities (OECD, 2023[2]). Conversely, some countries have experienced
declines in the share of vocational students: in Sweden, for instance, the proportion of students enrolled in VET
programmes has fallen from 47% to 37% over the past ten years (Table B3.2). This decline is partly due to the
reclassification of some programmes, such as media studies, from vocational to academic. More selective entry into
higher education and the removal of automatic eligibility from VET programmes to higher education introduced by the
2011 reform may also have discouraged students - particularly high achievers - from choosing this track (Kuczera and
Jeon, 2019[3]). However, a reform implemented in autumn 2023 reinstated automatic access for vocational graduates:
all national VET programmes were expanded to include core courses in Swedish and English, providing
grundläggande behörighet -the basic eligibility required for tertiary education - without needing additional elective
courses (The Swedish Parliament, 2022[4]).
Gender and average age
In 2023, on average across OECD countries, 45% of students enrolled in vocational upper secondary programmes
were female, indicating lower female participation than in general programmes. This trend is particularly pronounced
in countries such as Germany, Iceland, India and Lithuania, where women account for 35% or less of enrolments. In
Saudi Arabia, the Technical and Vocational Training Corporation (TVTC) offers upper secondary industrial
programmes that are almost exclusively reserved for men, reflecting very limited female participation. Conversely, a
few OECD and partner countries, including Brazil, Ireland and New Zealand, report a significantly higher share of
women than men in VET programmes (Table B3.2).
Gender differences are also reflected in the average age of students. Across OECD countries, female students enrolled
in vocational programmes are, on average, about two years older than their male counterparts (22 years old compared
to 20). In several countries, the difference is particularly large: in Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Iceland, New Zealand,
Spain and Sweden, the average age of female students exceeds that of male students by more than four years. These
patterns may reflect the participation of older women returning to education through adult VET programmes or
differences in pathways between general and vocational education streams (Table B3.2).
Access to higher levels of education
Vocational upper secondary programmes aim to prepare students for entry into the labour market by providing them
with practical skills and occupation-specific knowledge. At the same time, it is important to ensure that vocational
programmes, particularly those at upper secondary level, also allow for progression to higher levels of education. This
matters for the attractiveness of VET, as without such opportunities, bright young people will not consider VET as an
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
208
option. It also matters for equity, as nobody should be locked out of further learning because of a choice made in initial
schooling. It also encourages lifelong learning, as access to tertiary education can allow VET graduates to upskill or
reskill later in their careers. However, progression opportunities must be paired with adequate preparation. To succeed
in tertiary education, students need the academic and transversal skills necessary to complete their programmes.
Without this, formal access may not translate into successful outcomes. This issue is further discussed in the section
on tertiary completion rates below. Countries have taken different approaches to structuring upper secondary
education and VET, as well as associated progression opportunities.
Most vocational students are enrolled in programmes providing direct access to tertiary education. In 2023, 77% of
upper secondary vocational students were enrolled under such arrangements (Figure B3.1). Within this broad category
there are some nuances in access arrangements. In many countries, VET graduates are eligible for any type of tertiary
programme, subject to the same selection processes that apply to general upper secondary graduates. In some
countries, however, there are distinct progression routes for VET graduates. For example, they may only have access
to short-cycle tertiary programmes, which are typically viewed as part of higher VET. This is the case for example in
Austria, where graduates of three-year vocational programmes (in higher technical colleges) may progress to short-
cycle tertiary programmes within the same institutions. Similarly, graduates of upper secondary VET in Norway and
Spain have direct access to higher vocational programmes but not to universities. In some countries, VET graduates
have access to some, but not all bachelor’s level programmes. For example, in the Netherlands and Slovenia they
have direct access to professional bachelor’s programmes, but not academic ones (Kis, forthcoming[5]).
Most countries have at least one upper secondary vocational programme that leads to full level completion without
direct access to tertiary education. This category refers to programmes that meet the requirements for graduates to
be considered “upper secondary graduates” but the qualification obtained does not make them eligible for any type of
tertiary education. Such programmes represent a very high share of vocational upper secondary enrolment in countries
where vocational programmes tend to build on completed initial schooling and commonly enrol adults. For example,
in Ireland and New Zealand the average age of upper secondary VET students is 30 or over. Enrolment in such
programmes is also relatively high in countries with multiple vocational tracks at upper secondary level, such as
Hungary, the Netherlands and Slovenia. In these countries, one vocational track has stronger emphasis on general
skills and preparation for higher level studies and gives direct access to tertiary education. Another track focuses on
occupational preparation and its graduates do not have direct access to tertiary education.
Some OECD countries and economies have vocational programmes that do not lead to full completion of upper
secondary education. These categories do not mean that students do not complete their studies or only complete
some study at these levels. These programmes lead to a recognised qualification but are not the final programme in
a sequence of programmes. This is the case for more than one-third of students in Belgium, Bulgaria, Estonia and the
United Kingdom. In the Flemish Community of Belgium partial completion programmes include the second stage of
technical or vocational secondary education which is connected to a third stage leading to full level completion. In
Estonia, in contrast, programmes in this category target adults and, unlike vocational programmes for youth at the
same level, include limited general education and are deliberately focused on occupational skills (Table B3.2).
Use of work-based learning
Including an element of work-based learning in vocational programmes has multiple benefits. Workplaces are powerful
environments for the acquisition of both technical and soft skills. Students can learn from experienced colleagues, on
the equipment and technology that is currently used in their field. Soft skills like conflict management are easier to
develop in real life contexts than in classroom settings. Delivering practical training in work environments can reduce
the cost of training in schools, as equipment is often costly and quickly becomes obsolete. Similarly, including a strong
element of work-based learning in VET can help tackle teacher shortages if students are learning from experienced
skilled workers in companies. Finally, work-based learning creates a link between schools and the world of work, as
well as between students and potential employers (OECD, 2018[6]).
Despite the recognised benefits of work-based learning, its use in vocational programmes varies widely. In Denmark,
Hungary, Ireland, Latvia and Switzerland, work-based learning is widespread, with 90% or more of students enrolled
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
209
in combined school- and work-based programmes, mostly through apprenticeships. However, work-based learning
opportunities remain limited in 11 OECD and partner countries, where less than 25% of vocational students are
enrolled in such programmes. Over the past decade, the share of students enrolled in combined school- and work-
based programmes has increased in many countries, with particularly significant growth in some. In Norway, for
instance, the share of students enrolled in such programmes more than doubled, rising from less than one-third of all
vocational students in 2013 to over two-thirds in 2023 (Figure B3.3).
The types of programmes offered vary across countries: in total, 11 OECD countries and 4 partner countries do not
offer combined school- and work-based programmes at all. In several countries, they co-exist with school-based
options. In some of them this reflects the existence of alternative routes to the same qualification. In France, for
example, upper secondary vocational qualifications may be acquired either through apprenticeships or through a
school-based route with a smaller work-based learning component. In some other countries, apprenticeships and
school-based programmes lead to different qualifications. In Austria, for example, upper secondary vocational
programmes include both apprenticeships and programmes in higher technical and vocational colleges.
Figure B3.3. Trends in the share of upper secondary vocational students enrolled in combined
school- and work-based programmes (2013 and 2023)
In per cent
2023 2013
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
For data, see Table B3.2. For a link to download the data, see Tables and Notes section.
Profile of post-secondary non-tertiary students
Programmes at the post-secondary non-tertiary level occupy a unique position within education systems, sitting
between upper secondary and tertiary education. They are often designed either to provide further specialisation after
the completion of upper secondary education or to offer alternative pathways to employment or tertiary studies. Across
OECD countries, post-secondary non-tertiary programmes remain relatively less common than upper secondary or
tertiary ones, and their organisation, purpose and target population vary considerably from one country to another.
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
210
General programmes
Across OECD countries, a limited number of general education programmes are classified at the post-secondary non-
tertiary level. They are found in the Flemish Community of Belgium, Colombia, Czechia, France, Germany, Iceland,
Israel, Japan, New Zealand, Sweden and Switzerland and typically serve as a bridge between upper secondary
education and tertiary education or specialised vocational training. In general, these programmes are accessible to
students who have successfully completed an upper secondary education programme but seek to either deepen their
general education or meet specific admission requirements for tertiary education. They are often used to consolidate
academic skills, fulfil prerequisites not covered during secondary education, or to provide additional orientation before
choosing a specialised field of study. In most countries, they can provide a route into tertiary education from vocational
upper secondary programmes.
The typical duration of post-secondary non-tertiary general programmes is around one year. Examples include the
Passerelle programme in Switzerland, Enseignement pré-universitaire in France and Mechina Kdam- akademit (Pre-
academic preparatory programme) or handasaim (Associate engineering studies) in Israel. In Germany, various
Fachoberschule and Berufsoberschule/Technische Oberschule pathways offer additional qualification options beyond
secondary education. Graduates of these programmes in Germany are entitled to enter first degree studies at
Fachhochschulen and universities. While general programmes are not as widespread as vocational programmes, they
play an important role in facilitating smoother transitions to tertiary education for students who may not yet meet all
academic requirements, or who wish to enhance their academic profile. Their relatively short duration and focused
curriculum make them an efficient tool for addressing gaps in academic knowledge, supporting lifelong learning and
promoting access to higher education.
Women account for the majority of students enrolled in general programmes at this level, although their share varies
significantly between countries. On average across OECD countries, women represent 58% of enrolments in general
post-secondary non-tertiary programmes. Students enrolled in these programmes tend to be relatively old compared
to those in other education levels: the average age is 29 years for both men and women. However, age patterns vary
significantly across countries, ranging from 22 years in Colombia and Switzerland to nearly 50 years in Belgium. In
Belgium, the high average age is largely due to the fact that the majority of students enrolled at this level are in adult
education programmes. Most students in general programmes at this level complete qualifications that are equivalent
to those providing access to tertiary education, often serving as alternative pathways to tertiary entrance examinations
(Table B3.3).
Vocational programmes
Vocational programmes at the post-secondary non-tertiary level are far more widespread than general ones. These
programmes cater not only to recent graduates from upper secondary education but also to adults already in the labour
market who wish to deepen their vocational skills and knowledge. Participants in these programmes often view them
as direct pathways into the labour market or as preparation for further tertiary education. Typically, the duration of
post-secondary non-tertiary vocational programmes ranges from six months to three years, depending on the country
and field of study.
In most cases, access to these programmes requires the successful completion of an upper secondary education
programme. Students entering these programmes have already acquired a broad base of general or vocational
education and are looking to specialise further, improve their employability or obtain additional qualifications
recognised on the labour market. However, entry requirements vary across countries and in some cases, students
who have only completed lower secondary education can enrol in upper secondary programmes. This is the case, for
example, in Germany, where Full-time Vocational Schools (Berufsfachschulen) and Specialised Upper Secondary
Schools (Fachgymnasien) offer both access to tertiary education and a vocational qualification, these qualifications
combined lead to an allocation to post-secondary non-tertiary education. In Austria, this was possible in programmes
such as the School for Health and Nursing (Schule für Gesundheits- und Krankenpflege), although this pathway is
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
211
currently being phased out. These pathways offer young people early specialisation opportunities and help individuals
of all ages bridge the gap between initial education and professional careers.
While many post-secondary non-tertiary programmes offer a bridge to tertiary education, not all of them provide access
to higher levels of learning. The Framework Programme for Initial Vocational Training (Рамкови програми) in Bulgaria,
the Entrepreneurship Training Programme (Ondernemersopleiding) in the Flemish Community of Belgium, 2 and 3
years programmes in Health and Social Professions (Zwei- und dreijährige Programme in Gesundheits- und
Sozialberufen)) in Germany, and the Post-secondary School (Szkoła policealna) in Poland, are primarily oriented
towards preparing students for direct entry into the labour market without offering a formal pathway to tertiary
education.
Vocational programmes dominate provision at the post-secondary non-tertiary level across almost all OECD countries.
In systems offering programmes at this level, vocational pathways account for a large majority of enrolments, 92% on
average across OECD countries, and 100% in 18 of them. Women tend to be under-represented in vocational post-
secondary non-tertiary programmes compared to general education, reflecting gender differences in fields of study.
Work-based learning opportunities are a significant feature of vocational programmes at this level in many countries.
On average across OECD countries, 42% of students are enrolled in programmes that combine school-based learning
with structured work placements, although participation rates vary considerably across countries. Nevertheless, there
has been no consistent increase in the share of students enrolled in work-based learning over time. In Austria, for
example, the proportion of students in such programmes fell sharply from 61% in 2013 to 28% in 2023, whereas in
Sweden, the share grew substantially over the same period, from 61% to 96%. These contrasting trends highlight the
varying dynamics of work-based learning across countries. Caution is warranted in interpreting these changes, as the
absolute number of students enrolled in work-based learning programmes often remains relatively small, making the
share sensitive to short-term fluctuations. Ensuring the sustainability and attractiveness of work-based learning
pathways remains a key policy challenge in many systems (Table B3.3).
Students in vocational post-secondary non-tertiary programmes tend to be older than those in general ones. On
average, the women enrolled in vocational programmes are 32 years old, compared to 30 years old for men. Germany
and South Africa have the youngest students, with an average age of 23 years, while Finland and Spain have the
oldest students, with an average age of around 40 years. These differences reflect the specific nature of vocational
programmes in some countries, where provision is targeted towards particular groups rather than the general student
population. For example, in Spain, Professional Certificates, Level 3 (Certificados de Profesionalidad de nivel 3) are
often designed for adults seeking to upskill or reskill, while in Finland, the Specialist Vocational Qualification
(Erikoisammattitutkinto) caters to experienced professionals aiming to further specialise in their fields. Programmes
like these contribute to raising the average age of students enrolled in vocational education (Table B3.3).
Taking time between school and tertiary studies
Taking time between upper secondary and tertiary education is a widespread practice in many OECD and partner
countries and economies, although its prevalence varies considerably. In Brazil, Finland, Israel and Sweden, more
than 70% of new entrants into bachelor’s programmes took a gap of at least a year or more before starting their tertiary
studies. In contrast, in the Flemish and French Communities of Belgium and the Netherlands, the share is 15% or less
(Figure B3.4). These differences reflect a range of factors, including national admission systems, labour-market
structures, cultural norms regarding transitions into adulthood and the availability of alternative learning or work
opportunities between educational levels. In some countries, the duration of the transition between upper secondary
and tertiary education is influenced by structural and policy factors beyond students’ choices. In Austria, Finland, Israel,
Korea, Lithuania and Switzerland military or civil service – usually required of young men – commonly delays the start
of tertiary education.
On average across OECD countries and economies, 44% of new tertiary entrants had delayed their entry by a year or
more after finishing school, but this rate is notably higher among students who graduated from vocational upper
secondary programmes. While 42% of students from general tracks delayed their entry into tertiary education, the
share reaches 58% among those from vocational tracks. This suggests that students in vocational education may be
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
212
more likely to gain work experience, complete additional qualifications or pursue other transitional activities before
continuing their studies. In Denmark, Lithuania and Portugal, the difference between vocational and general
programme graduates exceeds 35 percentage points (Figure B3.4).
Taking time between upper secondary and tertiary education can yield positive academic and personal outcomes
when the gap is well-structured and supported. Evidence suggests that students who delay their entry into tertiary
education often outperform their peers who transition directly, particularly among those with weaker academic
performance at the end of upper secondary education (Gap Year Association, 2023[7]). Some OECD and partner
countries have introduced innovative or compensatory programmes to support meaningful transitions during this
period. In Luxembourg, the Diplom+ programme helps recent graduates gain skills and improve their employability or
academic preparedness during this period (Government of Luxembourg, 2024[8]). In Peru, targeted scholarships and
social support schemes like Beca 18 help vulnerable students transition into tertiary education (PRONABEC,
2025[9])These examples suggest that well-designed transition mechanisms – particularly for students from
disadvantaged backgrounds – can mitigate the risks associated with long or unstructured time gaps, improving access,
equity and student success at the tertiary level.
Extended transitions between upper secondary and tertiary education may also carry academic and financial costs.
Long breaks can disrupt academic momentum and make it more challenging for students to reintegrate into structured
learning environments. Extended gaps may also increase demands on public support systems, as individuals may
require financial aid or unemployment benefits during this period. For governments, delayed entry into tertiary
education can reduce the flow of skilled individuals into the labour market. Some countries have implemented policies
to limit the length of the transition. In Norway, for example, regulations incentivise students to enter tertiary education
within three years of completing upper secondary education, with 50% of study places reserved for applicants under
the age of 21 (Sandsør, Hovdhaugen and Bøckmann, 2021[10]). In Denmark, similar incentives were in place from
2009 to 2019 to encourage students to limit gap years to no more than two years, although this policy has since been
discontinued (Government of Denmark, 2016[11]).
Figure B3.4. Share of tertiary new entrants into bachelor's programmes who took at least one gap
year, by upper secondary programme orientation (2023)
In per cent
All programmes General programmes Vocational programmes
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
For data, see Table B3.4 (on line). For a link to download the data, see Tables and Notes section.
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
213
Tertiary completion rates by upper secondary programme orientation
Creating strong pathways from upper secondary into tertiary education requires building suitable access routes and
ensuring that students are well prepared for further studies. By definition, general upper secondary programmes are
designed to equip students with the skills needed for post-secondary and tertiary education, but vocational
programmes can vary in their emphasis on preparation for further studies. Some vocational graduates may be left
poorly prepared to complete a tertiary programme. On the other hand, VET graduates may have an advantage over
their peers from general education: when pursuing studies within the same field as their vocational qualification and
where they might have relevant work experience, they could be particularly well prepared and motivated to succeed
in their studies.
Completion rates within the theoretical duration of bachelor’s programmes remain low across most countries and with
marked differences by upper secondary programme orientation. On average across countries and economies with
available data, 42% of students who entered a bachelor’s programme from a general upper secondary track completed
it within the theoretical duration, compared to 39% of those from a vocational upper secondary track. In most systems,
students from vocational programmes are less likely to complete on time. The gap is particularly large in France (36%
compared to 5%), the French Community of Belgium (28% compared to 14%) and Slovenia (53% compared to 29%),
suggesting that students from vocational pathways may face greater difficulties adjusting to the academic demands of
tertiary education. Only a small number of countries – Denmark, Israel, Norway and Türkiye) – report completion rates
of above 50% for both groups within the expected timeframe (Figure B3.5).
When allowing an additional three years beyond the theoretical duration, overall completion rates improve significantly,
although differences by programme orientation persist. The OECD average completion rate rises to 71% for students
from general programmes and in many countries and economies, the gap narrows considerably with the extended
time window. However, in the French Community of Belgium, completion remains comparatively low even after three
additional years, especially among students from vocational pathways (36%). These findings underline the importance
of flexible study pathways and adequate academic support, particularly for students whose prior preparation may not
fully align with the requirements of tertiary education (Figure B3.5).
One important piece of context is the share of bachelor’s students who have a vocational background. For example,
in Lithuania, 47% of students from vocational upper secondary programmes graduate within the theoretical duration
of the programme in which they entered. However, these students represent only around 1% of entrants into bachelor’s
programmes. A number of factors may explain the low share of VET graduates among bachelor’s students. In some
countries, such as Norway, only general upper secondary programmes grant direct access to bachelor’s or equivalent
programmes, with few exceptions. In Estonia, upper secondary vocational programmes can grant access to higher
education, but admission to bachelor’s programmes often requires results from national examinations, which are
mandatory in general education but not in vocational education. As a result, access may be more limited in practice
for vocational graduates, depending on the specific admission criteria set by tertiary education institutions. The data
also refer to full-time students, so do not fully capture participation patterns in countries where VET graduates
commonly pursue bachelor’s programmes part-time (Table B3.5, available on line).
In Austria, in contrast, a large share of bachelor’s level students have a vocational background and their completion
rates are higher than for those with general upper secondary education (Table B3.5, available on line). This reflects
Austria’s large upper secondary VET system, which offers a strong progression pathway from upper secondary
education (year 1-3 of Berufsbildende Höhere Schulen, BHS) into short-cycle tertiary programmes (year 4-5 of BHS)
and universities of applied sciences, as well as to other universities albeit to a lesser extent.
Delays in completion also increase the financial burden for both students and public budgets. Each additional year
spent in tertiary education entails higher public expenditure, particularly in countries where tuition fees are low and
public subsidies are high. Students from vocational tracks are more likely to combine work and study, and to be
sensitive to financial pressures, which can increase their risk of dropping out if their studies extend too far beyond the
theoretical timeline. Policies that improve guidance, better match students to appropriate tertiary programmes and
expand the availability of professionally oriented tertiary options can contribute to more efficient study pathways and
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
214
greater equity in tertiary education outcomes. To address this, France has introduced quotas for students from
vocational tracks in advanced technicians programmes, ensuring better access to tertiary pathways adapted to their
needs and increasing their chances of timely completion (Government of France, 2024[12]).
Figure B3.5. Completion rates of students who entered a bachelor's programme, by time frame and
students' upper secondary programme orientation (2023)
In per cent
General programmes, at theoretical programme duration Vocational programmes, at theoretical programme duration
General programmes, at theoretical programme duration plus 3 years Vocational programmes, at theoretical programme duration plus 3 years
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
For data, see Table B3.5 (on line). For a link to download the data, see Tables and Notes section.
Definitions
The data in this indicator cover formal education programmes that represent at least the equivalent of one semester
(or half of a school/academic year) of full-time study and take place entirely in educational institutions or are delivered
as combined school- and work-based programmes.
General education programmes are designed to develop learners’ general knowledge, skills and competencies,
often to prepare them for other general or vocational education programmes at the same or a higher education level.
General education does not prepare people for employment in a particular occupation, trade, or class of occupation
or trade.
Vocational education and training (VET) programmes prepare participants for direct entry into specific occupations
without further training. Successful completion of such programmes leads to a vocational or technical qualification that
is relevant to the labour market.
Full completion (of ISCED level 3) without direct access to first tertiary programmes at ISCED level 5, 6 or 7:
programmes with duration of at least 2 years at ISCED level 3 and that end after at least 11 years cumulative study
since the beginning of ISCED level 1. These programmes may be terminal (i.e. not giving direct access to higher levels
of education) or give direct access to ISCED level 4 only.
Full completion (of ISCED level 3) with direct access to first tertiary programmes at ISCED level 5, 6 or 7: any
programmes that give direct access to first tertiary programmes at ISCED level
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
215
Partial level completion refers to programmes representing at least 2 years at ISCED level 3 and a cumulative
duration of at least 11 years since the beginning of ISCED level 1, and which are part of a sequence of programmes
at ISCED level 3 but are not the last programme in the sequence.
Insufficient for level completion refers to programmes that do not meet the duration requirements for partial or full
level completion and therefore result in an educational attainment at the level below the level of the programme. This
category includes short, terminal programmes (or a sequence of programmes) with a duration of less than 2 years at
ISCED level 3 or which end after less than 11 years of cumulative duration since the beginning of ISCED level 1.
Full-time students in the indicator on gap year or completion rates refer to students who entered the given tertiary
programme with full-time status. They may have switched status during their studies.
The theoretical duration of programmes is the regulatory or common-practice time it takes a full-time student to
complete a level of education.
Gap year refers to a break, typically lasting up to at least one year, taken by students between the completion of upper
secondary education and the start of tertiary education.
Methodology
Except where otherwise noted, figures are based on headcounts, because it is difficult for some countries to quantify
part-time study. Net enrolment rates are calculated by dividing the number of students of a particular age group
enrolled in all levels of education by the size of the population of that age group. While enrolment and population
figures refer to the same period in most cases, mismatches may occur due to data availability in some countries,
resulting in enrolment rates exceeding 100%.
For more information see the OECD Handbook for Internationally Comparative Education Statistics (OECD, 2018[13])
and Education at a Glance 2025 Sources, Methodologies and Technical Notes (https://doi.org/10.1787/fcfaf2d1-en).
Source
Data on enrolment refer to the 2022/23 academic year and are based on the UNESCO-Institute of Statistics
(UIS)/OECD/Eurostat data collection on education statistics administered by the OECD in 2024. Data for some
countries may have a different reference year. For more information see Education at a Glance 2025 Sources,
Methodologies and Technical Notes (https://doi.org/10.1787/fcfaf2d1-en).
The UNESCO Institute of Statistics (UIS) provided data for Argentina, China, India, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia and South
Africa.
Data on completion rates refer to the academic year 2022/2023 and were collected through a special survey
undertaken in 2024. Data for some countries may have a different reference year, please refer to Education at a
Glance 2025 Sources, Methodologies and Technical Notes (https://doi.org/10.1787/fcfaf2d1-en).
References
Gap Year Association (2023), Gap year data and benefits, https://www.gapyearassociation.org/data- [7]
benefits/.
Government of Denmark (2016), Now the study progress reform is being relaxed, Ministry of Higher [11]
Education and Science, https://ufm.dk/aktuelt/nyheder/2016/nu-bliver-fremdriftsreformen-lempet.
Government of France (2024), Code de l’éducation: Article D612-31, Légifrance, [12]
https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/codes/article_lc/LEGIARTI000049113522.
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
216
Government of Luxembourg (2024), Diplom+, une formation après le lycée, Ministère de l’Éducation [8]
nationale, de l’Enfance et de la Jeunesse, https://men.public.lu/fr/grands-dossiers/systeme-
educatif/diplomplus.html.
Kis, V. (forthcoming), “Progression pathways from vocational education and training”, OECD Education [5]
Working Papers, OECD Publishing, Paris.
Kuczera, M. and S. Jeon (2019), Vocational Education and Training in Sweden, OECD Reviews of [3]
Vocational Education and Training, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/g2g9fac5-en.
OECD (2023), OECD Economic Surveys: Brazil 2023, OECD Publishing, Paris, [2]
https://doi.org/10.1787/a2d6acac-en.
OECD (2018), OECD Handbook for Internationally Comparative Education Statistics 2018: Concepts, [13]
Standards, Definitions and Classifications, OECD Publishing, Paris,
https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264304444-en.
OECD (2018), Seven Questions about Apprenticeships: Answers from International Experience, OECD [6]
Reviews of Vocational Education and Training, OECD Publishing, Paris,
https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264306486-en.
OECD/Eurostat/UNESCO Institute for Statistics (2015), ISCED 2011 Operational Manual: Guidelines for [1]
Classifying National Education Programmes and Related Qualifications, OECD Publishing, Paris,
https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264228368-en.
PRONABEC (2025), Beca 18, Programa Nacional de Becas y Crédito Educativo, [9]
https://www.pronabec.gob.pe/beca-18/.
Sandsør, A., E. Hovdhaugen and E. Bøckmann (2021), “Age as a merit in admission decisions for higher [10]
education”, Higher Education, Vol. 83/2, pp. 379-394, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-020-00662-8.
The Swedish Parliament (2022), “Svensk författningssamling”, [4]
https://svenskforfattningssamling.se/sites/default/files/sfs/2022-04/SFS2022-275.pdf (accessed on
3 July 2025).
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
217
Tables and Notes
Chapter B3 Tables
Table B3.1 Enrolment rates of 15-19 year-olds, by level of education (2023)
Table B3.2 Profile of upper secondary students (2023)
Table B3.3 Profile of post-secondary non-tertiary students (2023)
WEB Table B3.4 Share of full-time students who entered a bachelor's programme who took at least one gap year, by upper secondary
programme orientation and gender (2023)
WEB Table B3.5 Completion rates of students who entered a bachelor's programme, by upper secondary programme orientation and gender
(2023)
StatLink 2 https://stat.link/845hpj
Data Download
To download the data for the figures and tables in this chapter, click StatLink above.
To access further data and/or other education indicators, please visit the OECD Data Explorer: https://data-
explorer.oecd.org/.
Data cut-off for the print publication 13 June 2025. Please note that the Data Explorer contains the most recent
data.
Notes for Tables
Table B3.1. Enrolment rates of 15-19 year-olds, by level of education (2023)
1. Year of reference differs from 2013: 2014 for Croatia and Estonia.
2. Year of reference differs from 2023: 2022 for Indonesia and Saudi Arabia.
Table B3.2. Profile of upper secondary students (2023)
1. Year of reference differs from 2023: 2022 for Argentina and Saudi Arabia.
2. Year of reference differs from 2013: 2014 for Croatia; and 2015 for South Africa.
Table B3.3. Profile of post-secondary non-tertiary students (2023)
1. Year of reference differs from 2013: 2014 for China; and 2015 for Spain.
2. Year of reference differs from 2023: 2022 for India and Saudi Arabia; and 2021 for China.
Control codes
a – category not applicable; b – break in series; d – contains data from another column; m – missing data; x – contained
in another column (indicated in brackets). For further control codes, see the Reader’s Guide.
For further methodological information, see Education at a Glance 2025: Sources, Methodologies and Technical Notes
(https://doi.org/10.1787/fcfaf2d1-en)
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
218
Table B3.1. Enrolment rates of 15-19 year-olds, by level of education (2023)
Upper secondary Post-secondary non-tertiary
Lower General Vocational All General Vocational All
secondary programmes programmes programmes programmes programmes programmes Tertiary All leverls
2023 2023 2023 2023 2023 2023 2023 2023 2013 2023
OECD countries (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10)
Australia 26 33 7 40 a 1 1 16 86 84
Austria 3 19 41 61 a 0 0 15 79 78
Belgium 5 31 m 67 0 1 1 19 92 93
Canada 0 52 m 53 m m m 18 73 72
Chile 2 52 13 65 a a a 18 78 85
Colombia 17 21 9 30 0 a 0 14 m 62
Costa Rica 13 27 14 41 a a a 5 m 60
Czechia 12 20 51 71 0 m m 5 90 88
Denmark 33 42 10 52 a a a 1 88 86
Estonia1 28 39 15 53 a 0 0 5 90 86
Finland 22 34 28 62 a 0 0 3 86 88
France 3 39 23 61 0 0 0 23 85 87
Germany 31 30 15 45 0 5 5 6 90 88
Greece 3 42 m 58 a 3 3 18 86 83
Hungary 3 35 37 71 a 4 4 7 88 84
Iceland 20 50 11 61 0 0 0 3 88 84
Ireland 16 53 5 58 a 2 2 16 92 92
Israel 4 34 23 58 0 a 0 5 65 67
Italy 1 37 38 76 a 0 0 9 77 86
Japan 0 46 12 58 x(7) x(7) 0 m m m
Korea 0 47 8 56 a a a 31 87 87
Latvia 24 33 24 57 a 0 0 7 94 88
Lithuania 41 31 10 41 a 2 2 11 93 94
Luxembourg 18 30 32 62 a 0 0 1 78 82
Mexico 6 26 16 42 a a a 13 54 60
Netherlands 22 24 28 52 a m m 17 91 91
New Zealand 4 51 6 57 1 5 6 14 82 81
Norway 20 34 29 64 a 0 0 4 87 87
Poland 2 38 46 84 a 1 1 9 90 96
Portugal 8 40 23 62 a 0 0 19 88 90
Slovak Republic 13 22 44 66 a 1 1 6 85 86
Slovenia 3 28 52 80 a a a 11 93 95
Spain 8 44 15 59 a 0 0 20 87 87
Sweden 21 41 20 62 0 0 0 3 86 87
Switzerland 16 28 38 66 0 0 1 4 86 86
Türkiye 2 42 24 66 a a a 11 69 79
United Kingdom 6 37 20 57 a a a 18 81 81
United States 7 56 a 56 a 1 1 17 81 80
OECD average 12 37 23 59 0 1 1 11 84 84
Partner and/or accession countries
Argentina 10 x(4) x(4) 57 a a a 12 72 79
Brazil 10 45 7 52 a 1 1 9 69 72
Bulgaria 1 33 38 71 a 0 0 10 77 82
China 5 33 15 48 m m m 20 m 73
Croatia 1 1 21 50 72 a a a 12 84 85
India 1 31 2 33 a 0 0 m m m
Indonesia 2 m m m m m m m m m m
Peru 6 39 a 39 a a a 17 m 63
Romania 4 25 30 55 a 1 1 8 77 68
Saudi Arabia 2 8 52 0 52 1 1 1 12 85 74
South Africa 26 46 1 47 0 1 1 5 m 82
EU25 average 13 33 29 62 0 1 1 11 87 87
G20 average 9 41 13 54 0 1 1 14 m 79
Note: For notes on this table and a link to download the data, see Tables and Notes section above.
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
219
Table B3.2. Profile of upper secondary students (2023)
Percentage of vocational and female students, average age in years, and distribution by type of programme
General programmes Vocational programmes
Distribution by type Distribution by type
Average age of programme Average age of programme
Programmes giving full level
Programmes giving full level
access to tertiary education
access to tertiary education
completion without access
completion without access
Programmes giving partial
Programmes giving partial
completion or insufficient
completion or insufficient
Programmes giving full
Programmes giving full
level completion with
level completion with
to tertiary education
to tertiary education
for completion
for completion
Share of students
enrolled in
Share of Share of Share of combined school-
vocational female female and work-based
students students Women Men students programmes Women Men
2013 2023 2023 2023 2023 2023 2023 2023 2023 2013 2023 2023 2023 2023 2023 2023
OECD countries (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) (15) (16)
Australia 50 53 51 17 17 100 a a 44 m 36 32 29 100 a a
Austria 70 69 56 16 16 84 2 13 44 48 50 18 18 93 2 5
Belgium 60 55 56 20 19 38 18 45 50 6 5 23 19 24 42 34
Canada 8 8 49 17 17 100 a a 47 m m 27 24 100 a a
Chile 31 33 49 17 17 38 a 62 46 7 11 17 17 98 2 a
Colombia 26 28 52 18 18 100 a a 53 m m 16 16 100 a a
Costa Rica 29 33 53 21 19 100 a a 53 a a 20 18 100 a a
Czechia 74 73 59 17 17 97 a 3 45 9 a 18 18 68 32 a
Denmark 43 40 54 19 18 91 a 9 40 100 100 28 24 76 13 11
Estonia 34 39 57 19 18 100 a a 41 1 5 29 22 56 a 44
Finland 70 68 58 18 18 100 a a 51 15 23 31 26 100 a a
France 43 41 54 16 16 100 a a 42 27 33 19 17 58 42 a
Germany 48 47 53 17 17 100 a a 35 86 89 21 20 90 5 5
Greece 34 33 53 16 16 100 a a 37 9 a 17 17 95 5 a
Hungary 26 51 56 19 19 99 1 a 42 73 100 18 19 60 39 1
Iceland 31 32 53 19 19 85 5 9 34 43 66 29 25 66 20 15
Ireland 1 22 50 17 17 66 4 30 62 a 100 33 30 a 100 a
Israel 40 40 47 16 16 87 12 1 51 9 5 16 16 95 5 a
Italy 59 51 61 16 16 100 a a 36 0 a 18 17 90 10 a
Japan 23 21 50 16 16 100 d a x(6) 42 a a 16 16 99 d 1 x(14)
Korea 18 15 49 16 16 100 a a 41 a a 16 16 100 a a
Latvia 39 42 56 18 18 100 a a 41 100 100 18 18 95 2 2
Lithuania 28 27 52 18 18 98 a 2 35 a a 21 20 81 a 19
Luxembourg 60 58 54 17 17 100 a a 47 23 21 20 19 54 46 a
Mexico 39 35 54 17 17 100 a a 49 a a 16 16 97 3 a
Netherlands m 70 52 16 16 100 a a 52 m m 26 23 52 48 a
New Zealand 33 34 50 16 16 100 0 a 56 m m 35 31 a 81 19
Norway 52 53 56 18 18 99 1 0 39 30 77 21 20 92 d 8 x(14)
Poland 49 53 61 17 17 100 a a 38 m 12 16 17 79 21 a
Portugal 46 38 54 19 19 100 a a 42 a a 21 18 100 a 0
Slovak Republic 68 68 59 17 17 100 a a 45 7 26 18 18 80 18 2
Slovenia 66 70 62 17 17 100 a a 44 a a 19 18 71 29 a
Spain 34 39 52 16 16 59 a 41 48 m 3 29 24 61 30 9
Sweden 47 37 55 22 20 94 a 6 50 3 8 26 21 90 2 8
Switzerland 66 61 57 17 17 87 0 13 41 84 91 19 19 93 7 a
Türkiye 45 35 51 19 20 100 a a 41 a m 17 17 99 1 a
United Kingdom 44 37 49 15 15 31 a 69 51 58 40 24 22 63 a 37
United States a a 47 16 16 100 a a a a a a a a a a
OECD average 43 44 54 17 17 91 1 8 45 35 45 22 20 77 17 6
Partner and/or accession countries
Argentina1 a a 51 17 17 m m m a a a a a a a a
Brazil 8 14 51 18 18 100 a a 56 a a 20 19 100 a a
Bulgaria 52 56 55 16 16 40 a 60 41 a 7 18 17 33 a 67
China 46 40 50 16 16 m m m 42 m m 17 17 m m m
Croatia 2 71 71 64 16 16 100 a a 45 a a 16 16 72 28 a
India 3 6 48 15 15 m m m 30 m m 20 19 m m m
Indonesia 44 m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m
Peru a a 49 16 16 a 46 54 a a a a a a a a
Romania 60 56 56 18 18 100 a a 44 m 12 20 19 75 a 25
Saudi Arabia 1 2 1 49 17 17 m m m 0 m m a 18 m m m
South Africa 2 12 9 53 18 18 m m m 56 m m 22 22 m m m
EU25 average 49 51 56 17 17 91 1 8 44 34 41 22 20 70 21 9
G20 average 30 27 51 17 17 m m m 41 m m 21 20 m m m
Note: For notes on this table and a link to download the data, see Tables and Notes section above.
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
220
Table B3.3. Profile of post-secondary non-tertiary students (2023)
Percentage of vocational and female students, average age in years, and distribution by type of programme
General programmes Vocational programmes
Distribution by type Distribution by type
Average age of programme Average age of programme
Programmes giving full level
Programmes giving full level
access to tertiary education
access to tertiary education
completion without access
completion without access
Programmes insufficient
Programmes insufficient
Programmes giving full
Programmes giving full
level completion with
level completion with
to tertiary education
to tertiary education
for completion
for completion
Share of students
enrolled in
Share of Share of Share of combined school-
vocational female female and work-based
students students Women Men students programmes Women Men
2013 2023 2023 2023 2023 2023 2023 2023 2023 2013 2023 2023 2023 2023 2023 2023
OECD countries (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) (15) (16)
Australia 100 100 a a a a a a 56 m 8 35 34 100 a a
Austria 100 100 a a a a a a 76 61 28 32 31 28 72 a
Belgium 92 93 68 49 50 9 a 91 47 a 0 31 33 44 3 53
Canada m m m m m m a a m m m m m a m a
Chile a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a
Colombia a a 75 22 22 100 a a a m a a a a a a
Costa Rica a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a
Czechia 21 24 65 36 34 100 a a 57 60 a m m 50 50 a
Denmark a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a
Estonia 100 100 a a a a a a 75 4 7 34 32 100 a a
Finland 100 100 a a a a a a 60 70 58 43 41 100 a a
France 51 43 59 29 28 100 a a 63 a a 26 26 100 a a
Germany 90 95 46 23 23 100 a a 55 54 50 23 23 57 43 a
Greece m 100 a a a a a a 54 m 0 27 24 a 100 a
Hungary 100 100 a a a a a a 55 100 100 28 25 100 d a a
Iceland 98 98 48 24 27 a 100 a 29 14 4 33 35 100 0 a
Ireland 100 d 100 a a a a a a 22 m 100 34 25 a 100 a
Israel a a 39 23 24 82 6 11 a a a a a a a a
Italy 100 100 a a a a a a 38 m a 27 25 100 a a
Japan m m m m m m a a m a a m m m a a
Korea a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a
Latvia 100 100 a a a a a a 68 100 100 30 26 a 100 a
Lithuania 100 100 a a a a a a 54 a a 28 24 100 a a
Luxembourg 100 100 a a a a a a 19 100 100 31 29 a 100 a
Mexico a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a
Netherlands 100 100 a a a a a a 36 97 a m m 100 a a
New Zealand m 94 70 32 31 99 0 1 30 m m 34 28 37 63 0
Norway 100 100 a a a a a a 67 a a 36 34 100 a a
Poland 100 100 a a a a a a 72 a a 31 28 a 100 a
Portugal 100 100 a a a a a a 37 a a 32 29 100 a a
Slovak Republic 100 100 a a a a a a 61 13 12 32 25 100 a a
Slovenia a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a
Spain1 100 100 a a a a a a 60 0 5 43 42 0 100 a
Sweden 71 76 50 30 26 100 a a 63 61 96 36 33 2 98 a
Switzerland 0 80 60 22 22 100 a a 61 100 0 31 27 100 a a
Türkiye a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a
United Kingdom a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a
United States 100 100 a a a a a a 60 m m 30 29 100 a a
OECD average 88 92 58 29 29 79 11 10 53 60 42 32 30 62 36 2
Partner and/or accession countries
Argentina m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m
Brazil 100 100 a a a a a a 60 a a 29 29 100 a a
Bulgaria 100 100 a a a a a a 42 a a 36 35 a 100 a
China1, 2 38 75 52 m m m m m 48 m m m m m m m
Croatia a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a
India 2 100 100 a a a a a a 53 m m m m m m m
Indonesia m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m
Peru a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a
Romania 100 100 a a a a a a 71 m 14 30 30 a 100 a
Saudi Arabia 2 100 33 44 m m m m m 19 m m m m m m m
South Africa 100 100 a a a a a a 66 m m 21 23 m m m
EU25 average 92 92 58 33 32 82 0 18 54 60 48 32 29 49 48 2
G20 average 94 86 50 26 25 m m m 52 m m m m m m m
Note: For notes on this table and a link to download the data, see Tables and Notes section above.
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
221
Chapter B4. How do student profiles,
study choices and mobility trends shape
tertiary education?
Highlights
• Bachelor’s or equivalent programmes are the dominant entry point to tertiary education in most OECD
countries; on average 78% of all new entrants to tertiary education enter a bachelor’s programme.
• Pursuing doctoral studies is more common in science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM)
fields than in other fields. More than two-fifths of all doctorate holders graduated from a STEM field on
average – twice the share at bachelor’s level.
• Students from Asia form the largest regional group of foreign or international students enrolled in tertiary
education programmes in OECD countries, totalling 58% of all internationally mobile students across the
OECD in 2023.
Context
Tertiary education pathways play a key role in shaping individual futures and meeting national skills needs. As
more students access higher levels of education, understanding who enters tertiary education, and what and where
they study becomes critical for designing inclusive and forward-looking education policies.
The characteristics of first-time entrants into tertiary education provide valuable insights into access and equity.
Choices made at this stage – such as the type of programme (short or long) and the age of entry – reflect both
individual aspirations and the broader structures that guide educational pathways. These decisions not only shape
students’ academic and professional prospects, but also reveal disparities that policy makers need to address to
ensure equal opportunities for all (OECD, 2023[1]; OECD, 2024[2]).
The field of study chosen by graduates is another key dimension. The choice reflects a complex balance between
personal interests, societal expectations and labour-market needs. At the doctoral level, a particularly large share
of graduates specialise in STEM fields, which play a critical role in building national innovation systems. Preparing
for future challenges requires long-term investment in research, skills and infrastructure - capacities that are largely
underpinned by doctoral-level STEM education. Understanding these enrolment patterns can help governments
strengthen the strategic alignment between education systems and national development goals (OECD, 2023[3];
OECD, 2023[4]).
International mobility continues to expand, with ever larger numbers of students crossing borders to pursue tertiary
education. Over the past decade, the growing number of such mobile students has reshaped global higher
education. Trends in mobility – and changes in the distribution of students by country of origin – serve as important
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
222
signals about the attractiveness of national education systems and their ability to integrate diverse student
populations. These trends also carry strategic importance for countries, as international students can contribute
significantly to the economy and innovation ecosystem, particularly if they remain after graduation (OECD, 2024[5];
OECD, 2025[6]).
Together, these dimensions provide a nuanced picture of access, participation and outcomes in tertiary education.
They are essential for developing education policies that not only respond to immediate needs but also support
long-term equity, inclusion and economic development. Policies must ensure that the diversity of student profiles
is fully taken into account, and that dedicated strategies are developed to support the participation and success of
all under-represented or disadvantaged groups (Box B4.1).
Figure B4.1. Distribution of first-time entrants into tertiary education, by level of education
(2023)
Bachelor's or equivalent Short-cycle tertiary Master's long first degree
%
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
For data, see Table B4.1. For a link to download the data, see Tables and Notes section.
Other findings
• Across OECD countries, students enter tertiary education at an average age of 22, but most start before
then, as older entrants skew the average upwards.
• Women make up the majority of students who are first entering tertiary education. They represent 54% of
first-time entrants on average, a share that has largely remained unchanged since 2013.
• The share of internationally mobile students relative to all tertiary enrolments has risen in nearly all OECD
and partner countries between 2013 and 2023.
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
223
• More than 46% of all internationally mobile students in OECD and partner countries study in Australia,
Canada, the United Kingdom or the United States.
Note
This chapter draws on data on first-time tertiary entrants by gender, age and mobility status; graduates by field of
study, and enrolled students by mobility status and country of origin.
Analysis
Profile of tertiary students
Students who have completed upper secondary education generally have three options if they wish to continue on to
tertiary education: short-cycle tertiary programmes, bachelor’s programmes and long first degree master’s
programmes (also known as integrated programmes). Although the structure and prevalence of these pathways vary
across countries, they generally follow similar patterns.
Short-cycle tertiary programmes (ISCED level 5) typically last one to two years and are oriented towards the acquisition
of technical or applied skills. They often require an upper secondary qualification, although some countries may impose
additional criteria. Bachelor’s programmes (ISCED level 6) usually span three to four years, offering a mix of theoretical
and practical learning. Entry requirements can vary, ranging from open access systems to selective admission based
on grades or specific subjects. Long first degree master’s programmes (ISCED level 7), which integrate undergraduate
and graduate study into a single programme of five to six years, are most commonly found in fields such as medicine,
engineering and law. Admission to these programmes is typically more selective (see Chapter D6 for an in-depth
analysis of tertiary admissions systems).
Bachelor’s programmes are available in all OECD and partner countries, but short-cycle tertiary and long first degree
programmes are not universally offered. For example, Bulgaria, Estonia, Finland, Greece and Romania do not offer
short-cycle tertiary programmes. However, professionally oriented bachelor’s programmes often fulfil a similar role in
these systems. In Estonia, for instance, professional higher education programmes (rakenduskõrgharidusõpe) last
between three and four and a half years, are closely aligned with labour-market needs, and allow access to master’s
programmes.
Equally, long first degree programmes are not offered in a number of countries, including Belgium, Colombia, Greece,
Israel, Mexico, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Switzerland and the United States. In these countries, students
typically follow a sequential model. In the United States, for example, students aiming to become medical doctors
usually complete a four-year bachelor’s degree followed by a separate four-year professional programme in medicine.
These different programme types tend to lead to different labour-market outcomes, although this varies by country and
field of study. In some countries, graduates from short-cycle tertiary programmes report higher employment rates than
those from bachelor’s programmes due to their strong alignment with specific labour-market needs. In other countries,
bachelor’s or integrated master’s graduates have better outcomes. These differences are also closely linked to the
fields of study pursued, which influence both employment opportunities and wage prospects (see Chapters A3 and
A4).
Students’ ages when they first enter tertiary education.
The average age at which students enter tertiary education for the first time varies across OECD countries, reflecting
a range of structural, cultural and policy-related factors. While delayed entry into tertiary education can increase public
costs, by postponing labour-market participation and therefore reducing tax revenues, it can also support lifelong
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
224
learning. Many individuals pursue a degree mid-career after gaining work experience, which can lead to more informed
choices and greater workforce adaptability.
Across OECD countries, the average age for students first entering tertiary education is 22, but most start when they
are younger than that, as older entrants skew the average. This average also conceals significant cross-country
variation. In Denmark, for instance, the average age of entry is slightly above 25, the highest among OECD countries.
At the other end of the scale, students in Belgium, Japan, the Netherlands and the United States typically begin tertiary
education before the age of 20. In the United States, the relatively high share of students enrolling in short-cycle tertiary
programmes – which often attract younger entrants – contributes to this lower average age (OECD, 2025[7]). These
contrasts highlight the diversity of educational pathways and the dual role of tertiary education in supporting both initial
education and lifelong learning (Table B4.1).
Delayed entry may also reflect barriers to access to tertiary education, such as selective admission systems or the
implementation of numerus clausus policies that cap the number of students admitted to specific programmes. In
Finland and Sweden, for example, restricted admissions in several fields result in more than 60% of applicants being
rejected (see Chapter D6), leading some students to apply multiple times or seek alternative pathways before gaining
admission. Mandatory military service may also contribute to higher average entry ages. In Israel, for example, national
conscription delays entry for many students, and only around one-quarter of new entrants to bachelor's programmes
enrol immediately after leaving upper secondary education (see Chapter B3).
Distribution of first-time entrants into tertiary education.
Bachelor’s or equivalent programmes are the dominant entry point into tertiary education in most OECD countries.
More than half of first-time entrants to tertiary programmes are enrolled in bachelor’s programmes in all OECD and
partner countries except Austria and Spain (Figure B4.1). The next commonest entry point is short-cycle tertiary. On
average across OECD countries, first-time entrants in these programmes represent 16% of all new entrants. Long first
degree master’s programmes are the least common entry point. Austria, Germany, Hungary and Sweden have the
largest share of first-time entrants who are enrolled in long first-degree programmes, with the share in Sweden
reaching 30% (Table B4.1).
This pattern of distribution has remained largely stable in the past decade, although some countries have experienced
noticeable changes. On average across the OECD, the share of first-time tertiary entrants enrolled in bachelor’s
programmes has remained stable between 2013 and 2023 at 76-77% (Table B4.1). In Sweden, the share has fallen
by 17 percentage points while the share of first-time entrants going into short-cycle tertiary programmes rose by
12 percentage points over that period. Most students in short-cycle tertiary programmes in Sweden were enrolled in a
vocational track in 2023 (OECD, 2025[7]). Over recent years, Sweden has launched a series of reforms to increase the
involvement of social partners in vocational education and training (VET), to increase the provision of work-based
learning in VET programmes and to promote apprenticeships. Sweden launched higher VET in 2002 and it has since
been expanding (Kuczera and Jeon, 2019[8]).
Share of new entrants by gender
Gender disparities in tertiary participation have reversed over past decades, with women long since surpassing men.
This trend has largely stabilised in the last decade: women made up 54% of first-time entrants to tertiary education in
OECD countries on average in 2023, a share that has largely remained unchanged since 2013. Iceland and
New Zealand have the largest share of female first-time entrants among OECD countries while Germany, Japan and
Switzerland are the three OECD countries closest to gender parity (Table B4.1). Women are also more likely to
complete their tertiary degree than men (see Chapter B5).
Box B4.1 discusses strategies implemented by countries to promote equity in tertiary education targeting under-
represented or disadvantaged groups.
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
225
Figure B4.2. Distribution of doctoral graduates, by selected field of study (2023)
Science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) Arts and humanities, social sciences, journalism and information
Health and welfare Business, administration and law
%
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
For data, see Table B4.2. For a link to download the data, see Tables and Notes section.
Box B4.1. Strategies to promote equity in higher education for under-represented or
disadvantaged groups
In recent years, many countries have introduced policies and regulatory measures aimed at making tertiary
education more equitable for under-represented or disadvantaged groups. These initiatives generally fall into two
broad categories: the use of quota or target-based admissions systems, and the provision of targeted support,
whether that be financial support to reduce economic barriers to participation, or specific improvements to study
infrastructure and housing.
Brazil and Norway, among other countries, employ quota systems or affirmative action policies to enhance
equitable access to higher education. For example, Brazil's Quota Law ensures reserved spots for students from
disadvantaged groups like black, indigenous and communities of formerly enslaved people (Leal, 2024[9]). Norway
has introduced quotas to address gender imbalances, as well as reserving some places for students from the
indigenous Sami population (Kifinfo, 2019[10]; Kifinfo, 2023[11]).
Many countries provide financial support to tertiary students and in some cases this is specifically targeted on
disadvantaged students. Denmark provides grants and support for students with functional impairments or
disabilities in the form of targeted guidance services, workshops on transitions to higher education and the
development of inclusive learning tools through a dedicated research centre (Eurydice, 2024[12]). Ireland's National
Access Plan includes funds like the Programme for Access to Higher Education (PATH), valued at over
EUR 30 million, to support under-resourced groups in higher education, in particular Traveller and Roma students
(Higher Education Authority, n.d.[13]). Latvia’s student honour scholarships support students from underprivileged
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
226
backgrounds (Government of Latvia, 2023[14]). Japan has introduced a new financial support system offering tuition
reductions and scholarships for low-income students from the year 2020 (Cabinet Decision, 2017[15]).
Australia and Ireland have introduced targeted policies to support tertiary students through improved study
infrastructure and housing initiatives. Australia's Suburban and Regional University Study Hubs provide support to
students living in regional, remote and outer metropolitan areas. These hubs offer dedicated study facilities like
study spaces, break out areas, video conferencing, computer facilities and Internet access along with
comprehensive support services (Australian Government, 2025[16]). In 2022, Ireland launched its first state-funded
student accommodation policy to expand purpose-built housing and reduce strain on the private rental market. A
dedicated unit oversees implementation, with added measures like tax credits, financial aid and rental protections
for students (Irish Government, 2023[17]).
Distribution of graduates by field of study
The distribution of tertiary graduates by field of study shows clear patterns of specialisation that evolve as students
progress to higher education levels.
At short‑cycle tertiary level, graduates tend to be concentrated in applied domains, although patterns vary considerably
across countries depending on which programmes are offered at this level. On average across OECD countries,
around one‑quarter earned their credentials in STEM fields, while about one‑fifth graduated from programmes in
business, administration and law. Health and welfare accounts for roughly one‑sixth of graduates, a modest but still
sizeable share that reflects the vocational orientation of many healthcare assistant and nursing associate programmes.
Arts and humanities, social sciences, journalism and information attract a slightly smaller proportion, underscoring the
strongly technical focus of short‑cycle provision (Table B4.2).
The distribution becomes more balanced at bachelor’s level where three of the four broad fields each claim a similar
share of graduates (roughly one‑fifth to one‑quarter) with health and welfare slightly below at one-sixth, suggesting
that bachelor’s programmes provide a broad platform for both general and professional learning. STEM fields represent
the largest share at this level, accounting for 23% of bachelor’s graduates on average across OECD countries. Arts
and humanities account for 22% of bachelor’s graduates on average across the OECD – more than at any other level
– reflecting strong demand for broadly transferable skills at the initial degree stage. Business, administration and law
also account for 23%, pointing to a role as a springboard into a wide range of occupations. (Table B4.2).
The distribution is also relatively balanced at master’s level. Similar to short-cycle tertiary and bachelor’s levels, health
and welfare remain at one‑sixth of graduates on average across OECD countries. The share of STEM graduates dips
slightly at master’s level (22% compared to 23% at bachelor’s level), but still suggests sustained interest in advanced
scientific expertise. The most pronounced change occurs in business, administration and law: nearly three in ten
master’s graduates hold a business‑related qualification, highlighting the popularity of professional programmes such
as a Master of Business Administration (MBA) that helps mid‑career adults upgrade their management skills.
Meanwhile, arts and humanities see a marked decline in relative terms, falling from more than one‑fifth at bachelor’s
level to more than one‑sixth at master’s, signalling a shift towards more specialised or professionally focused fields in
postgraduate study (Table B4.2).
As Figure B4.2 shows, doctoral studies are dominated by STEM fields, which account for more than two-fifths of all
PhDs on average – almost twice the share at bachelor’s level, signalling that research-intensive activity is concentrated
in scientific and technological disciplines. Health and welfare rises to just over one‑sixth of doctoral graduates,
mirroring the growing importance of biomedical and public health research. Arts, humanities and the social sciences,
while showing a relative decline, still account for a relevant share of around one-fifth of doctoral graduates, but
business, administration and law represent only 8% of doctorates. Taken together, these patterns illustrate a
progressive shift from immediate employability at lower tertiary levels towards advanced research and innovation
capacity at the doctoral stage, highlighting the importance for policy makers of ensuring both breadth and depth in
tertiary provision.
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
227
In most OECD and partner countries, around 80-90% of all doctoral graduates in 2023 earned their degrees in one of
these four broad fields, reflecting the dominant role these disciplines play in national research strategies and talent
development at the highest education level (Figure B4.2). However, there can be big differences across countries. For
instance, Costa Rica, Indonesia and Mexico report notably lower shares of doctoral graduates in these fields. This is
largely due to the high proportion of doctoral graduates in the field of education, which accounts for more than 25% of
all doctorates in these countries (OECD, 2025[7]).
Among countries with concentrations closer to the OECD average, considerable differences emerge. STEM fields
account for 43% of doctorates on average, but this figure rises to over 60% in France and Luxembourg, suggesting a
deliberate investment in technical and scientific research capacity. Health and welfare is another area of divergence:
while the OECD average is 17%, countries such as Denmark, Japan and the Netherlands channel a much larger share
of doctoral training into this field (more than 35%), likely tied to national health research priorities and workforce
planning (Figure B4.2).
Doctorates in art, humanities and social sciences range from 30% or more in Hungary, Iceland, Romania and
Saudi Arabia, to 11% in Germany and Sweden. Meanwhile, Bulgaria, Indonesia, Mexico, Saudi Arabia and
South Africa stand out with above-average shares of doctoral graduates in business, administration and law, at over
15% (Table B4.2). These variations illustrate how countries align doctoral education with different socio-economic
objectives – from innovation-driven growth to social services and public sector development while also being shaped
by individual preferences, cultural context, and institutional autonomy.
Box B4.2. Professional programmes at tertiary level: Strengthening career pathways for
vocational graduates
The International Standard Classification of Education (ISCED 2011) provides a definition of distinct vocational
tracks for short-cycle tertiary programmes (ISCED 5), but does not do so for bachelor’s, master’s or doctoral
programmes (ISCED 6-8). However, several countries have professional programmes that build on prior vocational
qualifications at higher ISCED levels. These programmes typically have a strong labour-market focus and combine
advanced theoretical knowledge with practical training. They are often designed to provide advanced upskilling
opportunities for individuals with a background in vocational education and training (VET), enabling them to
advance into highly skilled or supervisory roles.
As tertiary education systems evolve to accommodate more diverse learners and respond to the rising demand for
advanced technical skills driven by digitalisation and the green transition, professional programmes are playing an
increasingly important role. By offering advanced pathways for individuals to develop their skills, they expand
access to tertiary education while strengthening the link between tertiary education and the labour market. In
addition, they promote lifelong learning and ensure that graduates from vocational programmes have attractive
career prospects (OECD, 2023[18]).
In response to this broad policy shift, many countries have expanded their tertiary professional programmes in
recent years. Examples include:
• In 2020, Germany amended its Vocational Training Act to introduce three higher qualification levels of
further training with internationally understood qualification titles: the Certified Professional Specialist
(aligned with ISCED level 5), the Bachelor Professional (ISCED level 6) and the Master Professional
(ISCED level 7). These titles are meant to reflect the equivalence between vocational qualifications and
university degrees in terms of complexity as well as responsibility levels and ensure their international
comparability and visibility.
• In recent years, several provinces and pan-Canadian post-secondary associations have explored and
adopted micro-credentials to varying extents. In 2021, Colleges and Institutes Canada released a national
framework, endorsed by all regional college bodies, defining micro-credentials as assessed certifications
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
228
of discrete competencies that can complement formal qualifications. The provinces of Alberta, British
Columbia, Manitoba, Ontario and Nova Scotia have also introduced frameworks, guides and funding to
support short, skills-focused micro-credentials for rapid upskilling and reskilling. Although these initiatives
have broadened technical training, most micro-credentials remain outside formal credit systems and
provincial qualification frameworks. Ontario has also introduced regulatory mechanisms for new three- and
four-year applied undergraduate degrees in key sectors, expanding qualification options beyond traditional
university degrees.
• In England (United Kingdom), degree apprenticeships combine on-the-job training with academic learning,
aligned with occupational standards. Apprentices spend at least 20% of their time in training or studying
and achieve an undergraduate or master’s degree over 3-6 years. Degree apprenticeships are popular
with both learners and employers and as both entry or progression routes in a wide range of professions.
However, their rapid growth has caused the UK government to seek to rebalance them away from older,
mid-career employees on master’s-level programmes towards a greater focus on those at the start of their
careers.
• Higher VET in Austria is characterised by its heterogeneity, with many different providers offering a range
of qualifications outside the formal education system which are not yet included in the statistics. Because
of its important role in the economy, Austria is striving to consolidate the higher VET sector and is in the
process of establishing it as a separate segment of its education system. A corresponding legal act, the
Federal Act on Higher Vocational Education and Training (HBB) has been in force since 2024 (CEDEFOP,
2025[19]).
• In 2020, Sweden introduced short courses within Higher Vocational Education (HVE) to offer more flexible
upskilling opportunities for working adults. HVE (Yrkeshögskolan) is a post-secondary form of education
that combines theoretical and practical learning in close cooperation with employers and industry.
Programmes are offered in fields with clearly identified labour market needs, and the newly introduced
short courses correspond to a maximum of six months of study, targeting individuals already in
employment.
• In the Netherlands, the Associate Degree is a relatively new form of education. It is a two-year academic
programme in higher vocational education, combining foundational knowledge and practical skills in a
specific field of study. It is designed to prepare students for either entry-level employment or further
education, such as transferring to a Bachelor's degree programme in higher vocational education. The
curriculum typically combines general education courses with specialised classes related to the chosen
discipline, providing a combination of theory and practical experience.
Due to the lack of internationally agreed definitions of tertiary programme orientations, professional programmes
cannot be systematically identified in international education statistics. This limits the visibility of such programmes,
especially in international comparative education analysis, despite their importance in the labour market. As a
result, their contribution to educational progression and labour-market responsiveness is often under-represented
in the data and policy analysis. Readers are advised to bear this in mind when interpreting tertiary education data.
Profile of internationally mobile students
The proportion of mobile students – international or foreign – as a share of all tertiary enrolments has risen in nearly
all countries between 2013 and 2023 (Figure B4.3). New Zealand is a notable exception, with a 1.2 percentage point
decrease in the share of international students, attributed largely to stringent travel restrictions coinciding with the start
of the academic year during the COVID-19 pandemic. This is a reversal from the upward trend observed in
New Zealand between 2013 and 2018, when the share increased by 4 percentage points. In several countries where
international students accounted for 5% or less of total tertiary enrolments in 2013, the share more than doubled over
the past decade, reaching over 10% in 2023. This trend is particularly notable in Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Portugal,
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
229
the Slovak Republic and Slovenia, reflecting a growing internationalisation of their tertiary education systems. (Table
B4.3).
English-speaking countries are the most attractive student destinations overall. Together, Australia, Canada,
the United Kingdom and the United States receive 46% of all internationally mobile students in OECD and partner
countries. The United States is the top OECD destination country for mobile tertiary students, despite having only 5%
of students with an international or foreign background. Of the 5.02 million internationally mobile students in OECD
countries, 957 000 are enrolled in the United States. Among non-English speaking countries, France, Germany, and
the Republic of Türkiye each take about 5% or more of the total share of international students in OECD and partner
countries (Table B4.3).
Figure B4.3. Trends in the share of international or foreign students in tertiary education (2013,
2018 and 2023)
2023 2018 2013
%
60
50
40
30
20
10
1. Data refers to foreign students.
2. Data for total tertiary does not include doctoral students.
3. Year of reference differs from 2023.
4. Year of reference differs from 2013.
For data, see Table B4.3. For a link to download the data, see Tables and Notes section.
Regions of origin
Students from Asia form the largest group of internationally mobile students enrolled in tertiary education programmes,
totalling 58% of all such students across the OECD in 2023. Europe is the next largest region of origin, with European
students making up 19% of all mobile students enrolled in OECD countries. Many European students stay within
Europe, accounting for 39% of mobile students enrolled in the EU25 countries (Figure B4.4).
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
230
Across OECD and partner countries, South Africa sees the largest share of mobile students from African countries:
86% of its mobile students are from other African countries. African students also account for 42% of mobile students
in Portugal and 52% in France, reflecting enduring historical, linguistic and cultural ties rooted in former colonial
relationships. Student flows from Latin America and the Caribbean highlight the importance of proximity, as they make
up the majority of mobile students in Argentina, Brazil, Chile, and Colombia. They also highlight the importance of the
language of study: more than 30% of mobile students in Portugal and Spain come from this region. North American
students only account for a little more than 15% of international enrolment in Iceland and Ireland, while students from
Oceania are a tiny minority among international students in all OECD and partner countries, making up less than 1%
of mobile students in OECD destination countries (Figure B4.4).
Figure B4.4. Distribution of international or foreign students studying in OECD countries, by region
of origin (2023)
Asia Europe Northern America Latin America and the Caribbean Africa Oceania Areas not specified
%
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
1. Data refers to foreign students.
2. Year of reference differs from 2023.
For data, see Table B4.3. For a link to download the data, see Tables and Notes section.
Some countries have implemented policies targeted at increasing the mobility of students within their region to deepen
regional partnerships and diversify the pool of international students. The New Colombo Plan is a signature initiative
of the Australian Government which encourages a two-way flow of students between Australia and the rest of Oceania.
The programme involves a scholarship programme for study of up to one year, language training and internships or
mentorships, as well as a flexible mobility programme for both short and longer-term study, language study,
internships, practicums and research (Australian Government, 2024[19]). The Chilean Agency for International
Cooperation for Development (AGCID) offers scholarships for foreign students from developing countries in the Latin
American region to pursue postgraduate studies in Chilean universities, fostering academic mobility and international
collaboration in the region (AGCID, n.d.[20]). The Erasmus programme, launched by the EU in 1987, aimed to foster
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
231
co-operation and student exchange among European universities. It has since evolved into Erasmus+, a broader
initiative supporting mobility and collaboration in education, training, youth and sport across and beyond Europe. Over
16 million people have participated since its inception (European Commission, 2025[21]). Box B4.3 discusses shorter-
duration international mobility in European countries in more depth.
Box B4.3. Regional reach of credit mobility in OECD and EU countries
Credit mobility refers to temporary study period abroad that is part of a student’s degree programme, often lasting
one semester or less (UNESCO-UIS/OECD/Eurostat, 2024[22]). There are two types of credit-mobile students:
• Non-degree mobile: the student is enrolled in a university in their home country and goes abroad
temporarily for credit mobility, for example a Romanian student studying in Romania who goes on
exchange to Spain.
• Degree mobile: the student is already enrolled in a full degree abroad and also goes on a temporary
exchange, for example a Romanian studying for a full degree in the United Kingdom who goes on
exchange to Spain.
In most countries, 71% of credit-mobile students are non-degree mobile, meaning credit mobility is their only form
of international mobility. In contrast, degree-mobile students are already abroad and take credit mobility in
addition to their existing degree mobility.
In the European context, such exchanges are typically supported through EU programmes such as Erasmus+ but
can also occur via bilateral or institutional agreements (Eurostat, 2024[23]). This textbox analyses the regional
destinations of credit-mobile graduates in 2023 across OECD and EU countries (Figure B4.5).
In 2023, 392 600 graduates across reporting countries participated in credit mobility, with most enrolled in
bachelor’s or master’s programmes. Master’s-level mobility was particularly prominent, especially in France, which
accounted for nearly half of all mobile master’s graduates. In countries such as the Netherlands and Spain, the
number of students undertaking credit mobility at the bachelor's level is between three and five times higher than
at the master's level, highlighting significant differences in national patterns of engagement with international study
across education levels.
Figure B4.5 shows that most European credit-mobile graduates pursue their study abroad within the continent. In
nearly all countries, a large majority of credit-mobile graduates chose European destinations, rising to over 95% of
such students in countries including Hungary, Ireland, Slovenia and Croatia. However, these figures highlight a
two-tiered pattern of mobility: while in Central and Eastern Europe, mobility remains highly concentrated within
Europe, in Western and Northern Europe, mobility flows are more internationally distributed, reflecting broader
institutional linkages and resources. In Belgium, Denmark, the Netherlands and Norway, at least 40% of credit-
mobile graduates went beyond Europe in 2023.
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
232
Figure B4.5. Distribution of tertiary graduates from European countries with credit mobility, by
destination region (2023)
Europe Asia Northern America Latin America and the Caribbean Africa Oceania Areas not specified
%
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
For data, see Table B4.4. For a link to download the data, see Tables and Notes section.
The strong concentration of credit-mobile students within Europe reflects several well-established factors: the
geographical proximity of partner institutions, the harmonised frameworks of the European Higher Education Area,
and the institutional and financial support provided through Erasmus+. For many Central Eastern European
countries, intra-European exchanges offer the most accessible and administratively straightforward option for
international study (Teichler, 2017[24]; European Commission, 2024[25]; European Commission, 2021[26]).
In contrast, students in Western and Northern European countries are more likely to access bilateral programmes
or institutional agreements with countries outside Europe, supported by stronger institutional capacity, greater
language flexibility and targeted funding schemes. This creates opportunities for richer academic exchange but
may also reinforce existing asymmetries in access to global networks (European Commission, 2024[25]).
Policies to influence the number of international students
Many countries have initiatives to promote themselves as study destinations. Estonia’s Study in Estonia initiative aims
to attract international students to Estonia by providing information about the Estonian education system and promoting
study opportunities for international students. It also seeks to foster positive societal attitudes by highlighting the
students’ beneficial economic impact, including their contributions to society (Study in Estonia, n.d.[27]). The Study
Korea 300K Project, launched in 2024, aims to attract 300 000 international students to Korea by 2027 to enhance
educational competitiveness. The programme involves expanding English-taught programmes, easing language and
residency barriers, and providing financial support, among other actions (ICEF Monitor, 2023[28]). Similarly, Türkiye
Scholarships is a government-funded programme that offers academically successful international students the
opportunity to pursue higher education in Türkiye. The programme aims to promote equal access to quality education
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
233
while strengthening international cooperation and contributing to global development across various fields (Türkiye
Scholarships, 2025[29]).
Several countries set target numbers for international students they want to attract. The Bienvenue en France plan
seeks to attract 500 000 foreign students by 2027 (Campus France, n.d.[30]). Under the Talent Boost programme, the
Finnish Government set a 2023-27 target to triple the number of new foreign students to 15 000 student a year and
retain 75% in Finland’s labour market (Government of Finland, n.d.[31]). In Japan, the government aims to attract
400 000 international students and send 500 000 Japanese students abroad by 2033, through initiatives including
study abroad fairs and scholarship programmes (ICEF monitor, 2024[32]). Understanding the concentration patterns of
internationally mobile students may help countries design policies to influence these flows (Box B4.4).
In contrast, a few countries have started to limit the numbers of international students. Authorities in the French
Community of Belgium have set quotas of up to 30% on first entrants from international backgrounds, in order to
manage high demand for study programmes in medicine, paramedicine, architecture and other art-related fields
(Wallonie Bruxelles Campus, 2025[33]). In Denmark, recent initiatives have concentrated on regulating the number of
places in programmes taught in English, limiting international student intake since 2021 (ICEF Monitor, 2024[34]).
However, the number of places has recently been increased, particularly in fields with high labour market demand and
at campuses located outside major cities (Ministry of Higher Education and Science, 2024 [35]). The Netherlands’
Internationalization Act proposes student caps and stricter language rules to manage international student numbers
while maintaining Dutch as the primary language of instruction (Eerste Kamer der Staten-Generaal, n.d.[36]).
Box B4.4. Concentrations of internationally mobile students
When developing policies to manage the flow of international students, it is essential to understand whether
international mobile students are particularly attracted by a few leading institutions within a country or whether they
are widely distributed across tertiary institutions. For example, a country aiming to attract more international
students, and currently experiencing a high concentration of them in a few institutions, may need to implement
policies that enhance the appeal of other institutions.
To support this, a new indicator has been developed to measure the concentration of internationally mobile
students at the country level using institutional-level data. The concentration of international mobile student
indicator identifies the institutions within a country that both represent 10% of the country’s total tertiary enrolment
as well as have the greatest shares of mobile students at the institutional level. It then calculates the share of the
country’s international mobile students that are enrolled in these institutions. The 10% national enrolment threshold
serves as a benchmark: if mobile students mobile students were evenly distributed across institutions in proportion
to their enrolment sizes — with larger institutions hosting more international students and smaller ones fewer, the
indicator would be exactly 10%. Conversely, if all the mobile students of a country were in the selected institutions,
the value would be 100%. This indicator does not measure the share of international or foreign students in the
overall student population nor does it reflect the concentration of mobile students within individual institutions.
Rather, it captures how mobile students are distributed across the higher education system as a whole, regardless
of the size of individual institutions.
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
234
Figure B4.6. Concentration of internationally mobile students (2023)
Higher values indicate a greater concentration of international students in the most international institutions of a
country
40%
35%
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
Note: The values represent the proportion of a country's total mobile students enrolled at institutions with the highest concentrations of
mobile students, which collectively account for exactly 10% of the total national tertiary enrolment. A higher value indicates that mobile
students are concentrated in fewer institutions. If mobile students were evenly distributed across all institutions, this indicator would equal
exactly 10%. This analysis focuses on bachelor's, master's, and doctoral programmes (ISCED levels 6 to 8). The number of international
mobile students is based on the mobility definition in the EHESO database.
1. Year of reference differs from 2023: 2022 for Spain.
2. Data is based on citizenship breakdown rather than mobility breakdown.
3. Internationally mobile students also include foreign students enrolled in non-degree programmes and students enrolled in short-cycle
tertiary programmes.
Source: Data based on European Higher Education Sector Observatory (EHESO) (2025). Please note that the reference year in EHESO is
2022, which corresponds to the academic year 2022/2023 and is shown as 2023 in this publication. Data for Australia, Canada and Korea
are from national data sources.
Figure B4.6 presents the international student concentration indicator for countries with available data. Spain
shows the highest concentration level, suggesting that international students are clustered in a relatively small
number of institutions. In contrast, Czechia displays lower levels of concentration, pointing to a more even
distribution of international students across their higher education systems. Notably, countries with very high shares
of mobile students, such as Austria, Australia, Canada and the United Kingdom (Figure B4.3), also exhibit low
levels of concentration among their mobile student populations. This pattern may indicate that a more even
distribution of international students across tertiary institutions could be associated with the overall attractiveness
of a country to international students.
Rather than focusing solely on absolute levels, this indicator offers a meaningful basis for cross-country
comparisons, offering valuable comparative insights into the distribution and concentration of internationally mobile
students.
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
235
Definitions
First-time entrants into tertiary education are new entrants at ISCED levels 5, 6 or 7 who are also entering tertiary
education for the first time.
Foreign students are those who are not citizens of the country in which they are enrolled and where the data are
collected. Although they are counted as internationally mobile, they may be long-term residents or even be born in the
“host” country. While pragmatic and operational, this classification may be inappropriate for capturing student mobility
because of differing national policies regarding the naturalisation of immigrants. For instance, Australia has a greater
propensity than Switzerland to grant permanent residence to its immigrant populations. This implies that even when
the proportion of foreign students in tertiary enrolment is similar for both countries, the proportion of international
students in tertiary education will be smaller in Switzerland than in Australia. Therefore, for student mobility and
bilateral comparisons, interpretations of data based on the concept of foreign students should be made with caution.
In general, international students are a subset of foreign students.
International students are those who left their country of origin and moved to another country for the purpose of
study. The country of origin of a tertiary student is defined according to the criterion of “country of upper secondary
education”, “country of prior education” or “country of usual residence” (see below). Depending on country-specific
immigration legislation, mobility arrangements (such as the free mobility of individuals within the European Union and
the European Economic Area) and data availability, international students may be defined as students who are not
permanent or usual residents of their country of study, or alternatively as students who obtained their prior education
in a different country.
Mobile students are students who are either international or foreign.
Methodology
Defining and identifying mobile students, as well as their types of learning mobility, are a key challenge for developing
international education statistics, since current international and national statistical systems only report domestic
educational activities undertaken within national boundaries (OECD, 2018[37]).
Data on international and foreign students are therefore obtained from enrolments in their countries of destination.
This is the same method used for collecting data on total enrolments, i.e. records of regularly enrolled students in an
education programme.
Source
Data refer to the 2022/23 academic year and are based on the UNESCO-Institute of Statistics (UIS)/OECD/Eurostat
data collection on education statistics administered by the OECD in 2024. Data for some countries may have a different
reference year. For more information see Education at a Glance 2025 Sources, Methodologies and Technical Notes
(https://doi.org/10.1787/fcfaf2d1-en).
The UNESCO Institute of Statistics (UIS) provided data for Argentina, China, India, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia and
South Africa.
References
AGCID (n.d.), Becas para extranjeros: Descripción de la oferta, agcidChile, [20]
https://www.agcid.gob.cl/becas/becas-para-extranjeros (accessed on 15 July 2025).
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
236
Australian Government (2025), Suburban University Study Hubs, Department of Education website, [16]
https://www.education.gov.au/suburban-university-study-hubs (accessed on 15 July 2025).
Australian Government (2024), About the New Colombo Plan, Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, [19]
https://www.dfat.gov.au/people-to-people/new-colombo-plan/about (accessed on 15 July 2025).
Cabinet Decision (2017), New National Financial Support Program for Receiving Higher Education, [15]
https://www5.cao.go.jp/keizai1/package/package.html (accessed on 15 July 2025).
Campus France (n.d.), What is the “Bienvenue en France” label?, [30]
https://www.campusfrance.org/en/presentation-label-bienvenue-en-france (accessed on 15 July 2025).
CEDEFOP (2025), Austria: implementation of higher VET Act picks up speed, National news on VET, [38]
https://www.cedefop.europa.eu/en/news/austria-implementation-higher-vet-act-picks-speed (accessed
on 15 July 2025).
Eerste Kamer der Staten-Generaal (n.d.), Wet internationalisering in balans, [36]
https://www.eerstekamer.nl/wetsvoorstel/36555_wet_internationalisering_in (accessed on
15 July 2025).
European Commission (2025), What is Erasmus+?, https://erasmus-plus.ec.europa.eu/about- [21]
erasmus/what-is-erasmus (accessed on 15 July 2025).
European Commission (2024), Education and Training Monitor 2024: Comparative Report, Publications [25]
Office of the European Union, Luxembourg,
https://www.cedefop.europa.eu/files/education_and_training_monitor_2024.pdf (accessed on
15 July 2025).
European Commission (2021), Erasmus+ Programme Guide: Mobility projects for higher education [26]
students and staff, https://erasmus-plus.ec.europa.eu/programme-guide/part-b/key-action-1/mobility-
projects-for-higher-education-students-and-staff (accessed on 15 July 2025).
Eurostat (2024), Statistics Explained: Learning mobility statistics, https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics- [23]
explained/index.php?title=Learning_mobility_statistics (accessed on 15 July 2025).
Eurydice (2024), Denmark: National reforms in higher education, Eurydice, [12]
https://eurydice.eacea.ec.europa.eu/eurypedia/denmark/national-reforms-higher-education (accessed
on 15 July 2025).
Government of Finland (n.d.), Talent Boost, Ministry of Economics Affais and Employment, [31]
https://tem.fi/en/talent-boost-en (accessed on 15 July 2025).
Government of Latvia (2023), Studētgods [Study honor], State Education Development Agency, [14]
https://www.viaa.gov.lv/lv/studetgods?utm_source=https%3A%2F%2Fsiteproxy.ruqli.workers.dev%3A443%2Fhttps%2Fwww.google.com%2F (accessed
on 15 July 2025).
Higher Education Authority (n.d.), PATH: Programme for Access to Higher Education, [13]
https://hea.ie/policy/access-policy/path (accessed on 15 July 2025).
ICEF Monitor (2024), Lessons from Denmark: The Downside of Limiting International Student Flows, ICEF, [34]
https://monitor.icef.com/2024/03/lessons-from-denmark-the-downside-of-limiting-international-student-
flows/ (accessed on 15 July 2025).
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
237
ICEF Monitor (2023), South Korea aims to attract 300,000 international students by 2027, ICEF, [28]
https://monitor.icef.com/2023/08/south-korea-aims-to-attract-300000-international-students-by-2027/
(accessed on 15 July 2025).
ICEF monitor (2024), Japan Market Report: A Dual Focus on Attracting International Students and Sending [32]
More Japanese Students Abroad, ICEF, https://monitor.icef.com/2024/12/japan-market-report-a-dual-
focus-on-attracting-international-students-and-sending-more-japanese-students-abroad/ (accessed on
15 July 2025).
Irish Government (2023), Student Accommodation, Department of Further and Higher Education, [17]
Research, Innovation and Science, https://www.gov.ie/en/department-of-further-and-higher-education-
research-innovation-and-science/policy-information/student-accommodation/ (accessed on
15 July 2025).
Kifinfo (2023), Without our university, there wouldn’t have been any Sámi-speaking teachers, [11]
https://kifinfo.no/en/2023/07/without-our-university-college-there-wouldnt-have-been-any-sami-
speaking-teachers (accessed on 15 July 2025).
Kifinfo (2019), Gender measures for students, https://kifinfo.no/en/gender-measures-students (accessed on [10]
15 July 2025).
Kuczera, M. and S. Jeon (2019), Vocational Education and Training in Sweden, OECD Reviews of [8]
Vocational Education and Training, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/g2g9fac5-en
(accessed on 15 July 2025).
Leal, F. (2024), “Affirmative actions in Brazilian higher education”, International Higher Education, Vol. 117, [9]
https://ihe.bc.edu/pub/ubxvriqr (accessed on 15 July 2025).
Ministry of Higher Education and Science (2024), New reform will encourage more people to choose a [35]
profession- or vocationally-oriented higher education programme,
https://ufm.dk/aktuelt/pressemeddelelser/2024/ny-reform-skal-fa-flere-til-at-vaelge-en-professions-eller-
erhvervsrettet-videregaende-uddannelse (accessed on 15 July 2025).
OECD (2025), OECD Data Explorer, https://data-explorer.oecd.org/?ac=false (accessed on 15 July 2025). [7]
OECD (2025), “What are the key trends in international mobility?”, Education Indicators in Focus, OECD, [6]
https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/what-are-the-key-trends-in-international-student-
mobility_2a423a76-en.html.
OECD (2024), International Migration Outlook 2024, OECD Publishing, Paris, [5]
https://doi.org/10.1787/50b0353e-en (accessed on 15 July 2025).
OECD (2024), “What shapes upper secondary pathways and transitions?: Insights for Wales”, OECD [2]
Education Policy Perspectives, No. 90, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/7139d7f1-en.
OECD (2023), Building Future-Ready Vocational Education and Training Systems, OECD Reviews of [18]
Vocational Education and Training, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/28551a79-en.
OECD (2023), OECD Science, Technology and Innovation Outlook 2023, [4]
https://doi.org/10.1787/0b55736e-en.
OECD (2023), OECD Skills Outlook 2023: Skills for a Resilient Green and Digital Transition, OECD [1]
Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/27452f29-en.
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
238
OECD (2023), “Promoting diverse career pathways for doctoral and postdoctoral researchers”, OECD [3]
Science, Technology and Industry Policy Papers, No. 158, OECD Publishing, Paris,
https://doi.org/10.1787/dc21227a-en.
OECD (2018), OECD Handbook for Internationally Comparative Education Statistics 2018: Concepts, [37]
Standards, Definitions and Classifications, OECD Publishing, Paris,
https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264304444-en.
Study in Estonia (n.d.), Study in Estonia, https://www.studyinestonia.ee/ (accessed on 15 July 2025). [27]
Teichler, U. (2017), “Internationalisation trends in higher education and the changing role of international [24]
student mobility”, Journal of International Mobility, Vol. 1/5, https://shs.cairn.info/revue-journal-of-
international-mobility-2017-1-page-177?lang=en (accessed on 15 July 2025).
Türkiye Scholarships (2025), Türkiye Scholarships, https://www.turkiyeburslari.gov.tr/about (accessed on [29]
27 June 2025).
UNESCO-UIS/OECD/Eurostat (2024), UOE Data Collection on Education Systems: Volume 1 – Concepts, [22]
Definitions and Classifications 2024, OECD & European Commission,
https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/documents/1014465/13741415/uoe-manual-2024.pdf/f0509fec-9299-ffbb-
61db-b74b0616f30b?t=1727278229151 (accessed on 15 July 2025).
Wallonie Bruxelles Campus (2025), Study in Belgium, https://www.studyinbelgium.be/en (accessed on [33]
15 July 2025).
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
239
Tables and Notes
Chapter B4 Tables
Table B4.1 Profile of first-time entrants into tertiary education (2013 and 2023)
Table B4.2 Distribution of tertiary graduates, by level of education and selected field of study (2023)
Table B4.3 Profile of international or foreign students in tertiary education (2013, 2018 and 2023)
Table B4.4 Profile of tertiary graduates who had a temporary international study or work period (2023)
StatLink 2 https://stat.link/9yrji1
Data Download
To download the data for the figures and tables in this chapter, click StatLink above.
To access further data and/or other education indicators, please visit the OECD Data Explorer: https://data-
explorer.oecd.org/.
Data cut-off for the print publication 13 June 2025. Please note that the Data Explorer contains the most recent
data.
Notes for Tables
Table B4.1. Profile of first-time entrants into tertiary education (2013 and 2023)
1. Year of reference differs from 2013: 2014 for Colombia, Denmark and Mexico; 2015 for Belgium, Greece,
Hungary, Italy and Lithuania; 2016 for Estonia and the Slovak Republic; 2017 for Bulgaria, Canada and Spain;
and 2018 for Japan.
Table B4.2. Distribution of tertiary graduates, by level of education and selected field of study (2023)
1. Year of reference differs from 2023: 2022 for Argentina, Saudi Arabia and South Africa.
Table B4.3. Profile of international or foreign students in tertiary education (2013, 2018 and 2023)
1. Data refers to foreign students.
2. Year of reference differs from 2013: 2014 for Colombia; 2015 for Croatia, Greece and Indonesia; and 2016
for Argentina..
3. Data for total tertiary does not include doctoral students.
4. Year of reference differs from 2023: 2022 for Saudi Arabia.
Table B4.4. Profile of tertiary graduates who had a temporary international study or work period (2023)
Note: Credit mobility is defined as temporary tertiary education or/and study-related traineeship abroad within a
framework of enrolment in a tertiary education programme at a "home institution" (usually) for the purpose of gaining
academic credit (i.e. credit that will be recognised in that home institution). Graduates with credit mobility stay are
graduates from a tertiary programme at a given ISCED level who have had such a temporary period abroad within a
programme at the same level.
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
240
1. Data for all tertiary do not include doctoral students.
2. Year of reference differs from 2023: 2022 for Switzerland.
Control codes
a – category not applicable; b – break in series; d – contains data from another column; m – missing data; x – contained
in another column (indicated in brackets). For further control codes, see the Reader’s Guide.
For further methodological information, see Education at a Glance 2025: Sources, Methodologies and Technical Notes
(https://doi.org/10.1787/fcfaf2d1-en).
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
241
Table B4.1. Profile of first-time entrants into tertiary education (2013 and 2023)
Trends in the percentage of female and international or foreign entrants, average age at entry, and distribution by
level of tertiary education
Share of international Distribution by level of education
Share of female Average age or foreign first-time Bachelor’s Master’s
first-time entrants of first-time entrants entrants Short-cycle tertiary or equivalent long first degree
2013 2023 2013 2023 2013 2023 2013 2023 2013 2023 2013 2023
OECD countries (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12)
Australia m m m m m m m m m m m m
Austria 54 54 22 22 23 27 44 43 37 39 19 18
Belgium 1 57 55 20 19 13 11 1 6 96 94 2 a
Canada1 54 54 21 22 18 29 36 38 56 53 7 9
Chile 52 53 22 22 0 2 45 36 52 62 3 2
Colombia1 52 52 22 23 0 0 35 37 65 63 a a
Costa Rica m m m m m m m m m m m m
Czechia 58 56 22 22 12 21 1 1 91 87 8 12
Denmark1 54 55 24 26 14 5 24 28 70 72 7 a
Estonia 1 57 56 22 22 9 8 a a 94 93 6 7
Finland 55 55 22 24 12 16 a a 94 92 6 8
France m m m m m m m m m m m m
Germany 50 51 22 23 10 12 0 1 81 82 18 17
Greece 1 54 55 19 20 3 3 a a 100 100 a a
Hungary1 56 54 22 21 9 13 11 10 74 73 16 17
Iceland 58 59 25 24 18 13 5 10 89 89 6 1
Ireland m m m m m m m m m m m m
Israel 56 56 24 25 m 3 24 24 76 76 a a
Italy1 55 56 20 20 5 5 1 4 84 89 15 11
Japan1 51 51 18 18 m m 35 32 63 65 2 2
Korea m m m m m m m m m m m m
Latvia m m m m m m m m m m m m
Lithuania1 53 55 21 22 4 12 a a 95 93 5 7
Luxembourg 53 53 24 22 41 22 10 28 60 72 29 0
Mexico1 49 53 20 21 0 1 10 7 90 93 a a
Netherlands 52 54 20 20 16 22 1 4 93 96 6 a
New Zealand 55 58 23 22 25 25 31 22 69 78 0 a
Norway 56 55 23 22 3 2 7 9 82 80 11 12
Poland 56 56 22 21 2 14 a 0 m 85 m 15
Portugal 55 53 21 20 2 13 a 13 84 81 16 6
Slovak Republic1 57 53 22 22 7 23 2 3 91 91 6 6
Slovenia 53 55 21 21 4 13 15 16 80 78 5 5
Spain1 51 54 21 22 7 9 36 39 53 47 11 14
Sweden 58 56 23 25 9 15 2 14 74 57 24 30
Switzerland 48 50 25 24 15 12 4 2 68 98 28 a
Türkiye m m m m m m m m m m m m
United Kingdom 55 56 22 24 13 11 15 19 82 77 2 4
United States 53 54 20 19 2 3 45 47 55 53 a a
OECD average 54 54 22 22 10 12 14 16 77 78 9 7
Partner and/or accession countries
Argentina 57 m m m m m m m m m m m
Brazil m m m m m m m m m m m m
Bulgaria 1 51 54 23 23 7 9 a a 86 86 14 14
China m m m m m m m m m m a m
Croatia m m m m m m m m m m m m
India m m m m m m m m m m m m
Indonesia m m m m m m m m m m m m
Peru m m m m m m m m m m m m
Romania 53 54 21 23 4 7 a a 92 91 8 9
Saudi Arabia m m m m m m m m m m m m
South Africa m m m m m m m m m m a m
EU25 average 54 55 22 22 10 13 7 10 81 81 11 9
G20 average m m m m m m m m m m m m
Note: For notes on this table and a link to download the data, see Tables and Notes section above.
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
242
Table B4.2. Distribution of tertiary graduates, by level of education and selected field of study
(2023)
Short-cycle tertiary Bachelor’s or equvalent Master’s or equivalent Doctoral or equivalent
Arts and humanities, social
Arts and humanities, social
Arts and humanities, social
Arts and humanities, social
Business, administration
Business, administration
Business, administration
Business, administration
sciences, journalism and
sciences, journalism and
sciences, journalism and
sciences, journalism and
Science, technology,
Science, technology,
Science, technology,
Science, technology,
mathematics (STEM)
mathematics (STEM)
mathematics (STEM)
mathematics (STEM)
Health and welfare
Health and welfare
Health and welfare
Health and welfare
engineering and
engineering and
engineering and
engineering and
information
information
information
information
and law
and law
and law
and law
OECD countries (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) (15) (16)
Australia 10 43 16 14 20 27 24 20 11 36 19 21 19 8 18 48
Austria 4 21 4 38 20 21 14 27 18 32 13 26 18 12 14 50
Belgium 1 19 51 23 19 22 27 17 25 24 22 20 20 5 21 48
Canada 11 32 18 25 27 21 13 27 15 29 21 24 24 5 11 51
Chile 2 23 25 24 11 24 21 27 12 34 26 11 27 4 6 48
Colombia 7 45 2 30 18 37 9 24 9 53 6 13 23 9 9 36
Costa Rica 5 36 2 18 8 34 12 18 6 51 10 7 12 9 0 19
Czechia 100 0 0 0 19 19 14 23 18 19 13 24 18 7 11 50
Denmark 14 46 2 22 17 22 30 21 26 24 10 33 19 0 38 39
Estonia a a a a 22 22 16 25 18 24 12 27 23 7 11 50
Finland a a a a 12 21 25 28 22 20 15 30 20 8 23 41
France 3 46 12 28 26 34 14 19 14 34 16 26 19 7 4 67
Germany 3 0 8 33 13 27 6 35 23 22 8 35 11 9 31 44
Greece a a a a 24 19 12 30 27 24 14 22 21 5 19 41
Hungary 3 60 1 14 21 23 6 24 21 28 13 17 30 3 24 32
Iceland 2 0 0 6 28 14 21 18 16 30 15 14 31 4 19 35
Ireland 12 25 16 25 20 23 18 28 13 30 17 24 24 6 18 43
Israel 2 7 2 60 26 18 10 23 21 30 15 12 25 4 14 51
Italy 10 16 0 53 36 20 10 21 29 20 16 24 17 9 13 55
Japan 15 13 23 18 31 26 9 20 11 10 27 42 13 4 41 35
Korea 14 9 19 31 23 14 17 32 22 21 11 24 20 12 15 39
Latvia 2 27 28 12 22 26 11 23 16 29 29 17 16 14 12 52
Lithuania a a a a 20 24 19 26 18 29 28 18 22 9 14 43
Luxembourg 13 31 32 24 30 26 2 21 8 61 2 18 18 13 0 67
Mexico 2 29 6 48 12 34 13 26 10 41 13 9 12 18 3 16
Netherlands 10 36 15 14 22 27 17 18 27 29 9 24 13 7 42 30
New Zealand 24 25 13 22 23 18 23 22 21 27 12 28 20 8 16 45
Norway 19 2 1 63 19 19 25 16 24 18 12 24 21 4 30 38
Poland 0 1 65 1 17 29 14 19 19 26 19 19 27 8 15 42
Portugal 10 22 11 38 25 22 18 24 17 22 17 31 25 9 13 40
Slovak Republic 53 6 17 10 18 19 17 20 16 22 19 20 20 13 14 40
Slovenia 7 14 3 42 21 18 15 28 13 24 15 27 22 8 25 40
Spain 7 20 24 28 25 20 13 20 14 18 21 15 26 7 19 39
Sweden 12 27 5 45 25 12 27 19 16 15 20 31 11 3 32 49
Switzerland 37 1 31 20 12 27 19 24 21 28 10 25 15 7 27 47
Türkiye 9 30 32 16 28 21 16 20 21 31 6 20 29 14 12 31
United Kingdom 16 30 24 21 32 21 18 24 21 35 13 21 25 7 17 46
United States 46 11 20 16 30 19 17 25 13 26 26 20 21 6 12 42
OECD average 14 22 16 26 22 23 16 23 18 28 16 22 20 8 18 43
Partner and/or accession countries
Argentina1 20 27 15 15 23 20 15 16 13 18 34 4 27 10 3 45
Brazil 59 41 0 0 8 34 19 16 20 11 16 24 20 7 18 29
Bulgaria a a a a 21 21 8 24 14 26 16 16 27 16 20 23
China m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m
Croatia 0 0 0 0 17 18 15 31 17 25 13 25 23 3 27 38
India a a a a 37 17 6 28 39 27 6 22 29 10 9 39
Indonesia 13 13 35 34 22 19 8 19 20 24 8 11 28 15 7 11
Peru m m m m 13 28 18 26 0 82 18 0 m m m m
Romania a a a a 19 29 7 31 15 23 20 25 30 11 17 28
Saudi Arabia 1 1 49 0 44 29 29 9 23 13 27 40 11 48 25 3 12
South Africa 1 11 51 2 21 16 38 6 15 13 41 13 25 21 21 12 32
EU25 average 14 22 15 24 21 23 15 24 19 26 16 24 21 8 19 44
G20 average 15 27 14 26 24 25 13 23 18 27 17 21 23 11 13 38
Note: For notes on this table and a link to download the data, see Tables and Notes section above.
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
243
Table B4.3. Profile of international or foreign students in tertiary education (2013, 2018 and 2023)
Trends in the total numbers and share of international or foreign students and distribution by region of origin
Number (in thousands)
Of which Distribution by region of origin
or equivalent
or equivalent
or equivalent
Bachelor’s
Latin
Master’s
Doctoral
America
Share of international and the Northen Areas not
All tertiary or foreign students Africa Asia Europe Caribbean America Oceania specified
2013 2018 2023 2023 2023 2023 2013 2018 2023 2023 2023 2023 2023 2023 2023 2023
OECD countries (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) (15) (16)
Australia 249.9 444.5 467.1 167.9 154.1 20.9 18 27 27 3 86 2 3 1 1 3
Austria 70.9 75.3 87.0 37.7 39.7 8.2 17 17 20 2 9 84 2 1 0 2
Belgium 48.7 53.9 57.3 29.6 21.3 5.1 10 10 10 17 12 57 3 1 0 9
Canada1 151.2 224.5 389.1 164.5 53.1 24.1 10 14 21 11 72 8 6 2 0 1
Chile 3.0 5.7 19.9 6.9 4.6 1.6 0 0 1 0 0 1 98 0 0 0
Colombia1, 2 3.9 4.8 6.7 3.7 1.2 0.1 0 0 0 0 1 7 89 2 0 0
Costa Rica1 m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m
Czechia 40.1 44.8 56.3 29.8 20.8 5.6 9 14 17 3 20 75 1 1 0 0
Denmark 29.5 33.3 29.7 9.7 13.9 3.7 10 11 10 1 15 77 2 3 1 0
Estonia 1.9 4.4 4.9 1.7 2.4 0.8 3 10 11 9 30 53 4 3 0 0
Finland 21.9 23.7 30.3 15.1 9.9 5.4 7 8 9 10 45 30 3 3 0 9
France 228.6 229.6 276.2 96.2 141.4 25.4 10 9 10 52 22 17 6 2 0 1
Germany 196.6 311.7 423.2 153.8 221.3 48.1 7 10 13 10 44 31 5 2 0 7
Greece2 22.1 26.3 26.3 24.9 0.7 0.8 3 3 3 m m m m m m m
Hungary 1 20.7 32.3 41.7 20.3 18.1 3.1 6 11 14 12 43 41 3 1 0 0
Iceland 1.2 1.4 2.1 0.8 0.8 0.3 7 8 10 4 18 56 4 17 1 0
Ireland 12.9 22.3 30.1 15.2 9.9 4.3 6 10 12 5 46 30 3 16 1 0
Israel 10.3 10.9 13.6 7.0 3.7 1.7 3 3 3 m m m m m m m
Italy 82.6 106.6 106.5 45.7 54.9 5.9 4 6 5 13 41 27 8 2 0 8
Japan 132.4 182.7 181.8 73.2 35.6 18.6 3 5 5 1 94 3 1 1 0 0
Korea1 55.5 84.7 127.6 71.2 30.0 18.1 2 3 5 2 94 2 1 1 0 0
Latvia 3.5 7.6 10.1 4.6 5.2 0.2 4 9 13 3 46 50 0 1 0 0
Lithuania 3.9 6.3 11.0 6.1 4.6 0.3 2 5 11 9 28 59 1 2 0 0
Luxembourg 2.9 3.4 4.2 0.7 2.4 0.9 44 48 52 10 15 70 4 1 0 0
Mexico 8.0 7.2 72.9 42.8 22.2 7.1 0 0 1 1 0 39 57 1 2 0
Netherlands3 68.9 104.7 169.5 112.0 53.1 m 10 12 18 m m m m m m m
New Zealand 41.2 52.7 36.4 20.5 8.5 4.4 16 20 15 1 77 5 2 7 8 0
Norway 9.2 12.3 14.1 4.7 6.9 2.5 4 4 5 8 40 40 4 4 0 3
Poland 27.8 54.4 89.7 61.2 27.4 1.0 1 4 7 10 20 67 1 1 0 1
Portugal 14.5 28.1 56.8 23.0 21.8 8.2 4 8 13 42 7 17 33 1 0 0
Slovak Republic1 10.2 11.6 21.3 13.6 6.7 0.9 5 8 15 1 8 91 0 0 0 0
Slovenia 2.6 3.4 8.5 4.7 2.5 0.8 3 4 11 2 8 89 1 0 0 0
Spain 56.4 70.9 102.2 27.3 45.7 19.7 3 3 4 7 10 34 47 2 0 0
Sweden 25.4 30.9 34.7 7.9 19.8 6.9 6 7 7 m m m m m m m
Switzerland 47.1 54.3 66.2 23.1 27.2 15.9 17 18 20 5 15 69 4 3 0 4
Türkiye1 54.4 125.1 301.7 194.0 55.8 11.1 1 2 4 20 71 8 0 0 0 0
United Kingdom 416.7 452.1 748.5 283.0 403.2 49.6 17 18 23 13 68 14 1 4 0 0
United States1 772.2 987.3 956.9 338.4 254.8 258.3 4 5 5 6 75 7 8 3 1 0
OECD total 2 949.0 3 935.8 5 081.9 2 142.5 1 805.0 589.7 5 6 7 11 58 18 7 3 0 3
Partner and/or accession countries
Argentina1, 2 75.7 109.2 140.8 71.9 57.3 3.7 2 3 4 0 1 3 94 2 0 0
Brazil1 16.5 21.2 25.2 20.8 1.6 2.8 0 0 0 23 10 11 50 5 0 1
Bulgaria 11.6 15.2 19.3 5.7 12.8 0.8 4 6 9 2 16 81 0 1 0 0
China 1 96.4 178.3 200.9 m m m 0 0 0 m m m m m m m
Croatia 2 0.8 5.0 5.9 2.8 2.7 0.4 1 3 4 1 6 88 1 3 0 0
India 1 34.4 46.1 45.7 m m m 0 0 0 24 67 1 0 7 0 0
Indonesia 1, 2 7.3 7.7 m m m m 0 0 m m m m m m m m
Peru1 m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m
Romania 22.2 29.1 36.2 13.2 22.1 0.9 4 5 7 9 17 72 1 1 0 0
Saudi Arabia1, 4 62.1 74.0 64.9 m m m 5 5 4 26 69 3 0 1 0 1
South Africa1 42.4 42.3 28.7 11.9 6.6 6.9 4 4 3 85 4 5 0 2 0 4
EU25 total 1 027.3 1 334.7 1 513.7 743.7 746.2 155.7 6 8 8 16 28 40 8 2 0 7
G20 total 2 586.6 3 456.7 4 557.6 1 735.2 1 491.7 500.6 2 2 3 12 64 11 8 3 0 1
Note: For notes on this table and a link to download the data, see Tables and Notes section above.
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
244
Table B4.4. Profile of tertiary graduates who had a temporary international study or work period
(2023)
Number and share of graduates and their distribution by region of destination (2023)
Number of graduates with credit mobility (in thousands)
Share
Of which of those Distribution of graduates with credit mobility by region of destination
graduates Latin
Bachelor’s Master’s Doctoral who were America
or or or not degree and the Northern Areas not
All tertiary education equivalent equivalent equivalent mobile Africa Asia Europe Caribbean America Oceania specified
2016 2023 2023 2023 2023 2023 2023 2023 2023 2023 2023 2023 2023
OECD countries (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13)
Australia m m m m m m m m m m m m m
Austria 9.4 7.6 3.9 3.4 0.3 68 1 8 78 2 9 1 0
Belgium m 9.1 4.5 4.5 m 81 5 5 58 3 3 1 26
Canada m m m m m m m m m m m m m
Chile m m m m m m m m m m m m m
Colombia m m m m m m m m m m m m m
Costa Rica m m m m m m m m m m m m m
Czechia 5.6 4.8 2.0 2.6 0.3 76 0 7 87 1 4 0 0
Denmark 8.2 6.4 3.6 2.2 0.3 76 2 14 59 2 17 5 0
Estonia m 0.6 0.3 0.3 m 59 1 5 91 0 1 1 1
Finland 9.4 4.2 2.7 1.5 0.0 90 1 14 74 2 7 1 1
France 125.1 185.5 45.5 131.4 1.1 73 2 9 61 7 18 2 2
Germany m 27.1 15.9 10.7 0.5 m 1 12 71 3 10 2 0
Greece 1.7 1.8 1.8 0.0 m m 0 14 84 1 0 0 1
Hungary 1.9 2.3 1.3 0.9 0.1 m 0 3 96 0 0 0 0
Iceland m m m m m m m m m m m m m
Ireland m 3.2 3.2 0.0 0.0 90 0 1 98 0 1 0 0
Israel m m m m m m m m m m m m m
Italy 28.6 40.1 14.5 20.7 4.8 0 1 4 88 2 5 1 0
Japan m m m m m m m m m m m m m
Korea m m m m m m m m m m m m m
Latvia 1.1 0.9 0.5 0.3 0.0 84 0 6 93 0 1 0 0
Lithuania 2.3 1.6 1.1 0.4 0.1 79 0 11 87 0 1 0 0
Luxembourg 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.0 0.0 51 0 2 95 0 3 0 0
Mexico m m m m m m m m m m m m m
Netherlands1 32.6 24.5 18.1 6.3 m 78 5 14 56 9 11 4 1
New Zealand m m m m m m m m m m m m m
Norway 4.8 4.3 2.9 1.4 0.0 100 6 7 58 1 14 13 0
Poland 0.0 7.7 4.0 3.6 0.1 73 0 6 91 0 1 0 2
Portugal 5.7 5.1 3.2 1.9 0.0 87 1 2 90 5 1 0 0
Slovak Republic 0.8 1.4 0.6 0.7 0.1 89 0 5 95 0 0 0 0
Slovenia 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.1 0.0 0 0 3 96 0 0 0 0
Spain 33.5 40.7 30.0 5.8 3.4 97 0 3 80 4 5 0 8
Sweden 7.6 6.2 2.9 3.0 0.2 88 1 12 66 2 16 3 0
Switzerland 2 7.7 6.8 3.6 2.7 0.5 70 2 10 71 2 13 1 0
Türkiye m m m m m m m m m m m m m
United Kingdom a a a a a a a a a a a a a
United States m m m m m m m m m m m m m
OECD total 287.1 392.6 166.9 204.6 11.9 71 2 8 69 5 12 2 2
Partner and/or accession countries
Argentina m m m m m m m m m m m m m
Brazil m m m m m m m m m m m m m
Bulgaria 1.0 0.7 0.5 0.3 0.0 78 0 9 90 0 1 0 0
China m m m m m m m m m m m m m
Croatia 1.5 1.2 0.3 0.8 0.1 0 0 3 95 0 1 0 0
India m m m m m m m m m m m m m
Indonesia m m m m m m m m m m m m m
Peru m m m m m m m m m m m m m
Romania 2.4 1.9 1.2 0.7 0.0 82 0 5 94 1 0 0 0
Saudi Arabia m m m m m m m m m m m m m
South Africa m m m m m m m m m m m m m
EU25 total 279.5 385.3 162.4 202.1 11.5 70 2 8 69 5 12 2 2
G20 total m m m m m m m m m m m m m
Note: For notes on this table and a link to download the data, see Tables and Notes section above.
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
245
Chapter B5. Who is expected to
complete tertiary education?
Highlights
• On average across OECD countries and other economies, only 43% of students who start a bachelor’s
programme complete a degree at any tertiary level within the theoretical duration of their programme. This
rate increases to 59% when allowing for one additional year and reaches 70% three years after the end of
the theoretical duration.
• First-year drop out rates exceed 20% at bachelor’s level in several systems, including Brazil, Colombia,
the French Community of Belgium, Luxembourg, Peru and Romania.
• By the end of the theoretical duration of their programme, 42% of bachelor’s entrants have graduated from
that or another bachelor’s programme on average, 1% have completed a short-cycle tertiary programme,
38% remain enrolled and 20% have left tertiary education.
Figure B5.1. Completion rates of new entrants to bachelor's programmes, by timeframe (2023)
Completion rates of full-time students at any tertiary level
By the end of the theoretical duration of the programme By the end of the theoretical duration of the programme plus one year
By the end of the theoretical duration of the programme plus three years
%
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
1. Year of reference differs from 2023.
For data, see Table B5.1. For a link to download the data, see Tables and Notes section.
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
246
Context
Completion rates in tertiary education are a key measure for understanding how effectively education systems
support students from entry to graduation. They provide insights into the functioning and efficiency of tertiary
programmes, highlighting whether systems are enabling students to complete their studies within a reasonable
timeframe. For policy makers, this indicator is particularly relevant, as studying for extended periods or failing to
complete a programme can carry significant financial and social costs for both individuals and society. High drop
out rates or delays in completion may indicate a misalignment between student needs and programme offerings,
challenges in academic preparation or issues related to guidance and support services. They may also reflect a
mismatch between the expectations and skills of new entrants and the actual demands of the programmes. When
students enrol in courses that do not align with their competencies or goals, the risk of non-completion increases
significantly (Archer, Godec and Holmegaard, 2023[1]; Colyar, Chatoor and Deakin, 2023[2]).
Importantly, non-completion or delayed completion does not always reflect failure. Students may leave their
programmes for diverse reasons: they might switch fields after discovering new interests, pause their studies due
to personal circumstances or take advantage of early job opportunities. Some may also have entered tertiary
education without a clearly defined academic goal, using initial enrolment as a way to explore different study
options. In such cases, flexible pathways into different programmes and levels can be seen as an opportunity rather
than a weakness of the system.
Understanding the factors that shape completion requires considering students’ socio-economic background,
academic preparation and the structure of tertiary systems themselves, including entry requirements, institutional
selectivity and support mechanisms. These factors interact in complex ways, influencing whether students graduate
“on time”, after a delay or not at all.
By exploring how completion rates vary across education levels, fields of study, gender and type of institution, this
chapter sheds light on potential policy levers to improve student outcomes. It also highlights the importance of
balancing flexibility with efficiency, and of designing tertiary education systems that support diverse student
pathways and aspirations.
Other findings
• On average across OECD countries, completion rates three years after the theoretical duration reached
80% among bachelor’s students in health and welfare, 71% in arts, humanities, social sciences, journalism
and information, and 68% in STEM fields, highlighting significant variation by field of study.
• Women are more likely than men to complete their bachelor’s studies: 48% of female entrants graduate
on time, compared to 37% of male entrants. After three additional years, the gap remains the same (75%
versus 63%).
• In almost all countries that reported completion rates for bachelor's programmes of different durations,
longer programmes tend to have higher completion rates.
Note
Completion and attainment rates are two distinct measures. Completion rates, as presented in this chapter, refer
to the percentage of students who enter a tertiary programme and graduate from it within a specified timeframe. In
contrast, attainment rates reflect the share of the population that has achieved a certain level of education,
regardless of when or where the qualification was obtained (see Chapter A1). They represent the relationship
between all graduates – both recent and from previous years – and the total population.
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
247
Analysis
This chapter presents data on the completion of tertiary education by the end of the theoretical duration of programmes
and one and three years later. These completion rates are calculated using true cohort data. True cohort completion
rates correspond to the share of students from a specific entry cohort who graduate within a particular timeframe. This
is the preferred methodology for analysing completion rates, but only countries with longitudinal surveys or registers
are able to provide such information. Panel data may be available in the form of an individual student registry (using
unique personal identification numbers for students) or a cohort of students used to conduct a longitudinal survey. In
earlier editions of Education at a Glance, completion rates were also calculated using cross-cohort data, but these
estimates were not comparable with true cohort measures and often overestimated completion rates. In recent years,
many countries have strengthened their data collection systems, enabling a more consistent use of true cohort data
in this chapter.
Completion rate by timeframe
Bachelor’s programmes
On average across OECD countries and economies, 43% of students complete their bachelor's programme within the
theoretical duration, although completion rates vary substantially across countries. The highest rates, where more than
60% of all bachelor’s entrants complete a tertiary degree (at any level) within the expected timeframe, are in Ireland,
Israel, Romania, the Republic of Türkiye and the United Kingdom. Several other countries, including Denmark,
Hungary, Lithuania, Norway and Poland, report slightly lower rates but still around the 50-60% range. At the lower end
of the spectrum, Austria, Chile, Colombia, the French Community of Belgium, and Peru show notably lower rates of
on-time completion (below 25%) (Figure B5.1). These cross-country differences may reflect a variety of contextual
factors, including the structure and official length of bachelor’s programmes, the availability and accessibility of student
support services, the level of public or private funding and financial aid, the flexibility of study pathways (such as the
availability of part-time study or the possibility of taking gap years), and broader labour-market conditions and
incentives for timely graduation. At the individual level, academic readiness at entry and prior success in upper
secondary education can be the determining factors behind the prompt completion of tertiary studies.
On average across OECD countries and economies, completion rates for bachelor’s entrants increase by
16 percentage points - reaching 59% - when the timeframe is extended by one additional year after the theoretical
programme duration. This indicates that a considerable share of students who do not graduate within the expected
period will nevertheless be able to complete their studies shortly afterwards. The increase in Chile, the Netherlands,
New Zealand and Switzerland is relatively large (around 25 percentage points or more) over this extended timeframe.
In contrast, in some countries where on-time completion rates are already relatively high, such as Ireland and Romania,
the additional gain from extending the observation period by one year tends to be more modest. These differences
highlight broader cross-country differences in completion dynamics: in some systems, most students either graduate
on time or not at all, whereas in others a significant share will complete their studies after some delay (Figure B5.1).
The data on completion rates by the end of the theoretical programme duration correspond to a graduation period of
June to December 2020. During this period, and in the months leading up to it, many students were experiencing
disruptions due to the COVID-19 pandemic, as universities shifted to remote learning, exams were postponed or
cancelled and students faced challenges such as limited Internet access, economic hardship and decreased academic
support. While some students were able to complete their exams on line, others faced delays that postponed their
graduation. In Denmark, for instance, students reported challenges in maintaining motivation, adapting to lockdown
measures and managing an increased risk of dropping out. The Netherlands also experienced major disruptions, with
delays in student progress and a noticeable decline in completion rates, despite institutional efforts such as deadline
extensions and the transition to online assessments. In contrast, Australia and Sweden managed the shift to online
learning more effectively, maintaining retention and completion rates at pre-pandemic levels.
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
248
Studies suggest that completion rates remained relatively stable in many systems. In Norway and Sweden, for
example, early evidence pointed to consistent graduation outcomes and student performance throughout the
pandemic period. In contrast, in Hungary and the Slovak Republic, the research highlights inequalities and challenges
in student progression, particularly during the first year of the pandemic (See Box B5.2 for more discussion on the
impact of COVID-19 and differences in completion rates between 2020 and 2023).
Extending the observation period to three years beyond the theoretical programme duration generally leads to a further
increase in completion rates, as students who required additional time to balance study commitments with work or
personal responsibilities complete their programmes. However, in almost all systems, the incremental gain due to
these two additional years is significantly smaller than that achieved by extending the period by only one year. This
suggests that most students who take longer to complete their degree than the expected timeframe do so relatively
soon after the official programme end date. The added time brings diminishing returns, as students who have not
completed a tertiary degree within one additional year may be more likely to withdraw without a qualification
(Figure B5.1).
Short-cycle tertiary and long first degree master’s programmes
Only 18 OECD and partner countries and economies have true cohort data available for short-cycle tertiary
programmes and, as with bachelor’s programmes, completion rates at this level vary widely. In Chile, Israel, Slovenia
and Peru, less than 25% of students who enter a full-time short-cycle programme graduate from any tertiary
programme within the theoretical duration of the programme. In France, more than 70% of students graduate within
this timeframe. As with bachelor’s programmes, completion rates increase in all countries after three additional years,
but especially in those where completion rates within the theoretical duration are lower. The completion rate almost
doubles in Canada (from 32% to 62%) and more than doubles in Chile (from 25% to 52%) and Israel (from 22% to
57%) (Table B5.1).
In most countries, completion rates of short-cycle tertiary entrants are higher than those for bachelor’s entrants by the
end of the theoretical duration, with only eight countries having a lower rate. The difference is greatest in Israel, where
the completion rate of bachelor’s programmes is 40 percentage points higher than for short-cycle tertiary programmes.
However, bachelor’s completion rates tend to be higher than short-cycle tertiary rates three additional years after the
end of the theoretical duration of the programme. Only five countries have higher completion rates for short-cycle
tertiary students than bachelor’s students over the longer timeframe (Table B5.1). In order to put these differences into
context, however, it is important to understand the distribution of students in each tertiary level. For example, Austria
is the only OECD country where more first-time entrants to tertiary education enrol in short-cycle programmes (43%)
than in bachelor’s programmes (39%) (see Chapter B4).
Master’s long first degree programmes have a longer theoretical duration than bachelor’s programmes, and completion
rates within that timeframe tend to be higher. In 8 out of the 13 countries with available data, completion rates were
higher for master’s students than for those entering bachelor’s degrees by the theoretical end of their programmes.
Completion rates three years after the theoretical duration were higher in all countries for students who entered
master’s long first degrees than for bachelor’s students, ranging from 55% in Peru to 96% in Republic of Türkiye
(Table B5.1). This may be due to the selection processes for entry to master’s long first degree programmes, as well
as students’ own self-selection, given the greater complexity of the course content. In Spain, for example, some long
first degree programmes in fields such as medicine, architecture or veterinary science have higher admission criteria
and require strong academic performance in upper secondary education and university entrance exams. Box B5.1
provides a more detailed discussion of completion rate differences between programmes of shorter and longer
duration.
Policies to increase completion rates in tertiary education
In recent years, many countries have implemented policies aimed at increasing tertiary completion rates. A common
approach is to make the financing of institutions conditional to some extent on student completion rates. In Estonia,
for example, 20% of the funding for tertiary institutions is performance based and allocated according to five criteria,
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
249
one of which – student completion within specified timeframes – is relatively significant (OECD, 2019[3]). In Denmark,
a significant share of higher education funding is tied to indicators such as study duration, graduate employment rates
and student satisfaction. Institutions can lose up to 3.75% of core funding if average completion time exceeds
programme duration by over a year – highlighting the emphasis placed on timely graduation within the funding model
(OECD, 2021[4]). Similar conditional funding mechanisms exist in Finland, Israel and Lithuania.
In other countries, completion rates are taken into account in the financing provided directly to students. In Norway,
for example, students may have up to 40% of their student loans converted into grants if they progress through their
studies without delays and meet the relevant income and residence requirements (Eurydice, 2023[5]). Since academic
year 2019/20, students in Norway have also been obliged to complete their overall degree in order to receive the full
loan-to-grant conversion. In Brazil, specific financing has been provided to institutions in the past in order to help
ensure that students from disadvantaged backgrounds complete their degree without excessive delays, but funding
for these programmes have recently diminished for budget reasons, especially following the onset of the COVID-19
pandemic. In Portugal, a EUR 7 million pilot project involving a group of universities is using AI to develop models to
identify drop out risk indicators. The initiative supports early intervention to improve student retention in higher
education (European Comission, 2024[6]).
Other policies focus on helping students make better choices about their field of study, thereby reducing the number
of cases where students transfer to other courses or leave tertiary education entirely due to a poor fit with their original
programme. In the Flemish Community of Belgium, for example, a study guidance tool called “Columbus” has been
established for use in secondary schools to guide students’ choices about what to study in higher education (see
Annex 3). In the United Kingdom, all government-backed careers information has been gathered onto the National
Careers Service website to help young adults understand the careers landscape and find the education programmes
with the right fit (UK Government, 2025[7]).
Box B5.1. Bachelor’s completion rates by programme duration
Generally, bachelor’s programmes across countries have a theoretical duration of three to four years, but there are
notable exceptions. In Luxembourg, one bachelor’s programme lasts only two years, while in Brazil, Chile and
Colombia, some bachelor's programmes extend to five or even six years. For short-cycle tertiary programmes,
Chile, Colombia, Israel and Peru report durations of three years, while Israel and the United Kingdom have also
one-year programmes at that level. At the long first-degree master’s level, Chile and Peru report programmes
lasting up to seven years, whereas Sweden reports some shorter programmes with a theoretical duration of four
years.
In this chapter, completion rates for programmes of varying durations have been aggregated by level of education.
Nevertheless, examining the potential impact of programme length on completion provides additional insight. While
it might be assumed that longer programmes were associated with a higher risk of students dropping out and
therefore lower completion rates, the data suggest otherwise. In almost all countries that reported completion rates
for bachelor's programmes of different durations, longer programmes tend to have higher completion rates. In some
cases, the gap is substantial: in Luxembourg and Slovenia, the completion rate for four-year programmes exceeds
that of three-year programmes by more than 20 percentage points. Only Chile reports lower completion rates for
longer programmes than for shorter ones (Figure B5.2).
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
250
Figure B5.2. Completion rates of bachelor’s new entrants by the end of theoretical duration of
their programme, by duration of programme (2023)
3 year-programme 4 year-programme 5 year-programme
%
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
1. Year of reference differs from 2023.
For data, see Survey on tertiary completion rate database.
The reasons for these higher completion rates are varied. In some countries, programme durations differ depending
on the field of study, entry requirements and other factors. In Norway, four-year bachelor’s programmes in teacher
and music education differ from standard three-year degrees and have stricter admission requirements such as
auditions or specific grade criteria. These programmes also lead directly to professions, setting them apart from
other bachelor’s programmes. Similarly, in Slovenia, academically oriented four-year bachelor’s or equivalent
programmes, mainly in education, social sciences and the arts, have higher completion rates than three-year
programmes, partly due to differences in students’ prior education. These longer programmes attract students with
general upper-secondary backgrounds and often require entrance exams, suggesting higher motivation and
commitment. On the other hand, in many countries, the fourth (or even fifth) year represents an additional stage in
the study programme, pursued only by students who have successfully completed the first three years without
delay. In Australia for example, students may follow a four-year bachelor’s degree and continue to a fifth year under
the bachelor’s honour degree programme or enrol in a cluster of qualifications comprising a bachelor’s and
bachelor’s honours degree.
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
251
Drop out rates by timeframe
To better understand student trajectories, completion data should be considered alongside drop out patterns, both
after the first year of study and at later stages. Examining when and why students disengage from their studies provides
valuable insights that can enable policy makers and education institutions better target early interventions.
Drop out rates after the first year of study refer to the proportion of students who are no longer enrolled and have not
obtained a degree by the start of the second academic year. This period often represents a critical juncture in students’
educational journeys, during which many discover that their chosen programme does not meet their expectations or
that balancing study with work, family or other commitments is too difficult. Some systems, such as Brazil, Colombia,
the French Community of Belgium, Luxembourg, Peru and Romania exhibit relatively high first-year drop out rates at
bachelor’s level (20% or more) (Figure B5.3).
These patterns may reflect a range of factors, including prior academic achievement and financial conditions faced by
students. In Colombia, the introduction of SPADIES, a comprehensive student retention tracking system, has shown
the importance of examining factors behind students dropping out (Ministerio de Educación Nacional, 2009[8]). The
data from Colombia indicate that academic readiness at entry plays a crucial role in students dropping out, potentially
to a greater extent than previously understood, outweighing financial factors. In Estonia, the most common reason for
students dropping out after their first year is a mismatch between their chosen field of study and their interests,
strengths, or career plans. In addition, students with lower upper secondary school examination scores are more likely
to leave their programmes early (Jaggo, 2020[9]).
After the first year, the number of students who have dropped out continues to accumulate throughout the duration of
tertiary programmes. Although the rate of attrition tends to increase more gradually after the first year, some countries
with moderate first-year drop out rates, such as Lithuania and Sweden, may still see significant cumulative numbers
dropping out over time (Table B5.4, available on line). In Sweden, later-stage drop out is most common among
students with weaker academic backgrounds, particularly those with low grades from upper secondary education
(Swedish Higher Education Authority, n.d.[10]). In contrast, countries such as Israel, Portugal, Spain, Switzerland and
Türkiye, which also record relatively low drop out rates in the first year, tend to experience either a steady pace of
attrition or a plateau, suggesting they have more effective support mechanisms and interventions that help students
remain engaged. An additional factor influencing attrition patterns is the timing of high-stakes examinations. In some
systems, these assessments are scheduled early in the programme and serve as a filter, quickly identifying students
who do not meet academic expectations. Other systems allow students to progress further before major assessments
occur, often after students themselves recognise they will not be able to earn the required credits. These structural
differences can influence whether students drop out early or late. It is important to note that early withdrawal can
sometimes be preferable, as it may reduce the time and resources expended on an ultimately uncompleted
programme. Thus, effective systems not only support continued engagement but also help students make timely,
informed decisions about their educational paths.
The risk of dropping out from tertiary education is unequally distributed across student populations and is influenced
by a variety of social and economic factors. These disparities became more pronounced during the COVID-19
pandemic. In Colombia, economically disadvantaged students also faced higher drop out rates, even when they
entered higher education with strong academic preparation. This highlights the need for comprehensive approaches
that address both academic and financial support. In Sweden, while overall drop out rates among new entrants
remained stable during the pandemic, there was an increase among students from less advantaged educational
backgrounds, raising concerns about equitable access in the context of remote learning. In New Zealand, the effects
of the pandemic varied across types of institutions and population groups, with particularly pronounced challenges for
older students and those attending Wānanga – tertiary institutions that focus on Māori values and knowledge (Earle,
2024[11]). These examples reinforce the importance of tailored and inclusive policy responses that address the specific
needs of vulnerable and diverse student populations in tertiary education.
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
252
Drop out rates by level of education
Tertiary programmes vary considerably in their structure, purpose and duration (see Chapter B4). Short-cycle
programmes typically span two years, bachelor’s programmes last three to four years, while long first degree
programmes at the master’s level may last five years or more. Given these differences, comparing drop out rates after
the first year of study can provide more meaningful insights than overall completion rates or attrition over extended
timeframes. The share of students who drop out after the first year can serve as an indicator of the extent to which
students’ skills, expectations and goals align with the content and demands of the programme, as well as with their
perception of its relevance for future career or study opportunities. As shown in Figure B5.3 drop out rates after one
year are considerably higher among students who entered short-cycle programmes and consistently lower for long
first degree master’s programmes compared to bachelor’s programmes. These patterns underscore the importance
of examining how programme structure, student support services and entry requirements influence early student
attrition in tertiary education.
Figure B5.3. Drop out rates after the first year of tertiary education, by level of education entered
(2023)
Students who entered a bachelor's (or equivalent) programme Students who entered a short-cycle tertiary programme
Students who entered a master's long first degree programme
%
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
1. Year of reference differs from 2023.
For data, see Table B5.1. For a link to download the data, see Tables and Notes section
Long first degree master’s programmes generally report the lowest drop out rates after one year, averaging around
6% across OECD countries and economies. These programmes tend to be more selective, and students are often
better academically prepared, contributing to higher retention levels. In Hungary, Lithuania and Türkiye, the proportion
of students who leave during the first year is lower than 3%, while in Poland and Slovenia it exceeds 12%.
Short-cycle programmes show notably higher drop out rates in some countries. On average, 19% of students enrolled
in short-cycle programmes across OECD countries leave within the first year. In New Zealand, the figure reaches
approximately 46%, compared to around 10% for students in bachelor’s programmes. This gap may reflect the
disproportionate impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, as short-cycle programmes often rely on hands-on or vocational
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
253
content that proved more difficult to deliver remotely. Colombia also reports high first-year drop out rates, around 20%
in both short-cycle and bachelor’s programmes, indicating a consistently elevated level of attrition across programme
types. In contrast, Hungary, Israel, Spain and Türkiye report relatively low drop out rates for both short-cycle and
bachelor’s programmes, suggesting stronger retention mechanisms and student support systems.
These findings should be interpreted with caution. In many countries, enrolment in short-cycle or long first degree
master’s programmes is relatively limited, which may affect the stability and comparability of these indicators.
Differences across countries may also reflect broader national contexts, including admission criteria, labour-market
structures and the role of tertiary education in the wider education and training ecosystem.
Several countries have conducted government-backed studies to examine the personal, economic and academic
factors behind students dropping out from tertiary education. Longitudinal German surveys show that 15% of students
drop out by the third year, mainly due to poor programme fit, high workload with little support and financial strain,
especially among older students, part-timers and those without a clear career path (DHZW, 2022[12]). A Hungarian
qualitative study found that dropping out and delaying graduation in higher education often stem from poor institutional
fit, intensive work or sports commitments and peer influence, though exact drop out-rates remain unclear due to
inconsistent methodologies (Bocsi et al., 2019[13]). In Peru, the COVID-19 pandemic notably increased drop out rates
due to technical and connectivity issues, financial hardship and family care responsibilities. Female and rural students
were disproportionately affected by the pandemic’s negative impacts (Government of Peru, 2021[14]).
In many countries, governments have investigated the unique socio-economic, academic and psychological
challenges driving drop out rates among specific groups of students, aiming to improve their retention in higher
education. A review of Norwegian studies found that disadvantaged students are especially vulnerable to dropping out
due to mental health struggles, lack of belonging and poor study planning. These challenges are best addressed
through early mental-health screening, integrated study-skill workshops and peer-supported “study-cafés”
(Hovdhaugen, 2019[15]). A study in Finland found that financial debt, failed courses and activity on the university's
online learning platform were the strongest predictors of students dropping out, with their importance changing over
time. Although demographic data had less predictive value overall, the findings emphasise the need for early and late-
stage interventions, especially for disadvantaged students with low academic performance or poor engagement
(Vaarma and Li, 2024[16]).
Pathways through tertiary education
In addition to examining students’ completion rates, it is important to consider the different pathways they take through
tertiary education. This provides insights into the flexibility and responsiveness of education systems and helps shed
light on the trajectories of students who do not complete their original programme. Key questions include whether
these students are still enrolled, have transferred to another tertiary programme or have left the education system
altogether.
On average across OECD countries and economies with available data, 43% of students who entered a bachelor's
programme graduated from that or another bachelor’s programme by the end of the theoretical duration. An additional
1% had transferred and graduated from a short-cycle tertiary programme, 38% remained enrolled in tertiary education,
although not necessarily in their original programme, and 20% had left the system without a qualification (Table B5.4,
available on line).
Although only a small share of bachelor’s students transfer into different tertiary programmes, typically in the low single
digits, this highlights the availability of alternative educational pathways. In countries such as Canada, Chile and
the United Kingdom, a modest but visible proportion of students who had started bachelor’s programmes had
transferred into short-cycle tertiary programmes one year after the theoretical end of their programme. These tend to
be more practice-oriented and specialised and could offer a better fit for students whose initial programme did not align
with their interests or career plans. In other cases, students move into more advanced programmes. For example, in
Poland, some students transfer to long first degree master’s programmes, reflecting opportunities for academic
progression and pursuit of more specialised qualifications (Figure B5.4 and Table B5.4, available on line).
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
254
Figure B5.4. Status of new entrants to bachelor’s programmes one year after the theoretical end of
their programme (2023)
Graduated from a bachelor's programme Graduated from a master's long first degree
Graduated from short-cycle tertiary Still in tertiary education
% Not graduated and not enrolled in tertiary education
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
1 Year of reference differs from 2023.
For data, see Table B5.2. For a link to download the data, see Tables and Notes section
Over the following three years, many of those who were still studying either graduate or exit the system. Three years
after the theoretical duration, on average, 68% of students have completed a bachelor’s programme, 2% a short-cycle
tertiary programme and 1% a long first degree master’s programme. Around 8% remain enrolled, while 23% are no
longer participating in tertiary education (Table B5.4, available on line).
Access to alternative tertiary pathways often hinges on whether prior credits can be transferred, yet recognition
practices vary widely. Institutional autonomy leads to diverse criteria across and within countries and economies,
affecting students' ability to switch programmes. For example, in Brazil credit recognition for prior learning is legally
permitted and relatively common, but each university sets its own criteria, examining subject compatibility, grades,
time elapsed and internal rules. In the French Community of Belgium, credit‑transfer decisions (e.g. moving from one
bachelor’s programme to another) are made on a case-by-case basis by disciplinary juries. In Estonia, the VÕTA
process enables the recognition of prior formal, non-formal and informal learning – including work experience – for
academic credit or professional qualifications. It streamlines study paths for learners and helps institutions engage
with a more diverse, experienced student body (Republic of Estonia, 2024[17]).
Even in systems where transitions between programme types remain limited, the availability of such alternative routes
plays an important role in supporting student to remain in tertiary education. For some students, changing programmes
allows for a better match with their learning needs, preferred academic environment or professional goals. These
flexible options may help reduce drop out rates by providing opportunities to reorient towards more suitable forms of
study or shorter qualification pathways.
Research in Australia also shows that partial completion of higher education can still yield significant benefits for
students. Many individuals who do not complete their bachelor’s programmes go on to attain vocational qualifications
and often earn more than those who never enrolled in a bachelor’s programme. Moreover, students who leave
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
255
university before graduating report skill gains, career clarity, social connections or employment benefits. These findings
challenge the traditional binary framing of higher education outcomes as either success (completion) or failure (non-
completion), suggesting the need for a more nuanced understanding of student trajectories and the broader value of
participation in higher education (Luckman and Harvey, 2018[18]; Cunninghame and Pitman, 2019[19]).
To further support student success and ensure that tertiary education remains responsive to societal and labour-
market needs, many countries are strengthening the alignment between education and employment. This includes
fostering closer ties between higher education institutions and industry through curriculum co-design, work-based
learning opportunities such as internships and collaborative research or innovation projects. These partnerships not
only enhance the relevance of academic programmes but also create more structured and purposeful transitions for
students – whether they are continuing in their original programme or shifting to a new one better matched to emerging
job market demands. Complementing these efforts, governments are also introducing policy measures that reinforce
the link between education and employability. For example, Ireland’s Micro-Credential Course Learner Fee Subsidy
supports short, targeted courses in priority skill areas such as renewable energy, sustainability, artificial intelligence
and cyber security by offering subsidies of up to 80% on fees (HEA, 2024[20]).
Completion rate by gender
In every country and economy with available data, women in bachelor’s programmes have higher completion rates
than men. On average across countries, 48% of female entrants and 37% of male entrants to bachelor’s programmes
graduate within the theoretical duration. The average gap remains similar after allowing three additional years, as the
completion rate increases to 75% among women and 63% among men (Figure B5.5).
Some countries have a narrower gender gap than others. The difference in completion rates between women and men
within the theoretical duration is below 5 percentage points in Austria, Chile, Denmark, Iceland, Peru and
the United Kingdom for students in bachelor’s programmes, but 20 percentage points or more in Estonia, Finland,
Hungary and Poland. In 22 out of 31 countries and economies with available data, the gender gap in completion rates
of bachelor’s students did not change greatly after three years following the theoretical end of programmes, with
differences of less than 5 percentage points. Of the remaining countries, the gender gap widened in Chile and Sweden
after three additional years, but it narrowed in Türkiye (Figure B5.5).
National conscription policies, which often apply differently to men and women, may help explain some of the wider
gender differences in completion rates although students tend to be exempted from military or alternative service while
enrolled in higher education, or are required to complete it before beginning their studies. In Finland, all male citizens
aged 18 to 30 must perform military or alternative service, usually between the ages of 19 and 20, while women may
choose to do so voluntarily. This may partly explain why 59% of women entering bachelor’s programmes complete
their studies on time, compared to 37% of men. The gender gap in Finland narrows from 22 to 17 percentage points
when considering a longer timeframe. In Estonia, where military service is also mandatory for men only, completion
rates by the end of the theoretical duration are 49% for women and 29% for men. However, unlike in Finland, the
gender gap does not narrow significantly over the following three years, suggesting that conscription is not the sole
driver of the difference in completion rates (Figure B5.5).
Differences in the completion rates of men and women may also be partly explained by the different returns to tertiary
education by gender. Although employment rates are higher for both men and women with tertiary education than
those with upper secondary or post-secondary non-tertiary attainment, the gains differ. On average across OECD
countries, employment rates for tertiary-educated men are only 5 percentage points higher than for those with upper
secondary or post-secondary non-tertiary attainment, compared to a 10 percentage point difference for women. This
suggests that women may experience greater employment gains from completing tertiary education although they
tend to benefit less in terms of earnings, as the financial returns to tertiary education are generally lower for women
than for men (see Chapter A3).
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
256
Figure B5.5. Completion rates of new entrants to bachelor’s programmes, by gender and timeframe
(2023)
Women, by the end of the theoretical duration of the programme Men, by the end of the theoretical duration of the programme
% Women, by the end of the theoretical duration of the programme plus three years Men, by the end of the theoretical duration of the programme plus three years
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
1. Year of reference differs from 2023.
For data, see Table B5.2. For a link to download the data, see Tables and Notes section.
Completion rate by type of institution
In most OECD countries, tertiary education is offered in both public and private institutions (OECD, 2025[21]). In public
institutions, a public agency has overall control over the general policies and activities of the institution including staff
appointments. Private institutions may be managed by non-governmental organisations or by a governing board, most
of whose members are not selected by a public agency. However, there can be significant differences in the ways in
which private institutions are regulated and managed (UNESCO-UIS/OECD/Eurostat, 2024[22]). In
the United Kingdom, for example, all higher education institutions are private but receive most of their funding from
the government while in many OECD countries with significant shares of students attending private institutions there
are no such government-dependent private institutions (OECD, 2025[21]).
Most private higher education institutions function on a not-for-profit basis, so surplus revenue cannot be paid to their
owners (OECD, 2019[23]). However, there have been increasing numbers of for-profit private institutions emerging in
some OECD countries (Shah and Sid Nair, 2013[24]). Some research suggests that for-profit institutions may be more
responsive to market demand through their ability to quickly adapt their programme offerings to meet students’ and
employers’ needs (Gilpin, Saunders and Stoddard, 2015[25]); however, they have also been criticised for being focused
on financial gain at the expense of students’ educational outcomes (Hodgman, 2018[26]).
Completion rates by the end of the theoretical duration of a bachelor’s programme often differ significantly between
public and private institutions. In some countries, students enrolled in private institutions are less likely to graduate on
time. For example, in Denmark and Estonia, on-time completion rates are more than 20 percentage points lower in
private institutions than in public ones. These findings should be interpreted with caution, as the share of students
enrolled in private institutions is very small in some countries. This is the case in Denmark, for example, where there
are very few private institutions and they tend to cater to students with specific profiles. In contrast, private institutions
outperform public ones by over 20 percentage points in Austria, Finland and New Zealand. In other countries, such as
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
257
the Netherlands, Poland and Portugal, the difference between sectors is minimal (2 percentage points or less),
suggesting comparable effectiveness in supporting timely graduation across both public and private providers (Table
B5.2).
When extending the observation period to three years beyond the theoretical duration, the gap in completion rates
between public and private institutions often narrows. This indicates that students in both sectors – particularly those
who may have taken longer to progress – tend to catch up over time. In Denmark, for example, private institutions
experience a substantial increase in completion rates over the extended period, reducing the earlier disparity. Estonia
shows a similar trend, with private institutions making larger gains over time, although public institutions also improve
and continue to maintain a moderate lead in overall completion rates (Table B5.2).
Several factors can help explain the differences in completion rates between public and private institutions, including
admission criteria, programme characteristics, study conditions and financial considerations. Admission requirements
are one possible source of divergence. Where entry into higher education is more selective, students are likely to have
stronger academic preparation, which may increase their chances of progressing and graduating on time. For example,
in many public institutions in Austria, students do not need to pass an admission exam to start a study programme
(OECD/European Union, 2019[27]) whereas more selective entry procedures for private institutions may result in better-
prepared student cohorts.
The organisation and quality of teaching and learning may also play a role. In Austria, survey data suggest that
students enrolled in private universities and universities of applied sciences are more likely to rate the quality of
teaching and the structure of their courses positively than those in public universities. These students also tend to
report a higher intensity of study, which may contribute to higher on-time completion rates (Zucha, Engleder and
Rieder, 2023[28]; Haag et al., 2024[29]).
Differences in programme orientation and specialisation can further affect completion rates. In New Zealand, for
instance, private higher education expanded after 1989 into more specialised and professionally oriented areas such
as business and information and communication technologies (ICT). This occurred alongside a well-established public
sector that had long provided traditional academic and vocational education through universities, polytechnics, and
colleges of education (Xiaoying and Abbott, 2008[30]). Students in these vocationally focused programmes may be
more motivated to complete their studies on time, as their enrolment tends to be driven by specific career goals.
Financial incentives and the cost of study may also influence completion rates. In systems where tuition fees are higher
– often more common in private institutions – students may face greater financial pressure to complete their studies
within the theoretical duration. Chapter C5 provides a more detailed discussion of how tuition fees and financial aid
mechanisms affect student behaviour and outcomes.
Completion rate by field of study
Completion rates vary significantly by field of study. On average across OECD countries, 80% of full-time bachelor’s
students who entered the field of health and welfare had graduated from a tertiary programme three years after the
theoretical duration. This compares to 71% in arts, humanities, social sciences, journalism and information, and only
68% in science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) fields. These differences are especially
pronounced in some countries: in Austria, Chile, Spain and Sweden, students in health and welfare fields are over
20 percentage points more likely to complete their programmes than those in STEM. New Zealand is a notable
exception, where STEM completion rates exceed those in health and welfare (Table B5.3).
However, not all students complete their studies in the same field or even at the same level at which they began. In
health and welfare, 74% of students complete a programme in the same field, 4% switch to a different field at the same
level and 2% graduate from a different level of education. In contrast, students in STEM are more likely to switch: only
58% complete in the same field, while 9% shift to another field at the same level and 2% change levels. The pattern
is similar in arts and humanities. This suggests that students who initially choose health and welfare are more likely to
remain in that field, while those in STEM and arts fields are more prone to change (Figure B5.6 and Table B5.3).
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
258
The degree of switching also varies across countries. In Canada, Chile, New Zealand and Poland, almost or more
than 20% of students who entered STEM either changed fields or moved to a different level of education. Even in
health and welfare, over 11% of students from these countries switched, exceeding the OECD average. In many of
these countries, flexibility is built into the system through broad-based first-year programmes or credit structures,
enabling students to explore different fields before committing (Figure B5.6).
Several factors may help explain these patterns. Labour-market dynamics can influence student decisions. In fields
such as ICT or engineering, where demand is high, students may find job opportunities before completing a full
qualification, reducing the incentive to graduate. Partial completion may be sufficient to enter the workforce, particularly
in vocationally oriented fields.
Admission selectivity may also play a role. Fields with more rigorous entry requirements often attract students with
stronger academic preparation and clearer motivation, which can lead to higher completion rates. In the Netherlands,
for example, a study found that students admitted to medical school through competitive selection were more likely to
complete their degrees on time than those admitted by lottery (Vos et al., 2019[31]).
Gender disparities in completion also emerge, particularly in STEM. Women account for just 30% of new entrants to
STEM fields, yet in most contexts, a larger share of women change programmes or level before graduating compared
to men (OECD, 2025[21]). Research suggests that this may be related to women in STEM programmes experiencing
isolation, micro-aggressions and a male-dominated culture (Ong, Smith and Ko, 2017[32]). Women might also
experience less of a sense of belonging then men in STEM-related fields, which has been associated with a decreased
likelihood of persisting in their programme (Lewis et al., 2017[33]). To address these challenges, many OECD countries
have implemented initiatives to reduce gender gaps. In Australia, the 2015 “Restoring the focus on STEM in schools”
initiative sought to encourage more girls and disadvantaged students by expanding the Summer Schools for STEM
programme and promoting STEM-related career pathways (OECD, 2017[34]). Higher education institutions can also
play a role by adapting teaching methods, revising curricula and offering targeted mentoring to support women to
complete their programmes (Do et al., 2021[35]).
Figure B5.6. Completion rates of new entrants to bachelor’s programmes in STEM and health and
welfare three years after the theoretical end of their programme, by graduation status (2023)
Graduated from a bachelor's programme in the same field Graduated from a bachelor's programme in a different field
Graduated from a different level of education
% Health and welfare
Science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM)
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
For data, see Table B5.3. For a link to download the data, see Tables and Notes section.
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
259
Box B5.2. Trends in completion rate 2023 and 2020 and the role of COVID-19
Most countries and economies have seen little change in bachelor’s completion rates between 2020 and 2023.
The exceptions are Australia and Italy, where the share of those completing by the end of the theoretical duration
in 2023 was around 16 percentage points higher than in 2020. By the end of the theoretical duration plus three
years, completion rates do not greatly differ except for Canada where the completion rate in 2023 was
12 percentage points higher than in 2020. Although completion patterns remained stable in many countries, others
saw continued changes or improvements, possibly reflecting the longer-term effects of earlier disruptions and
system-level responses (Figure B5.7).
Figure B5.7. Trends in completion rates of new entrants to bachelor’s programmes, by
timeframe (2020 and 2023)
2023, by the end of the theoretical duration of the programme 2020, by the end of the theoretical duration of the programme
2023, by the end of the theoretical duration of the programme plus three years 2020, by the end of the theoretical duration of the programme plus three years
%
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
For data, see Table B5.1 and Table B5.1 from Education at a Glance 2022 (OECD, 2022[36])).
Although COVID-19 first emerged in late 2019, its major impact on higher education began in March 2020, when
lockdowns and campus closures were implemented worldwide. For students expected to graduate that year, the
pandemic introduced sudden disruptions: delayed assessments, the cancellation of practical components and a
rapid shift to online learning. These challenges, combined with mental health concerns and economic uncertainty,
could have affected students' ability to graduate on time. However, despite these substantial disruptions, most
countries did not report significant drops in tertiary completion rates for the affected cohorts.
One possible explanation is that, while some students did experience delays, many institutions and governments
took swift action to minimise the academic consequences of the pandemic. Temporary adjustments to graduation
criteria and academic requirements were widely implemented. These included flexible assessment formats,
simplified grading and waivers for certain graduation components such as internships, research papers or foreign
language certifications. For instance, Germany extended eligibility for student financial aid and allowed programme
durations to be exceeded without penalty. Hungary temporarily waived its language requirement for graduation in
2020 (Government of Hungary, 2020[37]; Government of Hungary, 2020[38]) and Portugal introduced more flexible
submission deadlines for theses. In Peru, emergency legislation allowed automatic graduation for students
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
260
between 2020 and 2024, while in Latvia, institutions were granted discretion to adjust graduation criteria. These
adaptive measures may have buffered the impact of the pandemic on formal completion rates. Moreover, some
delays in graduation might not appear in the statistics if students met academic requirements in 2020 but received
their official degree in 2021 due to administrative lags. Although the long-term impacts remain under investigation
in many countries, these adaptive policy responses likely helped mitigate some of the disruption in completion
trends.
Definitions
The true cohort method requires following an entry cohort through a specific timeframe, which in the case of this
survey corresponds to the theoretical duration of the programme, the theoretical duration plus one and three years.
Only countries with longitudinal surveys or student registers are able to provide such information.
Full-time students in this chapter refer to students who entered the given tertiary programme with full-time status.
They may have switched status during their studies.
The theoretical duration of programmes is the regulatory or common-practice time it takes a full-time student to
complete a level of education.
Methodology
This chapter covers only full-time students. On average across OECD countries, about 30% of tertiary students in
2023 were enrolled part time (OECD, 2025[21]). The theoretical duration of tertiary programmes varies across countries.
Therefore, although the reference year for graduation is consistent (2023 unless otherwise specified), the entry year
of student cohorts differs according to the length of the programme in each country.
For countries that submitted data using the true cohort method, it is possible to calculate two different completion rates
(described below) which are computed for two different timeframes (theoretical duration N, one year N+1 and three
years later, N+3):
• Completion rate of students who graduate at the same ISCED level which they entered: Number of graduates
in a given calendar year and ISCED level divided by the number of entrants to that same ISCED level
N/N+1/N+3 calendar years before
• Completion rate of students who graduate at any tertiary ISCED level: The sum of graduates from all tertiary
ISCED levels in a given calendar year who entered a given ISCED level N/N+1/N+3 calendar years before.
Countries that submitted true cohort data either used first-time entrants to tertiary education (which considers only
students who entered tertiary education for the first time) or new entrants to the tertiary level (which considers all first-
time entrants to each tertiary level, regardless of whether they have pursued a different tertiary level before). Please
see Education at a Glance 2025 Sources Methodologies and Technical Notes for the list of countries using each
methodology (https://doi.org/10.1787/fcfaf2d1-en).
If countries offer programmes of different theoretical durations within the same ISCED level, the completion rate of
each programme is weighted by the number of new entrants to each programme.
Please see the OECD Handbook for Internationally Comparative Education Statistics 2018 (OECD, 2018[39]) for more
information and Education at a Glance 2025 Sources Methodologies and Technical Notes for country-specific notes
(https://doi.org/10.1787/fcfaf2d1-en).
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
261
Source
Data on completion rates refer to the academic year 2022/23 and were collected through a special survey undertaken
in 2024. Data for some countries may have a different reference year, please refer to Education at a Glance 2025
Sources Methodologies and Technical Notes for country-specific notes (https://doi.org/10.1787/fcfaf2d1-en).
References
Archer, L., S. Godec and H. Holmegaard (2023), “Misfits or misrecognition? Exploring STEMM degree [1]
students’ concerns about non‑completion”, Science Education, Vol. 107/4, pp. 912-938,
https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21794.
Bocsi, V. et al. (2019), “The discovery of the possible reasons for delayed graduation and dropout in the [13]
light of a qualitative research study”, Journal of Adult Learning, Knowledge and Innovation, Vol. 3/1,
pp. 27-38, https://doi.org/10.1556/2059.02.2018.08.
Colyar, J., K. Chatoor and J. Deakin (2023), Linking postsecondary non-completion rates and labour market [2]
outcomes, Higher Education Quality Council of Ontario, https://heqco.ca/wp-
content/uploads/2023/11/Linking-Postsecondary-Non-completion-Rates-and-Labour-Market-Outcomes-
in-Ontario-FINAL.pdf (accessed on 4 July 2025).
Cunninghame, I. and T. Pitman (2019), “Framing the benefits of higher education participation from the [19]
perspective of non-completers”, Higher Education Research and; Development, Vol. 39/5, pp. 926-939,
https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2019.1705255.
DHZW (2022), Student drop-out: Extent and motives, German Centre for Higher Education Research and [12]
Science Studies, https://www.dzhw.eu/en/forschung/projekt?pr_id=240.
Do, T. et al. (2021), Championing Girls and Women in Information Technology: A Review of Challenges, [35]
Monash University, Melbourne, http://hdl.voced.edu.au/10707/595031.
Earle, D. (2024), How do expectations influence tertiary education attainment, Tertiary Sector Performance [11]
Analysis Te Pou Kaupapahere Ministry of Education.
European Comission (2024), Education and Training Monitor 2024: Portugal, Publications Office of the [6]
European Union, https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2766/540081.
Eurydice (2023), Higher Education Funding Norway, [5]
https://eurydice.eacea.ec.europa.eu/eurypedia/norway/higher-education-funding.
Gilpin, G., J. Saunders and C. Stoddard (2015), “Why has for-profit colleges’ share of higher education [25]
expanded so rapidly? Estimating the responsiveness to labor market changes”, Economics of Education
Review, Vol. 45, pp. 53-63, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econedurev.2014.11.004.
Government of Hungary (2020), Act LVIII of 2020 on Transitional Rules and Epidemiological Preparedness [38]
Related to the Cessation of the State of Danger, Magyar Közlöny [Hungarian Gazette].
Government of Hungary (2020), Government Decree No. 101/2020 (IV.10.) on the Declaration of a State of [37]
Danger and Related Measures, Magyar Közlöny [Hungarian Gazette].
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
262
Government of Peru (2021), “Reporte sobre la interrupción de estudios universitarios en el Perú, en el [14]
contexto del COVID-19”, Working Paper, Ministerio de Educación.
Haag, N. et al. (2024), “Studienverläufe – Zusatzbericht der Studierenden-Sozialerhebung 2023”, Research [29]
Report, Institute for Advanced Studies, Vienna, https://irihs.ihs.ac.at/id/eprint/7207/6/ihs-report-2024-
haag-binder-et-al-studienverlaeufe-studierenden-sozialerhebung-2023-v2.pdf.
HEA (2024), HCI Pillar 3 Micro-Credentials Learner Fee Subsidy, Higher Education Authority of Ireland, [20]
https://hea.ie/skills-engagement/hci-pillar-3-micro-credentials-learner-fee-subsidy.
Hodgman, M. (2018), “Understanding for-profit higher education in the United States through history, [26]
criticism, and public policy: A brief sector landscape synopsis”, Journal of Educational Issues, Vol. 4/2,
p. 1, https://doi.org/10.5296/jei.v4i2.13302.
Hovdhaugen, E. (2019), Årsaker til Frafall i Høyere Utdanning: En Forskningsoppsummering av Studier [15]
Basert på Norske Data, Nordisk Institutt for Studier av Innovasjon, Forskning og Utdanning (NIFU),
https://nifu.brage.unit.no/nifu-xmlui/bitstream/handle/11250/2593810/NIFUarbeidsnotat2019-3.pdf.
Jaggo, I. (2020), Katkestamine ja väljalangemine kõrghariduses 2011/12-. [9]
Lewis, K. et al. (2017), “Fitting in to move forward”, Psychology of Women Quarterly, Vol. 41/4, pp. 420- [33]
436, https://doi.org/10.1177/0361684317720186.
Luckman, M. and A. Harvey (2018), “The financial and educational outcomes of bachelor degree non- [18]
completers”, Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, Vol. 41/1, pp. 3-17,
https://doi.org/10.1080/1360080x.2018.1553106.
Ministerio de Educación Nacional (2009), deserción estudiantil. [8]
OECD (2025), OECD Data Explorer, https://data-explorer.oecd.org/. [21]
OECD (2022), Education at a Glance 2022: OECD Indicators, OECD Publishing, Paris, [36]
https://doi.org/10.1787/3197152b-en.
OECD (2021), “Resourcing higher education in Denmark: Thematic policy brief”, OECD Education Policy [4]
Perspectives, No. 49, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/c8217325-en.
OECD (2019), Benchmarking Higher Education System Performance, Higher Education, OECD Publishing, [23]
Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/be5514d7-en.
OECD (2019), Education Policy Outlook 2019: Working Together to Help Students Achieve their Potential, [3]
OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/2b8ad56e-en.
OECD (2018), OECD Handbook for Internationally Comparative Education Statistics 2018: Concepts, [39]
Standards, Definitions and Classifications, OECD Publishing, Paris,
https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264304444-en.
OECD (2017), “The under-representation of women in STEM fields”, in The Pursuit of Gender Equality: An [34]
Uphill Battle, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264281318-10-en.
OECD/European Union (2019), Supporting Entrepreneurship and Innovation in Higher Education in Austria, [27]
OECD Skills Studies, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/1c45127b-en.
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
263
Ong, M., J. Smith and L. Ko (2017), “Counterspaces for women of color in STEM higher education: [32]
Marginal and central spaces for persistence and success”, Journal of Research in Science Teaching,
Vol. 55/2, pp. 206-245, https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21417.
Republic of Estonia (2024), Recognition of prior learning and work experience, Ministry of Education and [17]
Research website, https://www.hm.ee/en/education-research-and-youth-affairs/recognition-prior-
learning-and-work-experience.
Shah, M. and C. Sid Nair (2013), “Private for-profit higher education in Australia: Widening access, [24]
participation and opportunities for public-private collaboration”, Higher Education Research and
Development, Vol. 32/5, pp. 820-832, https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2013.777030.
Swedish Higher Education Authority (n.d.), Studenternas bakgrund och tidiga avhop. [10]
UK Government (2025), Career skills and training, Department for Education, https://www.gov.uk/career- [7]
skills-and-training.
UNESCO-UIS/OECD/Eurostat (2024), UOE Data Collection on Education Systems: Volume 1 - Manual: [22]
Concepts, Definitions and Classifications, OECD, Paris.
Vaarma, M. and H. Li (2024), “Predicting student dropouts with machine learning: An empirical study in [16]
Finnish higher education”, Technology in Society, Vol. 76, p. 102474,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2024.102474.
Vos, C. et al. (2019), “Bachelor completion and dropout rates of selected, rejected and lottery-admitted [31]
medical students in the Netherlands”, BMC Medical Education, Vol. 19/1,
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-019-1511-4.
Xiaoying, . and M. Abbott (2008), “The development of private higher education in a mature market: A New [30]
Zealand case study”, Education Research and Perspectives, Vol. 35/2.
Zucha, V., J. Engleder and K. Rieder (2023), “Studierbarkeit und Digitalisierung – Zusatzbericht der [28]
Studierenden-Sozialerhebung”, Research Report, Institute for Advanced Studies, Vienna,
https://irihs.ihs.ac.at/id/eprint/7216/.
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
264
Tables and Notes
Chapter B5 Tables
Table B5.1 Completion rates of new entrants into tertiary education, by level of education and timeframe (2023)
Table B5.2 Completion rates of new entrants into bachelor's programmes, by type of institution, timeframe and gender (2023)
Table B5.3 Completion rates of new entrants into bachelor's programmes by the end of the theoretical duration of their programme
plus three years, by selected fields of study and gender (2023)
WEB Table B5.4 Status of new entrants into bachelor’s programmes, by timeframe (2023)
StatLink 2 https://stat.link/5mczv7
Data Download
To download the data for the figures and tables in this chapter, click StatLink above.
To access further data and/or other education indicators, please visit the OECD Data Explorer: https://data-
explorer.oecd.org/.
Data cut-off for the print publication 13 June 2025. Please note that the Data Explorer contains the most recent
data.
Notes for Tables
Table B5.1. Completion rates of new entrants into tertiary education, by level of education and timeframe
(2023)
Note: The students included in this survey are those who were new entrants to a tertiary level of education and who
were full-time students at the time they entered the programme. The year of reference (2023) corresponds to a period
three years after the theoretical end of the programmes these students entered, 2021 to one year after the theoretical
end and 2020 to the theoretical end. The year of entry (and consequently the year of reference for the drop-out rate)
varies among countries, as it depends on the duration of the programme.
1. Year of reference differs from 2023: 2022 for Colombia.
Table B5.2. Completion rates of new entrants into bachelor's programmes, by type of institution, timeframe
and gender (2023)
Note: The students included in this survey are those who were new entrants to a tertiary level of education and who
were full-time students at the time they entered the programme. The year of reference (2023) corresponds to a period
three years after the theoretical end of the programmes these students entered, 2021 to one year after the theoretical
end and 2020 to the theoretical end.
1. Year of reference differs from 2023: 2022 for Colombia.
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
265
Table B5.3. Completion rates of new entrants into bachelor's programmes by the end of the theoretical
duration of their programme plus three years, by selected fields of study and gender (2023)
Note: The students included in this survey are those who were new entrants to a tertiary level of education and who
were full-time students at the time they entered the programme. The year of reference (2023) corresponds to a period
three years after the theoretical end of the programmes these students entered, 2021 to one year after the theoretical
end and 2020 to the theoretical end.
Control codes
a – category not applicable; b – break in series; d – contains data from another column; m – missing data; x – contained
in another column (indicated in brackets). For further control codes, see the Reader’s Guide.
For further methodological information, see Education at a Glance 2025: Sources, Methodologies and Technical Notes
(https://doi.org/10.1787/fcfaf2d1-en).
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
266
Table B5.1. Completion rates of new entrants into tertiary education, by level of education and
timeframe (2023)
Students who entered a bachelor’s Students who entered a short-cycle Students who entered a master’s
(or equivalent) programme tertiary programme long first degree programme
Completed any tertiary level Completed any tertiary level Completed any tertiary level
By the end of the theoretical
By the end of the theoretical
By the end of the theoretical
By the end of the theoretical
By the end of the theoretical
By the end of the theoretical
By the end of the theoretical
By the end of the theoretical
By the end of the theoretical
duration of the programme
duration of the programme
duration of the programme
duration of the programme
duration of the programme
duration of the programme
duration of the programme
duration of the programme
duration of the programme
of programmes (in years)
of programmes (in years)
of programmes (in years)
Theoretical duration
Theoretical duration
Theoretical duration
Dropped out after
Dropped out after
Dropped out after
plus three years
plus three years
plus three years
plus one year
plus one year
plus one year
OECD countries (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) (15)
Australia 3-5 15 48 58 67 m m m m m a a a a a
Austria 3 13 21 42 60 2 8 70 82 84 6 10 35 50 61
Canada 4 13 46 69 80 2 30 32 51 62 m m m m m
Chile 4-5 14 13 38 60 2-3 24 25 41 52 6-7 3 8 52 82
Colombia1 5 22 16 32 44 2-3 21 29 38 43 a a a a a
Costa Rica m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m
Czechia m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m
Denmark 3-4 16 53 67 70 2 19 62 69 71 a a a a a
Estonia 3-4 13 40 57 66 a a a a a 5-6 6 50 63 75
Finland 4 5 49 61 77 a a a a a a a a a a
France 3 m 34 46 m 2 m 71 76 m m m m m m
Germany m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m
Greece m m m m m a a a a a a a a a a
Hungary 3-4 5 50 65 72 2 11 41 56 61 5-6 2 39 65 77
Iceland 3-4 18 44 62 74 m m m m m m m m m m
Ireland m 12 68 74 77 m 22 62 65 65 m m a a a
Israel 3-4 8 61 75 79 1-3 12 22 45 57 a a a a a
Italy 3 13 37 51 56 m m m m m 5-6 m m m m
Japan m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m
Korea m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m
Latvia m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m
Lithuania 3-4 9 57 64 65 1.5 - 2 m m m m 5-6 2 67 72 73
Luxembourg 2-4 31 38 55 62 2 m m m m m m m m m
Mexico m m m m m m m m m m a a a a a
Netherlands 3-4 11 30 55 73 2 m m m m a a a a a
New Zealand 3 10 33 59 77 2 46 68 73 81 a a a a a
Norway 3-4 11 53 68 76 2 19 58 64 68 5-6 4 43 73 84
Poland 3-4 19 53 62 69 m m m m m 5 14 49 63 72
Portugal 3 8 41 65 74 2 19 49 57 62 5 4 34 63 78
Slovak Republic m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m
Slovenia 3-4 19 43 54 62 2 27 23 32 40 5-6 13 54 68 80
Spain 4 8 40 59 73 2 12 53 73 77 5-6 3 56 74 85
Sweden 3 10 40 54 67 2 18 66 70 71 4-5 7 43 57 73
Switzerland 3 8 39 66 82 a a a a a m m m m m
Türkiye 4 1 64 78 86 2 1 56 68 75 5-6 0 76 90 96
United Kingdom 3-4 m 67 80 84 1-2 m 41 67 72 m m m m m
United States m m m m m m m m m m a a a a a
Other economies
Flemish Comm. (Belgium) 3-4 12 33 54 70 m m m m m a a a a a
French Comm. (Belgium) 3-4 21 23 39 51 a a a a a a a a a a
OECD average 13 43 59 70 19 49 60 65 6 46 66 78
Partner and/or accession countries
Argentina m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m
Brazil 4-6 25 38 43 49 m m m m m m m m m m
Bulgaria m m m m m a a a a a m m m m m
China m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m
Croatia m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m
India m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m
Indonesia m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m
Peru 3-5 21 10 25 40 2-3 34 0 7 19 6-7 11 22 42 55
Romania 3 21 62 65 66 a a a a a m m m m m
Saudi Arabia m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m
South Africa m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m
EU25 average 13 44 58 68 17 55 64 66 7 47 64 75
Country average m m m m m m m m m m m m
Note: For notes on this table and a link to download the data, see Tables and Notes section above.
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
267
Table B5.2. Completion rates of new entrants into bachelor's programmes, by type of institution,
timeframe and gender (2023)
All institutions Public institutions Private institutions
By the end of the By the end of the By the end of the
By the end of the theoretical duration By the end of the theoretical duration By the end of the theoretical duration
theoretical duration of the programme theoretical duration of the programme theoretical duration of the programme
of the programme plus three years of the programme plus three years of the programme plus three years
Men Women Total Men Women Total Men Women Total Men Women Total Men Women Total Men Women Total
OECD countries (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) (15) (16) (17) (18)
Australia 44 51 48 63 70 67 44 51 48 64 71 68 45 46 46 54 57 56
Austria 20 21 21 55 64 60 7 8 7 48 57 53 55 61 58 74 84 79
Canada 38 51 46 76 83 80 38 51 46 76 83 80 a a a a a a
Chile 11 15 13 52 68 60 5 6 6 55 71 64 12 17 15 51 67 60
Colombia1 13 19 16 37 49 44 7 10 9 38 38 38 16 23 20 40 52 47
Costa Rica m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m
Czechia m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m
Denmark 52 54 53 67 72 70 52 54 53 66 72 70 26 28 27 82 61 71
Estonia 29 49 40 56 74 66 30 50 42 57 75 67 16 25 21 43 60 52
Finland 37 59 49 67 84 77 28 41 35 73 87 81 41 69 57 64 83 75
France 27 39 34 m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m
Germany m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m
Greece m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m
Hungary 39 59 50 64 79 72 41 54 47 69 79 74 38 61 50 62 79 71
Iceland 42 46 44 70 76 74 38 43 41 67 75 72 49 53 51 76 81 78
Ireland 61 74 68 70 83 77 m m m m m m m m m m m m
Israel 56 65 61 75 82 79 44 59 56 60 72 70 57 66 62 76 85 81
Italy 32 41 37 51 61 56 m m m m m m m m m m m m
Japan m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m
Korea m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m
Latvia m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m
Lithuania 48 64 57 56 72 65 50 65 58 58 72 66 38 59 51 43 64 56
Luxembourg 28 47 38 56 68 62 28 47 38 56 68 62 a a a a a a
Mexico m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m
Netherlands 23 37 30 65 80 73 24 37 31 81 92 87 22 38 30 60 76 69
New Zealand 27 37 33 72 80 77 26 37 32 72 80 77 51 54 53 70 80 77
Norway 47 57 53 70 81 76 49 58 54 72 83 78 41 55 49 62 76 70
Poland 40 60 53 57 76 69 38 55 48 60 76 69 39 56 49 60 78 71
Portugal 35 46 41 66 81 74 34 46 41 66 81 75 38 47 43 66 79 73
Slovak Republic m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m
Slovenia 37 48 43 54 69 62 37 50 44 55 70 63 19 34 29 28 54 45
Spain 30 49 40 65 80 73 28 48 39 64 79 72 45 61 54 73 83 79
Sweden 36 43 40 57 74 67 35 41 39 56 73 66 44 58 52 66 82 75
Switzerland 35 41 39 79 84 82 m m m m m m m m m m m m
Türkiye 54 73 64 80 91 86 54 73 64 80 91 86 54 74 64 79 92 86
United Kingdom 65 69 67 81 86 84 a a a a a a 65 69 67 81 86 84
United States m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m
Other economies
Flemish Comm. (Belgium) 26 38 33 63 75 70 24 35 30 63 75 69 28 39 34 63 75 70
French Comm. (Belgium) 16 29 23 43 58 51 14 25 20 38 53 46 18 32 26 47 63 56
OECD average 37 48 43 63 75 70 33 44 39 63 74 69 38 50 44 62 74 69
Partner and/or accession countries
Argentina m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m
Brazil 33 42 38 43 53 49 28 38 33 46 59 53 34 42 39 43 51 48
Bulgaria m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m
China m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m
Croatia m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m
India m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m
Indonesia m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m
Peru 8 11 10 36 44 40 9 14 12 37 45 41 8 10 9 35 43 39
Romania 53 67 62 57 70 66 54 68 63 59 72 67 49 56 53 52 58 55
Saudi Arabia m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m
South Africa m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m
EU25 average 36 50 44 60 74 68 34 46 41 61 74 69 35 49 43 59 72 67
Country average m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m
Note: For notes on this table and a link to download the data, see Tables and Notes section above.
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
268
Table B5.3. Completion rates of new entrants into bachelor's programmes by the end of the
theoretical duration of their programme plus three years, by selected fields of study and gender
(2023)
Arts, humanities, social sciences, Science, technology, engineering
journalism and information Health and welfare and mathematics (STEM)
Of which Of which Of which
a bachelor’s programme
a bachelor’s programme
a bachelor’s programme
a bachelor’s programme
a bachelor’s programme
a bachelor’s programme
Graduated from
Graduated from
Graduated from
Graduated from
Graduated from
Graduated from
Graduated from
Graduated from
Graduated from
a different level
a different level
a different level
of education
of education
of education
Men Women Total Men Women Total Men Women Total
OECD countries (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) (15) (16) (17) (18)
Australia 60 68 65 65 d x(4) a 64 72 70 70 d x(10) a 63 76 68 68 d x(16) a
Austria 54 59 57 31 23 3 70 79 77 72 4 1 55 55 55 44 10 1
Canada 69 80 76 51 18 7 81 88 87 70 10 8 80 86 83 56 21 5
Chile 53 67 61 41 15 5 61 73 70 56 9 6 48 56 49 30 10 10
Colombia m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m
Costa Rica m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m
Czechia m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m
Denmark 66 73 70 70 0 0 66 73 72 71 0 0 64 64 64 63 0 1
Estonia 57 70 66 59 7 0 64 79 77 70 6 1 54 73 60 50 10 0
Finland 70 83 79 72 7 a 76 87 85 83 2 a 62 76 66 59 7 a
France m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m
Germany m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m
Greece m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m
Hungary 66 79 75 70 4 1 59 74 72 66 5 1 64 77 67 62 4 1
Iceland 66 74 71 62 8 1 79 76 76 64 11 1 75 78 76 62 13 1
Ireland 73 81 78 66 12 0 79 85 84 83 2 0 66 79 69 64 5 0
Israel 76 84 81 67 14 0 88 93 92 89 3 0 76 82 78 65 13 0
Italy m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m
Japan m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m
Korea m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m
Latvia m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m
Lithuania 56 70 66 65 0 0 61 75 73 73 0 0 58 71 61 61 0 0
Luxembourg 56 68 63 59 4 0 a a a a a a 44 44 44 40 4 0
Mexico m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m
Netherlands 68 83 77 63 14 0 63 79 76 68 7 1 67 84 71 58 13 1
New Zealand 69 78 75 51 21 3 66 78 76 64 9 3 74 85 79 47 30 2
Norway 63 76 71 58 12 2 76 87 85 80 4 1 73 77 74 64 8 2
Poland 54 71 65 49 11 5 61 84 80 69 7 3 65 81 71 52 15 4
Portugal 67 80 75 71 4 1 75 87 85 81 2 1 63 80 68 61 6 2
Slovak Republic m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m
Slovenia 54 68 63 50 10 3 60 80 77 71 5 2 59 72 63 51 7 4
Spain 64 76 72 67 5 0 83 90 88 82 3 3 62 75 67 60 6 1
Sweden 52 63 59 45 12 2 69 84 81 78 2 1 54 70 59 53 5 1
Switzerland 74 83 80 68 12 0 84 88 87 81 7 0 80 82 81 68 13 0
Türkiye 77 89 84 80 1 3 91 97 96 94 1 1 81 90 84 81 1 2
United Kingdom 83 87 85 76 4 5 81 84 83 75 3 5 80 87 82 70 6 6
United States m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m
Other economies
Flemish Comm. (Belgium) 56 74 68 65 2 1 64 75 72 69 2 1 68 85 71 67 2 2
French Comm. (Belgium) 45 57 51 51 x(4) x(4) 42 61 55 55 x(10) x(10) 46 61 47 47 x(16) x(16)
OECD average 64 75 71 61 9 2 71 82 80 74 4 2 65 75 68 58 9 2
Partner and/or accession countries
Argentina m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m
Brazil 49 60 55 45 10 0 44 53 50 46 5 0 44 53 46 38 9 0
Bulgaria m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m
China m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m
Croatia m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m
India m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m
Indonesia m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m
Peru 39 50 46 45 0 0 32 36 35 35 0 0 36 47 39 39 0 0
Romania 52 66 62 62 m 0 68 75 73 73 m 0 61 72 66 66 m 0
Saudi Arabia m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m
South Africa m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m
EU25 average 60 72 68 60 7 1 67 80 78 74 3 1 60 72 63 56 6 1
Country average m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m
Note: For notes on this table and a link to download the data, see Tables and Notes section above.
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
269
Part C. Financial resources
invested in education
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
270
Chapter C1. Key system-level indicators
of education finance
Highlights
• For students in primary, secondary or post-secondary non-tertiary education, governments in OECD
countries spend on average USD 12 438 per student, ranging from below USD 4 000 in Mexico and
Türkiye to around USD 21 000 or more in Korea, Luxembourg and Switzerland. At tertiary level the figures
also vary widely, with governments spending 15 102 on average per student (including on R&D), over
USD 25 000 per student in Luxembourg, Norway and Switzerland, and less than USD 5 000 per student
in Chile and Mexico.
• Expenditure per student is influenced by national income levels, but some countries spend more than
others relative to their gross domestic product (GDP) per capita. Countries spending below the OECD
average in absolute terms may be spending above the average relative to their income. For example, in
Chile, Portugal and the Slovak Republic total expenditure per student (primary to tertiary levels) is below
the OECD average in absolute terms but amounts to 26% of GDP per capita per student in Chile, 29% in
Portugal and 28% in the Slovak Republic, above the OECD average of 25%.
• Expenditure on education (primary to tertiary levels) has increased on average between 2015 and 2022
both in absolute terms and per student. At the same time, it has lost ground within public budgets.
Government expenditure on education as a share of total government expenditure on all services fell by
6.9% on average across OECD countries, from 10.9% in 2015 to 10.1% in 2022.
Context
Governments invest in education for various reasons, such as promoting equality of opportunity and fostering
economic growth and prosperity. As governments face competing pressures on tight budgets, private sources (such
as students and their families or companies) often complement public sources, especially at tertiary levels. Tertiary
education includes research and development, to varying extent across different countries. Policy makers make
choices about how much funding to allocate to education and how to distribute those resources across different
levels of education, types of institution and geographical areas. These choices are made in the context of constantly
changing policy environments – including shifts in the size and demographics of the student body and teacher
shortages.
This chapter provides a broad picture of key education finance indicators, setting out how OECD countries are
responding to the challenge of financing education systems. It distinguishes between the levels that mostly cover
schooling (i.e. primary to post-secondary non-tertiary education) and tertiary education. Subsequent chapters focus
on specific levels of education and offer more fine-grained insights.
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
271
Figure C1.1. Government expenditure per full-time equivalent student, by level of education
(2022)
In equivalent USD converted using PPPs, expenditure on educational institutions
54,384 Primary to post-secondary non-tertiary Early childhood education Tertiary
35000
30000
25000
20000
15000
10000
5000
Note: Expenditure at tertiary level includes R&D. Expenditure per student in early childhood education is based on headcounts rather than
full-time equivalent students.
1. Year of reference differs from 2022.
2. Primary includes pre-primary education.
3. Includes payments by households outside educational institutions.
For data, see Table C1.1 and Table C2.1. For a link to download the data, see Tables and Notes section.
Other findings
• Governments are the predominant source of funding at primary, secondary and post-secondary non-
tertiary level. On average, OECD governments spend USD 12 438 on educational institutions per full-time
equivalent student while only USD 1 088 comes from private (and to a lesser extent non-domestic)
sources. At tertiary level, private sources play a much more important role: government expenditure
(including R&D) averages USD 15 102 per full-time equivalent student and private expenditure averages
USD 6 343.
• Total expenditure on primary and secondary education, which largely covers initial schooling and
compulsory education, amounts to 3.3% of GDP on average across OECD countries. Post-secondary non-
tertiary education tends to be a small part of education systems, with expenditure equivalent to only 0.1%
of GDP on average, while 1.4% of GDP is dedicated to tertiary education.
Analysis
Government spending per student
Figure C1.1 shows direct government expenditure per student grouped by levels of education. This measure captures
public investment in education and is the most comparable metric. Data on government expenditure tend to be readily
available across countries, while data on private expenditure (mostly by families, but also foundations or companies)
are often harder to collect.
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
272
Governments in OECD countries spend USD 12 438 per student in primary, secondary or post-secondary non-tertiary
education on average, ranging from below USD 4 000 in Mexico and Türkiye to over USD 21 000 in Korea,
Luxembourg and Switzerland. At tertiary level, government expenditure per student ranges from around USD 25 000
or above in Luxembourg, Switzerland, Norway, Sweden and Denmark to less than USD 5 000 per student in Chile and
Mexico. These figures include research and development (R&D), which in some countries accounts for a large share
of government expenditure at tertiary level – in Israel, Switzerland and the United Kingdom, government expenditure
including R&D is more than double government expenditure excluding R&D (Table C1.1).
Different broad measures of investment in education
Figure C1.2 shows three different measures of countries’ total investment – government plus private expenditure – in
education from primary to tertiary levels. First, expenditure per student shows how much is spent per full-time
equivalent student (this distinction is particularly important at tertiary level, where part-time enrolment may be
common). The amounts are given in USD, adjusted to account for differences in purchasing power across countries
(purchasing power parity; PPP). By this measure spending on education tends to be highest in the wealthiest countries
and lowest in less wealthy economies; the highest spender is Luxembourg, followed by Norway and Austria, while the
lowest is Peru, followed by Mexico and Türkiye.
The other two measures provide a picture of education expenditure relative to a country’s income level. Expenditure
per student as a percentage of GDP per capita indicates investment in education relative to the average economic
output per person, which in turn reflects the country’s prosperity. Expenditure on educational institutions as a share of
GDP illustrates investment in education relative to the size of a country’s economy.
Some countries have high levels of spending across all measures (e.g. Austria, Norway and the United States).
Luxembourg has high expenditure per student, but its high GDP and GDP per capita, mean its spending relative to
those measures is lower. In contrast, some countries which spend below the OECD average of USD 15 023 per
student record above average expenditure relative to income. For example, Chile spends just USD 8 068 per student,
but this amounts to 26% of GDP per capita, above the OECD average of 25%, while the Slovak Republic spends
USD 11 259 per student (28% of GDP per capita) and Portugal spends USD 12 956 (29%) (Figure C1.2).
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
273
Figure C1.2. Expenditure on educational institutions, primary to tertiary education (2022)
Expenditure per student as a Expenditure on educational
Expenditure per student
percentage of GDP per capita institutions as a percentage of
(in USD PPP)
(in per cent) GDP (in per cent)
Luxembourg 31 439 21.8 3.3
Norway 22 558 29.4 6.2
Austria 20 942 29.6 4.7
United States¹ 20 387 30.1 5.8
Korea 19 805 36.0 5.6
Denmark 19 229 24.9 5.3
Netherlands 19 186 24.9 5.0
United Kingdom 19 072 32.0 6.1
Belgium 19 024 27.9 5.6
Canada² 18 733 29.3 5.5
Iceland 18 707 24.6 5.6
Germany 17 960 26.6 4.4
Sweden 17 804 26.9 5.3
Australia 17 529 25.3 5.4
Ireland 15 915 11.7 2.8
France 15 427 27.5 5.4
OECD average 15 023 25.3 4.7
Finland 15 000 24.5 5.2
Slovenia 14 454 28.3 4.6
EU25 average 14 285 24.3 4.2
Japan 14 130 29.4 3.9
Italy 13 750 24.4 3.9
Spain 13 385 26.5 4.5
Portugal 12 956 29.2 4.8
Israel 12 877 24.0 6.1
Czechia 12 844 25.0 4.2
New Zealand 12 389 23.7 5.1
Estonia 12 362 25.5 4.5
Poland 11 488 25.6 4.1
Lithuania 11 313 22.4 3.7
Slovak Republic 11 259 27.5 4.2
Hungary 10 097 22.9 3.4
Latvia 9 204 23.1 3.8
Croatia 9 033 21.9 3.4
Bulgaria 8 703 24.3 3.3
Chile³ 8 068 26.5 5.9
Romania 7 221 16.3 2.5
Greece 7 137 18.6 3.9
Türkiye 5 305 13.6 3.4
China 5 161 22.4 4.1
South Africa 4 395 28.4 6.9
Mexico 4 066 17.4 4.3
Peru 2 612 15.6 4.2
Note: A colour gradient is applied per column, with dark blue indicating relatively higher values and light yellow relatively lower ones. Expenditure
at tertiary level includes R&D.
1. Year of reference differs from 2022.
2. Primary includes pre-primary education.
3. Includes payments of households outside educational institutions.
For data, see Table C1.1, Table C1.2 and C1.7. For a link to download the data, see Tables and Notes section.
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
274
Private sources complementing government funding
Private sources (and non-domestic sources) complement government expenditure to varying extents across countries
(Figure C1.3). In primary, secondary and post-secondary non-tertiary education, government sources are the
predominant source of funding. On average across OECD countries, USD 12 438 per full-time equivalent student
comes from governments, while only USD 1 088 comes from private and non-domestic sources. This reflects the fact
that education at these levels is mostly initial education, and largely compulsory (pre-primary education is compulsory
in some countries but is not captured here, see Chapter B1).
Figure C1.3. Expenditure per full-time equivalent student in primary to tertiary education, by source
and level of education (2022)
In equivalent USD converted using PPPs, expenditure on educational institutions
Primary to post-secondary non-tertiary Tertiary
Peru Peru
Mexico Mexico
South Africa South Africa
Türkiye Türkiye
China China
Romania Romania
Chile³ Chile³
Bulgaria Bulgaria
Hungary Hungary
Greece Greece
Croatia Croatia
Latvia Latvia
Slovak Republic Slovak Republic
Lithuania Lithuania
Poland Poland
Estonia Estonia
New Zealand New Zealand
Czechia Czechia
Japan Japan
Spain Spain
Israel Israel
Portugal Portugal
EU25 average EU25 average
Slovenia Slovenia
Italy Italy
Finland Finland
OECD average OECD average
France France
Ireland Ireland
United Kingdom United Kingdom
Sweden Sweden
Australia Australia
Canada² Canada²
United States¹ United States¹
Denmark Denmark
Germany Germany
Belgium Belgium
Netherlands Netherlands
Iceland Iceland
Austria Austria
Norway Norway
Korea Korea
Luxembourg Luxembourg 54 384
40 000 35 000 30 000 25 000 20 000 15 000 10 000 5 000 0 0 5 000 10 000 15 000 20 000 25 000 30 000 35 000 40 000
Note: Expenditure at tertiary level includes R&D.
1. Year of reference differs from 2022.
2. Primary includes pre-primary education.
3. Includes payments by households outside educational institutions.
For data, see Table C1.1. For a link to download the data, see Tables and Notes section.
Private sources play a much more important role in funding tertiary educational institutions than at lower levels of
education. This reflects the benefits that individuals gain from pursuing tertiary studies in the form of better employment
outcomes, underpinning the rationale behind governments and students sharing the costs in many countries. For
example, expenditure from private greatly exceeds that from government sources in the United Kingdom and
the United States, driven partly by relatively high tuition fees in these countries (see Chapter C5 for data on tuition
fees and public financial support). Meanwhile, the smaller role of private sources in Nordic countries reflects a different
approach: tertiary education is primarily publicly funded and is available tuition-free to students.
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
275
It is worth noting that the spending per student from private sources (as well as non-domestic sources) shown in
Figure C1.3 does not solely reflect the contribution of students and their families. The figure shows expenditure after
public-private transfers, so it counts spending by students who have received a government-funded grant or loan as
private expenditure. Private sources also include expenditure from companies, foundations and other private entities
as well as from students in their families (see Box C5.2 in Chapter C5 for country examples). Table C1.5 (available on
line) provides further details.
Changes in expenditure on education
Changing demographics and enrolment patterns shape expenditure on education as a whole and per student. Ageing
societies mean some countries have fewer children, while continuously increasing interest in tertiary education leads
to an increasing share of young people pursuing tertiary studies (the number of non-domestic students also shapes
enrolment in tertiary programmes, while lower-level programmes tend to serve mostly domestic students). Figure C1.4
shows the changes at primary to post-secondary non-tertiary level between 2015 and 2022 in three measures: total
spending on educational institutions per student and overall, and the number of full-time equivalent students. The
different measures of changes in expenditure take into account both inflation and differences in living standards across
countries.
Taken across all levels from primary to tertiary, on average across OECD countries, the number of students increased
slightly, by 2.5% between 2015 and 2022. However, overall expenditure on these levels increased by 14.7% on
average over the same period, leading to a 11.9% increase on average in expenditure per student. The pattern of
change differs between primary to post-secondary non-tertiary education on the one hand and tertiary education on
the other hand. Overall, the number of students at the lower level has increased slightly (increasing by 2.1% on average
across OECD countries), while there has been a stronger increase in enrolment at tertiary level (by 5.0%). At both
levels, expenditure per student and overall expenditure have increased on average and in most countries (Table C1.3).
Thirteen OECD and partner countries have seen a fall in the number of primary to tertiary students between 2015 and
2022 and in nearly all of these, expenditure per student has increased over the same period. Most of these countries
saw an increase in expenditure combined with falling enrolment, leading to a considerable increase in expenditure per
student, as for example in Chile, Ireland and Korea (Table C1.3).
Government expenditure on primary to tertiary education in absolute terms, also increased over the same period by
13.1% on average across OECD countries. This average conceals wide variations across countries, with large
increases in some (over 26% in ten countries) and substantial decreases in a few other countries (a decrease of over
15% in Latvia and Mexico). Despite the overall increase, education spending appears to be losing ground relative to
other priorities in public budgets. As a share of total government expenditure on all services, expenditure on education
fell by 6.9% on average across OECD countries, from 11% in 2015 to 10% in 2022. The average is driven by a relatively
large fall in a few countries (over 30% in Costa Rica and Latvia), but there were another 11 countries which saw a
decrease of at least 10% on this measure (Table C1.3). Figure C1.6 shows the breakdown of government expenditure
on different functions of government.
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
276
Figure C1.4. Change in the number of students, expenditure on primary to post-secondary non-
tertiary educational institutions and expenditure per student (2015 to 2022)
In per cent, based on full-time equivalent students, constant prices
Change in expenditure Change in the number of students Change in expenditure per student
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
-10
-20
1. Includes payments by households outside educational institutions.
2. Primary includes pre-primary education.
For data, see Table C1.3. For a link to download the data, see Tables and Notes section.
Provisional data on education expenditure in 2023 are available for a small number of countries. After accounting for
inflation, expenditure per student at primary to tertiary levels decreased between 2022 and 2023 in Germany, Slovenia
and Spain. In Lithuania and New Zealand, however, expenditure per student increased over the same period (Table
C1.8, available on line).
Distribution of expenditure across levels of education
Figure C1.5 shows total expenditure on educational institutions relative to GDP by level of education. On average
OECD countries spend 4.7% of their GDP on education (primary to tertiary level). The mix of funding dedicated to
different levels reflects various factors: how the education system is organised (e.g. if the primary level includes more
years of education, spending will be higher), the number of students at each level of education and how much is spent
per student at each level of education (generally spending per student increases at higher levels of education). Primary
and secondary education account for 3.3% of GDP on average. Post-secondary non-tertiary education, which tends
to be a small part of most education systems and not available at all in some OECD countries, accounts for only 0.1%
of GDP on average. Resources dedicated to tertiary education average 1.4% of GDP but vary widely across countries.
Expenditure on early childhood education and care (ECEC) is shown as an additional category on top of expenditure
on primary to tertiary, because the availability of data at this level is sometimes quite limited, even though investment
in ECEC is widely seen as key for building strong foundations for further learning. One reason for limited data
availability is that in some countries ECEC does not fall under the responsibility of the same authorities as primary to
tertiary education.
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
277
Figure C1.5. Expenditure on educational institutions as a percentage of GDP, by level of education
(2022)
In per cent
Primary Secondary Post-secondary non-tertiary Tertiary Early childhood education
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
Note: Expenditure at tertiary level includes R&D.
1. Includes payments by households outside educational institutions.
2. Primary includes pre-primary education.
For data, see Table C1.2, C2.1, C3.1 and C4.4. For a link to download the data, see Tables and Notes section.
Education expenditure in the wider context of government spending
Figure C1.6 shows government education expenditure in the context of government spending on other functions
(Eurostat, 2019[1]). On average OECD countries dedicate 11% of government expenditure to education. The data in
this figure differ slightly from those in Table C1.3: expenditure on education here includes non-formal learning but
excludes early childhood educational development (which is included in social protection and health instead).
Education is one of the largest areas of expenditure after social protection and health, and on a par with economic
affairs and general public services.
There is much variation across countries, ranging from Chile, Israel and Switzerland, which dedicate over 15% of
government expenditure to education, to Colombia and Italy, which dedicate less than 8%. In almost all countries,
social protection receives the largest share of government expenditure, accounting for over 40% in various European
countries and for 35% of government expenditure on average. Health receives the second largest share (16% on
average across OECD countries), with again much variation across countries: from less than 10% in Hungary and
Switzerland, to 26% in the United States (Table C1.9, available on line).
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
278
Figure C1.6. Distribution of government expenditure by function (2023)
In per cent, data based on the Classification of the Functions of Government (COFOG)
Education Social protection Health Economic affairs General public services Defence Other
100
80
60
40
20
Note: The category "Other" includes Public order and safety, Environmental protection, Housing and community amenities, and Recreation,
culture and religion. COFOG data are not fully comparable to UOE data used in other parts of this chapter due to differences in underlying
definitions. Notably non-formal learning is excluded from UOE data, but included in COFOG data.
1. Year of reference differs from 2023. Refer to the source table for more details.
For data, see Table C1.9, available on line. For a link to download the data, see Tables and Notes section.
Subnational variations in expenditure per student
The various financial indicators presented in Part C focus on data that are aggregated at country level and do not
capture potential regional disparities. However, it is important to recognise that country-level data may conceal
substantial variation within countries. Figure C1.7 illustrates regional expenditure per student in primary and secondary
education in six countries. These differences can arise due to a combination of factors. Subnational governments play
an important role in financing education in some countries and geographical disparities in economic activity mean that
different regions and municipalities may have different capacities to raise resources for education. This may be
balanced by funding from central governments (e.g. a funding formula might allocate more resources to poorer areas).
But there are many other potential factors at play; for example rural areas with smaller classes will have higher
spending per student, all other things being equal. Data on regional expenditure per student may indicate potential
sources of inequality within countries but also enable cross-country comparisons – a region that ranks highly within its
own country may still lag behind internationally.
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
279
Figure C1.7. Regional variation in expenditure on educational institutions per full-time equivalent
student (2022)
Primary and secondary education, in equivalent USD converted using PPPs
35 000
District of Columbia
30 000 Northwest Territories
25 000
Flemish Community of País Vasco
Hamburg
20 000 Belgium
15 000 French Community of
Belgium Sachsen
Newfoundland and Lietuva LT
10 000 Labrador
Vidurio ir vakarų Madrid Idaho
Lietuvos regionas
5 000
0
Belgium¹ Canada² Germany Lithuania Spain³ United States⁴
1. Includes post-secondary non-tertiary education.
2. Year of reference 2021. Education finance data for Canada are calendarised, but not for subnational data.
3. Data refer to public expenditure on non-university education per student in public institutions. Only public expenditure is reported, implying
that private expenditure in public institutions is not covered.
4. Reference year 2021. Data refer to public institutions only. ISCED 02 is included in the ISCED 1-3 total for both spending and enrolment
counts. Total expenditure includes current expenditure and capital outlays.
For a link to download the data, see Tables and Notes section.
Definitions
Expenditure on educational institutions refers to expenditure on educational goods and services within both
teaching (e.g. schools, universities and colleges) and non-teaching institutions (ministries and local authorities). It
excludes expenditure outside educational institutions, even if publicly subsidised (e.g. private tutoring outside
educational institutions, the purchase of textbooks and other materials, and students’ living expenses).
Direct government expenditure on educational institutions can take the form of purchases by a government
agency of educational resources to be used by educational institutions, or funding provided by a government agency
to educational institutions to make such purchases.
Direct private expenditure on educational institutions includes tuition fees and other private payments to
educational institutions, whether or not supported by government subsidies. Private sources of expenditure include
households (students and their families) and other private entities, such as businesses and non-profit organisations.
Government transfers to the private sector include two categories. Government transfers to households include
transfers that translate into payments to educational institutions for educational services (e.g. scholarships or student
loans for tuition). Government transfers to other private entities include, for example, subsidies to firms that host
apprentices and interest subsidies to private financial institutions that provide student loans.
Initial government spending includes direct government expenditure on educational institutions and transfers to the
private sector. It excludes transfers from non-domestic sources. Initial private spending includes tuition fees and
other household payments to educational institutions, minus the portion of such payments offset by government
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
280
subsidies. Initial non-domestic spending includes direct non-domestic expenditure on educational institutions (e.g.
a research grant from a foreign corporation to a public university) and transfers from non-domestic sources to
governments.
Final spending reflects actual disbursements to educational institutions after public-private transfers. Final
government spending includes direct government purchases of educational resources and payments to educational
institutions. Final private spending includes direct expenditure on educational institutions (e.g. tuition fees), whether
partially covered by government subsidies or not. It also includes expenditure by private companies on the work-based
element of combined school- and work-based programmes. Final non-domestic spending includes direct non-
domestic payments to educational institutions such as research grants or other funds from non-domestic sources paid
directly to educational institutions.
All domestic government sources of expenditure on education are classified under three levels: central, regional and
local. Intergovernmental transfers are defined as net transfers from a higher to a lower level of government. Initial
funds refer to the funds before transfers between levels of government, while final funds refer to the funds after
transfers.
Research and development includes research performed at tertiary educational institutions, regardless of whether it
is financed from general institutional funds or through separate grants or contracts from public or private sponsors.
Methodology
The framework that underpins the education finance indicators contained in Part C is built around three
dimensions (for details see Education at a Glance 2025 Sources, Methodologies and Technical Notes,
(https://doi.org/10.1787/fcfaf2d1-en)
• The location of service providers. This dimension distinguishes between the spending that occurs in
educational institutions and spending that takes place outside them. In this context, educational institutions
include both teaching institutions (e.g. schools and universities) and non-teaching institutions (e.g. education
ministries). Examples of spending outside educational institutions include books purchased outside
institutions, fees for private tutoring and student living costs.
• The type of goods and services. This dimension allows spending on core educational purposes (e.g.
expenditure on teachers, school buildings, books, administration of schools) to be differentiated from other
education-related expenditures (e.g. research and development, ancillary services such as meals and
housing).
• The source of funds. The framework distinguishes between three sources of funds. Government expenditure
refers to spending by public authorities. Private expenditure refers to spending by households and other
private entities (e.g. companies). International funds consist of funds from public multilateral organisations for
development aid to education.
Expenditure and GDP values in national currencies are converted to equivalent USD by dividing the national currency
figure by the purchasing power parity (PPP) index for GDP. The PPP conversion factor is used instead of the market
exchange rate, because exchange rates are affected by various factors (e.g. interest rates, trade policies or
expectations of economic growth) that do not necessarily reflect relative domestic purchasing power across countries.
Subnational expenditure data are adjusted using national PPPs. If the reference periods for education expenditure
and GDP differ, the expenditure data are adjusted to match the GDP reference period using relevant national inflation
rates (see Annex 2 for further details).
Expenditure per full-time equivalent (FTE) student is calculated for primary to tertiary education, and only for
programmes and educational institutions with both enrolment and expenditure data. This measure is affected by how
countries report the number of FTE students, especially at tertiary level, where part-time study is more common. Some
countries count all students as full time, while others calculate the number of FTE students based on students’ intensity
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
281
of participation – for example by using credits earned during a specific period towards the targeted qualification. All
else being equal, countries that calculate FTE students based on part-time enrolment will report higher expenditure
per FTE student than those that report all students as full time.
In keeping with the system used by many countries to record government expenditures and revenues, educational
expenditure data are compiled on a cash accounting rather than an accrual accounting basis. Therefore expenditure
(both capital and current) is recorded in the year in which the payments occurred. In particular:
• Capital acquisitions are counted fully in the year in which the expenditure occurs.
• Depreciation of capital assets is not recorded as expenditure, although expenditure on repairs and
maintenance is recorded in the year it occurs. This can result in sharp fluctuations in expenditure from year
to year owing to the start or completion of school building projects which, by their nature, are sporadic.
• Expenditure on student loans is recorded as the gross loan outlay in the year in which the loans are made,
without subtracting repayments or interest payments from existing borrowers.
A notable exception to the cash accounting rules is the treatment of the retirement costs of educational personnel in
situations where there are no (or only partial) ongoing employer contributions towards the future retirement benefits of
the personnel. In these cases, countries are asked to impute these expenditures to arrive at a more internationally
comparable cost of employing the personnel.
At tertiary level, many countries operate a loan payment/repayment system. While public loan payments are included
in expenditure figures, loan repayments from private individuals are not. As a result, private contribution to education
costs may be underestimated.
For more detailed information, please refer to the OECD Handbook for Internationally Comparative Education Statistics
(OECD, 2018[2]). For country-specific notes, see Education at a Glance 2025 Sources, Methodologies and Technical
Notes.
Source
Data refer to the financial year 2022 (unless otherwise specified) and are based on the UNESCO, OECD and Eurostat
(UOE) data collection on education statistics administered by the OECD in 2024 (for details see Education at a Glance
2025 Sources, Methodologies and Technical Notes, (https://doi.org/10.1787/fcfaf2d1-en)
Data for China, India, Indonesia and Saudi Arabia are from the UNESCO Institute of Statistics (UIS), while data for
Argentina and South Africa are partly sourced from UIS.
References
Eurostat (2019), Manual on Sources and Methods for the Compilation of COFOG Statistics: Classification [1]
of the Functions of Government, Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg,
https://doi.org/10.2785/498446.
OECD (2018), OECD Handbook for Internationally Comparative Education Statistics 2018: Concepts, [2]
Standards, Definitions and Classifications, OECD Publishing, Paris,
https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264304444-en.
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
282
Tables and Notes
Chapter C1 Tables
Table C1.1 Expenditure on educational institutions per student, by level of education (2022)
Table C1.2 Expenditure on educational institutions as a percentage of GDP, by level of education (2022)
Table C1.3 Change in expenditure on education, by level of education (2015 to 2022)
Table C1.4 Distribution of government funds devoted to education, by level of government and level of education (2022)
WEB Table C1.5 Distribution of expenditure on educational institutions, by level of education and source of funds (2022)
WEB Table C1.6 Expenditure on educational institutions as a percentage of GDP, by level of education and source of funds (2022)
WEB Table C1.7 Expenditure on educational institutions per student as a percentage of GDP per capita, by level of education (2022)
WEB Table C1.8 Total expenditure on educational institutions per student, by level of education (2023)
WEB Table C1.9 Distribution of government expenditure, by function (2023)
StatLink 2 https://stat.link/7uaizn
Data Download
To download the data for the figures and tables in this chapter, click StatLink above.
To access further data and/or other education indicators, please visit the OECD Data Explorer: https://data-
explorer.oecd.org/.
Data cut-off for the print publication 13 June 2025. Please note that the Data Explorer contains the most recent
data.
Notes for Tables
Table C1.1. Expenditure on educational institutions per student, by level of education (2022)
1. Upper secondary includes post-secondary non-tertiary education.
2. Primary education includes pre-primary education.
3. Total expenditure on educational institutions includes payments of households outside educational
institutions.
4. Upper secondary and tertiary include post-secondary non-tertiary education.
5. Year of reference 2021.
Table C1.2. Expenditure on educational institutions as a percentage of GDP, by level of education (2022)
Note: Columns showing total government expenditure on education including expenditure outside educational
institutions are available for consultation on line.
1. Upper secondary includes post-secondary non-tertiary education.
2. Primary education includes pre-primary education.
3. Total expenditure on educational institutions includes payments of households outside educational
institutions.
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
283
4. Upper secondary and tertiary include post-secondary non-tertiary education.
5. Year of reference 2021.
Table C1.3. Change in expenditure on education, by level of education (2015 to 2022)
Note: Columns showing the data on expenditure and numbers of students for 2015 and 2022 are available for
consultation on line.
1. Primary education includes pre-primary education.
2. Total expenditure on educational institutions includes payments of households outside educational
institutions.
3. Upper secondary and tertiary include post-secondary non-tertiary education.
Table C1.4. Distribution of government funds devoted to education, by level of government and level of
education (2022)
Note: Columns showing values for primary to tertiary education are available for consultation on line.
1. Primary education includes pre-primary education.
2. Total expenditure on educational institutions includes payments of households outside educational
institutions.
3. Some transfers are included in central government expenditure, causing total shares to slightly
exceed 100%.
4. Upper secondary and tertiary include post-secondary non-tertiary education.
5. Year of reference 2021.
Control codes
a – category not applicable; b – break in series; d – contains data from another column; m – missing data; x – contained
in another column (indicated in brackets). For further control codes, see the Reader’s Guide.
For further methodological information, see Education at a Glance 2025: Sources, Methodologies and Technical Notes
(https://doi.org/10.1787/fcfaf2d1-en).
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
284
Table C1.1. Expenditure on educational institutions per student, by level of education (2022)
In equivalent USD converted using PPPs for GDP, direct expenditure within educational institutions
Expenditure on educational institutions per student (in equivalent USD converted using PPPs for GDP)
Total (government, private and non-domestic expenditure) Government expenditure
Primary, Primary,
Tertiary Primary to tertiary Tertiary Primary to tertiary
secondary secondary
and post- Lower and post- Lower
secondary and upper Including Excluding Including Excluding secondary and upper Including Excluding Including Excluding
non-tertiary secondary R&D R&D R&D R&D non-tertiary secondary R&D R&D R&D R&D
OECD countries (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12)
Australia 15 611 18 247 25 162 15 948 17 529 15 679 13 102 14 577 9 415 m 12 362 m
Austria 18 626 20 033 26 190 16 164 20 942 17 872 17 767 19 134 23 018 13 969 19 374 16 604
Belgium1 17 224 18 681 d 25 989 16 724 19 024 17 121 16 467 17 765 d 21 927 14 959 17 588 16 158
Canada2 15 778 d x(1) 27 582 m 18 733 d m 14 381d x(7) 13 684 m 14 206 d m
Chile3 6 602 d 6 991 d 11 639 d 11 145 d 8 068 d 7 924 d 5 289 5 746 4 479 4 071 5 054 4 935
Colombia m m m m m m m m m m m m
Costa Rica m m 18 405 m m m 5 226 5 183 16 922 16 920 6 365 6 364
Czechia 11 847 13 995 17 221 11 147 12 844 11 717 10 724 12 528 12 777 7 890 11 105 10 198
Denmark 16 097 15 838 29 680 13 610 19 229 15 524 15 027 14 530 24 113 12 608 17 122 14 470
Estonia 10 827 10 093 19 011 10 447 12 362 10 755 10 303 9 616 15 291 9 163 11 239 10 090
Finland1 13 508 14 213 d 20 456 10 850 15 000 12 937 13 465 14 147 d 18 141 10 631 14 470 12 856
France 13 722 15 530 21 379 15 546 15 427 14 128 12 321 13 639 14 238 9 816 12 748 11 763
Germany 16 433 17 962 23 269 13 016 17 960 15 670 14 503 15 991 19 500 11 115 15 619 13 746
Greece 8 119 8 339 5 620 3 586 7 137 6 338 6 420 6 757 4 497 3 155 5 665 5 137
Hungary 7 900 7 987 20 476 16 881 10 097 9 469 6 905 6 964 12 931 9 674 7 957 7 388
Iceland 18 287 d 17 297 d 20 234 m 18 707 d m 17 753 16 436 18 209 m 17 851 m
Ireland 14 078 14 633 24 241 19 425 15 915 15 029 12 562 13 013 13 509 9 560 12 733 12 019
Israel 12 372 11 815 15 057 10 905 12 877 12 096 11 166 9 936 7 311 3 159 10 440 9 659
Italy1 13 459 12 622 d 14 713 10 330 13 750 12 733 12 666 12 032 d 8 992 5 376 11 813 10 973
Japan 4 11 863 d 13 090 d 21 836 d m 14 130 d m 10 993 d 11 528 d 8 184 d m 10 355 d m
Korea 22 486 25 267 14 695 11 180 19 805 18 595 21 476 24 110 6 617 4 041 16 363 15 476
Latvia 8 355 8 846 12 416 9 203 9 204 8 532 7 806 8 137 6 873 4 582 7 611 7 132
Lithuania 10 030 10 083 15 950 11 247 11 313 10 294 9 375 9 430 11 151 7 100 9 759 8 882
Luxembourg 29 238 31 336 60 979 35 862 31 439 29 697 27 678 29 705 54 384 34 311 29 531 28 138
Mexico 3 406 3 422 7 519 6 422 4 066 3 890 2 790 2 702 4 430 3 333 3 053 m
Netherlands 17 287 19 058 24 874 16 306 19 186 17 042 15 254 15 665 18 511 11 621 16 069 14 345
New Zealand 11 112 12 154 18 729 13 514 12 389 11 515 9 742 10 290 11 444 8 151 10 027 9 475
Norway 20 407 20 954 29 917 19 278 22 558 20 152 19 797 19 863 27 256 17 902 21 484 19 368
Poland 10 423 9 947 15 897 10 348 11 488 10 408 8 927 8 512 12 558 8 107 9 634 8 767
Portugal1 12 586 13 832 d 14 155 9 863 12 956 11 943 11 124 12 137 d 8 038 4 557 10 396 9 574
Slovak Republic 9 784 9 492 19 178 14 217 11 259 10 480 9 056 8 793 15 241 10 620 10 027 9 301
Slovenia 13 005 12 661 21 127 16 865 14 454 13 694 11 644 11 145 17 189 13 871 12 634 12 042
Spain 12 231 13 322 d 17 124 12 732 13 385 12 349 10 924 12 027 d 11 741 7 954 11 117 10 224
Sweden 15 484 15 401 28 823 14 130 17 804 15 249 15 454 15 356 24 044 12 888 16 948 15 008
Switzerland1 m 13 990 d m m m m 21 091 20 281 d 32 505 15 569 23 381 19 983
Türkiye 4 032 4 087 10 825 7 119 5 305 4 611 3 374 3 369 7 698 5 344 4 184 3 743
United Kingdom 15 416 15 843 35 350 28 762 19 072 17 864 13 063 12 905 7 896 3 565 12 115 11 321
United States5 15 799 16 301 36 274 31 610 20 387 19 342 14 603 15 044 14 046 11 245 14 478 13 850
OECD average 13 527 14 096 21 444 14 512 15 023 13 458 12 438 12 750 15 102 9 904 12 780 11 843
Partner and/or accession countries
Argentina m m m m m m 4 448 4 939 3 329 m 4 137 m
Brazil m m 3 765 3 328 m m 3 872 3 962 3 765 3 328 3 850 3 762
Bulgaria 7 624 7 769 12 680 12 104 8 703 8 580 7 397 7 479 8 198 7 891 7 568 7 502
China 4 596 5 473 7 157 m 5 161 m 4 042 4 663 4 256 m 4 089 m
Croatia 8 272 x(1) 11 429 m 9 033 m 7 781 x(7) 8 559 m 7 968 m
India m m m m m m m m m m m m
Indonesia m m m m m m m m m m m m
Peru 2 302 2 716 3 641 3 615 2 612 2 606 1 984 2 318 1 420 1 396 1 854 1 848
Romania 6 288 8 056 11 466 11 454 7 221 7 218 6 069 7 772 10 329 10 317 6 836 6 834
Saudi Arabia5 m m m m m m m 10 473 2 844 m m m
South Africa 3 477 3 750 15 726 m 4 395 m 3 108 3 322 11 504 m 3 737 m
EU25 average 12 898 13 739 20 574 13 836 14 285 13 116 11 905 12 595 15 830 10 489 12 541 11 631
G20 average 12 006 12 633 18 947 m 13 517 m 9 916 10 217 8 775 m 9 541 m
Note: For notes on this table and a link to download the data, see Tables and Notes section above.
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
285
Table C1.2. Expenditure on educational institutions as a percentage of GDP, by level of education
(2022)
Direct expenditure within educational institutions
Total (government, private and non-domestic expenditure) Government expenditure
Primary, Primary,
Tertiary Primary to tertiary Tertiary Primary to tertiary
secondary secondary
and post- Lower and post- Lower
secondary and upper Including Excluding Including Excluding secondary and upper Including Excluding Including Excluding
non-tertiary secondary R&D R&D R&D R&D non-tertiary secondary R&D R&D R&D R&D
OECD countries (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12)
Australia 3.9 2.1 1.6 1.0 5.4 4.8 3.2 1.7 0.6 m 3.8 m
Austria 2.9 1.9 1.8 1.1 4.7 4.0 2.8 1.8 1.6 1.0 4.3 3.7
Belgium1 4.0 2.5 d 1.6 1.0 5.6 5.0 3.8 2.3 d 1.3 0.9 5.2 4.7
Canada2 3.4 d x(1) 2.0 m 5.5 d m 3.1 d 1.1 1.0 m 4.1 d m
Chile3 3.4 d 1.9 d 2.5 d 2.4 d 5.9 d 5.8 d 2.8 1.5 1.0 0.9 3.7 3.6
Colombia m m m m m m m m m m m m
Costa Rica m m 1.4 m m m 3.6 1.9 1.3 1.3 4.9 4.9
Czechia 3.1 2.3 1.0 0.7 4.2 3.8 2.8 2.0 0.8 0.5 3.6 3.3
Denmark 3.4 1.8 1.9 0.9 5.3 4.2 3.2 1.7 1.5 0.8 4.7 4.0
Estonia 3.2 1.5 1.3 0.7 4.5 3.9 3.0 1.4 1.0 0.6 4.0 3.6
Finland1 3.7 2.3 d 1.5 0.8 5.2 4.5 3.7 2.3 d 1.3 0.8 5.0 4.5
France 3.7 2.5 1.7 1.2 5.4 4.9 3.3 2.2 1.1 0.8 4.4 4.1
Germany 3.1 2.2 1.3 0.7 4.4 3.8 2.7 1.9 1.1 0.6 3.8 3.4
Greece 2.7 1.4 1.2 0.8 3.9 3.5 2.1 1.1 1.0 0.7 3.1 2.8
Hungary 2.2 1.4 1.2 1.0 3.4 3.2 1.9 1.3 0.8 0.6 2.7 2.5
Iceland 4.3 d 2.0 d 1.3 m 5.6 d m 4.1 1.9 1.2 m 5.3 m
Ireland 2.1 0.9 0.8 0.6 2.8 2.7 1.8 0.8 0.4 0.3 2.3 2.1
Israel 4.7 2.1 1.3 1.0 6.1 5.7 4.3 1.8 0.7 0.3 4.9 4.6
Italy1 2.9 1.8 d 1.0 0.7 3.9 3.6 2.7 1.7 d 0.6 0.4 3.3 3.1
Japan 4 2.5 d 1.4 d 1.4 d m 3.9 d m 2.3 d 1.3 d 0.5 d m 2.9 d m
Korea 4.2 2.3 1.4 1.1 5.6 5.3 4.0 2.2 0.6 0.4 4.7 4.4
Latvia 2.7 1.4 1.1 0.8 3.8 3.5 2.5 1.3 0.6 0.4 3.1 2.9
Lithuania 2.5 1.7 1.1 0.8 3.7 3.3 2.4 1.6 0.8 0.5 3.2 2.9
Luxembourg 2.9 1.7 0.4 0.3 3.3 3.2 2.7 1.6 0.4 0.3 3.1 3.0
Mexico 3.0 1.5 1.3 1.1 4.3 4.1 2.5 1.2 0.8 0.6 3.2 m
Netherlands 3.4 2.1 1.6 1.1 5.0 4.5 3.0 1.8 1.2 0.8 4.2 3.7
New Zealand 3.8 2.2 1.3 0.9 5.1 4.8 3.4 1.9 0.8 0.6 4.1 3.9
Norway 4.4 2.3 1.9 1.2 6.2 5.6 4.2 2.1 1.7 1.1 5.9 5.4
Poland 3.0 1.9 1.1 0.7 4.1 3.7 2.6 1.6 0.9 0.6 3.4 3.1
Portugal1 3.6 2.2 d 1.2 0.9 4.8 4.4 3.2 1.9 d 0.7 0.4 3.9 3.6
Slovak Republic 3.1 1.9 1.1 0.8 4.2 3.9 2.8 1.8 0.9 0.6 3.7 3.5
Slovenia 3.4 1.7 1.2 1.0 4.6 4.4 3.0 1.5 1.0 0.8 4.0 3.8
Spain 3.2 1.9 1.4 1.0 4.5 4.2 2.8 1.7 0.9 0.6 3.8 3.5
Sweden 3.8 1.9 1.5 0.7 5.3 4.5 3.8 1.9 1.2 0.7 5.1 4.5
Switzerland1 m 1.1 m m m m 3.1 1.6 d 1.2 0.6 4.3 3.7
Türkiye 2.1 1.5 1.3 0.9 3.4 3.0 1.8 1.2 0.9 0.6 2.7 2.4
United Kingdom 4.0 2.2 2.1 1.7 6.1 5.7 3.4 1.8 0.5 0.2 3.9 3.6
United States5 3.5 1.8 2.3 2.0 5.8 5.5 3.2 1.7 0.9 0.7 4.1 3.9
OECD average 3.3 1.9 1.4 1.0 4.7 4.3 3.0 1.7 0.9 0.6 4.0 3.6
Partner and/or accession countries
Argentina m m m m m m 3.2 1.8 0.9 m 4.1 m
Brazil m m 0.9 0.8 m m 3.6 2.2 0.9 0.8 4.4 4.3
Bulgaria 2.3 1.6 1.0 1.0 3.3 3.3 2.2 1.5 0.7 0.6 2.9 2.9
China 2.8 1.6 1.3 m 4.1 m 2.5 1.3 0.7 m 3.3 m
Croatia 2.4 x(1) 1.0 m 3.4 m 2.2 x(7) 0.8 m 3.0 m
India m m m m m m m m m m m m
Indonesia m m m m m m m m m m m m
Peru 2.9 1.5 1.4 1.4 4.2 4.2 2.5 1.3 0.5 0.5 3.0 3.0
Romania 1.8 1.4 0.7 0.7 2.5 2.5 1.7 1.3 0.6 0.6 2.4 2.4
Saudi Arabia5 m m m m m m m 1.7 0.3 m m m
South Africa 5.0 2.2 1.8 m 6.9 m 4.5 1.9 1.3 m 5.8 m
EU25 average 3.0 1.8 1.2 0.8 4.2 3.9 2.8 1.7 0.9 0.6 3.7 3.4
G20 average 3.4 1.9 1.5 m 5.0 m 3.1 1.7 0.8 m 3.9 m
Note: For notes on this table and a link to download the data, see Tables and Notes section above.
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
286
Table C1.3. Change in expenditure on education, by level of education (2015 to 2022)
Change in per cent, constant 2020 prices in equivalent USD converted using PPPs
Primary, secondary
and post-secondary non-tertiary Tertiary (including R&D) Primary to tertiary (including R&D)
expenditure on educational
expenditure on all services
on educational institutions
on educational institutions
on educational institutions
on educational institutions
on educational institutions
on educational institutions
expenditure on education
as a share of government
Change in expenditure
Change in expenditure
Change in expenditure
Change in expenditure
Change in expenditure
Change in expenditure
Change in government
Change in government
Change in the number
Change in the number
Change in the number
institutions
per student
per student
per student
of students
of students
of students
OECD countries (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11)
Australia m m m m m m m m m m m
Austria 0.7 2.8 3.6 12.4 2.5 15.2 4.9 2.7 7.8 5.1 -9.6
Belgium 6.8 1.2 8.0 9.7 10.0 20.6 8.2 2.9 11.3 10.2 0.2
Canada1 9.9 d 3.3 13.5 d -6.9 17.2 9.1 5.1d 6.4 11.8 d 8.9 d -10.0 d
Chile2 19.6 d 4.2 24.6 d 33.5 d 5.8 41.2 d 25.3 d 4.6 31.1d 27.5 -3.9
Colombia m m m m m m m m m m m
Costa Rica m -2.0 m m -54.7 m m -12.0 m -5.4 -42.1
Czechia 26.2 10.9 40.0 19.2 -10.9 6.1 22.2 6.1 29.7 34.1 11.0
Denmark m m m m m m m m m m m
Estonia 19.8 12.5 34.8 8.9 -16.3 -8.8 12.0 5.7 18.5 27.2 -0.9
Finland 0.2 0.7 0.9 -13.5 12.2 -3.0 -3.2 3.0 -0.3 -1.2 -7.2
France 6.3 1.4 7.8 1.4 21.2 22.9 6.5 5.2 12.0 6.2 -3.6
Germany 14.2 -0.4 13.7 3.3 10.0 13.5 11.7 1.7 13.7 15.2 -6.1
Greece 2.4 1.1 3.5 7.1 25.0 33.9 1.8 9.3 11.3 0.3 -6.1
Hungary 5.9 -6.8 -1.3 83.3 -3.7 76.6 24.8 -6.3 17.0 7.4 -13.8
Iceland 19.1 d 3.2 22.9 d 16.6 13.8 32.7 18.7 d 5.3 25.1d 26.0 -10.0
Ireland 33.7 5.0 40.4 18.4 14.5 35.5 30.4 6.6 39.0 33.7 9.2
Israel 23.8 15.9 43.6 11.1 13.5 26.1 20.7 15.5 39.3 m m
Italy 9.4 -3.6 5.5 -4.4 18.9 13.6 6.5 0.8 7.4 8.3 -6.1
Japan 3 5.1 d -6.4 -1.7 d 1.8 d 1.0 d 2.9 d 4.9 d -4.8 d -0.1d 2.1d -10.4 d
Korea 72.1 -13.3 49.3 22.7 -13.7 6.0 56.1 -13.4 35.2 60.2 0.2
Latvia -9.7 2.5 -7.4 -9.7 -10.6 -19.3 -10.6 -0.5 -11.1 -18.0 -36.6
Lithuania 42.7 -5.8 34.4 24.4 -22.7 -3.9 33.3 -10.1 19.8 20.0 -10.5
Luxembourg 9.4 11.1 21.5 -4.6 10.8 5.7 7.2 11.1 19.1 18.4 -8.8
Mexico -9.7 -4.3 -13.6 -26.9 36.0 -0.6 -10.5 0.5 -10.1 -15.4 -16.2
Netherlands 17.1 -3.8 12.7 -4.2 19.0 13.9 11.9 1.1 13.1 16.9 1.9
New Zealand 22.0 2.7 25.3 0.0 -12.0 -12.0 13.2 -0.1 13.1 22.3 -17.3
Norway 0.9 3.1 4.0 1.2 17.4 18.9 1.9 6.0 8.1 4.5 -6.1
Poland 23.2 0.7 24.0 30.4 -17.5 7.6 23.4 -3.4 19.1 14.6 -18.1
Portugal 11.9 -6.5 4.6 -8.7 21.8 11.1 7.4 -1.1 6.2 7.6 4.1
Slovak Republic 22.3 2.9 25.9 1.9 -18.1 -16.5 12.0 -1.1 10.8 15.4 2.3
Slovenia 15.4 11.2 28.4 54.3 -7.1 43.3 22.8 7.5 31.9 30.3 11.7
Spain 12.4 2.6 15.4 2.3 17.1 19.8 10.4 5.7 16.7 20.3 2.5
Sweden 5.3 14.9 21.0 -8.0 16.1 6.8 1.3 15.1 16.6 16.4 4.1
Switzerland m 5.3 m m 14.5 m m 7.0 m 11.2 -1.0
Türkiye -13.3 6.0 -8.2 -4.8 15.4 9.9 -9.0 7.6 -2.0 -1.1 -18.0
United Kingdom 6.8 -2.2 4.5 2.7 22.4 25.6 9.2 1.5 10.8 3.2 -13.4
United States m m m m m m m m m m m
OECD average 13.5 2.1 15.7 8.6 5.0 14.2 11.9 2.5 14.7 13.1 -6.9
Partner and/or accession countries
Argentina m 4.1 m m 25.4 m m 9.2 m -19.9 -14.9
Brazil m m m m m m m m m -7.0 m
Bulgaria 64.3 -6.2 54.1 31.0 -17.4 8.2 49.4 -8.8 36.1 53.6 15.2
China m 10.1 m m 31.8 m m 14.2 m m m
Croatia m -6.9 m m -1.2 m m -5.6 m 32.0 m
India m m m m m m m m m m m
Indonesia m m m m m m m m m m m
Peru m 9.6 m m 8.2 m m 9.3 m m m
Romania 37.2 -6.1 28.8 12.5 1.9 14.6 30.6 -4.8 24.4 31.4 -5.3
Saudi Arabia m m m m m m m m m m m
South Africa m 0.9 m m 2.5 m m 1.0 m m m
EU25 average 16.4 1.5 18.3 11.6 3.1 13.8 14.1 1.8 16.1 16.9 -3.1
G20 average m -0.4 m m 15.7 m m 2.5 m m m
Note: For notes on this table and a link to download the data, see Tables and Notes section above.
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
287
Table C1.4. Distribution of government funds devoted to education, by level of government and
level of education (2022)
Percentage of total government expenditure on education before and after transfers
Primary, secondary and post-secondary non-tertiary Tertiary (including R&D)
Initial funds (before transfers Final funds (after transfers between Initial funds (before transfers Final funds (after transfers between
between levels of government) levels of government) between levels of government) levels of government)
Central Regional Local Central Regional Local Central Regional Local Central Regional Local
OECD countries (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12)
Australia 35.7 64.3 d x(2) 21.3 78.7 d x(5) 90.6 9.4 d x(8) 88.3 11.7 d x(11)
Austria 74.8 12.9 12.2 37.6 49.6 12.8 96.0 3.2 0.9 96.1 3.0 0.9
Belgium 21.6 75.9 2.5 21.5 74.6 3.9 16.7 81.1 2.2 15.6 81.3 3.1
Canada1 4.7 d 79.3 d 16.0 d 4.2 d 11.5 d 84.3 d m m m m m m
Chile2 97.1 a 2.9 64.0 a 36.0 100.0 a 0.0 100.0 a 0.0
Colombia m m m m m m m m m m m m
Costa Rica 100.0 a a 100.0 a a 100.0 a a 100.0 a a
Czechia 10.7 66.7 22.5 8.6 68.8 22.5 96.4 2.1 1.5 96.3 2.2 1.5
Denmark 30.1 a 69.9 37.0 a 63.0 100.0 a 0.0 100.0 a 0.0
Estonia 58.1 a 41.9 30.9 a 69.1 99.8 a 0.2 99.6 a 0.4
Finland 34.0 a 66.0 8.9 a 91.1 96.8 a 3.2 96.8 a 3.2
France 73.2 15.5 11.3 73.1 15.5 11.4 91.1 7.7 1.2 91.2 7.6 1.3
Germany 6.1 75.4 18.5 4.7 70.1 25.2 31.5 67.9 0.6 24.8 74.5 0.8
Greece 100.0 a 0.0 91.3 a 8.7 100.0 a a 100.0 a a
Hungary 92.0 a 8.0 92.0 a 8.0 99.9 a 0.1 99.9 a 0.1
Iceland3 23.7 d a 77.5 23.3 d a 78.0 100.1d a -0.1 100.0 d a 0.0
Ireland 100.0 a a 100.0 a a 100.0 a a 100.0 a a
Israel 88.9 a 11.1 67.7 a 32.3 96.5 a 3.5 96.2 a 3.8
Italy 87.0 6.2 6.8 86.3 5.8 7.9 84.3 15.4 0.3 82.3 17.4 0.3
Japan 4 17.3 53.2 29.5 0.7 30.1 69.2 90.4 d 9.3 d 0.3 d 89.7 d 9.9 d 0.4 d
Korea 82.9 15.1 2.0 1.0 53.3 45.7 96.3 2.3 1.4 96.3 2.3 1.4
Latvia 59.6 a 40.4 17.4 a 82.6 99.5 a 0.5 99.5 a 0.5
Lithuania 74.2 a 25.8 20.9 a 79.1 99.0 a 1.0 99.0 a 1.0
Luxembourg 90.1 a 9.9 90.1 a 9.9 99.8 a 0.2 99.8 a 0.2
Mexico 78.9 21.1 0.0 27.7 72.1 0.2 82.6 17.4 0.0 79.9 19.9 0.2
Netherlands 94.9 0.0 5.1 92.0 0.0 8.0 100.0 0.0 a 100.0 0.0 a
New Zealand 100.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0
Norway 11.9 a 88.1 9.3 a 90.7 99.2 a 0.8 98.4 a 1.6
Poland 56.9 1.0 42.1 3.6 1.6 94.8 99.8 0.1 0.1 99.8 0.1 0.1
Portugal 80.8 6.3 12.9 80.8 6.3 12.9 99.6 0.3 0.1 99.6 0.3 0.1
Slovak Republic 78.9 a 21.1 25.9 a 74.1 99.6 a 0.4 99.3 a 0.7
Slovenia 88.1 a 11.9 86.3 a 13.7 99.5 a 0.5 99.5 a 0.5
Spain 11.1 82.9 6.0 11.1 82.9 6.0 19.4 79.7 1.0 19.4 79.7 1.0
Sweden m m m m m m m m m m m m
Switzerland 3.1 63.1 33.8 0.9 60.9 38.2 33.5 66.3 0.2 16.7 83.1 0.2
Türkiye 99.0 a 1.0 99.0 a 1.0 99.9 a 0.1 99.9 a 0.1
United Kingdom 61.0 a 39.0 61.0 a 39.0 100.0 a 0.0 100.0 a 0.0
United States5 12.1 39.2 48.7 0.9 1.8 97.3 62.9 28.2 8.9 62.9 28.2 8.9
OECD average 59.4 18.8 22.4 44.5 19.0 37.6 88.0 11.2 0.9 87.1 12.0 0.9
Partner and/or accession countries
Argentina m m m m m m m m m m m m
Brazil m m m m m m 75.4 23.3 1.3 75.3 23.4 1.3
Bulgaria 94.1 a 5.9 32.5 a 67.5 100.0 a 0.0 100.0 a 0.0
China m m m m m m m m m m m m
Croatia m m m m m m m m m m m m
India m m m m m m m m m m m m
Indonesia m m m m m m m m m m m m
Peru 31.5 60.5 8.0 31.5 60.5 8.0 86.6 13.3 0.2 86.6 13.3 0.2
Romania 70.5 a 29.5 70.5 a 29.5 100.0 a 0.0 100.0 a 0.0
Saudi Arabia m m m m m m m m m m m m
South Africa m m m m m m m m m m m m
EU25 average 65.5 14.9 20.4 50.3 16.3 34.9 88.7 10.7 0.6 88.2 11.1 0.7
G20 average m m m m m m m m m m m m
Note: For notes on this table and a link to download the data, see Tables and Notes section above.
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
288
Chapter C2. How is early childhood
education financed?
Highlights
• OECD countries spent an average of USD 13 331 per child on early childhood education (ECE) in the
2022 financial year, with most of the expenditure (USD 11 483 on average) coming from government
sources. Total expenditure per child at this level slightly exceeds expenditure per full-time student at
primary level.
• Although enrolment numbers in pre-primary education (ISCED 02) have remained stable between 2015
and 2022 on average across the OECD, governments of OECD countries have increased funding at this
level by 23%. As a result, government expenditure per child in pre-primary education increased by 24%
on average between 2015 and 2022 across OECD countries.
• At pre-primary level, three-quarters of funds go to public institutions while the remainder go to either
government-dependent or independent private institutions, closely mirroring the distribution of enrolment
across institution types.
Figure C2.1. Government and private expenditure per child in pre-primary education (2022)
In equivalent USD converted using PPPs, direct expenditure on educational institutions
Government expenditure Private expenditure
30000
25000
20000
15000
10000
5000
Note: Expenditure per child is based on headcounts rather than full-time equivalent students.
1. Year of reference differs from 2022.
2. Data do not cover day care centres and integrated centres for early childhood education.
For data, see Table C2.1. For a link to download the data, see Tables and Notes section.
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
289
Context
Investment into early childhood education (ECE) can ensure better access and higher-quality care for young
children. Furthermore, expenditure dedicated to ECE can be a policy lever to increase women’s labour-market
participation rates and promote equity by ensuring strong foundations for further learning for disadvantaged
children. Widely available and affordable early childhood education is also used a means to increase birth rates
and limit demographic decline.
Interpreting ECE funding requires different consideration than at other levels of education. Young children require
close and frequent adult supervision, raising the cost of provision. The ages covered by ECE contains a mix of
compulsory and non-compulsory (but sometimes free) years of education, the structure of which varies across
countries. Furthermore, while primary and secondary students generally attend full-day programmes, ECE
programmes vary widely in how long children attend each day. Yet data on hours of participation are limited, making
it impossible to calculate the full-time-equivalent (FTE) enrolment counts that are the basis for the per-student
expenditure data used in other chapters. As a result, expenditure per child at the early childhood educational
development and pre-primary levels is based on total spending divided by headcount enrolment, rather than FTE
students. This may distort comparisons, as countries with shorter attendance hours can appear to invest less per
child. In addition, not all countries report finance data for early childhood educational development, limiting most
analysis to pre-primary education. The data also only cover programmes meeting ISCED classification criteria,
such as requiring at least 2 hours of educational activities per day and 100 days a year (see the Definitions section
in Chapter B2). The figures in this chapter do not capture provision without such explicit educational requirements,
or home-based or informally organised care, underestimating the scale of early childhood education in countries
where such arrangements are common.
Other findings
• On average, OECD countries dedicate the equivalent of 0.59% of GDP to the education of children aged
3 to 5. The countries spending the highest amount on this age group are Iceland (1.05% of GDP), Norway
(0.87%) and Israel (0.85%).
• In the last decade, 12 countries lowered the starting age of compulsory education to include one or more
years of pre-primary education. In Bulgaria, Czechia and Lithuania, this resulted in increased spending on
pre-primary education but in the rest the change had little impact on pre-primary expenditure. As enrolment
rates were already high in most of these countries, the reforms served to formalise existing levels of
attendance rather than prompting significant changes in enrolment.
• Systems that rely more on private funding are not more generous overall: there is no correlation between
the amount of expenditure per child and the share of that amount funded by private stakeholders (mostly
families).
Analysis
Distribution of sources of funding for pre-primary programmes
The vast majority of funding for pre-primary institutions comes from government sources (around USD 10 500 on
average across OECD countries compared to around USD 1 500 coming from private sources), as shown in
Figure C2.1. This breakdown is consistent with funding patterns observed at primary, secondary and post-secondary
non-tertiary levels (see Table C1.1). In Belgium, Bulgaria, Luxembourg and Romania, 95% or more of funding was
disbursed by the government in 2022. Of these, over 90% of funding in Bulgaria, Luxembourg and Romania was spent
on public institutions (Table C2.3). Meanwhile, Belgium’s expenditure on pre-primary education is split nearly equally
between public and government-dependent private institutions, illustrating the government allocation of funding set by
the School Pact of 1958 (Franken and Leivens, 2022[1]).
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
290
In contrast, Australia, China, Portugal and the United Kingdom report shares of funding coming from private sources
that are relatively larger compared to other countries. While this might reflect high out-of-pocket childcare costs paid
by families, it is not necessarily the case. Figure C2.1 presents final sources of funds, which means that government
transfers to households (e.g. childcare subsidies or voucher schemes) are included in private expenditure, because
they are channelled to providers through families. As a result, the private share in some countries may partly include
publicly supported financing mechanisms to make childcare more affordable for disadvantaged families. This is the
case for Portugal, where relatively high childcare fees paid by families are offset by similarly high amounts of benefits
and rebates (OECD, 2022[2]).
The emphasis here is on pre-primary education (ISCED 02), as data availability across OECD countries is better at
this level; 21 OECD countries do not report finance data for early childhood educational development (ISCED 01). It
is also worth noting that Figure C2.1 refers to expenditure per child, rather than per full-time equivalent student (which
is the standard measure used for primary to tertiary education). This means that a child who spends eight hours a day
in pre-primary education and one that spends four hours a day will both count as one child, whereas if they were in
primary education, the first would count as one full-time equivalent, the second as 0.5.
Investing in children aged 3 to 5
Figure C2.2 compares countries based on their expenditure on educational institutions for children aged 3 to 5 as a
percentage of GDP. Measuring spending on 3-5 year-olds allows comparisons to be made between countries
regardless of where they draw the line between early childhood education and primary education. In addition, unlike
measures that focus on a particular level of education, it is not affected by differences in the age composition of the
target population. Age greatly influences expenditure spent per child – younger children require higher adult-child
ratios, leading to higher personnel costs per child. But children start and complete different stages of early childhood
education such as pre-primary at different ages in different countries, creating different population make-ups at each
level (see Chapter B2). All other things being equal, spending per child in pre-primary education will be higher in
countries where primary education starts relatively early and the average age of children in pre-primary education is
relatively young. Comparing expenditure for a defined age group such as 3-5 year-olds addresses this and offers a
clearer basis for cross-country comparison, as it limits the effect of national enrolment age policies.
The age group of 3-5 year-olds is also of particular interest, as it marks a point where national policies on compulsory
education diverge. As of 2023, compulsory education starts after the age 5 in 22 out of the 38 OECD countries. For
these countries, public spending on 3-5 year-olds as a percentage of GDP could naturally appear lower, not
necessarily due to limited investment, but because enrolment rates may be lower among children who have not yet
reached the official starting age of compulsory schooling.
Figure C2.2 indicates that total education expenditure on 3-5 year-olds averages 0.59% of GDP across OECD
countries, with the highest shares in Iceland (1.05% of GDP), Norway (0.87%), Israel (0.85%) and Sweden (0.82%),
all over one-third more than the OECD average (Table C2.1). In addition to reflecting these countries’ economic
priorities, these high ratios of investment in ECE could also be partially shaped by the geographical distribution of their
populations: operational costs (e.g. administration and capital goods such as the construction of ECE centres) increase
as population densities fall, because fixed costs must be borne regardless of the number of children enrolled.
One important caveat is that, in common with the other data in this chapter, Figure C2.2 does not fully capture types
of early childhood education that do not fit ISCED criteria. In countries where institutional settings without explicit
educational components or home- or family-based arrangements are common, it will underestimate investment in the
early years.
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
291
Figure C2.2. Total expenditure on children aged 3 to 5 as a percentage of GDP (2022)
In per cent, direct expenditure on educational institutions
1.2
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
1. Data do not cover day care centres and integrated centres for early childhood education.
For data, see Table C2.1. For a link to download the data, see Tables and Notes section.
Over the past decade, public investment in early childhood education (ECE) has increased steadily across OECD
countries. For instance, as shown in Figure C2.6 below, government expenditure in pre-primary education rose in most
countries between 2015 and 2022 (in constant prices). This has often accompanied higher enrolment rates at this level
(see Chapter B1). One potential driver of this has been the move in several countries in the last decade to lower the
starting age of compulsory education. Box C2.1 explores changes in the patterns of ECE spending among countries
that have recently lowered their starting age of compulsory education.
Box C2.1. Reforms to the starting ages of compulsory education and the impact on expenditure
This box explores how lowering the starting age of compulsory education might have affected patterns of public
expenditure. In the past decade, 12 OECD and partner countries have implemented such reforms: Belgium (2020),
Bulgaria (2017 and 2021), Costa Rica (2018), Czechia (2017), Finland (2015), France (2019), Greece (2020), Hungary
(2015), Lithuania (2016), Romania (2020), the Slovak Republic (2021) and Sweden (2018). These reforms lowered
the starting age of compulsory education by one to three years, affecting pre-primary programmes (for more details
see Table B2.1 in Education at a Glance 2024 (OECD, 2024[3])).
Figure C2.3 shows trends in government expenditure on pre-primary education (dark blue line). The red dotted line
indicates the final year before the reform was implemented, to distinguish trends before and after the policy change.
The figure also includes expenditure patterns for early childhood educational development and primary education to
provide context. In most countries, spending at all three levels followed parallel trajectories before the reform,
suggesting common drivers such as macroeconomic conditions or broader education funding trends. This helps
strengthen the case for any post-reform changes in pre-primary spending having been driven by the reform itself.
How did spending change after the reform?
• Pre-primary expenditure generally continued along pre-existing trends, with no sharp increase at the time the
reform was implemented. This suggests that in many of these countries, spending adjustments were either
not directly tied to the reform or masked by other events occurring around that time. Expanding ECE
participation may have already been a priority, with the reform simply formalising ongoing efforts.
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
292
• Expenditure on pre-primary education increased after the reforms in Bulgaria and Lithuania, while Czechia
experienced a modest but clear increase in pre-primary spending in the year of the reform and this upward
trend continued through 2021.
• There was no clear link between trends in spending and the number of years by which the starting age of
compulsory education was reduced – even in countries that implemented more substantial reforms. For
example, Czechia and Hungary reduced the starting age by two years, and France by three, while all other
countries made only a one-year change. This suggests that even far-reaching reforms do not necessarily
translate into substantial or immediate budgetary shifts.
Figure C2.3. Trends in government expenditure on ECE and primary institutions (2014 to 2022)
Countries with recent changes in the duration of compulsory pre-primary education, in billions USD in constant
prices
Early childhood educational development Pre-primary education Primary education
Belgium Bulgaria Costa Rica Czechia
10 1.5 2 4
8 1.3
6 1.1 1 3
4 0.9 0 2
Finland France Greece Hungary
4 40 4
3 35 2
3
2 30 2 1
1 25 1 0
Lithuania Romania Slovakia Sweden
1 3 2
0.8 10
2 1.6
0.5 7.5
1 1.2 5
0.2
0 0.8 2.5
2021
2021
2021
2021
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2022
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2022
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2022
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2022
Note: The red dotted line marks the final year before the reform extending compulsory ECE was implemented. Bulgaria introduced two reforms
to the starting age of compulsory education, in 2017 and again in 2021. Pre-primary education is highlighted in dark blue; other levels are shown
for context. Given the variation in expenditure levels across countries, direct cross-country comparisons should be made with caution.
For a link to download the data, see Tables and Notes section.
What could explain the observed trends?
• In systems where enrolment at the affected ages was already nearly universal, reforms only had a marginal
effect on enrolment. In some cases, reforms strategically targeted disadvantaged subgroups – such as socio-
economically at-risk children in Lithuania (Eurydice, 2023[4]) or migrant and low-educated families in Belgian
cities (European Commission, 2020[5]) – thus affecting a relatively small number of children and limiting the
need for substantial new investment.
• Free access or legal entitlements to an ECE place may have also played important roles in shaping
expenditure growth in the years prior to or around the reform. In Belgium, Bulgaria, Hungary, Lithuania,
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
293
Romania and Sweden, free early education was already available to children below the new compulsory age
(for more details see Table X1.3 in Annex 1). When it comes to entitlements, in Czechia, for instance, from
2018 municipalities were required to guarantee subsidised places for all children over age 3, upon parental
request (European Commission / EACEA / Eurydice, 2025[6]). Such measures can drive higher spending even
without major enrolment increases, as governments must ensure adequate provision in advance of
implementation. Much of the investment may also have already occurred, limiting the need for a sharp rise in
public spending at the time of reform.
• The COVID-19 pandemic and countries’ fiscal situation might have shaped implementation and spending
patterns. Belgium, Bulgaria, Greece, Romania and the Slovak Republic implemented reforms in 2020-21.
Belgium and Bulgaria recorded increases in spending while Greece saw a decline. This might have been
driven by economic factors: Belgium and Bulgaria entered the pandemic with stronger fiscal capacity, allowing
for additional investment in pre-primary education despite the crisis. In Bulgaria, for example, a 2022 reform
abolished fees for public nurseries and kindergartens to promote access and equity (OECD, 2023[7]). In
contrast, Greece’s ability to scale up provision may have been constrained by limited public investment
capacity (OECD, 2020[8]).
• The timing and design of budget processes also matter. In some countries, the allocation of expenditure to
ECE is not directly tied to changes in enrolment policy, meaning that reforms to lower the starting age of
compulsory education may not immediately influence overall government spending. Shifts in political regimes
or ruling parties can also affect budget priorities and the pace of fiscal adjustments, influencing how quickly
and to what extent spending responds to enrolment reforms.
How did enrolment patterns evolve in the light of the reform?
Figure C2.4 shows enrolment trends in pre-primary institutions by age, with each line representing a different age
group affected by the reform.
• In most countries, enrolment rates were high (between 80% and 90%) even before the reform, limiting the
room for additional increases. Reforms required only marginal adjustments, if any, in capacity or staffing,
rather than large-scale system expansion.
• Costa Rica is the only country where the reform was followed by a sharp increase in enrolment rates: from
60% to 80% among 4-year-olds in the year of the reform, rising to 90% the following year, and reaching near
universal coverage by 2023. Among 5-year-olds, enrolment rates were stable prior to the reform and increased
from around 80% to 90% in the year of the reform. A comparable, though smaller, shift occurred in Czechia,
where enrolment rates among 5-year-olds rose from around 90% to 95% in the year of the reform.
• In Greece, enrolment rates among 4-year-olds had been rising strongly prior to the reform and continued to
increase after it, going from around 65% to 95% in ten years. This suggests that families’ or local authorities’
anticipation of the reform or the implementation of other policy reforms were the main drivers of increasing
enrolment.
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
294
Figure C2.4. Trends in pre-primary enrolment rates (2013 to 2023)
Age groups affected by the extension of compulsory pre-primary education
Age 3 4 5 6
Belgium Bulgaria Costa Rica Czechia
95%
85%
75%
65%
55%
Finland France Greece Hungary
95%
85%
75%
65%
55%
Lithuania Romania Slovakia Sweden
95%
85%
75%
65%
55%
2021
2021
2021
2021
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2022
2023
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2022
2023
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2022
2023
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2022
2023
Note: Each line represents a different age affected by the reform to compulsory education starting age. The red dotted line marks the final year
before the reform extending compulsory ECE was implemented. Bulgaria introduced two reforms to the starting age of compulsory education:
one in 2017 lowering it to age 5, and another in 2021 lowering it further to age 4.
For a link to download the data, see Tables and Notes section.
Overall, recent reforms to lower the starting age of compulsory education did not lead to major shifts in public
expenditure or enrolment, but this does not imply they were ineffective. Rather, the limited fiscal and enrolment impacts
in many countries reflect the fact that early childhood education was already a policy priority, with high participation
rates and infrastructure largely in place prior to the reform. In such contexts, the reforms served to consolidate
progress, extend legal guarantees or improve equity – particularly when targeted at disadvantaged groups. These
findings suggest that the success of compulsory age reforms cannot be measured solely by short-term spending or
enrolment changes, but must also consider broader policy goals, such as formalisation, inclusivity and long-term
system development.
Pre-primary expenditure by type of institution
Figure C2.5 presents the distribution of total expenditure across public and private pre-primary institutions. It shows
the extent to which funding is channelled into publicly governed or privately managed models (which may be heavily
government funded, in the case of government-dependent private institutions). For most OECD countries, the
breakdown of funding by type of institution mirrors very closely that of enrolment at pre-primary level (see Table B1.3).
However, in Italy and Luxembourg, independent private institutions educate a relatively large share of children yet
receive a smaller proportion of total spending. In Israel, government-dependent private institutions are underfunded
relative to their enrolment share, while independent private providers receive double the share of funding compared
to their share of students (Table C2.3).
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
295
The countries dedicating 10% of expenditure or more to independent private institutions are all those spending at or
below the OECD average per child at pre-primary level. This may reflect a structural reliance on non-public provision
for both enrolment availability and funding (Table C2.1).
The OECD average of the share of funding dedicated to public institutions is slightly higher for pre-primary education
than for early childhood education and development. This is largely driven by differences in the distribution of enrolment
patterns between public and private institutions across these two levels of education (see Table B1.3).
Figure C2.5. Distribution of expenditure on pre-primary education, by type of educational
institution (2022)
In per cent, direct expenditure on educational institutions
Public Government dependent private Independent private All private
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
1. Year of reference differs from 2022.
For data, see Table C2.3. For a link to download the data, see Tables and Notes section.
Trends in pre-primary government expenditure per child
Figure C2.6 examines changes in government expenditure per child in pre-primary institutions between 2015 and
2022. A change in government expenditure on educational institutions per child can be driven by two factors: the
change in total government expenditure (measured in constant 2020 prices) and the change in the number of children
enrolled. In 25 countries with data available, government expenditure per child increased during this period. In 18 of
these 25 countries, the increase was driven by a fall in the number of children enrolled. For instance, Japan’s
government expenditure towards kindergartens and Kindergarten Departments of Special Needs Education Schools
grew by nearly 40% despite the number of children enrolled in these programmes dropped by 30%. One possible
reason for this expenditure growth is a 2019 reform that provides free early childhood education and care for children
aged 3 to 5.
However, some countries show a different trajectory. Hungary, Sweden, the Republic of Türkiye and
the United Kingdom experienced a decline in government expenditure per child between 2015 and 2022. In three of
these – Hungary, Sweden and the United Kingdom – this decline was driven by a reduction in government spending
(in constant prices). Italy also recorded a drop in public expenditure, although this was offset by falling enrolment,
keeping spending per child stable overall (Figure C2.6).
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
296
Figure C2.6. Change in the number of enrolled children, government expenditure on educational
institutions and expenditure per child in pre-primary education (2015 to 2022)
In per cent, constant 2020 prices
Change in government expenditure on educational institutions per child Change in the number of enrolled children Change in government expenditure on educational institutions
150
100
50
-50
-100
-150
Note: Expenditure per child is based on headcounts rather than full-time equivalent students.
1. Data do not cover day care centres and integrated centres for early childhood education.
2. Full-time equivalent is used in the calculation of expenditure per child.
For data, see Table C2.5 (available on line). For a link to download the data, see Tables and Notes section.
Definitions
Educational institutions can be classified into two different categories: public and private. An institution is classified
as private if its overall control and management rest with a non-governmental organisation (e.g. a church, trade union,
business enterprise or foreign or international agency) and if most of the members of its governing board are not
selected by a public agency. The terms “government-dependent” and “independent” are used to distinguish private
institutions. A government-dependent private institution is a private institution that receives 50% or more of its core
funding from government agencies, or one whose teaching personnel are paid by a government agency or by
government directly. An independent private institution is a private institution that receives less than 50% of its core
funding from government agencies and whose teaching personnel are not paid by a government agency.
For the definitions of direct government expenditure on educational institutions, and direct private expenditure on
educational institutions, refer to Chapter C1.
Methodology
Expenditure per child on educational institutions for early childhood education development and pre-primary levels is
calculated by dividing total expenditure on educational institutions at that level by the corresponding sum of full-time
and part-time enrolment, resulting in total expenditure on educational institutions per head count as opposed to per
full-time equivalent student.
For an overview of the methodology, see Chapter C1. For more detailed information, please refer to the OECD
Handbook for Internationally Comparative Education Statistics (OECD, 2018[9]). For country-specific notes, see
Education at a Glance 2025 Sources, Methodologies and Technical Notes (https://doi.org/10.1787/fcfaf2d1-en).
Source
For the data sources used in this Chapter, refer to Chapter C1. For additional details, see Education at a Glance 2025
Sources, Methodologies and Technical Notes (https://doi.org/10.1787/fcfaf2d1-en).
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
297
References
European Commission (2020), Education and Training Monitor 2020 - Belgium, Publications Office of the [5]
European Union, Luxembourg, https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2766/917974.
European Commission / EACEA / Eurydice (2025), Key Data on Early Childhood Education and Care in [6]
Europe - 2025, Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg,
https://eurydice.eacea.ec.europa.eu/publications/key-data-early-childhood-education-and-care-europe-
2025.
Eurydice (2023), Lithuania: Organisation of the education system and of its structure in Lithuania, European [4]
Commission, https://eurydice.eacea.ec.europa.eu/eurypedia/lithuania/organisation-education-system-
and-its-structure.
Franken, L. and J. Leivens (2022), “The end of the opt-out era in Belgian governmental schools?”, British [1]
Journal of Religious Education, Vol. 44/4, pp. 472-485,
https://doi.org/10.1080/01416200.2021.1967110.
OECD (2024), Education at a Glance 2024: OECD Indicators, OECD Publishing, Paris, [3]
https://doi.org/10.1787/c00cad36-en.
OECD (2023), OECD Economic Surveys: Bulgaria 2023, OECD Publishing, Paris, [7]
https://doi.org/10.1787/5ca812a4-en.
OECD (2022), “P.F.3.4: Childcare support”, in OECD Family Database, OECD, https://webfs.oecd.org/els- [2]
com/Family_Database/PF3-4-Childcare-support.pdf.
OECD (2020), OECD Economic Surveys: Greece 2020, OECD Publishing, Paris, [8]
https://doi.org/10.1787/b04b25de-en.
OECD (2018), OECD Handbook for Internationally Comparative Education Statistics 2018: Concepts, [9]
Standards, Definitions and Classifications, OECD Publishing, Paris,
https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264304444-en.
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
298
Tables and Notes
Chapter C2 Tables
Table C2.1 Total expenditure and government expenditure on early childhood education per child as a percentage of GDP per capita
and as a percentage of GDP (2022)
Table C2.2 Distribution of expenditure on early childhood educational institutions, by source of expenditure (2022)
Table C2.3 Distribution of expenditure on early childhood education, by type of educational institution (2022)
WEB Table C2.4 Distribution of central, regional and local government funds devoted to early childhood education, before and after transfers
between levels of government (2022)
WEB Table C2.5 Change in government expenditure on pre-primary education (2015 to 2022)
StatLink 2 https://stat.link/v59ehj
Data Download
To download the data for the figures and tables in this chapter, click StatLink above.
To access further data and/or other education indicators, please visit the OECD Data Explorer: https://data-
explorer.oecd.org/.
Data cut-off for the print publication 13 June 2025. Please note that the Data Explorer contains the most recent
data.
Notes for Tables
Table C2.1. Total expenditure and government expenditure on early childhood education per child as a
percentage of GDP per capita and as a percentage of GDP (2022)
Note: Columns showing data on expenditure on educational institutions as a percentage of GDP are available for
consultation on line.
1. Total expenditure on educational institutions includes payments by households outside educational
institutions.
2. Data do not cover day care centres and integrated centres for early childhood education. Data include
subsidies to households and transfers and payments to other non-educational private entities.
3. Year of reference 2021.
Table C2.2. Distribution of expenditure on early childhood educational institutions, by source of expenditure
(2022)
1. Total expenditure on educational institutions includes payments of households outside educational
institutions.
2. Data do not cover day care centres and integrated centres for early childhood education. Data include
subsidies to households and transfers and payments to other non-educational private entities.
3. Year of reference 2021.
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
299
Table C2.3. Distribution of expenditure on early childhood education, by type of educational institution (2022)
1. Total expenditure on educational institutions includes payments by households outside educational
institutions.
2. Data do not cover day care centres and integrated centres for early childhood education. Data include
subsidies to households and transfers and payments to other non-educational private entities.
3. Year of reference 2021.
Control codes
a – category not applicable; b – break in series; d – contains data from another column; m – missing data; x – contained
in another column (indicated in brackets). For further control codes, see the Reader’s Guide.
For further methodological information, see Education at a Glance 2025: Sources, Methodologies and Technical Notes
(https://doi.org/10.1787/fcfaf2d1-en).
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
300
Table C2.1. Total expenditure and government expenditure on early childhood education per child
as a percentage of GDP per capita and as a percentage of GDP (2022)
Direct expenditure within institutions
Expenditure on educational institutions per child Expenditure on educational institutions per child
(in equivalent USD converted using PPPs for GDP) as a percentage of GDP per capita
Total (government, private Total (government, private
and non-domestic expenditure) Government expenditure and non-domestic expenditure) Government expenditure
Early childhood education Early childhood education Early childhood education Early childhood education
development (ISCED 01)
development (ISCED 01)
development (ISCED 01)
development (ISCED 01)
Pre-primary (ISCED 02)
Pre-primary (ISCED 02)
Pre-primary (ISCED 02)
Pre-primary (ISCED 02)
Early childhood
Early childhood
Early childhood
Early childhood
educational
educational
educational
educational
(ISCED 0)
(ISCED 0)
(ISCED 0)
(ISCED 0)
All ECE
All ECE
All ECE
All ECE
Age 3 Age 3 Age 3 Age 3
to 5 to 5 to 5 to 5
OECD countries (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) (15) (16)
Australia 11 707 12 605 12 232 12 887 7 742 8 779 8 348 9 729 17 18 18 19 11 13 12 14
Austria 18 273 13 992 14 823 14 233 14 345 12 307 12 703 12 423 26 20 21 20 20 17 18 18
Belgium m 12 779 m m m 12 480 m m m 19 m m m 18 m m
Canada m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m
Chile1 8 937 d 7 863 d 8 089 d 8 087 d 7 570 6 390 6 639 6 424 29 d 26 d 27 d 26 d 25 21 22 21
Colombia m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m
Costa Rica m m m m 5 182 5 283 5 280 5 280 m m m m 20 21 21 21
Czechia a 9 183 9 183 9 183 a 8 318 8 318 8 318 a 18 18 18 a 16 16 16
Denmark 28 217 13 522 18 813 13 642 21 421 10 266 14 282 10 369 36 17 24 18 28 13 18 13
Estonia x(3) x(3) 11 931 11 931 x(7) x(7) 10 618 10 618 x(11) x(11) 25 25 x(15) x(15) 22 22
Finland 35 051 16 188 20 022 16 188 33 491 15 208 18 924 15 208 57 26 33 26 55 25 31 25
France a 11 551 11 551 11 550 a 10 843 10 843 10 842 a 21 21 21 a 19 19 19
Germany 24 546 15 167 17 669 15 165 20 629 13 854 15 661 13 853 36 22 26 22 31 20 23 20
Greece m 7 949 m m m 6 377 m m m 21 m m m 17 m m
Hungary 8 508 8 448 8 450 8 448 7 529 7 645 7 640 7 644 19 19 19 19 17 17 17 17
Iceland1 33 407 d 23 432 d 26 988 d 23 429 30 844 20 862 24 421 20 861 44 d 31 d 36 d 31 41 27 32 27
Ireland x(3) x(3) m m x(7) x(7) 7 720 m x(11) x(11) m m x(15) x(15) 6 m
Israel 4 377 7 863 6 643 7 870 1 206 7 075 5 021 7 083 8 15 12 15 2 13 9 13
Italy a 11 969 11 969 12 034 a 9 902 9 902 9 991 a 21 21 21 a 18 18 18
Japan 2 m 10 180 d m 10 180 m 7 956 d m 7 956 m 21 d m 21 m 17 d m 17
Korea m 15 003 m 15 007 m 13 637 m 13 642 m 27 m 27 m 25 m 25
Latvia 8 406 8 625 8 585 8 625 7 784 8 003 7 964 8 003 21 22 22 22 20 20 20 20
Lithuania 12 031 11 800 11 844 11 800 10 177 10 488 10 428 10 488 24 23 23 23 20 21 21 21
Luxembourg a 26 726 26 726 26 730 a 25 842 25 842 25 835 a 19 19 19 a 18 18 18
Mexico 1 785 3 447 3 371 3 430 1 610 2 826 2 771 2 825 8 15 14 15 7 12 12 12
Netherlands a 11 439 11 439 11 439 a 9 868 9 868 9 868 a 15 15 15 a 13 13 13
New Zealand m m m m 9 754 9 127 9 390 9 187 m m m m 19 17 18 18
Norway 38 835 21 575 27 935 21 575 33 910 18 839 24 392 18 839 51 28 36 28 44 25 32 25
Poland a 9 913 9 913 9 913 a 8 460 8 460 8 460 a 22 22 22 a 19 19 19
Portugal m 9 745 m m m 6 642 m m m 22 m m m 15 m m
Slovak Republic a 8 821 8 821 8 821 a 7 932 7 932 7 932 a 22 22 22 a 19 19 19
Slovenia 16 464 12 716 13 887 12 717 13 023 10 139 11 040 10 140 32 25 27 25 25 20 22 20
Spain 11 886 10 263 10 711 10 264 8 958 9 011 8 996 9 011 24 20 21 20 18 18 18 18
Sweden 23 242 16 494 18 245 16 494 21 844 15 462 17 119 15 462 35 25 28 25 33 23 26 23
Switzerland a m m m a 17 920 17 920 17 937 a m m m a 20 20 20
Türkiye m 4 163 m 4 160 m 3 392 m 3 392 m 11 m 11 m 9 m 9
United Kingdom 9 836 7 087 7 615 9 639 2 855 4 984 4 575 7 679 16 12 13 16 5 8 8 13
United States3 m 11 367 m m m 9 169 m m m 17 m m m 14 m m
OECD average m 11 996 13 498 12 255 m 10 450 11 483 10 816 m 21 22 21 m 18 19 18
Partner and/or accession countries
Argentina m m m m m 4 499 m m m m m m m 15 m m
Brazil m m m m x(7) x(7) 4 220 4 217 x(11) x(11) m m x(15) x(15) 21 21
Bulgaria a 8 837 8 837 8 837 a 8 750 8 750 8 750 a 25 25 25 a 24 24 24
China a 2 789 2 789 m a 1 606 1 606 m a 12 12 m a 7 7 m
Croatia x(3) x(3) 8 613 8 613 x(7) x(7) 6 257 6 257 x(11) x(11) 21 21 x(15) x(15) 15 15
India m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m
Indonesia m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m
Peru 305 2 012 1 916 m 291 1 831 1 744 m 2 12 11 m 2 11 10 m
Romania 13 779 5 760 6 107 5 804 13 608 5 684 6 026 5 727 31 13 14 13 31 13 14 13
Saudi Arabia3 m m m m m 12 297 m m m m m m m 22 m m
South Africa m 1 303 m m m 1 166 m m m 8 m m m 8 m m
EU25 average m 11 904 12 769 12 021 m 10 613 11 150 10 724 m 21 22 21 m 18 19 19
G20 average m 8 886 m m m 7 494 m m m 17 m m m 15 m m
Note: For notes on this table and a link to download the data, see Tables and Notes section above.
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
301
Table C2.2. Distribution of expenditure on early childhood educational institutions, by source of
expenditure (2022)
In per cent, expenditure within educational institutions, by level of education
Early childhood educational development
(ISCED 01) Pre-primary (ISCED 02) All early childhood education (ISCED 0)
Private Private Private
Non-domestic
Non-domestic
Non-domestic
Other private
Other private
Other private
Government
Government
Government
Household
Household
Household
All private
All private
All private
OECD countries (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) (15)
Australia 66 34 0 34 0 70 30 0 30 0 68 32 0 32 0
Austria 79 13 8 21 a 88 12 0 12 a 86 12 2 14 a
Belgium m m m m m 98 2 0 2 0 m m m m m
Canada m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m
Chile1 85 d 15 d 0d 15 d a 81 d 19 d 0d 19 d a 82 d 18 d 0d 18 d a
Colombia m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m
Costa Rica m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m
Czechia a a a a a 91 6 4 9 0 91 6 4 9 0
Denmark 76 24 0 24 0 76 24 0 24 0 76 24 0 24 0
Estonia x(11) x(12) x(13) x(14) x(15) x(11) x(12) x(13) x(14) x(15) 89 11 0 11 0
Finland 96 4 0 4 0 94 6 0 6 0 95 5 0 5 0
France a a a a a 94 6 0 6 0 94 6 0 6 0
Germany 84 x(4) x(4) 16 0 91 x(9) x(9) 9 0 89 x(14) x(14) 11 0
Greece m m m m m 80 11 a 11 9 m m m m m
Hungary 88 x(4) x(4) 12 0 90 x(9) x(9) 10 0 90 x(14) x(14) 10 0
Iceland1 92 d 6d 2d 8d 0d 89 d 8d 3d 11d 0d 90 d 7d 2d 10 d 0d
Ireland x(11) x(12) x(13) x(14) x(15) x(11) x(12) x(13) x(14) x(15) 90 10 a 10 a
Israel 28 57 15 72 a 90 7 3 10 a 76 19 6 24 a
Italy a a a a a 83 16 0 16 1 83 16 0 16 1
Japan 2 m m m m m 78 d 6d 16 d 22 d 0d m m m m m
Korea m m m m m 91 8 2d 9d x(8) m m m m m
Latvia 93 7 1 7 0 93 7 1 7 0 93 7 1 7 0
Lithuania 85 13 2 15 0 89 10 1 11 0 88 11 1 12 0
Luxembourg a a a a a 97 2 0 2 2 97 2 0 2 2
Mexico 90 10 a 10 0 82 18 a 18 0 82 18 a 18 0
Netherlands a a a a a 86 14 a 14 0 86 14 a 14 0
New Zealand m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m
Norway 87 13 0 13 0 87 13 0 13 0 87 13 0 13 0
Poland a a a a a 85 14 0 14 0 85 14 0 14 0
Portugal m m m m m 68 32 0 32 0 m m m m m
Slovak Republic a a a a a 90 9 1 10 0 90 9 1 10 0
Slovenia 79 21 0 21 0 80 20 0 20 0 80 20 0 20 0
Spain 75 23 1 25 0 88 11 1 12 0 84 15 1 16 0
Sweden 94 6 a 6 a 94 6 a 6 a 94 6 a 6 a
Switzerland a a a a a m m m m m m m m m m
Türkiye m m m m m 81 11 7 18 1 m m m m m
United Kingdom 29 67 3 71 0 70 26 4 30 0 60 36 4 40 0
United States3 m m m m m 81 19 a 19 a m m m m m
OECD average m m m m m 86 13 1 14 0 86 14 1 14 0
Partner and/or accession countries
Argentina m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m
Brazil m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m
Bulgaria a a a a a 99 1 0 1 0 99 1 0 1 0
China a a a a a 58 39 3 42 a 58 39 3 42 a
Croatia x(11) x(12) x(13) x(14) x(14) x(11) x(12) x(13) x(14) x(14) 73 19 8 27 x(14)
India m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m
Indonesia m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m
Peru 96 4 0 4 x(3) 91 9 0 9 x(7) 91 9 0 9 x(12)
Romania 99 1 0 1 0 99 1 1 1 0 99 1 1 1 0
Saudi Arabia3 m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m
South Africa m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m
EU25 average 86 m m 14 0 89 10 0 11 1 89 10 1 11 0
G20 average m m m m m 80 m m 20 m m m m m m
Note: For notes on this table and a link to download the data, see Tables and Notes section above.
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
302
Table C2.3. Distribution of expenditure on early childhood education, by type of educational
institution (2022)
In per cent, direct expenditure within educational institutions, by level of education
Early childhood educational development Pre-primary All early childhood education
(ISCED 01) (ISCED 02) (ISCED 0)
Private Private Private
Government-
Government-
Government-
Independent
Independent
Independent
institutions
institutions
institutions
dependent
dependent
dependent
All private
All private
All private
Public Public Public
OECD countries (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12)
Australia m m a m m m a m m m a m
Austria 44 x(4) x(4) 56 72 x(8) x(8) 28 65 x(12) x(12) 35
Belgium m m m m 54 46 0 46 m m m m
Canada m m m m m m m m m m m m
Chile1 82 d 3d 15 d 18 d 46 d 39 d 15 d 54 d 54 d 31d 15 d 46 d
Colombia m m m m m m m m m m m m
Costa Rica m m m m m m m m m m m m
Czechia a a a a 96 4 a 4 96 4 a 4
Denmark 78 22 a 22 78 22 a 22 78 22 a 22
Estonia x(9) x(10) x(11) x(12) x(9) x(10) x(11) x(12) 95 5 0 5
Finland m m m m m m m m m m m m
France a a a a m m m m m m m m
Germany 33 x(4) x(4) 67 43 x(8) x(8) 57 40 x(12) x(12) 60
Greece m m m m 89 a 11 11 m m m m
Hungary 75 x(4) x(4) 25 83 x(8) x(8) 17 83 x(12) x(12) 17
Iceland1 86 d d a 14 d 86 d 14 d a 14 d 86 d 14 d a 14 d
Ireland x(9) x(10) x(11) x(12) x(9) x(10) x(11) x(12) 1 99 a 99
Israel a 30 70 100 81 9 10 19 62 14 24 38
Italy a a a a 88 a 12 12 88 a 12 12
Japan 2 m m m m m m m m m m m m
Korea m m a m 61 39 a 39 m m a m
Latvia 88 a 12 12 88 a 12 12 88 a 12 12
Lithuania 82 a 18 18 91 a 9 9 90 a 10 10
Luxembourg a a a a 95 a 5 5 95 a 5 5
Mexico 92 a 8 8 85 a 15 15 85 a 15 15
Netherlands a a a a 25 60 15 75 25 60 15 75
New Zealand m m m m m m m m m m m m
Norway 56 44 a 44 56 44 a 44 56 44 a 44
Poland a a a a 69 x(8) x(8) 31 69 x(12) x(12) 31
Portugal m m m m 59 28 13 41 m m m m
Slovak Republic a a a a 93 7 a 7 93 7 a 7
Slovenia 95 5 a 5 96 4 a 4 96 4 a 4
Spain 72 x(4) x(4) 28 76 x(8) x(8) 24 75 x(12) x(12) 25
Sweden 81 19 a 19 81 19 a 19 81 19 a 19
Switzerland a a a a m m m m m m m m
Türkiye m m m m 79 a 21 21 m m m m
United Kingdom 15 82 4 85 44 52 4 56 36 59 4 64
United States3 m m m m 73 a 27 27 m m m m
OECD average m m m m 74 m m 26 71 m m 29
Partner and/or accession countries
Argentina m m m m m m m m m m m m
Brazil m m m m m m m m m m m m
Bulgaria a a a a 99 a 1 1 99 a 1 1
China a a a a 67 x(8) x(8) 33 67 x(12) x(12) 33
Croatia x(9) a x(11) x(12) x(9) a x(11) x(12) 83 a 17 17
India m m m m m m m m m m m m
Indonesia m m m m m m m m m m m m
Peru m m m m m m m m m m m m
Romania 99 a 1 1 93 a 7 7 93 a 7 7
Saudi Arabia3 m m m m m m m m m m m m
South Africa m m m m m m m m m m m m
EU25 average 75 m m 25 78 13 6 22 77 15 5 23
G20 average m m m m m m m m m m m m
Note: For notes on this table and a link to download the data, see Tables and Notes section above.
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
303
Chapter C3. How are primary and lower
secondary education financed?
Highlights
• On average across OECD countries, government expenditure per student is similar in primary education
(USD 12 051) and lower secondary education (USD 13 402), with greater differences between countries
than between education levels.
• There are striking disparities across countries in annual spending per student by governments at primary
and lower secondary level: from under USD 3 000 in Mexico and Peru to over USD 25 000 in Luxembourg,
highlighting significant differences in national income levels and capacity to invest in education.
• Although richer countries like Luxembourg have the highest government spending per primary and lower
secondary student, their spending as a share of GDP tends to fall below the OECD average. In contrast,
OECD and partner countries with lower GDP such as Costa Rica and South Africa dedicate a higher share
of national income to primary and lower secondary education.
Context
In all OECD and partner countries, education at the primary and lower secondary levels is compulsory (see Chapter
B2). As a result, policies, funding mechanisms and institutional arrangements frequently apply to both levels as a
unified stage of education. In many OECD countries, primary and lower secondary education are provided within
the same structure, often referred to as basic education, reinforcing this integrated approach.
Moreover, lower secondary education (ISCED 2) is still largely offered as a general programme for all students in
most countries, without a formal division between general and vocational tracks. Since programme orientation
becomes more relevant and widespread at the upper secondary level (ISCED 3), issues related to this
differentiation are addressed separately in Chapter C4.
This chapter focuses on how education systems build on early childhood education to establish strong foundations
in primary and lower secondary schooling. It examines how funding patterns are changing over time and how
resources are allocated between the two levels.
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
304
Figure C3.1. Government expenditure per student in primary and lower secondary education
(2022)
In equivalent USD converted using PPPs, based on full-time equivalent students, direct expenditure on
educational institutions
Primary Lower secondary
35000
30000
25000
20000
15000
10000
5000
1. Year of reference differs from 2022.
2. Primary includes pre-primary and lower secondary education.
3. Lower secondary education covers only general programmes.
4. Primary includes lower secondary education.
5. Total expenditure on educational institutions includes payments by households outside educational institutions.
For data, see Table C3.1. For a link to download the data, see Tables and Notes section.
Other findings
• Most countries have increased expenditure per student in recent years, often due to falling enrolments
while increasing the level of investment in education. The sharpest increases between 2015 and 2022
were in Bulgaria (67%) and Korea (63%), while Latvia, Mexico and the Republic of Türkiye reported
declines in expenditure per student.
• On average across OECD countries, spending per lower secondary student is slightly higher in public
schools than in private ones, but this varies by country. For example, private schools in Denmark, Greece,
Poland and Türkiye significantly outspend public schools, while the differences are minimal in
the Netherlands and the Slovak Republic, where the private educational institutions are exclusively or
largely government dependent.
Analysis
In most OECD and partner countries, annual government expenditure per full-time equivalent student is relatively
similar at primary and lower secondary level. Governments spend on average USD 12 051 per student at primary
level, compared to about USD 13 402 at lower secondary level across OECD countries (Figure C3.1). The largest
variation is not between levels but between countries. For example, in Mexico and Peru, governments spend less than
USD 3 000 per student at both levels. This contrasts sharply with Luxembourg, where expenditure reaches USD
25 482 per primary student and USD 30 498 per student at the lower secondary level – ten times the amount in the
countries with the lowest expenditure per student.
Only a small number of countries exhibit significant differences in government spending per student between primary
and lower secondary education (Figure C3.1). Czechia and Finland are the countries with the greatest differences in
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
305
absolute terms even though primary and lower secondary education is organised within a single-structure system in
nine-year basic school. In primary education, instruction is more class-teacher oriented, especially in lower grades,
and more subject-teacher oriented in lower secondary education. Although teacher salaries are not significantly higher
in lower secondary education compared to primary education, longer student instruction time (see Chapter D4), lower
ratio of students to teaching staff (see Chapter D2), and higher teacher salary cost (see Chapter D4) in lower secondary
education than in primary education partly explains the higher cost at lower secondary level.
The largest relative difference is observed in Romania where the government spends USD 3 629 per student at
primary level per year, but over twice as much (USD 7 941) at lower secondary level (Figure C3.1). As with Czechia
and Finland, teachers’ salaries and class sizes are similar between primary and lower secondary education, but the
longer instruction time for students in lower secondary education (1 001 hours per year) compared to primary
education (720 hours per year) partly explains the higher cost at lower secondary education level (see Chapter D4).
Government expenditure on primary and lower secondary educational institutions as a
percentage of GDP
Expenditure per student in primary and lower secondary education is highest in Luxembourg and Switzerland
(Figure C3.1), but these two countries also have among the highest GDP per capita across OECD countries. When
looking at government education expenditure as a percentage of GDP, the order of countries changes drastically
(Figure C3.1 and Figure C3.2). In particular, Luxembourg falls from the highest to below the OECD average.
Meanwhile, some OECD and partner countries with lower GDP invest a large share of their income in education at
primary and lower secondary level. For example, Brazil, Costa Rica and South Africa all move from being in the bottom
ten when considering expenditure per student, to the top ten when considering expenditure as a share of GDP.
Differences in government expenditure on primary and lower secondary educational institutions as a percentage of
GDP highlight differences in public investment in foundational education, which can have long-term implications for
educational quality, equity and outcomes. Iceland dedicates the highest share among OECD and partner countries,
spending 3.2% of its GDP on this sector. In contrast, government expenditure on primary and lower secondary in
Hungary, Romania and Türkiye represents just over 1.0% of GDP, well below the OECD average of 2.2%. Some
countries with a high GDP such as Germany, Italy and Japan also fall below the OECD average, indicating that higher
national income does not necessarily correlate with higher spending on education (Figure C3.2).
On average across OECD countries, government expenditure on primary education amounts to 1.3% of GPD,
compared to 0.9% of GDP on lower secondary education. This is strongly influenced by two factors: the length of
primary and lower secondary programmes, and the size of the population of children at each level. Countries with a
classic wide-based age pyramid and a longer duration of primary education will naturally spend more on primary
education relative to GDP. For example, South Africa has a relatively young population and primary education lasts
seven years, longer than in most OECD and partner countries. This partly explains why the government in South Africa
spends 2.4% of GDP on primary education and only 0.8% on lower secondary education (Figure C3.2).
In contrast, primary education lasts only four years in Austria, Bulgaria, Croatia, Germany, Hungary, Lithuania, Poland,
the Slovak Republic and Türkiye, and governments in many of these countries spend less on primary education than
on lower secondary education. For example, in Germany, government expenditure on primary education represents
0.7% of GDP, compared to 1.2% for lower secondary education. This is also because Germany has the longest
duration of lower secondary education across OECD countries (Figure C3.2).
The length of programmes and the population dynamics are not the only drivers of government investment in primary
and lower secondary education. For example, in Romania, primary education lasts five years and lower secondary
education lasts four years, but despite the longer duration of primary education, the government invests much more
in lower secondary than in primary education. Romania stands out as the country with the lowest percentage of
government expenditure on primary education as a percentage of GDP, at 0.4% compared to the OECD average of
1.3% (Figure C3.2).
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
306
Figure C3.2. Government expenditure on primary and lower secondary educational institutions as a
percentage of GDP (2022)
In per cent, expenditure on educational institutions
Primary Lower secondary Primary and lower secondary combined
3.5
2.5
1.5
0.5
1. Year of reference differs from 2022.
2. Includes pre-primary education.
3. Lower secondary education covers only general programmes.
For data, see Table C3.1. For a link to download the data, see Tables and Notes section.
Expenditure per student, by type of institution
Expenditure per student can vary considerably depending on the type of institution. Public schools are typically funded
and regulated by government authorities. Private schools, defined as being under the control of a private entity
regardless of their funding sources, fall into two categories. Government-dependent private institutions, which receive
more than half of their funding from public sources, and independent private institutions, which typically rely on private
funding such as tuition fees and donations and, in some cases, public subsidies.
Figure C3.3 portrays the overall differences in total expenditure per student between public and private lower
secondary institutions, without distinguishing between independent and government-dependent private schools. On
average across OECD countries, expenditure per student in public lower secondary institutions (USD 14 806 per
student) is slightly higher than in private institutions (USD 13 986 per student). This may reflect the fact that public
schools typically offer more stable employment and centrally negotiated salary scales. This often results in higher
average teacher salaries and more generous benefits compared to private schools, especially independent ones that
may hire younger or less experienced staff.
In countries where private provision is mostly or exclusively government dependent – such as the Netherlands and
the Slovak Republic – the differences in spending per student between public and private institutions at lower
secondary level are minimal. In contrast, in systems where private education is largely independent, such as in
Luxembourg, there can be much larger differences in spending per student between the private and public sector
(Figure C3.3).
While most countries follow a similar pattern to the OECD average, there are some notable exceptions. For example,
in Denmark, expenditure per student in public institutions is USD 16 409 while it reaches USD 27 828 in private ones.
In Denmark, boarding schools are considered government-dependent private and are a common choice in the
transition between levels of education. Similar differences in favour of lower secondary private institutions can be found
in Greece, Poland and Türkiye (Figure C3.3).
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
307
Figure C3.3. Total expenditure per student in lower secondary education, by type of institution
(2022)
In equivalent USD converted using PPPs, based on full-time equivalent students, direct expenditure on educational
institutions
Public Private
40000
35000
30000
25000
20000
15000
10000
5000
1. Lower secondary education covers only general programmes.
2. Year of reference differs from 2022.
For data, see Table C3.1. For a link to download the data, see Tables and Notes section.
Trends in expenditure on primary and lower secondary education
Between 2015 and 2022, most OECD and partner countries experienced an increase in expenditure per student in
primary and lower secondary educational institutions (Figure C3.4). These changes reflect a combination of shifts in
expenditure on education and demographic trends affecting student enrolment. While most countries increased their
investment per student, the scale of these changes varied widely, depending on national economic conditions,
demographic trends and policy priorities. Some countries faced shrinking student populations and were able to boost
expenditure per student by investing further in their education budgets, whereas others needed to substantially
increase total expenditure to keep pace with growing enrolment and maintain quality standards. Increased spending
per student does not necessarily translate to better quality of education as it may reflect factors like the greater cost of
operating small schools in rural areas.
Bulgaria recorded the largest increase in expenditure per student across reporting countries (67%) and the largest
drop in student numbers (-12%) between 2015 and 2022. A similar pattern was observed in Korea, where spending
per student rose by 63% while enrolment declined by 7%. Estonia managed to boost spending per student by 38%
despite a 15% increase in student numbers, requiring a total expenditure increase of 60% over the period. Czechia
and Lithuania followed similar trends, with spending per student increasing, while enrolment also grew. Finally, Türkiye
(-10%) and Latvia (-14%) reported notable reductions in expenditure per student, influenced by declining spending (in
constant prices) and rising enrolment (Figure C3.4).
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
308
Figure C3.4. Change in expenditure per student in primary and lower secondary educational
institutions (2015 to 2022)
In per cent, based on full-time equivalent students, constant prices (2020=100)
Change in expenditure Change in the number of students Change in expenditure per student
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
-10
-20
1. Includes payments by households outside educational institutions.
2. Primary includes pre-primary education.
3. Lower secondary education covers only general programmes.
For data, see Table C3.3. For a link to download the data, see Tables and Notes section.
Definitions
For the definitions of direct government expenditure on educational institutions, and direct private expenditure on
educational institutions, refer to Chapter C1.
For the definition of public and private educational institutions, refer to Chapter C2.
Methodology
For an overview of the methodology, see Chapter C1. For more detailed information, please refer to the OECD
Handbook for Internationally Comparative Education Statistics (OECD, 2018[1]). For country-specific notes, see
Education at a Glance 2025 Sources, Methodologies and Technical Notes (https://doi.org/10.1787/fcfaf2d1-en).
Adult education can be offered at the primary and secondary levels, and as such, the data may include related
expenditure for adult learners as well as for students with special educational needs.
Source
For the data sources used in this Chapter, refer to Chapter C1. For additional details, see Education at a Glance 2025
Sources, Methodologies and Technical Notes).
References
OECD (2018), OECD Handbook for Internationally Comparative Education Statistics 2018: Concepts, [1]
Standards, Definitions and Classifications, OECD Publishing, Paris,
https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264304444-en.
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
309
Tables and Notes
Chapter C3 Tables
Table C3.1 Expenditure on primary and lower secondary educational institutions (2022)
Table C3.2 Distribution of expenditure on primary and lower secondary educational institutions, by source of funds (2022)
Table C3.3 Change in expenditure on primary and lower secondary education (2015 to 2022)
StatLink 2 https://stat.link/5e4rya
Data Download
To download the data for the figures and tables in this chapter, click StatLink above.
To access further data and/or other education indicators, please visit the OECD Data Explorer: https://data-
explorer.oecd.org/.
Data cut-off for the print publication 13 June 2025. Please note that the Data Explorer contains the most recent
data..
Notes for Tables
Table C3.1. Expenditure on primary and lower secondary educational institutions (2022)
Note: Columns showing data on expenditure per student as a percentage of GDP per capita and on expenditure on
educational institutions as a percentage of GDP are available for consultation on line.
1. Primary includes pre-primary and lower secondary education.
2. Total expenditure on educational institutions includes payments by households outside educational
institutions.
3. Lower secondary education covers only general programmes.
4. Data include government transfers and payments to households (scholarship and loans) and to other non-
educational private entities.
5. Year of reference 2021.
Table C3.2. Distribution of expenditure on primary and lower secondary educational institutions, by source of
funds (2022)
1. Primary includes pre-primary and lower secondary education.
2. Total expenditure on educational institutions includes payments by households outside educational
institutions.
3. Lower secondary education covers only general programmes.
4. Data include government transfers and payments to households (scholarship and loans) and to other non-
educational private entities.
5. Year of reference 2021.
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
310
Table C3.3. Change in expenditure on primary and lower secondary education (2015 to 2022)
Note: Columns showing the data used to calculate changes between 2015 and 2022 are available for consultation on
line.
1. Primary includes pre-primary and lower secondary education.
2. Total expenditure on educational institutions for 2022 includes payments by households outside educational
institutions.
3. Lower secondary education covers only general programmes.
4. Data include government transfers and payments to households (scholarship and loans) and to other non-
educational private entities.
Control codes
a – category not applicable; b – break in series; d – contains data from another column; m – missing data; x – contained
in another column (indicated in brackets). For further control codes, see the Reader’s Guide.
For further methodological information, see Education at a Glance 2025: Sources, Methodologies and Technical Notes
(https://doi.org/10.1787/fcfaf2d1-en)].
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
311
Table C3.1. Expenditure on primary and lower secondary educational institutions (2022)
Direct expenditure within educational institutions, by level of education
Expenditure on educational institutions per student (in equivalent USD converted using PPPs for GDP)
Total (government, private and non-domestic expenditure) Government expenditure
Primary Lower secondary Primary Lower secondary
Public Public Public Public
and private Public Private and private Public Private and private Public Private and private Public Private
institutions institutions institutions institutions institutions institutions institutions institutions institutions institutions institutions institutions
OECD countries (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12)
Australia 13 610 13 181 14 570 18 644 16 338 21 928 12 075 12 850 10 339 14 826 15 813 13 422
Austria 16 897 17 039 14 730 19 691 20 207 15 265 16 166 16 702 8 006 18 920 19 869 10 789
Belgium 15 350 18 150 12 947 18 849 20 609 17 764 14 798 17 598 12 395 18 041 19 998 16 835
Canada1 14 606 d 14 832 d 11 785 d x(1) x(2) x(3) 13 312 d 14 131 d 3 123 d x(7) x(8) x(9)
Chile2 6 199 d 6 747 d 5 877 d 8 185 d 8 990 d 7 649 d 4 816 6 747 3 679 6 954 8 990 5 598
Colombia m m m m m m m m m m m m
Costa Rica m m m m m m 5 272 5 329 100 5 182 5 326 158
Czechia 8 637 8 706 6 918 14 601 14 800 10 028 8 052 8 277 2 455 13 625 14 058 3 721
Denmark 16 411 16 524 15 902 19 910 16 409 27 828 15 630 16 274 12 723 17 369 16 161 20 101
Estonia 11 709 11 807 10 481 12 698 12 816 10 876 11 144 11 547 6 068 12 159 12 542 6 258
Finland 12 426 12 415 13 067 19 542 19 847 14 497 12 421 12 409 13 055 19 533 19 838 14 483
France 11 135 m m 13 622 m m 10 444 m m 12 511 m m
Germany 3 13 007 12 896 14 935 16 004 16 163 14 722 12 694 12 588 14 521 15 666 15 820 14 426
Greece 8 011 7 894 9 550 8 866 8 522 14 329 6 604 7 097 83 7 219 7 668 107
Hungary 7 689 6 909 10 693 7 662 6 817 10 693 6 752 6 570 7 453 6 692 6 479 7 453
Iceland2 19 211 d 19 521 10 292 20 067 d 20 234 13 480 19 040 19 349 d 10 135 19 887 20 055 d 13 256
Ireland 12 357 12 430 5 313 15 525 15 525 a 12 249 12 375 a 13 222 13 222 a
Israel 13 003 15 474 5 243 m m m 12 430 15 119 3 986 m m m
Italy 14 959 15 542 6 237 11 897 12 042 8 481 13 801 14 622 1 523 11 259 11 674 1 476
Japan 4 10 570 d x(1) x(1) 12 259 d x(4) x(4) 10 429 d x(7) x(7) 11 514 d x(10) x(10)
Korea 19 749 19 856 13 277 20 907 21 910 15 824 18 884 19 149 2 842 20 327 21 349 15 152
Latvia 7 757 7 693 9 381 7 958 7 847 10 789 7 390 7 547 3 410 7 553 7 696 3 922
Lithuania 9 738 9 445 14 256 9 966 9 704 14 223 9 127 9 272 6 885 9 340 9 492 6 862
Luxembourg 26 975 27 955 19 005 32 176 34 996 20 489 25 482 27 955 5 375 30 498 34 996 11 851
Mexico 3 391 3 252 4 744 2 901 2 789 3 980 2 877 3 172 8 2 442 2 696 2
Netherlands 14 910 14 886 14 920 18 930 18 880 18 947 14 703 14 749 14 683 17 775 18 184 17 634
New Zealand 9 997 9 921 13 406 11 323 11 030 16 826 9 297 9 476 1 205 9 705 10 158 1 209
Norway 19 752 19 512 26 116 19 752 19 950 16 519 19 752 19 512 26 116 19 752 19 950 16 519
Poland 11 935 11 189 20 999 10 977 10 293 20 003 10 331 10 429 9 145 9 489 9 512 9 186
Portugal 11 047 11 503 8 019 14 179 14 929 8 876 9 874 11 169 1 268 13 028 14 596 1 945
Slovak Republic 10 282 10 202 11 097 8 528 8 528 8 523 9 504 9 457 9 983 7 928 7 977 7 439
Slovenia 13 390 13 377 14 613 13 765 13 741 16 350 12 202 12 224 10 140 12 527 12 538 11 271
Spain 10 954 12 147 8 398 12 660 14 324 9 120 9 634 11 665 5 283 11 538 14 041 6 212
Sweden 15 775 15 965 14 509 15 616 15 888 14 503 15 759 15 965 14 383 15 591 15 888 14 377
Switzerland m 21 230 m m 25 582 m 22 041 21 230 35 893 26 060 25 582 31 133
Türkiye 3 914 3 598 8 807 4 025 3 714 8 356 3 386 3 475 2 011 3 455 3 609 1 317
United Kingdom 14 914 15 026 14 730 14 788 14 214 15 024 13 249 14 201 11 668 12 736 13 631 12 369
United States5 15 270 15 704 11 092 15 934 16 160 13 687 14 274 15 603 1 458 14 753 16 057 1 798
OECD average 12 730 13 310 11 997 14 315 14 806 13 986 12 051 12 738 7 982 13 402 14 105 9 321
Partner and/or accession countries
Argentina m m m m m m 3 948 4 758 1 560 4 813 5 528 2 556
Brazil m m m m m m 3 735 4 573 a 3 857 4 512 a
Bulgaria 7 313 7 370 4 685 8 044 8 049 7 827 7 241 7 368 1 291 7 897 8 044 1 306
China 3 835 3 897 3 200 5 303 5 546 3 849 3 502 3 801 418 4 709 5 424 439
Croatia 8 265 d 8 292 d 6 682 d x(1) x(2) x(3) 7 838 d 7 920 d 2 880 d x(7) x(8) x(9)
India m m m m m m m m m m m m
Indonesia m m m m m m m m m m m m
Peru 1 980 x(1) x(1) 2 775 x(4) x(4) 1 724 x(7) x(7) 2 301 x(10) x(10)
Romania 3 758 3 692 6 937 8 291 8 255 11 127 3 629 3 571 6 384 7 941 7 903 10 992
Saudi Arabia5 m m m m m m 9 845 11 452 34 10 925 12 333 47
South Africa 3 297 3 500 m 3 615 3 799 m 2 956 3 137 m 3 185 3 348 m
EU25 average 12 028 12 251 11 428 14 165 14 313 13 875 11 339 11 890 7 365 13 222 13 835 9 029
G20 average 10 943 m m 11 658 m m 9 338 9 822 4 125 9 799 10 138 m
Note: For notes on this table and a link to download the data, see Tables and Notes section above.
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
312
Table C3.2. Distribution of expenditure on primary and lower secondary educational institutions, by
source of funds (2022)
Final source (after transfers), in per cent, direct expenditure within educational institutions, by level of education
rimary o er secondary
rivate rivate
overnment ouse old t er private All private Non domestic overnment ouse old t er private All private Non domestic
countries () (2) (3) () () () () () () ( 0)
Australia 89 x(4) x(4) 11 0 80 x(9) x(9) 20 0
Austria 96 4 1 4 a 96 4 0 4 a
elgium 96 3 0 3 1 96 4 0 4 1
anada 91d 4d 5d 9d x(3) x(1) x(2) x(3) x(4) x(8)
ile2 78d 22d 0d 22d a 85d 15d 0d 15d a
olombia m m m m m m m m m m
osta ica m m m m m m m m m m
ec ia 93 3 3 7 0 93 4 3 7 0
enmar 95 3 2 5 0 87 11 2 13 0
stonia 95 4 1 5 0 96 3 1 4 0
inland 100 0 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 0
rance 94 6 0 6 0 92 8 0 8 0
ermany3 98 x(4) x(4) 2 0 98 x(9) x(9) 2 0
reece 82 8 a 8 9 81 10 a 10 9
ungary 88 x(4) x(4) 12 0 87 x(9) x(9) 13 0
celand2 99d 1d 0d 1d 0d 99d 1d 0d 1d 0d
reland 99 x(4) x(4) 1 a 85 x(9) x(9) 15 a
srael 96 4 1 4 a m m m m m
taly 92 7 0 7 1 95 4 0 4 1
apan 99d 1d 0d 1d 0d 94d 5d 1d 6d 0d
orea 96 3 1d 4d x(3) 97 1 2d 3d x(8)
atvia 95 4 1 4 0 95 4 1 5 0
it uania 94 5 1 6 0 94 5 2 6 0
u embourg 94 3 0 3 3 95 2 0 3 3
e ico 85 15 a 15 0 84 16 a 16 0
Net erlands 99 1 a 1 0 94 5 1 6 0
Ne ealand 93 4 3 7 0 86 9 5 14 0
Nor ay 100 0 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 0
oland 87 11 1 12 1 86 12 0 12 2
ortugal 89 11 0 11 0 92 8 0 8 0
lova epublic 92 5 2 7 0 93 4 3 7 0
lovenia 91 8 0 9 0 91 8 0 9 0
pain 88 11 1 12 0 91 8 1 9 0
eden 100 0 a 0 a 100 0 a 0 a
it erland m m m m m m m m m m
r iye 86 8 5 13 1 86 10 4 14 1
nited ingdom 89 6 5 11 0 86 8 6 14 0
nited tates 93 7 a 7 a 93 7 a 7 a
average 93 6 1 7 1 92 6 1 8 1
artner and or accession countries
Argentina m m m m m m m m m m
ra il m m m m m m m m m m
ulgaria 99 1 0 1 0 98 2 0 2 0
ina 91 6 3 9 a 89 9 3 11 a
roatia 95d 4d 1d 5d a x(1) x(2) x(3) x(4) a
ndia m m m m m m m m m m
ndonesia m m m m m m m m m m
eru 87 13 0 13 a 83 17 0 17 a
omania 97 0 1 1 2 96 0 0 1 4
audi Arabia m m m m m m m m m m
out Africa m m m m m m m m m m
2 average 94 5 1 5 1 93 5 1 6 1
20 average 92 m m 8 m m m m m m
Note: For notes on this table and a link to download the data, see Tables and Notes section above.
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
313
Table C3.3. Change in expenditure on primary and lower secondary education (2015 to 2022)
Direct expenditure within educational institutions, constant prices (2020=100)
Primary Lower secondary Primary and lower secondary combined
Change in Change in Change in
expenditure Change in expenditure Change in expenditure Change in
on educational Change in the expenditure on educational Change in the expenditure on educational Change in the expenditure
institutions per number of on educational institutions per number of on educational institutions per number of on educational
student students institutions student students institutions student students institutions
OECD countries (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9)
Australia m m m m m m m m m
Austria 9 7 17 -4 4 -1 1 5 7
Belgium 11 4 15 7 4 12 10 4 14
Canada1 17 d 5d 23 d x(1) x(2) x(3) 17 5 23
Chile2 14 5 20 38 8 48 21 5 28
Colombia m m m m m m m m m
Costa Rica m -7 m m -9 m m -8 m
Czechia 25 4 30 26 28 62 29 14 47
Denmark m m m m m m m m m
Estonia 36 10 50 42 27 80 38 15 60
Finland -1 3 2 -1 8 7 0 4 4
France 15 -1 14 2 3 5 8 0 9
Germany 3 14 8 23 13 0 13 13 3 16
Greece 8 -9 -2 -3 8 6 4 -4 1
Hungary 19 -4 14 28 -4 23 23 -4 18
Iceland2 25 4 30 14 15 31 22 7 30
Ireland 34 0 33 15 m m 29 5 35
Israel 30 15 50 m m m m m m
Italy 30 -9 18 -6 -4 -10 15 -7 7
Japan 4 4d -5 -1d 5d -7 -2 d 4d -6 -1 d
Korea 60 -2 57 70 -15 45 63 -7 53
Latvia -14 1 -13 -13 14 -1 -14 5 -9
Lithuania 33 8 44 46 -2 43 41 2 44
Luxembourg -1 15 14 17 11 29 5 14 20
Mexico -6 -6 -12 -8 -8 -16 -7 -7 -13
Netherlands 31 -5 24 13 -7 4 21 -6 14
New Zealand 25 2 27 25 14 43 25 7 34
Norway 6 1 7 -3 8 4 3 3 6
Poland 40 -34 -8 25 45 81 33 -9 21
Portugal 14 -9 3 12 -10 1 13 -9 2
Slovak Republic 26 7 34 15 15 32 20 11 33
Slovenia 17 14 33 3 22 26 12 16 31
Spain 13 -3 9 9 9 18 12 1 13
Sweden 10 11 21 4 21 26 8 14 23
Switzerland m 8 m m 7 m m 8 m
Türkiye -15 2 -13 -5 4 -1 -10 3 -7
United Kingdom -2 4 2 10 4 14 2 4 6
United States m m m m m m m m m
OECD average 16 1 18 13 7 21 15 3 18
Partner and/or accession countries
Argentina m 0 m m -2 m m -1 m
Brazil m m m m m m m m m
Bulgaria 78 -11 58 57 -12 37 67 -12 48
China m 13 m m 13 m m 13 m
Croatia m -3 m m m m m m m
India m m m m m m m m m
Indonesia m m m m m m m m m
Peru m 9 m m 9 m m 9 m
Romania 27 -7 18 49 -4 43 42 -6 33
Saudi Arabia m m m m m m m m m
South Africa m 1 m m 8 m m 3 m
EU25 average 21 0 20 15 8 24 19 2 21
G20 average m 1 m m m m m 0 m
Note: For notes on this table and a link to download the data, see Tables and Notes section above.
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
314
Chapter C4. How are upper secondary
and post-secondary non-tertiary
education financed?
Highlights
• In most countries, government expenditure per student on upper secondary vocational programmes is
higher than on general ones, with the average across OECD countries amounting to USD 12 826 per
student for vocational programmes and USD 11 506 for general programmes. The difference in
expenditure between the two types of programmes is largest in Denmark, Iceland and Spain.
• Around one-quarter of expenditure or more on general upper secondary education programmes comes
from private sources in Chile (24%), the Republic of Türkiye (33%) and the United Kingdom (25%), the
largest share among OECD countries. In contrast, in Finland and Norway expenditure from private sources
on these programmes is negligible.
• In countries that make extensive use of apprenticeships in upper secondary education, relatively high
shares of private expenditure reflect the role of companies in providing work-based learning. In Germany,
private sources after public-private transfers account for 38% of expenditure on upper secondary
vocational programmes. In Switzerland, the share of private sources is 31% for all upper secondary
programmes (both before and after transfers).
Context
Upper secondary education is the stage where many countries start diversifying provision, so that students may
choose between different programmes or be guided to specific options. The diversity of provision means that the
associated costs and funding arrangements will also vary not only between countries but also within countries
depending on the type of programme.
General upper secondary programmes play a key role in preparing young people for further studies, often at tertiary
level, and to a lesser extent for entry into the labour market. Within general programmes, students often have the
option to study specific areas in more depth. In addition, most OECD countries have one or more vocational tracks
at this level. The costs of delivering these programmes will vary, depending on their duration and forms of delivery
(e.g. ranging from fully school-based programmes to apprenticeships where young people spend most of their time
in a workplace). In a few OECD countries there is no distinct vocational track in initial upper secondary education
or it is very small (e.g. in Canada except for the province of Québec, New Zealand and the United States). In these
countries post-secondary non-tertiary and short-cycle tertiary programmes play a key role in preparing young
people for the labour market.
This chapter looks at funding arrangements that underpin upper secondary education, focusing mostly on
differences between general and vocational programmes. It also looks at post-secondary programmes, but with
less detail given the relatively small size of this level of education on average across OECD countries.
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
315
Figure C4.1. Government expenditure per full-time equivalent student in upper secondary
education, by programme orientation (2022)
In equivalent USD converted using PPPs, expenditure on educational institutions
Total (general and vocational) General Vocational
35000
30000
25000
20000
15000
10000
5000
1. Upper secondary (vocational) includes lower secondary vocational programmes.
2. Year of reference differs from 2022.
For data, see Table C4.1. For a link to download the data, see Tables and Notes section.
Other findings
• The role of private sources in funding upper secondary education varies greatly. Some upper secondary
institutions are fully government funded (e.g. Finland, Norway, Romania and Sweden). In contrast, private
sources account for at least 15% of expenditure on upper secondary institutions in ten countries.
• OECD countries spend the equivalent of 24% of GDP per capita on each student in upper secondary
education. Expenditure per upper secondary student exceeds 30% of GDP per capita in France, Germany,
Korea and Portugal.
• On average across OECD countries, a similar share of GDP is allocated by governments to general upper
secondary programmes as to vocational ones (0.4% each).
• Differences in investment in vocational upper secondary and post-secondary non-tertiary education reflect
differences in how countries use these programmes to prepare young people for labour-market entry. For
example, some countries have relatively high public investment in post-secondary non-tertiary
programmes (e.g. 0.19% of GDP in New Zealand, 0.07% in Australia and Lithuania), while some OECD
countries offer no programmes at this level.
Analysis
Figure C4.1 shows government expenditure per student in upper secondary education for general and vocational
programmes, as well as both combined. It provides data on expenditure after public-private transfers –meaning that
expenditure like government subsidies to companies to provide apprenticeships would be accounted for under private
expenditure (see below). On average, OECD countries spend about USD 13 000 per student at this level, but the
range is wide: from almost USD 30 000 in Luxembourg to slightly over USD 3 000 in Mexico and Türkiye.
In most countries, government spending per student in vocational programmes exceeds that in general programmes.
The difference is highest in Austria, Denmark, Iceland and Spain. Higher costs in vocational programmes might be
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
316
driven by various factors. Some vocational programmes require schools to purchase technical equipment and keep it
up to date, which can be costly, particularly in fields that make extensive use of advanced technologies. This creates
extra costs, especially in programmes where most of the practical training is delivered in school workshops. On
average across OECD countries less than half of upper secondary vocational education and training (VET) students
are enrolled in programmes where 10% or more of the time is spent learning in the workplace but this share varies
across countries; for example, while all VET students in Denmark pursue combined school- and work-based
programmes, only half do so in Austria. However, the location of practical training is not the only factor behind higher
costs in vocational programmes; another driver is that some courses require smaller class sizes – practical training in
a school workshop for would-be electricians requires smaller groups than a theory-focused biology lesson. The
distribution of enrolment by fields of study also influences average costs in different countries. In countries where
vocational provision includes a larger share of enrolment in fields like construction and manufacturing, the costs of
providing VET will be higher than in countries with vocational programmes more heavily oriented towards service
sectors.
Private sources in general and vocational upper secondary programmes
Education programmes may be financed by different stakeholders, in addition to governments. For example, families
may pay tuition fees, while foundations may provide funding for schools. In the case of vocational programmes in
particular, companies can play an important role. When they provide work-based learning as part of a formal education
programme (e.g. apprenticeships or internships for VET students), they contribute to the cost of upper secondary
provision. Figure C4.2 shows the share of expenditure on upper secondary institutions that comes from private
sources: households and other private entities, which covers companies and non-profit organisations such as
foundations. One caveat about the data on vocational programmes is that many countries lack data on the expenditure
by companies in the context of apprenticeships and other combined school- and work-based programmes. In such
cases private expenditure will be underestimated.
An important distinction needs to be made between initial funds (expenditure before transfers from the public to the
private sector) and final funds (after transfers). For example, several countries provide a government subsidy to
companies that provide apprenticeships. The amount of the subsidy will be included in government expenditure in the
case of expenditure before public-private transfers, but will fall under private expenditure after public-private transfers.
Data on expenditure before public-private transfers indicate where funding comes from, while data after public-private
transfers show which stakeholder is ultimately doing the spending.
Table C4.1 shows the distribution of spending on upper secondary education both before and after public-private
transfers, while Figure C4.2 is based on initial expenditure data, before such transfers. This explains why Norway,
which has a strong apprenticeship system, reports all expenditure as public. In Norway, apprenticeships are the main
form of vocational upper secondary provision with students spending two years in school and two years in a company.
Companies that host apprentices receive a subsidy equivalent to the cost of one year of school-based education,
designed to offset the costs for companies.
The role of private sources in funding upper secondary education varies greatly across countries. On average across
OECD countries, 11% of initial expenditure on upper secondary institutions comes from private sources. In the Nordic
countries and Romania, upper secondary programmes are nearly entirely government funded while in ten countries,
private sources account for at least 15% of expenditure on upper secondary institutions. For general education
programmes, around one-quarter or more of expenditure comes from private sources in Chile (24%), Türkiye (33%)
and the United Kingdom (25%). Household contributions (which include tuition fees) are the key driver behind high
shares of expenditure coming from private sources in general programmes (Figure C4.2 and Table C4.2).
In some countries, relatively high private initial expenditure reflects the role of companies in providing apprenticeships
and other forms of work-based learning in the context of combined school- and work-based programmes. For example,
in Switzerland (which lacks data broken down by programme orientation), the share coming from private sources is
31%. Nearly two-thirds of upper secondary students in Switzerland are enrolled in vocational programmes and these
programmes are predominantly delivered through apprenticeships where apprentices spend four days a week in a
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
317
company (OECD, 2023[1]). In Germany, where apprenticeships are the predominant form of upper secondary VET,
private sources after public-private transfers account for 38% of expenditure on upper secondary vocational
programmes (Germany lacks data on expenditure before public-private transfers). In France, where both
apprenticeships and internships are commonly used in vocational programmes, 26% of initial expenditure on
vocational programmes comes from private sources, rising to 28% of final expenditure after public-private transfers
(Table C4.2).
Figure C4.2. Share of expenditure on upper secondary institutions coming from households and
other private entities, by programme orientation (2022)
In per cent, expenditure on educational institutions, initial funds (before public-private transfers)
Total (general and vocational) General Vocational
35
30
25
20
15
10
1. Year of reference differs from 2022.
For data, see Table C4.2. For a link to download the data, see Tables and Notes section.
Expenditure as a share of GDP per capita
Expenditure per student as a share of GDP per capita shows investment relative to a country’s resources. Table C4.3
(available on line) shows data for different programme orientations and by type of institution. Expenditure per upper
secondary student is at least 30% of GDP per capita in France, Germany, Korea and Portugal. On average, OECD
countries spend the equivalent of 22% of GDP per capita on a student in general upper secondary education and 25%
of GDP per capita on a student in vocational upper secondary education.
In general upper secondary education, private institutions receive more funding per student than public ones on
average across OECD countries (24% of GDP per capita, compared with 21%). The difference is relatively large in
some countries including Denmark (46% versus 11%) and Türkiye (25% versus 6%). In contrast, in the Netherlands,
where private institutions are nearly all government-dependent and funded in the same way as public institutions, there
is no difference in expenditure per student between public and private institutions. For vocational upper secondary
programmes, OECD countries have similar expenditure per student as a share of GDP per capita across types of
institution, but slightly higher in public institutions (27% of GDP per capita on average compared with 25%). In some
countries, however, there is a large difference between public and private institutions (general and vocational
programmes combined). For instance, in Türkiye expenditure on public institutions amounts to 9% of GDP per capita
per student compared to 23% for private institutions, while in Israel the figures are 14% of GDP per capita for public
institutions and 71% for private ones (Table C4.3, available on line).
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
318
Government expenditure as a share of GDP
Figure C4.3 compares countries based on government expenditure on vocational and general education institutions
as a percentage of GDP. This measure shows countries’ public investment in different types of upper secondary
education relative to the size of their economy. The focus on government expenditure (instead of total expenditure,
which includes funding from private sources) emphasises public investment and avoids the comparability issues that
may arise from the fact that some countries cannot or can only partially report companies’ expenditure on vocational
programmes.
On average across OECD countries, governments spend a similar share of GDP on general upper secondary
programmes as on vocational ones, around 0.4% each (Figure C4.3). Eight countries – led by Belgium, Finland and
Norway – allocate more than 0.5% of GDP to their upper secondary vocational programmes. These countries have a
relatively large upper secondary vocational sector that is predominantly publicly funded. Countries with smaller
vocational systems at this level tend to have higher public expenditure on general upper secondary programmes
relative to GDP. For instance, the United States does not have a separate vocational track at upper secondary level
and dedicates the equivalent of 0.85% of GDP to general programmes.
These results are driven by a combination of expenditure per student in each type of programme (Figure C4.1) and
total enrolment in each programme. For example, within France and the United Kingdom expenditure per student is
similar in general and vocational upper secondary education. In both countries, government expenditure as a
percentage of GDP is higher for general programmes than for vocational ones (Table C4.4, available on line), as
enrolment in general education is higher than in vocational programmes.
Figure C4.3. Government expenditure in general and vocational upper secondary education as a
percentage of GDP (2022)
In per cent, expenditure on educational institutions
Vocational General
1.6
1.4
1.2
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
1. Upper secondary (vocational) includes lower secondary vocational programmes.
For data, see Table C4.4, available online. For a link to download the data, see Tables and Notes section.
Post-secondary non-tertiary education (not included in Figure C4.3) plays different roles across OECD countries, and
is given varying weights within national education systems. These programmes are predominantly vocational. They
tend to be relatively important, as indicated by expenditure as a share of GDP, in countries where vocational training
largely takes place after the completion of initial schooling. For example, in New Zealand, government expenditure on
post-secondary non-tertiary programmes is equivalent to 0.19% of GDP, exceeding the amount dedicated to upper
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
319
secondary vocational programmes (0.17% of GDP), which also largely serve adult learners. Australia’s government
expenditure accounts for the equivalent of 0.07% of its GDP to post-secondary non-tertiary programmes, compared
to 0.15% of its GDP for vocational upper secondary programmes. Ireland has limited vocational training in upper
secondary education, and government expenditure on post-secondary non-tertiary programmes amounts to the
equivalent of 0.07% of GDP (Table C4.4, available on line).
The role of different levels of government
Countries vary widely in the roles played by different levels of government in funding upper secondary education,
ranging from fully centralised funding arrangements to systems where regional or local governments are the only
sources of public funding for schools. In addition, countries may also transfer funding between levels of government
for spending on schools, with some making extensive use of transfers – typically from central to regional or local levels.
Table C4.5 (available on line) shows how expenditure on upper secondary education is shared between different levels
of government, both before inter-governmental transfers (initial funds) and after (final funds). On average, about two-
thirds of government expenditure initially comes from central governments, but they spend only 55% of it directly:
transfers to regional and local governments account for the remainder. This reflects a broader pattern across OECD
countries: government spending (captured here by expenditure after inter-governmental transfers) tends to be more
decentralised than revenue and this holds across different sectors, not just education (OECD, 2021[2]).
In Costa Rica, Greece, Iceland, Luxembourg and New Zealand, the funding of upper secondary education is fully
centralised, with central government acting as the sole source of public funding. Funding is also highly centralised in
Denmark, Hungary, the Slovak Republic and Türkiye, with over 95% of public expenditure spent directly by central
governments. At the other end of the spectrum, the data show the key role played by autonomous communities in
Spain, where over 80% of government expenditure comes from and is managed by regional level governments. In
Switzerland cantons play a major role in financing upper secondary education, with 94% of funds spent by regional
governments (Table C4.5, available on line). While not measured here, there is also considerable variation across
countries in the kind of roles and decision-making powers regional and local authorities have. For example, subnational
authorities may have different responsibilities depending on the type of expenditure (e.g. capital versus current) or the
level of education considered (OECD, 2017[3]).
In some countries central governments play a more important role in funding vocational upper secondary programmes
than in general programmes. For example, in Latvia and Lithuania, central governments are responsible for less than
15% of the expenditure on general upper secondary programmes, but it accounts for over 95% of expenditure of
vocational programmes (after inter-governmental transfers). Similarly, in Estonia, the central government’s share of
expenditure after transfers is much lower for general programmes (23%) than for vocational programmes (87%). In
Germany, regional governments (Bundesländer) are the main funders of general upper secondary programmes, with
the central government responsible only for 2% expenditure before inter-governmental transfers and 1% of expenditure
after. However, in the case of vocational programmes around 30% of government expenditure occurs at the central
government level. In some countries, this reflects the fact that central government involvement is aimed at ensuring
the portability of vocational skills within the country. In Germany, for example, primary and lower secondary education
falls under the responsibility of federal states, while the central government is responsible for the vocational component
of upper secondary programmes. Similarly, in Switzerland cantons are the sole funders of general upper secondary
programmes, while the central government accounts for 21% of expenditure (before transfers) on vocational upper
secondary education (Table C4.5, available on line).
In Australia, Austria and the Slovak Republic the opposite pattern can be observed in upper secondary programmes,
although with less marked differences between the two programme orientations. For example, in Australia, after
intergovernmental transfers, the central government is responsible for 29% of expenditure on general programmes,
but only 14% of that on vocational programmes. In Austria, while central government is the main funder for both
orientations, it accounts 86% of expenditure on general programmes but only 65% of expenditure on vocational ones,
where regional governments play a more important role. In the Slovak Republic most expenditure at upper secondary
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
320
level occurs at local level, but particularly so in funding vocational programmes, where 77% of expenditure comes from
local government, against 59% for general programmes (Table C4.5, available on line)
Definitions
For the definitions of direct government expenditure on educational institutions and direct private expenditure on
educational institutions, refer to Chapter C1.
For the definition of public and private educational institutions, refer to Chapter C2.
Methodology
For an overview of the methodology, see Chapter C1. For more detailed information, please refer to the OECD
Handbook for Internationally Comparative Education Statistics (OECD, 2018[4]). For country-specific notes, see
Education at a Glance 2025 Sources, Methodologies and Technical Notes.
Source
For the data sources used in this Chapter, refer to Chapter C1. For additional details, see Education at a Glance 2025
Sources, Methodologies and Technical Notes).
References
OECD (2023), Education at a Glance 2023: OECD Indicators, OECD Publishing, Paris, [1]
https://doi.org/10.1787/e13bef63-en.
OECD (2021), Fiscal Federalism 2022: Making Decentralisation Work, OECD Publishing, Paris, [2]
https://doi.org/10.1787/201c75b6-en.
OECD (2018), OECD Handbook for Internationally Comparative Education Statistics 2018: Concepts, [4]
Standards, Definitions and Classifications, OECD Publishing, Paris,
https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264304444-en.
OECD (2017), The Funding of School Education: Connecting Resources and Learning, OECD Reviews of [3]
School Resources, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264276147-en.
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
321
Tables and Notes
Chapter C4 Tables
Table C4.1 Expenditure on upper secondary and post-secondary non-tertiary educational institutions per student (2022)
Table C4.2 Distribution of expenditure on upper secondary educational institutions, by source of funds, before and after transfers
(2022)
WEB Table C4.3 Expenditure on upper secondary and post-secondary non-tertiary educational institutions per student as a percentage of
GDP per capita (2022)
WEB Table C4.4 Expenditure on upper secondary and post-secondary non-tertiary educational institutions as a percentage of GDP (2022)
WEB Table C4.5 Distribution of central, regional and local government funds devoted to upper secondary education, before and after
transfers between levels of government (2022)
StatLink 2 https://stat.link/a245sh
Data Download
To download the data for the figures and tables in this chapter, click StatLink above.
To access further data and/or other education indicators, please visit the OECD Data Explorer: https://data-
explorer.oecd.org/.
Data cut-off for the print publication 13 June 2025. Please note that the Data Explorer contains the most recent
data.
Notes for Tables
Table C4.1. Expenditure on upper secondary and post-secondary non-tertiary educational institutions per
student (2022)
Note: Columns showing data on post-secondary non-tertiary education as well as upper secondary general and
vocational programmes by type of institution are available for consultation on line.
1. Upper secondary includes post-secondary non-tertiary education.
2. Government expenditure on educational institutions includes transfers and payments to the non-educational
private sector.
3. Total expenditure on educational institutions includes payments of households outside educational
institutions.
4. Upper secondary (vocational) includes lower secondary vocational programmes.
5. Upper secondary includes lower secondary education.
6. Private institutions mainly concern government-dependent private institutions that receive their financing
mainly from the government.
7. Vocational upper secondary includes vocational post-secondary non-tertiary education.
8. Year of reference 2021.
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
322
Table C4.2. Distribution of expenditure on upper secondary educational institutions, by source of funds,
before and after transfers (2022)
Note: Columns showing data on all upper secondary (general and vocational) are available for consultation on line.
1. Upper secondary includes post-secondary non-tertiary education.
2. Total expenditure on educational institutions includes payments of households outside educational
institutions.
3. Upper secondary (vocational) includes lower secondary vocational programmes.
4. Upper secondary includes lower secondary education.
5. Vocational upper secondary includes vocational post-secondary non-tertiary education.
6. Year of reference 2021.
Control codes
a – category not applicable; b – break in series; d – contains data from another column; m – missing data; x – contained
in another column (indicated in brackets). For further control codes, see the Reader’s Guide.
For further methodological information, see Education at a Glance 2025: Sources, Methodologies and Technical Notes
(https://doi.org/10.1787/fcfaf2d1-en)
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
323
Table C4.1. Expenditure on upper secondary and post-secondary non-tertiary educational
institutions per student (2022)
In equivalent USD converted using PPPs for GDP, direct expenditure within educational institutions, by programme
orientation and type of institution
Total (government, private and non-domestic expenditure) Government expenditure
Upper Upper Upper Upper
Upper secondary total secondary secondary Upper secondary total secondary secondary
(general and vocational) general vocational (general and vocational) general vocational
Public and Public Public Public and Public Public
private Public Private and private and private private Public Private and private and private
institutions institutions institutions institutions institutions institutions institutions institutions institutions institutions
OECD countries (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10)
Australia 17 523 20 969 13 958 18 743 14 655 14 121 19 549 8 504 14 737 12 674
Austria 20 474 21 272 15 976 17 566 22 463 19 408 20 855 11 259 16 375 21 483
Belgium1 18 588 d 22 201 d 16 446 d 17 171 d 19 765 d 17 613 d 21 417 d 15 357 d 16 131 d 18 844 d
Canada2 18 383 19 025 12 027 x(1) x(1) 16 754 d 18 125 d 3 187 x(6) x(6)
Chile3 6 361 d 7 142 d 5 926 d 5 905 d 8 690 d 5 108 7 142 3 977 4 467 8 387
Colombia m m m m m m m m m m
Costa Rica m m m m m 5 184 5 316 517 5 194 5 163
Czechia 13 300 14 283 8 476 13 269 13 311 11 268 13 302 1 297 11 645 11 130
Denmark 12 340 11 874 33 502 8 992 17 252 12 091 11 781 26 148 8 674 17 104
Estonia 7 520 7 324 12 391 6 408 9 117 7 104 7 067 8 030 5 928 8 793
Finland1 11 443 d 11 334 d 11 788 d 11 501 11 418 d 11 346 d 11 269 d 11 590 d 11 455 11 300 d
France 18 127 x(1) x(1) 16 827 20 556 15 174 x(6) x(6) 15 436 14 683
Germany4 21 543 d 18 124 d 29 151 d 17 872 25 259 d 16 586 d 17 766 d 13 959 d 17 464 15 697 d
Greece 7 805 7 334 16 517 6 908 9 703 6 290 6 623 104 5 549 7 857
Hungary 8 292 7 406 10 640 7 828 8 717 7 219 7 144 7 416 6 393 7 974
Iceland 15 059 15 303 14 193 13 070 20 259 13 648 13 869 d 12 864 11 846 18 361
Ireland 13 711 13 780 6 774 x(1) x(1) 12 798 12 926 a x(6) x(6)
Israel 5 11 815 d 7 313 d 37 811 d x(1) x(1) 9 936 d 7 223 d 25 598 d x(6) x(6)
Italy1 13 045 d 13 959 d 4 863 d x(1) x(1) 12 482 d 13 664 d 1 907 d x(6) x(6)
Japan1 13 914 d x(1) x(1) x(1) x(1) 11 542 d x(6) x(6) x(6) x(6)
Korea 29 935 36 024 21 260 x(1) x(1) 28 158 34 742 18 778 x(6) x(6)
Latvia 9 800 9 666 11 388 9 266 10 520 8 764 9 156 4 100 8 247 9 460
Lithuania 10 421 10 243 15 761 9 618 12 558 9 689 9 760 7 568 9 080 11 310
Luxembourg 30 592 32 520 22 289 30 141 30 902 29 004 32 520 13 866 26 393 30 806
Mexico 4 210 4 071 5 020 4 109 4 393 3 095 3 625 0 3 017 3 239
Netherlands6 19 185 16 900 19 403 17 058 20 253 13 574 16 203 13 324 15 694 12 510
New Zealand 13 250 13 274 13 048 14 300 10 077 11 063 11 800 4 936 11 899 8 537
Norway 21 921 20 136 39 463 20 065 23 585 19 952 20 136 18 135 19 865 20 029
Poland 8 929 8 668 11 002 8 296 9 426 7 546 7 746 5 952 6 936 8 024
Portugal1 13 523 d 14 775 d 9 639 d x(1) x(1) 11 342 d 14 435 d 1 751 d x(6) x(6)
Slovak Republic 10 967 11 266 9 572 9 419 11 718 10 116 10 434 8 637 8 619 10 843
Slovenia 11 798 11 746 12 959 12 073 11 666 10 066 10 272 5 482 10 594 9 811
Spain7 13 980 d 15 837 d 9 262 d 12 380 17 279 d 12 514 d 15 400 d 5 181 d 10 704 16 248 d
Sweden 15 223 15 242 15 169 13 321 18 266 15 162 15 217 14 999 13 232 18 249
Switzerland1 23 667 d x(1) x(1) x(1) x(1) 16 283 d 16 173 d 16 907 d x(6) x(6)
Türkiye 4 140 3 672 8 966 3 128 6 168 3 296 3 559 579 2 086 5 722
United Kingdom 16 757 14 241 17 471 17 638 14 468 13 051 13 657 12 879 13 083 12 968
United States8 16 683 16 823 15 319 16 683 a 15 347 16 715 2 013 15 347 a
OECD average 14 562 14 356 15 377 12 841 14 905 12 532 13 617 9 024 11 506 12 826
Partner and/or accession countries
Argentina m m m m m 5 093 6 159 2 321 m m
Brazil m m m m m 4 095 5 052 a m m
Bulgaria 7 575 7 302 19 486 7 549 7 597 7 184 7 279 2 986 7 111 7 246
China 5 670 5 941 4 303 m m 4 610 5 447 389 m m
Croatia 8 286 8 207 10 082 m m 7 657 7 808 4 208 m m
India m m m m m m m m m m
Indonesia m m m m m m m m m m
Peru 2 619 m m 2 619 a 2 346 m m 2 346 a
Romania 7 804 7 828 6 776 8 632 7 190 7 591 7 615 6 549 8 373 7 012
Saudi Arabia8 m m m m m 9 997 11 652 34 m m
South Africa 3 844 4 045 m m m 3 417 3 595 m m m
EU25 average 13 371 13 296 14 138 12 481 14 997 11 983 12 819 8 333 11 430 13 161
G20 average 14 136 m m m m 11 051 12 379 5 379 m m
Note: For notes on this table and a link to download the data, see Tables and Notes section above.
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
324
Table C4.2. Distribution of expenditure on upper secondary educational institutions, by source of
funds, before and after transfers (2022)
In per cent, direct expenditure within educational institutions, by programme orientation
Upper secondary general Upper secondary vocational
Initial expenditure (before transfers) Final expenditure (after transfers) Initial expenditure (before transfers) Final expenditure (after transfers)
Non- Non- Non- Non-
Government Private domestic Government Private domestic Government Private domestic Government Private domestic
OECD countries (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12)
Australia 79.5 20.5 0.0 78.6 21.4 0.0 93.8 6.2 0.0 86.5 13.5 0.0
Austria 93.2 6.8 a 93.2 6.8 a 95.6 4.4 a 95.6 4.4 a
Belgium1 93.8 d 4.7 d 1.5 d 93.9 d 4.8 d 1.3 d 94.9 d 4.5 d 0.6 d 95.3 d 4.7 d 0.0
Canada m m m x(16) x(17) x(17) m m m x(16) x(17) x(17)
Chile2 75.6 d 24.4 d a 75.6 d 24.4 d a 96.5 d 3.5 d a 96.5 d 3.5 d a
Colombia m m m m m m m m m m m m
Costa Rica m m m m m m m m m m m m
Czechia 87.8 12.2 0.0 87.8 12.2 0.0 83.6 16.4 0.0 83.6 16.4 0.0
Denmark 96.5 3.5 0.0 96.5 3.5 0.0 99.1 0.9 0.0 99.1 0.9 0.0
Estonia 86.4 7.3 6.3 92.5 7.3 0.2 95.1 2.9 1.9 96.4 2.9 0.6
Finland1 100.1 -0.2 0.1 99.6 0.3 0.1 99.6 d 0.3 d 0.1 d 99.0 d 0.9 d 0.1 d
France 94.5 5.4 0.1 91.7 8.2 0.1 73.4 26.5 0.2 71.4 28.5 0.1
Germany 3 m m m 97.7 2.3 0.0 m m m 62.1 d 37.9 d 0.0
Greece 79.7 10.9 9.4 80.3 10.9 8.8 79.1 10.5 10.3 81.0 10.6 8.5
Hungary m m m 81.7 18.3 0.0 m m m 91.5 8.5 0.0
Iceland m m m 90.6 9.4 0.0 m m m 90.6 9.4 0.0
Ireland m m m x(16) x(17) x(18) m m m x(16) x(17) x(18)
Israel 4 m m m x(16) x(17) x(18) m m m x(16) x(17) x(18)
Italy1 m m m x(16) x(17) x(18) m m m x(16) x(17) x(18)
Japan1 m m m x(16) x(17) x(18) m m m x(16) x(17) x(18)
Korea x(13) x(14) x(14) x(16) x(17) x(17) x(13) x(14) x(14) x(16) x(17) x(17)
Latvia m m m 89.0 10.6 0.4 m m m 89.9 7.4 2.6
Lithuania 92.1 5.1 2.7 94.4 5.4 0.2 76.3 9.3 14.4 90.1 9.3 0.6
Luxembourg 87.6 5.1 7.3 87.6 5.1 7.3 99.7 0.3 0.0 99.7 0.3 0.0
Mexico 78.2 21.8 0.0 73.4 26.6 0.0 79.1 20.9 0.0 73.7 26.3 0.0
Netherlands m m m 92.0 7.7 0.3 m m m 61.8 38.2 a
New Zealand 83.7 16.3 0.0 83.2 16.8 0.0 87.4 12.6 0.0 84.7 15.3 0.0
Norway 100.0 0.0 0.0 99.0 1.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 84.9 15.1 0.0
Poland 82.1 14.5 3.5 83.6 14.7 1.7 82.1 11.5 6.4 85.1 11.7 3.2
Portugal1 m m m x(16) x(17) x(18) m m m x(16) x(17) x(18)
Slovak Republic 90.4 4.3 5.3 91.5 7.8 0.7 88.8 2.9 8.3 92.5 6.0 1.5
Slovenia 86.1 11.4 2.5 87.8 11.4 0.8 81.7 13.5 4.8 84.1 14.4 1.5
Spain5 83.0 13.5 3.5 86.5 13.5 0.0 90.9 d 6.0 d 3.1 d 94.0 d 6.0 d 0.0
Sweden 99.3 0.7 0.0 99.3 0.7 0.0 99.9 0.1 a 99.9 0.1 a
Switzerland1 m m m x(16) x(17) x(18) m m m x(16) x(17) x(18)
Türkiye 66.6 32.8 0.6 66.7 32.8 0.6 92.7 5.8 1.5 92.8 5.8 1.4
United Kingdom 75.4 24.6 0.0 74.2 25.8 0.0 95.3 4.3 0.4 89.6 9.9 0.4
United States6 92.0 8.0 a 92.0 8.0 a m m a m m a
OECD average 87.1 11.0 1.9 87.9 11.3 0.8 m m 2.3 87.8 11.4 0.7
Partner and/or accession countries
Argentina m m m m m m m m m m m m
Brazil m m m m m m m m m m m m
Bulgaria 93.2 5.8 1.0 94.2 5.8 0.0 94.3 4.6 1.1 95.4 4.6 0.0
China m m m m m m m m m m m m
Croatia m m m m m m m m m m m m
India m m m m m m m m m m m m
Indonesia m m m m m m m m m m m m
Peru m m m 89.6 10.4 0.0 m m a m m a
Romania 97.0 0.7 2.3 97.0 0.7 2.3 97.5 0.5 1.9 97.5 0.5 1.9
Saudi Arabia6 m m m m m m m m m m m m
South Africa m m m m m m m m m m m m
EU25 average 90.7 6.6 2.7 91.3 7.5 1.2 90.1 6.8 3.1 88.8 10.2 1.0
G20 average m m m m m m m m m m m m
Note: For notes on this table and a link to download the data, see Tables and Notes section above.
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
325
Chapter C5. How is tertiary education
financed?
Highlights
• Tertiary education has expanded significantly, with nearly half of 25-34 year-olds now holding a degree
compared to less than one-third of 55-64 year-olds. This growth places pressure on public budgets already
strained by other priorities, making private funding sources important. They represent a larger share of
total funding at the tertiary level than at any other level of education.
• Expenditure per student differs widely across OECD and partner countries and between types of
institutions. Luxembourg and Norway spend over USD 33 000 per student in public institutions, while
Greece and Israel spend less than USD 10 000.
• Countries and economies adopt different approaches to cost-sharing, reflecting both fiscal constraints and
policy choices. Some systems, like Norway, maintain high levels of public financing, while others, like
England (United Kingdom), rely more heavily on private funding, often coupled with student support
mechanisms such as grants and loans.
Figure C5.1. Total expenditure per full-time equivalent student in bachelor’s, master’s and
doctoral or equivalent, by type of institution (2022)
In equivalent USD converted using PPPs, expenditure on educational institutions
Public Government-dependent private Independent private
117,044
70000
60000
50000
40000
30000
20000
10000
Note: The percentage in parentheses represents the share of students enrolled in independent private institutions.
1. In Denmark, there are only three government-dependent private institutions and the substantial expenditure per student is primarily
influenced by research grants, which tend to fluctuate significantly over time.
For data, see Table C5.7, available on line. For a link to download the data, see Tables and Notes section.
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
326
Context
The rapid expansion of tertiary education across OECD countries has heightened the pressure on public budgets,
particularly given ageing populations and growing demands for health care and defence spending. Ensuring the
financial sustainability of tertiary education increasingly requires mobilising private contributions, including tuition
fees, alongside public investment. However, the share of private expenditure in tertiary education is shaped not
just by financial constraints, but also by broader societal and policy choices. Countries differ significantly in their
views on the role of government in funding education – reflected, for example, in their tuition fee policies and the
extent to which they promote cost-sharing between the state and individuals. As a result, funding structures have
become more diverse, with differences across levels of study, types of institutions and student profiles. In this
context, policy makers face complex trade-offs: they must secure adequate resources for each student to maintain
quality, ensure equitable access through well-designed student support systems, and balance the respective
contributions of households, governments and other entities, such as businesses and philanthropic organisations.
Moreover, with research and development (R&D) representing a significant function of tertiary institutions,
understanding how R&D activities are financed is central to assessing the overall investment in the sector. This
chapter reviews national practices in tuition fee policies, the design of grant and loan systems, and the broader
financing landscape, including public and private expenditure per student, the role of non-household actors, and
R&D funding models, to inform policy choices that support access and affordability of tertiary education systems.
Other findings
• OECD countries and economies follow four main models of tuition and financial support in tertiary
education, ranging from no or low tuition fees with generous aid to high tuition fees with limited support.
Between these extremes, some pair high fees with robust financial aid, while others charge moderate fees
and offer targeted support to a smaller share of students.
• Tuition fees for master’s programmes often reflect the higher expected earnings of master’s graduates
compared to bachelor’s graduates. In 13 out of 24 OECD countries and economies with available data,
average tuition fees charged by public institutions are higher for master’s degrees than for bachelor’s
degrees.
• Independent private institutions generally charge higher tuition fees than public institutions, particularly at
master’s level. This is partly because, by definition, they receive a smaller share of their funding from the
government and are therefore more reliant on tuition fees to cover their costs. The only exceptions among
OECD countries are Lithuania and Poland.
• Foreign students typically pay higher tuition fees than national students in about two-thirds of OECD
countries and economies. However, higher fees do not necessarily deter international enrolment. In
Australia, Canada and New Zealand, the share of international students in master’s programmes is among
the highest across the OECD, with international students representing at least 19% of enrolments – despite
facing some of the highest tuition fees in the OECD.
Analysis
Expenditure by type of institution
Today almost half of 25-34 year-olds hold a tertiary qualification, compared to less than one-third of 55-64 year-olds,
signalling a significant expansion of tertiary education. Securing sufficient resources to support this growth is a
challenge for countries. With growing defence expenditure and rising healthcare costs associated with ageing
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
327
populations, public budgets are increasingly strained and the expansion of tertiary education increasingly depends on
private funding sources.
As countries expand access to tertiary education and some diversify how it is provided, it is increasingly important to
assess the provision of tertiary education taking place outside public institutions and examine spending across all
types of institutions: public, government-dependent private and independent private. These categories vary not only
in their governance and sources of funding but also in their cost structures and resources available to students. Public
institutions are primarily funded by governments, while government-dependent private institutions receive significant
public funding but are privately governed. Independent private institutions, in contrast, rely largely on tuition fees and
private funding sources.
In some systems, independent private institutions play a dominant role, educating most tertiary students: Chile (where
62% of tertiary students are enrolled in independent private institutions) and Korea (76%) are notable examples with
longstanding traditions of private provision. These institutions help to absorb the growing demand for tertiary education.
In contrast, many European countries rely almost exclusively on public or government-dependent private institutions,
with independent private institutions serving only a marginal share of students. This is the case for example in Belgium,
New Zealand and Slovenia with less than 5% of students enrolled in such institutions (Figure C5.1).
Data show that total expenditure per student can also vary markedly across institution types within countries. In Chile,
for example, public institutions spend significantly more per student (USD 17 890) than independent private ones
(USD 8 407), despite a majority of students being enrolled in independent private institutions. In Belgium, fewer than
one per cent of students are enrolled in independent private institutions, but spending per student is very high (USD
65 739) and corresponds almost exclusively to expenditure on students enrolled in the College of Europe, which
receives important funding from the European Union. Some systems, like the Netherlands, show more balanced
spending per student, suggesting more similar funding structures across types of institutions (Figure C5.1).
Tertiary education systems also show significant variation in total expenditure per student across countries. In
Luxembourg, total spending per student in public institutions reaches nearly USD 68 000, by far the highest among all
OECD and partner countries with data. Nordic countries such as Denmark, Norway and Sweden also invest heavily,
with public institutions spending over USD 31 000 per student. In contrast, Greece and Israel report spending below
USD 10 000 per student in public institutions (Figure C5.1). These patterns highlight the importance of monitoring not
just public funding levels but also total resource availability across different types of institutions. Policy makers should
ensure that funding aligns with quality and equity goals, and that disparities across institutional types do not translate
into unequal learning opportunities for students.
Expenditure on research and development in tertiary education
Investment in research and development (R&D) at the tertiary level is a key driver of long-term economic growth and
competitiveness. Higher education institutions play a central role in producing the knowledge and innovation that fuel
productivity gains, industrial transformation and technological advancement. Moreover, R&D activities in tertiary
institutions often lead to spillover effects across the economy, as findings and technologies spread to other sectors
through partnerships and skilled graduates.
Data show that R&D expenditure accounts for a large share of investment in tertiary education, underscoring the
financial weight and economic importance of research within higher education systems. For example, in Denmark,
expenditure on tertiary education as a share of GDP rises from 0.86% of GDP to 1.87% and from 0.73% to 1.50% in
Sweden, meaning that about half of the total expenditure at this level goes to R&D activities (Table C5.1).
Between 2015 and 2022, expenditure on R&D within tertiary education institutions as a share of GDP remained
relatively stable across OECD and partner countries. The OECD average rose slightly from 0.42% to 0.43% of GDP.
While some countries such as Austria (from 0.44% to 0.69% of GDP), Belgium (from 0.48% to 0.56%) and Greece
(from 0.36% to 0.44%) recorded notable increases, others recorded more modest rises. In contrast, several countries
saw R&D expenditure stagnate or decline, including the Slovak Republic, where it fell from 0.59% of GDP to 0.29%.
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
328
Others, such as Romania and Bulgaria, maintained very low levels throughout the period (Table C5.8, available on
line).
It is important to note that the figures on R&D spending refer to expenditure occurring within tertiary education
institutions and exclude R&D taking place outside of tertiary education institutions. In countries with extended
dedicated research institutes, these data do not capture a considerable share of their R&D.
Box C5.2 uses data from government budget allocations for R&D to present comparative data on government-financed
R&D into the field of education, offering a complementary perspective on public investment in R&D covering
expenditure within and outside higher education institutions
Box C5.1. Government expenditure on research and development into education
Research and development (R&D) into the education field of study underpins continuous efforts to improve
education systems, teaching and learning. Such research helps identify which teaching methods work best and
how students learn most effectively. Data from the government budget allocations for R&D (GBARD) show that
3.7% of public R&D budgets across OECD countries is allocated to research in this field, making it the third least-
funded area out of the 12 areas covered (OECD, 2025[1]). Despite growing demands for innovation in education
systems, a consistently low share of R&D has been dedicated to the field of education since 2020 (Vincent-Lancrin,
2023[2]), highlighting a persistent underinvestment in educational research.
While direct comparisons should be made with caution due to the differing nature of data across countries, most
OECD and partner countries (22) allocate less than 3% of their public R&D budget to education, 7 allocated
between 3% and 6%, and 7 over 6%. The two fields receiving the largest shares of public R&D budgets are
industrial production and technology (26.1%) and health (15.7%) (Figure C5.2).
Figure C5.2. Share of government R&D budget allocated to education (2023)
In per cent
Education Industrial production and technology Health Defence Agriculture Other
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Note: The category "other" includes: “energy”, “exploration and exploitation of space”, “environment”, “transport, telecommunication and
other infrastructures”, “political and social systems, structures and processes”, “exploration and exploitation of the Earth”, and “culture,
recreation, religion and mass media”. Expenditure on general advancement of knowledge has been excluded from the analysis.
1. Data refer to 2024.
2. Data refer to 2025.
Source: OECD (2025), Government budget allocation for R&D (GBARD). For a link to download the data, see Tables and Notes section.
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
329
GBARD is the most widely available indicator of public funding for educational R&D in OECD countries, capturing
the share of national budgets explicitly allocated to research across specific socio-economic objectives (or fields of
research), including education. However, a large share of research activities is classified under the broader
category of general advancement of knowledge and various research areas (e.g. educational sciences, psychology
and sociology) fall under this broader category (OECD, 2015[3]). To focus more precisely on funding allocated to
specific fields, the data in Figure C5.2 exclude the category of general advancement of knowledge.
Government expenditure on tertiary education
While primary and secondary education are mainly publicly funded, the lower share of public sources in the funding of
tertiary education is not solely driven by constrained public budgets. There are also theoretical reasons for partly
financing tertiary education through private sources. Tertiary education brings broad societal benefits but also
economic returns to individuals in the form of better employment rates and higher earnings. This underpins the
rationale behind cost-sharing: the idea that students (and their families) should bear part of the cost of their tertiary
studies.
In practice, the extent of cost-sharing varies widely across countries, and recent trends show divergent paths. Despite
some national shifts over time, the overall share of expenditure covered by government sources has remained
relatively stable across OECD and partner countries with data. In traditionally publicly funded systems such as Norway,
government sources still account for a large share of tertiary education funding, although the share has declined slightly
from 99% in 2015 to 94% in 2022. In other countries, such as Bulgaria and Romania, the public share has increased
by more than 10 percentage points. Other countries remain heavily reliant on private funding sources. In Chile, only
47% of tertiary education expenditure comes from government sources, and in the United Kingdom, it is just 43%, the
lowest across OECD and partner countries with data (Figure C5.3).
These differences reflect not just fiscal capacity but also distinct policy choices about who should bear the costs of
education. However, high private costs do not necessarily mean reduced access or equity: countries with well-
developed student support systems, including income-contingent loans or generous grants, can still maintain high
levels of participation and mitigate financial barriers. Ultimately, the effectiveness of cost-sharing models depends not
just on the balance of public and private funding, but also on how student support is designed and targeted to promote
fairness and affordability.
Figure C5.3. Trends in the share of expenditure coming from government sources in bachelor’s,
master’s and doctoral or equivalent programmes (2015 and 2022)
In per cent, expenditure on educational institutions, initial expenditure
2022 2015
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
For data, see Table C5.2. For a link to download the data, see Tables and Notes section.
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
330
Other sources of funding in tertiary education
A comprehensive understanding of tertiary education funding requires examining not only the level and evolution of
public spending, but also the scale and role of private contributions. This helps clarify how the costs of education are
shared among key actors. Unlike primary and secondary education, where public sources account for 90% of total
expenditure on average, almost one-third of total funding for tertiary institutions came from the private sector across
OECD countries in 2022 (Table C5.6, available on line). The large share of private spending at the tertiary level reflects
the widespread use of cost-sharing arrangements, in which public authorities, households and, in some cases, other
private entities such as businesses or foundations, jointly finance the system. Notably, about two-thirds of this private
funding comes from households, with the remainder coming from other private entities including private businesses
and non-profit organisations (Box C5.2).
The scale of non-household private expenditure on tertiary institutions varies substantially across OECD and partner
countries, from 0% of total expenditure in Mexico and Romania to 23% in Canada, Israel and the United States (Table
C5.6, available on line). These differences reflect differences across systems: whether institutions operate revenue-
generating services or have substantial investments or endowments that generate income, or whether there is an
established tradition of private research funding or philanthropy in the country. For example, in some OECD countries,
such as the United Kingdom and the United States, private foundations play a significant role in funding research
activities, whereas in others, such as the Nordic countries, this pattern of funding is less developed, as companies
cover nearly all the private funding.
Box C5.2. Private expenditure on tertiary education institutions
The joint data collection by UNESCO, the OECD and Eurostat (UOE), which is the basis for the data provided in
this chapter, uses specific concepts and categories to refer to the financing of tertiary education institutions, which
do not necessarily correspond to the concepts and categories used in national data and reporting systems (OECD,
2018[4]). The UOE data categorise expenditure on tertiary education institutions into spending by public bodies
(government), households, other private entities and organisations based abroad (non-domestic). The government
category encompasses all forms of public subsidy to tertiary educational institutions, including core operating
grants, competitive research funding provided by public research funding agencies and other targeted, project-
based grants from public bodies. Household expenditure captures tuition and other fees paid by domestic and
international students and their families, while non-domestic (international) expenditure measures funding to
institutions from public agencies and private companies and organisations based in another country. This latter
category may include grants from European Union funds or international organisations, as well as funding by
foreign governments or companies and non-profit bodies based abroad.
The category of other private entities is used to capture sources of funding which cannot be categorised as public
bodies, households or organisations based abroad. The main sources of funds captured by this category are:
• research grants or contracts agreed with private entities, including businesses and non-profit
organisations
• other service contracts with private entities (to provide consulting or contracted training services,
for example)
• income from operating student residences, catering and other student services
• income from investments, endowments and donations.
National statistical bodies report data to the UOE data collection based on institutions’ national data collections,
which are themselves based on institutional income statements. The precise categories included in these income
statements vary by country, which, in turn, influences what is included in the category of expenditure by other
private entities for each OECD country.
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
331
Tuition fee policies in tertiary education
This section reviews national practices in tuition fee policies, with a particular focus on the interaction between tuition
fees and public support for students. It examines the financing models countries adopt, the design of grant and loan
systems, and the implications of different approaches for student debt, affordability and access to education.
Differentiation by level of study
In most OECD countries and economies, tuition fees vary considerably by level of study, with fees for master’s
programmes typically higher than those for bachelor’s programmes – by 29% on average – reflecting the increased
labour-market value of advanced degrees. For example, tuition fees for master’s degrees in public institutions are 40-
86% higher than for bachelor’s programmes in countries such as Australia, Canada, the French Community of Belgium,
France, Latvia and Spain. In Lithuania, fees at the master’s level are more than double those at the bachelor’s level.
In contrast, Austria, the Flemish Community of Belgium, Japan, Luxembourg, the Netherlands and Switzerland charge
similar fees for both levels, while Nordic countries (like Denmark, Finland, Norway and Sweden) and Türkiye do not
charge tuition fees at any level for national and EU/EEA students (Table C5.3).
Short-cycle tertiary programmes (ISCED 5) are also expanding in many countries as a more affordable and shorter
alternative to longer tertiary programmes. In public institutions, tuition fees for these programmes are generally lower
than those for bachelor’s degrees. In France and Spain, they are generally free of charge – unlike other levels of
tertiary education – while in the United States, fees average less than USD 3 600 per year, less than half the average
cost of bachelor’s programmes. In contrast, in Lithuania, Luxembourg and the Netherlands, tuition fees for short-cycle
and bachelor’s programmes are broadly equivalent. In Norway, short-cycle tertiary programmes are the only level of
tertiary education for which tuition fees are charged (Table C5.3).
Differentiation by type of institution
The growing demand for higher education is not only changing student pathways but also prompting structural shifts
in tertiary education systems. While the bachelor’s degree remains the most commonly obtained qualification, a rising
share of students are continuing their studies to the master’s level: in 2024, 17% of young adults held a master’s
degree as their highest qualification, up from 15% in 2019 (see Chapter A1). This upward trend reflects higher
aspirations, increased competition in the labour market and greater availability of advanced programmes.
The resulting expansion has major implications for the financing and development of higher education institutions,
which need to respond by increasing capacity and adapting their programmes and infrastructure to meet diverse and
growing needs. Private institutions have played a growing role in absorbing this demand. Between 2013 and 2023, the
share of students enrolled in master’s programmes in independent private institutions increased in most countries and
economies, and from 15% to 19% on average. This trend was particularly marked in Finland, France, Italy and Spain,
where enrolment in private institutions at the master’s level rose by more than 9 percentage points over this period
(Table C5.3).
Tuition fees in independent private institutions are often significantly higher than in public ones – over five times in
Spain and more than twice in countries including Israel, Italy and the United States, but less than double in countries
like Australia, Japan, Korea and Romania. In some countries, the large gap is largely driven by the relatively low tuition
fees in public institutions, rather than exceptionally high fees in private ones. For example, in Spain, the average
annual tuition for students enrolled in master's programmes in independent private institutions exceeds USD 13 900,
compared to around USD 2 400 in public institutions (Figure C5.4 and Table C5.3).
The growing role of private institutions raises concerns about quality assurance and regulatory oversight, particularly
where institutions rely heavily on revenue from tuition fees to sustain operations. As tertiary education systems
continue to diversify, the challenge for policy makers will be to strike a balance between expanding access, ensuring
quality and maintaining financial sustainability across both public and private sectors.
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
332
Figure C5.4. Annual average tuition fees charged to national students for master's or equivalent
programmes, by type of institution (2022/23)
In USD converted using PPPs
Public institutions Independent private institutions
30 000
25 000
20 000
15 000
10 000
5 000
Note: The percentage in parentheses refers to the share of master's students enrolled in independent private institutions.
1. Reference year differs from 2022/23.
2. Government-dependent private institutions instead of public institutions.
3. Data on independent private institutions are missing.
4. Government-dependent and independent private institutions are combined. Data includes foreign students in Germany.
5. Government-dependent private institutions instead of independent private institutions.
For data, see Table C5.3. For a link to download the data, see Tables and Notes section.
Differentiation between national and foreign students
In a growing number of countries, tuition fees vary not only by the type of institution or programme, but also by the
nationality or residency status of students. Globally, around 21% of students enrolled in master’s programmes in public
institutions across OECD countries are international or foreign students. They contribute positively to the global
visibility and prestige of tertiary institutions and also provide an opportunity to generate additional revenue, particularly
if they pay higher tuition fees than national students. About two-thirds of OECD countries (12 out 18 with available
data) charge higher tuition fees to foreign students than to domestic ones for master's or equivalent programmes,
making this an increasingly important source of institutional funding. However, it should be noted that not all foreign
students are subject to higher fees. In EU countries, for example, tuition fee policies distinguish between EU/EEA and
non-EU/EEA students: only the latter are generally required to pay different fees, while EU/EEA students are treated
on the same footing as domestic students (Figure C5.5 and Table C5.3).
In some countries, the gap in tuition fees between domestic and foreign students can be substantial. In Australia,
Canada, Denmark, Finland, Latvia, the Netherlands and New Zealand, foreign students pay over USD 10 000 more
per year for master’s programmes than domestic students in public institutions. Despite these higher fees, these
countries continue to attract large numbers of international students, drawn by the quality of education, English-
speaking environments and favourable post-graduation labour-market opportunities (Figure C5.5).
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
333
As countries seek to balance the goals of equitable access and financial sustainability, many have revised their tuition
policies. This includes traditionally tuition-free systems such as Denmark and Sweden, which have introduced fees for
non-EU/EEA students over the past decades. These changes reflect a broader trend among countries to impose higher
charges on international students as part of efforts to diversify funding sources for tertiary education and alleviate
pressure on public budgets.
Figure C5.5. Annual average tuition fees charged by public institutions to national and foreign
students for master's or equivalent programmes (2022/23)
In USD converted using PPPs
National students Foreign Students
25 000
20 000
15 000
10 000
5 000
Note: The percentage in parentheses refers to the share of mobile/foreign students enrolled in master’s or equivalent programmes in 2022 (see
Chapter B4). It is important to note that some foreign/mobile students are subject to the same tuition fees as national students. For instance, in
the EU countries depicted in this chart, only students from outside the EU/EEA are typically required to pay higher fees, while EU/EEA students
are generally treated the same as domestic students regarding tuition policies. For detailed information on foreign/mobile students by country of
origin, please refer to Chapter B4.
1. Reference year differs from 2022/23.
2. Government-dependent private institutions instead of public institutions.
3. The percentage in parentheses refers to the share of mobile students and less than 10% of mobile students from outside the EU/EEA end up
paying higher tuition fees than national students.
4. Tuition fees charged for foreign students are between USD 8 000 and USD 21 000.
For data, see Table C5.3. For a link to download the data, see Tables and Notes section.
Public financial support for tertiary students
Country approaches to supporting students
As tertiary education continues to expand, countries must find sustainable ways to fund growing enrolment while
ensuring equitable access and maintaining quality. This balancing act increasingly relies on a mix of tuition fees,
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
334
student support schemes and private contributions. In 2023, OECD countries and economies could be grouped into
four broad financing models for tertiary education (Figure C5.6 and Table C5.3 and Table C5.4):
• Low or no tuition fees combined with high levels of financial support are characteristic of systems in countries
such as Denmark, Finland, Luxembourg, Norway, Sweden and Türkiye, where annual tuition fees in public
institutions are below USD 500 and more than half of students receive public support through grants and/or
loans. These systems offer generous student benefits that reduce upfront costs and promote access, but
graduates often contribute more through higher income tax rates later in life. This reflects a broader policy
choice to finance tertiary education collectively through progressive taxation rather than through individual
student payment (OECD, 2024[5]).
• High tuition fees combined with well-developed financial aid systems, as seen in Australia, England (United
Kingdom), Latvia, Lithuania, New Zealand and the United States. In these countries, average tuition fees for
bachelor's programmes in public institutions typically exceed USD 4 000. However, more than 50% of
students receive robust financial aid, primarily in the form of student loans and, in some cases, need-based
grants. Loans in Australia, England (United Kingdom), New Zealand and the United States are income
contingent, meaning graduates only start repaying them once they reach a certain income threshold, whereas
in Latvia and Lithuania loans have fixed-term repayments (see next section). Student debt levels are high in
many of these countries, with average debt per borrower exceeding USD 20 000 in Australia, England (United
Kingdom) and the United States (Table C5.5, available on line).
• Moderate tuition fees combined with targeted student support are characteristic of systems in Austria, the
Flemish and French Communities of Belgium, Croatia, France, Germany, and Switzerland. In these countries
and economies, annual tuition fees for bachelor’s programmes in public institutions typically range from
USD 150 to USD 2 000. Financial aid is generally means tested and directed toward the most disadvantaged
students, based on family income or other social criteria, rather than being universally available. As a result,
less than 40% of students receive public financial support in all of these countries. These systems rely
predominantly on public funding to ensure broad access to higher education, while limiting the accumulation
of student debt.
• Relatively high tuition fees with limited public financial support, as observed in countries like Canada and
Poland. In these systems, less than 40% of students receive public grants or scholarships, while tuition fees
are substantial, averaging over USD 5 500 in both countries for a year in bachelor’s programmes in public
institutions. As a result, students and their families bear a significant share of the cost, which can create
financial barriers for low-income groups unless mitigated by institutional aid or private support mechanisms.
These four models of tuition fee and financial aid systems offer distinct advantages and trade-offs. Countries with low
or no tuition and generous public support promote broad access and low student debt, but often finance these benefits
through higher taxes later in life. High-fee systems with strong financial aid can maintain access for many, yet often
result in high levels of student debt and long repayment periods. Moderate-fee systems with targeted aid rely on
progressive taxation to limit overall costs, but risk under-supporting middle-income students. Finally, systems with high
fees and limited aid may incentivise institutional efficiency but can create financial barriers for disadvantaged groups.
Ultimately, no model is without its challenges – the effective design of policies depends on national priorities, fiscal
capacity and equity goals (OECD, 2024[5]).
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
335
Figure C5.6. Annual average tuition fees charged by public institutions to national students
enrolled in bachelor's programmes and share of national students benefiting from direct public
financial support (2022/23)
Average tuition fees charged to
national students in bachelor's
programmes, in USD converted
using PPPs
14 000
England (UK)¹ ² ⁴
12 000
10 000
United States¹
8 000
Poland
6 000
Canada¹ Lithuania
Australia¹
Latvia² New Zealand
4 000
Romania
Croatia Italy
2 000 Flemish Comm. (Belgium) ⁴
Spain¹
Luxembourg Türkiye¹
Switzerland French Comm. (Belgium) Norway Denmark Sweden
Austria¹ Finland
Germany¹ ³ France¹
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Share of tertiary students receiving direct public financial support, %
1. Reference year differs from 2022/23.
2. Government-dependent private institutions instead of public institutions.
3. Master's and doctoral programmes are combined with bachelor's programmes. Data includes foreign students in Germany.
4. Short-cycle tertiary programmes are combined with bachelor's programmes.
For data, see Table C5.3 and Table C5.4. For a link to download the data, see Tables and Notes section.
Forms of public financial support for tertiary students
The four broad models of tuition fees and financial support do not tell the whole story about how countries and
economies support their tertiary students. Beyond whether students receive a loan or a grant, countries differ
considerably in the amount of support provided, the eligibility criteria and the repayment conditions. These factors
significantly shape students’ financial realities both during their studies and after graduation.
Grant amounts vary widely across countries and economies, with an OECD average of around USD 5 500 per year.
In Romania and the United States, States, average grants are below USD 2 500, whereas in Austria, Denmark, Italy
and Switzerland, they exceed USD 9 000. In roughly two-thirds of countries and economies with available data, public
grants surpass average tuition fees charged by public institutions, offering students some support for living expenses.
However, in countries including Korea, Latvia, Romania and the United States, grants cover only a small fraction of
tuition fees, pushing students to rely more heavily on loans or family resources. While there is some variation in the
eligibility criteria for public grants and scholarships across countries and economies, common patterns can still be
observed. About three-quarters of countries and economies award means-tested grants based on financial need,
around two-thirds offer merit-based scholarships and only about one-quarter provide universal grants to all tertiary
entrants (Table C5.4).
In comparison, student loans tend to be more universally accessible, with less variation in eligibility across countries.
However there are differences in how repayment is structured. In fixed-repayment systems – used in the majority of
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
336
countries with available data – graduates must begin repaying their loans within a set timeframe, regardless of income.
In contrast, income-contingent repayment systems, implemented in countries and economies including Australia,
England (United Kingdom) and New Zealand, mean repayments are delayed until graduates reach a minimum income
threshold. These systems provide greater financial protection for low-income earners but may lead to longer repayment
periods and increased fiscal costs for governments (Table C5.4 and Table C5.5, available on line).
Across OECD countries and economies, the average amount students borrow through loans varies more than four-
fold. In countries with high tuition fees and relatively well-developed loan systems – defined here as systems with
average annual tuition fees of over USD 5 000 for bachelor’s programmes in public institutions and where more than
40% of students take out loans – borrowing ranges from around USD 5 000-6 000 per year in Latvia and Australia, to
approximately USD 8 800 in New Zealand, and over USD 23 000 in England (United Kingdom). In some countries,
such as New Zealand, students can also borrow to cover living costs or course-related costs in addition to tuition fees.
Interestingly, even in tuition-free systems such as Norway, Sweden and Finland, more than half of students also take
out loans, primarily to cover living expenses (Table C5.5, available on line).
These differences in loan amounts and repayment designs, alongside tuition levels and living expenses, shape the
total debt burden that students carry upon graduation. In countries and economies where fees and living costs are
both high, students often graduate with substantial debt – exceeding USD 68 683 on average in England (United
Kingdom). Yet even in Norway, despite a lack of tuition fees, student debt can mount up (averaging over USD 46 000)
due to generous loans covering living expenses. These examples underline how the structure and targeting of financial
aid, and not just the overall level of public support, are critical to promoting equity, affordability and sustainable
outcomes for students (Table C5.5, available on line).
Definitions
In this chapter, national students are defined as the citizens of a country who are studying within that country. Foreign
students are those who are not citizens of the country in which the data are collected. While pragmatic and operational,
this classification is inappropriate for capturing student mobility because of differing national policies regarding the
naturalisation of immigrants. For European Union (EU) and the European Economic Area (EEA) countries, citizens
from other EU countries usually pay the same fees as national students. In these cases, foreign students refer to
students who are citizens of countries outside the EU. Further details of these definitions are available in Chapter B4.
Tuition fee amounts refer to gross tuition fees charged by institutions, before grants, scholarships and tuition waivers
are applied.
For the definition of expenditure on educational institutions, direct government expenditure on educational institutions,
direct private expenditure on educational institutions, initial and final spending, and research and development, refer
to Chapter C1.
For the definition of public and private educational institutions, refer to Chapter C2.
Methodology
Tuition fees and loan amounts in national currencies are converted into equivalent USD by dividing the national
currency by the purchasing power parity (PPP) index for gross domestic product. The same PPPs as those used in
Education at a Glance 2024 were applied in this edition to ensure consistency between data released in both editions.
The amounts of tuition fees and associated proportions of students should be interpreted with caution, as they
represent the weighted averages of the main tertiary programmes and may not cover all educational institutions.
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
337
Student loans include the full range of student loans extended or guaranteed by governments, in order to provide
information on the level of support received by students. The gross amount of loans provides an appropriate measure
of the financial aid to current participants in education. Interest payments and repayments of principal by borrowers
should be taken into account when assessing the net cost of student loans to public and private lenders. In most
countries, loan repayments do not flow to education authorities and the money is not available to them to cover other
expenditure on education.
Chapter C5 takes the full amount of scholarships/grants and loans (gross) into account when discussing financial aid
to current students. Some OECD countries have difficulty quantifying the amount of loans to students. Therefore, data
on student loans should also be treated with caution.
For an overview of the methodology based on the joint data collection by UNESCO, the OECD and Eurostat (UOE),
see Chapter C1. For more detailed information, please refer to the OECD Handbook for Internationally Comparative
Education Statistics (OECD, 2018[4]). For country-specific notes, see Education at a Glance 2025 Sources,
Methodologies and Technical Notes (https://doi.org/10.1787/fcfaf2d1-en).
Source
Data on tuition fees and financial support to tertiary students refer to the academic year 2022/23 or calendar year 2022
and are based on a special survey administered by the OECD in 2023. Trend data refer to academic year 2012/13 or
calendar year 2012.
For an overview of the data sources used based on the joint data collection by UNESCO, the OECD and Eurostat
(UOE), refer to Chapter C1. For additional details, see Education at a Glance 2025 Sources, Methodologies and
Technical Notes (https://doi.org/10.1787/fcfaf2d1-en).
References
OECD (2025), Government budget allocations for R&D, http://data-explorer.oecd.org/s/1z0. [1]
OECD (2024), Taxing Wages 2024: Tax and Gender through the Lens of the Second Earner, OECD [5]
Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/dbcbac85-en.
OECD (2018), OECD Handbook for Internationally Comparative Education Statistics 2018: Concepts, [4]
Standards, Definitions and Classifications, OECD Publishing, Paris,
https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264304444-en.
OECD (2015), Frascati Manual 2015: Guidelines for Collecting and Reporting Data on Research and [3]
Experimental Development, The Measurement of Scientific, Technological and Innovation Activities,
OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264239012-en.
Vincent-Lancrin, S. (ed.) (2023), Measuring Innovation in Education 2023: Tools and Methods for Data- [2]
Driven Action and Improvement, Educational Research and Innovation, OECD Publishing, Paris,
https://doi.org/10.1787/a7167546-en.
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
338
Tables and Notes
Chapter C5 Tables
Table C5.1. Expenditure on tertiary educational institutions (2022)
Table C5.2. Change in total expenditure on tertiary institutions (2015 to 2022)
Table C5.3. Annual average (or most common) tuition fees charged by tertiary institutions to national and foreign students (2022/23)
Table C5.4. Public financial support for students enrolled in tertiary programmes (2012/13 and 2022/23) and types and eligibility of
public grants/scholarships (2022/23)
WEB Table C5.5 Public loans, repayments and remission of debts for tertiary students (2022/23)
WEB Table C5.6 Distribution of expenditure on tertiary educational institutions by source of funds, before and after transfers to the private
sector, by level of tertiary education (2022)
WEB Table C5.7 Expenditure on tertiary educational institutions per student and number of students, by type of institution (2022)
WEB Table C5.8 Trends in expenditure on research and development in tertiary educational institutions as a percentage of GDP (2015 and
2022)
StatLink 2 https://stat.link/2jhv3x
Data Download
To download the data for the figures and tables in this chapter, click StatLink above.
To access further data and/or other education indicators, please visit the OECD Data Explorer: https://data-
explorer.oecd.org/.
Data cut-off for the print publication 13 June 2025. Please note that the Data Explorer contains the most recent
data.
Notes for Tables
Table C5.1 Expenditure on tertiary educational institutions (2022)
Note: Columns showing data on expenditure per student as a percentge of GDP per capita, and on expenditure on
educational institutions as a percentage of GDP are available for consultation on line.
1. Total expenditure on educational institutions includes payments by households outside educational
institutions.
2. Expenditure on tertiary education includes some expenditure on post-secondary non-tertiary
education and some expenditure on upper secondary vocational education (KOSEN grades 1 to
3).
3. Year of reference 2021.
Table C5.2 Change in total expenditure on tertiary institutions (2015 to 2022)
Note: Columns showing the data used to calculate changes between 2015 and 2022 are available for consultation on
line.
1. Total expenditure on educational institutions includes payments by households outside educational
institutions.
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
339
2. Expenditure on tertiary education includes some expenditure on post-secondary non-tertiary
education and some expenditure on upper secondary vocational education (KOSEN grades 1 to
3).
Table C5.3. Annual average (or most common) tuition fees charged by tertiary institutions to national and
foreign students (2022/23)
1. Reference year differs from 2022/23: calendar year 2021 for Australia and Germany; academic
year 2021/22 for England (UK), Spain and the United States; and academic year 2023/24 for
Türkiye.
2. Government-dependent and independent private institutions are combined. In Germany, only
academic programmes are included.
3. Government-dependent private institutions instead of independent private institutions.
4. Government-dependent private institutions instead of public institutions.
5. Tuition fees for foreign students typically refer to tuition fees for out-of-state national students.
However, in a minority of institutions, tuition fees can be lower for out-of-state national students.
Table C5.4. Public financial support for students enrolled in tertiary programmes (2012/13 and 2022/23) and
types and eligibility of public grants/scholarships (2022/23)
1. Reference year for distribution of public financial support differs from 2022/23: calendar year 2021
for Australia; academic year 2021/22 for Austria, England (UK), France and Spain; calendar year
2022 for Germany; academic year 2019/20 for the United States; and academic year 2023/24 for
Türkiye.
2. Public institutions only.
3. Government-dependent private institutions instead of public institutions.
Control codes
a – category not applicable; b – break in series; d – contains data from another column; m – missing data; x – contained
in another column (indicated in brackets). For further control codes, see the Reader’s Guide.
For further methodological information, see Education at a Glance 2025: Sources, Methodologies and Technical Notes
(https://doi.org/10.1787/fcfaf2d1-en)].
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
340
Table C5.1. Expenditure on tertiary educational institutions (2022)
In equivalent USD converted using PPPs for GDP, direct expenditure within educational institutions, by level of
education
Expenditure on educational institutions per student (in equivalent USD converted using PPPs for GDP)
Total (government, private and non-domestic expenditure) Government expenditure
Bachelor’s, master’s
Bachelor’s, master’s and and doctoral or
Short-cycle tertiary doctoral or equivalent All tertiary Short-cycle tertiary equivalent All tertiary
Including Excluding Including Excluding Including Excluding Including Excluding Including Excluding Including Excluding
R&D R&D R&D R&D R&D R&D R&D R&D R&D R&D R&D R&D
OECD countries (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12)
Australia 12 289 10 619 28 272 17 235 25 162 15 948 8 249 a 9 697 a 9 415 a
Austria 22 100 22 100 26 894 15 142 26 190 16 164 21 337 21 337 23 308 12 701 23 018 13 969
Belgium 17 696 17 696 26 373 16 679 25 989 16 724 16 065 16 065 22 198 14 908 21 927 14 959
Canada 21 340 m 31 225 17 566 27 582 m 10 952 m 15 278 6 210 13 684 m
Chile1 5 683 d 5 683 d 13 567 d 12 914 d 11 639 d 11 145 d 2 565 2 565 5 099 4 559 4 479 4 071
Colombia m m m m m m m m m m m m
Costa Rica x(5) m x(5) m 18 405 m x(11) x(12) x(11) x(12) 16 922 16 920
Czechia 31 144 31 144 17 177 11 083 17 221 11 147 29 563 29 563 12 723 7 821 12 777 7 890
Denmark 14 904 14 431 31 488 13 509 29 680 13 610 12 057 11 611 25 587 12 730 24 113 12 608
Estonia a a 19 011 10 447 19 011 10 447 a a 15 291 9 163 15 291 9 163
Finland a a 20 456 10 850 20 456 10 850 a a 18 141 10 631 18 141 10 631
France 21 637 21 637 21 302 13 724 21 379 15 546 10 349 10 349 15 402 9 656 14 238 9 816
Germany 9 115 9 115 23 303 13 026 23 269 13 016 3 425 3 425 19 539 11 133 19 500 11 115
Greece a a 5 620 3 586 5 620 3 586 a a 4 497 3 155 4 497 3 155
Hungary 22 610 22 610 20 390 16 649 20 476 16 881 13 601 13 601 12 904 9 515 12 931 9 674
Iceland 20 234 m 20 234 m 20 234 m 18 209 m 18 209 m 18 209 m
Ireland x(5) x(6) x(5) x(6) 24 241 19 425 x(11) x(12) x(11) x(12) 13 509 9 560
Israel 6 810 6 810 19 333 13 029 15 057 10 905 4 253 4 253 8 897 2 592 7 311 3 159
Italy 3 691 3 691 14 867 10 423 14 713 10 330 3 557 3 557 9 069 5 401 8 992 5 376
Japan 2 16 262 a 23 203 a 21 836 a 2 828 a 9 497 a 8 184 a
Korea 7 995 7 824 16 200 11 934 14 695 11 180 2 566 2 453 7 527 4 398 6 617 4 041
Latvia 12 402 12 397 12 419 8 710 12 416 9 203 7 769 7 767 6 735 4 091 6 873 4 582
Lithuania a a 15 950 11 247 15 950 11 247 a a 11 151 7 100 11 151 7 100
Luxembourg 11 255 11 255 67 808 39 241 60 979 35 862 11 135 11 135 60 323 37 494 54 384 34 311
Mexico x(5) x(6) x(5) x(6) 7 519 6 422 x(11) x(12) x(11) x(12) 4 430 3 333
Netherlands 15 216 14 443 25 054 16 341 24 874 16 306 13 312 12 599 18 608 11 603 18 511 11 621
New Zealand 11 890 11 890 19 875 13 786 18 729 13 514 8 589 8 589 11 921 8 078 11 444 8 151
Norway 22 851 22 851 30 170 19 150 29 917 19 278 18 483 18 483 27 571 17 881 27 256 17 902
Poland 2 615 2 615 15 907 10 353 15 897 10 348 2 332 2 332 12 566 8 111 12 558 8 107
Portugal 9 225 9 225 14 398 9 894 14 155 9 863 5 740 5 740 8 151 4 499 8 038 4 557
Slovak Republic 12 001 12 001 19 290 14 252 19 178 14 217 10 666 10 666 15 313 10 619 15 241 10 620
Slovenia 10 036 10 036 22 464 17 689 21 127 16 865 6 152 6 152 18 521 14 802 17 189 13 871
Spain 12 878 12 878 18 369 12 689 17 124 12 732 10 502 10 502 12 104 7 207 11 741 7 954
Sweden 8 231 8 231 31 503 14 898 28 823 14 130 8 231 8 231 26 102 13 494 24 044 12 888
Switzerland m m m m m m x(11) x(12) x(11) x(12) 32 505 15 569
Türkiye x(5) x(6) x(5) x(6) 10 825 7 119 x(11) x(12) x(11) x(12) 7 698 5 344
United Kingdom 32 170 28 443 35 545 28 781 35 350 28 762 9 622 7 172 7 790 3 343 7 896 3 565
United States3 x(5) x(6) x(5) x(6) 36 274 31 610 x(11) x(12) x(11) x(12) 14 046 11 245
OECD average 14 603 13 735 22 828 14 649 21 444 14 512 10 078 9 919 15 797 9 746 15 102 9 904
Partner and/or accession countries
Argentina m m m m m m m m m m 3 329 m
Brazil x(5) x(6) x(5) x(6) 3 765 3 328 x(11) x(12) x(11) x(12) 3 765 3 328
Bulgaria a a 12 680 12 104 12 680 12 104 a a 8 198 7 891 8 198 7 891
China x(5) m x(5) m 7 157 m x(11) m x(11) m 4 256 m
Croatia x(5) m x(5) m 11 429 m x(11) m x(11) m 8 559 m
India m m m m m m m m m m m m
Indonesia m m m m m m m m m m m m
Peru x(5) x(6) x(5) x(6) 3 641 3 615 x(11) x(12) x(11) x(12) 1 420 1 396
Romania a a 11 466 11 454 11 466 11 454 a a 10 329 10 317 10 329 10 317
Saudi Arabia3 m m m m m m m m m m 2 844 m
South Africa x(5) m x(5) m 15 726 m x(11) m x(11) m 11 504 m
EU25 average 13 927 13 853 21 486 13 652 20 574 13 836 10 929 10 861 16 816 10 611 15 830 10 489
G20 average m m m m 18 947 m m m m m 8 775 m
Note: For notes on this table and a link to download the data, see Tables and Notes section above.
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
341
Table C5.2. Change in total expenditure on tertiary institutions (2015 to 2022)
Constant prices (2020=100), by level of education
Short-cycle tertiary (including R&D) Bachelor’s, master’s and doctoral or equivalent (including R&D)
Change in Change in
Change in the percentage Change in the percentage
expenditure Change in of initial expenditure Change in of initial
on educational Change in expenditure expenditure on educational Change in expenditure expenditure
institutions the number on educational from government institutions the number on educational from government
per student of students institutions sources per student of students institutions sources
OECD countries (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8)
Australia m m m m m m m m
Austria 0 -6 -6 0 14 4 19 -7
Belgium 7 33 43 -5 10 9 20 -2
Canada -15 32 12 m -3 10 7 m
Chile1 14 d -12 d 0d m 32 d 13 d 50 d m
Colombia m m m m m m m m
Costa Rica m m m m m m m m
Czechia 26 8 36 3 19 -11 6 14
Denmark m m m m m m m m
Estonia m m m m 9 -16 -9 5
Finland a a a a -14 12 -3 m
France 18 15 35 -41 -3 23 20 -6
Germany m m m m 3 10 13 m
Greece m m m m 7 25 34 m
Hungary 332 -5 311 m 79 -4 72 m
Iceland 66 51 151 m 16 13 31 m
Ireland m -11 m m m 16 m m
Israel 7 16 25 m 13 12 26 m
Italy -34 321 175 9 -4 18 13 3
Japan 2 3 -6 -3 m 1 3 4 m
Korea 16 -28 -16 m 21 -10 9 m
Latvia -14 -15 -27 m -9 -10 -18 m
Lithuania m m m m 24 -23 -4 8
Luxembourg -65 32 -54 2 0 8 9 -3
Mexico m -5 m m m 38 m m
Netherlands 7 421 459 m -4 17 13 m
New Zealand 17 -40 -29 43 -5 -5 -10 3
Norway -1 23 22 -2 1 17 19 -5
Poland -87 -57 -95 -11 31 -17 8 -3
Portugal m m m m -7 16 8 -2
Slovak Republic 23 -21 -3 4 2 -18 -17 m
Slovenia 139 -21 89 m 50 -5 43 m
Spain 7 32 41 -8 3 13 16 3
Sweden -5 74 64 0 -5 11 5 -2
Switzerland m m m m m m m m
Türkiye m m m m m m m m
United Kingdom 192 -14 150 91 -3 26 22 -18
United States m m m m m m m m
OECD average 28 33 60 m 10 6 14 m
Partner and/or accession countries
Argentina m m m m m m m m
Brazil m m m m m m m m
Bulgaria m m m m 31 -17 8 39
China m m m m m m m m
Croatia m m m m m m m m
India m m m m m m m m
Indonesia m m m m m m m m
Peru m m m m m m m m
Romania m m m m 13 2 15 17
Saudi Arabia m m m m m m m m
South Africa m m m m m m m m
EU25 average m 53 m m 11 3 12 m
G20 average m m m m m m m m
Note: For notes on this table and a link to download the data, see Tables and Notes section above.
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
342
Table C5.3. Annual average (or most common) tuition fees charged by tertiary institutions to
national and foreign students (2022/23)
In equivalent USD converted using PPPs, for full-time students, by type of institutions and level of education
Share of full-time Annual average (or most common) tuition
and part-time Annual average (or most common) tuition fees charged for master’s fees charged to national students for other
master’s students or equivalent programmes tertiary programmes for national students
who are enrolled in
independent private Independent private
institutions Public institutions Independent private institutions Public institutions institutions
Maximum tuition fees
Maximum tuition fees
common) tuition fees
common) tuition fees
Minimum tuition fees
Minimum tuition fees
for national students
for national students
for national students
for national students
for national students
for national students
Average tuition fees
Average tuition fees
for foreign students
for foreign students
Short-cycle tertiary
Short-cycle tertiary
Average (or most
Average (or most
Bachelor's
Bachelor's
Doctoral
Doctoral
2012/2013
OECD countries (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) (15) (16)
Australia1, 2 5 13 9 496 1 393 22 746 20 880 16 057 4 443 33 960 10 431 3 857 5 108 196 9 368 10 978 5 453
Austria m m 1 043 m m 2 085 m m m m m 1 043 1 043 m m m
Canada a a 9 564 1 636 100 471 20 876 a a a a a 5 590 5 983 a a a
Chile m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m
Colombia m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m
Costa Rica m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m
Czechia m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m
Between
Denmark a a 0 0 0 USD 8 000 and a a a a 0 0 0 a a a
USD 21 000
Estonia m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m
Finland 3 8 24 0 0 0 14 292 0 0 0 9 615 a 0 0 a 0 0
France 22 32 360 m 3 708 5 592 m m m m 0 252 564 m m m
Germany1, 2 6 13 157 d m m x(3) 5 509 d m m x(7) m x(3) x(3) m x(7) x(7)
Greece m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m
Hungary m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m
Iceland m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m
Ireland m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m
Israel 14 18 4 174 4 174 4 174 m 10 368 3 348 29 634 m 2 119 3 088 m 9 040 a
Italy 8 18 2 864 336 4 909 2 864 8 132 2 518 21 153 8 132 a 2 570 547 m 6 463 2 730
Japan 53 52 5 647 m m 5 647 8 808 m m 8 808 3 975 5 645 5 647 7 680 10 104 6 368
Korea 69 70 6 630 4 230 11 025 m 12 429 4 408 57 127 m 2 900 5 132 7 718 7 432 9 209 13 549
Latvia4 8 15 6 782 141 60 377 20 071 6 738 865 35 220 5 993 3 566 4 824 4 558 4 683 5 635 4 174
Lithuania 5 6 13 234 857 35 555 m 11 216 857 41 542 m 5 428 5 458 20 069 5 141 16 842
Luxembourg 0 0 494 494 14 805 494 a a a a 494 494 494 a a a
Mexico m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m
Netherlands m m 3 041 3 041 27 145 20 328 m m m m 3 041 3 041 a m m a
New Zealand3 3 6 6 124 2 340 20 093 22 363 5 918 4 610 21 262 15 482 3 372 4 748 5 161 5 092 4 541 a
Norway 3 3 0 0 0 0 5 538 d m m 5 538 552 0 0 9 384 x(7) a
Poland2 26 34 8 142 1 119 44 588 5 195 4 774 2 182 38 688 4 966 m 7 497 m m 4 487 m
Portugal m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m
Slovak Republic m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m
Slovenia m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m
Spain1 15 39 2 447 1 000 22 844 2 447 13 930 m m 13 930 0 1 708 m m 12 693 m
Sweden3 8 8 0 0 0 m 0 0 0 m 0 0 0 0 0 0
Switzerland 3 3 1 427 611 2 446 3 159 m m m m a 1 427 408 m m m
Türkiye1 15 18 0 0 0 m m m m m 0 0 0 m m m
United States1, 5 54 53 12 596 d 9 292 14 814 20 328 28 017 d 13 510 d 42 128 d 28 017 d 3 564 9 596 x(3) 16 579 34 041 x(7)
Other economies
Flemish Comm. (Belgium) 1 0 1 410 167 1 410 m a a a a 1 410 1 410 m a a a
French Comm. (Belgium) 1 0 753 d 0d 1 202 d m a a a m x(12) 433 d x(3) a a a
England (UK)1, 4 a a m m m m m m m m x(12) 13 135 d m m m m
Partner and/or accession countries
Argentina m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m
Brazil m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m
Bulgaria m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m
China m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m
Croatia 4 6 1 657 d 1 174 2 379 m m m m m a 1 660 x(3) m m m
India m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m
Indonesia m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m
Peru m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m
Romania 10 9 2 098 1 168 5 842 8 150 2 943 1 220 21 907 8 631 a 2 163 3 584 a 2 642 a
Saudi Arabia m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m
South Africa m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m
Note: For notes on this table and a link to download the data, see Tables and Notes section above.
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
343
Table C5.4. Public financial support for students enrolled in tertiary programmes (2012/13 and
2022/23) and types and eligibility of public grants/scholarships (2022/23)
Are the following categories
government-guaranteed private loans in 2012/13
2022/23 distribution of tertiary students of students eligible for a public
receiving : Types of scholarships/grants awarded grant/scholarship:
Share of tertiary students receiving public
scholarships in 2022/23, in USD converted
Average annual amount of public grants/
public / government-guaranteed private
Neither public grants/scholarships nor
Targeted on disadvantaged population
Public grants/scholarships and public
Students enrolled in blended learning
grants/ scholarships and/or public or
Students enrolled exclusively on line
or government-guaranteed private
Public or government-guaranteed
Public grants/scholarships only
Students enrolled part time
Means-tested grants
private loans only
Universal grants
Merit-based
using PPPs
group
loans
loans
OECD countries (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13)
Australia1 40 0 41 20 m 7 273 no no yes no yes yes yes
Austria1 a 16 a 84 15 9 073 no yes yes no a yes no
Canada x(3) x(3) 39 61 33 5 823 no yes yes yes yes yes yes
Chile m m m m m m m m m m m m m
Colombia m m m m m m m m m m m m m
Costa Rica m m m m m m m m m m m m m
Czechia m m m m m m m m m m m m m
Denmark 0 66 18 15 m 9 230 yes no no no no no no
Estonia m m m m m m m m m m m m m
Finland x(3) x(3) 56 44 52 2 537 yes no no no no yes yes
France1, 2 1 33 m 66 m 2 741 no yes yes no yes yes no
Germany1 x(3) x(3) 21 79 25 5 384 no yes yes no no yes yes
Greece m m m m m m m m m m m m m
Hungary m m m m m m m m m m m m m
Iceland m m m m m m m m m m m m m
Ireland m m m m m m m m m m m m m
Israel m m m m m m no yes yes yes yes yes yes
Italy 0 45 0 55 20 9 715 no yes yes yes yes yes yes
Japan m m m m m 4 706 no yes yes no yes yes yes
Korea m m m m m 3 443 no yes yes yes no yes yes
Latvia3 8 46 1 43 m 2 818 no no yes no no no yes
Lithuania 5 57 0 38 54 a yes yes yes yes no yes yes
Luxembourg x(3) x(3) 90 10 m 5 264 yes yes no no yes yes yes
Mexico m m m m m m m m m m m m m
Netherlands m m m m m 5 067 yes yes no no no yes yes
New Zealand 46 4 23 27 88 8 006 no yes yes no no yes yes
Norway 8 2 62 28 m 5 484 yes yes no no yes yes yes
Poland a 16 a 84 21 m no yes yes yes yes no yes
Portugal m m m m m m m m m m m m m
Slovak Republic m m m m m m m m m m m m m
Slovenia m m m m m m m m m m m m m
Spain1 a 40 a 60 33 m no yes no no yes yes yes
Sweden 0 13 78 9 91 3 724 yes no no no yes yes yes
Switzerland 1 9 1 90 15 9 263 no yes no no yes yes yes
Türkiye1 x(3) x(3) 97 3 m 5 000 no yes yes yes a no yes
United States1 7 35 38 20 82 2 202 no yes yes yes yes yes yes
Other economies
Flemish Comm. (Belgium) a 20 a 80 18 2 864 no yes yes no yes yes yes
French Comm. (Belgium) a 22 a 78 20 m m m m m m m m
England (UK)1, 3 93 0 0 7 84 m no yes no yes yes yes yes
Partner and/or accession countries
Argentina m m m m m m m m m m m m m
Brazil m m m m m m m m m m m m m
Bulgaria m m m m m m m m m m m m m
China m m m m m m m m m m m m m
Croatia a 11 a 89 m m yes yes yes yes no yes yes
India m m m m m m m m m m m m m
Indonesia m m m m m m m m m m m m m
Peru m m m m m m m m m m m m m
Romania 2 a 37 0 63 m 434 no yes yes yes no no no
Saudi Arabia m m m m m m m m m m m m m
South Africa m m m m m m m m m m m m m
Note: For notes on this table and a link to download the data, see Tables and Notes section above.
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
344
Part D. Teachers, the learning
environment and the
organisation of schools
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
345
Chapter D1. How much time do students
spend in the classroom?
Highlights
• Students in OECD countries and economies receive an average of 7 604 hours of compulsory instruction
during their primary and lower secondary education, ranging from 5 304 hours in Poland to double that in
Australia (11 000 hours).
• Across OECD countries and economies, compulsory instruction time for primary students averages
804 hours per year, while lower secondary students receive an average of 105 more hours of compulsory
education per year (909 hours).
• On average across OECD countries and economies, instruction in reading, writing and literature and in
mathematics represents 41% of compulsory instruction time for primary school students, but only 27% of
compulsory instruction time for lower secondary school students.
Context
Providing instruction in formal classroom settings accounts for a large portion of public investment in education.
Countries make various choices about the overall amount of time devoted to instruction and which subjects are
compulsory. These choices reflect national and/or regional priorities and preferences concerning what material
students should be taught and at what age. Almost all countries have statutory or regulatory requirements regarding
hours of instruction. These are most often stipulated as the minimum number of hours of instruction a school must
offer and are based on the understanding that sufficient time is required for good learning outcomes.
Matching resources with students’ needs and making optimal use of time are central to education policy. Teachers’
salaries, institutional maintenance and the provision of other educational resources constitute the main costs of
education. The length of instruction time (as partly covered in this chapter) is an important factor in determining
how funds for education are allocated [see factors influencing the salary cost of teachers per student in Chapter
D4, and the allocation of funding to schools in Chapter D6 in OECD (2021[1])].
There is growing awareness of the importance of time spent outside the classroom during the school day in
activities other than instruction, including recesses and breaks. In addition to formal instruction time, students may
participate in extracurricular activities before and/or after the school day or during school holidays, but these
activities (as well as examination periods) are outside the scope of this chapter. For information about the
relationship between instruction time and time dedicated to homework see OECD (2023[2]; 2014[3]).
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
346
Figure D1.1. Compulsory instruction time in general education (2025)
In hours, in primary and lower secondary education, in public institutions
Primary Lower secondary White separations distinguish grades in each education programme
12 000
Total number of compulsory instruction hours
10 000
8 000
6 000
4 000
2 000
Note: In this figure instruction hours for each grade refer to average hours per grade for the level of education. Numbers in square brackets
refer to the total number of years for primary and lower secondary education.
1. Year of reference: 2024.
2. The number of grades in lower secondary education is three or four, depending on the track. The fourth year of pre-vocational secondary
education was excluded from the calculation.
3. Estimated number of hours by level of education based on the average number of hours per year, as for some subjects, the allocation of
instruction time across multiple levels is flexible.
For data, see Table D1.1. For a link to download the data, see Tables and Notes section.
Other findings
• Primary education lasts six years on average across OECD countries and economies, ranging from four
to seven years. Lower secondary education lasts three years on average across OECD countries and
economies, ranging from two to six years. In three out of five OECD and partner countries and economies,
at least one year of upper secondary education is part of compulsory full-time general education.
• On average across OECD countries and economies, the number of instruction days per year is similar at
primary (186 days), lower secondary (184 days) and upper secondary levels (183 days). The difference in
the number of instruction days per year between primary and lower secondary levels is less than two days
in most countries, but is ten days (two weeks) or more in Bulgaria, Ireland, Lithuania, and Luxembourg.
• An average of 1% of compulsory instruction time for primary students and lower secondary students is
devoted to compulsory subjects with a flexible timetable in OECD countries and economies (excluding a
few countries where the compulsory curriculum is mostly devoted to subjects with a flexible timetable). An
average of 3% of compulsory instruction time both at the primary level and at the lower secondary level is
devoted to flexible subjects chosen by schools.
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
347
• In more than one-quarter of countries with available data, the allocation of instruction time across grades
is flexible, with the instruction time for a specific subject defined for a certain number of grades or even the
whole of compulsory education, without specifying how much time is to be allocated to each grade.
Analysis
Compulsory general education
Both annual instruction time and the length of compulsory education have an impact on the total instruction time during
compulsory education. In some countries, the duration of compulsory education is shorter and students face a heavier
annual workload to meet on statutory requirements. In other countries, the workload is distributed over more years.
This chapter focuses on compulsory education at primary and lower secondary levels (in public institutions). However,
in 23 OECD and partner countries, at least one year of pre-primary education is also compulsory, so the starting age
for compulsory education is below the age at which primary education starts (see Figure D.D1.1 in Education at a
Glance 2025 Sources, Methodologies and Technical Notes (https://doi.org/10.1787/fcfaf2d1-en) for more details on
the number of years of compulsory education). Moreover, in around three-fifths of countries and economies with
available data, at least one year of upper secondary education is part of compulsory full-time education (Table D1.1).
In nearly three out of four countries and economies with available data, students are required to start primary education
at the age of 6. In most other countries, students are not required to start until they are 7 (in Bulgaria, Croatia, Estonia,
Finland, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland and Sweden). Only in Australia, England (United Kingdom), New Zealand and
Scotland (United Kingdom) does start primary education at age 5 (Table D1.2).
There is also substantial variation in the duration of primary education. On average across OECD countries and
economies, primary education lasts six years, but it ranges from four years in Austria, Bulgaria, Croatia, Germany,
Hungary, Lithuania, Poland, the Slovak Republic and the Republic of Türkiye to seven years in Australia, Denmark,
Iceland, Norway and Scotland (United Kingdom). Compulsory lower secondary education averages three years, but
ranges from two years in Chile and the Flemish and French Communities of Belgium to five years in Germany, Peru
and the Slovak Republic, and six years in Lithuania (Table D1.2). However, the number of grades allocated to each
level of compulsory education may differ within countries, across subnational entities, for example in federal countries
such as the United States (Box D1.2).
Countries allocate annual instruction time differently over the year. The number of instruction days and the way they
are distributed across the school year can vary significantly between countries, as countries organise holidays
differently (Box D1.1). The distribution of instruction time during the week also varies between countries. For example,
whereas students go to primary and lower secondary school five days per week in nearly all countries, in Belgium and
France, students typically do not go to school one half-day, usually on Wednesday afternoon (see Box D1.2 in OECD
(2019[4])). Countries also vary in the way they organise recess and breaks within the school day (see Box D1.2 in
OECD (2018[5])).
Box D1.1. Organisation of breaks within the school year in primary education (2025)
The length of the school year varies greatly between countries, implying that there is also wide variation in the
number of weeks students are not at school across countries. Countries organise the school year in different ways,
in terms of the frequency and length of school breaks during the school year.
In about three-quarters of the 40 OECD countries and economies, the total length of school breaks is harmonised
for the whole country, and ranges from less than 12 weeks in Costa Rica to more than 18 weeks in Latvia, with an
average of 13 weeks. However, the distribution of breaks during the school year can be flexible across subnational
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
348
entities. For example, dates for school breaks are defined according to three zones in France, and there is similar
flexibility in Austria, the Netherlands, Poland, the Slovak Republic and Slovenia (see Figure D.D1.2 in Education
at a Glance 2025 Sources, Methodologies and Technical Notes (https://doi.org/10.1787/fcfaf2d1-en) for the
organisation of the school year at primary level).
In the remaining one-quarter of countries and economies, the total length and the distribution of school breaks can
differ between subnational entities (especially in federal countries) and/or individual schools (e.g. in Italy), even if
decisions related to these school breaks need to be taken following some higher-level guidelines. For example,
schools in Italy autonomously organise school breaks under regional guidelines.
In all countries, the longest break is the one between two successive school years. This break ranges from 3 weeks
in some cantons in Switzerland to 12 weeks or more in Bulgaria, Chile (in some subnational entities due to specific
climatic conditions), Greece, Italy and Latvia. In nearly all countries with available information, this break between
two school years represents at least half of the school holiday time (Figure D1.2).
In addition to this long break, students usually have two to four other shorter holiday periods during the school year.
England (United Kingdom) and Luxembourg as well as some Länder in Germany and some Canton in Switzerland
offer a fifth break (Figure D1.2).
Figure D1.2. School breaks in compulsory primary education (2025)
In weeks, in public institutions
Break 1 Break 2 Break 3 Break 4 Break 5 End of the school year break
Number of weeks
20
15
10
Note: Breaks exclude public/religious days, except if these days are included in longer breaks.
1. End-of-year break includes examination periods.
2. Minimum length of breaks. Length of breaks may vary by region, by programme and/or by individual school.
3. Data for the federal state with the highest number of pupils, Nordrhein-Westfalen. The length and number of breaks for Germany are
indicative due to variation across Länder, even if the total duration of breaks is similar across the Länder.
4. Length of breaks may vary by region.
For a link to download the data, see Tables and Notes section.
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
349
Breaks during the school year differ in both length and timing, but the end of calendar year is the main common
break period, corresponding to either an approximately two-week break (in the northern hemisphere) or the end of
the school year break in the southern hemisphere.
In most countries, the length of the different breaks within the school year varies, from a few days to more than two
weeks. Exceptions to this pattern are France, the French Community of Belgium and New Zealand with consistent
two-week breaks. Several countries and economies (the Flemish Community of Belgium, Czechia, Costa Rica,
England [United Kingdom], Estonia, Ireland, Latvia, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Scotland [United Kingdom] and
Türkiye) alternate one-week and two-week breaks during the school year (Figure D1.2).
In most countries, the organisation of breaks is usually similar at primary and lower secondary levels. However,
breaks at the end of the school year are shorter at lower secondary level than at primary level by two weeks in
Lithuania. In contrast, they are about two weeks longer than at primary level in Portugal and four weeks longer in
Ireland (see Figure D.D1.3 in Education at a Glance 2025 Sources, Methodologies and Technical Notes
(https://doi.org/10.1787/fcfaf2d1-en) for the organisation of school year at the lower secondary level).
Intended instruction time
Intended instruction time is the total number of hours during which schools are obliged to offer instruction in compulsory
and, if applicable, non-compulsory subjects. However, intended instruction time can be different from actual instruction
time.
In most countries, the total statutory number of hours of intended and/or compulsory instruction time is defined at the
national level (i.e. uniform across the country). The total statutory number of hours of intended and/or compulsory
instruction time are defined at the subnational level in some federal countries (e.g. Belgium, Canada, Germany and
the United States) and in some countries with a decentralised education system (e.g. Spain and the United Kingdom)
(Box D1.2).
Box D1.2. Subnational variation in instruction time at the primary and lower secondary levels
Even if all children within a country are enrolled in compulsory education for the same number of years, they do
not necessarily receive the same amount of instruction time across the country. Subnational data provided by five
countries (for 2025 for Belgium, Spain and the United Kingdom, 2024 for Canada, and 2023 for the United States)
show how instruction time can vary significantly across subnational entities within a single country.
In four of these countries, the number of grades in primary and lower secondary education is the same for all
subnational entities (Belgium, Canada, Spain and the United States). In the United Kingdom, the total number of
grades at the primary and lower secondary levels differs by one year between England and Scotland. Primary
education ranges from six years (in England) to seven years (in Scotland), while lower secondary is three years for
both. As the number of grades of compulsory education at upper secondary level also varies between 1 and
2 years, the total length of compulsory education is 11 years in both.
Despite the similar number of grades at the subnational level in most countries, the number of compulsory
instruction hours varies at the subnational level to different degrees. At the primary level, the number of compulsory
instruction hours per year varies by less than 1% in Belgium (from 821 hours in the Flemish Community to
826 hours in the French Community), by 4% in Spain (from 788 hours in most subnational entities to 823 hours in
the Comunidad Foral de Navarra) and by 75% in the United States (from an estimated minimum of 720 hours in
New Jersey to 1 260 hours in Texas). In Canada, the number of intended instruction hours (compulsory and non-
compulsory instruction time) varies by 14% at the primary level (from 837 hours in Nova Scotia to 950 hours in
Alberta and Saskatchewan). These variations can add up to significant differences in the total number of hours of
instruction over the whole course of primary education. Variations range from a total difference of 28 hours of
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
350
compulsory instruction between the French and Flemish Communities in Belgium to 210 hours in Spain and
3 240 hours in the United States. In Canada, the difference in intended instruction time at the primary level reaches
680 hours.
The differences are similar at the lower secondary level: the annual number of compulsory instruction hours varies
by about 2% in Spain, 7% in Belgium and 75% in the United States. Differences in the total number of compulsory
instruction hours at the lower secondary level between subnational entities range from 70 hours in Spain to
129 hours in Belgium and 1 620 hours in the United States. In Canada, the number of intended instruction hours
varies by about 6% (168 hours) between the different provinces at the lower secondary level.
The extent of these variations may reflect differences in the number of annual days of instruction at both the primary
and lower secondary levels, except in Spain, where the number of instruction days does not vary across subnational
entities. The annual number of instruction days at the primary level varied by 1% in Belgium (1 day, from 176 days
in the Flemish Community to 177 days in the French Community), 6% in Canada (10 days, from 180 days in
Quebec to 190 days in Saskatchewan) and 16% in the United States (26 days, from 160 days in Colorado to
186 days in Kansas). Similar differences are found at the lower secondary level.
Source: Education at a Glance Database, https://data-explorer.oecd.org/.
Instruction may also occur outside compulsory school hours and outside the classroom or school, which is not covered
in this chapter. In some countries, lower secondary school students are encouraged to take after-school classes in
subjects already taught in school to help them improve their performance. Students can participate in after-school
lessons in the form of remedial catch-up classes or enrichment courses, with individual tutors or in group lessons
provided by school teachers, or in other independent courses (see Box D1.2 in OECD (2017[6]) and notes on the
organisation of the school day in Education at a Glance 2025 Sources, Methodologies and Technical
(https://doi.org/10.1787/fcfaf2d1-en) for more information).
Compulsory instruction time
Compulsory instruction time refers to the amount and allocation of instruction time that must be provided in almost
every public school and must be attended by almost all public sector students, in line with public regulations.
Across OECD countries and economies, total compulsory instruction time in primary and lower secondary general
education averages 7 604 hours spanning across 9 years on average. This ranges from 5 304 hours in Poland (over
8 years) to 11 000 hours in Australia (over 11 years) (Figure D1.1). In England (United Kingdom), New Zealand and
Scotland (United Kingdom), the regulations do not prescribe compulsory instruction time in schools. However, schools
are required to be open for instruction for a minimum number of hours per day (New Zealand) or to allow sufficient
instruction time to deliver a broad and balanced curriculum that includes all statutory requirements (England and
Scotland [United Kingdom]).
Breaking it down by level, on average across OECD countries and economies, students receive 4 560 hours of
compulsory instruction over 6 years of primary education and 3 044 hours during 3 years of lower secondary general
education. The average annual number of compulsory instruction hours tends to increase with level of education in
most countries (from 804 hours in primary education to 909 hours in lower secondary general programmes on average
across OECD countries and economies), except in Costa Rica (where there is a 2% decrease in hours between
primary and lower secondary), Luxembourg (9% decrease) and Portugal (6% decrease). The especially large
reduction of compulsory instruction hours per year in Ireland (48% decrease from 903 hours at primary level to
465 hours at lower secondary), is the result of a recent reform reducing the minimum instruction time devoted to
different subjects and providing schools with a great degree of flexibility to design the learning programme at the lower
secondary level (Table D1.1).
Compulsory instruction time per year generally increases with age, averaging 779 hours at age 7, 843 hours at age
10, then 916 hours at age 13. In Bulgaria, Croatia, Czechia, Korea, Latvia, Mexico, Poland and Romania, the average
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
351
annual number of compulsory instruction hours increases by more than 40% between ages 7 and 13 (Table D1.5,
available on line).
Compulsory instruction time, by definition, only captures the time spent by students in formal classroom settings (as
established in public regulations). It does not show the actual number of hours of instruction that students receive and
does not cover learning outside the formal classroom setting. In addition, compulsory instruction time does not always
reflect the evolving demand of societies, such as rapid technological transformation. Education systems are
increasingly expected to equip students for the future, like essential digital competences (see Box D1.3).
Box D1.3. Preparing students for the future: Digital competence in the compulsory curriculum
Modern society is transforming rapidly with the development and use of innovative technologies. Countries adapt
their education systems and their curricula to technological evolution to ensure they are giving students essential
skills to prepare them for this digital transformation and to succeed in the future. Schools progressively integrate
digital competence (which encompasses a set of skills, knowledge and attitudes) into the curriculum, for example
with digital literacy, coding, and the effective use of digital tools for learning and teaching. However, the definition
of digital competence and how it is implemented in compulsory education differ across countries (OECD, 2023[7];
EACEA: Eurydice, 2019[8]; EACEA: Eurydice, 2023[9]).
Digital competence can be taught in three ways: 1) as a separate subject in the curriculum (as a compulsory or
optional subject); 2) integrated with specific subjects of instruction (components of digital competence are then
integrated within a compulsory subject); or 3) as a cross-curricular subject (defined as transversal and therefore
integrated along with all compulsory subjects, teachers being responsible for developing it). In nearly two-thirds of
European countries the cross-curricular approach is implemented in primary education and in more than half of
these countries it is also implemented in secondary education. Nevertheless, it is common for European education
systems to combine two of these curriculum approaches, and in one-third of these systems, all three approaches
are integrated in at least one level of education (EACEA: Eurydice, 2023[9]).
Czechia is one country combining the three approaches for teaching digital competences. Recent reforms to
implement the new informatics curriculum at the primary level (since 2023) and at the lower secondary level (in the
2024/25 school year), make informatics a separate compulsory subject from the fourth to ninth grade. Many other
European countries have been undertaking similar reforms to integrate digital competence into their education
system (EACEA: Eurydice, 2023[9]). In addition to these reforms, 26 OECD countries and economies, as well as
Brazil, have established rules or guidelines to incorporate digital competence as a transversal competence within
the curriculum (these being applied mostly to all levels of education) (OECD, 2023[7]).
However, to ensure that students are efficiently prepared to develop digital competences, teachers need to be
sufficiently trained in this area. A recent OECD survey has raised concerns about the gap between teachers’ actual
training and classroom practices. Creating a wider ecosystem approach would be beneficial to ensure the equitable
development of students and teachers in digital competences. Providing support and professional development to
teachers would also help students to better adapt and effectively face the technological evolution to come (OECD,
2023[7]; EACEA: Eurydice, 2023[9]).
Non-compulsory instruction time
In about three out of five countries and economies with available data, there is no non-compulsory instruction time, so
intended and compulsory instruction time are the same (i.e. intended instruction time is fully compulsory) for primary
and lower secondary students. In the remaining countries and economies, intended instruction time includes both
compulsory instruction time and a specified amount of non-compulsory instruction time (which must be provided in
almost every public school, but which is not mandatory for almost all students in public schools): eight countries at
primary level and nine at lower secondary level (Table D1.1).
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
352
Among countries with available data, non-compulsory instruction time is equivalent to more than 20% of compulsory
instruction time in a few countries. At the primary level, non-compulsory time is equivalent to 20% of total compulsory
instruction time in Slovenia, 25% in Croatia and 53% in Greece. At the lower secondary level, non-compulsory time is
equivalent to 20% in Croatia, about 22% of total compulsory instruction time in France, 23% in Slovenia and 30% in
Greece (Table D1.3 and Table D1.4). However, these values need to be interpreted with caution. In France, for
example, lower secondary students are offered a wide variety of courses in the non-compulsory curriculum, and they
could not physically attend all the subjects and hours available.
Instruction time per subject
On average across OECD countries and economies, 41% of the compulsory instruction time at primary level is devoted
to providing students with fundamental skills in literacy and numeracy: 25% on reading, writing and literature and 16%
on mathematics. In Croatia and France, at least half of compulsory instruction time is allocated to reading, writing and
literature (first language) and mathematics (Ireland and Luxembourg could also be included in the list as instruction
time on second language includes other national languages). Together with arts (11%), physical education and health
(10%), natural sciences (7%), second and other languages (7%), and social sciences (6%), these seven study areas
form more than 80% of compulsory instruction time on average across OECD countries and economies where
instruction time per subject is specified (Table D1.3 and Figure D1.3).
Religion, ethics and moral education; information and communication technologies (ICT); technology; practical and
vocational skills; and other subjects make up the remainder of the non-flexible compulsory curriculum at the primary
level, representing about 13% of the compulsory instruction time on average across the OECD (Table D1.3).
At the lower secondary level, the seven major study areas at the primary level continue to take up the major part of
the compulsory curriculum (79%), but as the curriculum generally becomes more subject specific the way this time is
allocated changes significantly. On average across the OECD countries and economies where instruction time per
subject is specified, reading, writing and literature (14%) and mathematics (13%) make up 27% of the compulsory
curriculum, 14 percentage points lower than that in primary education. The shares allocated to physical education and
health (8%) and to the arts (7%) are also lower than at the primary level. Conversely, the proportions of compulsory
instruction time devoted to natural sciences climbs from 7% to 12%, to social sciences from 6% to 11%, and to second
and other languages from 7% to 14%. Religion, ethics and moral education; ICT; technology; practical and vocational
skills; and other subjects make up the remainder of the non-flexible compulsory curriculum for lower secondary
students (about 13% of the total compulsory instruction time) (Figure D1.3, and Table D1.3 and Table D1.4).
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
353
Figure D1.3. Instruction time per subject in primary and lower secondary education (2025)
Percentage of total compulsory instruction time, in public institutions
Primary education Lower secondary education
Reading, writing and literature Mathematics Natural sciences Arts Education
Second and other languages Other compulsory curriculum Compulsory flexible curriculum
% 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 %
France
Slovak Republic
Türkiye
Austria
Luxembourg¹
Israel²
Sweden
Bulgaria
Lithuania
Romania
Czechia
Croatia
Germany³
Greece
Norway
EU25 average⁴
OECD average⁴
Hungary
Japan
Costa Rica
Latvia
Finland
Spain
Estonia
Slovenia
Korea
Denmark
French Comm. (Belgium)⁴
Chile
Iceland
Ireland¹’⁴
Portugal⁴
Peru³
Italy⁴’²’⁵
Flemish Comm. (Belgium)⁴
Netherlands⁴
Poland⁶’⁴
Note: Some subject categories include subjects in different categories. See source table for details.
1. The second language of instruction includes other national languages taught.
2. Reading, writing and literature includes social sciences (at primary level in Israel, at lower secondary level in Italy).
3. Year of reference: 2024.
4. The Flemish Community of Belgium, the French Community of Belgium, Ireland (lower secondary), Italy (primary), the Netherlands, Poland
(primary) and Portugal (primary) are not included in the averages.
5. Mathematics includes natural sciences.
6. Excludes the last year of primary education (first four years of primary school) for which the instruction time is allocated to specific compulsory
subjects.
For data, see Table D1.3 and Table D1.4. For a link to download the data, see Tables and Notes section.
At the lower secondary level, there is substantial variation in how countries allocate time to the different subjects within
the compulsory curriculum. For example, reading, writing and literature account for 12% or less of compulsory
instruction time in Costa Rica, Czechia, Finland, Hungary, Israel, Japan, Luxembourg, Peru and Sweden but more
than 25% of compulsory instruction time in Greece and Italy (in Italy, this also includes time devoted to social sciences).
In Ireland, reading, writing and literature are taught in two national languages and therefore the combined instruction
time for the two languages reaches around 17% of the total compulsory instruction time. Natural sciences account for
10% or less of compulsory instruction time in the French Community of Belgium, Iceland, Luxembourg and Norway,
but 20% or more of compulsory instruction time in Estonia and Korea (in Korea, this also includes time devoted to ICT,
technology, and practical and vocational skills). Compulsory instruction time devoted to second and other languages
also varies widely between countries. Second-language instruction accounts for 7% or less of compulsory instruction
time in Costa Rica, Greece and Romania and 13% or more in the French Community of Belgium, Iceland, Ireland,
Japan, Latvia and Luxembourg. In addition, more than four out of ten countries with available data allocate some
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
354
compulsory instruction time for lower secondary students to instruction in another language in addition to a second
language (Figure D1.3, and Table D1.3 and Table D1.4).
As the difference between the primary and lower secondary levels shows, there are significant differences in how time
is allocated to school subjects as students grow older. For example, on average across OECD countries, 28% of
instruction time is devoted to reading, writing and literature for 7-year-olds, 19% for 11-year-olds and 12% for 15-year-
olds. In contrast, while an average of 4% of instruction time for 7-year-olds is devoted to a second language, 11% of
instruction time for 11-year-olds is spent studying a second language and 1% studying other languages, while for 15-
year-olds, the percentages are 10% for a second language and 4% for other languages. The proportion of instruction
time devoted to other subjects also changes, as explored in Table D1.6 (available on line).
Flexibility in the curriculum
In most countries and economies, central and state authorities establish regulations or recommendations regarding
instruction time and the curriculum. However, local authorities, schools, teachers and/or students also have varying
degrees of freedom in organising instruction time or in choosing subjects.
In at least one-quarter of countries and economies with available data, the allocation of instruction time is vertically
flexible in primary and lower secondary general education, meaning that instruction time for a specific subject is defined
for a certain number of grades or even the whole of compulsory education, without specifying the time to be allocated
to each grade. In such cases, schools or local authorities are free to decide how much time should be allocated for
each grade (Table D1.2).
In a few countries and economies, compulsory subjects are set within a horizontally flexible timetable for few or most
subjects. This means that overall instruction time is defined for a certain number of compulsory subjects or even the
whole of compulsory education, but the time to be allocated to each subject is not. In Portugal, more than half of the
compulsory curriculum at the primary level is organised within a flexible timetable, and the share reaches 90% or more
in the Flemish Community of Belgium and in Italy. In the Netherlands and Poland (in the first three grades), the entire
curriculum at the primary level is organised as a flexible timetable. At the lower secondary level, similar patterns are
found in the Flemish Community of Belgium and the Netherlands. In these countries and economies, local authorities,
schools and/or teachers are free to decide how much time to allocate to most compulsory subjects. In Scotland
(United Kingdom), at both primary and lower secondary levels, some compulsory subjects are specified, but there is
no regulation on total instruction time, which is the responsibility of local authorities and schools themselves. Excluding
these countries and economies, compulsory subjects with flexible timetables account for 1% of the compulsory
instruction time at both primary and lower secondary levels, even if they are a significant part of the curriculum in some
countries (Table D1.3 and Table D1.4).
More details on the different combinations of flexibility employed by countries, in both primary and lower secondary
education, can be found in Box D1.4.
Flexibility in the choice of subjects is less common across OECD countries. On average, 3% of compulsory instruction
time is allocated to subjects chosen by schools at the primary level. At the lower secondary level, 3% of compulsory
instruction time is allocated to subjects chosen by schools and another 3% to subjects chosen by students. However,
some countries and economies allocate a substantial part of the compulsory instruction time to flexible subjects. For
example, about 10% or more of compulsory instruction time is allocated to subjects chosen by schools in Chile,
Czechia, Estonia (primary), the Flemish Community of Belgium (lower secondary), Ireland (lower secondary), Israel
(primary), the Slovak Republic (lower secondary) and Spain (lower secondary). In Iceland, Norway and Türkiye, 15-
20% of compulsory instruction time is allocated to subjects chosen by lower secondary students (Table D1.3 and
Table D1.4).
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
355
Box D1.4. Implementation of flexibility in compulsory instruction time across subjects and
grades (2025)
Subjects in the compulsory curriculum may be taught as specific individual subjects in the national curriculum with
a specific time allocated to them by grade, or they may be taught as part of the curriculum without a specific amount
of time allocated to them. In the second case, schools or local authorities are free to decide which compulsory
subjects to prioritise and how much time should be assigned to teach a specific subject by grade (horizontal
flexibility), or how much time should be allocated to a specific subject in each grade when the total instruction time
for this subject is only defined for a group of grades (vertical flexibility). Figure D1.4 shows the combinations of
both kinds of flexibility for countries and economies with available data for both primary and secondary level.
Figure D1.4. Flexibility in compulsory instruction time across grades and subjects, in primary
and lower secondary education (2025)
Note: Instruction time is flexible either when the number of hours of instruction is defined for a group of subjects rather than for each subject
(horizontal flexibility) or when it is defined for a group of grades rather than for each grade (vertical flexibility). Countries and economies are
not included in the category of flexibility for a few subjects if a subject is flexible for two grades or fewer (for each level of education).
1. Primary education and lower secondary education are in different categories of flexibility.
2. Two or more subjects are taught together at the national level.
3. Some autonomous communities have vertical flexibility in all subjects.
For data, see Table D1.1, Table D1.3 and Table D1.4.
Horizontal flexibility in the distribution of instruction time across subjects is the most common practice among
countries and economies, in both primary and lower secondary education. Vertical flexibility is implemented in just
10 countries and economies at primary level and 12 at lower secondary. There is no flexibility, i.e. with specific
instruction time allocated for both subjects and grades, in just 11 countries and economies each at both the primary
and the lower secondary level.
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
356
In most education systems, only one type of flexibility is implemented in their national curricula at the primary level:
in 17 countries instruction time is defined for groups of subjects in specific grades (horizontal flexibility only), while
in Norway, instruction time for specific subjects is defined for several grades (vertical flexibility only). At the primary
level, instruction time is defined for a combination of both subjects and grades in only nine countries (Czechia,
Estonia, Finland, Iceland, Korea, Latvia, Lithuania, the Netherlands and Sweden).
Similar patterns are observed at the lower secondary level, although there are differences in horizontal flexibility
between primary and lower secondary education. For instance, in Denmark, the French Community of Belgium
and Türkiye, there is no flexibility in instruction time in primary education, but there is for some groups of subjects
in lower secondary education. Conversely, instruction time is flexible for some groups of subjects in primary
education, but not in lower secondary education in Croatia, Luxembourg and Poland.
In a few other countries (Ireland, Israel, Lithuania and Norway), the type of flexibility used in the allocation of
instruction time varies between primary and lower secondary levels. At primary level, the curricula in Ireland and
Israel only offer horizontal flexibility in instruction time and the curriculum in Norway only offers vertical flexibility,
while all three combine both types of flexibility (at least for a few subjects) in lower secondary education. Conversely
in Lithuania, both types of flexibility are used at the primary education level, while only vertical flexibility is
implemented for the definition of instruction time in lower secondary education.
Definitions
Compulsory instruction time/curriculum refers to the amount and allocation of instruction time that has to be
provided in almost every public school and must be attended by almost all public sector students. The compulsory
curriculum may be flexible, as local authorities, schools, teachers and/or students may have varying degrees of
freedom to choose the subjects and/or the allocation of compulsory instruction time.
Compulsory flexible subjects chosen by schools refers to the total amount of compulsory instruction time indicated
by the central authorities which regional authorities, local authorities, schools or teachers allocate to subjects of their
choice (or subjects they chose from a list defined by central education authorities). It is compulsory for the school to
offer one of these subjects, and students must attend.
Compulsory options chosen by the students refers to the total amount of instruction time in one or more subjects
that students have to select (from a set of subjects that are compulsory for schools to offer) in order to cover part of
their compulsory instruction time.
Compulsory subjects with a flexible timetable refers to the total amount of instruction time indicated by the central
authorities for a given group of subjects which regional authorities, local authorities, schools or teachers allocate to
individual subjects. There is flexibility in the time spent on a subject, but not in the subjects to be taught.
Flexible allocation of instruction time across multiple grades refers to the case where the curriculum only indicates
the total instruction time for a specific subject for a certain number of grades, or even the whole of compulsory
education, without specifying the time to be allocated to each grade. In such cases, schools/local authorities are free
to decide how much time should be assigned for each grade.
Instruction time refers to the time a public school is expected to provide instruction to students on all the subjects
integrated into the compulsory and non-compulsory curriculum, on school premises or in before-school/after-school
activities that are formal parts of the compulsory programme. Instruction time excludes breaks between classes or
other types of interruptions, non-compulsory time outside the school day, time dedicated to homework activities,
individual tutoring or private study and examination periods (days for non-school-based examinations, e.g. national
examinations).
Intended instruction time refers to the number of hours per year of the compulsory and non-compulsory part of the
curriculum that students are entitled to receive in public schools. The intended curriculum can be based on regulations or
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
357
standards of the central (or top-level) education authorities or may be established as a set of recommendations at the
regional level.
The non-compulsory part of the curriculum refers to the total amount of instruction time that public schools must
offer on top of the compulsory instruction time, but which is not mandatory for all students. Subjects can vary from
school to school or from region to region and take the form of optional subjects. Additional activities before/after classes
offered by the school are not per se part of the non-compulsory curriculum; for instance, if there is no obligation upon
public schools to provide this instruction time or it is not part of the official curricula. In particular, non-compulsory
education excludes morning care classes or after-school care classes, even if they are officially regulated.
Methodology
This chapter captures intended instruction time (as established in public regulations) as a measure of learning in formal
classroom settings. It does not show the actual number of hours of instruction that students receive and does not cover
learning outside of the formal classroom setting. Differences may exist across countries between the regulatory
minimum hours of instruction and the actual hours of instruction received by students. Given such factors as school
timetables, lesson cancellations and teacher absenteeism, schools may not consistently attain the regulatory minimum
instruction time (see Box D1.1 in OECD (2007[10])).
This chapter also illustrates how minimum (and/or recommended) instruction hours are allocated across different
curricular areas. It shows the intended net hours of instruction for those grades that are part of compulsory full-time
general education. Although the data are difficult to compare among countries because of different curricular policies,
they nevertheless provide an indication of how much formal instruction time is considered necessary for students to
achieve the desired educational goals.
When the allocation of instruction time across grades is flexible (i.e. instruction time for a specific subject is defined for
a certain number of grades, or even the whole of compulsory education, without specifying the time to be allocated to
each grade), instruction time per age or level of education was estimated by assuming equal distribution of the total
number of instruction hours between grades.
For more information please see the OECD Handbook for Internationally Comparable Education Statistics (OECD,
2018[11]) and Education at a Glance 2025 Sources, Methodologies and Technical Notes
((https://doi.org/10.1787/fcfaf2d1-en).
Sources
Data on instruction time are from the 2024 Joint Eurydice-OECD Instruction time data collection and refer to instruction
time during compulsory primary and full-time (lower and upper) secondary general education for the school year
2024/25. Data on school calendars are from the 2024 Joint Eurydice-OECD data collection on school calendars and
refer to dates on holiday periods for students at primary and (lower and upper) secondary education for the school
year 2024/25.
References
EACEA: Eurydice (2023), Structural Indicators for Monitoring Education and Training Systems in Europe [9]
2023: Digital Competence at School, Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg,
https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2797/886074.
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
358
EACEA: Eurydice (2019), Digital Education at School in Europe, Publications Office of the European Union, [8]
Luxembourg, https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2797/763.
OECD (2023), OECD Digital Education Outlook 2023: Towards an Effective Digital Education Ecosystem, [7]
OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/c74f03de-en.
OECD (2023), PISA 2022 Results (Volume II): Learning During – and From – Disruption, PISA, OECD [2]
Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/a97db61c-en.
OECD (2021), Education at a Glance 2021: OECD Indicators, OECD Publishing, Paris, [1]
https://doi.org/10.1787/b35a14e5-en.
OECD (2019), Education at a Glance 2019: OECD Indicators, OECD Publishing, Paris, [4]
https://doi.org/10.1787/f8d7880d-en.
OECD (2018), Education at a Glance 2018: OECD Indicators, OECD Publishing, Paris, [5]
https://doi.org/10.1787/eag-2018-en.
OECD (2018), OECD Handbook for Internationally Comparative Education Statistics 2018: Concepts, [11]
Standards, Definitions and Classifications, OECD Publishing, Paris,
https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264304444-en.
OECD (2017), Education at a Glance 2017: OECD Indicators, OECD Publishing, Paris, [6]
https://doi.org/10.1787/eag-2017-en.
OECD (2014), “Does homework perpetuate inequities in education?”, PISA in Focus, No. 46, OECD [3]
Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/5jxrhqhtx2xt-en.
OECD (2007), Education at a Glance 2007: OECD Indicators, OECD Publishing, Paris, [10]
https://doi.org/10.1787/eag-2007-en.
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
359
Tables and Notes
Chapter D1 Tables
Table D1.1 Instruction time in compulsory general education¹ (2025)
Table D1.2 Organisation of compulsory general education¹ (2025)
Table D1.3 Instruction time per subject in primary education (2025)
Table D1.4 Instruction time per subject in general lower secondary education (2025)
WEB Table D1.5 Instruction time in compulsory general education,¹ by age (2025)
WEB Table D1.6 Instruction time per subject for 6-18 year-olds¹ (2025)
StatLink 2 https://stat.link/hwfrl9
Data Download
To download the data for the figures and tables in this chapter, click StatLink above.
To access further data and/or other education indicators, please visit the OECD Data Explorer: https://data-
explorer.oecd.org/.
Data cut-off for the print publication 13 June 2025. Please note that the Data Explorer contains the most recent
data.
Notes for Tables
Table D1.1. Instruction time in compulsory general education (2025)
Note: Columns showing the combined instruction time for compulsory primary and lower secondary education (i.e.
Columns 15 to 18) and compulsory upper secondary education (i.e. Columns 19 to 25) are available for consultation
on line.
1. Refers to full-time compulsory education and excludes pre-primary education, even if compulsory.
2. Estimated number of hours by level of education based on the average number of hours per year, as for some
subjects, the allocation of instruction time across multiple levels is flexible.
3. Year of reference: 2024.
4. Excludes the last year of compulsory education, which can be classified at either the lower secondary or the
upper secondary level.
5. The number of grades in lower secondary education is three or four, depending on the track. The fourth year
of pre-vocational secondary education was excluded from the calculation.
Table D1.2. Organisation of compulsory general education (2025)
Note: Students go to school five days a week (six days in some schools in Israel and secondary education in Italy). In
some countries, the statutory length of the school day varies within the school week. Columns showing the organisation
of compulsory upper secondary education (i.e. Columns 9 to 12) are available for consultation on line.
1. Refers to full-time compulsory education and excludes pre-primary education, even if compulsory.
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
360
2. For some subjects, allocation of instruction time across multiple levels of education is flexible.
3. Year of reference: 2024.
4. Excludes the last year of compulsory education, which can be classified at either the lower secondary or the
upper secondary level.
5. Flexible allocation of instruction time across three consecutive grades is applicable for grades 1, 4 and 7.
6. The number of grades in lower secondary education is three or four, depending on the track. The fourth year
of pre-vocational secondary education was excluded from the calculation.
Table D1.3. Instruction time per subject in primary education (2025)
Note: The averages were adjusted to add up to 100% and do not correspond exactly to the average of each column.
Please refer to Table D1.6, available on line, for instruction time per subject for each age.
1. For some subjects, allocation of instruction time across multiple levels of education is flexible.
2. Year of reference: 2024.
3. The second language of instruction includes other national languages taught.
4. The Flemish Community of Belgium, the French Community of Belgium, Italy, the Netherlands, Poland and
Portugal are not included in the averages.
5. Excludes the last year of primary education (first four years of primary school) for which the instruction time
is allocated to specific compulsory subjects.
Table D1.4. Instruction time per subject in general lower secondary education (2025)
Note: The averages were adjusted to add up to 100% and do not correspond exactly to the average of each column.
Please refer to Table D1.6, available on line, for instruction time per subject for each age.
1. For some subjects, allocation of instruction time across multiple levels of education is flexible.
2. Year of reference: 2024.
3. The second language of instruction includes other national languages taught.
4. The Flemish Community of Belgium, the French Community of Belgium, Ireland and the Netherlands are not
included in the averages.
Control codes
a – category not applicable; b – break in series; d – contains data from another column; m – missing data; x – contained
in another column (indicated in brackets). For further control codes, see the Reader’s Guide.
For further methodological information, see Education at a Glance 2025: Sources, Methodologies and Technical Notes
(https://doi.org/10.1787/fcfaf2d1-en)].
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
361
Table D1.1. Instruction time in compulsory general education¹ (2025)
By level of education, in public institutions
Primary Lower secondary
Average hours per year Total number of hours Average hours per year Total number of hours
Non-compulsory
Non-compulsory
Non-compulsory
Non-compulsory
instruction time
instruction time
instruction time
instruction time
instruction time
instruction time
instruction time
instruction time
instruction time
instruction time
instruction time
instruction time
Number of Number of
Compulsory
Compulsory
Compulsory
Compulsory
grades that grades that
Intended
Intended
Intended
Intended
are part of are part of
compulsory compulsory
education education
OECD countries (1) (2) (3) (4)=(2)+(3) (5) (6) (7)=(5)+(6) (8) (9) (10) (11)=(9)+(10) (12) (13) (14)=(12)+(13)
Australia 7 1 000 m m 7 000 m m 4 1 000 m m 4 000 m m
Austria 4 705 m m 2 820 m m 4 930 m m 3 720 m m
Canada 6 921 m m 5 527 m m 3 924 m m 2 773 m m
Chile 6 1 023 a 1 023 6 137 a 6 137 2 1 056 a 1 056 2 111 a 2 111
Colombia 5 1 000 a 1 000 5 000 a 5 000 4 1 200 a 1 200 4 800 a 4 800
Costa Rica 6 1 147 a 1 147 6 880 a 6 880 3 1 120 a 1 120 3 360 a 3 360
Czechia 5 669 a 669 3 345 a 3 345 4 865 a 865 3 459 a 3 459
Denmark 7 1 000 a 1 000 7 000 a 7 000 3 1 200 a 1 200 3 600 a 3 600
Estonia 6 661 a 661 3 964 a 3 964 3 823 a 823 2 468 a 2 468
Finland 2 6 660 33 693 3 962 195 4 157 3 817 87 904 2 451 261 2 712
France 5 864 a 864 4 320 a 4 320 4 973 216 1 189 3 890 864 4 754
Germany 3, 4 4 725 a 725 2 901 a 2 901 5 886 a 886 4 432 a 4 432
Greece 6 718 380 1 099 4 310 2 282 6 591 3 791 238 1 029 2 373 715 3 088
Hungary 4 666 a 666 2 663 a 2 663 4 796 a 796 3 184 a 3 184
Iceland 7 729 a 729 5 100 a 5 100 3 839 a 839 2 516 a 2 516
Ireland 6 903 a 903 5 415 a 5 415 3 465 a 465 1 395 a 1 395
Israel 6 941 a 941 5 646 a 5 646 3 1 002 a 1 002 3 005 a 3 005
Italy 5 917 a 917 4 587 a 4 587 3 990 a 990 2 970 a 2 970
Japan 6 768 a 768 4 608 a 4 608 3 884 a 884 2 652 a 2 652
Korea 6 655 a 655 3 928 a 3 928 3 842 a 842 2 525 a 2 525
Latvia 6 583 m m 3 498 m m 3 778 m m 2 334 m m
Lithuania 4 676 53 729 2 706 210 2 916 6 864 119 983 5 186 711 5 897
Luxembourg 6 924 a 924 5 544 a 5 544 3 845 a 845 2 535 a 2 535
Mexico 6 760 a 760 4 560 a 4 560 3 1 108 a 1 108 3 325 a 3325
Netherlands5 6 940 a 940 5 640 a 5 640 3 1 000 a 1 000 3 000 a 3 000
New Zealand 6 m m m m m m 4 m m m m m m
Norway 7 753 a 753 5 272 a 5 272 3 874 a 874 2 622 a 2 622
Poland 4 564 56 620 2 255 225 2 481 4 762 64 826 3 049 257 3 306
Portugal 6 874 144 1 018 5 245 864 6 108 3 818 25 843 2 455 74 2 529
Slovak Republic 4 680 a 680 2 722 a 2 722 5 828 a 828 4 139 a 4 139
Slovenia 6 691 140 831 4 144 840 4 984 3 766 179 944 2 298 536 2 833
Spain 6 789 a 789 4 733 a 4 733 3 1 053 a 1 053 3 158 a 3 158
Sweden2 6 709 m m 4 256 m m 3 878 m m 2 634 m m
Switzerland 6 798 m m 4 790 m m 3 963 m m 2 890 m m
Türkiye 4 720 a 720 2 880 a 2 880 4 843 a 843 3 371 a 3 371
United States3 6 974 m m 5 847 m m 3 1 023 m m 3 070 m m
Other economies
Flemish Comm. (Belgium) 6 821 a 821 4 928 a 4 928 2 949 a 949 1 899 a 1 899
French Comm. (Belgium) 6 826 a 826 4 956 a 4 956 2 885 a 885 1 770 a 1 770
England (UK) 6 m a m m a m 3 m a m m a m
Scotland (UK) 7 m a m m a m 3 m a m m a m
OECD average 6 804 m m 4 560 m m 3 909 m m 3 044 m m
Partner and/or accession countries
Argentina m m m m m m m m m m m m m m
Brazil3 5 800 m m 4 000 m m 4 800 m m 3 200 m m
Bulgaria 4 507 81 588 2 028 325 2 353 3 740 92 832 2 219 277 2 496
China m m m m m m m m m m m m m m
Croatia 4 473 118 591 1 890 473 2 363 4 663 131 794 2 651 525 3 176
India m m m m m m m m m m m m m m
Indonesia m m m m m m m m m m m m m m
Peru 3 6 833 a 833 4 995 a 4 995 5 971 a 971 4 856 a 4 856
Romania 5 540 a 540 2 700 a 2 700 4 834 a 834 3 335 a 3 335
Saudi Arabia m m m m m m m m m m m m m m
South Africa m m m m m m m m m m m m m m
EU25 average 5 730 m m 3 903 m m 4 851 m m 2 991 m m
G20 average m m m m m m m m m m m m m m
Note: For notes on this table and a link to download the data, see Tables and Notes section above.
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
362
Table D1.2. Organisation of compulsory general education¹ (2025)
By level of education, in public institutions
Primary Lower secondary
Number Flexible Number Flexible
of grades that allocation of of grades that allocation of
are part of Average number instruction time are part of Average number instruction time
compulsory Theoretical of instruction across multiple compulsory Theoretical of instruction across multiple
education starting age days per year grades education starting age days per year grades
OECD countries (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8)
Australia 7 5 200 No 4 12 200 No
Austria 4 6 180 No 4 10 180 No
Canada 6 6 185 No 3 12 185 No
Chile 6 6 183 No 2 12 182 No
Colombia 5 6 200 No 4 11 200 No
Costa Rica 6 6 200 No 3 12 200 No
Czechia 5 6 189 Yes 4 11 189 Yes
Denmark 7 6 200 No 3 13 200 No
Estonia 6 7 175 Yes 3 13 175 Yes
Finland 2 6 7 187 Yes 3 13 187 Yes
France 5 6 180 No 4 11 180 No
Germany 3, 4 4 6 188 No 5 10 188 No
Greece 6 6 169 No 3 12 160 No
Hungary 4 6 183 No 4 10 183 No
Iceland 7 6 170 Yes 3 13 170 Yes
Ireland 6 6 181 No 3 12 164 Yes
Israel 6 6 214 No 3 12 206 Yes
Italy 5 6 200 No 3 11 200 No
Japan 6 6 202 No 3 12 202 No
Korea 6 6 190 Yes 3 12 190 Yes
Latvia5 6 7 169 Yes 3 13 173 Yes
Lithuania 4 7 175 Yes 6 11 185 Yes
Luxembourg 6 6 180 No 3 12 169 No
Mexico 6 6 190 No 3 12 190 No
Netherlands6 6 6 m Yes 3 12 m No
New Zealand 6 5 195 m 4 11 193 m
Norway 7 6 190 Yes 3 13 190 Yes
Poland 4 7 179 No 4 11 179 No
Portugal 6 6 173 No 3 12 164 No
Slovak Republic 4 6 189 No 5 10 189 No
Slovenia 6 6 190 No 3 12 185 No
Spain 6 6 175 No 3 12 175 No
Sweden 6 7 178 Yes 3 13 178 Yes
Switzerland 6 6 188 No 3 12 188 No
Türkiye 4 6 180 No 4 10 180 No
United States3 6 6 180 m 3 12 180 m
Other economies
Flemish Comm. (Belgium) 6 6 176 No 2 12 178 No
French Comm. (Belgium) 6 6 177 No 2 12 177 No
England (UK) 6 5 190 m 3 11 190 m
Scotland (UK) 7 5 190 m 3 12 190 m
OECD average 6 6 186 a 3 12 184 a
Partner and/or accession countries
Argentina m m m m m m m m
Brazil3 5 6 200 No 4 11 200 No
Bulgaria 4 7 163 No 3 11 173 No
China m m m m m m m m
Croatia 4 7 175 No 4 11 175 No
India m m m m m m m m
Indonesia m m m m m m m m
Peru 4 6 6 185 No 5 12 185 No
Romania 5 6 180 No 4 11 179 No
Saudi Arabia m m m m m m m m
South Africa m m m m m m m m
EU25 average 5 6 181 a 4 12 180 a
G20 average m m m m m m m m
Note: For notes on this table and a link to download the data, see Tables and Notes section above.
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
363
Table D1.3. Instruction time per subject in primary education (2025)
As a percentage of total compulsory instruction time, in public institutions
subjects with flexible
Compulsory options
Compulsory flexible
Physical education
technologies (ICT)
Second language
Total compulsory
Non-compulsory
Natural sciences
Other languages
subjects chosen
Reading, writing
moral education
vocational skills
Religion/ ethics/
Information and
Social sciences
communication
Other subjects
chosen by the
and literature
Practical and
Mathematics
Compulsory
Technology
curriculum
curriculum
by schools
and health
timetable
students
Arts
OECD countries (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) (15) (16) (17) (18)
Australia x(17) x(17) x(17) x(17) x(17) a x(17) x(17) x(17) x(17) x(17) x(17) x(17) x(17) x(17) x(17) 100 m
Austria 30 17 13 d x(3) 2 a 11 9 9 x(17) x(3) 6 4 a a a 100 m
Canada x(17) x(17) x(17) x(17) x(17) x(17) x(17) x(17) x(17) x(17) x(17) x(17) x(17) x(17) x(17) x(17) 100 m
Chile 20 17 9 9 3 x(16) 9 10 6 x(16) 3 x(16) 2 a a 13 d 100 a
Colombia m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m a
Costa Rica 23 19 14 9 12 a 5 5 5 a a a 9 a a a 100 a
Czechia 28 17 9d x(3) 8 a 8 10 x(16) 2 4d x(11) a a x(16) 14 d 100 a
Denmark 22 13 5 3 5 2 5 9 3 x(14) a 6 19 9d a a 100 a
Estonia 23 15 7 5 8 2 11 15 x(16) x(16) 3 a a a a 12 d 100 a
Finland1 23 15 10 4 8 1 9 16 5 x(17) a a a 4 a 4 100 5
France 38 21 d 7d 3 6 a 13 8 4 x(2, 3) x(3) a a a a a 100 a
Germany 2 27 21 4 6 4 a 11 13 6 0 2 0 4 a 1 a 100 a
Greece 27 14 10 6 9 2 9 10 3 3 a a a a a 7 100 53
Hungary 25 16 2 a 2 a 21 15 4 2 4 a a a a 8 100 a
Iceland 20 16 8 13 d 6 d x(5, 15) 9 19 d x(4) 3 a x(8) a a 5d x(15) 100 a
Ireland3 20 17 4d 8 14 a 4 12 10 x(17) x(3) a 11 a a a 100 a
Israel 29 d 15 8d x(1) 7 2 x(12) x(12) 9 a x(3) 16 d a a a 14 100 a
Italy4 x(14) x(14) x(14) x(14) x(14) a 3 x(14) 7 a x(14) a a 90 d a x(17) 100 a
Japan 24 16 7 6 3 a 10 12 3 a a a 13 6 a a 100 a
Korea 22 14 9d 9d 6 a 7 9 x(4, 13) x(12, 13) x(12) x(3) 24 d a a a 100 a
Latvia 23 18 8 6 11d x(5) 11 14 x(13, 18) 8d x(10) x(10) 1d a a a 100 m
Lithuania 28 18 4 4 7 a 12 16 d 4 a x(8) 4 4 a a a 100 8
Luxembourg3 29 19 7 2 15 a 10 11 7 a a a a a a a 100 a
Mexico m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m a m a
Netherlands 4 x(14) x(14) x(14) x(14) x(14) a x(14) x(14) x(14) x(14) x(14) x(14) a 100 d a a 100 a
New Zealand m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m
Norway 26 17 7 7 7 a 11 14 8 a a 2 a a a 1 100 a
Poland 4, 5 x(14) x(14) x(14) x(14) x(14) a x(14) x(14) a x(14) x(14) a x(14) 100 d a a 100 10
Portugal4 19 19 x(14) x(14) 3 a 3 x(14) a x(17) x(14) a x(16) 52 d a 4d 100 16
Slovak Republic 32 17 6 3 6 a 8 10 4 2 a 2 x(16) a x(16) 8d 100 a
Slovenia 22 16 8 7d 10 a 14 15 x(4) x(17) 5 2 1 a a a 100 20
Spain 23 18 7 6 11 x(16) 11 9 7 a a a 1 a x(16) 8d 100 a
Sweden1 28 20 8 14 7 a 8 7 a a 3 5 a a 1 x(17) 100 m
Switzerland x(17) x(17) x(17) x(17) x(17) x(17) x(17) x(17) x(17) x(17) x(17) x(17) a a a a 100 m
Türkiye 30 17 5 13 5 a 14 7 2 a a 1 7 a a a 100 a
United States m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m
Other economies
Flemish Comm. (Belgium) 4 x(14) x(14) x(14) x(14) x(14) a x(14) x(14) 7 x(17) x(3) a x(17) 93 d a x(14) 100 a
French Comm. (Belgium) 4 21 18 3 6 6 a 8 6 7 3 3 a 6 13 a a 100 a
England (UK) m m m m a a m m m m m a a m a a m a
Scotland (UK) m m m m m a m m m m m m a a a a m a
OECD average4 25 16 7 6 7 0 10 11 5 1 1 2 4 1 0 3 100 3
Partner and/or accession countries
Argentina m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m
Brazil2 x(17) x(17) x(17) x(17) a a x(17) x(17) x(17) x(17) x(17) a a a x(17) x(17) 100 m
Bulgaria 28 15 3 5 8 a 9 14 x(15) 2 x(12) 4d a a 11 d a 100 16
China m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m
Croatia 28 22 13 d x(3) 11 a 15 11 a a a a a a a a 100 25
India m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m
Indonesia m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m
Peru 2 14 14 12 12 9 a 10 10 3 a a a 7 a a 8 100 a
Romania 28 18 5 4 7 a 12 9 5 a a a 12 a a a 100 a
Saudi Arabia m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m
South Africa m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m
EU25 average4 26 17 7 5 8 0 10 11 5 1 2 2 3 1 1 3 100 7
G20 average m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m
Note: For notes on this table and a link to download the data, see Tables and Notes section above.
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
364
Table D1.4. Instruction time per subject in general lower secondary education (2025)
As a percentage of total compulsory instruction time, in public institutions
Physical education
chosen by schools
technologies (ICT)
Total compulsory
Second language
flexible timetable
Non-compulsory
Natural sciences
Other languages
flexible subjects
Reading, writing
vocational skills
moral education
Religion/ ethics/
Information and
Social sciences
communication
options chosen
by the students
Other subjects
and literature
subjects with
Practical and
Mathematics
Compulsory
Compulsory
Compulsory
Technology
curriculum
curriculum
and health
Arts
OECD countries (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) (15) (16) (17) (18)
Australia x(17) x(17) x(17) x(17) x(17) a x(17) x(17) x(17) x(17) x(17) x(17) x(17) x(17) x(17) x(17) 100 m
Austria 13 12 12 11 11 x(15) 11 12 6 3 a 7 x(15) a 1d a 100 m
Canada x(17) x(17) x(17) x(17) x(17) x(17) x(17) x(17) x(17) x(17) x(17) x(17) x(17) x(17) x(17) x(17) 100 m
Chile 16 16 11 11 8 x(16) 5 8 5 x(16) 3 x(16) 3 a a 14 d 100 a
Colombia m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m a
Costa Rica 12 12 12 14 7 7 5 10 2 5 a 7 5 a a 2 100 a
Czechia 12 12 16 8 10 5 8 7 x(16) 3 2d x(11) a a x(16) 15 d 100 a
Denmark 18 13 13 8 8 8 8 x(15) 3 x(15) x(15) x(15) 18 a 5d a 100 a
Estonia 13 14 21 11 10 10 6 6 x(16) x(16) 5 a a a a 4d 100 a
Finland1 12 13 16 8 8 6 12 7 3 x(17) a 6 a 6 a 3 100 11
France 16 14 11 10 12 7 12 7 2 x(17) 4 1 3 a a a 100 22
Germany 2 14 13 12 12 12 4 9 9 5 1 3 1 3 a 2 a 100 a
Greece 25 12 13 9 6 6 6 6 6 4 3 1 a a a 3 100 30
Hungary 12 12 11 10 10 a 17 8 3 3 3 a 3 a a 6 100 a
Iceland 14 14 8 8d 19 d x(5, 15) 8 8d x(4) 2 a x(8) a a 20 d x(15) 100 a
Ireland3, 4 17 17 x(16) 19 17 x(16) 10 x(16) x(16) x(16) x(16) x(16) 5 a a 14 d 100 a
Israel 10 14 13 d 21 11 8 x(12) x(16) 5 x(3) x(3) 11 d a a a 7d 100 a
Italy 33 d 20 d x(2) x(1) 10 7 7 13 3 a 7 a a a a x(17) 100 a
Japan 12 12 12 11 13 a 10 7 3 a 3 a 12 4 a a 100 a
Korea 13 11 20 d 15 d 10 a 8 8 x(4) x(3) x(12) x(3) 9 a x(16) 5d 100 a
Latvia 15 15 14 15 15 d x(5) 9 7 x(13, 18) 10 d x(10) x(10) 1d a a a 100 m
Lithuania 17 13 12 14 10 5 9 6 3 3 5 a 3 a a a 100 14
Luxembourg3 12 15 8 12 16 6 8 6 4 3 a a 6 a 4 a 100 a
Mexico m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m a m a
Netherlands 4 x(14) x(14) x(14) x(14) x(14) x(14) x(14) x(14) x(14) x(14) x(14) x(14) a 100 d a a 100 a
New Zealand m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m
Norway 15 12 9 9 8 x(15) 9 9 6 x(15) x(15) 7 x(15) a 15 d x(15) 100 a
Poland 18 14 11 13 11 4 14 5 a 4 2 0 4 a a a 100 8
Portugal 13 13 19 16 x(14) x(14) 10 x(14) a x(14) x(14) a a 28 d a a 100 3
Slovak Republic 16 14 12 11 10 x(16) 7 6 3 3 a 3 x(16) a x(16) 13 d 100 a
Slovenia 13 13 17 15 d 11 x(15) 9 8 x(4) x(17) 4 a 2 a 7d a 100 23
Spain 15 13 11 10 11 x(16) 7 9 5 a x(16) a 3 a x(16) 15 d 100 a
Sweden1 11 15 11 15 8 a 11 7 a a 3 9 a a 10 x(17) 100 m
Switzerland x(17) x(17) x(17) x(17) x(17) x(17) x(17) x(17) x(17) x(17) x(17) x(17) a a x(17) a 100 m
Türkiye 16 14 11 8 10 x(15) 5 6 8 3 3 1 a a 16 d a 100 a
United States m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m
Other economies
Flemish Comm. (Belgium) 4 x(14) x(14) x(14) x(14) x(14) x(14) x(14) x(14) 6 x(14) x(14) a x(14) 75 d x(16) 19 d 100 a
French Comm. (Belgium) 4 18 15 10 13 13 a 10 3 7 x(16) 3 x(16) a a x(16) 7d 100 a
England (UK) m m m m m a m m m m m a m m a a m a
Scotland (UK) m m m m m m m m m m m m a a a a m a
OECD average4 14 13 12 11 10 4 8 7 3 3 2 2 3 1 3 3 100 4
Partner and/or accession countries
Argentina m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m
Brazil2 x(17) x(17) x(17) x(17) x(17) a x(17) x(17) x(17) x(17) x(17) x(17) a a x(17) x(17) 100 m
Bulgaria 17 16 11 13 9 x(15) 7 11 x(15) 5 x(12) 4d a a 8d a 100 13
China m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m
Croatia 18 16 15 15 12 a 8 8 a 4 4 a a a a a 100 20
India m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m
Indonesia m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m
Peru 2 11 11 11 9 9 a 9 9 14 a a 6 6 a a 6 100 a
Romania 14 14 14 13 7 7 7 7 4 4 4 a 4 a a a 100 a
Saudi Arabia m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m
South Africa m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m
EU25 average4 15 13 13 11 10 5 9 7 3 3 3 2 2 1 2 3 100 7
G20 average m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m
Note: For notes on this table and a link to download the data, see Tables and Notes section above.
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
365
Chapter D2. How do student-teacher
ratios and class sizes vary across
education levels up to upper secondary
education?
Highlights
• Between 2013 and 2023, the ratio of children to teachers in pre-primary education fell across most OECD
countries, decreasing from an average of 15 children per teacher to 13. Despite this overall trend, a few
OECD and partner countries experienced increases in child-to-teacher ratios, often due to rising
enrolments and challenges in maintaining a sufficient teaching workforce.
• In primary education, the average student-teacher ratio across OECD countries is 14:1. This is slightly
higher than at lower and upper secondary levels, where the student-teacher ratio averages 13:1, although
variation across countries at all levels of education remains significant.
• Between 2013 and 2023, the OECD average class size at the primary level remained stable at 21 students
per class. However, despite this overall stability, countries including Brazil, Lithuania, Mexico and the
Republic of Türkiye experienced notable changes in class sizes, reflecting shifts in demographic trends
and changes in education policies.
Context
Class size and student-teacher ratio are two key indicators closely monitored by policy makers, as both have a
significant impact on educational expenditure, particularly through the cost of teacher salaries. These metrics
provide important insights into the allocation of resources within education systems and their potential influence on
educational outcomes.
This chapter examines class sizes and student-teacher ratios across multiple educational levels, from early
childhood education and care (ECEC) to upper secondary education. At each stage, the nature of teacher-student
interactions evolves, reflecting differences in pedagogical approaches and developmental needs. In ECEC settings,
for instance, the presence of additional staff such as teacher aides is common, supporting both instructional and
caregiving roles. Similar support structures may exist at other educational levels, contributing to the overall learning
environment.
In light of current challenges, including demographic shifts, teacher shortages and budget constraints, it is essential
to closely monitor these indicators and their evolution over time. These factors influence both the quality of
education and the ability of systems to meet the needs of students, requiring ongoing attention from policy makers.
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
366
Figure D2.1. Trend in the ratio of children to staff in pre-primary education (2013, 2023)
Children to teaching staff - 2023 Children to teaching staff - 2013 Children to contact staff (teachers and teachers' aides) - 2023
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
1. Year of reference differs from 2013.
2. Year of reference differs from 2023.
3. Overestimation of student–staff ratios due to classification challenges between early childhood educational development and pre-primary
education levels, as some staff classified under ECEC also teach in pre-primary classes.
For data, see Table D2.1. For a link to download the data, see Tables and Notes section.
Other findings
• Child-to-staff ratios are generally lower for younger children in early childhood educational development
services than in pre-primary education, averaging 9:1 across OECD countries. This reflects the greater
need for close adult supervision in settings for children under the age of 3.
• Differences in student-teacher ratios between general and vocational upper secondary programmes
remained evident, with vocational tracks having higher ratios in 12 OECD countries.
• Between 2013 and 2023, class sizes in public and private primary institutions have remained stable. In
lower secondary education, class sizes in public schools also showed little change, while private
institutions experienced a slight decrease.
Note
Student-teacher ratios and class sizes measure very different characteristics of the educational system. Student-
teacher ratios compare the number of students to the number of teachers at a given level of education and in similar
types of institutions. This indicator provides information on the level of teaching resources available in a country
relative to its student population and serve as a pivotal indicator reflecting the human resources allocated, whether
directly or indirectly, to children's education. This ratio is of importance from both administrative and economic
standpoints as it is closely related to the amount of money spent per student.
In contrast, class sizes measure the average number of students that are grouped together in a classroom, which
has greater significance from a psychological standpoint and is a more direct measure of the teaching resources
brought to bear on a student’s development. At higher levels of education, students are often split into several
different classes, depending on the subject area. This makes class sizes difficult to define and compare at these
levels. Therefore, the indicator on class size is limited to primary and lower secondary education.
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
367
Analysis
Staffing of early childhood education
Early childhood education and care (ECEC) profoundly influences children's educational, cognitive, behavioural and
social development, both in the short and long term. As a foundational stage in lifelong learning and well-being, high-
quality ECEC contributes to reducing inequalities and promoting inclusion from an early age. The quality of ECEC
systems is influenced by a complex interplay of factors, including curriculum and pedagogy, staff education and
training, workforce composition, staff-to-child ratios, and monitoring mechanisms at the system and setting level.
These elements serve as key policy levers to enhance service quality and foster more equitable and inclusive
environments (OECD, 2025[1]). Although no single indicator can fully reflect the complexity of the quality in ECEC and
the interactions between children and staff, indicators such as workforce composition and staff-child ratios provide
valuable insights into two essential dimensions of quality.
Type of staff working with young children
A diverse ECEC workforce plays a vital role in recognising and responding to the unique needs and strengths of
children from varied cultural and individual backgrounds. It also provides children with exposure to adults with a range
of profiles, experiences and expertise. In many countries, early childhood care is delivered by teams of professionals
rather than a single educator managing an entire group, as is more typical in primary education (European Commission
/ EACEA / Eurydice, 2025[2]). These professionals often have different qualifications and levels of compensation,
reflecting the variety of their responsibilities and the specific age groups they serve.
Staff who work directly and regularly as the principal contact with children in ECEC settings often hold titles that differ
from traditional classroom teachers – such as pedagogues, educators, childcare practitioners, group-leading personnel
or kindergarten teachers – reflecting national and institutional differences in ECEC systems. The minimum qualification
requirements for these roles vary significantly depending on the ages of children they work with. In OECD countries,
two-third of programmes serving children aged 3 and above require staff in these roles to hold at least a bachelor’s or
master’s qualification. In contrast, only one-third of programmes for children under the age of 3 require personnel to
have the same level of educational attainment (see Chapter B1, Box B1.1).
Although classroom teachers are traditionally regarded as the core practitioners in ECEC, there is growing recognition
of the contributions made by auxiliary staff. The research literature highlights that assistant teachers or teachers’ aides
play a crucial role in children’s development by facilitating learning, bridging gaps and providing caring support in
various scenarios (Figueras-Daniel and Li, 2021[3]; Mowrey and Farran, 2021[4]; Webster and De Boer, 2019[5]). For
instance, in Norway, kindergarten assistants engage directly with children, although they do not hold responsibility for
providing educational content, which remains the domain of educational leaders. Similarly, in Japan, support staff play
a key role in ensuring the smooth execution of teachers’ duties, contributing to the overall functioning of ECEC settings.
Teachers also benefit from the availability of support from other professional staff. The integration of specialised staff
such as speech therapists, psychologists and school counsellors can enhance the overall effectiveness of early
childhood teams by bringing targeted expertise to meet children’s diverse developmental needs. Through consultative
guidance and tailored interventions, these professionals help promote more inclusive and responsive practices
(European Commission / EACEA / Eurydice, 2025[2]; Fukkink and van Verseveld, 2020[6]). Moreover, teachers who
experience supportive relationships with co-workers and supervisors report less stress and depression (Smith and
Lawrence, 2019[7]). For instance, Lithuania employs a wide range of support personnel, including speech therapists,
psychologists, art educators and swimming instructors, who contribute to both individualised support and group-based
developmental activities. In Korea, kindergartens include special education teachers who adapt instruction to meet the
individual needs of children. Ultimately, the composition of the ECEC workforce carries important policy implications
not only for delivering high-quality education and care, but also for effective and sustainable human resource planning
within the sector.
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
368
ECEC settings also rely on institution-level management personnel whose primary responsibilities include overseeing
planning, supervision, co-ordination and overall administration. In practice, the boundaries between managerial and
teaching roles may overlap when the ECEC setting is small. For example, teachers may assume administrative duties,
while management staff may step into teaching roles when required. In Japan, for instance, vice principals in
kindergartens support the principal in managing daily operations and, when necessary, assist directly in the care and
education of young children.
Child-staff ratio and child-teacher ratio
The ratios of children to teachers and to contact staff both provide insight into staff intensity but capture different
aspects of provision. The child-to-teacher ratio refers to the number of children per qualified teacher, while the child-
to-contact-staff ratio covers all staff members who work directly with children, including both teachers and teachers’
aides. It is important to distinguish between the two, as they can lead to very different interpretations of staff availability
in ECEC settings.
Developmental science highlights the importance of sensitive and individualised interactions between adults and
young children, particularly in the early years of life. When staff-to-child ratios are lower and group sizes are smaller,
educators can spend less time on managing group dynamics and more time engaging meaningfully with each child.
These enriched interactions foster stronger, more supportive relationships, which are essential components of high-
quality early childhood education. Higher interaction quality has been closely linked to improved outcomes in children's
cognitive development, emotional regulation, and overall well-being (OECD, 2025[1]; OECD, 2021[8]; OECD, 2018[9]).
Moreover, the benefits extend to staff as well: responsive educator-child relationships contribute to a more positive
and sustainable work environment. In such settings, educators experience more stable and fulfilling professional
relationships, which are associated with reduced staff turnover and greater continuity in children's care and learning
experiences (COFACE, 2023[10]).
These benefits mean lower child-staff ratios are often associated with higher quality ECEC provision and for this reason
are frequently subject to regulation. On average in OECD countries, there are 13 children for every teacher working in
pre-primary education (ISCED 02) in 2023, with wide variations across countries. The ratio of children to teaching staff,
excluding teachers’ aides, ranges from less than 5 children per teacher in New Zealand to 40 in Colombia (Table D2.1).
Some countries make extensive use of teachers’ aides. When counting all contact staff (teachers and teachers’ aides),
child-to-contact staff ratios are significantly lower than the child-to-teacher ratios alone. For example, in
the United Kingdom, the child-to-contact-staff ratio in pre-primary settings is 4, compared to a much higher child-to-
teacher ratio of 32, due to the widespread use of teachers’ aides. Similarly, in Chile, pre-primary education relies
heavily on teachers’ aides, resulting in a child-to-contact-staff ratio of 8, while the child-to-teacher ratio stands at 19
(Table D2.1). Maintaining low ratios can be difficult when resources are scarce or when the demand for early childhood
education exceeds the supply of trained professionals. Nonetheless, countries that effectively incorporate teachers’
aides into the workforce are generally able to achieve much lower child-to-adult ratios, even when the number of
qualified teachers is limited.
Lower child-staff ratios are particularly important for high-quality interactions with children under 3 (COFACE, 2023[10]).
Child-to-teacher ratios in early childhood educational development services (ISCED 01) are consistently lower than
those for pre-primary across all OECD and partner countries except Lithuania, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru and
Romania. On average across OECD countries, there are 9 children for every teacher working in early childhood
educational development services, ranging from 3 in Iceland to 62 in Peru (Table D2.1).
Differences in ratios are also observed between public and private providers. In pre-primary education, public
institutions have slightly higher child-to-teacher ratios, averaging 15 children per teacher compared to 13 in private
institutions. In early childhood education and development settings, this pattern is reversed: private institutions report
11 children per teacher on average, while public institutions report 8. These differences may reflect variations in
regulation, funding structures and workforce composition between the public and private sectors (Table D2.1).
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
369
Trends in child-teacher ratios
Between 2013 and 2023, the ratio of children to teaching staff at pre-primary level fell from 15:1 to 13:1 on average in
OECD countries. Most OECD and partner countries have seen a reduced ratio, with the drop being especially notable
in Chile, China, India and Mexico, where the ratio fell by at least six children per teacher (Figure D2.1). In Chile, the
significant improvement in child-to-teacher ratios can be attributed to substantial government investments in early
childhood education including the expansion of public nurseries and kindergartens and the establishment of a
dedicated undersecretariat for pre-primary education in 2015 (Castillo and Lobos, 2017[11]). These efforts aimed to
reduce overcrowding and enhance staff-to-child ratios.
Improvements were also notable in early childhood educational development programmes across OECD countries,
with the average ratio decreasing from 11:1 in 2013 to 9:1 in 2023. Mexico recorded the largest improvement, reducing
its ratio by 24 children per teacher. Chile and Indonesia also made notable progress, each achieving reductions of at
least five children per teacher (Table D2.1).
In contrast to the prevailing downward trend, the child-teacher ratio in pre-primary education increased by at least
seven children per teacher in Colombia and Saudi Arabia between 2013 and 2022. This was a combined effect of both
an increase in the number of children enrolled in pre-primary education and a fall in the number of teachers
(Figure D2.1). The increase in student enrolment can be largely attributed to increased participation among children
of pre-primary age during the period (see Table B1.2 in Chapter B1). In parallel, Saudi Arabia faces a significant
challenge due to a shortage of qualified kindergarten teachers (OECD, 2020[12]).
Staffing of primary education
Primary school teachers play a pivotal role in children’s cognitive, emotional and social development (Jowett et al.,
2023[13]; Rucinski, Brown and Downer, 2018[14]). In most OECD countries, primary school teachers typically teach
several subjects to the same group of students, allowing for sustained interactions and stronger relational continuity.
This daily proximity enables teachers to respond more effectively to individual learning needs and foster a supportive
classroom climate. Lower student–teacher ratios in primary education can enhance these interactions by giving
teachers more time and flexibility to engage with each student (Werler and Tahirsylaj, 2020[15]).
At primary level, there are 14 students for every teacher on average across OECD countries. In OECD and partner
countries, the student-teacher ratio ranges from 8:1 in Greece to over 22:1 in Colombia, India, Mexico, Peru and
South Africa. Across OECD countries, the student-teacher ratio at primary level experienced a general decrease from
2013 to 2023 with the exception of Austria, Latvia, Lithuania and Poland (Table D2.2).
Staffing of lower and upper secondary education
Teachers in lower secondary education often act as a bridge between the generalist approach of primary education
and the subject specialisation of upper secondary levels. They support students during early adolescence, a critical
period for social and emotional development, while introducing more structured academic expectations. In some
educational systems, lower secondary teachers are trained to teach multiple subjects and maintain continuous
interactions with a consistent group of students, which can help strengthen teacher–student relationships and provide
stability as students adapt to more complex school environments. Recent research has shown that such sustained
interactions contribute positively to students’ social participation and sense of belonging (Schürer, van Ophuysen and
Marticke, 2025[16]).
Upper secondary teachers, in contrast, are typically subject specialists who work with older students preparing for
higher education or the labour market. Their instructional role is more academic or vocational, depending on the
educational track, and their relationships with students tend to be more formal and content focused. Given the
segmented nature of upper secondary education – where teachers often see many different student groups each day
– opportunities for individualised support are more limited. In this context, student-teacher ratios can influence the
capacity of teachers to provide personalised guidance and monitor learning effectively.
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
370
At lower secondary level, the student-teacher ratio is about 13 students per teacher on average across OECD
countries. It varies widely, from fewer than 9 students per teacher in countries like Croatia, Greece and Norway to
more than 30 students per teacher in Mexico. At upper secondary level, the student-teacher ratio is also about 13
students per teacher on average. Despite this overall similarity, notable differences emerge when comparing the ratios
between lower and upper secondary education within individual countries. In 12 OECD countries, the student-teacher
ratio is higher at upper secondary level – for example, Finland has 8 more students per teacher in upper secondary
education. In contrast, 14 OECD countries show lower ratios at this level, such as Mexico where there are 9 fewer
students per teacher in upper secondary education. Despite these variations, Finland's ratio at upper secondary level
remains lower than Mexico's, reflecting differences in national contexts, including how education systems are
structured, differences in population density and school size, teacher workforce availability, policy priorities, and the
level of public investment in education (Figure D2.2).
Figure D2.2. Ratio of students to teaching staff in lower and upper secondary education, by level of
education (2023)
Upper secondary Lower secondary
35
30
25
20
15
10
1. Year of reference differs from 2023.
2. Upper secondary general programmes only.
3. Student-teacher ratios at upper secondary level include information from post-secondary non-tertiary education.
For data, see Table D2.2. For a link to download the data, see Tables and Notes section.
At upper secondary level, the student-teacher ratio can vary dramatically depending on the programme orientation. In
11 OECD countries, the ratio is higher in vocational programmes than in general ones. In Colombia, there are about
30 more students per teacher in vocational programmes than in general ones, while the difference is 9 more in Latvia,
6 more in Denmark and 5 more in New Zealand. In other OECD and partner countries, such as Brazil and Mexico, the
difference is reversed: there are over eight more students per teacher in general programmes (Table D2.2).
Class size
Class size continues to be a key concern for schools, education authorities, policy makers and parents, and can
influence school choice. Smaller classes are generally perceived as enabling teachers to provide more individualised
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
371
attention, reduce the time they spend on classroom management and align their instruction better to students’ learning
needs. While the overall evidence on the direct impact of class size on student performance remains mixed (OECD,
2016[17]), many systems continue to prioritise it as a policy lever to support teaching and learning, particularly for
disadvantaged students.
In response to these concerns, countries have implemented a range of policies aimed at addressing class sizes,
especially in contexts of educational disadvantage. In France, class sizes have been reduced in early primary
education within schools located in priority education areas, as part of a broader effort to address educational inequality
(Government of France, 2023[18]; DEPP, 2020[19]). Ireland has adopted similar measures through its Delivering Equality
of Opportunity in Schools (DEIS) programme, which includes lower staffing ratios in schools serving disadvantaged
communities (Government of Ireland, 2020[20]). These strategies reflect a shared policy rationale that smaller classes
may help improve learning conditions and support equity, even where evidence on learning outcomes is not always
conclusive.
Average class size in primary and lower secondary education
In OECD countries, the average class size at primary level is 21 students. Most countries, except Chile, Israel, Japan
and the United Kingdom, have fewer than 25 students per class on average. At lower secondary level, the average
class size is 23 students across OECD countries. Class sizes vary widely, from fewer than 20 students per class in
OECD and partner countries like Croatia, Estonia, Finland, Latvia, Luxembourg and Poland to more than 30 students
per class in Chile and Japan (Table D2.3).
The number of students per class tends to increase from primary to lower secondary education in most countries,
particularly in Costa Rica where it increases by 14 students. In contrast, in Australia, Hungary and the United Kingdom,
the number of students per class falls between these two levels of education (Table D2.3).
Trends in average class sizes
Over the past decade, many education systems have been influenced by two concurrent trends: a decline in the
school-age population and an increasing teacher shortage (OECD, 2024[21]). While these dynamics may seem to offset
each other – fewer students could imply reduced pressure on staffing – the reality is more complex. Many systems
struggle to recruit and retain qualified teachers, particularly in rural areas or for specific subjects, limiting their flexibility
to adjust class sizes (OECD, 2024[22]). At the same time, budgetary constraints and rigid staffing formulas further
complicate matters (OECD, 2020[23]). Moreover, despite falling enrolment in many systems, growing expectations for
inclusive education, personalised learning and student well-being continue to increase demand for teaching personnel.
As a result, average class sizes have remained stable or even risen in specific contexts.
Between 2013 and 2023, average class sizes remained relatively stable at both primary and lower secondary levels
across OECD countries, although there were significant changes in individual OECD and partner countries. At primary
level, average class sizes reduced by three students in Brazil and increased by three students in Lithuania and Mexico
(Figure D2.3). At lower secondary level, the change in some countries is even more striking, where the average class
size fell by seven students in Korea and increased by four in the United Kingdom between 2013 and 2023 (Table
D2.3).
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
372
Figure D2.3. Trends in average class size at primary education (2013 and 2023)
2023 2013
35
30
25
20
15
10
1. Year of reference differs from 2023.
2. Year of reference differs from 2013.
For data, see Table D2.3. For a link to download the data, see Tables and Notes section.
Similarly, class sizes remained steady in both public and private primary institutions from 2013 to 2023 on average
across the OECD, while individual countries experienced significant changes. For example, in Latvia, both public and
private institutions had among the lowest average class sizes in 2013. However, by 2023 private institutions in Latvia
saw a substantial increase from 8 to 13 students per class, while student teacher-ratio in public institutions remained
broadly stable. A similar trend was observed in the United Kingdom, where the average class size in private primary
schools rose from 18 to 25 students between 2013 to 2023, while those in public ones remained stable. In contrast,
Türkiye experienced decreases in both cases over the same period: public schools saw a slight decline from 23 to
22 students per class, while private schools experienced a more substantial drop, from 20 to 11 students per class.
This reduction in class size during the period likely reflects increased investment in school infrastructure and education
personnel. (Table D2.3).
Definitions
Early childhood education (ECE): ECEC services in adherence with the criteria defined in the ISCED 2011
classification (see ISCED 01 and 02 definitions) are considered early childhood education programmes and are
therefore referred to as ECE in this chapter. Therefore, the term ECE excludes programmes that do not meet the
ISCED 2011 criteria.
eac ers’ aides and teaching/research assistants include personnel or students who support teachers in providing
instruction to students.
Teaching staff refers to personnel directly involved in teaching to students. The classification includes classroom
teachers, special-education teachers and other teachers who work with a whole class of students in a classroom, in
small groups in a resource room, or in one-to-one teaching situations inside or outside a regular class.
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
373
Class size is defined as the number of students who are following a common course of study, based on the highest
number of common courses (usually compulsory studies), and excluding teaching in subgroups.
Methodology
The ratio of students to teaching staff is obtained by dividing the number of full-time equivalent students at a given
level of education by the number of full-time equivalent teachers at that level and in similar types of institutions.
Exceptionally, for early childhood educational development (ISCED 01) and pre-primary education (ISCED 02), this
ratio is based on headcounts of students and full-time equivalent teachers due to the complexities arising from the lack
of standardized study load criteria, variability in full-time enrolment hours, and the absence of a universally accepted
FTE calculation methodology.
For the ratio of students to teachers to be meaningful, consistent coverage of personnel and enrolment data are
needed. For instance, if teachers in religious schools are not reported in the personnel data, then students in those
schools must also be excluded.
Class size is calculated by dividing the number of students enrolled by the number of classes. In order to ensure
comparability among countries, special needs programmes are excluded. Data include only regular programmes at
primary and lower secondary levels of education, and exclude teaching in subgroups outside the regular classroom
setting.
Source
Data refer to the reference year 2023 (school year 2022/23) and are based on the UNESCO-UIS/OECD/Eurostat data
collection on education statistics administered by the OECD in 2024/25. For more information see Education at a
Glance 2025 Sources, Methodologies and Technical Notes (https://doi.org/10.1787/fcfaf2d1-en).
Data from Argentina, the People’s Republic of China, India, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia and South Africa are from the
UNESCO Institute of Statistics (UIS).
References
Castillo, F. and M. Lobos (2017), “Early child care education: Evidence from the new law in Chile”, Journal [11]
of Pedagogy, Vol. 8/1, pp. 121-135, https://doi.org/10.1515/jped-2017-0006.
COFACE (2023), “High-quality early childhood education and care: Low children-to-staff ratio as a primary [10]
driver for children’s well-being and families’ engagement”, COFACE Thematic Note, COFACE Families
Europe, https://coface-eu.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/COFACE_ECEC_ThematicNote-MAY-
2023.pdf.
DEPP (2020), Dédoublement des classes de CP en éducation prioritaire : exploitation des enquêtes auprès [19]
des enseignants après deux années de déploiement, https://archives-statistiques-
depp.education.gouv.fr/Default/doc/SYRACUSE/45798/dedoublement-des-classes-de-cp-en-education-
prioritaire-exploitation-des-enquetes-aupres-des-enseign.
European Commission / EACEA / Eurydice (2025), Key Data on Early Childhood Education and Care in [2]
Europe - 2025, Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg, https://doi.org/10.2797/004435.
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
374
Figueras-Daniel, A. and Z. Li (2021), “Evidence of support for dual language learners in a study of bilingual [3]
staffing patterns using the Classroom Assessment of Supports for Emergent Bilingual Acquisition
(CASEBA)”, Early Childhood Research Quarterly, Vol. 54, pp. 271-285,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2020.09.011.
Fukkink, R. and M. van Verseveld (2020), “Inclusive early childhood education and care: A longitudinal [6]
study into the growth of interprofessional collaboration”, Journal of Interprofessional Care, Vol. 34/3,
pp. 362-372, https://doi.org/10.1080/13561820.2019.1650731.
Government of France (2023), Dédoublement des classes de CP en éducation prioritaire, Ministère de [18]
l’Éducation nationale, https://www.education.gouv.fr/dedoublement-des-classes-de-cp-en-education-
prioritaire-303210.
Government of Ireland (2020), DEIS: Delivering Equality of Opportunity in Schools, Department of [20]
Education, https://www.gov.ie/en/department-of-education/policy-information/deis-delivering-equality-of-
opportunity-in-schools/.
Jowett, S. et al. (2023), “Teacher–student relationship quality as a barometer of teaching and learning [13]
effectiveness: Conceptualization and measurement”, British Journal of Educational Psychology,
Vol. 93/3, pp. 842-861, https://doi.org/10.1111/bjep.12600.
Mowrey, S. and D. Farran (2021), “Teaching teams: The roles of lead teachers, teaching assistants, and [4]
curriculum demand in pre-kindergarten instruction”, Early Childhood Education Journal, Vol. 50/8,
pp. 1329-1341, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10643-021-01261-7.
OECD (2025), Reducing Inequalities by Investing in Early Childhood Education and Care, Starting Strong, [1]
OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/b78f8b25-en.
OECD (2024), Education at a Glance 2024: OECD Indicators, OECD Publishing, Paris, [22]
https://doi.org/10.1787/c00cad36-en.
OECD (2024), “How are demographic changes affecting education systems?”, Education Indicators in [21]
Focus, No. 87, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/158d4c5c-en.
OECD (2021), Starting Strong VI: Supporting Meaningful Interactions in Early Childhood Education and [8]
Care, Starting Strong, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/f47a06ae-en.
OECD (2020), Education in Saudi Arabia, Reviews of National Policies for Education, OECD Publishing, [12]
Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/76df15a2-en.
OECD (2020), TALIS 2018 Results (Volume II): Teachers and School Leaders as Valued Professionals, [23]
TALIS, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/19cf08df-en.
OECD (2018), Engaging Young Children: Lessons from Research about Quality in Early Childhood [9]
Education and Care, Starting Strong, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264085145-
en.
OECD (2016), PISA 2015 Results (Volume II): Policies and Practices for Successful Schools, PISA, OECD [17]
Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264267510-en.
Rucinski, C., J. Brown and J. Downer (2018), “Teacher–child relationships, classroom climate, and [14]
children’s social-emotional and academic development.”, Journal of Educational Psychology, Vol. 110/7,
pp. 992-1004, https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000240.
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
375
Schürer, S., S. van Ophuysen and S. Marticke (2025), “Social participation in secondary school: The [16]
relation to teacher-student interaction, student characteristics and class-related variables”, Social
Psychology of Education, Vol. 28/1, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11218-024-09992-2.
Smith, S. and S. Lawrence (2019), “Early care and education teacher well-being: Associations with [7]
children’s experience, outcomes, and workplace conditions: A research-to-policy brief”,
https://doi.org/10.7916/d8-ngw9-n011.
Webster, R. and A. De Boer (2019), “Teaching assistants: Their role in the inclusion, education and [5]
achievement of pupils with special educational needs”, European Journal of Special Needs Education,
Vol. 34/3, pp. 404-407, https://doi.org/10.1080/08856257.2019.1615746.
Werler, T. and A. Tahirsylaj (2020), “Differences in teacher education programmes and their outcomes [15]
across Didaktik and curriculum traditions”, European Journal of Teacher Education, Vol. 45/2, pp. 154-
172, https://doi.org/10.1080/02619768.2020.1827388.
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
376
Tables and Notes
Chapter D2 Tables
Table D2.1 Ratio of children to staff in early childhood education (ECE), by level of education and type of institution (2023)
Table D2.2 Trends in the ratio of students to teaching staff from primary to upper secondary, by level of education (2013 and 2023)
Table D2.3 Trends in average class sizes in primary and lower secondary education (2013 and 2023)
StatLink 2 https://stat.link/4am3u9
Data Download
To download the data for the figures and tables in this chapter, click StatLink above.
To access further data and/or other education indicators, please visit the OECD Data Explorer: https://data-
explorer.oecd.org/.
Data cut-off for the print publication 13 June 2025. Please note that the Data Explorer contains the most recent
data.
Notes for Tables
Table D2.1. Ratio of children to staff in early childhood education (ECE), by level of education and type of
institution (2023)
1. Year of reference differs from 2013: 2014 for Denmark, Luxembourg, Mexico, New Zealand, United Kingdom,
Bulgaria and Croatia; 2015 for India and Peru; and 2016 for Colombia and France.
2. Year of reference differs from 2023: 2022 for Colombia, Peru and Saudi Arabia; and 2018 for Indonesia.
Table D2.2. Ratio of students to teaching staff from primary to upper secondary education, by level of
education (2023)
1. Year of reference differs from 2013: 2014 for Colombia, Denmark, Türkiye, Bulgaria, Croatia, Peru and Saudi
Arabia; and 2016 for France.
2. Year of reference differs from 2023: 2022 for Colombia, Ireland, China, India, Peru, Saudi Arabia and South
Africa; and 2018 for Indonesia.
3. Student-teacher ratios at upper secondary education includes information from post-secondary non-tertiary
education.
4. Public institutions only.
Table D2.3. Average class size at primary and lower secondary education (2013 and 2023)
1. Year of reference differs from 2013: 2015 for Costa Rica, Sweden, Switzerland and Indonesia.
2. Year of reference differs from 2023: 2022 for Croatia and Peru.
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
377
Control codes
a – category not applicable; b – break in series; d – contains data from another column; m – missing data; x – contained
in another column (indicated in brackets). For further control codes, see the Reader’s Guide.
For further methodological information, see Education at a Glance 2025: Sources, Methodologies and Technical Notes
(https://doi.org/10.1787/fcfaf2d1-en)
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
378
Table D2.1. Ratio of children to staff in early childhood education (ECE), by level of education and
type of institution (2023)
Early childhood educational development (ISCED 01) Pre-primary (ISCED 02)
Share of Share of
teachers’ Children to teachers’ Children to
aides contact staff aides contact staff
among (teachers and Children to teaching staff among (teachers and Children to teaching staff
contact staff teachers’ Public Private contact staff teachers’ Public Private
(%) aides) All institutions institutions institutions (%) aides) All institutions institutions institutions
2023 2023 2013 2023 2023 2023 2023 2023 2013 2023 2023 2023
OECD countries (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12)
Australia m m m m m m m m m m m m
Austria 45 5 9 9 9 10 38 8 14 13 12 14
Belgium m m m m m m m m 16 13 13 13
Canada m m m m m m m m m m m m
Chile 25 6 13 8 3 9 59 8 27 19 15 21
Colombia1, 2 m m m m 6 m m m 33 40 79 12
Costa Rica m m 9 5 3 6 m m 13 10 11 6
Czechia a a a a a a 10 11 14 12 12 10
Denmark1 42 3 m 5 5 m 42 6 10 10 9 m
Estonia m m x(9) x(10) x(11) x(12) m m 9d 8d 8d 10 d
Finland m m m m m m m m 10 8 m m
France1 a a a a a a 39 13 24 22 21 27
Germany 12 4 5 5 4 5 14 8 10 9 9 9
Greece m m m m m m a 8 12 8 8 13
Hungary a 7 m 7 6 11 47 7 m 13 13 12
Iceland a 3 3 3 3 3 a 4 6 4 4 5
Ireland x(7) x(8) a x(10) m x(12) 1d 3d m 3d m 3d
Israel m m m m a m m m m m 18 m
Italy a a m a a a a 11 14 11 10 16
Japan a a a a a a 10 10 15 11 8 12
Korea m m 5 5 5 5 m m 15 12 10 13
Latvia m m a 5 5 5 m m 14 11 11 15
Lithuania 42 6 9 10 11 8 36 5 10 8 9 7
Luxembourg1 a a a a a a a 9 11 9 9 8
Mexico1 70 7 46 22 17 28 a 19 25 19 20 14
Netherlands a a a a a a 22 12 16 16 16 16
New Zealand1 m m 4 6 6 6 m m 7 4 5 4
Norway 59 3 8 6 6 7 59 5 14 11 11 12
Poland a a a a a a m m 16 13 13 13
Portugal m m m m m m m m 17 16 15 18
Slovak Republic a a a a a a 5 11 13 12 12 10
Slovenia 45 5 13 9 9 9 45 9 20 16 16 13
Spain m m 9 9 8 10 m m 15 12 11 14
Sweden 60 5 m 13 12 17 55 6 m 14 13 17
Switzerland a a a a a a m m m m 18 m
Türkiye m m m m m m m m 17 17 17 18
United Kingdom1 91 3 a 30 21 31 86 4 m 32 25 35
United States m m m m m m 25 10 12 14 17 10
OECD average 49 5 11 9 8 11 35 9 15 13 15 13
Partner and/or accession countries
Argentina m m m m m m m m m m m m
Brazil 34 8 15 12 12 13 15 16 21 19 19 17
Bulgaria1 a a a a a a m m 13 11 12 8
China a a a a a a m m 22 14 14 14
Croatia1 m m 10 7 7 8 m m 12 10 10 12
India1 a a a a a a m m 20 13 m m
Indonesia 2 m m 20 10 12 10 m m 15 11 10 11
Peru 1, 2 30 44 9 62 109 12 18 18 18 22 26 14
Romania 6 15 m 16 16 11 5 13 17 14 15 10
Saudi Arabia 2 m m m m m m m m 10 23 28 14
South Africa m m m m m m m m m m m m
EU25 average 36 6 9 9 8 9 28 9 14 12 12 12
G20 average 52 5 18 14 12 15 m m 17 16 16 16
Note: See under Chapter D2 Tables for StatLink and for the notes related to this Table.
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
379
Table D2.2. Trends in the ratio of students to teaching staff from primary to upper secondary, by
level of education (2013 and 2023)
Upper secondary
General Vocational All
Primary Lower secondary programmes programmes programmes
2013 2023 2013 2023 2023 2023 2013 2023
OECD countries (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8)
Australia 15 14 m x(5) 12 d m m m
Austria 12 13 9 9 10 10 10 10
Belgium 13 12 9 9 11 8 10 9
Canada 16 d 16 d x(1) x(2) x(8) x(8) 14 12
Chile 23 17 24 20 19 19 25 19
Colombia1, 2 24 23 26 27 25 55 22 22
Costa Rica 13 11 14 12 13 12 14 13
Czechia 19 18 11 13 11 11 11 11
Denmark1 12 12 11 11 11 17 13 13
Estonia 3 13 12 10 10 15 18 d 14 d 16 d
Finland 13 12 9 9 15 19 16 17
France1 20 18 14 15 14 8 11 11
Germany 16 15 14 13 12 13 13 12
Greece 9 8 7 8 10 8 8 9
Hungary m 11 10 11 12 10 12 11
Iceland 10 10 10 10 x(8) x(8) m 10
Ireland2 16 13 x(7) x(8) 12 d a 14 d 12 d
Israel 15 15 14 12 m m 11 11
Italy3 12 11 12 10 10 11 d m 11d
Japan 3 17 15 14 13 m m 12 d 11d
Korea 17 15 18 13 11 8 15 10
Latvia 11 13 8 10 10 20 10 13
Lithuania 10 14 8 10 10 12 8 10
Luxembourg 9 9 11 10 9 8 9 9
Mexico 28 23 32 31 26 16 27 22
Netherlands 17 16 16 15 15 17 19 17
New Zealand 16 16 16 17 12 17 13 13
Norway 10 10 10 8 10 10 10 10
Poland 11 13 10 10 13 11 11 12
Portugal 13 12 10 9 x(8) x(8) 8 9d
Slovak Republic 17 14 12 16 14 13 14 14
Slovenia 16 12 d 8 x(2) 18 16 13 17
Spain 14 12 12 11 11 8 11 10
Sweden m 13 m 11 x(8) x(8) m 13
Switzerland 4 15 15 12 12 11 12 m 12
Türkiye1 19 18 18 13 13 11 15 12
United Kingdom 22 19 18 17 16 m 19 m
United States 15 14 15 15 15 a 15 15
OECD average 15 14 13 13 13 14 14 13
Partner and/or accession countries
Argentina m m m m m m m m
Brazil 26 22 26 21 23 15 25 21
Bulgaria1 18 10 13 10 11 14 12 13
China2 17 16 13 13 m m 18 14
Croatia1 14 12 9 8 10 7 10 8
India 2 32 28 30 19 m m 32 22
Indonesia 2 16 17 14 15 m m 17 15
Peru1, 2 18 24 m 20 20 a m 20
Romania 19 18 13 11 14 12 16 13
Saudi Arabia 1, 2 11 14 11 13 m m 11 15
South Africa 2 32 27 m 28 m m m 31
EU25 average 14 13 11 11 12 12 12 12
G20 average 20 18 18 17 m m 17 16
Note: See under Chapter D2 Tables for StatLink and for the notes related to this Table.
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
380
Table D2.3. Trends in average class sizes in primary and lower secondary education (2013 and
2023)
Primary Lower secondary
Public All Public All
institutions Private institutions institutions institutions Private institutions institutions
2013 2023 2013 2023 2013 2023 2013 2023 2013 2023 2013 2023
OECD countries (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12)
Australia 23 23 25 23 24 23 23 22 25 19 24 20
Austria 18 18 19 19 18 18 21 21 22 21 21 21
Belgium m m m m m m m m m m m m
Canada m m m m m m m m m m m m
Chile 29 28 31 32 30 31 31 29 31 33 31 32
Colombia 24 24 19 17 22 22 30 30 25 22 29 28
Costa Rica1 15 15 17 16 15 15 28 31 21 20 27 29
Czechia 20 20 15 14 20 20 22 23 19 14 22 22
Denmark 21 20 19 17 21 19 21 20 20 19 21 20
Estonia 18 19 16 15 18 18 18 19 14 16 18 19
Finland 19 19 17 18 19 19 20 19 20 21 20 19
France 23 21 23 25 23 22 25 25 26 27 25 26
Germany 21 21 21 20 21 21 24 24 24 22 24 23
Greece 17 17 19 22 17 17 22 21 23 23 22 21
Hungary 21 23 m 20 m 22 21 20 m 20 m 20
Iceland 19 18 16 15 18 18 20 20 13 17 20 20
Ireland 25 23 m m m m m m m m m m
Israel 28 28 24 26 27 27 29 31 24 26 28 30
Italy 19 18 20 18 19 18 22 20 22 21 22 20
Japan 27 27 30 28 27 27 32 32 34 33 33 32
Korea 24 22 29 27 24 22 33 26 32 25 33 26
Latvia 16 17 8 13 16 17 15 18 9 25 14 18
Lithuania 16 19 12 15 16 19 20 22 19 18 20 22
Luxembourg 15 15 19 21 15 16 19 18 18 21 19 18
Mexico 20 24 19 19 20 23 28 26 24 22 27 25
Netherlands m 22 m 22 m 22 m m m m m m
New Zealand m m m m m m m m m m m m
Norway a a a a a a a a a a a a
Poland 19 19 11 13 18 18 23 19 17 13 22 18
Portugal 21 21 21 19 21 20 22 21 23 23 22 22
Slovak Republic 18 19 17 18 18 19 19 21 18 19 19 21
Slovenia 19 18 22 19 19 18 20 21 19 19 20 21
Spain 21 20 24 23 22 21 25 24 26 26 25 25
Sweden1 19 21 17 19 19 20 21 22 22 21 21 22
Switzerland1 19 19 m m m m 19 19 m m m m
Türkiye 23 22 20 11 23 21 28 28 20 13 28 26
United Kingdom 27 27 18 25 25 26 20 25 19 23 19 24
United States 22 21 18 16 21 20 28 22 20 15 27 21
OECD average 21 21 20 20 21 21 23 23 22 21 23 23
Partner and/or accession countries
Argentina m m m m m m m m m m m m
Brazil 25 21 18 16 23 20 28 26 24 23 28 25
Bulgaria m 21 m 14 m 21 m 22 m 13 m 22
China m m m m m m m m m m m m
Croatia 2 m 15 m 16 m 15 m 18 m 17 m 18
India m m m m m m m m m m m m
Indonesia1 m m m m m m m m m m m m
Peru 2 m 13 m 18 m 14 m 22 m 21 m 22
Romania m 19 m 16 m 19 m 20 m 16 m 20
Saudi Arabia m m m m m m m m m m m m
South Africa m m m m m m m m m m m m
EU25 average 19 19 18 18 19 19 21 21 20 20 21 21
G20 average m m m m m m m m m m m m
Note: See under Chapter D2 Tables for StatLink and for the notes related to this Table.
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
381
Chapter D3. How much are teachers and
school heads paid?
Highlights
• In most OECD countries, the statutory salaries of teachers increase with the level of education they teach.
On average across OECD countries and economies, the salaries of teachers with the most prevalent
qualifications with 15 years of experience range from USD 55 725 at pre-primary level to USD 63 925 at
upper secondary level.
• Between 2015 and 2024, statutory salaries for both starting teachers and for teachers with 15 years of
experience increased in most countries, but usually at a different rate. On average across OECD countries
and economies with comparable data from 2015 to 2024 for primary and secondary teachers with the most
prevalent qualification, salaries for those with 15 years of experience increased by 4-6%. Meanwhile,
starting salaries for these teachers increased by 14-17% over the same period.
• On average, teachers’ actual salaries at primary and general secondary levels of education are 83-91% of
the earnings of tertiary-educated workers across OECD countries. Usually school heads’ actual salaries
are higher than those of tertiary-educated workers.
Context
Pay and working conditions are important factors for attracting, developing and retaining skilled and high-quality
teachers (see Chapter D8 for information about teacher shortages in secondary education). Teachers’ salaries, in
absolute terms and relative to those of other professions, can have a direct impact on the attractiveness of teaching
as a career, although other aspects can also be influential, such as opportunities for professional development,
administrative workloads and how teachers are perceived (OECD, 2023[1]). They can influence decisions on
whether to enrol in teacher education, to become a teacher (Nagler, Piopiunik and West, 2020[2]) and to remain in
teaching (Qin, 2020[3]); in general the higher teachers’ relative salaries are, the more attractive the profession.
Salaries and career prospects can also have an impact on the decision to become and remain a school head (see
Box D3.2 for pathways into school head positions). Relatively low salaries for school heads may discourage
teachers from taking on the role (Pont, Nusche and Moorman, 2008[4]).
The salaries of school staff, and in particular teachers and school heads, represent the largest single cost in formal
education (Chapter D4). Although competitive salaries are a factor in improved learning outcomes of students
(OECD, 2020[5]), they are not the only factor. As such, it is important for policy makers to carefully consider the
salaries and career prospects of teachers and school heads to ensure both high-quality education systems and
sustainable education budgets.
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
382
Figure D3.1. Actual salaries of primary teachers relative to earnings of tertiary-educated workers
(2024)
Ratio of salaries to the earnings of full-time, full-year workers aged 25-64
Teachers' salaries relative to similarly educated workers' earnings (weighted averages)
Teachers' salaries relative to tertiary-educated workers' earnings
Ratio
1.5
0.5
Note: Data refer to the ratio of annual average salaries (including bonuses and allowances) of teachers and school heads in public institutions
relative to the earnings of workers with similar educational attainment (weighted average) and to the earnings of full-time, full-year workers
with tertiary education. Earnings of workers with similar educational attainment to teachers are weighted by the distribution of teachers (or
school heads) by qualification level (see Tables X2.10 and X2.11). As values close to one may be difficult to identify in the figure, please
refer to the source table.
1. Data on earnings for full-time, full-year workers with tertiary education refer to the whole country.
2. Year of reference for salaries of teachers differs from 2024.
For data, see Table D3.2. For a link to download the data, see Tables and Notes section.
Other findings
• Teachers’ salaries can range quite widely within countries, as different qualification levels can be
associated with different salary scales. For primary teachers, the average salary for teachers at the top of
the scale and with the maximum qualifications is 70% higher than the average starting salary for those
with the minimum qualifications.
• School heads’ actual salaries are more than 50% higher on average than those of teachers across primary
and secondary education in OECD countries.
• Higher statutory salaries can be an incentive for teachers to become school heads; and most countries
require candidates to meet minimum teaching experience levels and in some cases undergo additional
management training.
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
383
Note
Statutory salaries are just one component of teachers’ and school heads’ total compensation. Other benefits, such
as regional allowances for teaching in remote areas, family allowances, reduced rates on public transport and tax
allowances on the purchase of instructional materials may also form part of their total remuneration. In addition,
there are large differences in taxation and social benefits systems across OECD countries. There can also be
substantial variation in salary scales of teachers and school heads at subnational level in some countries, based
on local factors such as the cost of living (Box D3.1). This should be kept in mind when analysing teachers’ salaries
and making cross-country comparisons, along with potential comparability issues related to the data collected –
see Box D3.1 of Education at a Glance 2019 (OECD, 2019[6]), Box D3.2 of Education at a Glance 2023 (OECD,
2023[7]) and Education at a Glance 2025 Sources, Methodologies and Technical Notes
(https://doi.org/10.1787/fcfaf2d1-en) – and the fact that the data collected only cover public educational institutions.
All figures expressed in USD are converted from national currencies based on exchange rates that are adjusted
for differences in purchasing power across countries (see Methodology section).
Analysis
Statutory salaries
Teachers’ salaries can vary according to a number of factors, including their qualification levels, the level of education
taught, and how much experience they have and what stage of their career they are in. They can also vary within
countries if statutory salaries and compensation structures are defined at the subnational level (Box D3.1).
School heads’ responsibilities may include educational activities (including teaching) as well as other administrative,
staff management and financial responsibilities (see Chapter D4 in Education at a Glance 2022 (OECD, 2022[8]) for
more details, including differences in the nature of the work carried out and the hours worked by school heads
compared to teachers). Similarities and differences in the tasks and responsibilities expected of school heads and
teachers may explain differences in the compensation of school heads compared to teachers (Box D3.2).
Teachers’ salaries
Teachers may enter the teaching profession with the minimum qualification or a higher qualification which may be
associated with a higher salary. In about two-fifths of OECD countries and economies, teachers with the most prevalent
qualification (to enter the teaching profession) have the same salary range as those with the minimum qualification
required to become a teacher. In countries with different salary ranges for different qualification levels, very few
teachers may hold the minimum or maximum qualifications (Annex Table X2.9). For this reason, the comparative
analysis on statutory salaries focuses on teachers who hold the most prevalent qualifications. However, data on
teachers’ statutory salaries are collected for three qualification levels (minimum, most prevalent and maximum),
available at the OECD Data Explorer (OECD, 2025[9]). Data on teachers’ salaries at secondary level are collected only
for teachers in general programmes although, exceptionally, the data for upper secondary teachers in vocational
programmes were analysed in Box D3.3 in Education at a Glance 2023 (OECD, 2023[7]).
For a given level of qualification, teachers’ salaries vary according to years of experience. The OECD data collection
on teachers’ salaries gathers information on statutory salaries at four points on the salary scale: starting salaries,
salaries after 10 years of experience, salaries after 15 years of experience and salaries at the top of the scale. The
analysis usually concentrates on the salaries of teachers with 15 years of experience as a proxy for mid-career
teachers.
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
384
Teachers’ statutory salaries vary widely across countries. The salaries of primary teachers with the most prevalent
qualifications after 15 years of experience range from USD 26 913 in the Slovak Republic to more than USD 90 000
in Germany, Luxembourg and the Netherlands (Table D3.1).
Typically, teachers’ salaries increase with the level of education they teach. On average across OECD countries and
economies, the salaries of teachers (with the most prevalent qualifications after 15 years of experience) range from
USD 55 725 at pre-primary level to USD 59 673 at primary level, USD 61 563 at lower secondary level and
USD 63 925 at upper secondary level (Table D3.1).
Salary differences between levels of education vary across countries. Notably, upper secondary teachers in Finland
(with the most prevalent qualifications after 15 years of experience) earn 42% more than pre-primary teachers, and in
Mexico, they earn 88% more. In Finland, these higher salaries at upper secondary level can be explained by the fact
that upper secondary teachers need a higher qualification level than pre-primary teachers (for information on the most
prevalent qualification see Table D.D3.3 in Education at a Glance 2025 Sources, Methodologies and Technical Notes
(https://doi.org/10.1787/fcfaf2d1-en)). In Mexico, the difference is mainly driven by the fact that teachers at upper
secondary level have a different salary structure to those at other levels. In contrast, teachers in about one-quarter of
OECD countries and economies with available data earn the same salary irrespective of the level of education taught
(Table D3.1).
Teachers’ salaries usually increase with each year of experience. On average, it takes about 26 years for primary
teachers (with the most prevalent qualification to enter the profession in 2024) to progress from the starting level to
the top of the salary scale. In Canada, Colombia, New Zealand and Scotland (United Kingdom), salary scales are
compressed to at most 10 years from starting to top of scale salaries (that is, faster salary progression over a few
years), while others have more extended salary scales which give teachers more incentive to serve for longer. These
different approaches mean teachers’ salaries increase at different rates in different countries. For example, for primary
teachers in both Japan and the Netherlands, statutory salaries at the top of the salary scale are about double the
starting salaries (for those with the most prevalent qualification to enter the profession in 2024) but it will take a teacher
in Japan on average 36 years to reach the top of the scale, compared to only 12 years for their counterpart in the
Netherlands (OECD, 2025[9]).
Box D3.1. Subnational variations in teachers’ and school heads’ salaries at pre-primary, primary
and secondary levels
Teachers’ statutory salaries can vary significantly within countries, especially in federal countries where salaries
may be defined at the subnational level. Differences in statutory or actual salaries can result, at least partly, from
differences in the cost of living between subnational entities. Data provided by four OECD countries (Belgium,
Canada, the United Kingdom and the United States) illustrate these variations at the subnational level.
The extent of the subnational differences in statutory salaries varies across these four countries, depending on the
level of education and the stage teachers have reached in their careers. In 2024 in Belgium, for example, starting
salaries for primary teachers differed by about 4% (USD 2 144), from USD 49 599 per year in the French
Community to USD 51 743 in the Flemish Community. The largest differences were in Canada and
the United States: starting salaries for primary school teachers varied in Canada by 42% (USD 19 995) across
subnational entities (from USD 47 176 in Quebec to USD 67 171 in the Northwest Territories) and in the United
States they varied by 52% (USD 21 293) across subnational entities, ranging from USD 41 189 in North Carolina
to USD 62 482 in California. Starting salaries in secondary education varied the least in Belgium (by 4%, from
USD 49 599 in the French Community to USD 51 743 in the Flemish Community at lower secondary level) and the
most in the United States (by 67% at lower secondary level, from USD 41 088 in North Carolina to USD 68 537 in
New York) (OECD, 2025[9]).
The variation in statutory salaries remains consistent across levels of education in Belgium, Canada (excluding
pre-primary level) and the United Kingdom, but differs for different stages of teachers' careers in Canada and
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
385
the United Kingdom. In Belgium, the variation in statutory salaries between subnational entities ranges from 3% to
7%. In contrast, in the United Kingdom, the variations are similar at different levels of education, but greater for
starting salaries than for salaries at the top of the scale. For example, at lower secondary level, starting salaries in
the United Kingdom varied by 28% (USD 11 155) between subnational entities (from USD 40 130 to USD 51 285),
but had narrowed to 17% (USD 10 463, from USD 62 025 to USD 72 488) at the top of the scale. In Canada,
variations are similar at primary and secondary levels but vary between stages of the career. The difference
reaches 42% (USD 19 995) for starting salaries, 66% (USD 43 312) for salaries after 10 years of experience, 49%
(USD 35 710) for salaries after 15 years of experience, and 60% (USD 44 134) for salaries at the top of the salary
scale.
In the United States, there was no clear pattern in the size of the variation of statutory salaries across subnational
entities at different stages of teachers’ careers and levels of education. At lower secondary level, the difference
was the smallest for starting salaries, described above, and the widest for salaries after 15 years of experience,
ranging from USD 53 355 to USD 102 640 (a difference of 92%, or USD 49 285) rather than for salaries at the top
of the scale. The variation of the salaries after 15 years of experience across subnational entities is the largest at
primary level (a difference of 99%) and the smallest at upper secondary level (a difference of 83%).
There are also large subnational variations in the actual salaries of teachers and school heads across the three
countries with available data in 2024. In Belgium, the subnational variation in actual salaries was less than 13% for
all levels of education for both teachers and school heads, and greater for school heads than for teachers. For
example, at upper secondary level, teachers’ salaries in Belgium ranged from USD 86 171 in the French
Community to USD 89 559 in the Flemish Community, a difference of 4%, or USD 3 388. In comparison, school
heads’ salaries ranged from USD 121 213 in the French Community to USD 136 271 in the Flemish Community, a
difference of 12%, or USD 15 058. Subnational variations in actual salaries were slightly bigger for teachers at
lower and upper secondary levels in the United Kingdom and much larger for both teachers and school heads in
the United States, where the average salaries of upper secondary school heads ranged from USD 92 037 in
Arkansas to USD 157 964 in New York, a difference of 72%, or USD 65 927.
The extent of the subnational variation in teachers’ and school heads’ actual salaries also varies according to level
of education. In the United Kingdom, the subnational variation in salaries of school heads is largest at secondary
level, while for teachers the variation is greater at pre-primary and primary levels. In the United States, subnational
variation in the average actual salaries of school heads was greater at primary level than at lower and upper
secondary levels.
Source: Education at a Glance Database, https://data-explorer.oecd.org/.
Looking at the full range of statutory salaries (where the minimum is the starting salary for teachers with the minimum
qualifications and the maximum is the salary at the top of the scale for teachers with the maximum qualifications), on
average the maximum teacher’s salary in primary education is 70% higher than the minimum across OECD countries
and economies. However, the difference varies greatly across countries, from about 15% more in Denmark to more
than four-fold in Colombia (Figure D3.2). Maximum salaries are at least double minimum salaries in eight other OECD
countries and economies. These variations may signal differences in salary structures. For instance, Denmark has
only one salary range irrespective of teachers’ qualifications, while Colombia has different salary ranges for teachers
with different qualification levels.
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
386
Figure D3.2. Primary teachers’ average actual salaries compared to the statutory minimum and
maximum salaries (2024)
Annual salaries of teachers in public institutions, in equivalent USD converted using PPPs for private consumption
Average actual salaries of 25-64 year-old teachers
Minimum statutory salaries (starting salary for teachers with minimum qualifications)
USD Maximum statutory salaries (salary at top of scale for teachers with maximum qualifications)
200 000
180 000
160 000
140 000
120 000
100 000
80 000
60 000
40 000
20 000
Note: Actual salaries include bonuses and allowances.
1. Actual salaries for minimum and maximum statutory salaries.
2. Year of reference for actual salaries differs from 2024.
For data, see Table D3.3. For a link to download the data, see Tables and Notes section.
In most countries and economies where minimum salaries are below the OECD average, the maximum salaries are
also below the OECD average. At primary level, a notable exception is Colombia, where minimum salaries are 39%
lower than the OECD average, but maximum salaries are 60% higher. These differences may reflect the different
career paths available to teachers with different qualifications (Figure D3.2).
The difference between maximum salaries (which may only apply to a very small proportion of teachers) and the
salaries of teachers with the most prevalent qualifications and 15 years of experience, also varies across countries. At
primary level, the gap between these two groups is less than 10% in seven countries and economies (Denmark,
Finland, Germany, New Zealand, Poland, Romania and Scotland [United Kingdom]) while it exceeds 60% in three
others (Chile, Colombia and Portugal) (Figure D3.2 and Table D3.1).
Trends in teachers’ statutory salaries since 2015
Nearly two-thirds of OECD countries have comparable data on the statutory salaries of teachers for both 2015 and
2024 for at least one level of education, based on teachers with the most prevalent qualifications after 15 years of
experience. During this period, teachers’ statutory salaries increased in real terms (that is, in constant 2015 prices) in
one-half to three-fifths of these countries depending on the level of education. On average across OECD countries
and economies with comparable data, statutory salaries increased by about 6% at primary level, 4% at lower
secondary level (general programmes) and 5% at upper secondary level (general programmes), rewarding staying in
the teaching profession (Table D3.7, available on line).
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
387
However, some countries saw much larger changes in statutory salaries over this period. At primary level, they grew
by more than 20% in real terms in Chile, Colombia, Lithuania and Poland. The nominal increases were even larger,
but inflation has cancelled out some of the nominal wage gains over the period (OECD, 2022[10]). In contrast, in
13 countries and economies, real statutory salaries of primary teachers have fallen since 2015. The largest decrease
was in Ireland where salaries fell by 10% in real terms although in nominal terms (that is, in current values, not
considering inflation), salaries remained stable between 2015 and 2024 (Annex Table X2.6 and Table D3.7, available
on line).
Starting salaries also increased during the period 2015-24. On average across OECD countries and economies with
comparable data over the period, starting statutory salaries rose in real terms by 17% at primary level, by 16% in lower
secondary (general programmes) levels and by 14% at upper secondary (general programmes) level, making it more
attractive to enter the profession (Table D3.5, available on line). Again, these changes vary widely between countries.
In more than two-thirds of OECD countries and economies starting statutory salaries increased in real terms. However,
in few countries, salaries decreased significantly, and by 10% or more in Costa Rica and Portugal (Table D3.6,
available on line).
In countries with available data for the period 2015 to 2024 for both starting salaries and salaries after 15 years of
experience, the variation in statutory salaries is not necessarily similar at these two stages of the career. In most of
the 27 countries and economies with available data, salaries at both stages either increased or decreased for primary
school teachers. However, in a few countries (England [United Kingdom], Germany, Japan, Norway and the United
Sates), starting salaries increased during the period while those for teachers with 15 years of experiences decreased.
In these countries, neither the increase nor the decrease exceeded 10 percentage points (Figure D3.3). These
changes resulted from a combination of changes in nominal salaries and changes in the cost of living – in these
countries, for example, nominal salaries in current national currencies increased at both stages of the career (Annex
Tables X2.5 and X2.6).
In countries and economies where salaries at both stages of teachers’ careers increased or decreased between 2015
and 2024, the extent of the variation usually differed for starting salaries and for salaries after 15 years of experience.
In most of the countries where salaries increased in real terms for both stages, the increase was larger for starting
salaries. In the countries where salaries decreased in real terms for both stages, there is no clear trend as to which
saw the greatest drop. In a few countries, such as Finland, Italy and Spain the change was the same for both stages
(Figure D3.3). These differences in salary trends for teachers at different stages of their careers need to be interpreted
with caution, as they result from the combination of changes in nominal salaries and changes in prices, but they may
also highlight changes in the compensation systems for teachers to attract or retain teachers in the profession (see
Chapter D8).
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
388
Figure D3.3. Change in primary teachers’ statutory salaries between 2015 and 2024
Change in teachers’ real statutory salaries (2015 = 100), in percentage points
Change in salary with 15 years of experience Change in starting salary
Change in percentage points
50
40
30
20
10
-10
-20
Note: Change in teachers’ statutory salaries is based on the most prevalent qualifications after 15 years of experience, converted to constant
prices using deflators for private consumption.
For data, see Tables D3.6 and D3.7 (available on line). For a link to download the data, see Tables and Notes section.
School heads’ statutory salaries
Some countries have specific salary scales for school heads, who may or may not receive a school-head allowance
on top of their statutory salaries. In other countries, heads may be paid according to teachers’ salary scales, with an
additional school-head allowance. The use of teachers’ salary scales may reflect the fact that school heads may be
teachers who have taken on management responsibilities of a school, possibly accompanied by a reduction in their
teaching responsibilities (see Box D3.2). In 15 out of the 36 countries and economies with data available, primary
school heads are paid according to teachers’ salary scales with a school-head allowance, while they have a specific
salary range in the other 21. Of these, 16 countries and economies have no specific school-head allowance and 5
include a school-head allowance in the salary (Table D3.13, available online).
The amounts payable to school heads (through statutory salaries and/or school-head allowances) may vary according
to the characteristics of the school or schools they lead, such as the size of the school (based on the number of
students or teachers). They could also vary according to the individual characteristics of the school heads themselves,
such as the duties they have to perform or their years of experience (for the determinants of statutory salary and
school-head allowance, see Table D.D3.5 in Education at a Glance 2025 Sources, Methodologies and Technical Notes
– (https://doi.org/10.1787/fcfaf2d1-en)).
Considering the large number of criteria involved in the calculation of their salaries, the statutory salary data for school
heads focus on those related to the minimum qualification requirements to become a school head, and Table D3.4
(available on line) shows only the minimum and maximum salaries (see the minimum qualification requirements in
Table D.D3.6 in Education at a Glance 2025 Sources, Methodologies and Technical Notes –
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
389
(https://doi.org/10.1787/fcfaf2d1-en)). Caution is therefore necessary when interpreting these values because
minimum and maximum statutory salaries may refer to school heads in different types of schools and few school heads
may earn these amounts in practice.
As with teachers, school heads’ salaries also vary widely across countries and levels of education. More than half of
OECD countries and economies have similar pay ranges for primary and lower secondary school heads, while upper
secondary school heads benefit from higher statutory salaries on average. The similar salaries at primary and lower
secondary levels may result from the fact that school heads in many of these countries are in charge of schools
providing both primary and lower secondary education (Table D3.4, available on line).
At primary level, the minimum salary for school heads is USD 62 092 across OECD countries and economies, ranging
from USD 22 105 in Costa Rica to USD 110 847 in Italy. The maximum salary is USD 100 027 on average, ranging
from USD 48 866 in Poland to USD 176 533 in England (United Kingdom) (Figure D3.4).
On average across OECD countries and economies, the maximum statutory salary of a school head with the minimum
qualifications is 73-78% higher than the minimum statutory salary at primary and secondary levels. In ten countries
and economies school heads at the top of the scale can expect to earn at least twice the statutory minimum salary in
at least one of these levels of education; in Colombia and Costa Rica, they can even expect to earn more than three
times the minimum salary at all levels of education (Table D3.4, available on line).
Actual salaries
Teachers’ actual salaries
Teachers’ actual salaries include all work-related payments, such as the base salary (as defined in the statutory salary
scale), results-related bonuses, extra pay for holidays, allowance for performing certain tasks and other additional
payments (see Definitions section). For example, Czechia has implemented a range of allowances, including additional
payments for student counselling and payments for completing continuous professional development activities, and
the payments are at the discretion of the school head. In Switzerland, allowance payments are less frequent or
replaced by alternative benefits – the training of student teachers leads to a reduction in teaching time, for example.
Across OECD countries and economies, in 2024, the average actual salaries of teachers aged 25-64 were USD 50 872
at pre-primary level, USD 57 399 at primary level, USD 59 896 in general programmes at lower secondary level and
USD 63 514 in general programmes at upper secondary level (Table D3.3).
Bonuses and allowances can be a significant addition to statutory salaries. At primary level, 30 countries and
economies have data available on both the statutory salaries of teachers with the most prevalent qualifications after
15 years of experience (a proxy for mid-career salaries) and the actual average salaries of 25-64 year-old teachers.
In more than one-third of these countries, actual average salaries are at least 10% higher than statutory salaries, which
may reflect the importance of bonuses and allowances in the compensation system for teachers in these countries.
Actual salaries are more than 25% higher than statutory salaries (after 15 years of experience) in Costa Rica (27%),
Czechia (39%), Poland (34%) and the Slovak Republic (37%) (Tables Table D3.1 and Table D3.3).
Comparing teachers’ actual salaries to minimum and maximum statutory salaries also gives an indication of the
distribution of teachers between the minimum and maximum salary levels. For example, at primary level in Norway,
the actual salaries of 25-64 year-old teachers are 11% higher than the minimum statutory salary, which is the smallest
difference among countries with available data on both measures for the same reference year (Figure D3.2). This may
be due to Norway’s relatively small range of statutory salaries (Table D3.1), combined with smaller additional
allowances than in other countries. Meanwhile in Poland and the Slovak Republic, actual salaries are at least 20%
higher than the statutory salary at the top of the scale (the largest differences among countries with comparable data),
suggesting that allowances have a substantial effect on teachers’ take-home pay (Figure D3.2 and Table D3.8,
available on line).
Over the period 2015 to 2024, nearly half of OECD countries and economies have comparable time series data for
actual salaries at primary and secondary levels of education (for pre-primary level it is about one-third of OECD
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
390
countries and economies). On average across OECD countries and economies with comparable data for all the
reference years between 2015 and 2024, actual salaries in real terms increased by about 15% at primary level, 14%
at lower secondary level and 13% at upper secondary level. About two-thirds of these countries showed an increase
(in real terms) for all levels of education. The increase exceeded 20% in Estonia, Iceland (at pre-primary level), Latvia
and the Slovak Republic, and actual salaries doubled in Lithuania. These differences may result from the combination
of changes in the amounts of statutory salary or allowances that teachers received as well as changes in teachers’
characteristics (for example, more experienced teachers may earn higher salaries) (Table D3.8, available on line).
In five OECD countries and economies with comparable time series data, the actual salaries of teachers in all levels
of education (with available data) fell in real terms. They decreased by at least 3% in Austria (at secondary levels), the
French Community of Belgium (at upper secondary level) and Norway (at upper secondary level) and Portugal (at pre-
primary level). As most countries showed increases in nominal terms, these falls were driven by the rate of inflation
outstripping increases in actual salaries (Table D3.8, available on line).
School heads’ actual salaries
Across OECD countries and economies, average actual salaries for school heads (aged 25-64) ranged from
USD 85 711 at primary level to USD 92 866 at lower secondary level and USD 99 211 at upper secondary level. School
heads’ actual salaries are higher than those of teachers, and the premium (the difference in actual salaries between
school heads and teachers in favour of school heads) increases with levels of education. On average across OECD
countries and economies with data for both teachers and school heads, school heads’ actual salaries in 2024 were
51% higher than teachers’ at primary level, 56% higher at lower secondary level and 57% higher at upper secondary
level (Table D3.3).
The premiums paid to school heads vary widely across countries and levels of education, however. At pre-primary
level, the largest difference was in Slovenia, where school heads’ actual salaries are 83% higher than those of
teachers. At the primary level, school heads’ actual salaries are almost three times teachers’ actual salaries in Italy.
At lower and upper secondary levels, school heads’ actual salaries are about twice or more those of teachers in
England (United Kingdom), Italy and Scotland (United Kingdom). The lowest premiums, of less than 30%, are in
Costa Rica (secondary), Estonia (primary and secondary), France (pre-primary and primary), the French Community
of Belgium (pre-primary, primary and upper secondary) and Norway (pre-primary) (Table D3.3).
The reasons for these different salary structures are manifold. In France, the low premiums can be explained by the
fact that pre-primary and primary school heads are teachers relieved from part of their teaching duties. They are paid
according to the teachers’ salary scale at this level of education, with the addition of a specific school-head allowance.
In Costa Rica, school heads’ actual salaries are similar across education levels with a difference of 18% between the
lowest average actual salary (primary level) and the largest (secondary). Meanwhile teachers’ salaries are 27% lower
for primary and pre-primary levels compared to secondary levels, leading to smaller differences in secondary education
between teachers and school heads.
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
391
Figure D3.4. Primary school heads' average actual salaries compared to the statutory minimum
and maximum salaries (2024)
Annual salaries of school heads in public institutions, in equivalent USD converted using PPPs for private
consumption
Average actual salaries of 25-64 year-old school heads Minimum statutory salary Maximum statutory salary
USD
200 000
180 000
160 000
140 000
120 000
100 000
80 000
60 000
40 000
20 000
Note: Actual salaries include bonuses and allowances.
1. Actual base salaries for statutory minimum and maximum salaries.
2. Year of reference for actual salaries differs from 2024.
3. Data exclude management allowances that are considered a part of school heads' statutory salaries.
For data, see Table D3.3 and Table D3.4, available on line. For a link to download the data, see Tables and Notes section.
Box D3.2. From teacher to school head positions: Salaries and pathways
Becoming a school head can be an opportunity for teachers to develop professionally, take on leadership roles and
potentially improve their salary prospects. Job satisfaction is positively linked with participation in decision making
and professional development, leading to an intrinsic motivation (OECD, 2020[11]). The extent of the difference in
salaries also provides an incentive for teachers to become school heads. Higher salaries are a way to attract
candidates for school head roles but also reflect the additional workload and greater responsibilities of the position.
Thus, higher salaries earned by school heads also signal more complex working environments.
On average across OECD countries and economies, school heads’ minimum salaries are 49% higher than
teachers’ minimum salaries at primary level. Minimum statutory salaries for school heads with the minimum
qualifications are higher than the starting salaries of teachers (with the most prevalent qualification at that level) in
nearly all OECD countries and economies. The only exception is Costa Rica, where the minimum salary for a
school head is 15% lower than the starting salary of a teacher with most prevalent qualification, but the minimum
qualification requirement for school heads is also lower than the most prevalent qualification to become a teacher.
The minimum statutory salary for school heads is also often higher than the salaries of teachers with the most
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
392
prevalent qualification after 15 years experience. At primary level, this is the case in two-thirds of OECD countries
and economies (Figure D3.5).
The maximum statutory salaries for school heads are higher than the salaries for teachers with 15 years experience
in all OECD countries and economies with available data. At the primary level, the maximum statutory salary of a
school head is 83% higher on average than for teachers with 15 years of experience (and the most prevalent
qualifications). In nearly one-third of countries and economies (11 out of 36), school heads’ maximum salaries are
more than twice statutory teachers’ salaries after 15 years of experience (Figure D3.5).
Figure D3.5. Statutory salaries of teachers and school heads at primary level (2024)
Statutory salaries of teachers with most prevalent qualification and school heads with minimum qualification in
public institutions, in equivalent USD converted using PPPs for private consumption
Starting salary of teacher Salary of teacher after 15 years of experience Minimum salary of school head Maximum salary of school head
USD
200000
180000
160000
140000
120000
100000
80000
60000
40000
20000
1. Weighted average of the statutory salaries across different subnational entities.
2. In practice, many teachers obtain higher tertiary degrees during their service and are placed in a higher salary range.
3. Combination of different salary scales for the same ISCED qualification requirement.
For data, see Table D3.1 and Table D3.4, available on line. For a link to download the data, see Tables and Notes section.
Mandatory training or proven skills in management can help prospective school heads to act more effectively in
leadership and ease the way into the profession. However, Denmark, England (United Kingdom) and Greece for
example, do not require school heads to have any training or proof of skills ahead of entering the position. School
heads also advise in matters related to students’ learning so it is important that they understand the work of
teachers (Pont, Nusche and Moorman, 2008[4]). Although most countries require heads to have teaching
experience, in Finland and Latvia there is no minimum requirement, but both countries state that either sufficient
experience should be provided or local governments can set up differing standards. In Denmark, school heads
must take a leadership diploma after entering the position.
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
393
Prior teaching experience is mandatory to become a school head in 26 countries and economies at the primary
level, and in 27 countries and economies at secondary levels. On average across OECD countries and economies,
teachers are required to have a minimum of five years of experience in education before being eligible for a school
head position, with most requiring between three and six years. In Greece, this rises to 12 years, of which a
minimum of 8 years must be teaching in classrooms. At the primary level in France and at all levels in Luxembourg,
teachers are eligible to become school heads after two years of experience. However, in practice school heads
tend to have more than the minimum required experience (OECD, 2022[8]).
Mandatory trainings or competitive examinations proving the eligibility of teachers exist in most countries and
economies with data available. Such training takes different forms across countries. Several countries and
economies require specific training either before taking up or after starting a school head position. Examinations
assessing administration and management skills are also common. In France, new school heads in pre-primary
and primary schools benefit from tutoring by an experienced head teacher. The Flemish and French Communities
of Belgium combine different forms of training with assessments of new school heads at regular intervals.
Countries which do not have a statutory training requirement for new school heads still commonly provide training
programmes and encourage candidates to complete them. In Denmark, it is general practice for school heads at
primary and secondary levels to have completed professional development courses. In Norway, school heads are
also encouraged to engage in additional training programmes.
Base salaries and additional payments: Incentives and allowances
Statutory salaries, based on pay scales, are only one component of the total compensation of teachers and school
heads. School systems may also offer them additional payments, such as allowances, bonuses or other rewards.
These may take the form of financial remuneration and/or reductions in the number of teaching hours. Decisions on
the criteria used for the formation of the base salary and additional payments are taken at different levels of authority.
Criteria for additional payments vary across countries. In the large majority of countries and economies, teachers’ core
tasks (teaching, planning or preparing lessons; marking students’ work; general administrative work; communicating
with parents; supervising students; and working with colleagues) are rarely compensated through specific bonuses or
additional payments. Teachers may also be required to take on other responsibilities or perform some tasks without
additional compensation although doing so often entails some sort of financial incentive (see Chapter D4 in Education
at a Glance 2024 (OECD, 2024[12]) for teachers’ tasks and responsibilities and associated financial or other incentives).
At primary level, teachers who participate in school or other management activities in addition to their teaching duties
receive extra financial compensation in nearly 60% of the countries and economies with available information. For
example, in Italy teachers serving as head of department or co-ordinator receive an annual payment. In contrast, in
Latvia teachers in administrative positions such as deputy school heads are compensated with reduced teaching
duties. It is also common for teachers to be awarded additional payments, either annual or occasional, for teaching
more classes or hours than required by their full-time contract or performing special tasks such as training student
teachers (Table D3.9, available on line).
Participation in mentoring programmes and/or supporting new teachers in induction programmes, as well as
outstanding performance can also lead to additional compensation, either in the form of occasional additional or annual
payments, or through increases in base salary. Additional payments can also include bonuses for specific teaching
conditions, such as teaching students with special needs in regular schools or teaching in disadvantaged, remote or
high-cost areas. For example, in Japan three different location allowances have been implemented to retain high-
quality teachers in remote areas, to help teachers cover heating costs in cold areas and to provide additional payments
in high-cost areas (see also Box D3.3 in Education at a Glance 2024 (OECD, 2024[12]) for more information on such
allowances).
There are also criteria for additional payments for school heads, but fewer tasks or responsibilities lead to additional
payments compared to teachers. Central/state government or top-level authorities and local authorities are the two
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
394
main decision-making authorities on the entitlement criteria and the amounts of the allowances for school heads across
countries (Tables D3.10 and D3.12, available on line).
Salaries relative to other tertiary-educated workers
Education systems compete with other sectors of the economy to attract high-quality graduates as teachers and to
retain them in the profession. Teachers’ salaries relative to other occupations with similar education requirements, and
their likely future earnings, may have an influence on whether individuals choose a teaching career (Nagler, Piopiunik
and West, 2020[2]) or to stay in the profession (Qin, 2020[3]).
In most OECD countries, a tertiary degree is required to become a teacher at all levels of education (see Table D.D3.3
in Education at a Glance 2025 Sources, Methodologies and Technical Notes – (https://doi.org/10.1787/fcfaf2d1-en)),
meaning that the likely alternative to initial teacher education would be a similar tertiary programme. Thus, teachers’
relative salary levels and labour-market conditions in different countries can be understood by comparing teachers’
actual salaries with the average earnings of other tertiary-educated professionals.
Two comparisons can be made. First, with tertiary-educated workers: full-time, full-year 25-64 year-old workers with
tertiary attainment (ISCED levels 5 to 8). Second, with similarly educated workers, weighted by the proportion of
teachers at each level of tertiary attainment. This second method ensures that comparisons between countries take
into account differences in the distribution of bachelor’s, master’s and doctoral or equivalent attainment among
teachers compared to tertiary-educated workers more generally (see Annex Table X2.10 for the proportions of
teachers by attainment level, Methodology section for more details and Box D3.3 for comparability issues related to
measuring teachers’ relative salaries).
Young graduates may consider teachers’ statutory salaries relative to earnings of similarly educated workers over the
course of their careers when considering teaching as a lifelong career (for earnings by field of study in tertiary education
see Indicator A4 in Education at a Glance 2022 (OECD, 2022[8])). Data for primary teachers with the most prevalent
qualification to enter the profession in 2024 are available for 29 OECD countries and economies. On average,
teachers’ starting salaries in these countries and economies are 60% of the average earnings of similarly educated
workers aged 25-64, while those at the top of the scale reach 97% of the average earnings of similarly educated
workers (Figure D3.6).
In a few countries and economies, teachers’ statutory salaries do reach or exceed the earnings of similarly educated
workers. In Korea and Luxembourg, statutory salaries after 15 years of experience are at least 25% higher than the
average earnings of similarly educated workers – and at least 60% higher for teachers at the top of the salary scale
(Figure D3.6). In the countries where teachers’ salaries do not exceed the average earnings of similarly educated
workers at any stage in their career, the most prevalent qualifications are usually a master’s degree (Table D.D3.3 in
Education at a Glance 2025 Sources, Methodologies and Technical Notes – (https://doi.org/10.1787/fcfaf2d1-en)).
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
395
Figure D3.6. Primary teachers’ statutory salaries at different stages of their career relative to
earnings of similarly educated workers (2024)
Ratio of salaries of teachers with the most prevalent qualification at the time of entry in public institutions relative to
the earnings of full-time, full-year workers aged 25-64 with similar educational attainment
Starting salary Salary after 15 years of experience Salary at the top of the salary scale
Ratio
2
1.5
0.5
Note: The number in square brackets refers to the average number of years needed to progress from the starting salary to the top of the salary
scale.
1. Weighted average of the statutory salaries across different subnational entities.
2. Starting salary is relative to the earnings of workers who have attained a bachelor's degree or equivalent (ISCED 6). Salaries after 15 years
of experience and at the top of the salary scale are relative to the earnings of workers with a master's degree or equivalent (ISCED 7) or higher
attainment.
3. In practice, many teachers obtain higher tertiary degrees during their service and are placed in a higher salary range.
4. Combination of different salary scales for the same ISCED qualification requirement.
For a link to download the data, see Tables and Notes section.
Where teachers’ salary scales are compressed, their relative pay may increase faster. For example, the starting
salaries of primary teachers in New Zealand with the most prevalent qualification are just 54% of the average earnings
of similarly educated workers, but will reach 86% after eight years on average. In contrast, relative starting salaries in
Chile are similar (57%), but Chile has more expanded salary scales so it takes 15 years to reach 86% of the average
earnings of similarly educated workers, and teachers’ salaries continue increasing until they have 30 years of
experience in the profession (Figure D3.6).
Similarly to statutory salaries, teachers’ average actual salaries, which reflect their total earnings, can be compared
against either the earnings of similarly educated workers or all tertiary-educated workers. However, the data available
only allow for the computation of averages of relative salaries when actual salaries of teachers are compared to
earnings of tertiary-educated workers. Box D3.3 considers the comparability issues involved in calculating relative
salary measures.
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
396
In almost all countries and economies with available information, and at almost all levels of education, teachers’ actual
salaries are lower than those of tertiary-educated workers. On average, primary teachers’ actual salaries amount to
83% of the full-time, full-year earnings of tertiary-educated 25-64 year-olds (Figure D3.1). Lower secondary teachers
earn 87% of this benchmark and upper secondary teachers 91%. The lowest relative salaries are at pre-primary level
in Czechia with 57% of average earnings of tertiary-educated workers (although no tertiary education is required to
become a teacher at pre-primary level) (Table D3.2).
Teachers’ actual salaries reach or exceed those of tertiary-educated or similarly educated workers on average in a
few countries. Teachers earn more than tertiary-educated workers at all levels of education in Costa Rica, Peru,
Portugal and Romania. The actual salaries of teachers exceed the earnings of tertiary educated workers by more than
50% in Costa Rica (at secondary level) and Peru (at primary level) (Table D3.2).
School heads’ career prospects and their relative salaries are also a signal to teachers of their potential career
progression pathway and the associated compensation in the longer term. Not only do school heads earn more than
teachers, they also, unlike teachers, typically earn more than tertiary-educated workers. A notable exception is
Hungary, where school heads at all levels of education earn 8-18% less than the average earnings of tertiary-educated
workers, the lowest among OECD countries (Table D3.2).
Box D3.3. Comparability issues with relative salaries of teachers
Meaningful international comparisons rely on the provision and implementation of rigorous definitions and a related
statistical methodology. In view of the diversity of countries’ education and teacher compensation systems,
adhering to these guidelines and methodology is not always straightforward. Some caution is therefore required
when interpreting these data.
The relative salaries measure divides the salaries of teachers or school heads (numerator) by the earnings of
comparable workers (denominator) using two different methods (see Table D3.2 and Methodology section). These
measures of relative salaries are subject to biases due to differences in the characteristics, working patterns and
remuneration systems of teachers and other workers or differences in the data used for salaries and earnings. Box
D3.1 in Education at a Glance 2021 (OECD, 2021[13]) addressed comparability issues related to inclusion of
teachers in data on earnings of workers, the focus on full-time work, differences in sources for data on salaries and
earnings, and differences in pension systems between teachers and other workers. Box D3.2 in Education at a
Glance 2023 (OECD, 2023[7]) addressed the bias related to differences in working days between teachers and
tertiary-educated workers.
Another source of potential biases in the measure of relative salaries relates to differences in the type of measure
used for salaries and earnings data: the median earnings of tertiary-educated workers are compared to an
arithmetic mean of the actual salaries of teachers. To analyse the potential bias related to the use of median or
mean actual salaries, a survey was carried out in 2024 to gather information on the statistical measure (mean or
median) used to report actual teacher salaries. The survey also gathered information on the methodology used to
report actual salaries, and in particular on whether the data refer to full-time teachers.
Results from the 24 countries and economies that contributed to the survey show that the median is more relevant
than the mean as the distribution of salaries can include a few very high salaries (right-skewed distribution of
salaries). As the median is less sensitive to extreme or outlying values than the arithmetic mean, the measure of
relative salaries is more stable over years when computed based on median values. However median actual
salaries are not available for most countries. Nine countries provided both mean and median actual salaries of
teachers enabling an analysis of the difference in the value of relative salaries resulting from the use of mean or
median actual salaries. The results show sizeable differences: the difference between the ratios based on mean
and median actual salaries of teachers varies from 0.1% to 14%, with similar differences across levels of education.
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
397
At upper secondary level the ratio based on mean actual salaries is higher than the ratio based on median actual
salaries in most of the countries with available data, but this is not necessarily the case at all levels.
The results of the survey also showed that teachers with part-time working arrangements are included in actual
teacher salaries in the majority of countries that participated in the survey (whereas data should be reported for
full-time teachers). Weighting systems are usually used to convert part-time salaries into full-time equivalent
salaries and mitigate this bias. However, the weights may be computed differently across countries: based on the
teaching time or the working time of full-time teachers, the working time of full-time workers or other methods. The
differences in the methods to weight salaries of teachers with partial working arrangements may create also some
bias in the comparison of relative salaries.
Source: 2024 OECD survey on methodology to report actual salaries of teachers.
Definitions
Teachers refer to professional personnel directly involved in teaching students. The classification includes classroom
teachers and other teachers who work with a whole class of students in a classroom, in small groups in a resource
room, or in one-to-one teaching situations inside or outside a regular class.
School head refers to any person whose primary or major function is heading a school or a group of schools, alone
or within an administrative body such as a board or council. The school head is the primary leader responsible for the
leadership, management and administration of a school.
Actual salaries refer to the annual average earnings received by full-time teachers/school heads aged 25-64 before
taxes. It is the gross salary from the employee’s point of view: it includes the part of social security contributions and
pension-scheme contributions that are paid by the employees (even if deducted automatically from the employees’
gross salary by the employer). However, the employers’ premium for social security and pension is excluded. Actual
salaries also include work-related payments, such as school-head allowance, annual bonuses, results-related
bonuses, extra pay for holidays and sick-leave pay. Income from other sources, such as government social transfers,
investment income and any other income that is not directly related to their profession is not included.
Earnings for workers with tertiary education are average earnings for full-time, full-year workers aged 25-64 with
an education at ISCED level 5, 6, 7 or 8.
Salary at the top of the scale refers to the maximum scheduled annual salary (top of the salary range) for a full-time
teacher (for a given level of qualification of teachers recognised by the compensation system).
Salary after 15 years of experience refers to the scheduled annual salary of a full-time teacher. Statutory salaries
may refer to the salaries of teachers with a given level of qualification recognised by the compensation system (the
minimum training necessary to be fully qualified, the most prevalent qualifications or the maximum qualification), plus
15 years of experience.
Starting salary refers to the average scheduled gross salary per year for a full-time teacher with a given level of
qualification recognised by the compensation system (the minimum training necessary to be fully qualified or the most
prevalent qualifications) at the beginning of the teaching career.
Statutory salaries refer to scheduled salaries according to official pay scales. The salaries reported are gross (total
sum paid by the employer) less the employer’s contribution to social security and pension, according to existing salary
scales. Salaries are “before tax” (i.e. before deductions for income tax). Statutory salaries also include additional
payments that all teachers or school heads receive and that constitutes a regular part of the annual salary, such as
13th month pay. In the case of school heads, statutory salaries include the management allowance that all school
heads receive for managing the school where applicable.
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
398
Methodology
Data on teachers’ salaries at lower and upper secondary level refer only to general programmes.
In most countries, the criteria to determine the most prevalent qualifications of teachers are based on a principle of
relative majority (i.e. the level of qualifications of the largest proportion of teachers).
The period of reference for teachers’ salaries is the school year 2023/24 where the school year begins on the second
half of the calendar year 2023 and ends in the first half of the calendar year 2024, or otherwise, the school year 2024
where the school year starts in the first half of the calendar year 2024. For ease of reference in the publication, the
reference school year is given as 2024.
Salaries were converted into equivalent USD using purchasing power parities (PPPs) for private consumption from
the OECD Data Explorer on national accounts (OECD, 2025[14])These PPPs refer to the calendar year and have been
adjusted to refer to January 2024 for the conversion of salaries. Tables with salaries in national currency are included
in Annex 2 (see Tables X2.3, X2.4, X2.5, X2.6 and X2.7). To calculate the index of change in teachers’ salaries
compared to 2015, the deflator for private consumption is used to convert salaries to 2015 prices. Reference statistics
used in the calculation (PPPs and deflators for private consumption) are available in Table X2.8 in Annex 2. For more
information, please see the methodology section of Education at a Glance 2025 Sources, Methodologies and
Technical Notes (https://doi.org/10.1787/fcfaf2d1-en).
In Table D3.2, the ratios of teacher salaries to earnings for similarly educated full-time, full-year workers aged 25-64
are calculated based on weighted averages of earnings of tertiary-educated workers (Columns 2 to 5 for teachers and
Columns 10 to 13 for school heads). The weights, collected for every country individually, are based on the percentage
of teachers or school heads at each ISCED level of tertiary attainment (see Tables X2.9 and X2.10 in Annex 2). The
ratios have been calculated for countries for which these data are available. When data on earnings of workers referred
to a different reference year than the 2024 reference year used for salaries of teachers or school heads, a deflator has
been used to adjust earnings data to 2024. For all other ratios in Table D3.2 and those in Table D3.5 (available on
line), information on all tertiary-educated workers was used instead of weighted averages. Data on the earnings of
workers take account of earnings from work for all individuals during the reference period, including the salaries of
teachers. In most countries, the population of teachers is large and may influence the average earnings of workers.
For more information, please see the OECD Handbook for Internationally Comparative Education Statistics (OECD,
2018[15]) and Education at a Glance 2025 Sources, Methodologies and Technical Notes
(https://doi.org/10.1787/fcfaf2d1-en).
Sources
Data on salaries for teachers and school heads are collected from the 2024 joint OECD/Eurydice data collection on
salaries of teachers and school heads. Data refer to the school year 2023/24 (or the school year 2024) and are reported
in accordance with formal policies for public institutions. Data on earnings of workers are based on the regular data
collection by the OECD Labour Market and Social Outcomes of Learning Network.
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
399
References
Nagler, M., M. Piopiunik and M. West (2020), “Weak markets, strong teachers: Recession at career start [2]
and teacher effectiveness”, Journal of Labor Economics, Vol. 38/2, pp. 453-500,
https://doi.org/10.1086/705883.
OECD (2025), Education and Skills, OECD Data Explorer, http://data-explorer.oecd.org/s/5q (accessed on [9]
TBD TBD 2025).
OECD (2025), National accounts - Annual purchasing power parities and exchange rates, OECD Data [14]
Explorer, http://data-explorer.oecd.org/s/5t (accessed on 2 April 2025).
OECD (2024), Education at a Glance 2024: OECD Indicators, OECD Publishing, Paris, [12]
https://doi.org/10.1787/c00cad36-en.
OECD (2023), Education at a Glance 2023: OECD Indicators, OECD Publishing, Paris, [7]
https://doi.org/10.1787/e13bef63-en.
OECD (2023), “What do OECD data on teachers’ salaries tell us?”, Policy Brief, OECD Publishing, Paris, [1]
https://doi.org/10.1787/de0196b5-en.
OECD (2022), Education at a Glance 2022: OECD Indicators, OECD Publishing, Paris, [8]
https://doi.org/10.1787/3197152b-en.
OECD (2022), OECD Economic Outlook, Volume 2022 Issue 2: Confronting the Crisis, OECD Publishing, [10]
Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/f6da2159-en.
OECD (2021), Education at a Glance 2021: OECD Indicators, OECD Publishing, Paris, [13]
https://doi.org/10.1787/b35a14e5-en.
OECD (2020), PISA 2018 Results (Volume V): Effective Policies, Successful Schools, PISA, OECD [5]
Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/ca768d40-en.
OECD (2020), TALIS 2018 Results (Volume II): Teachers and School Leaders as Valued Professionals, [11]
TALIS, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/19cf08df-en.
OECD (2019), Education at a Glance 2019: OECD Indicators, OECD Publishing, Paris, [6]
https://doi.org/10.1787/f8d7880d-en.
OECD (2018), OECD Handbook for Internationally Comparative Education Statistics 2018: Concepts, [15]
Standards, Definitions and Classifications, OECD Publishing, Paris,
https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264304444-en.
Pont, B., D. Nusche and H. Moorman (2008), Improving School Leadership, Volume 1: Policy and Practice, [4]
OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264044715-en.
Qin, L. (2020), “Country effects on teacher turnover intention: A multilevel, cross-national analysis”, [3]
Educational Research for Policy and Practice, Vol. 20/1, pp. 79-105, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10671-
020-09269-3.
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
400
Tables and Notes
Chapter D3 Tables
Table D3.1 Teachers' statutory salaries, based on the most prevalent qualifications at different points in teachers' careers (2024)
Table D3.2 Teachers' and school heads' actual salaries relative to earnings of tertiary-educated workers (2024)
Table D3.3 Teachers' and school heads' average actual salaries (2024)
WEB Table D3.4 School heads' minimum and maximum statutory salaries, based on minimum qualifications (2024)
WEB Table D3.5 Teachers' actual salaries relative to earnings of tertiary-educated workers, by age group and gender (2024)
WEB Table D3.6 Trends in teachers’ starting statutory salaries, based on the most prevalent qualifications (2000 and 2005 to 2024)
WEB Table D3.7 Trends in teachers’ statutory salaries, based on the most prevalent qualifications after 15 years of experience (2000 and
2005 to 2024
WEB Table D3.8 Trends in teachers' average actual salaries (2000, 2005 and 2010 to 2024)
WEB Table D3.9 Criteria used for base salaries and additional payments awarded to teachers (2024)
WEB Table D3.10 Criteria used for base salaries and additional payments awarded to school heads (2024)
WEB Table D3.11 Decision-making level for criteria used for determining teachers' base salaries and additional payments (2024)
WEB Table D3.12 Decision-making level for criteria used for determining school heads' base salaries and additional payments (2024)
WEB Table D3.13 Characteristics of the compensation system for school heads (2024)
StatLink 2 https://stat.link/49qs38
Data Download
To download the data for the figures and tables in this chapter, click StatLink above.
To access further data and/or other education indicators, please visit the OECD Data Explorer: https://data-
explorer.oecd.org/.
Data cut-off for the print publication 13 June 2025. Please note that the Data Explorer contains the most recent
data.
Notes for Tables
Table D3.1. Teachers' statutory salaries, based on the most prevalent qualifications at different points in
teachers' careers (2024)
Note: The definition of teachers' most prevalent qualifications is based on a broad concept, including the typical ISCED
level of attainment and other criteria. The most prevalent qualification is defined for each of the four career stages
included in this table. In many cases, the minimum qualification is the same as the most prevalent qualification. The
minimum and the most prevalent qualifications are described in Table X3.D3.3 in Education at a Glance 2025 Sources,
Methodologies and Technical Notes (https://doi.org/10.1787/fcfaf2d1-en).
1. Year of reference: 2023 (calendar year for Sweden).
2. Data on pre-primary education include salaries of kindergarten teachers (the majority).
3. Data include the average of fixed bonuses for overtime hours for lower and upper secondary teachers.
4. Data exclude the social security contributions and pension scheme contributions paid by the employees.
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
401
5. Actual salaries (including teachers of general subjects within vocational programmes in Sweden, and
excluding bonuses and allowances in the United States).
Table D3.2. Teachers' and school heads' actual salaries relative to earnings of tertiary-educated workers
(2024)
Note: Where the year of reference for the earnings of tertiary-educated workers and the salaries of teachers differ, the
earnings of tertiary-educated workers have been adjusted to the reference year used for salaries of teachers using
deflators for private final consumption expenditure.
1. Reference year differs from 2024 for salaries of teachers and school heads: 2023 for Czechia, Slovenia and
Sweden (calendar year), 2022 for Chile.
2. Data on teachers in pre-primary education include the data for teachers in early childhood education and care.
3. Data on earnings for full-time, full-year workers with tertiary education refer to the whole country: Belgium for
the Flemish and the French Communities of Belgium, and the United Kingdom for England and Scotland.
Table D3.3. Teachers' and school heads' average actual salaries (2024)
Note: Where the year of reference for the earnings of tertiary-educated workers and the salaries of teacher differ, the
earnings of tertiary-educated workers have been adjusted using deflators for private final consumption expenditure.
1. Reference year differs from 2024: 2023 for Chile (school heads), Czechia, Poland (school heads), Slovenia
and Sweden (calendar year); 2022 for Chile (teachers) and France (calendar year).
2. Data on teachers in pre-primary education include the data for teachers in early childhood education and care.
Control codes
a – category not applicable; b – break in series; d – contains data from another column; m – missing data; x – contained
in another column (indicated in brackets). For further control codes, see the Reader’s Guide.
For further methodological information, see Education at a Glance 2025: Sources, Methodologies and Technical Notes
(https://doi.org/10.1787/fcfaf2d1-en).
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
402
Table D3.1. Teachers' statutory salaries, based on the most prevalent qualifications at different
points in teachers' careers (2024)
Annual salaries of full-time teachers in public institutions, in equivalent USD converted using PPPs for private
consumption, by level of education
Lower secondary, Upper secondary,
Pre-primary Primary general programmes general programmes
Salary at top of scale
Salary at top of scale
Salary at top of scale
Salary at top of scale
Salary after 10 years
Salary after 10 years
Salary after 10 years
Salary after 10 years
Salary after 15 years
Salary after 15 years
Salary after 15 years
Salary after 15 years
Starting salary
Starting salary
Starting salary
Starting salary
of experience
of experience
of experience
of experience
of experience
of experience
of experience
of experience
OECD countries (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) (15) (16)
Australia 59 303 85 317 85 317 93 619 57 541 82 054 82 054 93 020 57 477 81 842 81 842 92 959 57 477 81 842 81 842 92 959
Austria1 m m m m 61 742 65 455 73 273 107 745 61 742 68 482 76 722 114 354 61 742 74 220 83 166 126 691
Canada m m m m 50 077 83 352 86 432 87 299 50 077 83 352 87 285 87 299 50 077 83 352 87 285 87 299
Chile 29 963 36 942 44 969 55 405 29 963 36 942 44 969 55 405 29 963 36 942 44 969 55 405 30 977 38 295 46 525 57 433
Colombia 31 723 57 853 57 853 57 853 31 723 57 853 57 853 57 853 31 723 57 853 57 853 57 853 31 723 57 853 57 853 57 853
Costa Rica 25 633 30 110 32 348 39 064 25 887 30 409 32 670 39 453 26 678 31 341 33 673 40 668 26 678 31 341 33 673 40 668
Czechia 25 759 26 595 27 265 30 275 27 348 29 021 30 359 35 795 27 348 29 104 30 359 36 046 27 348 29 104 30 359 35 962
Denmark 55 409 62 767 62 767 62 767 63 554 70 611 73 204 73 204 63 789 71 325 73 750 73 750 59 762 77 664 77 664 77 664
Estonia m a a a 32 836 a a a 32 836 a a a 32 836 a a a
Finland 2 39 368 42 927 43 336 43 336 43 382 49 732 53 218 56 412 46 601 53 423 57 167 60 598 48 930 58 753 61 685 65 386
France3 43 597 47 886 49 462 70 228 43 597 47 886 49 462 70 228 47 220 51 510 53 086 74 214 47 220 51 510 53 086 74 214
Germany m m m m 78 904 90 801 95 657 102 439 87 120 98 709 103 952 113 544 90 567 101 784 107 491 122 251
Greece 23 363 28 205 30 627 45 153 23 363 28 205 30 627 45 153 23 363 28 205 30 627 45 153 23 363 28 205 30 627 45 153
Hungary 30 256 31 337 34 429 40 371 30 256 31 337 34 429 40 371 30 692 31 794 34 949 42 039 30 692 31 794 34 949 42 039
Iceland 51 878 52 373 54 663 55 837 51 878 52 373 54 663 55 837 51 878 52 373 54 663 55 837 48 176 58 338 61 204 61 204
Ireland a a a a 41 920 57 946 70 178 80 944 43 344 59 384 70 865 81 631 43 344 59 384 70 865 81 631
Israel 38 617 45 514 49 516 77 932 33 504 38 882 43 928 68 244 33 672 41 314 45 115 68 244 31 176 39 907 44 444 63 367
Italy 37 947 41 590 45 593 55 325 37 947 41 590 45 593 55 325 40 784 45 026 49 539 60 710 40 947 46 092 50 917 63 432
Japan m m m m 34 863 47 177 54 168 66 530 34 863 47 177 54 168 66 530 34 863 47 177 54 168 68 276
Korea 37 773 56 250 65 765 104 786 37 773 56 250 65 765 104 786 37 773 56 250 65 765 104 786 37 773 56 250 65 765 104 786
Latvia 25 486 m m 40 778 25 157 m m 40 243 25 157 m m 40 243 25 157 m m 40 243
Lithuania 39 107 40 369 44 970 51 172 39 107 40 369 44 970 51 172 39 107 40 369 44 970 51 172 39 107 40 369 44 970 51 172
Luxembourg 87 901 113 685 128 335 155 292 87 901 113 685 128 335 155 292 99 621 124 526 137 418 173 165 99 621 124 526 137 418 173 165
Mexico 26 184 32 551 40 401 50 446 26 184 32 551 40 401 50 446 32 715 40 870 51 067 63 779 61 856 71 169 75 953 75 953
Netherlands 58 988 84 653 96 250 121 022 58 988 84 653 96 250 121 022 58 805 89 684 102 711 121 026 58 805 89 684 102 711 121 026
New Zealand m m m m 39 932 63 758 63 758 63 758 39 932 63 758 63 758 63 758 41 726 67 121 67 121 67 121
Norway 50 690 58 126 58 126 59 431 61 833 63 619 63 619 68 370 61 833 63 619 63 619 68 370 61 833 69 446 69 446 77 382
Poland 28 712 34 038 41 355 43 101 28 712 34 038 41 355 43 101 28 712 34 038 41 355 43 101 28 712 34 038 41 355 43 101
Portugal 41 321 49 811 52 740 87 367 41 321 49 811 52 740 87 367 41 321 49 811 52 740 87 367 41 321 49 811 52 740 87 367
Slovak Republic 18 874 21 530 22 053 24 659 23 371 26 279 26 913 30 102 23 371 26 279 26 913 30 102 23 371 26 279 26 913 30 102
Slovenia 36 597 43 276 54 332 62 626 36 597 44 825 56 323 67 365 36 597 44 825 56 323 67 365 36 597 44 825 56 323 67 365
Spain 54 487 59 291 63 225 78 106 54 487 59 291 63 225 78 106 61 074 66 506 70 856 87 304 61 074 66 506 70 856 87 304
Sweden1, 4, 5 48 871 51 136 52 097 55 941 49 420 54 554 56 833 65 481 50 834 55 941 57 794 66 991 51 479 56 901 58 755 67 678
Switzerland 67 278 84 473 m 102 813 72 392 90 469 m 109 779 79 711 102 284 m 121 418 90 469 115 951 m 137 378
Türkiye 59 766 64 442 67 091 77 396 59 766 64 442 67 091 77 396 59 766 64 442 67 091 77 396 59 766 64 442 67 091 77 396
United States5 50 417 55 930 75 635 84 504 49 386 67 017 72 721 85 827 50 512 70 466 76 221 86 750 52 893 69 182 76 442 83 410
Other economies
Flemish Comm. (Belgium) 51 743 64 809 72 924 91 861 51 743 64 809 72 924 91 861 51 743 64 809 72 924 91 861 64 478 82 097 93 577 116 539
French Comm. (Belgium) 49 599 61 965 69 736 85 280 49 599 61 965 69 736 85 280 49 599 61 965 69 736 85 280 61 649 78 520 89 514 107 838
England (UK) 41 468 a 63 995 63 995 41 468 a 63 995 63 995 41 468 a 63 995 63 995 41 468 a 63 995 63 995
Scotland (UK) 51 285 64 368 64 368 64 368 51 285 64 368 64 368 64 368 51 285 64 368 64 368 64 368 51 285 64 368 64 368 64 368
OECD average 42 655 52 224 55 725 67 076 44 465 55 972 59 673 71 449 45 923 58 072 61 563 73 883 47 339 60 772 63 925 76 535
Partner and/or accession countries
Argentina m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m
Brazil 24 526 m m m 24 526 m m m 24 526 m m m 24 526 m m m
Bulgaria 28 399 29 288 30 423 m 28 399 29 288 30 423 m 28 399 29 288 30 423 m 28 399 29 288 30 423 m
China m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m
Croatia m m m m 40 401 42 210 43 215 48 240 40 401 42 210 43 215 48 240 40 401 42 210 43 215 48 240
India m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m
Indonesia m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m
Peru m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m
Romania 38 759 48 536 50 376 55 203 38 759 48 536 50 376 55 203 38 759 48 536 50 376 55 203 38 759 48 536 50 376 55 203
Saudi Arabia m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m
South Africa m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m
EU25 average 40 694 48 437 52 682 63 752 43 526 52 327 57 317 69 517 45 107 54 450 59 454 72 256 45 705 56 165 61 235 74 721
G20 average m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m
Note: For notes on this table and a link to download the data, see Tables and Notes section above.
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
403
Table D3.2. Teachers' and school heads' actual salaries relative to earnings of tertiary-educated
workers (2024)
Ratio of salary, using annual average salaries (including bonuses and allowances) of full-time teachers and school
heads in public institutions relative to the earnings of workers with similar educational attainment (weighted average)
and to the earnings of full-time, full-year workers with tertiary education, by level of education
All teachers All school heads
Actual salaries, relative to Actual salaries, relative to
earnings for full-time, full-year Actual salaries, relative to earnings for full-time, full-year Actual salaries, relative to
similarly educated workers earnings for full-time, full-year similarly educated workers earnings for full-time, full-year
(weighted averages, workers with tertiary education (weighted averages, workers with tertiary education
25-64 year-olds) (ISCED 5 to 8, 25-64 year-olds) 25-64 year-olds) (ISCED 5 to 8, 25-64 year-olds)
Year of
general programmes
general programmes
general programmes
general programmes
general programmes
general programmes
general programmes
general programmes
reference
Lower secondary,
Lower secondary,
Lower secondary,
Lower secondary,
Upper secondary,
Upper secondary,
Upper secondary,
Upper secondary,
of latest
available data
Pre-primary
Pre-primary
Pre-primary
Pre-primary
on earnings
Primary
Primary
Primary
Primary
of tertiary-
educated
workers
OECD countries (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) (15) (16) (17)
Australia 2023 m m m m 1.03 0.97 0.97 0.97 m m m m 1.44 1.59 1.83 1.83
Austria 2023 m m m m m 0.75 0.82 0.89 m m m m m 1.08 1.15 1.37
Canada m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m
Chile1 2023 0.63 0.64 0.65 0.68 0.73 0.75 0.76 0.79 0.97 0.96 0.98 1.09 1.15 1.13 1.16 1.28
Colombia m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m
Costa Rica 2023 m m m m 1.28 1.31 1.74 1.74 m m m m 1.98 1.84 2.16 2.16
Czechia1 2023 0.76 0.71 0.70 0.73 0.57 0.72 0.72 0.76 1.05 1.08 1.08 1.18 0.83 1.13 1.13 1.24
Denmark 2023 m m m 0.84 0.68 0.82 0.83 0.97 m m m 1.34 0.90 1.20 1.20 1.55
Estonia 2023 0.72 0.87 0.84 0.82 0.67 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.85 0.99 0.99 0.98 0.91 1.08 1.08 1.08
Finland 2 2022 0.71 0.69 0.76 0.84 0.64 0.81 0.88 0.99 0.89 0.95 1.11 1.15 0.84 1.12 1.31 1.36
France 2022 0.75 0.74 0.80 0.87 0.75 0.74 0.82 0.90 0.88 0.88 m m 0.88 0.88 1.21 1.21
Germany 2023 m m m m m 0.88 0.97 1.01 m m m m m m m m
Greece 2018 0.68 0.68 0.69 0.69 0.69 0.69 0.72 0.72 0.91 0.91 0.95 0.95 0.98 0.98 1.10 1.10
Hungary 2023 0.72 0.70 0.70 0.58 0.62 0.66 0.66 0.68 0.93 0.91 0.91 0.88 0.82 0.89 0.89 0.92
Iceland m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m
Ireland m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m
Israel 2022 0.81 0.79 0.81 0.81 0.87 0.86 0.91 0.88 a 1.29 1.26 1.33 a 1.53 1.50 1.53
Italy 2022 m m m m 0.67 0.67 0.71 0.76 a m m m a 1.99 1.99 1.99
Japan m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m
Korea m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m
Latvia 2023 0.68 0.74 0.74 0.73 0.64 0.77 0.77 0.78 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01
Lithuania 2022 m m m m 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 m m m m m m m m
Luxembourg m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m
Mexico m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m
Netherlands 2023 0.86 0.86 0.89 0.89 0.80 0.80 0.87 0.87 1.13 1.13 1.22 1.22 1.12 1.12 1.25 1.25
New Zealand 2023 m 0.85 0.85 0.88 m 0.84 0.84 0.89 m m m m m 1.29 1.50 1.74
Norway 2023 0.73 0.77 0.77 0.78 0.66 0.73 0.73 0.80 0.93 1.06 1.06 1.17 0.84 0.98 0.98 1.19
Poland 2022 0.71 0.83 0.86 0.90 0.73 0.85 0.88 0.93 1.04 1.11 1.11 1.21 1.07 1.14 1.14 1.24
Portugal 2023 m m m m 1.37 1.28 1.27 1.36 m m m m 1.86 1.86 1.86 1.86
Slovak Republic 2023 m m m m 0.58 0.74 0.74 0.79 m m m m m m m m
Slovenia 2022 0.72 0.78 0.78 0.78 0.67 0.83 0.84 0.87 1.22 1.05 1.05 1.18 1.22 1.18 1.18 1.32
Spain m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m
Sweden1 2023 0.69 0.73 0.70 0.70 0.64 0.73 0.76 0.77 1.05 1.06 1.06 1.02 0.98 1.08 1.08 1.10
Switzerland m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m
Türkiye m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m
United States 2023 0.54 0.54 0.56 0.57 0.61 0.63 0.65 0.67 0.84 0.85 0.88 0.90 1.07 1.08 1.11 1.15
Other economies
Flemish Comm. (Belgium) 3 2022 0.94 0.92 0.91 0.94 0.84 0.82 0.82 0.99 1.36 1.36 1.35 1.39 1.22 1.22 1.31 1.51
French Comm. (Belgium)3 2022 0.90 0.86 0.82 0.88 0.80 0.78 0.76 0.96 1.03 1.03 1.22 1.27 0.91 0.91 1.08 1.12
England (UK)3 2023 0.77 0.77 0.90 0.90 0.82 0.82 0.98 0.98 1.39 1.39 1.88 1.88 1.47 1.47 2.06 2.06
Scotland (UK)3 2023 m m m m 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 m m m m m 1.45 1.88 1.88
OECD average m m m m 0.77 0.83 0.87 0.91 m m m m m 1.24 1.33 1.41
Partner and/or accession countries
Argentina m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m
Brazil m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m
Bulgaria m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m
China m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m
Croatia m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m
India m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m
Indonesia m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m
Peru 2022 m m m m 1.47 1.51 1.48 1.48 m m m m 2.57 2.57 2.57 2.57
Romania 2023 m m m m 1.11 1.14 1.15 1.18 m m m m m m m m
Saudi Arabia m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m
South Africa m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m
EU25 average m m m m 0.75 0.82 0.85 0.90 m m m m m 1.17 1.24 1.31
G20 average m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m
Note: For notes on this table and a link to download the data, see Tables and Notes section above.
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
404
Table D3.3. Teachers' and school heads' average actual salaries (2024)
Annual average salaries (including bonuses and allowances) of teachers and school heads in public institutions, in
equivalent USD converted using PPPs for private consumption, by level of education
25-64 year-old teachers 25-64 year-old school heads
Lower secondary, Upper secondary, Lower secondary, Upper secondary,
general general general general
Pre-primary Primary programmes programmes Pre-primary Primary programmes programmes
OECD countries (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8)
Australia 78 527 73 826 73 932 73 980 109 956 120 869 139 546 139 556
Austria m 83 198 91 180 98 227 m 119 818 127 016 150 966
Canada m m m m m m m m
Chile1 35 898 36 442 37 030 38 403 55 984 55 349 56 548 62 626
Colombia m m m m m m m m
Costa Rica 40 280 41 477 54 931 54 931 62 550 57 989 68 237 68 237
Czechia1 33 466 42 201 42 165 44 667 48 945 66 599 66 599 72 960
Denmark 61 733 74 887 75 337 88 381 81 996 109 502 109 502 140 793
Estonia 32 203 42 019 42 019 42 019 43 845 51 748 51 748 51 748
Finland 2 47 120 59 596 65 466 73 575 62 246 82 795 97 147 100 356
France1 53 297 52 347 58 435 64 012 62 334 62 334 85 940 85 940
Germany m 91 950 100 831 105 523 m m m m
Greece 30 994 30 994 32 297 32 297 43 686 43 686 49 286 49 286
Hungary 36 814 38 997 38 997 40 216 48 172 52 218 52 218 54 512
Iceland2 60 070 62 211 62 211 80 258 79 880 86 720 86 720 108 549
Ireland a 68 284 71 798 71 798 a 97 574 124 978 124 978
Israel 53 551 53 316 55 871 54 336 a 94 547 92 430 94 283
Italy 49 507 49 507 52 642 56 021 a 147 424 147 424 147 424
Japan m m m m m m m m
Korea m m m m m m m m
Latvia 26 822 32 330 32 330 32 741 42 764 42 764 42 764 42 764
Lithuania 54 118 54 118 54 118 54 118 m m m m
Luxembourg m m m m m m m m
Mexico m m m m m m m m
Netherlands 88 465 88 465 96 106 96 106 122 887 122 887 137 795 137 795
New Zealand m 63 188 63 157 66 793 m 96 931 112 189 130 442
Norway 61 745 68 626 68 626 74 665 78 925 92 319 92 319 111 442
Poland1 47 295 55 407 57 091 60 372 69 586 74 366 74 366 80 786
Portugal 62 622 58 829 58 248 62 453 85 173 85 173 85 173 85 173
Slovak Republic 28 791 36 992 36 992 39 222 m m m m
Slovenia1, 2 41 418 51 188 51 641 53 551 75 744 72 674 72 674 81 424
Spain m m m m m m m m
Sweden1, 2 48 395 55 418 57 616 58 689 73 919 81 906 81 906 83 013
Switzerland m m m m m m m m
Türkiye m m m m m m m m
United States 66 325 68 153 70 578 72 927 116 456 117 560 121 041 124 654
Other economies
Flemish Comm. (Belgium) 75 419 74 022 74 381 89 559 109 821 109 821 118 297 136 271
French Comm. (Belgium) 72 151 70 065 68 763 86 171 81 872 81 837 97 555 101 252
England (UK) 54 550 54 550 64 941 64 941 97 589 97 589 137 176 137 176
Scotland (UK) 62 584 62 584 62 584 62 584 m 96 217 124 846 124 846
OECD average 50 872 57 399 59 896 63 514 m 85 711 92 866 99 211
Partner and/or accession countries
Argentina m m m m m m m m
Brazil m m m m m m m m
Bulgaria m m m m m m m m
China m m m m m m m m
Croatia m m m m m m m m
India m m m m m m m m
Indonesia m m m m m m m m
Peru m m m m m m m m
Romania 50 785 52 567 53 029 53 994 m m m m
Saudi Arabia m m m m m m m m
South Africa m m m m m m m m
EU25 average 48 202 56 730 59 043 62 659 m 82 900 89 086 94 628
G20 average m m m m m m m m
Note: For notes on this table and a link to download the data, see Tables and Notes section above.
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
405
Chapter D4. Which factors influence
teachers' salary cost?
Highlights
• Spending on teaching staff makes up the largest share of education expenditure. The level of teachers’
salary costs per student depends on four factors: students’ instruction hours, teachers’ teaching hours and
average class sizes (which together determine the number of teachers needed), and teachers’ salaries.
• The two main factors influencing annual teachers’ salary costs are teachers’ salaries and class sizes.
Between 2015 and 2023, teachers’ salaries in primary education increased in three-quarters of OECD
countries with available data, and by 7% in real terms on average. Over the same period, average class
sizes decreased in about two-thirds of countries. Both trends contribute to a higher salary cost per student,
as rising salaries increase overall expenditure and smaller class sizes require more teachers for the same
number of students.
• Higher education levels tend to incur a higher teachers’ salary cost per student. On average across OECD
countries, salary costs rise from USD 3 993 per student in primary education to USD 4 444 in lower
secondary education. This is mostly due to a combination of higher teachers’ salaries and instruction time,
and shorter teaching hours.
Context
Governments have become increasingly interested in the relationship between the amount of resources devoted
to education and student learning outcomes. They seek to provide more and better education for their populations,
while ensuring that public funding is used efficiently, particularly when public budgets are tight. Teachers’
compensation usually accounts for the largest share of expenditure on education and thus of expenditure per
student. The salary cost of teachers per student, as calculated in this chapter, is a function of students’ instruction
time, the number of hours that a single teacher teaches a full class, actual teachers’ salaries and average class
sizes (see Methodology section below and Box D4.1).
This chapter examines the choices countries make when investing their resources in primary and lower secondary
education and explores how different policy choices related to these factors affect overall teachers’ salary costs.
The salary cost of teachers per student can be affected by other variables not directly assessed in this indicator,
such as demographic changes. In countries where enrolment has been declining in recent years, class sizes would
also be expected to shrink (assuming all other factors remain constant). However, there may not have been a
parallel fall in the number of teachers. This chapter does not distinguish between a reduction in class size due to
demographic changes or to a deliberate policy decision.
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
406
Figure D4.1. Annual salary cost of teachers per student in public institutions, by level of
education (2023)
USD converted using PPPs for private consumption
Primary Lower secondary
12 000
10 000
8 000
6 000
4 000
2 000
1. Statutory salary (after 15 years of experience) instead of average actual salary (for 25-64 year-old teachers).
2. Lower secondary and upper secondary education are combined for the calculation of the student-teacher ratio.
3. Year of reference for actual salary differs from 2023.
For data, see Table D4.1. For a link to download the data, see Tables and Notes section.
Other findings
• In most countries, teachers’ salary cost per student in primary education increased between 2015 and
2023, rising by an average of 20%, driven by demographic changes and/or political decisions. In contrast,
the cost for lower secondary education grew more modestly in about three quarters of countries, with an
average increase of only 8% over the same period.
• Similar levels of expenditure among countries can mask a variety of contrasting policy choices. For
example, the Netherlands and Spain have nearly the same salary cost of teachers per primary student,
even though teachers’ salaries in the Netherlands are about 40% higher than in Spain. This is partly offset
by the significantly longer time a single teacher teaches a full class – 236 additional hours per year – which
reduces the number of teachers needed per student.
• For a few countries, their ranking changes considerably when teachers’ salary costs per student are
expressed as a percentage of gross domestic product (GDP) per capita rather than in absolute USD terms.
At the primary level in 2023, Denmark had one of the highest absolute costs (USD 5 781) but ranked only
11th with respect to its relative cost (7.5% of GDP per capita). On average across OECD countries, the
salary costs of teachers per student are equivalent to 7.4% of GDP per capita at primary level and 8.9%
at lower secondary level.
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
407
Note
The analysis is limited to regular education. while special education and adult education are excluded from the
scope of the Chapter. The use of actual salaries means that this chapter takes into account the actual level of
qualifications and the seniority of the teaching workforce. As the actual salary does not include the employer’s
contribution to social security nor pensions, it does not represent the full cost incurred by the employer (i.e. the
government). The calculation also includes a full-class adjustment factor for teaching time. The teaching time
adjusted by this factor corresponds to the number of hours that a single teacher teaches a full class. If a class is
split in two, or two teachers teach a class, this would count as half the teaching time. This adjustment ensures
consistency with the existing formulas used to calculate the salary cost of teachers per student (SCS) while
capturing the different teaching arrangements teachers face (see Methodology section).
Analysis
Contribution of each factor to the salary cost of teachers per student
Teachers’ salary cost per student is shaped by four key factors: teachers’ salaries, students’ instruction time, teachers’
statutory teaching time (adjusted using a full-class teaching time factor) and average class sizes. These factors
influence salary costs in different ways. The effect of teacher salaries is direct: higher salaries increase the cost per
student. The other three factors determine the number of teachers required, assuming a constant number of students.
If instruction time increases or teachers’ statutory teaching time decreases, more teachers are needed to maintain
existing class sizes. Similarly, reducing class sizes increases the number of teachers required if other factors are
constant, which in turn raises salary costs (see Definitions and Methodology sections).
By comparing each of these factors to the OECD average, it is possible to identify how they contribute to any deviation
from the average salary cost. For instance, a country’s higher-than-average salary cost may be driven by elevated
teacher salaries, longer instruction time, reduced teaching hours, smaller class sizes or a combination of all four. This
decomposition allows policy makers to understand not just how much is being spent, but why. Moreover, it highlights
the trade-offs involved: modifying one factor may require compensatory adjustments to the others to maintain the same
overall cost. This underscores the value of salary cost indicator in evaluating the efficiency and policy orientation of
resource allocation within education systems.
Variation in teachers’ salary cost per student by level of education
Different teachers’ salary costs per student at different education levels can highlight significant differences in how
countries allocate resources. On average across OECD countries, salary costs are higher in lower secondary
education (USD 4 444) than in primary education (USD 3 993). This difference is largely driven by two structural
factors: students receive more instructional hours (117 hours more per year), and teachers have shorter full-class
teaching hours (44 hours fewer) in lower secondary education. In addition, teachers’ salaries typically increase slightly
with the level of education, further contributing to the higher teachers’ salary costs per student. Combined, these
factors increase the number of teachers needed per student and, consequently, raise overall salary costs between
primary and lower secondary education. Against this, average class sizes increase slightly from 21 students in primary
to 23 in lower secondary, which helps offset some of the additional costs. However, this modest increase in average
class size is not enough to fully counterbalance the upward pressure from greater instructional demands, and reduced
teaching time (Table D4.1, Table D4.2 and Table D4.3)
These averages mask considerable variation across countries, with some showing particularly large differences
between education levels. In Austria, for example, the teachers’ salary cost per student rises from USD 6 054 in
primary education to over USD 10 127 in lower secondary education – a 67% increase, one of the highest among
OECD countries. This reflects a combination of higher teachers’ salaries, shorter statutory teaching hours and longer
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
408
instruction time, not fully offset by the slightly larger class sizes at the secondary level. Finland, Latvia and Romania
also report increases of over 50%, confirming the trend for substantial salary cost rises in a number of countries at the
lower secondary level to account for subject specialisation, reduced teaching loads and the greater complexity of the
secondary curriculum (Figure D4.1).
Not all countries follow this trend. A few report equal or even lower salary costs per student in lower secondary
education compared to primary education. In Iceland, the cost per student is slightly higher at the primary level
(USD 5 953) than at the lower secondary level (USD 5 830). In Slovenia, the gap is more substantial: USD 4 432 in
primary and only USD 3 133 in lower secondary. Similar patterns can be seen in Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Hungary
and the Slovak Republic (Figure D4.1)
Among the highest-spending countries are Austria, Flemish community of Belgium, Finland, Germany and Spain, all
of which invest well above the OECD average at both levels. These countries generally combine higher teacher
salaries with shorter teaching hours that a single teacher teaches a full class or smaller class sizes than the OECD
average at both levels. At the other end of the spectrum, Colombia and Czechia, report salary costs per student of
below USD 2 400 at the primary level and below USD 3 400 in lower secondary education (Figure D4.1).
Variation in teachers’ salary cost per student relative to countries’ wealth
To better understand the significance of teachers’ salary costs, it is useful to relate them to the size of a country’s
economy. Expressing these costs as a share of GDP per capita offers a clearer picture of the economic effort devoted
to education. This approach allows for meaningful international comparisons, showing not just how much countries
spend in absolute terms, but how that spending aligns with their overall economic capacity. Two countries may invest
similar amounts per student, but the relative burden on national resources can differ greatly depending on the size of
their economies.
On average across the countries examined, the salary cost of teachers per student represents 7.4% of GDP per capita
in primary education and 8.9% in lower secondary education. These averages conceal wide variation across countries,
however, and with GDP per capita taken into account, the interpretation of countries’ spending levels can change
significantly. Some devote a relatively large share of their national income to teachers’ salary costs despite having
modest spending in absolute terms. For example, Costa Rica’s salary cost of teachers is about USD 3 547 per primary
student – below the OECD average – but this represents 12.8% of GDP per capita, nearly double the average. In
Colombia, the contrast is even sharper: the salary cost of teachers is just USD 2 153 per primary student, but this
amounts to 9.8% of GDP per capita, signaling a substantial financial effort relative to economic capacity. Conversely,
some high-income countries spend well above the average in absolute terms, but a relatively small share of GDP per
capita. For instance, Denmark’s salary cost of teachers is USD 6 111 per lower secondary student – well above
average – yet this represents only 7.9% of GDP per capita, below the OECD average. This suggests that while
Denmark’s investment in education is high in absolute terms, the financial burden is relatively modest due to its strong
economic capacity (Table D4.1).
These comparisons highlight how countries with more limited economic resources may be committing proportionally
more of their income to sustaining their education workforce – underlining the importance of considering both absolute
and relative measures when evaluating education financing.
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
409
Box D4.1. Methodological limitations and potential future developments
It is important to consider the limitations of the methodology used in this chapter when interpreting the results. First,
the indicator is calculated using statutory values for teaching and instruction time. This means the results presented
in this indicator are theoretical in nature and do not reflect the actual time teachers spend teaching. Indeed, even
the concept of teaching and instruction time have become increasingly theoretical in nature, as learning settings
become more flexible, making it difficult to accurately measure the amount of time spent on these activities.
Second, by using national figures, the indicator misses the wide discrepancies that may exist within countries. The
trade-off between teachers’ salaries and class size, for example, may have very different effects depending on the
socio-economic status of students and schools. Moreover, the trade-offs highlighted in this analysis are only a few
of the many decisions countries must take when allocating their resources. Countries must also examine potential
trade-offs with other investment areas, such as teacher training and school infrastructure, as well as between
different levels of education.
Finally, the breakdown of costs between primary and lower secondary has had to be estimated in a few countries
because students at both levels are enrolled in the same schools, as in Norway, for example. For these countries,
estimation methods may vary, so the breakdown of costs should be interpreted with caution.
Although some of these limitations are difficult to address due to current data availability, there are several possible
avenues that would expand the analytical potential of this indicator were more data to become available. One
relates to improving the precision when estimating the cost of teachers. To this end, it would also be relevant in
the future to take into account the full cost of teachers’ salaries for governments, including costs that do not go
directly to teachers, such as employers’ contributions and pensions. This would align the measurement of teachers’
salary costs more closely with the education expenditure data presented in Part C.
Other avenues for potential future development include exploring the link between teachers’ salary costs and
school funding formulae, and how the trade-offs associated with teachers’ salary costs may differ across
subnational levels of decision making, such as schools, school districts and municipalities.
Different policies in countries with similar spending
Figure D4.2 shows the wide variety of combinations of the four factors across countries and their different effects on
the salary cost of teachers per student. The size of the contribution each factor makes to the difference between a
country’s salary cost and the OECD average depends on the difference between the factor itself and the respective
OECD average. The sum of each factor’s contribution equals the difference in salary cost between that country and
the OECD average. For example, the salary cost per student in primary education in Australia is USD 4 958, which is
USD 965 higher than the OECD average. This difference reflects the combined effects of several factors: above-
average teachers’ salaries increase the cost by USD 1 118; above-average instruction time adds USD 1 021; the
above-average number of hours that a single teacher teaches a full class reduces the cost by USD 686; and above-
average class sizes reduce it by USD 487 (Table D4.2).
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
410
Figure D4.2. Contribution of various factors to salary cost of teachers per student in public
institutions, primary education (2023)
USD converted using PPPs for private consumption
Contribution of actual teachers' salary Contribution of instruction time
Contribution of teaching time, adjusted with a full-class teaching time factor Contribution of average class size
Difference of salary cost of teachers per student from OECD average
4 000
High salary cost Moderately high (or average) Moderately low salary cost Low salary cost
3 000 salary cost
2 000
1 000
-1 000
-2 000
-3 000
-4 000
-5 000
1. Statutory salary (after 15 years of experience) instead of average actual salary (for 25-64 year-old teachers).
2. Year of reference for actual salary differs from 2023.
For data, see Table D4.2. For a link to download the data, see Tables and Notes section.
Higher levels of expenditure on education cannot automatically be equated with better performance by education
systems. This can be seen when comparing 15-year-olds’ average performance in mathematics and literacy in the
OECD Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) 2022 with cumulative spending per student between
the ages of 6 and 15 in 2022 (see Figure C1.6 in Education at a Glance 2024 (OECD, 2024[1])). This is not surprising,
as expenditure figures do not necessarily account for structural factors affecting learning outcomes (such as
demographic changes). In addition, countries that spend similar amounts on education may have very different policies
and practices. For example, the Netherlands and Spain have nearly the same teachers’ salary cost per primary
student, yet the underlying drivers differ considerably. In the Netherlands, teachers’ salaries are about 40% higher
than in Spain, but this is offset by significantly longer time a single teacher teaches a full class – 236 additional hours
per year – which reduces the number of teachers needed per student. This illustrates how similar spending levels can
result from different combinations of salary levels, teaching time and other structural factors.
To illustrate the wide range of policy choices that countries have made despite similar spending levels, the countries
shown in Figure D4.2 are divided into four groups with similar teachers’ salary cost per student (see Methodology
section).
Group 1: High teachers’ salary cost per student in primary education
This group includes the eight countries with the highest teachers’ salary cost per primary student, with values ranging
from USD 5 260 in the Netherlands to USD 6 054 in Austria (Figure D4.2 and Table D4.1). Although the cost is shaped
by differences in the four key factors discussed above, these high-spending countries tend to display more alignment
across these dimensions than countries in other groups. Notably, all countries in this group pay teachers above-
average salaries, and most also report below-average statutory teaching hours (the number of hours that a single
teacher teaches a full class) and smaller class sizes – both of which increase the number of teachers needed and thus
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
411
raise costs. Exceptions include Belgium, Denmark and the Netherlands for the number of hours a single teacher
teaches a full class, and Germany and the Netherlands for class size.
Despite these shared characteristics, the main drivers of high salary cost per student differ across countries. In Austria,
Belgium, Germany and the Netherlands, the elevated cost is largely due to high teacher salaries, which directly raise
per-student expenditure. In contrast, in Iceland and Spain, the high cost is mainly driven by shorter statutory teaching
hours. This increases the number of teachers needed to meet instruction time requirements, even though salary levels
in these two countries are closer to the OECD average than in the other countries in this group.
These differences illustrate how similar spending levels can result from distinct policy choices and structural
arrangements. In some countries, the focus is on competitive teacher compensation to attract and retain talent, while
others prioritise working conditions by limiting teaching time in front of a full classroom – both strategies leading to
higher salary cost per student.
Group 2: Moderately high or slightly above-average teachers’ salary cost per student in
primary education
This group comprises seven countries with above-average teachers’ salary costs per student, ranging from USD 4 229
in Korea to USD 5 165 in Ireland (Figure D4.2 and Table D4.1). In all of these countries except Finland and Portugal
the salary cost reflects a trade-off between teachers’ salaries and class size. Australia, Ireland and Korea report above-
average teacher salaries, which push costs up, but these are partially offset by above-average class sizes. Conversely,
in Slovenia and Italy, teachers’ salaries are below the OECD average, but smaller class sizes drive up the salary cost
per student.
A second trade-off, seen in all countries in the group except Ireland and Portugal, lies between students’ instruction
time and teachers’ statutory teaching time. In Finland, Korea and Slovenia, below-average instruction time helps
contain costs, but this is offset by the shorter number of hours that a single teacher teaches a full class, which increases
the number of teachers needed. The reverse is observed in Australia and, to a lesser extent, Italy, where above-
average instruction time is balanced by longer teaching hours, limiting the rise in per-student cost.
Group 3: Moderately low teachers’ salary cost per student in primary education
This group includes eight countries with slightly below-average teachers’ salary costs per student, ranging from
USD 3 029 in Estonia to USD 3 790 in Greece, compared to the OECD average of USD 3 993 (Figure D4.2 and
Table D4.1). All report below-average teachers’ salaries, except Türkiye.
Although there are some similarities, the interaction of instruction time, teaching time and class size varies across the
group. In six countries, the slightly below-average salary cost results from a combination of low teacher salaries and
shorter teaching hours (adjusted by the full-class factor), which increases staffing needs but keeps overall cost
contained due to lower wages. Beyond this, no clear pattern emerges; instead, the four factors often pull in different
directions, offsetting one another. In Greece and Poland, lower teacher salaries and shorter instruction time tend to
reduce salary cost, but this is partially offset by smaller class sizes and shorter teaching hours, which increase demand
for teachers. In Israel, both low salaries and larger class sizes reduce salary cost, but this is counterbalanced by longer
instruction time and shorter teaching time, which increase staffing requirements.
These cases show that similar spending levels can arise from different combinations of policy levers, highlighting the
varied ways countries manage education cost.
Group 4: Low teachers’ salary cost per student in primary education
This group includes nine countries with significantly below-average teachers’ salary cost per student, ranging from
USD 2 153 to USD 2 961 (Figure D4.2 and Table D4.1). The difference from the OECD average ranges from USD 1
032 in France to USD 1 840 in Colombia. In nearly all of these countries, the primary driver of lower cost is low teacher
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
412
salaries, except in Colombia, where salary levels are closer to the OECD average. In several countries, including
Bulgaria, Hungary and Latvia, low salaries alone explain more than USD 1 500 of the difference.
Instruction time also contributes. In six out of the nine countries, students receive less instruction time than the OECD
average, which reduces total teaching demand. Only Chile, Colombia and France report average or above-average
instruction time, limiting the cost-reducing effect of this factor in their cases.
There is no consistent trend across the group regarding teaching time and class size, although both influence salary
cost. In Hungary and Bulgaria – and to a lesser extent in Latvia – significantly shorter teaching hours increase staffing
needs, partially offsetting the impact of lower salaries. In contrast, Chile and Colombia benefit from substantially larger
class sizes, which reduce the number of teachers needed and help contain salary cost per student despite upward
pressures from above-average instruction time, which increases total teaching demand.
Overall, although low teacher salaries remain the dominant factor behind reduced costs in this group, differences in
instruction time, teaching time and class sizes also shape national spending levels. These countries achieve similar
salary cost outcomes through diverse configurations of policy and resource allocation, often reflecting broader fiscal
constraints or strategic priorities in education.
Evolution of average class size and teachers’ salaries
Between 2015 and 2023, the salary cost of teachers per student in primary and lower secondary education increased
in constant price terms in all OECD countries except Austria (decrease for both levels), Finland, the Slovak Republic,
Slovenia (decrease for lower secondary education) and Poland (decrease for primary education). On average, among
countries with data for both years, salary cost increased by 20% at primary level and by 8% at lower secondary level,
with significant variations in some countries. The largest increases at the primary level were recorded in Chile (53%),
Slovak Republic (51%), and Slovenia (44%), both more than two times the OECD average. At the lower secondary
level, Chile (45%) recorded an increase more than five times the OECD average (8%), while Latvia experienced a rise
that was more than three times larger (27%) (Table D4.1).
All other factors being equal, teachers’ salary costs per student rise between primary and lower secondary education
if teachers’ actual salaries or instruction time increases, or if average class sizes or teaching time decreases. At both
levels of education, teachers’ salaries generally have the greatest impact on the degree to which countries’ salary cost
of teachers per student diverge from the OECD average (Tables D4.4 and D4.5, available on line).
Given constrained education budgets, policy reforms often involve a trade-off between increasing teachers’ salaries
and expanding the teaching workforce. Indeed, when controlling for the total salary cost of teachers, countries with
higher teachers’ salaries tend to have larger class sizes (OECD, 2023[2]). In contrast, instruction time and teaching
time show relatively limited variation across and within most countries. (Tables D4.4 and D4.5, available on line).
Figure D4.3 plots the changes in teachers’ actual salaries and average class sizes between 2015 and 2023. Over this
period, teachers’ salaries in primary education rose in three-quarters of OECD countries with available data, with an
average increase of 7% in real terms. Meanwhile, average class sizes remained relatively stable at around 21 students
per class. However, this masks considerable variation across countries, with two-thirds of countries showing a decline
in average class sizes. Both trends contribute to higher salary costs per student, as rising salaries increase overall
expenditure and smaller class sizes require more teachers for the same number of students, intensifying fiscal
pressure on primary education systems.
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
413
Figure D4.3. Index of change in teachers' salaries and in average class size in primary education
between 2015 and 2023
Public institutions only, 2023 constant prices
Change in average class size
(2015 = 100)
120
Lithuania
R² = 0.4841
115
110 Sweden
Latvia
Hungary
105 Mexico¹ Slovak Republic
Germany
Austria Türkiye¹
EU25 average Israel Estonia
100
Colombia¹
Finland Australia OECD average Chile
Japan¹ Poland Iceland
Spain¹
United States
Portugal Greece Czechia
95
Slovenia
Italy
Ireland France²
Korea¹
90
90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190 200
Change in teachers' actual salaries (2015 = 100)
1. Statutory salary (after 15 years of experience) instead of average actual salary (for 25-64 year-old teachers).
2. Year of reference for actual salary: 2022.
For data, see Table D4.4 (available on line). For a link to download the data, see Tables and Notes section.
Increases in teachers’ salaries have been more pronounced in some Eastern European countries (Czechia, Estonia,
Latvia and Lithuania) and in Türkiye, with a more than 28% increase (Figure D4.3). Lithuania is a striking example, as
it nearly doubled salaries for primary teachers (from USD 26 584 to USD 50 660) between 2015 and 2023. The
substantial increase reflects a deliberate policy effort to attract younger teachers in response to an ageing workforce,
as 57% of its teachers are aged 50 or older in primary education (see Table D8.1 in Chapter D8). Despite this, teachers’
salaries in Lithuania remain below the OECD average (Table D4.4, available on line).
Among the two-thirds of OECD countries where average class sizes declined between 2015 and 2023, the most
pronounced reductions (close to 10%) were observed in France, Ireland, Italy and Korea (Figure D4.3). In France and
Ireland, these reductions reflect deliberate policy efforts to address educational inequality and support disadvantaged
communities in primary education (DEPP, 2020[3]; DEPP, 2020[4]; Government of Ireland, 2020[5]). In contrast, the
decreases in Italy and Korea appear to be largely driven by demographic trends. Both countries experienced notable
declines in primary and lower secondary school enrolment over the last decade (see Figure B2.2 in Education at a
Glance 2024), and their school-age populations (5-14 year-olds) are projected to fall further – by 18% in Italy and 37%
in Korea by 2031 (OECD, 2024[6]). These examples illustrate how shifts in class size, whether driven by policy choices
or structural demographic changes, require countries to strategically adapt their education systems, including how to
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
414
allocate resources and maintain quality to sustain investments for increased workforce or amid shrinking student
populations.
The countries in Figure D4.3 can be grouped into four categories, each corresponding to a quadrant in the chart.
Countries in the top-right and bottom-left quadrants have effectively made a trade-off between increasing teachers’
salaries or decreasing average class sizes over this period. Around one-third of countries fall into the top-right
quadrant, where both average class sizes and teachers’ salaries increased. This combination reduced the salary cost
of teachers per student through larger classes, while simultaneously raising it through higher pay. Notably, the
increases in average class sizes in Lithuania (by over 18%) and Latvia (by 8%) only partially offset the significant
salary increases of 90% in Lithuania and 32% in Latvia. A few countries, including Ireland, Italy and Portugal made
the opposite choice (bottom-left quadrant), with average class sizes falling, somewhat compensated for by falling
teachers’ salaries. It is important to note that although these changes have opposite effects on salary cost, they are
not necessarily made in response to each other. Indeed, as noted above, for countries like Italy the reduction in the
average class size was mainly driven by demographic changes (OECD, 2024[6]).
No particular trade-off between these two variables seems to have been made in the countries in the top-left and
bottom-right quadrants. Only Austria features in the top-left quadrant, showing very small differences in average class
sizes and reduced teachers’ salaries, slightly pushing down teachers’ salary costs. It is worth noting that Austria may
not have pursued further class size reductions during this period, as its average class size is already below the OECD
average. In contrast, almost half of the countries fall in the bottom-right quadrant, which reduced average class sizes
(by up to 10% in France and Korea) and increased teachers’ salaries (by up to 30% in Czechia), with both measures
contributing to a higher salary cost per student.
Definitions
The data refer to public institutions only. The analysis is limited to regular education. while special education and adult
education are excluded from the scope of the Chapter.
Instruction time in this Chapter refers to the amount and allocation of compulsory instruction time that has to be
provided in almost every public school and must be attended by almost all public sector students. The compulsory
curriculum may be flexible, as local authorities, schools, teachers and/or students may have varying degrees of
freedom to choose the subjects and/or the allocation of compulsory instruction time (see Indicator D1 in Education at
a Glance 2022).
eac ers’ teac ing time is the annual average number of hours that full-time teachers teach a group or class of
students, including all extra hours, such as overtime (see Chapter D4 in Education at a Glance 2024). However, it
does not necessarily reflect the time teachers spend in front of a full classroom. Therefore, the calculation includes a
full-class adjustment factor for teaching time. The teaching time adjusted by this factor corresponds to the number of
hours that a single teacher teaches a full class. For instance, if a class is split in two, or two teachers teach a class,
this would count as half the teaching time. This adjustment ensures consistency with the existing formulas used to
calculate the salary cost of teachers per student (SCS) while capturing the different teaching arrangements teachers
face (see Methodology section).
Actual salaries for teachers/school heads aged 25-64 refer to the annual average earnings received by full-time
teachers/school heads aged 25-64, before taxes, converted to USD using purchasing power parity (PPP) for private
consumption (see Indicator D3). It is the gross salary from the employee’s point of view, since it includes the part of
social security contributions and pension-scheme contributions that are paid by the employees (even if deducted
automatically from the employees’ gross salary by the employer). However, the employers’ premium for social security
and pension is excluded (see Chapter D3 of Education at a Glance 2024).
Class size is calculated by dividing the number of students enrolled by the number of classes. In order to ensure
comparability among countries, special needs programmes are excluded. Data include only regular programmes at
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
415
primary and lower secondary levels of education, and exclude teaching in subgroups outside the regular classroom
setting (see Chapter D2).
Theoretical class size refers to the theoretical size of classes given the statutory – or theoretical – values of instruction
and teaching time and the student-teacher ratio. It does not reflect the actual average class size in countries.
Methodology
Compared with previous editions, the formula has been revised to incorporate average class size (instead of theoretical
class size) and an estimate of the number of hours a teacher spends teaching a full-class (instead of the number of
hours spent teaching either a full-class or a group of students).
The salary cost of teachers per student (SCS) is calculated as:
1 1
𝑆𝐶𝑆 = 𝑇𝑒𝑎𝑐ℎ𝑒𝑟 𝑠𝑎𝑙𝑎𝑟𝑦 ∗ 𝐼𝑛𝑠𝑡𝑟𝑢𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑡𝑖𝑚𝑒 ∗ ∗
𝐹𝑢𝑙𝑙 − 𝑐𝑙𝑎𝑠𝑠 𝑎𝑑𝑗𝑢𝑠𝑡𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝑓𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑜𝑟 ∗ 𝑇𝑒𝑎𝑐ℎ𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑡𝑖𝑚𝑒 𝐴𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑔𝑒 𝐶𝑙𝑎𝑠𝑠 𝑆𝑖𝑧𝑒
Where the full-class adjustment factor and theoretical class size are calculated as:
𝑇ℎ𝑒𝑜𝑟𝑒𝑡𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑙 𝑐𝑙𝑎𝑠𝑠 𝑠𝑖𝑧𝑒
1) 𝐹𝑢𝑙𝑙 − 𝑐𝑙𝑎𝑠𝑠 𝑎𝑑𝑗𝑢𝑠𝑡𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝑓𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑜𝑟 =
𝐴𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑔𝑒 𝐶𝑙𝑎𝑠𝑠 𝑠𝑖𝑧𝑒
𝐼𝑛𝑠𝑡𝑟𝑢𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑡𝑖𝑚𝑒 𝑆𝑡𝑢𝑑𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑠
2) 𝑇ℎ𝑒𝑜𝑟𝑒𝑡𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑙 𝑐𝑙𝑎𝑠𝑠 𝑠𝑖𝑧𝑒 = ∗
𝑇𝑒𝑎𝑐ℎ𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑡𝑖𝑚𝑒 𝑇𝑒𝑎𝑐ℎ𝑒𝑟𝑠
3) 𝑁𝑢𝑚𝑏𝑒𝑟 𝑜𝑓 ℎ𝑜𝑢𝑟𝑠 𝑡ℎ𝑎𝑡 𝑎 𝑠𝑖𝑛𝑔𝑙𝑒 𝑡𝑒𝑎𝑐ℎ𝑒𝑟 𝑡𝑒𝑎𝑐ℎ𝑒𝑠 𝑎 𝑓𝑢𝑙𝑙 𝑐𝑙𝑎𝑠𝑠 = 𝐹𝑢𝑙𝑙 − 𝑐𝑙𝑎𝑠𝑠 𝑎𝑑𝑗𝑢𝑠𝑡𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝑓𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑜𝑟 ∗ 𝑇𝑒𝑎𝑐ℎ𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑡𝑖𝑚𝑒
Theoretical class size is calculated using statutory instruction time, teaching time and the student-teacher ratio. It is
the class size that would result if teachers spent their entire statutory teaching hours individually teaching a full class.
In practice, however, classes may be split for some hours, multiple teachers may share a class and teachers often
devote part of their statutory teaching hours to other activities. These factors create a gap between the theoretical and
the actual average class size. An adjustment factor is then applied to estimate the statutory teaching time, helping to
bridge the gap between theoretical and actual class sizes and to estimate the equivalent number of hours a teacher
spends teaching a full classroom. When applying the adjustment factor, the interpretation of teaching time changes.
For example, an hour of teaching a class that has been split into two would count as 0.5 hours of full-class equivalent
teaching time.
The contribution of each factor to the level of the salary cost of teachers per student is analysed by comparing the
salary cost of teachers per student in each country to the OECD average then calculating the contribution of these
different factors to the variation from the OECD average. This exercise is based on a mathematical relationship
between the various factors and follows the method presented in the Canadian publication Education Statistics Bulletin
(Éducation Québec, 2003[7]). Using this mathematical relationship and comparing a country’s values for the four factors
to the OECD averages makes it possible to measure both the direct and indirect contribution of each of these four
factors to the variation in salary cost per student between that country and the OECD average.
Countries are grouped in four clusters with respect to their teachers’ salary cost per student. The cluster analysis
allows countries within a group to be more similar to each other than to countries in other groups. On the other hand,
countries across groups are as dissimilar as possible.
Please see the OECD Handbook for Internationally Comparative Education Statistics 2018 (OECD, 2018[8]) for more
information.
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
416
Sources
Data on class size referring to the reference year 2023 (school year 2022/23) are based on the UNESCO, OECD and
Eurostat (UOE) data collection on education statistics and on the Survey on Teachers and the Curriculum, which were
both administered by the OECD in 2023.
Data on instruction time and teacher salaries are from the 2024 Joint Eurydice-OECD data collection and data on
teaching time refer to 2024 OECD-INES-NESLI survey on working time of teachers.
References
DEPP (2020), Dédoublement des classes de CP en éducation prioritaire : exploitation des enquêtes auprès [3]
des enseignants après deux années de déploiement”, Note d’information No.20.15, Direction de
l’évaluation, de la prospective et de la performance, https://archives-statistiques-
depp.education.gouv.fr/Default/doc/SYRACUSE/45798/dedoublement-des-classes-de-cp-en-education-
prioritaire-exploitation-des-enquetes-aupres-des-enseign.
DEPP (2020), Évaluation de l’impact de la réduction de la taille des classes de CP et de CE1 en REP+, [4]
Direction de l’évaluation, de la prospective et de la performance, https://archives-statistiques-
depp.education.gouv.fr/Default/digital-viewer/c-50756.
Éducation Québec (2003), “Le coût salarial des enseignants par élève pour l’enseignement primaire et [7]
secondaire en 2000-2001”, Education Statistics Bulletin, No. 29, Quebec Ministry of Education,
Recreation and Sports,
http://www.education.gouv.qc.ca/fileadmin/site_web/documents/PSG/statistiques_info_decisionnelle/bul
letin_29.pdf.
Government of Ireland (2020), DEIS Delivering Equality of Opportunity In Schools, Department of [5]
Education, https://www.gov.ie/en/department-of-education/policy-information/deis-delivering-equality-of-
opportunity-in-schools/.
OECD (2024), Education at a Glance 2024: OECD Indicators, OECD Publishing, Paris, [1]
https://doi.org/10.1787/c00cad36-en.
OECD (2024), “How are demographic changes affecting education systems?”, Education Indicators in [6]
Focus, No. 87, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/158d4c5c-en.
OECD (2023), Education at a Glance 2023: OECD Indicators, OECD Publishing, Paris, [2]
https://doi.org/10.1787/e13bef63-en.
OECD (2018), OECD Handbook for Internationally Comparative Education Statistics 2018: Concepts, [8]
Standards, Definitions and Classifications, OECD Publishing, Paris,
https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264304444-en.
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
417
Tables and Notes
Chapter D4 Tables
Table D4.1 Salary cost of teachers per student, by level of education (2015 and 2023)
Table D4.2 Contribution of various factors to salary cost of teachers per student in primary education (2023)
Table D4.3 Contribution of various factors to salary cost of teachers per student in lower secondary education (2023)
WEB Table D4.4 Factors used to compute the salary cost of teachers per student in primary education (2023)
WEB Table D4.5 Factors used to compute the salary cost of teachers per student in lower secondary education (2023)
StatLink 2 https://stat.link/dr6fab
Data Download
To download the data for the figures and tables in this chapter, click StatLink above.
To access further data and/or other education indicators, please visit the OECD Data Explorer: https://data-
explorer.oecd.org/.
Data cut-off for the print publication 13 June 2025. Please note that the Data Explorer contains the most recent
data.
Notes for Tables
Table D4.1. Salary cost of teachers per student, by level of education (2015 and 2023)
1. Lower secondary and upper secondary education are combined for the calculation of the student-teacher
ratio.
Statutory salary (after 15 years of experience) instead of average actual salary (for 25-64 year-old teachers).
2. Year of reference for actual salary: 2022.
3. The OECD average only includes OECD countries and other participants with data for all factors used to
calculate salary cost.
Table D4.2. Contribution of various factors to salary cost of teachers per student in primary education (2023)
Note: See Tables D4.4 and D4.5, available on line, for notes on each factor.
1. Statutory salary (after 15 years of experience) instead of average actual salary (for 25-64 year-old teachers)
2. Year of reference for actual salary: 2022.
Table D4.3. Contribution of various factors to salary cost of teachers per student in lower secondary education
(2023)
Note: See Tables D4.4 and D4.5, available on line, for notes on each factor.
1. Lower secondary and upper secondary education are combined for the calculation of the student-teacher
ratio.
2. Statutory salary (after 15 years of experience) instead of average actual salary (for 25-64 year-old teachers)
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
418
3. Year of reference for actual salary: 2022.
Control codes
a – category not applicable; b – break in series; d – contains data from another column; m – missing data; x – contained
in another column (indicated in brackets). For further control codes, see the Reader’s Guide.
For further methodological information, see Education at a Glance 2025: Sources, Methodologies and Technical Notes
(https://doi.org/10.1787/fcfaf2d1-en).
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
419
Table D4.1. Salary cost of teachers per student, by level of education (2015 and 2023)
Annual salary cost of teachers per student in public institutions, in equivalent USD, converted using PPPs for private
consumption, and in percentage of GDP per capita
2023 2015
Index of change
Salary cost of teachers Salary cost of teachers Salary cost of teachers over the period 2015-23
per student per student per student In salary cost of teachers
(in USD) (in percentage of GDP per capita) (in USD, 2023 constant prices) per student (2015=100)
Primary Lower secondary Primary Lower secondary Primary Lower secondary Primary Lower secondary
OECD countries (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8)
Australia1 4 958 5 733 7.0 8.1 4 406 5 368 113 107
Austria 6 054 10 127 8.3 13.8 6 891 11 037 88 92
Canada m m m m m m m m
Chile 2 730 2 396 8.3 7.3 1 790 1 650 153 145
Colombia2 2 153 1 829 9.8 8.3 1 624 1 483 133 123
Costa Rica 3 547 3 808 12.8 13.7 m m m m
Czechia 2 356 3 305 4.2 5.9 1 706 2 738 138 121
Denmark 5 781 6 111 7.5 7.9 m m m m
Estonia 3 029 3 590 6.1 7.2 2 153 3 034 141 118
Finland 4 579 6 904 7.2 10.8 4 470 7 453 102 93
France3 2 961 4 099 4.8 6.7 2 453 3 954 121 104
Germany 5 876 7 621 8.3 10.8 m m m m
Greece 3 790 4 183 9.2 10.1 m m m m
Hungary 2 908 2 910 6.3 6.3 2 619 2 792 111 104
Iceland 5 953 5 830 7.3 7.2 4 661 4 666 128 125
Ireland 5 165 m 4.0 m 4 549 m 114 m
Israel 3 714 4 367 6.9 8.1 3 099 4 215 120 104
Italy 4 260 4 561 7.1 7.6 4 071 4 281 105 107
Japan 2 3 538 4 179 7.1 8.4 3 334 4 096 106 102
Korea2 4 229 5 093 7.3 8.8 3 791 4 093 112 124
Latvia 2 374 3 599 5.7 8.7 2 096 2 829 113 127
Lithuania 3 523 4 894 6.6 9.2 m m m m
Luxembourg m m m m m m m m
Mexico m m m m m m m m
Netherlands 5 260 m 6.5 m m m m m
New Zealand m m m m m m m m
Norway m m m m m m m m
Poland 3 584 4 715 7.4 9.8 3 670 4 360 98 108
Portugal 4 696 6 199 9.6 12.7 4 307 5 915 109 105
Slovak Republic 2 411 2 141 5.4 4.8 1 601 2 367 151 90
Slovenia1 4 432 3 133 8.0 5.6 3 076 5 871 144 53
Spain2 5 280 6 871 9.8 12.7 4 692 6 110 113 112
Sweden m m m m m m m m
Switzerland m m m m m m m m
Türkiye2 3 346 4 429 7.5 9.9 2 383 m 140 m
United States m m m m m m m m
Other economies
Flemish Comm. (Belgium) 5 269 7 477 7.3 10.4 m m m m
French Comm. (Belgium) 5 376 m 7.5 m 5 105 m 105 m
England (UK) m m m m m m m m
Scotland (UK) m m m m m m m m
OECD average4 3 993 4 444 7.4 8.9 3 359 4 000 120 108
Partner and/or accession countries
Argentina m m m m m m m m
Brazil m m m m m m m m
Bulgaria 2 2 831 2 942 7.3 7.6 m m m m
China m m m m m m m m
Croatia m m m m m m m m
India m m m m m m m m
Indonesia m m m m m m m m
Peru m m m m m m m m
Romania 2 434 4 111 5.1 8.6 m m m m
Saudi Arabia m m m m m m m m
South Africa m m m m m m m m
EU25 average 4 236 5 136 7.0 9.0 3 564 4 826 119 106
G20 average m m m m m m m m
Note: For notes on this table and a link to download the data, see Tables and Notes section above.
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
420
Table D4.2. Contribution of various factors to salary cost of teachers per student in primary
education (2023)
Public institutions only, in equivalent USD, converted using PPPs for private consumption
Contribution of the underlying factors to the difference from the OECD average
Effect (in USD) of teaching
Effect (in USD) time (for teachers),
Effect (in USD) of instruction time adjusted with a full-class Effect (in USD)
Difference (in USD) of actual teachers’ salary (for students) teaching time factor, of average class size
Salary cost from the 2023 below/above the below/above the below/above the below/above the
of teachers OECD average of: 2023 OECD average of: 2023 OECD average of: 2023 OECD average of: 2023 OECD average of:
per student (2023) USD 3 993 USD 54 905 797 hours 531 hours 21 students per class
OECD countries (1) (2) = (3)+(4)+(5)+(6) (3) (4) (5) (6)
Australia 4 958 965 1 118 1 021 - 686 - 487
Austria 6 054 2 060 1 811 - 618 302 565
Canada m m m m m m
Chile 2 730 -1 263 -1 381 875 259 -1 015
Colombia1 2 153 -1 840 - 66 713 -1 967 - 521
Costa Rica 3 547 - 446 -1 316 1 443 -1 867 1 294
Czechia 2 356 -1 637 - 815 - 463 - 422 62
Denmark 5 781 1 788 1 096 1 101 - 644 235
Estonia 3 029 - 964 -1 343 - 664 704 339
Finland 4 579 586 162 - 812 818 418
France2 2 961 -1 032 - 166 282 -1 060 - 88
Germany 5 876 1 883 2 439 - 479 33 - 111
Greece 3 790 - 203 -2 401 - 262 1 580 880
Hungary 2 908 -1 085 -1 979 - 571 1 811 - 346
Iceland 5 953 1 960 363 - 445 1 472 571
Ireland 5 165 1 172 953 569 121 - 471
Israel 3 714 - 279 - 245 554 572 -1 159
Italy 4 260 266 - 832 524 - 10 585
Japan1 3 538 - 455 - 118 - 90 730 - 977
Korea1 4 229 236 679 - 814 557 - 186
Latvia 2 374 -1 619 -1 726 - 990 558 539
Lithuania 3 523 - 470 - 303 - 803 332 304
Luxembourg m m m m m m
Mexico m m m m m m
Netherlands 5 260 1 266 2 043 775 -1 160 - 391
New Zealand m m m m m m
Norway m m m m m m
Poland 3 584 - 410 - 717 -1 380 1 318 369
Portugal 4 696 703 93 401 197 12
Slovak Republic 2 411 -1 582 -1 443 - 519 45 336
Slovenia 4 432 439 - 297 - 662 907 491
Spain1 5 280 1 287 369 - 26 842 103
Sweden m m m m m m
Switzerland m m m m m m
Türkiye1 3 346 - 647 456 - 372 - 525 - 206
United States m m m m m m
Other economies
Flemish Comm. (Belgium) 5 269 1 276 1 189 140 - 358 305
French Comm. (Belgium) 5 376 1 382 1 067 168 - 88 236
England (UK) m m m m m m
Scotland (UK) m m m m m m
OECD average 3 993 0 0 0 0 0
Partner and/or accession countries
Argentina m m m m m m
Brazil m m m m m m
Bulgaria 1 2 831 -1 162 -2 346 -1 656 2 682 159
China m m m m m m
Croatia m m m m m m
India m m m m m m
Indonesia m m m m m m
Peru m m m m m m
Romania 2 434 -1 559 - 614 - 321 - 826 202
Saudi Arabia m m m m m m
South Africa m m m m m m
EU25 average 4 097 104 - 163 - 272 334 206
G20 average m m m m m m
Note: For notes on this table and a link to download the data, see Tables and Notes section above.
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
421
Table D4.3. Contribution of various factors to salary cost of teachers per student in lower
secondary education (2023)
Public institutions only, in equivalent USD, converted using PPPs for private consumption
Contribution of the underlying factors to the difference from the OECD average
Effect (in USD) of teaching
Effect (in USD) time (for teachers),
Effect (in USD) of instruction time adjusted with a full-class Effect (in USD)
Difference (in USD) of actual teachers’ salary (for students) teaching time factor, of theoretical class size
Salary cost from the 2023 below/above the below/above the below/above the below/above the
of teachers OECD average of: 2023 OECD average of: 2023 OECD average of: 2023 OECD average of: 2023 OECD average of:
per student (2023) USD 4 444 USD 54 968 914 hours 488 hours 23 students per class
OECD countries (1) (2) = (3)+(4)+(5)+(6) (3) (4) (5) (6)
Australia1 5 733 1 288 1 281 458 - 789 339
Austria 10 127 5 683 3 171 122 1 814 577
Canada m m m m m m
Chile 2 396 -2 048 -1 311 525 - 489 - 773
Colombia2 1 829 -2 615 - 71 879 -2 622 - 802
Costa Rica 3 808 - 636 - 385 848 45 -1 143
Czechia 3 305 -1 139 -1 019 - 114 - 116 110
Denmark 6 111 1 667 1 227 1 446 -1 812 806
Estonia 3 590 - 854 -1 545 - 428 403 716
Finland 6 904 2 460 756 - 702 1 390 1 016
France3 4 099 - 345 262 246 - 454 - 398
Germany 7 621 3 177 3 495 - 121 - 89 - 108
Greece 4 183 - 261 -2 404 - 541 2 300 382
Hungary 2 910 -1 534 -2 050 - 482 524 474
Iceland 5 830 1 386 370 - 442 798 661
Ireland m m m m m m
Israel 4 367 - 77 - 44 294 990 -1 318
Italy 4 561 117 - 629 361 - 266 651
Japan 2 4 179 - 265 - 141 - 119 1 367 -1 373
Korea2 5 093 649 779 - 396 785 - 519
Latvia 3 599 - 845 -1 922 - 662 596 1 143
Lithuania 4 894 450 - 383 - 384 930 287
Luxembourg m m m m m m
Mexico m m m m m m
Netherlands m m m m m m
New Zealand m m m m m m
Norway m m m m m m
Poland 4 715 271 - 811 - 895 1 022 956
Portugal 6 199 1 755 10 - 592 1 933 404
Slovak Republic 2 141 -2 303 -1 450 - 336 - 886 369
Slovenia1 3 133 -1 311 - 235 - 665 - 804 393
Spain2 6 871 2 427 1 066 811 829 - 279
Sweden m m m m m m
Switzerland m m m m m m
Türkiye2 4 429 - 15 587 - 363 642 - 881
United States m m m m m m
Other economies
Flemish Comm. (Belgium) 7 477 3 032 1 482 223 - 148 1 475
French Comm. (Belgium) m m m m m m
England (UK) m m m m m m
Scotland (UK) m m m m m m
OECD average 4 444 0 0 0 0 0
Partner and/or accession countries
Argentina m m m m m m
Brazil m m m m m m
Bulgaria 2 2 942 -1 502 -2 419 - 826 1 465 278
China m m m m m m
Croatia m m m m m m
India m m m m m m
Indonesia m m m m m m
Peru m m m m m m
Romania 4 111 - 333 - 803 389 - 505 586
Saudi Arabia m m m m m m
South Africa m m m m m m
EU25 average 4 975 531 - 210 - 157 406 492
G20 average m m m m m m
Note: For notes on this table and a link to download the data, see Tables and Notes section above.
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
422
Chapter D5. How do academic staff
profiles and institutional characteristics
shape tertiary education?
Highlights
• The ratio of students to academic staff ratio is slightly lower in public institutions than in private institutions,
with about 15 students per academic staff member in public institutions and 18 in private institutions on
average across OECD countries.
• Across the OECD, the share of academic staff aged 50 or over has remained at 40% between 2013 and
2023. In Greece, Italy and Korea, more than half of the academic workforce are at least 50 years old,
indicating a need to replace a large number of retiring academic staff in the near future.
• The representation of women among academic staff has grown since 2013 in most OECD countries,
reaching 46% on average across OECD countries in 2023.
Context
The tertiary education landscape is shaped by a complex interplay of factors, including demographic trends, labour-
market shifts and institutional diversity. One key metric for assessing academic resources is the ratio of students
to academic staff. This ratio is often associated with the level of support and individual attention available to
students, but must be interpreted with care at the tertiary level. For instance, short-cycle tertiary programmes –
typically vocational in nature – often combine large-scale theoretical instruction with small-group practical modules,
resulting in varied levels of staff engagement. There are also different instructional formats at higher levels of
education: general courses may be delivered in large lecture halls, while specialised or research-focused
programmes often involve smaller groups and more intensive academic interaction. These structural and
pedagogical variations highlight the need to consider student-staff ratios in relation to institutional type, level of
study and programme orientation. Furthermore, institutional characteristics such as mission, size and geographical
distribution can influence how academic resources are allocated, underscoring the importance of disaggregated
analysis.
The demand for academic staff across countries is shaped by multiple factors, including workload models, staffing
structures and enrolment patterns across education levels. In several OECD countries, a significant share of
academic staff is approaching retirement age, raising concerns about future capacity. This is compounded by
growing expectations for higher education institutions to contribute to workforce upskilling and adult education,
alongside demographic shifts that are likely to increase overall student demand in some countries. Gender and age
dynamics further complicate the staffing landscape. Despite policy efforts to promote gender equity, men continue
to dominate senior academic ranks in many systems, and women disproportionately face short-term contracts and
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
423
limited advancement opportunities. These structural inequalities point to the need for more systemic reforms in
academic career pathways.
Institutional diversity is another defining feature of tertiary education systems. In response to pressures to promote
social equity, meet evolving skills demands and limit costs, governments have expanded traditional universities or
introduced new institutional categories in tertiary education (OECD, 2020[1]). This contributes to greater diversity,
as newly established institutions tend to develop distinct missions, reputations and performance profiles. In some
cases, governments have deliberately created new types of institutions – such as universities of applied sciences
– with the explicit goal of fostering “horizontal” differentiation. This approach seeks to promote institutional variety
not through hierarchy, but through complementarity, recognising diverse institutions as equally valuable
components of the higher education landscape. Understanding institutional diversity across multiple dimensions is
thus critical to informing effective policy decisions and long-term strategic planning.
Figure D5.1. Ratio of students to academic staff, by type of institution (2023)
All institutions Public institutions Private institutions
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
1. Year of reference differs from 2023.
2. Excludes short-cycle tertiary.
3. Public institutions only.
For data, see Table D5.1. For a link to download the data, see Tables and Notes section.
Other findings
• Women are better represented among younger staff, accounting for about 52% of academic staff under
30 on average across OECD countries, a much larger share than among academic staff of all ages (46%).
• Young academic staff (under the age of 30) only account for a small proportion of the total: averaging 6%
in short-cycle tertiary education and 9% at bachelor’s, master’s and doctoral levels combined across
OECD countries. These young staff are usually starting out in academia, either during their doctoral
programme or directly after.
• In most countries, research-intensive institutions producing 3 or more PhD graduates per 100 non-PhD
graduates generally have lower student-to-academic staff ratios than those producing fewer PhD
graduates. However, some countries show the opposite trend or minimal differences, reflecting variations
in academic staffing, doctoral student roles and national higher education structures.
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
424
Analysis
Ratio of students to academic staff
The student-academic staff ratio is a key indicator of how educational resources are allocated at the tertiary level. It
has implications for the quality of instruction, the efficiency of funding and the working conditions of academic staff.
While this indicator may not be as central as the student-teacher ratio at lower levels of education in signalling the
human resources available to students, it still provides valuable insights into tertiary education systems. When
calculated at the national level, the student-academic staff ratio offers a broad perspective on resource allocation
across countries. At the institutional level, it can reveal important differences in how resources are distributed,
depending on factors such as programme type or institutional mission (see Box D5.1 for a closer look at institutional
diversity). A better understanding of this ratio can help inform policies that promote student success, support academic
staff and strengthen the overall sustainability of tertiary education systems.
Ratio of students to academic staff by type of institution
At the tertiary level, private institutions have slightly more students per academic staff than public institutions on
average across OECD countries, with 15 students per academic staff member in public institutions and 18 in private
institutions (Table D5.1). The OECD average should be interpreted with caution, however, given the variety of
institutional characteristics both within and across countries. Disaggregating student-academic staff ratios by type of
institution is essential, as public and private institutions often differ in their funding models, governance structures and
educational missions – factors that can strongly influence staffing levels and resource allocation.
Among OECD and partner countries, Brazil, Estonia, Norway, Peru and Poland report student-academic staff ratios in
private institutions that are at least twice as high as those in public institutions (Figure D5.1). However, no more than
20% of tertiary students are enrolled in private institutions in Estonia, Germany and Norway (OECD, 2025[2]). The
relatively small share of enrolment accounted for by in private institutions may make this indicator more sensitive to
fluctuations, which could partially explain the large differences observed in ratios between public and private
institutions.
In Poland, the ratio of students to staff in private institutions is 34:1, more than three times the ratio in public institutions
of 10:1. This large difference could be related to the way the Polish private tertiary education sector has responded to
domestic demographic decline by actively recruiting international students, who are in turn attracted by cost-
effectiveness and English-taught programmes, while academic staff numbers have not risen (OPI PIB, 2022[3]; Walker,
2025[4]). The largest difference in student-academic staff ratios between public and private institutions is in Brazil where
it is 62:1 in private institutions compared to 10:1 in public institutions. In Brazil, about 77% of tertiary students are
enrolled in private institutions, which are considered less selective than public institutions and rely largely on distance
learning, which may allow larger student-academic staff ratios (OECD, 2018[5]). Brazilian students face either a
performance barrier to accessing free but highly selective public institutions, or a financial barrier to accessing private
institutions, which could limit their opportunities and raises equity concerns (McCowan, 2007[6]). In some other partner
countries, the difference between public and private institutions is significant in the other direction: in India and
Indonesia, public institutions have over twice as many students for each academic staff member as private institutions
(Table D5.1).
Ratio of students to academic staff by education level
Differences in student-academic staff ratios between short-cycle tertiary programmes and bachelor’s, master’s and
doctoral programmes reflect the diverse structures and objectives of these educational levels. On average across
OECD countries, the ratios are quite similar: 15:1 at bachelor’s, master’s and doctoral or equivalent level compared to
14:1 in short-cycle tertiary education. However, in Luxembourg and Saudi Arabia the ratios at the short-cycle tertiary
level are more than double those at the bachelor’s, master’s and doctoral levels. These differences may stem from
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
425
structural aspects of programme delivery, variations in institutional capacity or differences in how academic staff are
allocated across levels of education (Table D5.1).
Differences between public and private institutions in student-academic staff ratios can also vary depending on the
level of education. At the short-cycle tertiary level, public institutions have higher student-academic staff ratios than
private ones in five OECD and partner countries. At the combined bachelor’s, master’s and doctoral levels, this patten
is less common, with eight countries reporting higher ratios in public institutions, while 20 countries report lower ratios,
and one country shows no difference. Moreover, in some countries such as Austria, Colombia and Israel, there are
contrasting patterns across education levels. For example, in Colombia, public institutions at the short-cycle tertiary
level have much higher student-academic staff ratios (41 more students per staff member than private institutions),
whereas at the higher education levels, the ratio is lower in public institutions (9 fewer students per staff member).
This contrast may be linked to the high demand for vocational training in Colombia, much of which is provided by
Servicio Nacional de Aprendizaje (SENA), a public institution overseen by the Ministry of Labor. As one of the largest
providers of short-cycle tertiary education in the country, SENA focuses on expanding access, especially for students
from lower-income backgrounds (Dinarte-Diaz et al., 2020[7]). This emphasis on inclusivity may contribute to higher
student-academic staff ratios in public institutions at this level. Conversely, the lower ratio at the bachelor’s, master’s
and doctoral levels in public institutions (23:1) may reflect greater investment in academic staffing and different
institutional priorities (Table D5.1).
Trends in the ratio of students to academic staff
Since 2013, the average student-academic staff ratio has remained relatively stable at around 15:1 at the tertiary level
across OECD countries. However, this conceals different trends among individual OECD and partner countries. In 21
countries, the ratio of students to academic staff has fallen, reflecting increased investment in and prioritisation of
quality in tertiary education (see Chapter C1). Conversely, the countries that have seen a general increase in the ratio
over this time include Brazil, Colombia, India, Indonesia and Mexico, where rapid expansion in higher education
systems has often outpaced the growth of academic staff, driven by rising demand for access to tertiary education
(Table D5.1).
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
426
Box D5.1. Institutional diversity in tertiary education
Diversity in higher education refers to the variety found within higher education institutions and systems. It concerns
differences in the programmes or services provided by institutions and differences in the types of institutions
themselves (Widiputera et al., 2017[8]). Higher education systems are characterised by significant institutional
diversity, reflecting a wide range of missions, organisational structures, activities and educational goals (Dill and
Teixeira, 2000[9]; Meek, Goedegebuure and Huisman, 2000[10]; Huisman et al., 2015[11]).
How do tertiary institutions differ by research orientation?
Debates around the "research-teaching nexus" often highlight tensions between these two foundational functions,
particularly when policy measures unintentionally exacerbate conflicts between them. This can affect faculty
workload distribution as well as the overall student experience (Geschwind and Broström, 2014[12]). In this context,
analysing the student-academic staff ratio becomes crucial for ensuring transparency, promoting equity in access
and maintaining a balanced and responsive higher education system that meets diverse societal needs.
Tertiary institutions with different research orientations face unique challenges. In research-intensive institutions,
increased specialisation in academic roles allows research-active faculty members to focus more on research,
often resulting in lighter teaching loads. Consequently, fixed-term or teaching-only staff bear a disproportionate
share of instructional responsibilities, leading to higher actual ratios of students to academic staff. While this model
boosts research productivity, it may hinder career advancement for teaching-focused staff and raises concerns
about equitable workload distribution and institutional recognition of teaching contributions (OECD, 2020[1]; Kwiek,
2019[13]). In less research-oriented institutions, issues such as funding sustainability, limited research infrastructure
and constraints on faculty professional development also arise. These institutions often focus more heavily on
undergraduate education and community engagement yet may struggle to secure resources due to the emphasis
placed on research outputs in funding models and policy frameworks. As tertiary education systems continue to
expand across OECD countries, striking a balance between research and teaching priorities is essential to ensure
high-quality education, faculty well-being and the long-term sustainability of diverse institutional models.
PhD intensity is frequently used to indicate the extent to which an institution is research-oriented relative to its
undergraduate and master’s level teaching. It is calculated as the ratio of doctoral graduates (ISCED level 8) to the
total number of graduates at short-cycle, bachelor’s and master’s level combined (ISCED levels 5 to 7) (European
Commission, 2023[14]). A high PhD intensity suggests a strong research focus, typically associated with research
universities, whereas a low PhD intensity points to a greater emphasis on undergraduate education, commonly
seen in teaching-focused institutions or colleges. This metric helps differentiate institutions by their research
mission, allocation of resources and overall academic profile. In this analysis, institutions with a PhD intensity above
0.03 (i.e. at least 3 doctoral graduates per 100 non-doctoral graduates) are categorised as more research oriented.
Figure D5.2 displays student-academic staff ratios by research orientation. In most countries with available data,
institutions with higher PhD intensity typically have lower student-academic staff ratios. However, in Austria,
Croatia, Greece and Switzerland, it is the less research-intensive institutions which have the lower ratios.
In Finland, Norway and the United Kingdom, student-to-academic staff ratios in less research-intensive institutions
are at least twice those in more research-oriented institutions. Finland has the largest absolute gap: on average,
academic staff in research-intensive institutions are associated with 13 fewer students than those in less research-
intensive institutions. In Finland, this difference is largely explained by institutional types: universities tend to be
more research-oriented and offer doctoral degrees, whereas universities of applied sciences focus more on
teaching and do not offer doctoral programs. This structural distinction likely contributes significantly to the
differences in staff-to-student ratios. Additionally, this discrepancy may be due, in part, to how doctoral students
are accounted for in institutional data – being included as both enrolled students and as part of academic staff.
This dual classification can skew the ratio, especially in countries like Finland where PhD students are often actively
involved in teaching and research. In the Republic of Türkiye, student-academic staff ratios also differ significantly
in absolute terms, even though both types of institution report ratios at or above 18:1. This may reflect a structural
concentration of academic staff in specialised or academically focused universities, which can reduce the ratio
despite overall high enrolment (Figure D5.2).
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
427
Figure D5.2. Ratio of students to academic staff, by research intensity (2023)
3 or more PhD graduates per 100 non-PhD graduates Fewer than 3 PhD graduates per 100 non-PhD graduates
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
Note: Tertiary institutions with over 90% of students in distance learning programmes are excluded.
1. Year of reference differs from 2023: 2022 for Denmark, Greece, Poland and Spain.
Source: Data based on European Higher Education Sector Observatory (EHESO) (2025). Please note that the reference year in the EHESO
database is 2022, which corresponds to the academic year 2022/2023 and is shown as 2023 in this publication.
By contrast, countries such as Portugal and Switzerland display relatively small differences in student-academic
staff ratios between the two institutional groups – with a difference of fewer than three students per academic staff
member. This suggests a more uniform distribution of academic resources across institutions regardless of
research orientation. Among these two countries, Portugal shows higher student-to-academic staff ratios for both
groups, while Switzerland maintains low ratios across the board (Figure D5.2). These patterns reflect broader
national differences in higher education funding, academic workforce policies and institutional structures, as
discussed in the section above.
How do tertiary institutions differ by size?
The size of a tertiary institution is a fundamental characteristic that influences multiple aspects of the higher
education system, including accessibility, resource distribution and the potential for economies of scale – each with
important policy implications. Larger institutions often benefit from more stable funding streams, extensive
infrastructure and greater research capacity. In contrast, smaller institutions may provide more personalised
learning environments, with closer student-teacher interactions and specialised academic offerings. Analysing how
institutional sizes vary across countries can offer valuable insights into the efficiency and equity of national higher
education systems.
Figure D5.3 displays a box plot of tertiary institution sizes by country. Among countries with available data, Greece
has the highest median tertiary institution size, at around 15 000 students, indicating a system concentrated in
larger institutions. In contrast, Slovenia has the smallest median size, with only around 480 students, suggesting a
landscape dominated by smaller institutions. As well as ranking fourth in terms of median institution size, at around
13 000 students, the Netherlands also displays the widest interquartile range. This reflects significant variation in
the number of students enrolled across institutions, while the lack of outliers suggests that this variation is
consistent across the system rather than driven by extreme cases. The Dutch system is notable for its large student
population – approximately 900 000 enrolments (OECD, 2025[2]) concentrated in just 51 institutions. This
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
428
characteristic is partly a result of historical education policy reforms. Notably, the 1983 white paper titled "Scale-
enlargement, Task-reallocation and Concentration (STC)" proposed a major restructuring of the universities of
applied sciences (HBO) in the Netherlands. The aim was to increase institutional size through mergers, enhance
institutional autonomy and improve efficiency through economies of scale (Lang, 2003[15]; OECD, 2002[16]). These
reforms have had a lasting impact, shaping Dutch higher education into a system with fewer but significantly larger
institutions.
Figure D5.3. Distribution of tertiary institutions by size (2023)
100 000
Outlier
90 000 3rd Quartile (75%)
Median (50%)
80 000 1st Quartile (25%)
70 000
60 000
50 000
40 000
30 000
20 000
10 000
0
Ne dom (81)
ye )
ou )
da )
Au y (3 )
)
ton 4)
d K Sp (44)
ve 24)
ed 18)
Lu man 15)
rea 9)
Sw w 3)
ub 6)
str 9)
De land )
)
)
)
k R nd )
an )
oa 9)
lan 1)
Slo P alia )
la )
Ge ium 5)
nd )
rki (38
mb (46
na (38
an 6
erl (32
ec 0)
nm (4
Ice (71
La (15
rtu 35
(20
va ola (99
hu (86
str 74
Ire s (51
rla 82
rm (5
Es ia (3
Ko (19
No (12
ep (23
Au a (4
Cr ia (2
Fin rg (
Be nd (3
Cz lic (3
Ro (2
Slo via (
Sw nd (
Po ark (
the (1
ing in
Tü en
xe ia
Ca d
itz ay
ce
ia
ia
nia
Lit gal
hi
a
t
ee
t
g
r
Gr
l
ite
Un
Note: The number in parentheses indicates the number of tertiary institutions. Tertiary institutions with over 90% of students in distance
learning programmes and institutions with enrolment in bachelor's, master's, and doctoral programmes (ISCED levels 6 to 8) below 200 are
excluded. This analysis focuses on bachelor's, master's, and doctoral programmes (ISCED levels 6 to 8).
1. Year of reference differs from 2023: 2022 for Greece, Poland and Romania.
Source: Data based on European Higher Education Sector Observatory (EHESO) (2025). Please note that the reference year in the EHESO
database is 2022, which corresponds to the academic year 2022/2023 and is shown as 2023 in this publication. Data for Australia, Canada,
Iceland and Korea are from national data source.
Several countries – such as Luxembourg and Iceland – exhibit relatively tight distributions, without notable outliers
and institution sizes clustered closely around the median. This suggests systems characterised by uniformity in
institutional scale, reflecting the influence of small national populations and a limited number of tertiary institutions,
which naturally promote structural consistency across the sector. Similar patterns are observed in Austria, Croatia,
Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Slovenia, where the compact spread of institution sizes further underscores the role
of demographic and systemic constraints in shaping higher education landscapes. Meanwhile, countries such as
Belgium, Canada, Finland, Norway and Switzerland show moderate median enrolments, controlled spreads and
occasional outliers, indicating a balanced but diverse institutional profile. These systems typically combine
standardisation and differentiation, often shaped by binary or tiered structures, strong national policy co-ordination
and efforts to accommodate both general academic and applied or vocational education pathways (Figure D5.3).
Overall, the analysis highlights marked variation in the size distribution of tertiary institutions across countries.
These differences may be influenced by several factors, including the total number of institutions, demographic
trends and the urban-rural distribution of the population. In addition, national policies – such as funding allocation
models, governance frameworks and strategic priorities for institutional consolidation or expansion – play a critical
role in shaping institutional sizes (OECD, 2020[1]; Williams, 2017[17]).
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
429
Age distribution of academic staff
The age distribution of the academic workforce varies considerably across countries and levels of tertiary education.
It can be affected by a variety of factors, such as the level of development of tertiary institutions in the country, the size
and age distribution of the population, the duration of tertiary education, and staff salaries and working conditions.
More time spent in tertiary education can delay the entry of academic staff into the labour market. At the same time,
competitive salaries, good working conditions for permanent staff and career development opportunities may have
attracted young people into academic professions in some countries or helped to retain effective academic staff in
others.
Young staff members (under the age of 30) only account for a small proportion of academic staff on average across
OECD countries: 6% in short-cycle tertiary education and 9% at bachelor’s, master’s and doctoral level combined. At
short-cycle tertiary level, young staff make up less than 10% of the academic workforce in all countries except for
Luxembourg, New Zealand and Norway (Table D5.2). This pattern is not unexpected, as a doctoral degree is often a
prerequisite for entry into an academic career, especially at bachelor’s, master’s and doctoral level, and individuals
typically complete their doctoral studies in their late twenties or later.
On average across OECD countries, 40% of academic staff are aged 50 or over. However, this share varies widely
across countries, from just 13% in Luxembourg – where the academic workforce is relatively young due to the recent
development of the higher education system – to 55% in Italy (Figure D5.4). Variations in the age structure of academic
staff are influenced not only by retention rates but also by the historical timing of higher education system expansion
and recent recruitment trends. In countries where higher education systems experienced substantial growth several
decades ago, a large share of the staff hired during that period will now be reaching their late career stages. Similarly,
limited recruitment in recent years may contribute to a higher concentration of older staff. Although a larger proportion
of older and experienced academic staff may indicate strong institutional capacity and experience, it also underscores
the importance of planning for future workforce renewal and ensuring sustainable academic career pathways for
younger scholars.
Academic staff often follow different retirement trajectories to other professional groups. Academic careers typically
require many years of training and progression, involve a strong long-term commitment to scholarly work, and often
mean starting a first full-time position later than in other professions (Sugar et al., 2005[18]). One factor influencing the
age profile of academic staff is national legislation on retirement age (Eurydice, 2025[19]). However, actual retirement
patterns can be difficult to predict, as many academics continue working beyond the statutory retirement age (Baldwin,
Belin and Say, 2018[20]).
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
430
Trends in academic staff ages
Figure D5.4. Trends in the share of academic staff aged 50 and over (2013, 2018 and 2023)
In per cent
2023 2018 2013
60
50
40
30
20
10
1. Year of reference differs from 2013.
2. Public institutions only.
3. Year of reference differs from 2023.
4. Excludes short-cycle tertiary.
For data, see Table D5.2. For a link to download the data, see Tables and Notes section.
On average across OECD countries, the share of academic staff aged 50 and over has remained stable at around
40% between 2013 and 2023 for all levels of tertiary education combined. However, this average masks growing
disparities across countries. In more than half of OECD and partner countries with available data, the proportion of
academic staff in this age group has steadily increased from 2013 to 2018 and 2023. Notably, Greece, Korea and
Romania experienced increases of at least 7 percentage points over this period. While the share of older academic
staff in Romania remains below the OECD average, in Greece it is already more than 10 percentage points higher
than the OECD average. In Greece, the increase may be partly attributable to reduced recruitment -- fiscal constraints
following the financial crisis are likely to have limited new hiring (Figure D5.4).
In contrast, several countries have experienced a shift toward a younger academic workforce. In Bulgaria, Denmark,
Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway and the Slovak Republic, the share of academic staff aged 50 and over has
consistently declined over the past decade. In Estonia, Finland, Latvia, New Zealand and Slovenia, the share
increased slightly during some periods but showed an overall decrease between 2013 and 2023 (Figure D5.4). These
trends may partly reflect targeted recruitment policies aimed at attracting both national and international talent. For
example, in Norway, the Research Council of Norway (RCN) has implemented a range of initiatives to stimulate interest
in research careers, including the Science Knowledge Project for children (Nysgjerrigper), the Proscientia Project for
youth aged 12-21 and the Annual Science Week. The RCN also offers awards such as the Young Excellent
Researchers award, which requires applicants to demonstrate strong scientific merit, leadership potential and
international experience (OECD, 2019[21]). In addition, some countries have introduced mandatory retirement ages or
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
431
implemented measures to encourage early retirement, further contributing to generational renewal in the academic
workforce (Ackers and Gill, 2005[22]; Courty and Sim, 2015[23]).
Gender profile of academic staff
Men make up a small majority of academic staff across OECD countries, averaging 54% of the total. The share of
women among academic staff at all levels of tertiary education combined ranges from 31% in Japan to 55% or more
in Iceland, Latvia and Lithuania (Figure D5.5).
The gender profile of academic staff also differs across levels within tertiary education. On average across OECD
countries, women account for 53% of academic staff in short-cycle tertiary programmes, compared to 45% in
bachelor’s, master’s and doctoral programmes. In only nine OECD and partner countries do bachelor's, master's and
doctoral programmes have a larger share of female academic staff than short-cycle tertiary programmes, by
9 percentage points or more in Germany, Peru and Saudi Arabia – countries where short-cycle programmes account
for a relatively small share of tertiary provision. In contrast, in Belgium, Czechia and Japan, the share of women in
short-cycle programmes exceeds that in longer tertiary programmes by more than 20 percentage points (Table D5.3).
This disparity may be linked to the subject areas commonly offered at the short-cycle level, which are often
concentrated in fields with higher representation of female academic staff (OECD, 2025[24]). In Czechia, for example,
the only field offered at this level is arts and humanities. In Belgium, over half of students in short-cycle programmes
are enrolled in health and welfare fields. In Japan, the distribution is more diverse but includes a high concentration of
students in education, arts and humanities, and health-related programmes – all areas typically associated with a
greater presence of women in the academic workforce.
On average across OECD countries, women represent 52% of academic staff under the age of 30. However, their
representation decreases with age, with women accounting for 43% of academic staff aged 50 or older (Table D5.3).
This suggests that the overall gender imbalance in academia is influenced by older age cohorts. While this may imply
that gender parity could improve over time as younger cohorts advance, it also raises the question of whether women
face barriers to progressing into more senior academic roles at the same rate as their male counterparts (see
Box D5.2).
Early-career female academics often face similar challenges to their male counterparts, such as precarious
employment contracts and the pressure to publish extensively to secure career advancement. However, these
challenges can be compounded for women due to persistent gendered expectations and responsibilities, such as
family and household duties, which continue to fall disproportionately on them in many contexts. Women’s careers
and progression in academia are more likely to be affected by family responsibilities and the absence of formal policies
designed to support gender equity (Winslow and Davis, 2016[25]). Despite encouraging trends in female representation
among younger academics, the increasing reliance on temporary and part-time contracts in higher education
institutions has particularly impacted early-career researchers, with women being more likely to occupy these less
secure positions. The combination of job insecurity and the "publish or perish" culture can also hinder the retention
and progression of women in academia (OECD, 2024[26]).
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
432
Trends in the share of female academic staff
Figure D5.5. Trends in the share of women among academic staff (2013 and 2023)
In per cent
2023 2013
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
1. Year of reference differs from 2013.
2. Excludes short-cycle tertiary.
3. Public institutions only.
4. Year of reference differs from 2023.
For data, see Table D5.3. For a link to download the data, see Tables and Notes section.
Although the gender imbalance remains, the representation of women in tertiary education has increased in most
OECD countries over the past decade. Between 2013 and 2023, the average share of women among academic staff
across OECD countries rose by 3 percentage points, from 43% to 46% (OECD, 2025[27]). Among countries with
available data, the Netherlands and Slovenia recorded the largest gains: in the Netherlands the share of women
increased from 43% in 2013 to 49% in 2023, and in Slovenia it increased from 40% to 48% (Figure D5.5).
Nevertheless, gender disparities remain a significant challenge across most OECD countries. Inequalities begin at the
doctoral level and widen throughout academic career paths (European Commission, 2024[28]). Female researchers
are also more likely than men to hold temporary or non-standard contracts, and notable gender pay gaps persist in
scientific research and development occupations. Addressing these structural challenges is essential to building more
inclusive and equitable academic systems.
In response, several OECD countries and economies have introduced structural reforms to improve the representation
of women in academic roles. At the European level, the EU has supported initiatives such as the Institutional
Transformation for Effecting Gender Equality in Research (INTEGER) project, which aims to strengthen the career
development of female researchers in higher education and research institutions (European Commission, 2016[29]). In
Germany, the Women Professors Programme (WPP) was launched to increase the number of female professors and
promote structural change within higher education institutions. In the Flemish Community of Belgium, the share of
women in research positions is included among the indicators used for performance-based research funding. Similarly,
Norway offers additional funding to institutions that increase appointments of female faculty (OECD, 2019[21]).
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
433
Many of these initiatives are embedded within broader equal opportunity frameworks that also address other
dimensions of diversity, including ethnicity, disability, age, religion, political beliefs and sexual orientation. In
the United Kingdom, for instance, the Equality Challenge Unit was established by the Higher Education Funding
Council for England (HEFCE) to support universities in advancing equality across the sector (HEFCE, 2010[30]). While
these policy efforts represent important progress, gender disparities persist in academic participation, working
conditions and pay. Sustained investment, institutional commitment and further research are needed to ensure more
inclusive and equitable academic environments.
Box D5.2. Classification of academic staff
Seniority in academia reflects both the level of professional competence and the nature of assigned tasks and
responsibilities. It is also a key determinant of contractual stability within the academic profession (Eurydice,
2025[19]). Moreover, seniority interacts with other important factors like the age distribution of academic staff and
gender dynamics. Seniority is often closely linked to age, as academic careers typically follow a progressive
trajectory from junior to senior roles. However, variations in the timing of career milestones (such as obtaining a
PhD, securing a permanent contract or achieving tenure) can lead to differences in seniority even among similarly
aged staff. In systems where career progression is slow or highly competitive, older academics might still be in
junior or precarious positions, which raises concerns about long-term career sustainability.
Seniority also intersects significantly with gender. Although the share of female academic staff is growing, in many
higher education systems, women are under-represented in senior academic positions despite near parity or even
majority representation at the entry level. Structural barriers – such as gender bias in promotion processes, unequal
access to research funding and the impact of career breaks for caregiving – can hinder women’s advancement
(OECD, 2021[31]). This creates a gender imbalance at the top tiers of academia, often referred to as the "leaky
pipeline". Hence, understanding the composition of academic staff by seniority level is vital for addressing issues
related to career progression, ensuring equitable opportunities across diverse demographics and fostering an
inclusive academic environment.
The classification of tertiary academic staff defines seniority levels hierarchically according to career progression.
Staff can be divided into four categories: junior, intermediate, senior and other. Junior refers to entry grades/posts
into which an individual would normally be recruited to begin their academic career. Intermediate includes academic
staff pursuing an academic career working in positions below the top positions but more senior than entry-level
positions. Senior refers to the highest grades/posts for academic staff pursuing an academic career. Lastly, the
other category includes instructional and research personnel who are not considered to be on an academic career
track, excluding doctoral candidates, and teaching and research assistants.
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
434
Figure D5.6. Distribution of academic staff, by seniority level (2023)
In per cent
Senior Intermediate Junior Other Unclassified
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
Note: Tertiary institutions with over 90% of students in distance learning programmes are excluded.
1. Year of reference differs from 2023: 2022 for Greece and Poland.
Source: Data based on European Higher Education Sector Observatory (EHESO) (2025). Please note that the reference year in the EHESO
database is 2022, which corresponds to the academic year 2022/2023 and is shown as 2023 in this publication.
Figure D5.6 shows the distribution of academic staff by seniority level across countries. In Estonia, Germany,
Luxembourg, Poland, Portugal, Switzerland and Türkiye, junior staff represent the largest share. In contrast, the
intermediate level is the most common in Finland, Latvia, Lithuania, Norway, Spain and the Slovak Republic.
Having a high proportion of more junior, lower-cost staff may reduce costs, but raises questions about institutional
capability and the quality of academic work (Winslow and Davis, 2016[25]; Australian Government, 2018[32]). In
terms of the share of senior staff, Portugal is the country with the smallest share among countries with available
data – 4% academic staff are senior. In order to balance cost and quality, Portugal has legislated to impose a
minimum number of staff in senior categories (OECD, 2020[1]).
Definitions
Academic staff include personnel whose primary assignment is instruction or research, or both. Teaching staff also
include departmental chairs whose duties include some teaching but exclude non-professional personnel who support
teachers in providing instruction to students, such as teachers’ aides and other paraprofessional personnel.
Methodology
The ratio of students to academic staff is obtained by dividing the number of full-time equivalent students at a given
level of education by the number of full-time equivalent academic staff at that level and in similar types of institutions.
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
435
For the ratio of students to academic staff to be meaningful, consistent coverage of personnel and enrolment data are
needed. For instance, if academic staff in religious institutions are not reported in the personnel data, then students in
those institutions are also excluded.
Personnel data is based on headcounts for the calculated indicators included in the analysis in Box D5.1 and Box D5.2.
Source
Data refer to the reference year 2023 (academic year 2022/23) and are based on the UNESCO-UIS/OECD/Eurostat
data collection on education statistics administered by the OECD in 2024/25. For more information see Education at
a Glance 2025 Sources, Methodologies and Technical Notes (https://doi.org/10.1787/fcfaf2d1-en).
Data from Argentina, the People’s Republic of China, India, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia and South Africa are from the
UNESCO Institute of Statistics (UIS).
References
Ackers, L. and B. Gill (2005), “Attracting and retaining ’early career’ researchers in English higher education [22]
institutions”, Innovation: The European Journal of Social Science Research, Vol. 18/3, pp. 277-299,
https://doi.org/10.1080/13511610500186649.
Australian Government (2018), TEQSA’s Risk Assessment Framework, Tertiary Education Quality and [32]
Standards Agency, https://www.teqsa.gov.au/guides-resourses/resources/corporate-publications/risk-
assessment-framework.
Baldwin, R., A. Belin and B. Say (2018), “Why reinvent academic retirement?”, New Directions for Higher [20]
Education, Vol. 2018/182, pp. 9-16, https://doi.org/10.1002/he.20276.
Courty, P. and J. Sim (2015), “Retention of talented academic researchers: Evidence from a government [23]
intervention”, Canadian Journal of Economics/Revue canadienne d’économique, Vol. 48/5, pp. 1635-
1660, https://doi.org/10.1111/caje.12175.
Dill, D. and P. Teixeira (2000), “Program diversity in higher education: An economic perspective”, Higher [9]
Education Policy, Vol. 13/1, pp. 99-117, https://doi.org/10.1016/s0952-8733(99)00026-4.
Dinarte-Diaz, L. et al. (2020), “The contribution of short-cycle programs to student outcomes: Evidence from [7]
Colombia”, Policy Research Working Paper, No. 9424, World Bank, Washington, DC,
https://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/956501601925307143/pdf/The-Contribution-of-Short-
Cycle-Programs-to-Student-Outcomes-Evidence-from-Colombia.pdf.
European Commission (2024), She Figures 2024: Gender in Research and Innovation: Statistics and [28]
Indicators, Publications Office of the European Union, https://doi.org/10.2777/592260.
European Commission (2023), European Tertiary Education Register (ETER): Handbook for Data [14]
Collection, European Commission, https://national-policies.eacea.ec.europa.eu/sites/default/files/2025-
01/ETERIV_Handbook_Complete_2023updated.pdf.
European Commission (2016), Final Report Summary: INTEGER (Institutional Transformation for Effecting [29]
Gender Equality in Research), https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/266638/reporting.
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
436
Eurydice (2025), National Education Systems, European Commission, https://eacea.ec.europa.eu/national- [19]
policies/eurydice/national-description_en.
Geschwind, L. and A. Broström (2014), “Managing the teaching–research nexus: Ideals and practice in [12]
research-oriented universities”, Higher Education Research and Development, Vol. 34/1, pp. 60-73,
https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2014.934332.
HEFCE (2010), “The higher education workforce framework 2010: Main report”, Issues Paper, [30]
No. 2010/05a, Higher Education Funding Council for England, https://dera.ioe.ac.uk/978/1/10_05a.pdf.
Huisman, J. et al. (2015), “Measuring institutional diversity across higher education systems”, Research [11]
Evaluation, Vol. 24/4, pp. 369-379, https://doi.org/10.1093/reseval/rvv021.
Kwiek, M. (2019), “Social stratification in higher education: What it means at the micro‑level of the individual [13]
academic scientist”, Higher Education Quarterly, Vol. 73/4, pp. 419-444,
https://doi.org/10.1111/hequ.12221.
Lang, D. (2003), “The future of merger what do we want mergers to do: Efficiency or diversity?”, Canadian [15]
Journal of Higher Education, Vol. 33/3, pp. 19-46, https://doi.org/10.47678/cjhe.v33i3.183439.
McCowan, T. (2007), “Expansion without equity: An analysis of current policy on access to higher education [6]
in Brazil”, Higher Education, Vol. 53/5, pp. 579-598, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-005-0097-4.
Meek, V., L. Goedegebuure and J. Huisman (2000), “Understanding diversity and differentiation in higher [10]
education: An overview”, Higher Education Policy, Vol. 13/1, pp. 1-6, https://doi.org/10.1016/s0952-
8733(99)00032-x.
OECD (2025), OECD Data Explorer, http://data-explorer.oecd.org/s/21k. [2]
OECD (2025), OECD Data Explorer, http://data-explorer.oecd.org/s/21l. [27]
OECD (2025), OECD Data Explorer, http://data-explorer.oecd.org/s/21m. [24]
OECD (2024), “The state of academic careers in OECD countries: An evidence review”, OECD Education [26]
Policy Perspectives, No. 91, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/ea9d3108-en.
OECD (2021), “Reducing the precarity of academic research careers”, OECD Science, Technology and [31]
Industry Policy Papers, No. 113, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/0f8bd468-en.
OECD (2020), Resourcing Higher Education: Challenges, Choices and Consequences, Higher Education, [1]
OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/735e1f44-en.
OECD (2019), Benchmarking Higher Education System Performance, Higher Education, OECD Publishing, [21]
Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/be5514d7-en.
OECD (2018), Rethinking Quality Assurance for Higher Education in Brazil, Reviews of National Policies for [5]
Education, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264309050-en.
OECD (2002), Higher Education Management and Policy, OECD Publishing, Paris, [16]
https://doi.org/10.1787/hemp-v14-1-en.
OPI PIB (2022), Nowe dane już w RAD-on, https://opi.org.pl/nowe-dane-juz-w-rad-on/. [3]
Sugar, J. et al. (2005), “Academic administrators and faculty retirement in a new era”, Educational [18]
Gerontology, Vol. 31/5, pp. 405-418, https://doi.org/10.1080/03601270590921672.
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
437
Walker, A. (2025), Continued growth in Poland’s PBSA sector, GSL Global, [4]
https://gslglobal.com/2025/05/02/continued-growth-in-polands-pbsa-sector/.
Widiputera, F. et al. (2017), “Measuring diversity in higher education institutions: A review of literature and [8]
empirical approaches”, IAFOR Journal of Education, Vol. 5/1, https://doi.org/10.22492/ije.5.1.03.
Williams, J. (2017), “Collaboration, alliance, and merger among higher education institutions”, OECD [17]
Education Working Papers, No. 160, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/cf14d4b5-en.
Winslow, S. and S. Davis (2016), “Gender inequality across the academic life course”, Sociology Compass, [25]
Vol. 10/5, pp. 404-416, https://doi.org/10.1111/soc4.12372.
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
438
Tables and Notes
Chapter D5 Tables
Table D5.1 Ratio of students to academic staff, by tertiary education level and type of institution (2023)
Table D5.2 Age distribution of academic staff, by tertiary education level (2013, 2018 and 2023)
Table D5.3 Share of women among academic staff, by tertiary education level and age group (2013, 2018 and 2023)
StatLink 2 https://stat.link/vdryh8
Data Download
To download the data for the figures and tables in this chapter, click StatLink above.
To access further data and/or other education indicators, please visit the OECD Data Explorer: https://data-
explorer.oecd.org/.
Data cut-off for the print publication 13 June 2025. Please note that the Data Explorer contains the most recent
data.
Notes for Tables
Table D5.1. Ratio of students to academic staff by tertiary level of education and type of institution (2023)
1. Year of reference differs from 2023: 2022 for Colombia, Peru and Saudi Arabia.
2. Year of reference differs from 2013: 2014 for Denmark, Estonia, Luxembourg, Bulgaria and Croatia.
3. Tertiary includes staff and students from post-secondary non-tertiary level.
Table D5.2. Age distribution of academic staff, by tertiary level of education (2013, 2018, 2023)
1. Public institutions only.
2. Year of reference differs from 2023: 2022 for Colombia and Peru.
3. Year of reference differs from 2013: 2014 for Denmark, Estonia, Korea, Luxembourg, Bulgaria and Croatia.
4. Post-secondary non-tertiary teachers may teach at tertiary level - see Annex 3 for further details.
Table D5.3. Share of women among academic staff, by tertiary level of education and age group (2013, 2018,
2023)
1. Public institutions only.
2. Year of reference differs from 2023: 2022 for Colombia, India, Peru and Saudi Arabia.
3. Year of reference differs from 2013: 2015 for Denmark, Estonia, Luxembourg, Bulgaria and Croatia.
4. Post-secondary non-tertiary teachers may teach at tertiary level - see Annex 3 for further details.
Control codes
a – category not applicable; b – break in series; d – contains data from another column; m – missing data; x – contained
in another column (indicated in brackets). For further control codes, see the Reader’s Guide.
For further methodological information, see Education at a Glance 2025: Sources, Methodologies and Technical Notes
(https://doi.org/10.1787/fcfaf2d1-en)
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
439
Table D5.1. Ratio of students to academic staff, by tertiary education level and type of institution
(2023)
Bachelor’s, master’s
Short-cycle tertiary and doctoral or equivalent All tertiary
Public Private All Public Private All Public Private
institutions institutions institutions institutions institutions institutions institutions institutions All institutions
2023 2023 2023 2023 2023 2023 2023 2023 2013 2018 2023
OECD countries (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11)
Australia m m m 19 29 19 m m m m m
Austria 9 10 9 16 14 16 14 13 15 14 14
Belgium 33 14 18 28 19 22 28 19 21 21 22
Canada m m m 22 m m m m m m m
Chile m m m m m m m m m m m
Colombia1 48 7 24 23 32 28 30 23 19 28 26
Costa Rica x(7) m m x(7) m m 13 m m m m
Czechia 10 14 11 17 17 17 17 17 22 15 17
Denmark 2 23 26 23 14 19 14 14 22 14 16 14
Estonia 2 a a a 11 37 11 11 37 15 13 11
Finland a a a 13 18 15 13 18 14 15 15
France 9 m m 16 m m 15 m m m m
Germany 11 12 12 10 20 11 10 20 12 12 11
Greece a a a 49 a 49 49 a m m 49
Hungary x(4) x(5) x(6) 11 d 10 d 10 d 11 11 14 12 11
Iceland x(4) x(5) x(6) 7d 12 d 8d 7 12 m m 8
Ireland x(7) m m x(7) m m 19 m m m m
Israel 16 18 17 17 16 16 16 16 m m 14
Italy a a a 19 22 20 19 22 19 20 20
Japan m m m m m m m m m m m
Korea m m m m m m m m m m m
Latvia 11 x(8) x(11) a x(8) x(11) 11 16 20 16 15
Lithuania a a a 13 24 14 13 24 17 14 14
Luxembourg2 8 a 8 4 a 4 4 a 8 4 4
Mexico x(7) x(8) x(11) x(7) x(8) x(11) 18 16 14 18 18
Netherlands a 14 14 11 15 14 11 15 15 15 14
New Zealand 16 12 15 17 16 17 17 13 17 17 16
Norway 14 19 16 8 20 9 8 20 10 9 9
Poland 11 55 18 10 34 12 10 34 15 14 12
Portugal x(4) x(5) x(6) 12 d 14 d 12 d 12 14 14 14 12
Slovak Republic 8 8 8 12 19 12 12 17 14 11 12
Slovenia 13 12 13 12 11 11 12 11 18 14 12
Spain 9 15 10 11 18 13 11 17 12 12 12
Sweden 10 11 10 10 11 10 10 11 11 10 10
Switzerland m m m 14 m m m m m m m
Türkiye m m m m m m m m m m m
United Kingdom a x(8) x(11) a x(8) x(11) a 14 18 15 14
United States3 x(7) x(8) x(11) x(7) x(8) x(11) 14 d 11 d 15 d 14 d 13 d
OECD average 15 16 14 15 20 15 15 18 15 15 15
Partner and/or accession countries
Argentina m m m m m m m m m m m
Brazil 2 31 4 10 62 29 10 62 23 24 29
Bulgaria 2 a a a 11 16 12 11 16 13 12 12
China m m m m m m m m m m m
Croatia 2 a a a 11 13 11 11 13 13 13 11
India a a a 46 19 26 46 19 22 25 26
Indonesia 44 23 31 57 23 33 55 23 27 27 33
Peru 1 23 24 24 17 33 27 17 33 m 19 27
Romania a a a 19 24 19 19 24 21 20 19
Saudi Arabia1 108 m 81 18 m 18 19 18 21 19 19
South Africa m m m m m m m m m m m
EU25 average 13 17 13 15 19 15 15 19 15 14 15
G20 average 35 22 32 24 29 22 23 23 19 19 20
Note: See under Chapter D5 Tables for StatLink and for the notes related to this Table.
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
440
Table D5.2. Age distribution of academic staff, by tertiary education level (2013, 2018 and 2023)
2023 2018 2013
Bachelor’s, master’s and
Short-cycle tertiary doctoral or equivalent All tertiary All tertiary All tertiary
< 30 30-49 >= 50 < 30 30-49 >= 50 < 30 30-49 >= 50 < 30 30-49 >= 50 < 30 30-49 >= 50
years years years years years years years years years years years years years years years
OECD countries (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) (15)
Australia m m m 4 57 39 m m m m m m m m m
Austria 6 46 48 10 51 39 9 50 40 9 52 39 8 56 36
Belgium 9 59 32 m m m m m m m m m m m m
Canada1 7 46 47 3 44 53 5 45 49 5 47 48 9 47 45
Chile m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m
Colombia2 6 66 28 5 60 35 5 62 33 8 61 31 m m m
Costa Rica1 x(7) x(8) x(9) x(7) x(8) x(9) 4 64 33 7 61 33 m m m
Czechia 5 43 52 m m m m m m m m m m m m
Denmark 3 2 45 53 20 48 33 19 48 34 17 47 35 6 53 41
Estonia 3 a a a 4 55 40 4 55 40 5 56 39 6 52 42
Finland a a a 11 48 41 11 48 41 8 44 48 8 46 46
France1 9 52 39 10 46 44 10 47 43 m m m m m m
Germany 4 41 54 23 48 29 23 48 30 25 49 27 25 51 24
Greece a a a 1 45 54 1 45 54 1 53 47 1 52 47
Hungary x(4) x(5) x(6) 5d 53 d 42 d 5 53 42 6 54 40 6 54 41
Iceland x(4) x(5) x(6) 14 d 48 d 39 d 14 48 39 m m m m m m
Ireland m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m
Israel 9 52 39 12 45 44 11 46 43 10 48 42 m m m
Italy a a a 1 44 55 1 44 55 1 44 56 1 46 53
Japan 4 6 48 46 2 48 51 3 48 50 3 52 46 3 53 44
Korea3 2 48 50 1 45 55 1 45 54 1 53 46 2 59 40
Latvia 2 46 53 4 50 46 4 49 47 6 48 46 5 45 50
Lithuania a a a 5 54 42 5 54 42 5 56 39 7 54 39
Luxembourg3 11 64 26 34 54 12 33 54 13 26 60 13 30 55 15
Mexico m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m
Netherlands 9 51 40 20 51 29 19 51 30 18 49 33 19 48 33
New Zealand 12 43 46 11 44 44 11 44 44 9 44 47 9 45 46
Norway 11 46 43 24 45 31 24 45 31 20 44 36 16 45 39
Poland 0 39 61 4 56 41 4 56 41 m m m m m m
Portugal x(4) x(5) x(6) 11d 48 d 41d 11 48 41 4 52 44 5 60 35
Slovak Republic 5 47 47 4 55 41 4 54 42 5 52 43 7 48 45
Slovenia 4 36 59 6 52 43 6 50 44 1 47 53 0 49 51
Spain 6 55 39 3 47 50 4 49 47 4 52 44 2 57 41
Sweden 6 50 44 6 50 44 6 50 44 5 52 44 5 51 44
Switzerland1 m m m 3 49 48 3 49 48 3 50 48 m m m
Türkiye 7 76 17 15 61 24 14 63 23 18 63 19 17 64 19
United Kingdom x(7) x(8) x(9) x(7) x(8) x(9) 6 57 37 8 52 40 7 53 40
United States m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m
OECD average 6 50 44 9 50 41 9 51 40 8 51 40 9 52 40
Partner and/or accession countries
Argentina m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m
Brazil 0 57 43 4 60 36 4 60 36 6 61 33 8 62 30
Bulgaria 3 a a a 5 47 48 5 47 48 5 44 50 5 41 54
China m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m
Croatia 3 a a a 9 56 36 9 56 36 8 58 33 11 56 33
India m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m
Indonesia m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m
Peru 2 6 66 28 4 53 42 4 53 42 m m m m m m
Romania a a a 3 58 39 3 58 39 2 64 34 5 64 31
Saudi Arabia m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m
South Africa m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m
EU25 average 6 48 46 9 51 40 9 51 41 8 52 40 8 52 40
G20 average m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m
Note: See under Chapter D5 Tables for StatLink and for the notes related to this Table.
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
441
Table D5.3. Share of women among academic staff, by tertiary education level and age group (2013,
2018 and 2023)
Percentage of female teachers in public and private institutions by age group and level of education
2023 2018 2013
Bachelor’s, master’s and
Short-cycle tertiary doctoral or equivalent All tertiary All tertiary All tertiary
< 30 >= 50 < 30 >= 50 < 30 >= 50 < 30 >= 50 < 30 >= 50
All ages years years All ages years years All ages years years All ages years years All ages years years
OECD countries (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) (15)
Australia m m m 50 56 48 m m m m m m m m m
Austria 52 71 47 44 51 39 45 53 40 43 53 38 42 54 37
Belgium 84 72 85 49 59 48 50 61 49 48 67 44 47 64 41
Canada1 53 59 48 45 53 40 50 57 45 49 60 44 49 58 45
Chile m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m
Colombia2 41 49 32 40 47 33 40 47 33 38 47 30 36 m m
Costa Rica1 x(7) x(8) x(9) x(7) x(8) x(9) 45 47 40 44 46 38 m m m
Czechia 60 49 60 38 56 70 38 55 69 38 m m 38 87 81
Denmark 3 45 58 41 47 45 44 47 45 43 44 44 40 43 44 37
Estonia 3 a a a 49 56 46 49 56 46 49 54 45 49 52 46
Finland a a a 54 49 53 54 49 53 52 47 52 51 48 50
France1 49 49 46 42 45 38 43 46 39 44 55 38 41 53 35
Germany 33 34 33 42 48 33 42 48 33 40 45 31 38 45 26
Greece a a a 38 59 35 38 59 35 35 45 32 33 49 29
Hungary x(4) x(5) x(6) 43 d 49 d 39 d 43 49 39 41 46 36 41 46 37
Iceland x(4) x(5) x(6) 56 d 57 d 53 d 56 57 53 m m m m m m
Ireland x(7) m m x(7) m m 46 m m 45 m m 44 m m
Israel 56 69 50 48 52 46 49 54 46 49 53 45 m m m
Italy a a a 39 51 36 39 51 36 37 50 34 37 52 31
Japan 4 50 60 49 26 35 24 31 47 28 28 49 25 25 47 21
Korea 48 72 41 35 61 26 38 65 29 36 66 23 35 56 16
Latvia 67 94 72 53 49 53 55 52 55 56 56 55 56 53 52
Lithuania a a a 58 58 59 58 58 59 56 55 53 55 56 49
Luxembourg3 49 60 40 35 38 27 36 38 29 36 36 30 38 45 27
Mexico x(7) m m x(7) m m 45 m m m m m 48 m m
Netherlands 54 61 47 49 51 41 49 51 42 46 50 36 43 50 33
New Zealand 54 51 53 54 60 50 54 59 50 51 52 50 49 51 46
Norway 43 46 38 50 50 48 50 50 48 46 44 44 45 41 42
Poland 69 0 65 49 55 42 49 55 42 45 m m 44 m m
Portugal x(4) x(5) x(6) 47 d 47 d 43 d 47 47 43 45 46 40 44 52 37
Slovak Republic 62 50 61 47 53 46 47 53 46 46 57 43 45 52 39
Slovenia 50 58 47 48 49 45 48 50 45 42 86 38 40 50 35
Spain 54 55 52 44 49 39 47 52 42 44 49 38 41 57 34
Sweden 45 43 44 47 48 46 47 48 46 45 48 43 44 50 42
Switzerland1 m m m 38 53 32 38 53 32 35 54 30 m m m
Türkiye 43 60 30 47 56 35 46 56 34 44 54 31 42 53 30
United Kingdom x(7) x(8) x(9) x(7) x(8) x(9) 48 51 44 45 48 42 44 48 40
United States x(7) m m x(7) x(8) x(9) 52 m m 50 m m 49 m m
OECD average 53 55 49 45 51 42 46 52 43 44 52 39 43 52 38
Partner and/or accession countries
Argentina m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m
Brazil 46 0 45 47 53 44 47 53 44 46 50 42 45 49 41
Bulgaria 3 a a a 52 49 50 52 49 50 50 45 45 48 48 43
China m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m
Croatia 3 a a a 51 54 46 51 54 46 49 52 43 48 58 39
India 2 m m m m m m 43 m m 42 m m 39 m m
Indonesia 46 m m 44 m m 45 m m 43 m m 39 m m
Peru 2 27 27 28 37 45 32 37 45 32 m m m m m m
Romania a a a 52 53 49 52 53 49 51 55 42 48 54 35
Saudi Arabia2 27 m m 43 m m 43 m m 41 m m 39 m m
South Africa m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m
EU25 average 55 54 53 47 51 44 47 51 45 45 52 41 44 53 40
G20 average m m m m m m 44 m m 42 m m 41 m m
Note: See under Chapter D5 Tables for StatLink and for the notes related to this Table.
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
442
Chapter D6. What admission systems
are used in tertiary education?
Highlights
• Nearly half of the countries and economies with available data have a non-selective admission system for
first degrees in public and private institutions. Such open admission allow all applicants meeting the
minimum qualification level required to be admitted, providing a broad access to tertiary education.
• The most widely used types of examination used for admission to first degree tertiary education are
national or central examinations, taken towards the end of upper secondary education, and entrance
examinations administered by tertiary institutions.
• The share of applicants who are accepted to tertiary programmes ranges from 34% in Scotland (United
Kingdom) to 95% in France. In three-quarters of countries and economies with available data, close to
60% (or more) of applicants are accepted, while in the remaining quarter, less than half (42% or less) of
applicants are accepted.
Context
Increasing numbers of students are enrolling in tertiary education across OECD countries. This expansion in
enrolment reflects a variety of factors. More students are achieving the minimum educational attainment required
to enter tertiary institutions, which increases the potential demand for tertiary education (see Chapter B3 in OECD
(2024[1])). At the same time, the positive relationship between educational attainment and opportunities in the labour
market may further enhance demand, especially in countries with high unemployment rates or when there is an
economic crisis: the strong personal financial incentives to invest in education could encourage individuals with a
secondary qualification to continue their studies (see Chapters A3 and A4).
Tertiary enrolment is also affected by the number of places available within tertiary educational institutions. Given
the rising demand for tertiary education, educational institutions and policy makers face new challenges in ensuring
there are enough student places. In the meantime, increased demand could result in increased competition to enter
tertiary education. Decisions about the number of places available in the different fields of study are more strongly
linked to the needs of the labour market in some countries than in others. Ensuring a match between the skills of
the tertiary-educated population and labour-market demand may have an impact on enrolment and how selective
admissions to different fields of study are in tertiary education.
Admission systems to tertiary education may be designed to balance different objectives. In some cases,
admissions criteria may be used to ensure applicants have the skills to successfully complete the educational
programme in question (see Chapter B5). In other cases, having fewer criteria may help to provide more
widespread access to tertiary education, meeting equity concerns.
Analysis of the national criteria and admission systems for students to apply for and enter first degree tertiary
programmes highlights differences between open and selective admission systems and the proportions of
applicants who successfully meet the criteria and processes. However, the analysis here does not cover the
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
443
selectivity that may occur during studies, such as students dropping out of a programme if they fail intermediate
tests or do not progress at the desired pace.
Figure D6.1. Limitations on the number of student places for first degree tertiary programme, by
field of study and type of institution (2024)
OECD, partner and accession countries and other economies
Number of Limits exist for all institutions/fields of study Limits exist for some institutions/fields of education No limits Other Missing Not applicable
countries and economies
20
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
By field of study By institution By field of study By institution By field of study By institution By field of study By institution By field of study By institution By field of study By institution
Open Selective Open Selective Open Selective
Public institutions Government-dependent private institutions Independent private institutions
Open = open admissions systems exist
Selective = only selective admissions systems exist
Note: First degree tertiary programmes within countries and economies with open admissions systems can still be subject to limitations on
the number of places available, either by field of education or institution. These limits may affect all fields of education or types of institutions,
only some, or none at all. Similarly, for those with selective systems, limits may be set with reference to field of study and/or institutions. As
such, a country or economy with a selective system may still report no limits (none) for one of these dimensions.
For data, see Table D6.1. For a link to download the data, see Tables and Notes section.
Other findings
• Regardless of whether their admission systems are selective or not, in most countries and economies
there is only a limited number of places available to enter a given field of study, in both public and private
institutions. Thus, even in non-selective systems, some applicants may not be accepted (although they
may go on to be accepted for different fields).
• Students are required to apply directly to public tertiary institutions in almost half of countries and
economies, while the remainder use a centralised system or a combination of both approaches.
Centralised systems are less frequently used for admissions to private tertiary institutions.
• Selective institutions may take factors other than examination results into account when accepting
applications, although to differing extents. The most commonly used criteria for admission to public tertiary
institutions are academic performance, candidate interviews, the results of foreign language proficiency
tests and high achievements in well-known external competitions.
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
444
Analysis
Organisation of admission systems to first degree tertiary programmes
Selective versus open admission systems
How students are admitted to first degree tertiary programmes reflects the way tertiary education is structured and
organised within countries. Most education systems except for England and Scotland (United Kingdom) have public
tertiary institutions, and most tertiary students are enrolled in public institutions on average across OECD countries
(see Figure B1.4 in Education at a Glance 2022 (OECD, 2022[2])). Private tertiary institutions are almost as widespread,
with only Denmark and Greece not having any government-dependent or independent private institutions offering first
degree tertiary programmes. Government-dependent private institutions are part of the tertiary education landscape
in less than half the countries and economies with available data (Table D6.1).
The use of open (or non-selective) admission system to tertiary programmes – where all applicants who achieve the
minimum required educational attainment level are admitted – is common but not the main practice among both public
and private tertiary institutions. Nearly half of countries and economies with available data for public institutions (15
out of 33) have at least some institutions with open admission systems (Figure D6.2). The use of open admissions
systems in private tertiary institutions is similar: 7 out of 15 countries and economies with government-dependent
private institutions and 10 out of 30 with independent private institutions report that at least some of these tertiary
institutions use open admission systems (Table D6.1).
The use of selective admission systems – where applicants need to meet additional specific criteria and/or succeed in
a competitive process to be admitted – is more widely implemented across countries and economies with available
data, for admission into both public and private tertiary institutions (Figure D6.2 and Table D6.1).
Countries and economies can be divided into three groups according to how open or selective their admission systems
are: those that use open admission for all first degree tertiary programmes, those that use selective admissions, and
those that use a combination of open and selective admission. In this last group, the balance between open and
selective admissions varies, with some countries close to open admission for all first degree programmes and others
where admission is largely selective. Whatever the type of admission system used, there may be some limitations on
students’ entry into first degree tertiary programmes, either because the number of places in some or all programmes
is limited, or because students are assessed or tested before they can enter these programmes (see the section on
constraints below).
Centralised versus direct applications to tertiary institutions
Figure D6.2 outlines how different countries and economies combine the different types of admission systems (open
or selective) and processes (centralised and/or direct) to first degree tertiary programmes in public institutions. In close
to half of countries and economies with available information, students apply directly to the institutions, while in around
one-third, they apply through a centralised system. The remaining countries and economies combine a centralised
application system with direct applications to public tertiary institutions (Figure D6.2 and Figure D6.3).
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
445
Figure D6.2. Admission systems for first degree tertiary education in public institutions (2024)
Tertiary Education Admission sytem Public
(First degree entrance) institutions
Open for all Open for some
Open or selective admission programmes programmes
Selective
Centralised and Centralised and
Direct to Direct to Direct to
Application process instutions institutions
direct to Centralised
institutions
direct to Centralised
institutions institutions
French Comm. Austria, Flemish Czechia, Australia¹, Brazil,
Netherlands, Chile, Denmark,
(Belgium), Israel, Comm. France, Germany Luxembourg,
Norway Korea, Lithuania, Estonia, Finland,
Mexico (Belgium)¹, Italy, Romania Portugal
New Zealand, Greece,
Poland, the Hungary,
Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Spain,
Switzerland, the Sweden, Türkiye
United States
Note: This figure only includes countries and other economies with available information on open or selective admission system.
1. Year of reference: 2023.
For data, see Table D6.1. For a link to download the data, see Tables and Notes section.
Where a centralised system is used (either as the only system or in combination with direct applications), applicants
may be limited in the number of preferences they can specify, and in the number of offers they can receive following
their applications. Applicants are limited to one preference when applying to public institutions in Brazil, three in
Slovenia, and four in the Netherlands, but can specify ten or more in Chile, France, Germany, Norway, Sweden and
Türkiye and multiple preferences within a limited number in Australia. In Greece there is no maximum number of
applications. Regardless of the maximum number of applications, applicants receive just one offer in most countries
with a centralised system. However, there is no limit on the number of offers made in Korea, which uses a combination
of centralised and direct applications to public tertiary institutions (Table D6.1).
Applications to private tertiary institutions are less likely to be processed through a centralised application system.
However, a central system is the only (or main) way to apply to private institutions in a few countries. This is the case
in Chile, Finland and Slovenia for government-dependent private institutions, while in the Netherlands and Türkiye this
process is used for independent private institutions. In Hungary and Scotland (United Kingdom), a centralised
application process is used for both types of private institutions (Table D6.1).
Applications are made directly to private institutions in slightly less than half of the countries with government-
dependent private institutions, and in most countries and economies with independent private institutions. However,
one-quarter of countries with these types of tertiary institutions combine a centralised application system with direct
applications (Table D6.1).
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
446
Figure D6.3. Application process for entry into first degree tertiary programmes (2024)
OECD, partner and accession countries and other economies
Direct to institutions Mixed (Centralised and direct to institutions)
Centralised (single system for admission) Missing
Not applicable
Public institutions 15 7 12
Government-dependent private institutions 6 4 5
Independent private institutions 15 8 4 3
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Number of countries and economies
For data, see Table D6.1. For a link to download the data, see Tables and Notes section.
Constraints on students entering tertiary programmes
Limits on the number of places in particular fields of study or institutions
Open admission systems promote broad access to higher education but they may still impose some limits on the
number of places available to students in first degree tertiary programmes. In most countries and economies with
available data, the number of places available is only limited for some fields of study, for both public and private
institutions (Figure D6.1). These limits may reflect increasing demand for specific sought-after fields of study. They
may also be a way to align educational outcomes with labour-market needs to better prepare highly skilled graduates
for the job opportunities available and prevent an oversupply of professionals in sectors such as dentistry, medicine
and architecture. For example, in Italy, although open admission to first degree tertiary programmes is the general
rule, exceptions exist to limit the number of student places (at national level) in medicine, dentistry, veterinary medicine,
architecture, health professions and primary education science (from the academic year 2025/26 a new Ministerial
Decree regulates access to medicine, dentistry and veterinary medicine for public Universities and overcomes the
previous admission rules). Universities can also autonomously establish admission limits, for internal and structural
reasons. Other areas also experience strong demand. In the Netherlands, for example, there are a fixed number of
places in parts of study fields within social sciences, journalism and information; engineering, manufacturing and
construction; and health and welfare (for other specific country examples see Education at a Glance 2025 Sources,
Methodologies and Technical Notes (https://doi.org/10.1787/fcfaf2d1-en)).
Limited enrolment by field of study is common in selective admission systems for both public and private institutions.
Among the countries and economies using selective admission systems, all have some limitations on the number of
student places. These limits are usually set for all fields of study rather than just some (Figure D6.1and Table D6.1).
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
447
Among countries and economies with open admission systems, nearly half of those with available data implement
limits on the number of student places, which are applied to specific public and private educational institutions. These
limits help to balance available resources and maintain high educational standards for the tertiary students admitted
to those institutions. In contrast, among countries and economies with selective admission systems, almost all have
limited enrolment for both public and private tertiary institutions and these limits generally apply to all institutions rather
than just specific ones. In Austria and England (United Kingdom), all with selective systems, there are no limits to
student places in independent private institutions (Figure D6.1 and Table D6.1).
Box D6.1. Alternative routes into first degree tertiary programmes
Candidates for tertiary education are usually young people who have completed or just graduated from upper
secondary education, although some might take one or more gap years before applying to or entering tertiary
education (see Chapter B3). All such graduates from upper secondary education who wish to enter tertiary
education are expected to follow the same application and admission system. However, some countries and
economies adapt their procedures for candidates in specific or exceptional circumstances. These circumstances
might relate to individuals returning to education after a long time, or to candidates with special educational needs,
refugee status or with exceptional talent.
Whatever the type of admission systems used (open or selective), most countries and economies with available
data (26 out of 36) take into account at least one of these characteristics in their admission systems for public
tertiary institutions. Individuals with special educational needs have specific admission systems in at least
18 countries and economies, but mostly for a restricted number of places. In the Flemish Community of Belgium,
Brazil, Lithuania, Luxembourg and the Netherlands, there is no specific restriction on the number of student places
for these applicants. Individuals with refugee status, exceptional talent or who have been out of education for a
long period, are also offered specific admission criteria for public institutions in at least 14 countries and economies.
In Australia, the Flemish Community of Belgium, Finland, Israel, Japan and New Zealand, there are alternative
routes into first degree tertiary programmes for all these circumstances (Table D6.1).
Similar patterns are observed for admission to private tertiary institutions, but in fewer countries: 12 countries and
economies recognise one of these exceptional circumstances in their admission system to government-dependent
private institutions, and 17 do so for admission to independent private institutions, regardless of whether they have
open or selective admissions systems to these types of tertiary institutions (Table D6.1).
Qualification and performance requirements to enter first degree tertiary programmes
In all countries and economies, access to first degree tertiary programmes (in public or private institutions) requires a
minimum qualification level, which is usually an upper secondary qualification (ISCED 3) from a general or vocational
programme (Table D6.5, available on line). Nevertheless, education systems may offer alternative routes to access
first degree tertiary programmes which offer increased flexibility or inclusiveness for candidates with exceptional
circumstances (such as the recognition of returning to education after a long time, special educational needs, refugee
status or exceptional talent), described in Box D6.1.
Governments may also require upper secondary graduates to meet some minimum academic performance level to
access a first degree tertiary programme, whether for a specific institution or field of study (Table D6.5, available on
line). For example, in Chile (which has a selective admission system), the minimum academic performance
requirement applies only to students entering programmes designed to prepare them for a career in teaching. Students
need to have reached a certain level in the Prueba de Acceso a la Educación Superior (PAES) to access public or
private tertiary institutions attached to the Centralised Access System to higher education, but the only requirement
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
448
for students to enrol in independent private institutions is to have completed upper secondary education (see Education
at a Glance 2025 Sources, Methodologies and Technical Notes (https://doi.org/10.1787/fcfaf2d1-en)).
In about one-third of the countries and economies with available information (12 out of 35), the government sets
minimum academic performance requirements for students graduating from general upper secondary programmes to
enter some fields of study, while in 9 out of 35, there are minimum academic performance requirements to enter some
tertiary institutions. In France, Greece, Israel, Lithuania, Norway and Portugal, these minimum academic performance
requirements are applied to all fields of study and all tertiary institutions. For candidates graduating from vocational
upper secondary programmes, 9 out of 31 countries and economies set minimum academic performance requirements
to enter some fields of study, and 7 set them to enter tertiary institutions. In Greece, Israel, Lithuania, Norway, Portugal
and Türkiye, these performance requirements relate to both field of studies and to tertiary institutions, and apply to
candidates graduating from both general and vocational programmes (Table D6.5, available on line).
The use of examinations and tests to determine access to first degree programmes
Examinations and tests are common tools in both open and selective admission processes. They can be used either
to assess whether students meet the minimum requirements to access first degree tertiary programmes, or to select
students for these programmes. Admission systems use a range of types of examinations or tests: national or central
examinations (standardised tests at the national or central level of the education system), first degree tertiary
programme entrance examinations (standardised examinations at the national level specifically for use in the
admission process, either as a minimum requirement or for selection, such as the Ecole préparatoire in France and
the Scholastic Assessment Test in the United States), non-national/central standardised examinations and non-
national/central non-standardised examinations. Countries and economies vary widely in the types of examinations
they use and how they use them as criteria for access to tertiary education or for granting financial support such as
scholarships.
The most widely used examinations for entry into first degree tertiary programmes (in both public and private
institutions) are national/central examinations taken towards the end of upper secondary education, and entrance
examinations administered by tertiary institutions. Non-national central standardised and non-standardised
examinations are more often administered in countries with independent private institutions. While the non-
national/central standardised examinations are administered to students and may replace or complement the entrance
examinations at some higher educational institutions, the non-national non-standardised tests are administered to
secondary school students or applicants to specific first degree tertiary programmes (Table D6.2).
Most countries and economies with available data on public tertiary institutions (32 out of 34) use at least one
examination for students who wish to pursue tertiary studies. Eleven countries use a maximum of two types of
examination and five countries (Brazil, Czechia, Finland, Germany and New Zealand) use three. Examinations are
also administered to students applying to private institutions. In 13 out of 14 countries with available data, at least one
type of examination is used for admissions to first degree tertiary programmes at government-dependent private
institutions. For independent private institutions, 23 countries out of 30 with available data use at least one type of
examination (Table D6.2).
Examination requirements to enter first degree tertiary programmes
Examinations for candidates to first degree tertiary education are used for different purposes in the admission process.
In more than two-thirds of the countries and economies with available data, tests or examinations, whether
national/central examinations, standardised tests at upper secondary level or tertiary programme entrance
examinations are compulsory for entering at least some fields of study in public tertiary institutions (Table D6.2).
Admission systems for public tertiary institutions use national or central examinations in 18 countries and economies,
but for different purposes. In 15 of them, candidates are required to pass the examination to meet the minimum
eligibility criteria for applying to any first degree tertiary programme (Figure D6.4). The exceptions are Denmark,
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
449
Estonia and New Zealand, where it is only compulsory for some candidates, but the results might be considered in the
application process for other candidates either in all cases or at the discretion of tertiary institutions (Table D6.2).
Entrance examinations are used in 13 countries and economies but are mostly not a compulsory requirement for
access to first degree tertiary programmes except in Brazil and Spain. In both these countries all candidates’ results
are considered during the application process for first degree programmes, however in Brazil, there are three different
types of examination offering admission. Each educational institution independently determines how to allocate the
available places and the type of examination used to access those places. In some countries the results of these type
of examinations are considered in the application process while in others they are used only at the discretion of tertiary
institutions. Very few countries use the other two types of examinations for entry to public institutions (eight countries
use non-national non-standardised examinations and six use non-national standardised examinations). Among
countries that use only one type of examination, national or central examinations and entrance examinations are the
most common (Table D6.2).
Access to private institutions follow a similar pattern, with the only difference being that fewer countries and economies
use entrance examinations: eight report using entrance examinations for admission to independent private institutions,
compared to 13 for admission to public institutions (Table D6.2).
Although all types of examinations play a central role in admissions to first degree tertiary programmes (in both public
and private institutions), education systems may incorporate holistic criteria into their selection process. These might
be merit-based criteria (including candidates’ academic performance, candidates’ interviews, applicant letters or
recommendations) or based on candidates’ personal backgrounds. This diversity of criteria allows applicants to be
assessed more comprehensively (Box D6.2).
Figure D6.4. Purposes and uses of national/central examinations as admission criteria to tertiary
institutions (2024)
National/central examinations refer to examinations for students at the end of upper secondary level, OECD partner
and accession countries and other economies
Public Government-dependent private institutions Independent private institutions
16
14
Number of countries and economies
12
10
0
For all applicants For some For all applicants At the discretion of No Always Possible No Always Sometimes No
applicants tertiary institutions
Compulsory to get access Results are considered in Results are considered in Results used in decisions about
(as minimimum requirement) the application process selective tertiary insitutions scholarships or financial assistance
(minimum performance requirement) (assessment of differences in skills and performance)
Note: This figure only includes countries and other economies with available information. These did not provide answers for all categories.
For data, see Table D6.2. For a link to download the data, see Tables and Notes section.
Use of the results of examinations for decision on admission
In five countries with selective admission systems to public tertiary institutions (Denmark, Greece, Hungary, Lithuania
and Portugal) as well as in two with open admission systems where there are limited places in specific tertiary
programmes in public institutions (Israel and New Zealand), the results of national examinations are always considered
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
450
in admission decisions for selective institutions. In four further countries with a selective admission system to public
tertiary institutions (Brazil, Czechia, Estonia and Romania) and in the Netherlands, which has an open system,
examination results are considered at the discretion of individual tertiary institutions (Table D6.2).
Among countries using entrance examinations for selection process in the admission to first degree tertiary
programmes in public institutions, only four always use the results for selective institutions (Chile, Israel, Lithuania and
Spain), while in four others (Brazil, Luxembourg, Sweden, and the United States), the results are used at the discretion
of tertiary institutions. The results of non-national/standardised or non-national/non-standardised examinations are
mostly used at the discretion of public tertiary institutions (Table D6.2).
Use of results of examinations for decisions about scholarships or financial assistance
Examination results can play a role in decisions about the scholarships or financial aid that students receive, although
this is not consistent across all countries and all types of examination. In most countries and economies, the results of
national/central examinations are not considered in decisions to grant scholarships to applicants to either public or
private tertiary institutions. The results are sometimes or always considered as part of the criteria for financial
assistance in six countries which have both public and private institutions (Hungary, Israel, Italy, Lithuania,
New Zealand and Slovenia), in Romania (only for public institutions) and in England (United Kingdom) and Türkiye for
independent private institutions (Figure D6.4 and Table D6.2).
Similarly, in seven countries (Brazil, Chile, Israel, Korea, Lithuania, Luxembourg and the United States) the results of
entrance examinations to first degree tertiary programmes are sometimes or always used to determine funding support
for candidates to be enrolled in public tertiary institutions (or private institutions where these exist). In contrast, only in
Australia, England (United Kingdom) and Germany the results from non-national/central standardised examinations
may sometimes be used in decisions about scholarships or financial assistance to students, for public and/or private
institutions (Table D6.2).
Many tertiary systems implement a range of measures to support candidates for first degree tertiary programmes,
covering financial support for students, promoting different fields of study or under-represented groups, or other diverse
campaigns to ensure more equitable access to higher education (Box D6.3).
Box D6.2. Admissions criteria beyond examinations
Admissions to tertiary education can be based on multiple criteria beyond the results of examinations. These criteria
can be grouped into merit-based factors (academic performance, applicant letters, interviews, recommendations,
the results of foreign language proficiency tests or exceptional performance in well-known external competitions),
socio-economic background (ethnicity, family income or graduating from educational institutions in rural areas) and
other personal characteristics (health requirements, criminal records, past work experience, past service or
voluntary work). The use of these additional factors varies across education systems and reflects policy efforts to
promote equity and inclusive access to tertiary education.
The most common type of criteria used to determine entry into public tertiary institutions are merit-based criteria.
The most common of these is academic performance in secondary school, used by 24 out of 34 countries and
economies, with both open or selective admission systems. Other commonly used merit-based criteria are
candidate interviews, the results of foreign language proficiency tests and high achievements in well-known
external competitions, used by at least 18 countries each (Table D6.3).
A significant number of countries and economies consider candidates’ socio-economic and personal characteristics
when determining access to first degree programmes in public institutions. For instance, 9 countries take family
income into consideration and at least 14 countries use health requirement and past work experience (including
voluntary work) when selecting candidates (Table D6.3).
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
451
Multiple criteria may be considered as part of the admission process. In Australia, Israel, Korea, the Netherlands,
New Zealand and the United States, at least ten criteria (merit-based, socio-economic and personal
characteristics) are taken into account when selecting candidates for tertiary public institutions. At the other end of
the scale, Mexico, Norway and Spain only use one criterion – academic performance in secondary education –
while the Flemish and French Communities of Belgium and Switzerland take none of these criteria into account
(Table D6.3).
The criteria used in admission systems for government-dependent and independent private institutions do not differ
much from those used in public institutions. Academic performance in secondary school, candidate interviews and
the results of foreign language proficiency tests are also the most frequently used criteria in the admission process
to first degree programmes in private tertiary institutions (Table D6.3).
Box D6.3. Measures to reduce barriers and support participation in first degree tertiary
programmes
Governments use various initiatives to support or increase participation in first degree tertiary programmes, whether
this involves reducing the financial barriers related to tuition fees, providing financial support to students, or through
measures with other specific purposes. Figure D6.5 illustrates the use of a number of support measures designed
to promote access to tertiary education among countries and economies with available data.
Financial support to students is a common practice, with all countries and economies offering at least one of the
seven financial aid measures considered to some or all students. About half of the countries and economies with
available data (17 out of 36) use at least five different measures to financially support students. Scholarships and/or
grants are most widely employed, available to all students in more than one-third of countries and economies with
available data, and to at least some students in 21 of these countries (Figure D6.5 and Table D6.7, available on
line).
Figure D6.5. Measures to support and encourage students entering first degree tertiary
education (2024)
For data, see Table D6.7, available online. For a link to download the data, see Tables and Notes section.
Student loans and other support for living costs are also available in about two-thirds of the countries and
economies, while study allowances or stipends and means-based subsidies are available in more than half. Other
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
452
measures such as reduced tuition fees and tax allowances/reductions/credits are less widely used. Except for
Mexico, which only uses scholarships and other grants to households, all countries and economies implement
multiple measures to support at least some students financially. For all the measures considered, countries vary
as to whether they offer them to all students or just some of them (Figure D6.5 and Table D6.7 available on line).
Measures to reduce the financial barriers related to tuition fees are implemented by 31 out of 36 countries and
economies. Free or capped tuition fees are the most common of these measures, implemented in about 40% or
more countries and economies. In about one-quarter of these 31 countries and economies, these measures benefit
all students, whereas in the other 15%, they are only available to some. Among the 31 countries and economies
that reported having implemented any measures to mitigate tuition fees, two-thirds only implemented one
(Figure D6.5 and Table D6.7, available on line).
Campaigns to boost participation are also common and are implemented in more than half of the 36 countries and
economies with data. Of these, campaigns to promote of certain subjects or occupations are the most common,
used by nearly three-quarters of them. Campaigns to attract students to tertiary education in general, improve
gender equality and promote the participation of under-represented groups are used in at least 20 countries and
economies. Most of them implement several or even all of the measures considered, but six of them only use one
(Table D6.7, available on line).
Applicants and applications to first degree tertiary programmes
The total number of applicants to first degree of tertiary programmes depends on the size of the population in each
country, as well as the number of people who would like to enrol at this level and meet the minimum requirements to
apply. The total number of applications can also vary widely as the number made by a single applicant can vary across
countries, depending on whether there is a centralised application system or if candidates need to apply separately to
each tertiary institution (see above). Figures on the number of applicants and applications need to be interpreted with
caution. For example, in the Flemish Community of Belgium, the numbers of applicants and applications are not
available, as there is an open admission system for all programmes. Reporting the total number of applicants,
excluding duplications, may be difficult in systems where candidates apply directly to tertiary institutions. In Greece for
example, the total number of applicants does not exclude those who have already successfully applied to one
institution but have sat the compulsory national examination again in order to apply for a place in a different one. Which
institutions are considered may also introduce some biases in the data on the number of applicants. In Luxembourg
for instance, the data are limited to public institutions. In Lithuania, the number of applicants is based on data from all
public tertiary institutions but only those private ones that participate in the centralised admission system. For further
details see Education at a Glance 2025 Sources, Methodologies and Technical Notes
(https://doi.org/10.1787/fcfaf2d1-en)).
Number of applicants by acceptance status
There are 20 countries and economies with available data on the number of applicants to first degree tertiary
programmes (in public and private institutions combined). Of these 19 have data on the distribution of applicants by
acceptance status (whether the applicant received at least one offer and whether or not they have taken up the offer
and started studying). The proportion of accepted applicants (studying or not) varies widely across countries and
economies, ranging from just 34% of applicants in Scotland (United Kingdom) to 95% in France. In three-quarters of
countries and economies with available data, close to 60% (or more) of applicants are accepted, while in the remaining
quarter, less than half (42% or less) are, although those who are not accepted may apply and be accepted in later
years. The breakdown by acceptance status (whether studying or not) is not available in Slovenia, a country with a
high proportion of accepted applicants (8 out of 10 applicants are accepted) despite a selective admission system
(Figure D6.6).
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
453
The share of accepted applicants to first degree tertiary programmes who are studying exceeds 75% in Czechia,
France, Greece, the Slovak Republic and Spain. Despite having similarly high proportions of accepted applicants,
these countries’ admission systems differ widely. France has an open admission system with selection limited to some
fields of study or institutions (among public institutions, which account for most of the students). The Slovak Republic
also has an open admission system, but without any limited places for either fields of study or particular institutions.
Czechia, Greece and Spain operate selective admission systems with limitations on the number of places available in
different institutions or fields of study. At the other end of the scale, 35% (or less) of applicants are accepted and
studying in Finland, Scotland (United Kingdom) and Sweden, all of which have selective admission systems with limited
numbers of student places (Figure D6.6 and Table D6.4).
Figure D6.6. Share of applicants to first degree tertiary education who are accepted (2024)
Proportion of applicants accepted, not studying Proportion of applicants accepted and studying Proportion of applicants accepted (studying or not)
%
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
1. Year of reference: 2023.
For data, see Table D6.4. For a link to download the data, see Tables and Notes section.
The share of applicants who are accepted but not studying ranges from 1% in Spain to 27% in Norway. In most
countries accepted applicants are significantly more likely to be studying than not, with the difference between the two
groups exceeding 15 percentage points (Figure D6.6 and Table D6.4).
In all countries and economies with available data on applicants by gender, there are more female applicants than
male applicants. The share of female applicants varies from 51% (in Luxembourg) to 71% (in the Flemish Community
of Belgium). The highest shares of female applicants are in Australia, Estonia, the Flemish Community of Belgium,
Lithuania and Sweden, where at least six out of ten applicants are women. The proportion of male and female
applicants is nearly equal in a few countries (Finland, France and Luxembourg). Among the rest, most applicants are
women (at least 55%), and the gap between female and male applicants is not more than 17 percentage points
(Table D6.4). As women comprised 56% of first-time entrants into tertiary education across OECD countries in 2022
and constitute a majority of new entrants in every OECD country [see Chapter B4 in (OECD, 2024[1])], the proportion
of applicants who are accepted and studying is similar for men and women.
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
454
Number of applications by their results
The proportion of accepted applications (i.e. applications resulting in an offer for a student place in the chosen field of
study) also varies widely, from 8% in Sweden to around 80% in Slovenia. In slightly less than half of countries and
economies with available data, one in two applications are accepted. The lowest proportions of accepted applications
are observed in Chile (9%), Hungary (22%) and the Nordic countries of Denmark (28%), Norway (17%) and Sweden
(8%). In these three Nordic countries, this results from the fact that applicants can only receive one offer of admission,
regardless of the number of applications. Most of these have a selective admission system limiting places for at least
some fields of study. Norway is the only country in this group with an open admission system, but it limits the number
of students places in all fields of study and all tertiary institutions. Conversely, in England (United Kingdom), Israel,
Luxembourg, the Slovak Republic and Slovenia, at least six out of ten applications are accepted. However, no patterns
are apparent for the admission systems or limits on places within institutions or fields of study among these countries
and economies. Nevertheless, in some countries applicants can submit a large number of applications, but can only
be accepted to a limited number of these applications, which can explain some of the differences between countries
(Table D6.4).
In slightly over half of the countries and economies with available data on the distribution of applications by field of
study, health and welfare receives the largest proportions of applications. In the Flemish Community of Belgium this
field (which combines applicants for medicine and dentistry) receives nearly all applications, accounting for at least 9
out of 10 applications. In the majority of countries and economies, at least one in five applications are directed to this
field. Business, administration and law is the broad field of study receiving the second largest share of applications,
accounting for at least one in ten applications across all countries (Table D6.4).
Definitions
The application process refers to the process by which applicants express their interest in enrolling in a tertiary
programme through the submission of applications.
An applicant is individual who makes a formal application to enrol in at least one first degree tertiary programme.
An application is a form or collection of forms that an applicant uses to apply for enrolment in a specific tertiary
programme.
A standardised examination or test refers to a test that is administered and scored under uniform conditions across
different schools so that students’ scores are directly comparable. In some cases, it also refers to multiple choice or
fixed answer questions as this makes it easy to score the test uniformly. However, with the use of rubrics and the
calibration of test examiners (who manually score open-ended responses), standardised tests can go beyond multiple
choice and fixed answers.
National/central examinations are standardised tests that have a formal consequence for students, such as their
eligibility to progress to a higher level of education or to complete an officially recognised degree. They assess a major
portion of what students are expected to know or be able to do in a given subject. Examinations differ from
assessments in terms of their purpose. National assessments are mandatory but, unlike examinations, they do not
have an effect on students’ progression or certification.
Other (non-national/central) standardised examinations are standardised tests that are administered and scored
under uniform conditions across different schools at the state/territorial/provincial/regional or local level so that student
scores are directly comparable.
Entrance examinations are examinations not administered by upper secondary schools that are typically used to
determine, or help to determine, access to tertiary programmes. These examinations can be devised and/or graded at
the institutional level (i.e. by individual tertiary institutions or a consortium of tertiary institutions), or by private
companies.
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
455
First degree tertiary programmes refer to first degree bachelor's programmes or applied higher education
programmes and first degree master's programmes as defined in ISCED 2011.
Open admission: An open or unselective admission system (as opposed to a selective system) to tertiary
programmes refers to a system in which all applicants with the required minimum attainment level can enrol in the
programme, without the need to meet other criteria.
A selective system to tertiary programmes refers to a system in which all applicants are not guaranteed a place in a
tertiary programme. In a selective system, a selection process may take place in which tertiary institutions select
applicants based on certain set of criteria. In a selective system, there are a fixed, limited number of student places
available (i.e. numerus clausus).
Public tertiary institution: An institution is classified as public if it is: 1) controlled and managed directly by a public
education authority or agency of the country where it is located; or 2) controlled and managed by a government agency
directly or by a governing body (council, committee etc.), most of whose members are either appointed by a public
authority of the country where it is located or elected by public franchise.
A government-dependent private tertiary institution is one that either receives at least 50% of its core funding from
government agencies or one whose teaching personnel are paid by a government agency – either directly or through
government
An independent private tertiary institution is one that receives less than 50% of its core funding from government
agencies and whose teaching personnel are not paid by a government agency.
Methodology
This chapter is based on a survey on application and admission to first degree tertiary programmes that captured
qualitative information on application and admission systems to first degree tertiary programmes and the number of
applicants and applications to these programmes. Thirty-six OECD and partner countries and economies contributed
to this survey (Australia, Austria, Brazil, Chile, Czechia, Denmark, England [United Kingdom], Estonia, Finland, France,
the Flemish and French Communities of Belgium, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Israel, Italy, Japan, Korea, Lithuania,
Luxembourg, Mexico, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Scotland [United
Kingdom], the Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Türkiye and the United States).
For more information please see the OECD Handbook for Internationally Comparable Education Statistics (OECD,
2018[3]) and Education at a Glance 2025 Sources, Methodologies and Technical Notes
((https://doi.org/10.1787/fcfaf2d1-en).
Sources
Data presented in this chapter are from the 2024 OECD-NESLI survey on application and admission to first degree
tertiary programmes data collection and refer to the academic year 2023/24 (or the academic year 2024) for both
qualitative information on admission systems and quantitative data on the number of applicants and applications.
References
OECD (2024), Education at a Glance 2024: OECD Indicators, OECD Publishing, Paris, [1]
https://doi.org/10.1787/c00cad36-en.
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
456
OECD (2022), Education at a Glance 2022: OECD Indicators, OECD Publishing, Paris, [2]
https://doi.org/10.1787/3197152b-en.
OECD (2018), OECD Handbook for Internationally Comparative Education Statistics 2018: Concepts, [3]
Standards, Definitions and Classifications, OECD Publishing, Paris,
https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264304444-en.
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
457
Tables and Notes
Chapter D6 Tables
Table D6.1 Organisation of the admission system and application process to first degree tertiary programmes (2024)
Table D6.2 Type of examinations used to determine entry/admission into first degree tertiary programmes (2024)
Table D6.3 Additional criteria used for admission to first degree tertiary programmes (2024)
Table D6.4 Distribution of applicants and applications to first degree tertiary programmes (2024)
WEB Table D6.5 Responsible authority for admission criteria and minimum eligibility requirements for first degree tertiary programmes entry
(2024)
WEB Table D6.6 Characteristics of examinations to determine entry/admission into first degree tertiary programmes (2024)
WEB Table D6.7 Government measures to support/increase participation in first degree tertiary programmes (2024)
StatLink 2 https://stat.link/ralvtj
Data Download
To download the data for the figures and tables in this chapter, click StatLink above.
To access further data and/or other education indicators, please visit the OECD Data Explorer: https://data-
explorer.oecd.org/.
Data cut-off for the print publication 13 June 2025. Please note that the Data Explorer contains the most recent
data.
Notes for Tables
Table D6.1. Organisation of the admission system and application process to first degree tertiary programmes
(2024)
Note: Columns showing the authority responsible for setting limitations (Columns 3 and 5), the alternative routes
available (Columns 12 to 15), information related to government-dependent private institutions (Columns 16 to 30) and
information related to independent private institutions (Columns 31 to 45) are available for consultation on line.
1. Year of reference: 2023.
Table D6.2. Type of examinations used to determine entry/admission into first degree tertiary programmes
(2024)
Note: Columns showing whether results are used in decisions about scholarships or financial assistance (Columns 5,
9, 13 and 17), information related to government-dependent private institutions (Columns 18 to 34) and information
related to independent private institutions (Columns 35 to 51) are available for consultation on line. When referring to
the results considered in the application process, "Only at instit. discr" means that these results may be considered at
the discretion of individual tertiary educational institutions. When referrring to the resuls considered in the selection
process (for selective systems), "Only at instit. discr" means that there is a possibility these are taken into account by
individual selective tertiary educational institutions.
1. Year of reference: 2023.
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
458
2. There are two different "first degree tertiary programme entrance examinations", Further information is
available in Table D6.6.
Table D6.3. Additional criteria used for admission to first degree tertiary programmes (2024)
Note: Columns showing information on other merit-based criteria, other socio-economic circumstances of applicants,
other characteristics of applicant taken into consideration for admission to students places in first degree tertiary
programmes in public institutions (Columns 7, 11 and 16), information related to government-dependent private
institutions (Columns 17 to 32) and information related to independent private institutions (Columns 33 to 48) as well
as rows showing the data for graduates from vocational upper secondary programmes are available for consultation
on line.
1. Year of reference: 2023.
Table D6.4. Distribution of applicants and applications to first degree tertiary programmes (2024)
Note: Columns showing applicants by gender (Columns 4 and 5) are available for consultation on line.
1. Year of reference: 2023.
2. The distribution of applicants by gender does not add up to 100% as a small proportion of applicants cannot
be classified by gender.
3. The distribution of applicants by gender includes those who have withdrawn their applications (they are
excluded from the distribution of applicants by their acceptance status).
4. The distribution of applications by field of study does not add up to 100% as some applications cannot be
classified by field of study.
5. The field of information and communication technologies is included in all other fields of study.
6. The distributions of applicants and applications by acceptance status do not add up to 100% as some
applications or applicants cannot be classified by acceptance status.
Control codes
a – category not applicable; b – break in series; d – contains data from another column; m – missing data; x – contained
in another column (indicated in brackets). For further control codes, see the Reader’s Guide.
For further methodological information, see Education at a Glance 2025: Sources, Methodologies and Technical Notes
(https://doi.org/10.1787/fcfaf2d1-en).
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
459
Table D6.1. Organisation of the admission system and application process for first degree tertiary
programmes (2024)
Public institutions
Organisation of the admission system
Fixed or limited number of student places
(selective institutions)
Existence of limitations on number of student places
Existence Model used to distribute Model used to fund
of open admissions By tertiary institution student places degree programmes
OECD countries (1) (2) (4) (6) (7)
Australia1 No No, for some Yes, for all Mixed model Mixed model
Austria Yes, some progr. No, for some No Central allocation Central allocation
Canada m m m m m
Chile No Yes, for all Yes, for all Market distribution Mixed model
Colombia m m m m m
Costa Rica m m m m m
Czechia No Yes, for all Yes, for all Other Other
Denmark No No, for some No Central allocation Central allocation
Estonia No Other Other Mixed model Mixed model
Finland No Yes, for all Yes, for all Other Central allocation
France Yes, some progr. No, for some No, for some Central allocation Mixed model
Germany Yes, some progr. No, for some No Central allocation Central allocation
Greece No Yes, for all Yes, for all Central allocation Central allocation
Hungary No Yes, for all No, for some Central allocation Mixed model
Iceland m m m m m
Ireland m m m m m
Israel Yes, all progr. No, for some Yes, for all Central allocation Central allocation
Italy Yes, some progr. No, for some No Central allocation Mixed model
Japan m Yes, for all Yes, for all Other Mixed model
Korea No No, for some Yes, for all Mixed model Mixed model
Latvia m m m m m
Lithuania No Yes, for all Yes, for all Mixed model Mixed model
Luxembourg No Yes, for all a Market distribution Mixed model
Mexico Yes, all progr. Yes, for all Yes, for all Market distribution Market distribution
Netherlands Yes, some progr. No No Other Central allocation
New Zealand Yes, some progr. No, for some Other Mixed model Mixed model
Norway Yes, some progr. Yes, for all Yes, for all Mixed model Central allocation
Poland Yes, some progr. Other No, for some Other Other
Portugal No Yes, for all Yes, for all Central allocation Mixed model
Slovak Republic Yes, some progr. No a Mixed model Mixed model
Slovenia No Yes, for all Yes, for all Central allocation Central allocation
Spain No Yes, for all Yes, for all m Central allocation
Sweden No Yes, for all Yes, for all Mixed model Central allocation
Switzerland Yes, some progr. No, for some No Market distribution Central allocation
Türkiye No Yes, for all Yes, for all Central allocation Central allocation
United States Yes, some progr. No, for some No, for some Market distribution Mixed model
Other economies
Flemish Comm. (Belgium)1 Yes, some progr. No, for some No Other Mixed model
French Comm. (Belgium) Yes, all progr. No, for some No a Mixed model
England (UK) a a a a a
Scotland (UK)1 a a a a a
Partner and/or accession countries
Argentina m m m m m
Brazil No Yes, for all Yes, for all m Central allocation
Bulgaria m m m m m
China m m m m m
Croatia m m m m m
India m m m m m
Indonesia m m m m m
Peru m m m m m
Romania No Yes, for all Yes, for all Mixed model Central allocation
Saudi Arabia m m m m m
South Africa m m m m m
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
460
Public institutions
Application process Alternative pathways to access
tertiary education
In the case of centralised systems
Existence
(i.e. for applicants who are
Maximum number returning to education, with special
Type of admission/ of preferences an applicant Maximum number needs, refugee status and/or
application system can specify of offers an applicant can receive exceptional talent)
OECD countries (8) (9) (10) (11)
Australia1 Centralised and direct to institutions a a yes
Austria Direct to institutions a a yes
Canada m m m m
Chile Centralised 20 a yes
Colombia m m m m
Costa Rica m m m m
Czechia Direct to institutions a a yes
Denmarkw Centralised 8 1 No
Estonia Centralised Other m yes
Finland Centralised 6 6 yes
France Centralised and direct to institutions 10 10 yes
Germany Centralised and direct to institutions 12 1 yes
Greece Centralised No limit a yes
Hungary Centralised 6 1 a
Iceland m m m m
Ireland m m m m
Israel Direct to institutions a a yes
Italy Direct to institutions a a No
Japan Direct to institutions a a yes
Korea Centralised and direct to institutions 9 No limit yes
Latvia m m m m
Lithuania Centralised and direct to institutions 9 1 yes
Luxembourg Direct to institutions a a yes
Mexico Direct to institutions a a No
Netherlands Centralised 4 4 yes
New Zealand Direct to institutions a a yes
Norway Centralised 10 1 yes
Poland Direct to institutions a a No
Portugal Centralised and direct to institutions 6 1 yes
Slovak Republic Direct to institutions a a No
Slovenia Centralised 3 1 yes
Spain Centralised Other 1 yes
Sweden Centralised 12 Other yes
Switzerland Direct to institutions a a No
Türkiye Centralised 24 a yes
United States Direct to institutions a a m
Other economies
Flemish Comm. (Belgium)1 Direct to institutions a a yes
French Comm. (Belgium) Direct to institutions a a yes
England (UK) a a a a
Scotland (UK)1 a a a a
Partner and/or accession countries
Argentina m m m m
Brazil Centralised and direct to institutions 1 1 yes
Bulgaria m m m m
China m m m m
Croatia m m m m
India m m m m
Indonesia m m m m
Peru m m m m
Romania Direct to institutions a a yes
Saudi Arabia m m m m
South Africa m m m m
Note: For notes on this table and a link to download the data, see Tables and Notes section above.
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
461
Table D6.2. Type of examinations used to determine admission to first degree tertiary programmes
(2024)
Public institutions
First degree tertiary programme Non-national/central Non-national/central
National/central examination entrance examinations standardised examinations non-standardised examinations
Maximum number of types
Compulsory requirement
Compulsory requirement
Compulsory requirement
Compulsory requirement
in the selection process
in the selection process
in the selection process
in the selection process
the application process
the application process
the application process
the application process
(minimum performance
(minimum performance
(minimum performance
(minimum performance
Results considered in
Results considered in
Results considered in
Results considered in
of examinations used
Results considered
Results considered
Results considered
Results considered
requirements)
requirements)
requirements)
requirements)
(for selective
(for selective
(for selective
(for selective
institutions)
institutions)
institutions)
institutions)
for access
for access
for access
for access
OECD countries (1) (2) (3) (4) (6) (7) (8) (10) (11) (12) (14) (15) (16)
Australia1 1 a a a a a a No Only for some Yes, always a a a
Austria 2 Yes No No a a a a a a No No Yes, always
Canada m m m m m m m m m m m m m
Chile 1 a a a No Only for some Yes, always a a a a a a
Colombia m m m m m m m m m m m m m
Costa Rica m m m m m m m m m m m m m
Czechia 3 Yes Yes, for all Only at instit. a a a No No Only at instit. No No Only at instit.
discr. discr. discr.
Denmark 1 No Yes, for all Yes, always a a a a a a a a a
Only at instit. Only at instit. Only at instit. Only at instit.
Estonia 2 No discr. discr. a a a a a a No discr. discr.
Finland 3 Yes Yes, for all m a a a Yes Yes, for all m a a a
France 1 Yes Yes, for all No a a a a a a a a a
Germany 3 a a a a a a Yes Yes, for all Yes, always a a a
Greece 1 Yes Yes, for all Yes, always a a a a a a a a a
Hungary 1 Yes Yes, for all Yes, always a a a a a a a a a
Iceland m m m m m m m m m m m m m
Ireland m m m m m m m m m m m m m
Israel 2 Yes Yes, for all Yes, always No Yes, for all Yes, always a a a a a a
Italy 2 Yes Yes, for all No No Only for some No a a a a a a
Japan 2 a a a No m m a a a No m m
Korea 1 a a a No Only at instit. a a a a a a a
discr.
Latvia m m m m m m m m m m m m m
Lithuania 2 Yes Yes, for all Yes, always No Only for some Yes, always a a a a a a
Luxembourg 2 a a a No a Only at instit. a a a a a a
discr.
Mexico m a a a a a a a a a a a a
Netherlands 1 Yes Yes, for all Only at instit. a a a a a a a a a
discr.
Only at instit. Only at instit. Only at instit. Only at instit. Only at instit.
New Zealand 3 No discr. Yes, always a a a No discr. discr. No discr. discr.
Norway 1 a a a a a a a a a No Only for some Yes, always
Poland a a a a a a a a a a a a a
Portugal 1 Yes Yes, for all Yes, always a a a a a a a a a
Slovak Republic 1 a a a a a a a a a No Only for some Only at instit.
discr.
Slovenia 2 Yes Yes, for all a a a a a a a a a a
Spain 1 a a a Yes Yes, for all Yes, always a a a a a a
Sweden 1 a a a No No Only at instit. a a a a a a
discr.
Switzerland 1 a a a a a a Yes Yes, for all No a a a
Türkiye 2 Yes Yes, for all a a a a a a a Yes Yes, for all a
Only at instit. Only at instit.
United States 2 a a a No discr. discr. a a a a a a
Other economies
Flemish Comm. (Belgium)1 2 a a a No Yes, for all a a a a a a a
French Comm. (Belgium) 1 a a a No No No a a a a a a
England (UK) a a a a a a a a a a a a a
Scotland (UK)1 a a a a a a a a a a a a a
Partner and/or accession countries
Argentina m m m m m m m m m m m m m
Only at instit. Only at instit.
Brazil2 3 Yes Yes, for all discr. Yes Yes, for all discr. a a a a a a
Bulgaria m m m m m m m m m m m m m
China m m m m m m m m m m m m m
Croatia m m m m m m m m m m m m m
India m m m m m m m m m m m m m
Indonesia m m m m m m m m m m m m m
Peru m m m m m m m m m m m m m
Romania 1 Yes Yes, for all Only at instit. a a a a a a a a a
discr.
Saudi Arabia m m m m m m m m m m m m m
South Africa m m m m m m m m m m m m m
Note: For notes on this table and a link to download the data, see Tables and Notes section above.
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
462
Table D6.3. Additional criteria used for admission to first degree tertiary programmes (2024)
Public institutions (graduates from general upper secondary programmes)
Merit-based criteria
Academic performance Results
during secondary Applicant letter of foreign language High achievements in
(or post-secondary) or written rationale distinguished external
education to justify admission Interviews Recommendations (e.g. TOEFL, IELTS) competitions
OECD countries (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
Australia1 Yes, for some Yes, for some Yes, for some Yes, for some a a
Austria No Yes, for some No No Yes, for some No
Canada m m m m m m
Chile Yes, for all No No No No Yes, for some
Colombia m m m m m m
Costa Rica m m m m m m
Czechia Yes, for some Yes, for some Yes, for some No Yes, for some Yes, for some
Denmark Yes, for all Yes, for all Yes, for all Yes, for all No No
Estonia Yes, for all Yes, for some Yes, for some No Yes, for some Yes, for some
Finland No No Yes, for some No Yes, for some m
France Yes, for all Yes, for all No No No No
Germany Yes, for all Yes, for some Yes, for some No Yes, for some Yes, for some
Greece No No No No No Yes, for all
Hungary Yes, for all No Yes, for some No Yes, for some Yes, for some
Iceland m m m m m m
Ireland m m m m m m
Israel No Yes, for some Yes, for some Yes, for some Yes, for all No
Italy No a a a No No
Japan Yes, for all Yes, for all Yes, for all Yes, for all Yes, for some Yes, for some
Korea Yes, for some Yes, for some Yes, for some Yes, for some Yes, for some Yes, for some
Latvia m m m m m m
Lithuania Yes, for all No Yes, for some No Yes, for some Yes, for all
Luxembourg Yes, for all Yes, for all Yes, for some No Yes, for all Yes, for all
Mexico Yes, for all a a a a a
Netherlands Yes, for some Yes, for some Yes, for some Yes, for some Yes, for some Yes, for some
New Zealand Yes, for some Yes, for some Yes, for some Yes, for some Yes, for some Yes, for some
Norway Yes, for all m m m m m
Poland No No No No No Yes, for some
Portugal Yes, for all No Yes, for all No No No
Slovak Republic Yes, for all No No No Yes, for some Yes, for some
Slovenia Yes, for all No No No Yes, for some No
Spain Yes, for all No No No No No
Sweden Yes, for all Yes, for some Yes, for some Yes, for some Yes, for some Yes, for some
Switzerland No No No No No No
Türkiye Yes, for all No No No No Yes, for all
United States Yes, for some Yes, for some Yes, for some Yes, for some Yes, for some Yes, for some
Other economies
Flemish Comm. (Belgium)1 No No No No No No
French Comm. (Belgium) No No No No No No
England (UK) a a a a a a
Scotland (UK)1 a a a a a a
Partner and/or accession countries
Argentina m m m m m m
Brazil No No No No No No
Bulgaria m m m m m m
China m m m m m m
Croatia m m m m m m
India m m m m m m
Indonesia m m m m m m
Peru m m m m m m
Romania Yes, for some Yes, for some Yes, for some Yes, for some Yes, for some Yes, for all
Saudi Arabia m m m m m m
South Africa m m m m m m
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
463
Public institutions (graduates from general upper secondary programmes)
Socio-economic circumstances of applicant Characteristics of applicant
Applicants
Family income graduating
of applicant from educational
Ethnicity of (or proof institutions Past work Past service or
applicant in rural areas Health requirements Criminal records experience volunteer work
OECD countries (8) (9) (10) (12) (13) (14) (15)
Australia1 a Yes, for some Yes, for some Yes, for all Yes, for some Yes, for some Yes, for some
Austria No No No No No No No
Canada m m m m m m m
Chile Yes, for some No No No No No No
Colombia m m m m m m m
Costa Rica m m m m m m m
Czechia No No No Yes, for some Yes, for some Yes, for some Yes, for some
Denmark No No No No No Yes, for all Yes, for all
Estonia No No No Yes, for some Yes, for some No Yes, for some
Finland No No No a a No No
France No Yes, for some No No No No No
Germany No No No No No Yes, for some Yes, for some
Greece No No No Yes, for some No No No
Hungary No Yes, for all No Yes, for some No Yes, for some Yes, for some
Iceland m m m m m m m
Ireland m m m m m m m
Israel Yes, for some Yes, for some Yes, for some No No Yes, for some Yes, for some
Italy Yes, for some Yes, for all m No No No No
Japan No No No m m Yes, for all Yes, for all
Korea Yes, for some Yes, for some Yes, for some Yes, for some No Yes, for some Yes, for some
Latvia m m m m m m m
Lithuania No No No Yes, for some No Yes, for all Yes, for all
Luxembourg No No No No No No No
Mexico No No No No No No No
Netherlands No No No Yes, for some Yes, for some Yes, for some Yes, for some
New Zealand Yes, for some Yes, for some Yes, for some Yes, for some Yes, for some Yes, for some Yes, for some
Norway No No No No No No No
Poland No No No Yes, for some No No No
Portugal No No No Yes, for some No No No
Slovak Republic No No No No No No No
Slovenia No No No No No No No
Spain No No No No No No No
Sweden No No No No No Yes, for some Yes, for some
Switzerland No No No No No No No
Türkiye No No No Yes, for some Yes, for all No No
United States Yes, for some Yes, for some Yes, for some Yes, for some Yes, for some Yes, for some Yes, for some
Other economies
Flemish Comm. (Belgium)1 No No No No No No No
French Comm. (Belgium) No No No No No No No
England (UK) a a a a a a a
Scotland (UK)1 a a a a a a a
Partner and/or accession countries
Argentina m m m m m m m
Brazil Yes, for some Yes, for some m Yes, for some No No No
Bulgaria m m m m m m m
China m m m m m m m
Croatia m m m m m m m
India m m m m m m m
Indonesia m m m m m m m
Peru m m m m m m m
Romania No No No No No No No
Saudi Arabia m m m m m m m
South Africa m m m m m m m
Note: For notes on this table and a link to download the data, see Tables and Notes section above
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
464
Table D6.4. Distribution of applicants and applications to first degree tertiary programmes (2024)
In per cent
Distribution of applicants
to first degree tertiary
programmes (including
international students) Distribution of applications to first degree tertiary programmes
Applications
Applicants by acceptance
by acceptance status status
Natural sciences,
mathematics and
and construction
programmes and
Social sciences,
Information and
communication
journalism and
manufacturing
administration
and veterinary
and studying
technologies
Engineering,
Applications
Applications
not studying
Agriculture,
information
humanities
Applicants
Applicants
Applicants
Health and
Education
Business,
accepted,
statistics
accepted
accepted
Services
Arts and
rejected
rejected
Generic
and law
welfare
(ICT)
OECD countries (1) (2) (3) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) (15) (16) (17) (18)
Australia1, 2 m m m m m a 9 12 9 15 8 4 9 2 31 1
Austria m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m
Canada m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m
Chile 53 18 29 9 91 0 6 3 12 14 3 3 13 4 41 1
Colombia m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m
Costa Rica m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m
Czechia1 79 4 17 57 43 a 17 10 8 17 5 5 8 3 21 4
Denmark 3 55 22 22 28 72 a 3 10 13 23 5 5 12 1 26 1
Estonia 45 18 37 49 51 a 10 10 9 16 7 7 13 3 17 8
Finland 2 29 12 59 m m a 3 7 5 26 2 12 14 2 24 5
France 83 13 5 37 63 m m m m m m m m m m m
Germany m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m
Greece 87 3 10 m m m m m m m m m m m m m
Hungary 60 6 34 22 78 m m m m m m m m m m m
Iceland m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m
Ireland m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m
Israel 65 14 21 76 24 0 4 8 15 21 6 13 16 0 17 m
Italy m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m
Japan 4, 5 m m m m m a 4 15 10 26 4 x 20 3 11 1d
Korea4 m m m m m a 4 17 7 11 7 7 20 2 19 6
Latvia m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m
Lithuania 62 13 25 45 55 a 7 8 12 24 4 7 13 3 19 4
Luxembourg 46 18 36 60 40 a 13 9 16 22 8 16 5 a 11 a
Mexico m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m
Netherlands m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m
New Zealand m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m
Norway 43 27 30 17 83 a 9 7 15 18 4 7 9 1 25 5
Poland m m m 36 64 m m m m m m m m m m m
Portugal m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m
Slovak Republic 76 10 14 65 35 a 12 7 15 15 6 7 9 2 21 5
Slovenia6 81 d x(1) 19 80 20 m m m m m m m m m m m
Spain 79 1 20 14 a a 10 6 10 14 9 4 13 1 29 3
Sweden 35 4 61 8 92 a 9 6 16 18 3 7 17 1 23 1
Switzerland m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m
Türkiye 59 m m m m 10 7 6 9 25 4 1 16 3 19 2
United States m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m
Other economies
Flemish Comm. (Belgium)1 40 2 58 40 60 a a a a a a a a 8 92 a
French Comm. (Belgium) m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m
England (UK) 69 m m 67 33 0 2 16 18 19 12 6 8 1 19 a
Scotland (UK) 34 a 66 56 44 0 7 16 11 13 12 7 8 1 23 1
OECD average m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m
Partner and/or accession countries
Argentina m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m
Brazil m m m m m 1 14 3 7 27 1 8 8 4 25 3
Bulgaria m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m
China m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m
Croatia m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m
India m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m
Indonesia m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m
Peru m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m
Romania m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m
Saudi Arabia m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m
South Africa m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m
EU25 average m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m
G20 average m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m
Note: For notes on this table and a link to download the data, see Tables and Notes section above.
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
465
Chapter D7. How much are academic
staff in tertiary institutions paid?
Highlights
• Average actual salaries of all tertiary staff on academic career tracks are similar to the earnings of tertiary-
educated workers, but differences vary by seniority. On average, the earnings of junior staff are 18% below
those for tertiary educated workers, while those for senior staff are 50% above it.
• Among the 18 countries and economies with available information, the statutory salaries of tertiary
academic staff vary widely within systems. On average, maximum salaries are more than two times higher
than minimum salaries (USD 103 519 compared with USD 39 847).
• In most countries, salaries are decided by central authorities, which usually set statutory salaries, or by
institutions themselves. The countries and economies where salary decisions are made by tertiary
institutions or other local authorities tend not to have statutory salaries for academic staff.
Context
Over recent decades, enrolment in tertiary education programmes has risen substantially across OECD countries,
driving increased investment in higher education systems. This expansion has placed growing demands on
institutions to build and maintain infrastructure, enhance academic offerings and, most critically, attract and retain
a highly qualified academic workforce. As highlighted in Chapters C1 and C5, these trends are reflected in rising
expenditure on tertiary education, with staff salaries representing the largest single component of education
expenditure.
In this context, the competitiveness of academic salaries plays a central role in ensuring that institutions can recruit
and retain high-quality educators and researchers. Although salary levels are a key determinant in career decisions,
they are only part of a broader equation. The appeal of an academic career also depends on factors such as
research autonomy, recognition and collaboration opportunities, and the balance between teaching, research and
administrative responsibilities. Nevertheless, as policy makers and the public increasingly scrutinise the
sustainability of tertiary education systems, understanding salary structures and trends is essential to addressing
long-term workforce planning and academic excellence.
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
466
Figure D7.1. Decision-making levels determining academic staff salaries, by tertiary education
level and staff categories (2023)
Central/State Prov/Reg Institution More than one Collective Individual Missing Not applicable
Number of countries and other economies
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
On academic career track
Short-cycle tertiary
Not on academic career track
Bachelor's, masters and doctoral or
On academic career track
equivalent
Not on academic career track
Who determines salaries
Central/State = Central/state government or top-level authorities
Prov/Reg = Provincial/regional authorities or sub-regional/inter-municipal authorities
Local = Local authorities
Institutions = tertiary institutions
More than one = More than one authority level
Collective = Collective agreement
Individual = Individual negotiation
For data, see Table D7.1. For a link to download the data, see Tables and Notes section.
Other findings
• On average across OECD countries and economies, actual salaries range from USD 61 958 for junior
staff, to USD 73 682 for intermediate staff and USD 108 255 for senior staff. Staff not on an academic
career track tend to earn less. In six out of ten countries with data available, their salaries are lower than
those of junior academic staff.
• Actual salaries are slightly higher for men than women on average across countries with available data.
However, the gender gap among staff at the same seniority level is usually small and does not exceed
10%. For all tertiary academic staff combined, the difference in actual salaries between men and women
is larger, suggesting that men tend to hold more senior positions and hence earn higher salaries.
• In contrast to teachers in primary and secondary levels, the compensation structure for academic staff
incorporates additional allowances related to personal performance and academic output, since additional
responsibilities for research and administration are more common.
Note
Statutory salaries are just one component of the total compensation of tertiary academic staff. Other benefits, such
as regional allowances for teaching in remote areas, family allowances, reduced rates on public transport and tax
allowances on the purchase of instructional materials may also form part of their total remuneration. In addition,
there are large differences in taxation and social benefits systems across OECD countries. There can also be
substantial variation in salary scales at subnational level in some countries, based on local factors such as the cost
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
467
of living. This should be kept in mind when analysing salaries and making cross-country comparisons, along with
potential comparability issues related to the data collected (Education at a Glance 2025 Sources, Methodologies
and Technical Notes - (https://doi.org/10.1787/fcfaf2d1-en)) and the fact that the data collected only cover public
institutions.
All figures expressed in USD are converted from national currencies based on exchange rates that are adjusted
for differences in purchasing power across countries (see Methodology section).
Analysis
Salaries of tertiary academic staff can vary according to different factors, including their experience and their level of
responsibilities. These elements also reflect the seniority of their position (Box D7.1). Their field of expertise and the
type of tertiary institutions where they teach can also influence compensation; for example, prestigious tertiary
institutions may offer higher pay. Performance and contributions to research and publications are also key for
progression and promotion to higher grades or more senior positions and may further differentiate salaries. These
factors distinguish academic teaching careers from those at lower levels of education, where salary levels mostly
depend on how long they have been teaching.
As in primary and secondary levels of education (see Chapter D3), academic attainment can play a role in determining
the level of salaries but tends to have less of an impact than at lower levels, as most academic staff in tertiary education
have a doctorate or are enrolled in a doctoral programme.
This comparative analysis focuses on staff in public tertiary institutions whose main activity is teaching (by organising
or conducting activities related to furthering students’ knowledge). It excludes tertiary staff mostly involved in research
activities and those working in tertiary private institutions.
Box D7.1. Categories of tertiary academic staff
Whereas base salaries of primary and secondary teachers in public institutions are mostly related to the number
of years of experience of teachers and their qualification levels (see Chapter D3), the structures for determining
the salaries of tertiary staff with some teaching responsibilities are markedly different across countries. As is the
case for primary and secondary teachers, countries use national salary schedules as a basis for determining the
salaries of tertiary staff with teaching (and research) activities but in many countries and economies, individual
institutions also have the ability to modify these payment levels. The criteria used to set tertiary staff salaries include
educational attainment and length of experience, but also academic rank, field(s) of instruction and research
experience.
To ensure the comparability of information on salaries of tertiary staff, data on salaries have been collected based
on an agreed international classification of tertiary staff involved in instruction activities. This classification takes
into consideration differences in the types of positions or grades across countries (based on the educational
attainment, main functions, status and career perspectives, and compensation) and also the availability of data in
order to avoid having such narrow categories that information would only be available from a few countries.
This classification includes different categories of staff involved in instruction, primarily distinguishing between
tertiary academic staff and teaching and research assistants. Within the academic staff category, junior,
intermediate and senior staff are distinguished from employed doctoral candidates and from academic staff not on
an academic career track:
• Junior: Entry grades/posts into which an individual would normally be recruited to begin their academic
career. Staff allocated to this category must hold similar qualifications, pay range and level of
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
468
responsibilities, although the nature of their responsibilities may differ. This excludes doctoral candidates.
Examples are assistant professor (the United States), lecturer (the United States), professeurs agrégés
(France), junior researcher and post-doctoral researcher.
• Intermediate: Staff pursuing an academic career working in positions not as senior as the top position but
more senior than entry-level positions. Examples are associate professor (the United States), maître de
conférences (France) and senior researcher.
• Senior: The highest grades/posts for academic staff pursuing an academic career in either instruction or
research. Staff allocated to this category must hold similar qualifications, pay range and level of
responsibilities, although the nature of their responsibilities may differ. It is possible to have one grade/post
per career track if relevant (i.e. if the tracks are clearly separate). Examples are full professor
(the United States), professeur titulaire et corps assimilés (France) and director of research.
• Employed doctoral candidates: Doctoral candidates employed full or part-time by their institution during
their doctoral degree.
• Other academic staff not on academic track: Instructional and research personnel who are not considered
to be on the academic career track. Examples are adjunct professors and fellows. This group excludes
doctoral candidates and teaching and research assistants.
Information on the positions associated with the different categories of tertiary academic staff in each country is available in Education at a
Glance 2025 Sources, Methodologies and Technical Notes (https://doi.org/10.1787/fcfaf2d1-en).
Decision-making levels determining salaries
In public tertiary institutions providing bachelor’s, master’s and doctoral degrees or equivalent, the salaries of tertiary
academic staff on academic career track are decided at the central or state level in about half the countries and
economies with available data (14 out of 31) and at the level of the institutions in almost one-quarter (7 out of 31).
Among the remaining countries, salaries are decided based on collective agreements or jointly by bodies at different
decision-making levels. For example, In Korea the central level sets base wages for tertiary staff in public universities,
but these universities have the freedom to implement additional wages. In Germany, around one-quarter of staff are
civil servants whose salaries are determined at the level of Länder, while three-quarters of staff are public employees
whose salaries are determined by collective agreements (Figure D7.1 and Table D7.1).
Two-thirds of these countries and economies (21 out of 31) also reported information on the level of the authorities
determining the salaries of other academic staff not on academic career track (in most of the other countries, no staff
were in this category). In most of these, the same level of authority determines salaries for all academic staff, whether
they are on an academic track or not. However, in a few countries, a lower level of authority determines the salaries
of other academic staff not on an academic career track. In France, Italy and Portugal, staff salaries are decided at
the central level for academic staff on an academic career track, but by tertiary institutions for other academic staff.
This usually results from the fact that these staff are hired on short-term contracts (Figure D7.1 and Table D7.1).
Fewer countries and economies (15 out of 31) also have information on the level of authorities that determine the
salaries of staff in tertiary institutions providing short-cycle tertiary programmes. In these countries, decisions are most
frequently made by central/state authorities or tertiary institutions, and these two levels of authorities make decisions
on salaries in a similar number of countries for all types of staff, whether they are on academic track or not. There are
also few differences in the authority levels taking decisions on salaries for tertiary institutions offering short-cycle
programmes or bachelor, master’s, and doctoral degrees or equivalent programmes. Where both types of institutions
exist in a country, the decision levels tend to be the same. For example, salaries in Iceland are determined by collective
agreement for all public tertiary institutions, whatever the type of programmes delivered in these institutions while in
Japan salaries are always determined at the level of the tertiary institution (Figure D7.1 and Table D7.1).
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
469
Statutory salaries for tertiary academic staff
Existence of statutory salary scales
Among countries and economies with available information, 21 report that they have statutory salaries for academic
staff in tertiary institutions providing bachelor's, master’s and doctoral or equivalent programmes and 11 report having
statutory salaries for staff in institutions providing short-cycle tertiary programmes (for staff on academic career track
and/or not on academic career track). As might be expected, the existence of salary scales for tertiary academic staff
in public institutions is related to the level of authorities determining the salaries. All countries in which central
authorities take decisions on the salaries of tertiary academic staff in tertiary institutions providing bachelor's, master’s
and doctoral or equivalent programmes have statutory salaries for these staff. This is also the case for staff in tertiary
institutions providing short-cycle tertiary programmes. Generally, in countries where statutory salaries are implemented
in institutions providing bachelor's, master’s and doctoral or equivalent programmes, they are also implemented for
institutions providing short-cycle tertiary programmes, since the authorities responsible for deciding salaries are the
same for both (Table D7.1).
However, statutory salaries are also defined in some countries where decisions on salaries of tertiary academic staff
are not solely made at the central level. In Finland, Iceland and the Netherlands, statutory salaries are decided by
collective agreements. In Brazil, Germany and Spain statutory salaries are decided at multiple levels, due to their
federal or decentralised systems.
Level of statutory salaries
Statutory salaries of tertiary academic staff vary widely across and within countries, when the range between minimum
and maximum statutory salaries is considered. However, these differences should be interpreted with caution as very
few staff might be on the minimum or maximum statutory salaries in some countries.
In tertiary institutions providing bachelor's, master’s and doctoral or equivalent programmes, statutory salaries of staff
on academic career track (at all levels of seniority combined) range from a minimum of USD 39 847 to a maximum of
USD 103 519 on average across the 18 countries and economies with available information. However, these average
values hide much larger differences between the minimum and maximum salaries in some countries. Maximum
salaries are 60% higher than minimum salaries in Slovenia (USD 53 623 compared with USD 85 853), but are around
four times or more the minimum in Brazil (from USD 28 779 to USD 120 092) and Spain (from USD 37 336 to
USD 146 898) (Table D7.2).
In these institutions, the differences between minimum and maximum statutory salaries are much smaller for staff who
are not on academic career track in the few countries with available data. The maximum statutory salary is less than
45% higher than the minimum in four countries with available information (Greece, Hungary, Iceland and Romania)
(Table D7.2).
In tertiary institutions providing short-cycle tertiary programmes, the range between minimum and maximum statutory
salaries of staff on an academic career track are similar to those in institutions providing bachelor's, master’s and
doctoral or equivalent programmes. Among the seven countries with available data, maximum statutory salaries are
35% higher than the minimum in Colombia (from USD 28 905 to USD 39 141) but over four times the minimum in
Brazil (USD 28 779 to USD 120 092), where the range of statutory salaries is the same for both types of public tertiary
institutions (Table D7.2).
Statutory salaries by seniority level
Minimum and maximum salaries, as well as the range between them, can also vary depending on the seniority of
tertiary academic staff (on an academic career track). Minimum and maximum salaries differ between seniority levels
in most countries with available information on the statutory salaries of staff on academic career track in tertiary
institution providing bachelor's, master’s and doctoral or equivalent programmes.
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
470
In some countries, the minimum and maximum salaries increase with the level of seniority of staff, but there is no clear
pattern for the variation in range between minimum and maximum salaries across seniority levels. For example, in
Hungary the difference between minimum and maximum salaries is 46% at junior level, 55% at intermediate level and
41% at senior level. In France, both minimum and maximum salaries increase with seniority levels, but the range
decreases with the level of seniority (from 132% at junior level, to 110% at intermediate level and 91% at the senior
level) (Table D7.2).
The number of grades within a seniority level may affect the difference between the minimum and maximum statutory
salaries at a given seniority level. For example, a country may consider both post-doctoral fellows and lecturers to be
junior positions because they are both possible positions for those starting an academic career. Each of these grades
may have a narrow salary range, but when considered together as junior staff, the span between the minimum and
maximum salaries might be quite large. In contrast, a country that only has one grade in the junior category might have
a much smaller range, even if salaries within that grade have a wider range than a country with several grades. Thus,
the combination of the number of grades and the way these grades are mapped onto seniority levels may affect the
salary range.
In Iceland, the Netherlands, Poland and the Slovak Republic, statutory minimum and maximum salaries apply to all
tertiary staff on academic career tracks, whatever their seniority level. In Finland, the collective agreement on salaries
does not recognise seniority levels, but the nature and responsibility of the work, the interaction skills, knowledge and
skills required by the tasks is taken into account to define a person's salary category. Then a junior staff would not be
placed into a salary category in the higher end, and similarly no senior staff would be placed into a salary category in
the lower end. Among these five countries, the maximum salary exceeds the minimum by 93% in Iceland and by more
than 240% in Finland (Figure D7.2). This does not mean that staff with different seniority levels will necessarily reach
the same salaries. For example, in the Slovak Republic salary progression depends on qualifications, responsibilities
and number of years in service, and the responsibilities associated with positions at junior, intermediate and senior
levels may be associated with different ranges of salaries.
Among the seven countries with available data on salaries of staff on academic track in tertiary institutions providing
short-cycle tertiary programmes, the differences between minimum and maximum salaries at the different levels of
seniority are similar to those in tertiary institutions providing bachelor's, master’s and doctoral or equivalent
programmes (Table D7.2).
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
471
Figure D7.2. Average actual academic staff salaries compared to the statutory minimum and
maximum salaries, by seniority (2023)
Salaries of tertiary academic staff in bachelor's, master's and doctoral or equivalent programmes, in equivalent USD
converted using PPPs for private consumption
Actual salary Minimum statutory salary minimum Maximum statutory salary
USD Junior Intermediate Senior
220 000
200 000
180 000
160 000
140 000
120 000
100 000
80 000
60 000
40 000
20 000
1. Actual salaries of full-time equivalent staff.
2. Statutory salaries for all categories of academic staff on an academic career track combined.
For data, see Table D7.2 and Table D7.3. For a link to download the data, see Tables and Notes section.
Average actual salaries
In addition to statutory salaries, tertiary academic staff may also receive additional bonuses and allowances that are
part of their salaries. Some of these allowances may be similar to those for teachers in primary and secondary
education, such as annual bonuses, extra pay for holidays or sick-leave pay, but tertiary academic staff may also
receive allowances that are specifically related to research activities. For example, academic staff in Colombia and
Iceland can receive allowances for academic output such as journal articles, while those in Germany can receive
payments for special performance in areas such as research, teaching or arts among others (for more information see
Education at a Glance 2025 Sources, Methodologies and Technical Notes – (https://doi.org/10.1787/fcfaf2d1-en).
Contribution to research through the publication of academic outputs can affect the compensation of tertiary academic
staff in different ways. In Colombia, the publication of academic outputs is rewarded through increased salaries
(depending on the number and type of publications up to an annual limit). In Finland, staff performance evaluations
take a number of aspects into account, including research merit, pedagogical merit, and social and university
community merit. These evaluations result in salary increases ranging from 6% to 50%, varying according to four
different performance categories.
Additional allowances and bonuses can account for a substantial portion of annual salaries, which explains the
difference between statutory and actual salaries within countries, and also part of the differences in actual salaries
across countries (Figure D7.2 and Table D7.3). In Italy, additional payments are responsible for around 5% of the
salaries paid while in France this share is around 17%. As only few countries have data available on the actual salaries
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
472
of tertiary staff in institutions providing short-cycle programmes, the analysis here focuses on actual salaries in tertiary
in educational institutions providing bachelor's, master’s and doctoral or equivalent programmes.
Actual salaries by categories of staff and seniority level
For tertiary educational institutions providing bachelor's, master’s and doctoral or equivalent programmes, information
on the average actual salaries for all staff on academic career track, at all levels of seniority combined is available in
17 countries and economies. The average actual salary across these countries amounts to USD 77 321, ranging from
USD 48 413 in the Slovak Republic to more than twice this amount in Austria (USD 112 432) (Table D7.3).
Actual salaries broken down by seniority are available in most of these countries and economies and a few additional
ones, with 17 countries and economies having available data for some or all of the three seniority levels (junior,
intermediate and senior). On average, actual salaries increase with seniority level, with junior staff earning
USD 61 958, intermediate staff USD 73 682 and senior staff USD 108 255. This pattern is also true for all countries
and economies with data on average actual salaries by seniority level, although the extent of the increase varies.
Average actual salaries of senior staff are less than 40% higher than those for junior staff in Austria and France
(countries which all also have smaller differences in statutory salaries across seniority levels), but are more than twice
those of junior staff in England (United Kingdom), Estonia, Germany and Israel. In several of these countries, salaries
are determined by tertiary institutions, which may lead to large differences between the salaries of tertiary academic
staff (Figure D7.2 and Table D7.3).
Average actual salaries for other academic staff not on academic career tracks and for employed doctoral candidates
are much lower than those for all academic staff on an academic career track combined. Among the ten countries with
available data, average actual salaries of academic staff not on academic career tracks are also lower than those of
junior staff on academic career tracks in six of them. They are at least 25% lower in Estonia, France, Iceland, and
Norway. In contrast, they are at least 15% higher in Czechia, Israel and Türkiye. Employed doctoral candidates have
the lowest actual salaries among all categories of staff considered, but the data are available in very few countries
(Table D7.3).
Actual salaries by gender
Almost all countries with available data on average actual salaries for tertiary academic staff also have a breakdown
of actual salaries by gender, except for Latvia and the Slovak Republic.
Average actual salaries are higher for men than for women in nearly all countries and for all seniority categories of
tertiary academic staff. This is the case for academic staff on an academic career track and also academic staff not
on academic career track and employed doctoral candidates, however only 10 countries have data by gender for staff
both on and not on academic career track and 5 countries have data for employed doctoral candidates. The exceptions
are Iceland, where average actual salaries of male junior staff on academic career tracks are 3% lower than their
female peers, and Norway, where actual salaries of academic staff not on an academic career track are 10% lower for
men than women. In all other countries, actual salaries are higher for men than women, but the difference is less than
10% for most categories of academic staff on academic career tracks (Table D7.3).
Gender differences widen when comparing the average actual salaries of men and women for all categories of tertiary
academic staff on academic career track combined. Average actual salaries are at least 15% higher for men than
women in Estonia, Finland, Israel and Slovenia, and the difference exceeds 25% in Hungary. This suggests that
women are disproportionately employed in less senior roles (Table D7.3).
Actual salaries by age
Actual salaries tend to increase with age. This effect is unsurprisingly most pronounced for aggregated actual salaries
that do not take seniority levels into account, since the seniority level of staff also tends to increase with age. Averaged
across 15 countries with available data on actual salaries of all tertiary academic staff on academic career track, the
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
473
actual salaries of 55-64 year-olds are 58% higher than the actual salaries of 25-34 year-olds. In all countries with
available data, the difference is at least 20% between these two age groups, and exceeds 90% in Austria, France and
Slovenia (Table D7.4, available on line).
Actual salaries for other academic staff not on career tracks also increase with age, but to a lesser extent. Among the
few countries with available information, the largest gap between the average actual salaries of 55-64 year-olds and
those of 25-34 year-olds is in Portugal, where it is 48% (Table D7.4, available on line).
Some of these differences result from the fact that more senior positions are associated with higher salaries, as noted
above, meaning they partly reflect the differences in statutory salaries for different seniority levels. Moreover, the
characteristics of salary progression, where salaries increase through promotion as opposed to length of employment,
could also explain differences between countries. Furthermore, since allowances and additional payments are included
in average actual salaries, older staff might be eligible for more allowances, pushing their actual salaries upwards.
Salaries of tertiary academic staff relative to tertiary-educated workers
Tertiary academic staff on academic career track have among the highest qualification levels in the population. Most
of the staff in this group will have completed a doctorate in order to teach and research in public tertiary institutions. In
contrast, on average across OECD countries, just 1% of 25-64 year-olds have a doctoral degree or equivalent (see
Table A1.1).
As in other professions, salary levels may be important for attracting and retaining academic staff in public tertiary
institutions. On average, earnings of tertiary academic staff are on a par with other tertiary-educated workers across
countries with available data. Among the 15 countries and economies with available information on both the actual
salaries of tertiary academic staff (all seniority levels combined) and the earnings of tertiary-educated workers,
academic staff salaries range from 85% or less of the earnings of tertiary-educated workers in Hungary,
the Netherlands and the United States to 196% in Portugal. However, in half of these countries, the difference is less
than 5% (below the earnings of tertiary educated workers in Austria, France, Norway and the Slovak Republic, and
above in Estonia and Germany) (Figure D7.3).
However, as this ratio covers all tertiary academic staff on academic career tracks, it may hide large differences due
to seniority levels. In all countries and economies except for Israel, the actual salaries of junior academic staff are
lower than the earnings of tertiary-educated workers, ranging from less than 70% of earnings of tertiary academic staff
in Czechia and the Slovak Republic to 111% or more in Israel and Portugal. On average across countries with available
data, junior staff earn 89% of comparably educated tertiary workers’ salaries (Figure D7.3).
Similarly, actual salaries of tertiary academic staff at intermediate level are also lower than those of tertiary-educated
workers in all but five countries and economies: they are 13-14% higher in England (United Kingdom) and Estonia,
33% higher in Italy, 48% higher in Israel and 121% higher in Portugal. On average, intermediate staff earnings are on
par with other tertiary educated workers across countries with available data (Figure D7.3).
At senior level, actual salaries of academic staff are higher than the earnings of tertiary-educated workers in all
countries and economies, averaging 59% more overall. The difference ranges from 18% higher in Austria and
the United States to 169% higher in Portugal. Note however that the data from Austria cover only a subset of
institutions and might not be representative (Figure D7.3).
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
474
Figure D7.3. Average actual academic staff salaries relative to earnings of tertiary-educated
workers, by seniority (2023)
Average actual salaries of full-time academic staff in tertiary institutions providing bachelor’s, master’s and doctoral
programmes relative to the earnings of full-time, full-year workers with a bachelor's degree or higher qualification
Junior Intermediate Senior All categories combined
Ratio
3
2.5
1.5
0.5
1. Actual salaries of full-time equivalent staff.
For a link to download the data, see Tables and Notes section.
Definitions
Academic staff are defined personnel in a tertiary educational institution whose primary or major functions involves
the planning, organisation and conducting of group activities whereby students’ knowledge, skills and attitudes develop
as stipulated by educational programmes. Academic staff with some teaching responsibilities include personnel
employed at tertiary educational institutions whose primary assignment is instruction and/or research with some
teaching responsibilities; personnel with some teaching responsibilities who hold an academic rank with such titles as
professor, associate professor, assistant professor, instructor, lecturer, researcher or the equivalent of any of these
academic ranks; and personnel with other leadership titles (e.g. dean, director, associate dean, assistant dean, chair
or head of department), if they have some teaching responsibilities. Academic staff do not include staff such as
teaching and research assistants with some teaching responsibilities, student teachers, student researchers, teachers’
aides and paraprofessionals. Nor do they include academic staff mainly devoted to research and employed by
independent, organisationally separate, government research institutions in cases where the connection between
tertiary educational institutions and research institutions is purely administrative.
Actual salaries refer to the annual average earnings received by full-time academic staff aged 25-64 before taxes. It
is the gross salary from the employee’s point of view: it includes the part of social security contributions and pension-
scheme contributions that are paid by the employees (even if deducted automatically from the employees’ gross salary
by the employer). However, the employers’ premium for social security and pension is excluded. Actual salaries also
include work-related payments, such as annual bonuses, results-related bonuses, extra pay for holidays and sick-
leave pay. Income from other sources, such as government social transfers, investment income and any other income
that is not directly related to their profession is not included.
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
475
Earnings for workers with tertiary education are average earnings for full-time, full-year workers aged 25-64 with an
education at ISCED level 5, 6, 7 or 8.
Instructional personnel other than academic staff are personnel in tertiary educational institutions who are not
academic staff but are employed on a full- or part-time basis for the primary purpose of assisting academic staff in
classroom instruction, laboratory instruction or in the conduct of research and receiving payment (in cash or in kind)
for their activity. They include employed doctoral candidates (doctoral candidates employed on a full- or part-time basis
by their institution during their doctoral degree) and teaching and research assistants (personnel employed on a full-
or part-time basis for the primary purpose of supporting academic staff in classroom instruction, laboratory instruction
or in the conduct of research). Teaching and research assistants are graduate students (other than doctoral
candidates) or other personnel who hold such titles as teaching assistant, teaching associate, teaching fellow, research
assistant or equivalent personnel with other titles.
Maximum statutory salary refers to the maximum annual statutory salary for full-time tertiary staff in public tertiary
educational institutions as indicated in official documents (e.g. national regulations, collective agreements).
Minimum statutory salary refers to the minimum annual statutory salary for full-time tertiary staff in public tertiary
educational institutions as indicated in official documents (e.g. national regulations, collective agreements).
Statutory salaries refer to scheduled salaries according to official pay scales. The salaries reported are gross (total
sum paid by the employer) less the employer’s contribution to social security and pension, according to existing salary
scales. Salaries are “before tax” (i.e. before deductions for income tax). Statutory salaries also include additional
payments that all academic staff receive and that constitutes a regular part of the annual salary, such as 13 th month
pay.
Tertiary staff refers to personnel in tertiary educational institutions whose primary assignment is instruction and/or
research activities. The classification of tertiary staff is based on the primary or major functions performed by staff. It
includes tertiary academic staff and other staff.
Methodology
The reference period for staff salaries is the academic year 2022/23 (where the academic year begins on the second
half of the calendar year 2022 and ends in the first half of the calendar year 2023), or the academic year 2023 where
the school year starts in the first half of the calendar year 2023. For ease of reference in the publication, the reference
year is given as 2023.
Salaries were converted into equivalent USD using purchasing power parities (PPPs) for private consumption from
the OECD Data Explorer on national accounts. These PPPs refer to the calendar year and have been adjusted to refer
to January 2023 for the conversion of salaries.
In Figure D7.3, the ratios of salaries of tertiary staff to earnings for similarly educated full-time, full-year workers aged
25-64 are calculated using a similar methodology to Chapter D3. The ratios have been calculated for countries for
which these data are available. When data on earnings of workers referred to a different reference year than the 2023
reference year used for salaries of tertiary academic staff, a deflator has been used to adjust earnings data to 2023.
For more information, please see the OECD Handbook for Internationally Comparative Education Statistics (OECD,
2018[1]) and Education at a Glance 2025 Sources, Methodologies and Technical Notes
(https://doi.org/10.1787/fcfaf2d1-en)) for country-specific notes.
Sources
Data on salaries of tertiary academic staff are from the 2024 OECD-INES-NESLI data collection on Salaries of Tertiary
Academic Staff and refer to the school year 2022/23 (or 2023).
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
476
Data on the earnings of workers are based on the regular data collection by the OECD Labour Market and Social
Outcomes of Learning Network.
References
OECD (2018), OECD Handbook for Internationally Comparative Education Statistics 2018: Concepts, [1]
Standards, Definitions and Classifications, OECD Publishing, Paris,
https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264304444-en.
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
477
Tables and Notes
Chapter D7 Tables
Table D7.1 Use of national statutory salaries for academic staff, by tertiary education level (2023)
Table D7.2 Minimum and maximum statutory salaries for academic staff, by tertiary education level (2023)
Table D7.3 Actual salaries of academic staff, by tertiary education level, category of staff and gender (2023)
WEB Table D7.4 Actual salaries of academic staff, by tertiary education level, category of staff and age group (2023)
WEB Table D7.5 Reporting of additional payments that all academic staff receive and inclusion of pension/social security contributions in
statutory salaries, by tertiary education level (2023)
WEB Table D7.6 Reporting of pension/social security contributions in actual salaries of academic staff, by tertiary education level (2023)
StatLink 2 https://stat.link/j513zl
Data Download
To download the data for the figures and tables in this chapter, click StatLink above.
To access further data and/or other education indicators, please visit the OECD Data Explorer: https://data-
explorer.oecd.org/.
Data cut-off for the print publication 13 June 2025. Please note that the Data Explorer contains the most recent
data.
Notes for Tables
Table D7.1. Use of national statutory salaries for academic staff, by tertiary education level (2023)
Who determines salaries
Central/State = Central/state government or top-level authorities
Prov/Reg = Provincial/regional authorities or sub-regional/inter-municipal authorities
Local = Local authorities
Institutions = tertiary institutions
More than one = More than one authority level
Collective = Collective agreement
Individual = Individual negotiation
1. The compensation system varies between different types of public tertiary institutions: in Czechia, between
tertiary professional schools (ISCED 655, i.e. bachelor's level with a vocational orientation) and higher
educational institutions (HEIs) and in the Netherlands, between universities of applied sciences (ISCED 5-8,
including short-term tertiary education) and universities (ISCED 6-8). Rows for tertiary professional schools in
Czechia and universities in the Netherlands are available on line.
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
478
2. Statutory salaries for all categories of academic staff on an academic career track combined in educational
institutions for bachelor's, master's and doctoral or equivalent programmes (also covering short-cycle tertiary
programmes in the Netherlands).
3. Junior academic staff includes employed doctoral candidates
4. Statutory salaries for all categories of academic staff on an academic career track combined in educational
institutions for short-cycle tertiary programmes.
Table D7.2. Minimum and maximum statutory salaries for academic staff, by tertiary education level (2023)
1. Excludes public universities and universities of applied sciences.
2. The compensation system varies between different types of public tertiary institutions: in Czechia, between
tertiary professional schools (ISCED 655, i.e. bachelor's level with a vocational orientation) and higher
educational institutions (HEIs) and in the Netherlands, between universities of applied sciences (ISCED 5-8)
and universities (ISCED 6-8). Rows for tertiary professional schools in Czechia and universities in the
Netherlands are available on line.
3. Statutory salaries for all categories of academic staff on an academic career track combined in educational
institutions for bachelor's, master's and doctoral or equivalent programmes (also covering short-cycle tertiary
programmes in the Netherlands).
4. Junior academic staff includes employed doctoral candidates.
5. Year of reference: 2022.
6. The data necessary to present minimum and maximum statutory salaries that apply to a particular academic
staff category is currently unavailable. The minimum and maximum salary amounts span the entire statutory
salary range, irrespective of academic staff category.
7. Statutory salaries for all categories of academic staff on an academic career track combined in educational
institutions for short-cycle tertiary programmes.
Table D7.3. Actual salaries of academic staff, by tertiary education level, category of staff and gender (2023)
Note: Columns showing the data for employed doctoral candidates and rows showing the data broken down by gender
are available on line.
1. Actual salaries of full-time equivalent staff.
2. Excludes public universities and universities of applied sciences.
3. The compensation system varies between different types of public tertiary institutions: in Czechia, between
tertiary professional schools (ISCED 655, i.e. bachelor's level with a vocational orientation) and higher
educational institutions (HEIs) and in the Netherlands, between universities of applied sciences (ISCED 5-8)
and universities (ISCED 6-8). Rows for tertiary professional schools in Czechia and universities in the
Netherlands are available on line.
4. Junior academic staff includes employed doctoral candidates.
5. Year of reference: 2022.
6. Government dependent private institutions.
Control codes
a – category not applicable; b – break in series; d – contains data from another column; m – missing data; x – contained
in another column (indicated in brackets). For further control codes, see the Reader’s Guide.
For further methodological information, see Education at a Glance 2025: Sources, Methodologies and Technical Notes
(https://doi.org/10.1787/fcfaf2d1-en).
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
479
Table D7.1. Use of national statutory salaries for academic staff, by tertiary education level (2023)
Public institutions
Short-cycle tertiar y Bachelor’s, master’s and doctoral or equivalent
Decision-making level for Decision-making level for
Existence of statutory salaries determining salaries Existence of statutor y salaries determining salaries
Other Other Other Other
Academic staff on academic academic Academic academic Academic staff on academic academic Academic academic
career track staff not on staff on staff not on career track staff not on staff on staff not on
academic academic academic academic academic academic
Inter- career career career Inter- career career career
Junior mediate Senior track track track Junior mediate Senior track track track
OECD countries (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12)
Australia m m m m m m m m m m m m
Austria a a a Yes a Central/State Yes a Yes a Central/State a
Canada m m m m m m m m m m m m
Chile m m m m m m m m m m m m
Colombia Yes Yes Yes Yes Central/State Central/State Yes Yes Yes a Central/State a
Costa Rica m m m m m m m m m m m m
Czechia (HEI) 1 a a a a a a a a a a Institution Institution
Denmark m m m m m m m m m m m m
Estonia a a a a a a a a a a Institution a
Finland 2 a a a a a a Yes Yes Yes m Collective m
France Yes Yes Yes a Central/State Institution Yes Yes Yes a Central/State Institution
Germany3 m m m m m m Yes Yes Yes m More than one More than one
Greece Yes Yes Yes Yes Central/State Central/State Yes Yes Yes Yes Central/State Central/State
Hungary a a a a a a Yes Yes Yes Yes Central/State Central/State
Iceland Yes Yes Yes Yes Collective Collective Yes Yes Yes Yes Collective Collective
Ireland m m m m m m m m m m m m
Israel m m m m m m m m m m m m
Italy a a a a a a Yes Yes Yes No Central/State Institution
Japan a a a a Institution Institution a a a a Institution Institution
Korea m m m m More than one More than one m m m m More than one More than one
Latvia m m m m m m m m m m m m
Lithuania a a a a Institution Institution a a a a Institution Institution
Luxembourg m m m m m m m m m m m m
Mexico m m m m m m m m m m m m
Netherlands (ISCED 5-8)1, 2 a a a a a a Yes Yes Yes m Collective Collective
New Zealand a a a a Institution Institution a a a a Institution Institution
Norway a a a a Institution Institution a a a a Institution Institution
Poland2 a a a a a a Yes Yes Yes a Central/State Central/State
Portugal a a a a a a Yes Yes Yes a Central/State Institution
Slovak Republic a a a Yes a Central/State Yes Yes Yes a Central/State a
Slovenia a a a Yes a Central/State Yes Yes Yes a Central/State a
Spain 4 Yes Yes Yes m More than one m Yes Yes Yes Yes More than one Prov/Reg
Sweden a a a a Individual Individual a a a a Individual Individual
Switzerland a a a a a a m m m m m m
Türkiye Yes Yes Yes Yes Central/State Central/State Yes Yes Yes Yes Central/State Central/State
United States a a a a Institution Institution a a a a Institution Institution
Other economies
Flemish Comm. (Belgium) m m m m m m m m m m m m
French Comm. (Belgium) m m m m m m m m m m m m
England (UK) a a a a a a a a a a a a
Scotland (UK) m m m m m m m m m m m m
OECD average m m m m m m m m m m m m
Partner and/or accession countries
Argentina m m m m m m m m m m m m
Brazil Yes Yes Yes a More than one a Yes Yes Yes a More than one a
Bulgaria m m m m m m m m m m m m
China m m m m m m m m m m m m
Croatia a a a a a a m m Yes a Central/State a
India m m m m m m m m m m m m
Indonesia m m m m m m m m m m m m
Peru Yes Yes Yes Yes Central/State Central/State Yes Yes Yes Yes Central/State Central/State
Romania a a a a a a Yes Yes Yes Yes Central/State Central/State
Saudi Arabia m m m m m m m m m m m m
South Africa m m m m m m m m m m m m
EU25 average m m m m m m m m m m m m
G20 average m m m m m m m m m m m m
Note: For notes on this table and a link to download the data, see Tables and Notes section above.
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
480
Table D7.2. Minimum and maximum statutory salaries for academic staff, by tertiary education level
(2023)
By level of education in public institutions, in equivalent USD converted using PPPs for private compensation
Short-cycle tertiary Bachelor’s, master’s and doctoral or equivalent
Academic staff on academic career track Other academic Academic staff on academic career track Other academic
staff not staff not
on academic on academic
Junior Intermediate Senior career track Junior Intermediate Senior career track
Maximum
Maximum
Maximum
Maximum
Maximum
Maximum
Maximum
Maximum
Minimum
Minimum
Minimum
Minimum
Minimum
Minimum
Minimum
Minimum
salary
salary
salary
salary
salary
salary
salary
salary
salary
salary
salary
salary
salary
salary
salary
salary
OECD countries (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) (15) (16)
Australia m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m
Austria1 a a a a a a 57 608 102 365 59 440 121 918 a a 74 300 143 076 a a
Canada m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m
Chile m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m
Colombia 28 905 28 905 33 784 36 349 39 141 39 141 20 599 20 599 21 821 32 736 39 619 77 559 52 042 85 617 a a
Costa Rica m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m
Czechia (HEI)2 a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a
Denmark m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m
Estonia a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a
Finland 3 a a a a a a a a 48 098 166 165 48 098 166 165 48 098 166 165 m m
France 35 432 82 071 43 133 90 573 58 599 111 649 a a 35 432 82 071 43 133 90 573 58 599 111 649 a a
Germany4 m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m
Greece 29 527 42 049 33 435 47 574 39 082 55 656 25 189 35 870 32 575 46 387 36 913 52 567 43 420 61 836 30 386 43 277
Hungary a a a a a a a a 13 283 19 386 19 746 30 516 26 926 38 055 18 309 19 386
Iceland 55 210 106 443 55 210 106 443 55 210 106 443 41 556 48 739 55 210 106 443 55 210 106 443 55 210 106 443 41 556 48 739
Ireland m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m
Israel m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m
Italy5 a a a a a a a a 55 205 55 205 80 410 146 102 114 577 200 008 m m
Japan a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a
Korea m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m
Latvia m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m
Lithuania a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a
Luxembourg m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m
Mexico m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m
Netherlands (ISCED 5-8)2,3,6 a a a a a a a a 55 275 114 776 55 275 114 776 55 275 114 776 m m
New Zealand a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a
Norway a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a
Poland3 a a a a a a a a 22 155 44 310 22 155 44 310 22 155 44 310 a a
Portugal a a a a a a a a 73 094 96 800 86 923 112 604 112 604 130 384 a a
Slovak Republic a a a a a a 23 788 38 411 21 003 44 361 21 003 44 361 21 003 44 361 a a
Slovenia a a a a a a 37 232 68 776 53 623 65 241 60 319 73 387 73 387 85 853 a a
Spain7 55 870 83 374 55 870 83 374 55 870 83 374 m m 37 336 55 382 52 217 122 718 74 965 146 898 2 374 58 546
Sweden a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a
Switzerland a a a a a a a a m m m m m m m m
Türkiye 38 959 44 302 45 408 51 480 59 241 66 132 69 970 78 185 38 959 44 302 45 408 51 480 59 241 66 132 69 970 78 185
United States a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a
Other economies
Flemish Comm. (Belgium) m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m
French Comm. (Belgium) m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m
England (UK) a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a
Scotland (UK) m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m
OECD average m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m
Partner and/or accession countries
Argentina m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m
Brazil 28 779 59 063 31 880 77 644 97 055 120 092 a a 28 779 59 063 31 880 77 644 97 055 120 092 a a
Bulgaria m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m
China m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m
Croatia a a a a a a a a m m m m 70 630 123 784 a a
India m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m
Indonesia m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m
Peru m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m
Romania a a a a a a a a 35 547 43 060 39 036 44 741 66 876 98 620 48 383 62 765
Saudi Arabia m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m
South Africa m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m
EU25 average m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m
Country average 38 955 63 744 42 674 70 491 57 743 83 212 39 420 56 135 39 847 68 892 46 685 82 965 62 655 103 519 35 163 51 817
Note: For notes on this table and a link to download the data, see Tables and Notes section above.
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
481
Table D7.3. Actual salaries of academic staff, by tertiary education level, category of staff and
gender (2023)
Annual average salaries of full-time 25-64 year-old staff with some teaching responsibilities at tertiary level, in
equivalent USD converted using PPPs for private compensation
Short-cycle tertiary Bachelor’s, master’s and doctoral or equivalent
Other Other
Academic staff on academic career track academic Academic staff on academic career track academic
staff not on staff not on
academic academic
Junior Intermediate Senior All staff (total) career track Junior Intermediate Senior All staff (total) career track
OECD countries (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11)
Australia m m m m m m m m m m
Austria1, 2 a a a a 101 464 106 359 a 136 186 112 432 a
Canada m m m m m m m m m m
Chile m m m m m m m m m m
Colombia m m m m m m m m m m
Costa Rica m m m m m m m m m m
Czechia (HEI)1, 3 a a a a a 38 769 47 845 73 549 m 57 134
Denmark m m m m m m m m m m
Estonia1 a a a a a 39 989 53 740 81 336 49 866 a
Finland a a a a a 52 128 64 214 101 908 68 777 54 000
France 76 970 79 033 107 628 81 161 45 598 76 970 79 033 107 628 81 161 45 598
Germany4 m m m m m 76 476 93 987 164 717 104 111d m
Greece m m m m m m m m m m
Hungary a a a a a x(10) x(10) x(10) 49 026 m
Iceland1 a a a a a 54 314 65 217 82 609 65 699 33 735
Ireland m m m m m m m m m m
Israel 71 434 95 528 146 076 100 774 84 956 71 434 95 528 146 076 100 774 84 956
Italy5 a a a a a 66 708 89 245 131 120 m m
Japan m m m m m m m m m m
Korea m m m m m m m m m m
Latvia1 23 684 34 060 49 146 37 469 m m m m m m
Lithuania m m m m m m m m m m
Luxembourg m m m m m m m m m m
Mexico m m m m m m m m m m
Netherlands (ISCED 5-8)3 a a a a a x(10) x(10) x(10) 90 400 m
New Zealand m m m m m m m m m m
Norway m m m m m 73 063 86 539 114 468 88 127 52 155
Poland a a a a a m m m m m
Portugal m m m m m 80 414 97 834 119 000 86 936 60 398
Slovak Republic1 a a a a m 34 590 46 332 67 538 48 413 a
Slovenia a a a a 59 220 x(10) x(10) x(10) 74 447 a
Spain m m m m m m m m m m
Sweden 57 654 69 735 101 152 69 204 53 607 57 654 69 735 101 152 69 204 53 607
Switzerland a a a a a m m m m m
Türkiye 41 583 48 435 62 504 m 74 064 41 583 48 435 62 504 m 74 064
United States 78 740 95 934 135 344 97 716 68 683 78 740 95 934 135 344 97 716 68 683
Other economies
Flemish Comm. (Belgium) m m m m m m m m m m
French Comm. (Belgium) m m m m m m m m m m
England (UK)6 m m m m m 56 244 76 298 120 463 77 429 a
Scotland (UK) m m m m m m m m m m
OECD average m m m m m m m m m m
Partner and/or accession countries
Argentina m m m m m m m m m m
Brazil m m m m a m m m m a
Bulgaria m m m m m m m m m m
China m m m m m m m m m m
Croatia a a a a a 47 854 68 986 94 734 m a
India m m m m m m m m m m
Indonesia m m m m m m m m m m
Peru m m m m m m m m m m
Romania a a a a a m m m m m
Saudi Arabia m m m m m m m m m m
South Africa m m m m m m m m m m
EU25 average m m m m m m m m m m
Country average 58 344 70 454 100 308 77 265 69 656 61 958 73 682 108 255 77 321 58 433
Note: For notes on this table and a link to download the data, see Tables and Notes section above.
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
482
Chapter D8. How severe are teacher
shortages across countries?
Highlights
• Based on data from 14 countries and economies with available data, unfilled vacancies for fully qualified
teachers at the start of the school year vary in absolute terms, but remain below 3% of all teaching posts
in all cases except Austria and Sweden. In most countries, the share of unfilled posts is higher in secondary
education than in primary, pointing to greater recruitment challenges at the upper levels.
• Across 19 countries and economies with available data, an average of 6.5% of fully qualified teachers from
pre-primary to upper secondary education left the profession in 2022/23, with wide variation – from under
3% in France, Greece, Ireland and Israel to over 10% in Denmark, Estonia and Lithuania. Attrition rates
are slightly higher in pre-primary education (7.3%) and relatively similar in primary (5.8%) and secondary
education (5.9%).
• There is no single pattern behind teachers leaving the profession: in some countries, resignations
dominate; in others, retirements are the main driver. On average, 51% of teachers who left resigned.
Alarmingly, in five of the seventh countries with data on seniority (Austria, Estonia, Israel, Poland and
the Slovak Republic), at least 30% of those resigning had been teaching for less than five years.
Context
Teacher shortages have become a pressing policy concern in most OECD countries, particularly at the start of the
school year. The attractiveness of the profession has declined in some countries, influenced by factors such as
relatively low pay, high workloads, administrative burdens, and limited career progression, making it more difficult
to attract and retain qualified teachers (OECD, 2020[1]). Adding to these challenges is the increasing diversity in
teachers’ qualification levels, with some holding only upper secondary qualifications while others have bachelor’s
or master’s degrees. Demographic pressures further compound the issue, with a growing share of the workforce
nearing retirement. Shortages are often most acute in rural and disadvantaged areas, exacerbating inequalities in
access to quality education (OECD, 2023[2]).
No single indicator can fully capture the scale or nature of teacher shortages, nor the ways in which teachers are
distributed across schools. Shortages may manifest as vacant positions at the start of the academic year, high
attrition rates – particularly among early-career teachers – or a growing reliance on teachers who do not meet
national qualification standards. Each of these indicators reflects a different dimension of the problem and points
to systemic weaknesses in teacher workforce planning, training and support. In response, many countries are
planning to implement measures in the next few years to make teaching more attractive and to strengthen teacher
recruitment and retention (Box D8.3). This chapter explores these interconnected issues to provide a clearer
understanding of teacher supply dynamics and the policy strategies under development.
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
483
Figure D8.1. Trends in the share of teachers aged 50 and over in secondary education (2013 and
2023)
In per cent, full-time and part-time, public and private institutions
2023 2013
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
Note: the scope covers all classroom teachers, with no distinction between fully and non-fully qualified teachers.
1. Including post-secondary non-tertiary education.
2. Excluding upper secondary education in Slovenia. Excluding lower secondary education in Canada.
3. Year of reference differs from 2013.
4. Year of reference differs from 2023.
For data, see Table D8.1. For a link to download the data, see Tables and Notes section.
Other findings
• In 2023, over one-third of teachers in primary and secondary education across OECD countries were aged
50 or older –a share that reflects the ageing of a workforce where teaching careers often span several
decades. In secondary education, the share rose from 36% in 2013 to 38% in 2023, with increases of over
8 percentage points in about one-quarter of OECD countries, pointing to the need for long-term workforce
planning.
• In parallel, the pipeline of teachers under 30 remains low: 17% in pre-primary, 13% in primary and 9% in
secondary education. This may reflect persistently low entry rates, partly because teachers are required
to complete tertiary education before entering the profession, which challenges efforts to renew the
workforce and attract new talent.
• The proportion of non-fully qualified teachers is often used as an indicator of staffing pressures. On
average across OECD countries, these teachers are more prevalent in secondary education (7.1%) than
in primary education (5.6%), although the disparity is considerably wider in some countries, highlighting
uneven recruitment challenges across education levels.
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
484
• Over half of countries and economies with available data (16 out of 28) have introduced structured
pathways to attract second-career teachers. These include employment-based routes, targeted academic
training, recognition of prior experience and special certification processes.
Note
The process for entering the teaching profession varies across countries and affects how teacher shortages are
measured. In about one-third of countries and economies, applicants must pass a competitive exam to fill a limited
number of slots, after which successful candidates are assigned to schools. In the remaining systems, graduates
receive a teaching diploma and apply directly to schools to fill available positions. As a result, countries and
economies with competitive exams report unfilled vacancies based on the number of exam-authorised positions
that remain vacant at the start of the school year, while in other systems, they are based on the number of
advertised school-level vacancies still open at that time. This chapter uses the start of the year to assess
recruitment pressures, while recognising that many of these vacancies are subsequently filled during the school
year, either by fully or non-fully qualified teachers.
Analysis
Teacher shortages in pre-primary, primary and secondary education are a complex and multifaceted challenge that
cannot be captured by a single indicator. To provide a comprehensive understanding, this chapter draws on a set of
complementary metrics that shed light on different dimensions of the issue. These include the share of teachers aged
over 50, which assess upcoming retirement waves and the need for generational renewal; the proportion of teachers
without required teaching qualifications or/and training, reflecting recruitment difficulties and potential risks to teaching
quality; the number of vacant positions at the start of the school year, highlighting immediate gaps in staffing; and
teacher attrition rates, which indicate challenges in retaining staff and sustaining the workforce.
Each of these indicators offers critical insights into current pressures, long-term risks and system responses. The
chapter examines how countries perform across these different dimensions to inform more targeted and effective
policy solutions.
Age of the teaching workforce
The age profile of the teaching workforce is a key indicator in assessing education systems’ capacity to ensure
continuity, plan for future retirements and limit shortage by attracting new entrants into the profession. Across OECD
countries, the teaching workforce is ageing, with particularly sharp increases between 2013 and 2023 in the share of
teachers aged 50 and over in both primary and secondary education in Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland and
Portugal. The ageing of the teaching profession is particularly evident in secondary education. Between 2013 and
2023, the share of teachers aged 50 and over increased from 36% to 38% on average across OECD countries, and
from 39% to 42% across EU25 countries, reflecting a steady upward trend (Table D8.1).
Given that teaching careers often span several decades, a high share of teachers aged 50 or older is not unusual in
itself. Overall, in about one-third of countries, more than 40% of secondary teachers are now aged 50 or older.
However, in some countries the pace and scale of ageing are more concerning. In Lithuania, the share of older
secondary teachers rose from 44% to 59%; similar trends were observed in Latvia (46% to 57%), Greece (39% to
56%), Portugal (31% to 56%) and Slovenia (33% to 49%). In countries where the share was already high – such as
Estonia and Hungary – it has remained elevated. Only a few countries, such as Italy (where the share of older teachers
fell from 69% to 52%) and Germany (where it fell from 49% to 39%), experienced significant declines, albeit from
already high levels in 2013 (Figure D8.1). These figures highlight the need for strategic workforce renewal in these
countries. Without stronger efforts to recruit and prepare new teachers – particularly in hard-to-staff subjects and
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
485
regions (see Chapter D5 of Education at a Glance 2024 (OECD, 2024[3])) – future retirements could exacerbate existing
shortages and strain the sustainability of the profession.
In parallel, the pipeline of teachers under the age of 30 reflects the profession’s age structure but tends to decline with
increasing education levels – from 17% of teachers in pre-primary, to 13% in primary and just 9% in secondary
education (Table D8.1). In many countries, early-career teachers may encounter challenging working conditions,
relatively low starting salaries, and limited professional support, which can contribute to higher attrition rates ( (OECD,
2018[4]), Figure D8.6 and Table D8.4)). While the share of teachers under 30 has declined since 2013 in many
countries, this reflects broader demographic changes, later retirement ages, and an influx of second-career teachers
rather than solely reduced attractiveness of the profession. In Austria, Italy, Japan and Norway, the proportion of
teachers under 30 in primary and secondary education has increased over the past decade by at least 5 percentage
points. However, in others, such as Brazil, Chile and Poland, the share has declined significantly, including in pre-
primary education where demographic shifts or/and lower enrolment have reduced demand for new teachers
(Table D8.1).
The share of young teachers is important, and countries need to implement sustained policies to attract and support
new entrants. At the same time, attracting individuals from other professions, including those later in their careers, can
help expand the teaching workforce. Without such efforts, ageing and attrition could gradually erode the teaching
workforce, increasing the risk of shortages and making it harder to maintain education quality over time.
Teachers who do not meet national qualification standards
Fully qualified teachers refer to teachers who have fulfilled all the training and administrative requirements for teaching
at a given grade and subject, according to the formal policy of a country. In contrast, non-fully qualified teachers refer
to teachers entering the profession through alternative pathways (see Definitions section). The share of non-fully
qualified teachers is often used as an indicator of teacher shortages, as it reflects the extent to which education
systems are unable to recruit or retain enough fully qualified staff. Although most countries and economies aim to
ensure a fully qualified teaching workforce, many still rely on teachers who do not meet national qualification standards.
Unlike fully qualified teachers – who satisfy all training and administrative requirements for teaching a given subject or
level – non-fully qualified teachers enter the profession through alternative pathways – and for some, teaching
represents a second career choice (Box D4.1). In most countries, these teachers might have the required academic
qualifications but lack mandatory certification or pedagogical training, have completed training but lack the academic
degree, or in some cases lack both. The term may also include fully qualified teachers who are teaching outside their
area of specialisation.
The majority of countries and economies make some use of non-fully qualified teachers, with a few exceptions such
as Hungary, Japan and Korea (Table D8.2). Notably, Japan and Korea also report no – or very few – vacancies not
filled by fully qualified teachers, suggesting relatively stable teacher staffing situations that may reduce the need to
rely on non-fully qualified teachers (Table D8.3). For the other countries and economies, the presence of non-fully
qualified teachers often reflects recruitment challenges and efforts to maintain classroom coverage despite difficulties
in attracting sufficient numbers of fully qualified teachers.
Data from 2022/23 show differences across education levels. On average, the share of non-fully qualified teachers is
slightly higher in secondary education (7.1%) than in primary education (5.6%), although the gap is wider in some
countries and economies. For example, in France (where data refer to 2021/22), only 1.3% of primary teachers are
non-fully qualified, compared to 9.1% in secondary education. In Portugal, 5.0% of primary and 7.5% of secondary
teachers are not fully qualified, while in Sweden the shares rise to 16.3% in primary and 21.6% in secondary education.
In more than half of the 19 countries and economies with data, less than 5% of teachers in secondary education are
non-fully qualified, but the share exceeds 15% in Denmark (for both primary and lower secondary levels), Estonia
(primary and secondary), Iceland and Sweden, signalling more acute shortages. In Sweden, the high shares observed
partly reflect the country’s strict definition of non-fully qualified teachers, which includes teachers who teach in other
subjects or other grades than their certification allows. (Figure D8.2).
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
486
In several countries and economies, the share of non-fully qualified teachers has increased since 2014/15. For
instance, in Estonia, the share in primary and secondary education grew from 7.6% in 2014/15 to 19.1% in 2022/23,
and in Iceland, it rose from 4.5% to 16.9% in primary education. Similar upward trends were observed in Austria,
Denmark, the French Community of Belgium and Portugal, reflecting growing pressures to fill teaching posts even
when qualified candidates are lacking (Table D8.2). The reasons behind these patterns vary. In Denmark, many non-
fully qualified teachers are university students taking a sabbatical year. They are often employed part time to help
address staffing shortages within a flexible system. This may offer short-term relief, but it is important that teaching is
carried out by trained teachers wherever possible to ensure that students receive education of sufficient quality. In
Sweden, the rise in the share of non-fully qualified teachers stems from large-scale retirements and the need to draw
from a broader pool, including substitute teachers, career changers and individuals with partial qualifications (NLS,
2023[5]).
Figure D8.2. Share of non-fully qualified teachers, by level of education (2022/23)
In per cent, full-time and part-time, public institutions
Primary education Secondary education
25
20
15
10
1. Primary and secondary education combined
2. Primary and lower secondary education combined.
3. Reference year differs from 2022/23.
4. Expressed in full-time equivalents, as a large majority of teachers in the Netherlands and non-fully qualified teachers in Denmark are working
part time.
5. Excluding upper secondary education in Israel and upper secondary vocational education in the Netherlands.
For data, see Table D8.2. For a link to download the data, see Tables and Notes section.
Another growing issue is the diversity of qualification levels within the qualified teaching workforce. In some countries
and economies, some teachers may hold only an upper secondary qualification, while others have bachelor’s or
master’s degrees (Box D8.2). This variety affects the consistency of teaching quality, particularly when less-qualified
staff are concentrated in disadvantaged schools or hard-to-staff subjects (OECD, 2018[4]). Students in these schools
may have reduced access to effective instruction, which can exacerbate existing inequalities and hinder social mobility.
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
487
Ultimately, the use of non-fully qualified or less-qualified teachers – whether as a temporary response to staffing
shortages or as a systemic practice – has significant implications for both the quality and equity of education if not
supported with appropriate policies and conditions. Ensuring that all students are taught by well-prepared educators,
including supporting non-fully qualified teachers to develop their skills, is essential for promoting equitable learning
opportunities and fostering long-term workforce sustainability (Box D4.1 and (OECD, 2022[6])).
Box D8.1. Second-career teachers
Second-career teachers are individuals who transition into teaching from a different profession or career. They bring
valuable skills and perspectives gained from their previous work experience, enriching the learning environment and
offering students diverse insights. Given global teacher shortages and the need for experienced professionals in
education, many countries have explored pathways to facilitate this career transition.
Among countries and economies with available data, over half (16 out of 28) have introduced structured pathways
tailored to second-career teachers (Figure D8.3). These include employment-based routes, targeted academic
training, recognition of prior experience and special certification processes.
More specifically, 7 of the 16 countries and economies with established pathways have adopted employment-based
routes that allow professionals to hold teaching positions while completing teacher training. In Australia, the High
Achieving Teachers (HAT) Program supports high-achieving professionals from diverse backgrounds to transition into
teaching. Participants are employed in schools experiencing workforce shortages, where they receive structured
support while completing an accredited teaching qualification (Australian Government, n.d.[7]). Latvia’s Teaching Power
initiative, the Flemish Community of Belgium’s teacher-in-training (LIO) pathway and Switzerland’s formation par
l’emploi route follow similar models, enabling candidates to teach while completing teacher education programmes.
Equally common (7 out of 16 countries and economies) is the recognition of prior professional experience, leading to
accelerated or flexible pathways. In Denmark, the Merituddannelse programme offers part-time or accelerated
teaching qualifications. In Switzerland, prior experience may allow shortened training or dossier-based admission. In
the Flemish Community of Belgium, entrants from other sectors are given the option to validate up to 15 years of prior
experience as pay scale seniority.
In addition, three countries offer special certifications routes. In Japan, experienced professionals may obtain a
“Special Certificate” after passing the Teacher Competency Examination conducted by the prefectures. In
the Netherlands, eligible candidates can gain a second-career teacher certificate, contingent on passing a suitability
exam and concluding concurrent training. Austria’s lateral entry scheme includes a three-step aptitude process
followed by employment-based training.
Specific academic and/or training routes are available for university graduates with no prior teaching qualification in
almost one-third of countries with available pathways (5 out of 16). Lithuania and Sweden have fast-track programmes
(i.e. shortened, intensive pedagogical study programmes of about 1-1.5 years), while Argentina, Finland and
the Slovak Republic offer targeted pedagogical training for qualified graduates.
Despite increasing interest in attracting professionals from other fields into teaching, a significant number of countries
and economies (12 out of 28) do not provide alternative routes for second-career teachers (Figure D8.3). However, a
few of these offer limited initiatives. For example, Spain allows VET institutions to temporarily hire industry experts to
meet specific skills needs, while England (United Kingdom) supports career changers with pastoral care and
recruitment services.
France represents a notable exception, as all candidates (including career-changers) gain tenured teaching positions
through one of three national competitive examinations. Although career changers and other teachers without full
qualifications may be offered open-ended contracts after six years of service, they are still not considered fully qualified
unless they pass the required national competitive examination for permanent civil servant status.
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
488
Despite the existence of alternative pathways in many countries and economies, 5 out of 28 countries and economies
systematically identify second-career teachers in their education statistics. While some collect data on their
qualifications and employment status, others do not distinguish them as a separate category in national data
collections. In a context where the teaching profession faces declining attractiveness in many countries, it is crucial to
offer clear and supportive pathways for second-career entrants – and to monitor their participation through robust data
collection, so that their experiences can inform workforce planning and policy design.
For further contextual data on pathways available to second-career teachers, see the Excel file for Figure D8.3
(downloadable via the StatLink provided at the end of the chapter).
Figure D8.3. Pathways for second-chance career teachers to become fully qualified
Existence of alternative pathways for second-career teachers, OECD and partner countries and other economies
(a) There are established pathways for second-career (b) Second-career teachers must follow the same
teachers to obtain required qualifications and become qualification process as other teacher candidates if (c) Both
fully-qualified. they want to be fully-qualified.
14 countries and other economies 12 countries and other economies 2 countries and other economies
Australia, Austria, Finland, Hungary, Japan, Latvia,
Costa Rica, Estonia, Iceland, Luxembourg, Norway,
OECD countries Lithuania, Netherlands, Slovak Republic, Sweden, Denmark
Poland, Slovenia, Spain, Türkiye
Switzerland
Other economies Flemish Community (Belgium) England, French Community (Belgium)
Partner and/or accession countries Argentina, Bulgaria Romania Brazil
For a link to download the data, see Tables and Notes section.
Unfilled teaching positions at the start of the school year
The lack of teachers at the start or during the school year is a growing concern in many countries. The 2022
Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) found that, in more than half of countries and economies
surveyed, school principals were more likely to report teacher shortages in their schools in 2022 than their counterparts
were in 2018. On average, the percentage of students in schools whose principals reported that instruction is hindered
by a lack of teaching staff increased by 21 percentage points, from 26% in 2018 to 47% in 2022. In Australia, Belgium,
Chile, France, Latvia, the Netherlands, Poland and Portugal, the increase exceeded 30 percentage points. However,
it is important to note that these measures are based on principals' perceptions and are not objective measures of staff
shortages. Principals in different countries may have different perceptions of what constitutes a shortage of teaching
or support staff in their schools (see Figure II.5.3 in PISA Results Volume II (OECD, 2023[2])).
To complement these perception-based measures, administrative data on unfilled teaching vacancies offer another
perspective on staffing challenges although the concept itself is complex due to cross-country differences in how
teachers are recruited. In around two-thirds of countries and economies, graduates receive a teaching diploma or
certification and apply directly to schools for employment. In contrast, roughly one-third – Brazil, France, Japan, Korea,
Romania, Spain and the Republic of Türkiye – require candidates to pass a competitive examination at the end of their
training (Table D8.3). These exams typically offer a limited number of positions, with successful candidates assigned
to schools. These structural differences affect how teacher shortages are measured. Where competitive examinations
are used, unfilled vacancies are defined as open positions in the exam process that remain unfilled by fully qualified
candidates at the start of the school year. In the systems where schools recruit directly – often with significant local
autonomy – shortages are estimated based on the number of advertised school-level vacancies that remain open at
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
489
that same point in time. Despite these methodological differences, both approaches are used by countries and
economies to monitor and report the lack of fully qualified teachers.
Based on the data available for 14 countries and economies, the number of unfilled teaching vacancies across pre-
primary to upper secondary education varies considerably in absolute terms – from 0 in Korea and 320 in Bulgaria to
4 778 in Austria, 5 747 in Poland and 6 704 in Sweden. At first glance, these figures may appear alarming and are
often cited in media coverage without reference to the total number of teaching positions, which can lead to the scale
of the problem being overstated. Expressed as a share of all teaching posts, the proportion of unfilled vacancies
remains relatively low in most education systems. In 12 out of the 14 countries and economies, unfilled positions at
the start of the year account for less than 3% of the teaching workforce. Only Austria (4.6%) and Sweden (5.0%) report
vacancy rates above 4%, while France (0.1%), Japan (0.2%), England (United Kingdom) (0.3%), Bulgaria (0.4%) show
very low vacancy levels, and Korea reports no unfilled vacancies at all (Figure D8.4 and Table D8.3).
The data on unfilled teaching vacancies, expressed as a percentage of total teaching positions, reveal notable
differences between countries and economies – across education levels, over time and when compared to the number
of teacher training graduates from the previous year.
In a large majority of countries and economies, the percentage of unfilled vacancies is higher in secondary education
than in primary, pointing to greater recruitment challenges at the upper levels of schooling. This pattern is visible in
Austria (5.1% in secondary education compared to 3.8% in primary), the Flemish Community of Belgium (2.4% versus
1.3%), the French Community of Belgium (3.1% versus 1.8%), Romania (1.9% versus 0.7%) and Sweden (5.3%
versus 4.7%). These differences may reflect subject-specific shortages – particularly in science, technology,
engineering and mathematics (STEM) fields – as well as the difficulty of attracting and retaining teachers for older
student cohorts (see the data on unfilled vacancies by fields of study in Chapter D5 of Education at a Glance 2024
(OECD, 2024[3])). Conversely, a few countries and economies report similar vacancy rates for both levels or even
slightly lower shares of unfilled positions in secondary education. For instance 2.3% of teaching positions are vacant
at the secondary level in the Netherlands, compared to 2.8% at primary level, while the rates are 0.2% at both primary
and secondary levels in Japan. Bulgaria, France and Korea also report vacancy rates below 0.5% across both levels,
suggesting more balanced staffing – though this may not fully capture regional or subject-specific imbalances. These
cross-country differences underscore the need for tailored workforce policies that reflect the specific staffing
challenges at each level of education (Table D8.3).
Beyond cross-sectional differences, longitudinal data indicate staffing pressures are growing. In five of the seven
countries with available data, the percentage of unfilled vacancies relative to all teaching positions has increased
between 2013/14 and 2022/23. This suggests that shortages may be worsening over time, requiring sustained
attention from policy makers (Table D8.3).
A deeper understanding of teacher supply challenges emerges when unfilled vacancies are compared with the
number of teacher training graduates from the previous year. For example, in Austria, the number of unfilled positions
in 2022/23 was equivalent to 107% of the prior year’s graduates – meaning there were more unfilled vacancies in
2022/23 than the number of graduates who had gained a teaching diploma the year before. Other countries also face
a similar shortfall: in Poland, unfilled positions amounted to 94% of the previous year’s graduates; in Sweden, 77%; in
the French Community of Belgium, 72%; and in the Netherlands, 50%. Even in countries with relatively lower gaps,
such as Romania (31%), Latvia (24%), and the Flemish Community of Belgium (41%), the figures suggest a persistent
imbalance (Table D8.3). Although these comparisons do not account for all sources of recruitment (e.g. career
changers or internationally trained teachers), they highlight the importance of aligning teacher education capacity with
projected labour-market needs. Strengthening this alignment will help countries and economies better anticipate and
respond to evolving staffing demands.
Taken together, these findings suggest that while shortages do exist, their magnitude is sometimes overstated when
not contextualised. Still, they should not mask other pressing staffing issues – such as day-to-day teacher
absenteeism, mid-year resignations or geographical disparities in teacher allocation – which are not captured by this
indicator but may have an equally significant impact on teaching continuity and education quality. Continued monitoring
is essential, particularly in systems or regions under increasing staffing pressure.
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
490
Figure D8.4. Vacancies not filled at the start of the school year as a percentage of the total number
of teaching positions, whether filled by fully qualified teachers or not (2022/23)
In per cent, full-time and part-time, public institutions, pre-primary to upper secondary education
2022/23 2014/15
7.0 In these 10 countries and economies, schools—often with significant Fully-qualified teachers are recruited in these 4
autonomy—directly recruit fully qualified teachers, and shortages are countries by competitive examination for a limited
typically measured by the number of advertised vacancies that remain and fixed number of places. Unfilled vacancies
unfilled at the start of the school year. refer to open positions that remain vacant at the
start of the year due to a lack of successful
5.0 applicants
4.6
2.6 2.6
2.1
1.8 1.9
1.2 1.1
1.0 1.0 1.0
0.6 0.2
0.4 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0
Note: The number in parentheses refers to the number of vacancies not filled by fully qualified teachers in pre-primary, primary and secondary
education in 2022/23.
1. Excluding pre-primary education in Austria and Japan. Excluding upper secondary vocational education in the Netherlands.
2. Expressed in full-time equivalents. Excluding hidden shortages, i.e. positions that were filled in undesired ways (6 781 positions in primary
education and 2 230 in secondary education).
3. Reference year differs from 2022/23.
For data, see Table D8.3. For a link to download the data, see Tables and Notes section.
Box D8.2. Teachers’ qualification levels in primary education
The teaching workforce is highly heterogeneous in terms of qualifications. Although the majority of countries require
at least a bachelor’s degree for teaching at primary levels, the actual workforce composition includes a mix of
attainment, ranging from upper secondary to master’s degrees and even doctoral or equivalent credentials
(Figure D8.5). Similarly, in upper secondary education, a master’s degree is increasingly becoming the minimum
qualification requirement, although significant cross-country differences remain. However, this variation may result in
uneven qualification levels among teachers across schools and education levels.
In all countries and economies with available data except Korea, at least a small proportion of primary teachers do not
even hold a bachelor’s degree. This share represents less than 5% of primary teachers in half (9 out of 18) but reaches
over 14% of primary teachers in Brazil, Denmark, Israel, Norway and Sweden. In Estonia, Finland, Slovenia and
Sweden, where a master’s degree is the minimum requirement for teaching at primary levels, more than 15% of the
teaching workforce still only hold a bachelor’s degree or below. In Bulgaria, England (United Kingdom), Israel and
Korea, where a bachelor’s degree is the legal requirement for primary teachers, a significant proportion of primary
teachers, over 25%, nonetheless hold a master’s degree or higher (Figure D8.5).
The diversity in qualification levels can be attributed to several factors. In some countries and economies, qualification
requirements have been gradually upgraded over time. For example, Norway transitioned from requiring a bachelor’s
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
491
degree and practical experience to mandating a master’s degree for all teaching levels from 2017 onward (Government
of Norway, 2018[8]). However, many teachers entered the profession under earlier qualification standards, contributing
to the current variation in qualifications. In other cases, the presence of underqualified teachers may reflect efforts to
fill vacancies, especially in hard-to-staff schools or regions, where temporary exceptions are made to qualification
rules.
Figure D8.5. Share of teachers in primary education with qualifications at or above a bachelor’s or
equivalent degree (2023)
In per cent, full-time and part-time, public and private institutions
Bachelor's or equivalent Master's or equivalent Doctoral or equivalent
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
Note: the scope covers all classroom teachers, with no distinction between fully and non-fully qualified teachers.
1. Bachelor's or equivalent programmes includes both master's and doctoral or equivalent programmes.
For data, see Sources section. For a link to download the data, see Tables and Notes section.
To address the challenges posed by qualification disparities, continuous professional development programmes that
provide opportunities for learning and upskilling can help promote greater equity in teaching, even within a workforce
that continues to reflect mixed qualification levels.
Amid these trends, there is no clear international consensus on the optimal level of education for teachers. Whether a
bachelor’s or master’s degree is required, or what specific content and competencies should be prioritised in teacher
preparation, remains a subject of debate across countries.
Teachers leaving the profession
Like the other indicators, teacher attrition is closely linked to teacher shortages and poses a major challenge to the
long-term sustainability of education systems. High attrition rates – defined as the permanent departure of fully qualified
teachers from the profession within a given year, including both resignations and retirements – can undermine the
stability of school staffing and disrupt continuity in instruction, and erode institutional knowledge (see Definitions
section below).
Across 19 OECD countries and economies with available data, on average 6.5% of fully qualified teachers from pre-
primary to upper secondary education left the profession in 2022/23. Attrition rates vary significantly, from below 3%
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
492
in France, Greece, Ireland and Israel to over 10% in Denmark, Estonia and Lithuania (Figure D8.6). Attrition rates are
slightly higher in pre-primary education (7.3%) and relatively similar in primary (5.8%) and secondary education (5.9%).
Over the past decade, rates have remained relatively stable in most countries and economies. However, a few
countries have seen notable changes. In Austria and Estonia, the share of fully qualified teachers leaving the
profession increased by more than 2 percentage points between 2013/14 and 2022/23, raising growing concerns
around workforce sustainability. In contrast, the attrition rate in Denmark declined by a similar margin over that period
(Table D8.4).
Figure D8.6. Share of fully qualified teachers who left the profession by resigning or retiring in pre-
primary, primary and secondary education (2022/23)
In per cent, full-time and part-time, public institutions
All teachers who have resigned or retired from the profession (no breakdowns between those who resigned and those who retired)
All teachers who have retired from the profession
All teachers who have resigned from the profession (no breakdowns by seniority)
Teachers with more than 5 years of experience who have resigned from the profession
Teachers with less than 5 years of experience who have resigned from the profession
14
12
10
1. Reference year differs from 2022/23.
2. Only primary education in Argentina. Excluding pre-primary education in Greece and Ireland. Excluding upper secondary education in
Denmark and Israel. Excluding upper secondary vocational education in the Netherlands.
3. Includes non-fully qualified teachers.
4. Includes teachers who left the profession because they were appointed to other positions in the education sector.
Countries are ranked in descending order of the share of resignations among fully qualified teachers who left the profession in pre-primary,
primary, and secondary education
For data, see Table D8.4. For a link to download the data, see Tables and Notes section.
The 2022/23 data reveal striking differences across countries and economies in the reasons for teachers leaving the
profession. In several countries, attrition form pre-primary to upper secondary education is primarily driven by
resignations rather than retirements, showing potential issues with working conditions, job satisfaction, or career
progression. In Denmark, England (United Kingdom) and Estonia, over 80% of fully qualified teachers who left the
profession in 2022/23 resigned rather than retired. These figures contrast sharply with Argentina (for primary
education), France, the French Community of Belgium, Greece, Ireland and Israel, where retirements account for more
than 50% of teacher departures. On average across OECD countries, about half (51%) of fully qualified teachers who
left the profession resigned, underscoring the importance of policies focused not only on recruitment but also on
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
493
improving teacher retention. However, although high attrition can strain education systems, very low turnover may also
pose challenges, particularly if it limits renewal. These dynamics highlight the need for balanced policies that support
the retention of teachers, while allowing for an appropriate degree of professional mobility (Figure D8.6 and
Table D8.4).
It is also notable that a substantial share of teachers who resign are in the early stages of their careers. In the seven
OECD countries that provided data on teacher seniority, between 16% and 68% of the fully qualified teachers who
resigned in 2022/23 had less than five years of experience. The proportions are particularly high in Austria and in
Israel, where nearly 58% and 68% of resigning teachers, respectively, were early-career, followed by
the Slovak Republic (40%), Poland (32%) and Estonia (30%). Even in the countries with comparatively lower rates,
Sweden (23%) and Denmark (16%), early-career attrition remains an important trend to monitor, although in most
countries there are pathways for teachers to return to the profession if they wish. On average across these OECD
countries, one in three resigning teachers (34%) had under five years of experience. This trend highlights the
importance of reinforcing early-career support mechanisms – such as mentoring, induction programmes and
professional development opportunities – to reduce early attrition, strengthen workforce stability and maximise the
return on investment in initial teacher education (OECD, 2022[6]).
Cultural and structural differences in employment practices could help explain the variance in job tenure and
associated turnover rates between countries and economies. For instance, in New Zealand, fewer than 25% of workers
in all sectors remain in the same job for more than ten years, compared to over 50% in Greece. Similarly, Denmark
and England (United Kingdom) exhibit high labour-market flexibility, with approximately 30% of employees changing
jobs annually in the private sector – a notably higher rate than for instance in Sweden. This wider culture of greater
career mobility can contribute to increased turnover in teaching and partly explain why the percentage of teachers
leaving the profession is above the OECD average in these countries and economies. In contrast, Austria, France and
Greece have more rigid labour markets, with longer job tenures and stronger employment protections, leading to lower
turnover rates. On average across OECD countries, around 35% of workers stay in the same job for over ten years,
while the EU25 average stands at approximately 40% (OECD, 2025[9]).
In response to growing concerns about teacher shortages and attrition, several OECD countries have adopted targeted
policy measures aimed at improving recruitment and retention. New Zealand has launched a comprehensive Teacher
Supply Package, which combines financial incentives, structured induction support and efforts to attract overseas
teachers. As part of this initiative, eligible returning and international teachers can access an overseas relocation grant
of up to NZD 10 000 to help cover the costs of relocation, including teacher registration, temporary accommodation
and travel for immediate family members (Government of New Zealand, 2025[10]). Lithuania, facing an ageing teaching
workforce and difficulty attracting new educators, has introduced the Education Development Programme 2021-30,
which focuses on improving the attractiveness of the profession by enhancing working conditions, strengthening
professional support and creating clearer career pathways to reduce attrition (Eurydice, 2023[11]). Box D8.3 details
insights from the Education Policy Outlook into country policies to attract and retain teachers (OECD, 2024[12]).
Although resignation rates may appear moderate in some countries and economies, they do not capture the full extent
of instability within the teaching workforce. High levels of absenteeism, even without a formal resignation, can disrupt
instruction and increase reliance on temporary staff. Effective monitoring of both resignations and absences is
essential for understanding the true scope of staffing challenges and their impact on student learning.
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
494
Box D8.3. Policy priorities to enhance teaching attractiveness: Insights from the OECD Education
Policy Outlook 2024
The Education Policy Outlook 2024: Reshaping Teaching Into a Thriving Profession (from ABCs to AI) (OECD,
2024[12]) looked at policies to attract and retain teachers, based on responses from 33 education systems to the
Education Policy Outlook National Survey for Comparative Policy Analysis which were collected mainly between April
and May 2024. This survey is part of the OECD's efforts to gather comparative data and insights on education policies
across OECD and partner countries, facilitating analysis and dialogue on policy developments and challenges. The
respondents were the education ministries or relevant government authorities of participating countries and
jurisdictions. These entities provide official responses through designated national co-ordinators or representatives
The survey responses showed a stronger focus on attracting teachers than retaining them, with Brazil the only system
prioritising teacher retention over attraction. At least 70% of respondents prioritised raising the profession's status,
enhancing institutional leadership and diversifying pathways into teaching in order to attract new teachers. Attracting
new types of candidate into teaching received less emphasis, considered important in 64% of systems (Figure D8.7).
Policy priorities also vary across education levels. For early childhood education and care, improving the societal value
of the profession and offering more flexible entry routes are most frequently cited. In secondary education, where
shortages are often more acute and subject specific, the need to attract candidates from more diverse backgrounds
was given a greater emphasis. These differentiated approaches suggest that although teacher shortages are a
common challenge, the solutions must be tailored to specific workforce needs across levels and contexts (OECD,
2024[12]).
Figure D8.7. Priorities for attracting teachers by policy area for 2025-30 (2024)
Percentage of education systems specifying policy areas of “high” or “very high” importance in at least one level of
education
Attracting new types of candidates
Improving the status of the teaching Opening up diverse pathways into the Teacher attraction policies are
to the teaching profession and
profession and institutional leadership teaching profession less of a priority
institutional leadership
26 education systems (or 79%) 23 education systems (or 70%) 21 education systems (or 64%) 1 education system (or 3%)
Austria, Colombia, Germany,
Chili, Colombia, Czechia, Germany, Finland, Austria, Germany, France, Greece,
Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Korea,
France, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Japan, Hungary, Iceland, Japan, Korea,
Lithuania, Luxembourg, Latvia,
Korea, Latvia, Mexico, Netherlands, Norway, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Latvia , Mexico,
Mexico, Netherlands, Norway, Brazil
Poland, Portugal, Slovenia, Spain, Türkiye, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Slovenia,
Portugal, Belgium(Fl., Fr.), England
Belgium(Fl., De.), England (UK), Türkiye, Belgium (Fr., Fl., De.), England
(UK), Croatia Kazakhstan, Peru and
Kazakhstan, Peru and Romania (UK), Croatia and Peru
Romania
Note: A policy area of “high importance” is considered a priority for the allocation of resources and strategic focus and is expected to have a
notable impact on attracting teachers. A policy area of “very high importance” is considered an urgent priority requiring immediate attention and
substantial resources, with significant potential to positively influence attracting teachers.
Source: OECD (2024), Education Policy Outlook National Survey for Comparative Policy Analysis 2024. Chapter 2 - Figure 2.1.
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
495
Definitions
Centralised/decentralised system: Having a centralised system for certifying new teachers and assigning them to
schools means that this process is managed at central (national) government level. In a centralised system, the
national government is responsible for certifying teachers and assigning them to schools, whereas in a decentralised
system, these responsibilities are assumed by regional authorities (lander, districts, states etc.) or local ones (schools,
municipalities, etc.).
Competitive examinations refer to examinations organised by local, regional or national authorities in order to select
the applicants with the best results to fill a limited and fixed number of places for student teachers and/or for teachers
in the public education system.
Fully qualified teachers refer to teachers who have fulfilled all the training and administrative requirements for
teaching at a given grade and subject, according to the formal policy of a country. The administrative requirements
can include formal qualifications and attainment level, specific pedagogical training or practical experience, succeeding
in competitive examinations, and the successful completion of a probation period or induction programme.
Non-fully qualified teachers refer to teachers entering the profession through alternative pathways. In most
countries, they either have the required academic qualifications but lack mandatory certification or training, have
completed training but lack the academic qualifications, or lack both. In a few cases, the term also includes fully
qualified teachers teaching in a different subject or education level than they were trained for.
Fully qualified teachers who left the profession: A leaving teacher refers to any teacher who is leaving the
profession in the reference year and who is not expected to come back the year after (i.e. someone who is permanently
leaving the profession). Teachers who leave due to resignation or retirement are counted as leaving teachers.
Teachers temporarily absent from work (e.g. due to illness, injury, maternity or parental leave, vacation, or early
retirement leave) are not considered leaving teachers. In most countries, however, teachers who leave the profession
may still return after more than one year.
Second-career teachers are individuals who transition into teaching from a different profession or career.
Methodology
In Table D8.3, teacher shortages are estimated by the number of unfilled teaching vacancies at the start of the school
year 2022/23. In countries with competitive examinations, unfilled vacancies refer to the number of open positions that
remain vacant for the year 2022/23 due to a lack of successful applicants to the competitive examination conducted
at the end of the 2021/22 academic year. In other countries, estimates are based on vacancies advertised – often
directly by schools – that could not be filled with fully qualified teachers, leading institutions to hire non-fully qualified
teachers or rely on temporary arrangements. In a few cases, unfilled vacancies are approximated by counting non-
fully qualified teachers in the current year who were not listed in the teacher register the previous year. This chapter
provides an international overview, but it is important to note that teacher shortages can be more pronounced in certain
regions or in rural areas. Additionally, a shortage at the start of the year does not necessarily imply that the situation
will not improve as the year progresses. In most countries, the majority of unfilled positions are filled shortly after the
school year begins, often by non-fully qualified teachers. It should also be noted that this chapter does not cover
teacher absenteeism, which is an important issue in many countries and can lead to shortages for part of the academic
year.
Sources
Data on teachers by age (Table D8.1) refer to the academic year 2022/23 and are based on the UNESCO-
UIS/OECD/EUROSTAT data collection on education statistics administered by the OECD in 2024. They cover both
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
496
public and private institutions. Data included in Figure D8.5 come from the 2024 UNESCO-UIS/OECD/EUROSTAT
TEACH Questionnaire, which was included as an ad hoc module in the 2024 UOE data collection.
Data included in Table D8.2, Table D8.3and Table D8.4 refer to the academic year 2022/23 and are based on the
INES special data collection on teacher shortages administered by the OECD in 2024. Qualitative information from
this ad hoc survey has been collected in an additional ad-hoc survey submitted to countries in 2025. These
questionnaires cover public institutions from pre-primary to upper secondary education. The scope of the questionnaire
is focused on initial education and does not include adult education (second chance education or any other form of
lifelong learning activities) or special education programmes and schools for children with disabilities.
References
Australian Government (n.d.), High Achieving Teachers (HAT) Program, Department of Education, [7]
https://www.education.gov.au/teaching-and-school-leadership/high-achieving-teachers-hat-program
(accessed on 4 June 2025).
Eurydice (2023), Lithuania: Conditions of service for teachers working in early childhood and school [11]
education, European Commission, https://eurydice.eacea.ec.europa.eu/eurypedia/lithuania/conditions-
service-teachers-working-early-childhood-and-school-education.
Government of New Zealand (2025), Overseas Relocation Grant, Education Workforce, [10]
https://workforce.education.govt.nz/becoming-teacher-new-zealand/overseas-trained-
teachers/overseas-relocation-grant.
Government of Norway (2018), Teacher Education 2025. National Strategy for Quality and Cooperation in [8]
Teacher Education, Ministry of Education and Research,
https://www.regjeringen.no/en/dokumenter/larerutdanningene-2025.-nasjonal-strategi-for-kvalitet-og-
samarbeid-i-larerutdanningene/id2555622/.
NLS (2023), Teacher Shortage in the Nordic Countries: Comparing the Current Situation, Nordic Teachers’ [5]
Council (NLS), https://www.csee-etuce.org/images/Reports/Teacher_shortage_NLS-
report_22.11.2023.pdf.
OECD (2025), Employment by job tenure intervals - frequency, OECD Data Explorer, https://data- [9]
explorer.oecd.org/vis?df[ds]=DisseminateFinalDMZ&df[id]=DSD_TENURE%40DF_TENURE_FREQ&df[
ag]=OECD.ELS.SAE&utm_source=chatgpt.com&dq=.TENURE_EMP.._T._T..A&pd=2015%2C&to[TIME
_PERIOD]=false&vw=tb.
OECD (2024), Education at a Glance 2024: OECD Indicators, OECD Publishing, Paris, [3]
https://doi.org/10.1787/c00cad36-en.
OECD (2024), Education Policy Outlook 2024: Reshaping Teaching into a Thriving Profession from ABCs [12]
to AI, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/dd5140e4-en.
OECD (2023), PISA 2022 Results (Volume II): Learning During – and From – Disruption, PISA, OECD [2]
Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/a97db61c-en.
OECD (2022), Mending the Education Divide: Getting Strong Teachers to the Schools That Need Them [6]
Most, TALIS, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/92b75874-en.
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
497
OECD (2020), TALIS 2018 Results (Volume II): Teachers and School Leaders as Valued Professionals, [1]
TALIS, TALIS, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/19cf08df-en.
OECD (2018), Effective Teacher Policies: Insights from PISA, PISA, OECD Publishing, Paris, [4]
https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264301603-en.
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
498
Tables and Notes
Chapter D8 Tables
Table D8.1 Trends in the age distribution of teachers, by level of education (2013 and 2023)
Table D8.2 Share of non-fully qualified teachers, by level of education (2014/15 and 2022/23)
Table D8.3 Unfilled teaching vacancies at the start of the year and prior-year teaching graduates, by level of education (2014/15 and
2022/23)
Table D8.4 Share of fully qualified teachers who left the profession by resigning or retiring, by level of education (2022/23)
StatLink 2 https://stat.link/6a2xcz
Data Download
To download the data for the figures and tables in this chapter, click StatLink above.
To access further data and/or other education indicators, please visit the OECD Data Explorer: https://data-
explorer.oecd.org/.
Data cut-off for the print publication 13 June 2025. Please note that the Data Explorer contains the most recent
data.
Notes for Tables
Table D8.1 Trends in the age distribution of teachers, by level of education (2013 and 2023)
Note: The scope covers all classroom teachers, with no distinction between fully and non-fully qualified teachers.
1. 'Primary' includes pre-primary and lower secondary education, while 'secondary' refers only to upper
secondary education.
2. Year of reference differs from 2013: 2014 for Bulgaria, Croatia, Denmark and Türkiye,; 2016 for Costa Rica
and France; and 2018 for Colombia.
3. Year of reference differs from 2023: 2022 for Colombia and Peru.
4. Pre-primary education also includes early childhood education development programmes.
5. 'Secondary' includes post-secondary non-tertiary education.
6. 'Primary includes lower secondary education and 'Secondary' refers only to upper secondary education.
Table D8.2 Share of non-fully qualified teachers, by level of education (2014/15 and 2022/23)
Note: Unlike fully qualified teachers who meet all training and administrative requirements to teach a given subject,
non-fully qualified teachers enter the profession through alternative pathways. In most countries, they either have the
required academic qualifications but lack mandatory certification or training, have completed training but lack the
academic qualifications, or lack both. In a few cases, the term also includes fully qualified teachers teaching in a
different subject or education level than they were trained for.
1. Primary and lower secondary education combined in Denmark, Iceland and Slovenia. Data for pre-primary
education (ISCED 02) include early childhood development programmes (ISCED 01) in Iceland. Total
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
499
excludes upper secondary education in Denmark and Slovenia. Excluding upper secondary education in Israel
and upper secondary vocational education in the Netherlands.
2. Reference year differs from 2022/23: academic year 2021/22 for Denmark, England (UK), France and Japan
.
3. Expressed in full-time equivalents, as a large majority of teachers in the Netherlands and non-fully qualified
teachers in Denmark are working part time.
4. Reference year differs from 2014/15: academic year 2015/16 for France; and 2018/19 for Lithuania and
Sweden.
Table D8.3 Unfilled teaching vacancies at the start of the year and prior-year teaching graduates, by level of
education (2014/15 and 2022/23)
Note: The methods for estimating the number of unfilled teaching vacancies at the start of the school year vary across
countries. In countries with competitive examinations (Column 1), unfilled vacancies refer to open positions that remain
vacant after the exam due to a lack of successful applicants. In other countries, estimates are based on vacancies
advertised - often directly by schools - that could not be filled with fully qualified teachers, leading institutions to hire
less-qualified staff or rely on temporary arrangements. In a few cases (e.g. the French Community of Belgium and
Sweden), unfilled vacancies are approximated by counting non-fully qualified teachers in the current year who were
not listed in the teacher register the previous year. In most countries, the majority of unfilled positions are filled shortly
after the school year begins, often by non-fully qualified teachers.
1. In countries without a competitive examination, this refers to the share of students graduating with a teaching
diploma at the end of 2021/22 as a percentage of those enrolled in the final year of teacher education
programmes in 2021/22. In countries with a competitive examination, this refers to the share of successful
applicants in 2021/22 as a percentage of all applicants who took the exam in 2021/22.
2. In countries without a competitive examination, prior-year teaching graduates refers to the students graduating
with a teaching diploma in the reference year. In countries with a competitive examination, it refers to the
successful candidates among all applicants who took the exam in the reference year.
3. Excluding pre-primary education in Austria and Japan. Pre-primary and primary education are combined in
England (UK), Flemish Comm. (Belgium), France and the Netherlands. Excluding upper secondary education
in Israel and upper secondary vocational education in the Netherlands.
4. Reference year: academic year 2021/22 for England (UK), France and Japan ; academic year 2023/2024 for
secondary education in the Netherlands. Reference year for trends: academic year 2015/16 for France.
5. Expressed in full-time equivalents. Excluding hidden shortages, i.e. positions that were filled in undesired
ways (6 781 positions in primary education and 2 230 in secondary education).
Table D8.4 Share of fully qualified teachers who left the profession by resigning or retiring, by level of
education (2022/23)
Note: Columns with data on pre-primary education are available for consultation on line.
1. Primary and lower secondary education combined and excluding upper secondary education in Denmark.
Excluding upper secondary education in Israel and upper secondary vocational education in the Netherlands.
Data for pre-primary education (ISCED 02) include early childhood development programmes (ISCED 01) in
Iceland.
2. Reference year differs from 2022/23: academic year 2021/22 for Denmark, France and England (UK) and
New Zealand.
3. Reference year differs from 2014/15: academic year 2012/13 for the United States; 2015/16 for France; and
2018/19 for Lithuania.
4. Includes non-fully qualified teachers.
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
500
5. Includes teachers who left the profession because they were appointed to other positions in the education
sector.
Control codes
a – category not applicable; b – break in series; d – contains data from another column; m – missing data; x – contained
in another column (indicated in brackets). For further control codes, see the Reader’s Guide.
For further methodological information, see Education at a Glance 2025: Sources, Methodologies and Technical Notes
(https://doi.org/10.1787/fcfaf2d1-en).
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
501
Table D8.1. Trends in the age distribution of teachers, by level of education (2013 and 2023)
Full-time and part-time, public and private institutions
Pre-primary Primary Secondary
< 30 years >= 50 years < 30 years >= 50 years < 30 years >= 50 years
2013 2023 2013 2023 2013 2023 2013 2023 2013 2023 2013 2023
OECD countries (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12)
Australia m m m m m m m m m m m m
Austria 26 29 22 22 12 19 37 33 7 13 46 40
Belgium 25 15 15 30 23 19 22 25 17 13 30 31
Canada1 x(5) x(6) x(7) x(8) 12 d 10 d 26 d 29 d 12 10 26 29
Chile 21 13 17 21 22 13 28 23 21 14 31 24
Colombia2, 3 29 25 26 27 12 11 38 41 10 9 37 38
Costa Rica 2 5 6 32 27 5 7 31 26 9 7 24 20
Czechia 14 17 37 39 9 8 31 46 7 7 39 44
Denmark 2 m 11 m 38 12 19 33 33 9 13 36 37
Estonia 4, 5 12 9 39 47 9 10 38 49 8d 7d 50 d 53 d
Finland 16 16 27 33 9 13 30 36 7 9 37 43
France2 11 11 25 32 12 11 22 27 9 9 31 39
Germany 21 22 28 29 7 8 45 37 6 6 49 39
Greece 10 8 12 35 0 11 49 47 1 1 39 56
Hungary 7 15 38 41 7 8 34 47 6 5 35 49
Iceland5 30 37 22 20 7 7 36 39 m 5d m 46 d
Ireland m m m m 18 13 22 16 m 14 m 24
Israel 10 13 27 25 16 15 21 24 10 9 32 34
Italy5 0 4 57 54 0 5 57 57 0d 5d 69 d 52 d
Japan 5 58 45 9 14 15 23 31 25 11d 16 d 31d 33 d
Korea 52 40 2 9 21 16 16 17 13 13 26 25
Latvia 15 11 28 42 9 9 36 50 7 7 46 57
Lithuania 8 10 41 47 4 6 39 57 7 4 44 59
Luxembourg 28 17 14 16 25 22 19 16 15 11 25 26
Mexico m m m m m m m m m m m m
Netherlands 19 16 35 30 18 15 36 31 12 14 46 37
New Zealand 25 25 25 25 12 13 39 37 10 12 43 41
Norway 23 19 14 20 12 21 33 29 9 14 40 37
Poland 23 14 20 24 10 5 23 44 9 4 26 40
Portugal5 6 3 31 55 2 3 34 50 2 3d 31 56 d
Slovak Republic 13 16 37 34 9 9 27 33 12 7 38 38
Slovenia6 21 12 22 22 7 10 27 32 5 7 33 49
Spain 12 9 30 28 10 8 33 30 3 6 34 39
Sweden m 9 m 38 6 9 39 37 6 6 42 43
Switzerland 5 18 16 29 31 16 20 35 29 9d 9d 38 d 37 d
Türkiye2 m m m m m 17 m 21 25 16 9 13
United Kingdom 28 18 19 22 29 24 16 16 19 19 26 25
United States 16 m 31 m 15 15 31 30 16 12 32 33
OECD average 20 17 26 31 12 13 32 34 10 9 36 38
Partner and/or accession countries
Argentina m m m m m m m m m m m m
Brazil 22 13 10 22 17 11 15 27 18 12 18 26
Bulgaria 2 6 9 52 38 3 7 42 49 4 7 48 48
China m m m m m m m m m m m m
Croatia 2 16 d 19 29 d 23 x(9) 9 x(11) 37 13 d 10 30 d 29
India m m m m m m m m m m m m
Indonesia m m m m m m m m m m m m
Peru 3 m 13 m 25 m 7 m 42 m 9 m 34
Romania 18 21 35 21 11 12 31 30 13 8 29 32
Saudi Arabia m m m m m m m m m m m m
South Africa m m m m m m m m m m m m
EU25 average 15 14 31 34 10 11 34 38 8 8 39 42
G20 average m m m m m m m m m m m m
Note: For notes on this table and a link to download the data, see Tables and Notes section above.
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
502
Table D8.2. Share of non-fully qualified teachers, by level of education (2014/15 and 2022/23)
Full-time and part-time, public institutions
Pre-primary Primary Secondary Total
2022/23 2014/15 2022/23 2014/15 2022/23 2014/15 2022/23 2014/15
OECD countries (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8)
Australia m m m m m m m m
Austria m m 5.3 1.2 6.0 3.1 5.7 2.4
Costa Rica 9.7 12.4 6.0 6.9 2.5 3.8 5.0 6.3
Denmark1, 2, 3 24.5 15.4 18.1 d 15.2 d m m 20.8 15.3
Estonia 14.7 17.6 x(5) x(6) 19.1 d 7.6 d 17.8 13.9
France2, 4 x(3) x(4) 1.3 d 0.4 d 9.1 7.7 5.4 4.3
Greece m m m m m m m m
Hungary 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Iceland1 78.2 d 71.5 d 16.9 d 4.5 d 17.5 16.3 45.1 35.3
Ireland m m m m m m m m
Israel1 5.5 m 7.9 m 6.0 m 7.0 m
Japan 2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Korea 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Latvia 15.4 11.5 m m m m m m
Lithuania4 19.4 16.2 7.5 6.0 5.5 4.9 7.2 6.0
Netherlands1, 3 x(3) m 1.9 d m 3.9 6.2 2.7 m
New Zealand m m m m m m m m
Norway m m m m m m m m
Poland 0.1 m 0.1 m 0.6 m 0.4
Portugal 5.9 0.8 5.0 0.9 7.5 2.1 6.5 1.6
Slovak Republic 2.2 m 2.9 m 1.9 m 2.2 m
Slovenia1 m m 3.1 d 1.4 d m m 3.1 m
Spain m m m m m m m m
Sweden4 11.8 16.2 16.3 20.8 21.6 25.5 18.7 22.8
Switzerland m m m m m m m m
Türkiye m m m m m m m m
United States m m m m m m m m
Other economies
Flemish Comm. (Belgium) 3.2 m 2.7 m 6.9 m 4.8 m
French Comm. (Belgium) 5.8 0.4 8.8 3.0 16.9 9.7 12.7 6.2
England (UK)2 1.6 2.9 1.8 1.9 2.8 3.7 2.3 2.8
OECD average 11.6 12.7 5.6 4.4 7.1 6.5 8.4 8.4
Partner and/or accession countries
Argentina m m m m m m m m
Brazil m m m m m m m m
Bulgaria 4.3 0.3 3.0 1.2 3.8 2.1 3.7 1.4
Romania 2.6 2.5 1.5 1.5 2.0 1.4 2.0 1.6
EU25 average 8.5 8.1 5.2 4.7 7.5 6.4 7.1 6.9
G20 average m m m m m m m m
Note: For notes on this table and a link to download the data, see Tables and Notes section above.
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
503
Table D8.3. Unfilled teaching vacancies at the start of the year and prior-year teaching graduates,
by level of education (2014/15 and 2022/23)
Full-time and part-time, public institutions
Primary Secondary
Vacancies not filled at the start Vacancies not filled at the start
of the 2022/23 school year … of the 2022/23 school year …
...as a ...as a
Competitive percentage percentage
examination of the total of the total
for a limited number number
and fixed of teaching … as a of teaching … as a
number Share positions percentage Share positions percentage
of places of successful (whether of the number of successful (whether of the number
for certifying teaching filled by of prior-year teaching filled by of prior-year
new teachers candidates ... in absolute fully qualified teaching candidates ... in absolute fully qualified teaching
(Yes or No) in 2021/221 numbers teachers or not) graduates2 in 2021/221 numbers teachers or not) graduates2
OECD countries (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9)
Australia No m m m m m m m m
Austria3 No m 1 409 3.8 99 m 3 369 5.1 110
Costa Rica No m m m m m m m m
Denmark No m m m m m m m m
Estonia No m m m m m m m m
France3, 4 Yes 28 d 157 d 0.0 d 2d 24 659 0.2 7
Greece No m m m m m m m m
Hungary No m m m m m m m m
Iceland m m m m m m m m m
Ireland No m m m m m m m m
Israel3 No m m m m m m m m
Japan 3, 4 Yes 38 979 0.2 6 20 881 0.2 6
Korea Yes 49 0 0.0 0 12 0 0.0 0
Latvia No m m m m m m m m
Lithuania No m m m m m m m m
Netherlands3, 4, 5 No m 2 940 d 2.8 d 76 d m 1 531 2.3 30
New Zealand No m m m m m m m m
Norway No m m m m m m m m
Poland No m m m m m m m m
Portugal No m m m m m m m m
Slovak Republic No m m m m m m m m
Slovenia No m m m m m m m m
Spain Yes m m m m m m m m
Sweden No m 2 972 4.7 141 m 3 398 5.3 89
Switzerland No m m m m m m m m
Türkiye Yes m m m m m m m m
United States No m m m m m m m m
Other economies
Flemish Comm. (Belgium)3 No 86 d 895 d 1.3 d 44 d 80 1 524 2.4 39
French Comm. (Belgium) No m 590 1.8 55 m 1 571 3.1 82
England (UK)3, 4 No 90 d 635 d 0.3 d 3d 92 771 0.4 5
OECD average m m m m m m m m m
Partner and/or accession countries
Argentina No m 3 259 1.3 m m 1 091 1.7 m
Brazil Yes m m m m m m m m
Bulgaria No m 36 0.2 m m 192 0.5 m
Romania Yes 59 306 0.7 13 44 2 572 1.9 41
EU25 average m m m m m m m m m
G20 average m m m m m m m m m
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
504
From pre-primary to upper secondary From pre-primary to upper secondary
Vacancies not filled at the start Vacancies not filled at the start
of the 2022/23 school year … of the 2014/15 school year …
...as a ...as a
percentage percentage
of the total of the total
number number
of teaching … as a of teaching … as a
Share positions percentage Share positions percentage
of successful (whether of the number of successful (whether of the number
teaching filled by of prior-year teaching filled by of prior-year
candidates ... in absolute fully qualified teaching candidates ... in absolute fully qualified teaching
in 2021/221 numbers teachers or not) graduates2 in 2013/141 numbers teachers or not) graduates2
OECD countries (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) (15) (16) (17)
Australia m m m m m m m m
Austria3 m 4 778 4.6 107 m 2 106 2.1 64
Costa Rica m m m m m m m m
Denmark m m m m m m m m
Estonia m m m m m m m m
France3, 4 26 816 0.1 4 29 1 676 0.2 7
Greece m m m m m m m m
Hungary m m m m m m m m
Iceland m m m m m m m m
Ireland m m m m m m m m
Israel3 m m m m m m m m
Japan 3, 4 27 1 860 0.2 6 17 m m m
Korea 15 0 0.0 0 22 0 0.0 0
Latvia 27 300 1.1 24 m m m m
Lithuania m m m m m m m m
Netherlands3, 4, 5 4 471 2.6 50 m m m m
New Zealand m m m m m m m m
Norway m m m m m m m m
Poland 84 5 747 1.0 94 m m m m
Portugal 30 m m m m m m m
Slovak Republic m m m m m m m m
Slovenia m m m m m m m m
Spain m m m m m m m m
Sweden m 6 704 5.0 77 m 8 980 7.0 97
Switzerland m m m m m m m m
Türkiye m m m m m m m m
United States m m m m m m m m
Other economies
Flemish Comm. (Belgium)3 81 2 419 1.831 41 m 383 m 6
French Comm. (Belgium) m 2 518 2.6 72 m 936 1.0 26
England (UK)3, 4 91 1 406 0.3 4 91 814 0.2 3
OECD average m m m m m m m m
Partner and/or
accession countries
Argentina 4 703 1.2 m m 2 173 0.6 m
Brazil m m m m m m m m
Bulgaria 91 320 0.4 4 m m m m
Romania 51 3 892 1.9 31 50 2 068 1.0 16
EU25 average m m m m m m m m
G20 average m m m m m m m m
Note: For notes on this table and a link to download the data, see Tables and Notes section above.
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
505
Table D8.4. Share of fully qualified teachers who left the profession by resigning or retiring, by
level of education (2022/23)
Full-time and part-time, public institutions
2022/23
Primary Secondary
Of which: Fully qualified Of which: Fully qualified
teachers teachers
with less than with less than
5 years 5 years
of experience of experience
who left the who left the
Percentage profession as Percentage profession as
of fully qualified a percentage of of fully qualified a percentage of
teachers all fully qualified teachers all fully qualified
who left the Resigned from Retired from teachers who left the Resigned from Retired from teachers
profession the profession the profession who resigned profession the profession the profession who resigned
OECD countries (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8)
Australia m m m m m m m m
Austria 5.8 63 37 52 6.5 45 55 63
Costa Rica m m m m m m m m
Denmark1, 2 12.0 d 85 d 15 d 18 d m m m m
Estonia x(5) x(6) x(7) x(8) 11 d 80 d 20 d 33 d
France2, 3 2.7 d 17 d 83 d m 2.6 13 87 m
Greece 2.1 5 95 m 3.7 4 96 m
Hungary m m m m m m m m
Iceland1 11.5 m m m m m m m
Ireland 2.5 25 75 m 5.0 53 47 m
Israel1 2.0 29 71 66 2.0 31 69 68
Japan m m m m m m m m
Korea m m m m m m m m
Latvia m m m m m m m m
Lithuania3 m m m m m m m m
Netherlands1, 4 8.1 d m m m 9.5 m m m
New Zealand2, 4 8.5 m m m 8.6 m m m
Norway m m m m m m m m
Poland 4.5 57 43 24 4.3 62 38 32
Portugal 3.7 m m 28 4.0 m m 49
Slovak Republic 5.3 67 33 38 6.5 57 43 38
Slovenia m m m m m m m m
Sweden 5.6 78 22 23 6.1 78 22 20
Switzerland m m m m m m m m
Türkiye m m m m m m m m
United States3, 5 m m m m m m m m
United States No m m m m m m m
Other economies
Flemish Comm. (Belgium) 4 8.4 76 24 m 8.8 76 24 m
French Comm. (Belgium) 4.8 33 67 m 4.8 31 69 m
England (UK)2 9.5 d m m m 9.5 m m m
OECD average 5.8 49 51 36 5.9 48 52 43
Partner and/or accession countries
Argentina 5.4 49 51 m m m m m
Brazil m m m m m m m m
Bulgaria 7.7 m m 4 8.4 m m 29
Romania m m m m m m m m
EU25 average 5.7 51 49 27 6.2 50 50 38
G20 average m m m m m m m m
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
506
2022/23 2014/15
Pre-primary to upper secondary Pre-primary to upper secondary
Of which: Fully qualified Of which: Fully qualified
teachers teachers
with less than with less than
5 years 5 years
of experience of experience
who left the who left the
Percentage profession as Percentage profession as
of fully qualified a percentage of of fully qualified a percentage of
teachers all fully qualified teachers all fully qualified
who left the Resigned from Retired from teachers who left the Resigned from Retired from teachers
profession the profession the profession who resigned profession the profession the profession who resigned
OECD countries (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) (15) (16)
Australia m m m m m m m m
Austria 6.2 51 49 58 3.2 63 37 59
Costa Rica m m m m m m m m
Denmark1, 2 11.8 85 15 16 13.7 82 18 23
Estonia 11.6 81 19 30 6.8 80 20 38
France2, 3 2.7 15 85 m 2.3 6 94 m
Greece 2.7 5 95 m 2.3 12 88 m
Hungary m m m m m m m m
Iceland1 m m m m 9.7 m m m
Ireland 2.3 39 61 m m m m m
Israel1 2.1 28 72 68 m m m m
Japan m m m m m m m m
Korea m m m m m m m m
Latvia m m m m m m m m
Lithuania3 12.5 m m m 12.4 m m m
Netherlands1, 4 8.6 m m m m m m
New Zealand2, 4 8.5 m m m m m m m
Norway m m m m m m m m
Poland 4.4 61 39 32 m m m m
Portugal 3.9 m m 39 m m m m
Slovak Republic 6.4 58 42 40 m m m m
Slovenia m m m m m m m m
Sweden 5.9 77 23 23 5.8 91 9 22
Switzerland m m m m m m m m
Türkiye m m m m m m m m
United States3, 5 7.9 m m m 7.7 46 54 7
United States m m m m m m m m
Other economies
Flemish Comm. (Belgium) 4 8.3 76 24 m m m m m
French Comm. (Belgium) 4.8 33 67 m 4.9 29 71 m
England (UK)2 9.5 91 9 m 10.4 76 24 m
OECD average 6.5 51 49 38 6.9 51 49 30
Partner and/or
accession countries
Argentina m m m m m m m m
Brazil m m m m m m m m
Bulgaria 8.3 m m 23 7.4 m m 20
Romania m m m m m m m m
EU25 average 6.7 53 47 32 6.5 52 48 32
G20 average m m m m m m m m
Note: For notes on this table and a link to download the data, see Tables and Notes section above.
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
507
Annex 1. Characteristics of education
systems
Annex 1 Tables
Table X1.1 School year and financial year used for the calculation of indicators, OECD countries
Table X1.2 School year and financial year used for the calculation of indicators, partner and accession countries
Table X1.3 Starting and ending age of students in compulsory education, ages of entitlement to early childhood education and care,
and theoretical starting age and duration of education levels (2023)
StatLink 2 https://stat.link/jcx94f
Data Download
To download the data for the figures and tables in this chapter, click StatLink above.
To access further data and/or other education indicators, please visit the OECD Data Explorer: https://data-
explorer.oecd.org/.
Data cut-off for the print publication 13 June 2025. Please note that the Data Explorer contains the most recent
data.
Notes for Tables
Table X1.1. School year and financial year used for the calculation of indicators, OECD countries
No note.
Table X1.2. School year and financial year used for the calculation of indicators, partner and accession
countries
No note.
Table X1.3. Starting and ending age of students in compulsory education, ages of entitlement to early
childhood education and care, and theoretical starting age and duration of education levels (2023)
Note: The theoretical ages refer to the age of the students at the beginning of the school year except for the ending
age of compulsory education which corresponds to the age at which compulsory schooling ends. For example, an
ending age of 18 indicates that all students under 18 are legally obliged to participate in education. Since the theoretical
ages indicated refer to the beginning of the school year, students may be older than the theoretical ending age at the
end of the academic year. See Definitions and Methodology.
1. Theoretical starting and ending ages for early childhood development refer to the Flemish Community only.
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
508
2. The length of study at the secondary level differs in Quebec, with the final grade of secondary schools in the
province being Grade 11. For the remaining provinces and territories, the final grade of secondary schools is
Grade 12.
3. In 2015, the Basic Education Act was revised and the participation of 6-year-olds in pre-primary education
became mandatory. However, this is not encompassed by the Compulsory Education Act, which stipulates
that compulsory education usually begins in the year when children turn 7 years old.
4. As of September 2020, 16-18 year-old students are required to train by several means: schooling,
apprenticeships, training courses, civic service, and support or social and professional integration measures.
5. In Berlin and Brandenburg, primary education lasts for 6 years. In addition, the duration of lower secondary
education varies between 5 and 6 years depending on the qualification aspired and Federal Land. Most
programmes leading to the first school leaving certificate last 9 school years, while programmes leading to
the intermediate school leaving certificate last 10 school years. There are also differences in the length of
schooling up to the Abitur (12 or 13 years). The starting age for upper secondary education also varies and
can be 15. In Berlin, upper secondary education at the gymnasium lasts 2 years.
6. Early childhood education integrates early childhood educational development and pre-primary education.
There is no lower age limit to enrol, but children are entitled to a place from the year they turn 1 if born
January-November and parental leave is also around a year. The theoretical duration of upper secondary
vocational programmes may vary from 3 to 4.5 years.
Control codes
a – category not applicable; b – break in series; d – contains data from another column; m – missing data; x – contained
in another column (indicated in brackets). For further control codes, see the Reader’s Guide.
For further methodological information, see Education at a Glance 2025: Sources, Methodologies and Technical Notes
(https://doi.org/10.1787/fcfaf2d1-en)
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
509
Table X1.1. School year and financial year used for the calculation of indicators, OECD countries
Financial year School year
2021 2022 2023 2024
Month 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1 2 3 4 5 6
Australia
Austria
Belgium
Canada
Chile
Colombia
Costa Rica
Czechia
Denmark
Estonia
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Iceland
Ireland
Israel
Italy
Japan
Korea
Latvia
Lithuania
Luxembourg
Mexico
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Slovak Republic
Slovenia
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Türkiye
United Kingdom
United States
Month 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1 2 3 4 5 6
2021 2022 2023 2024
Note: For notes on this table and a link to download the data, see Notes for Tables section above.
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
510
Table X1.2. School year and financial year used for the calculation of indicators, partner and
accession countries
Financial year School year
2021 2022 2023 2024
Month 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1 2 3 4 5 6
Argentina
Brazil
Bulgaria
China
Croatia
India
Indonesia
Peru
Romania
Saudi Arabia
South Africa
Month 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1 2 3 4 5 6
2021 2022 2023 2024
Note: For notes on this table and a link to download the data, see Notes for Tables section above.
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
511
Table X1.3. Starting and ending age of students in compulsory education, ages of entitlement to
early childhood education and care, and theoretical starting age and duration of education levels
(2023)
Ages refer to the age of the students at the beginning of the school year
Theoretical starting age and duration
Entitlements to early Early childhood
Compulsory childhood education educational
education and care development Pre-primary Primary Lower secondary Upper secondary
Starting age
Starting age
Starting age
Starting age
Starting age
Starting age
Starting age
Starting age
of universal
entitlement
Ending age
provision
Duration
Duration
Duration
Duration
Duration
of free
OECD countries (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14)
Australia 6 17 4 4 0 3 3 2 5 7 12 4 16 2
Austria 5 15 a 5 0 3 3 3 6 4 10 4 14 4
Belgium1 5 18 3 0 0 3 2.5 3 6 6 12 2 14 4
Canada2 6 16 0 5 0-2 1-3 3-5 1-3 6 6 12 3 15 2-3
Chile 6 18 0.25 4 0.25 3 3 3 6 6 12 2 14 4
Colombia 5 16 5 5 0 3 3 3 6 5 11 4 15 2
Costa Rica 4 17 4 4 0 4 4 2 6 6 12 3 15 2
Czechia 5 15 m 5 a a 3 3 6 5 11 4 15 4
Denmark 6 16 6 6 0 3 3 3 6 7 13 3 16 3
Estonia 7 16 1.5 7 x(7) x(8) 0d 7d 7 6 13 3 16 3
Finland 3 6 18 0.75 6 0.75 2 3 4 7 6 13 3 16 3
France4 3 16 3 3 a a 3 3 6 5 11 4 15 3
Germany5 6 19 1 6 0 3 3 3 6 4 10 6 16 3
Greece 4 15 4 4 0 4 4 2 6 6 12 3 15 3
Hungary 3 16 0 0 0 3 3 3 6 4 10 4 14 4
Iceland 6 16 a 6 1 3 3 3 6 7 13 3 16 4
Ireland 6 16 2.6 3 0 3 3 2 5 8 13 3 16 2
Israel 3 17 3 3 0 3 3 3 6 6 12 3 15 3
Italy 6 16 0.25 3 a a 3 3 6 5 11 3 14 5
Japan 6 15 3 3 a a 3 3 6 6 12 3 15 3
Korea 6 14 0 0 0 3 3 3 6 6 12 3 15 3
Latvia 5 16 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 3 4 7 6 13 3 16 3
Lithuania 6 16 2 0 0 3 3 4 7 4 11 6 17 2
Luxembourg 4 16 3 1 0 3 3 3 6 6 12 3 15 4
Mexico 3 17 0 0 0 3 3 3 6 6 12 3 15 3
Netherlands 5 17 4 4 0 4 3 3 6 6 12 3 15 3
New Zealand 6 16 0 3 0 3 3 2 5 6 11 4 15 3
Norway 6 6 16 1.6 6 x(7) x(8) 1d 5d 6 7 13 3 16 3
Poland 6 15 3 3 a a 3 4 7 4 11 4 15 4
Portugal 6 18 3 0 0 3 3 3 6 6 12 3 15 3
Slovak Republic 5 16 4 5 a a 3 3 6 4 10 5 15 4
Slovenia 6 15 0.92 1 0.92 2 3 3 6 6 12 3 15 4
Spain 6 16 3 3 0 3 3 3 6 6 12 3 15 3
Sweden 6 15 1 1 1 2 3 4 7 6 13 3 16 3
Switzerland 4 15 4 4 a a 4 2 6 6 12 3 15 4
Türkiye 6 18 5 3 0 3 3 3 6 4 10 4 14 4
United Kingdom 5 18 3 3 0 3 3 2 5 6 11 3 14 4
United States 5 16 3-6 5 0 3 3 3 6 6 12 3 15 3
Partner and/or accession countries
Argentina 4 17 m m 0 3 3 3 6 6 12 3 15 3
Brazil 4 17 0 4 0 4 4 2 6 5 11 4 15 3
Bulgaria 4 16 3 3 a a 3 4 7 4 11 3 14 5
China 6 14 m m m m 3 3 6 6 12 3 15 3
Croatia 6 16 0.5 6 0 3 3 3 7 4 11 4 15 4
India 6 13 m m m m 3 3 6 5 11 3 14 4
Indonesia 7 15 m m 0 5 5 2 7 6 13 3 16 3
Peru 5 17 m m 0 3 3 3 6 6 12 3 15 2
Romania 4 19 0.16 0 0 3 3 3 6 5 11 4 15 4
Saudi Arabia 6 14 m m 2 1 3 3 6 6 12 3 15 3
South Africa 7 15 m m 0 3 3 4 7 7 14 2 16 3
Note: For notes on this table and a link to download the data, see Notes for Tables section above.
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
512
Annex 2. Reference statistics
Annex 2 Tables
Table X2.1 Basic reference statistics in current prices (reference period: calendar year, 2015, 2020, 2021, 2022, 2023)
Table X2.2 Basic reference statistics (reference period: calendar year, 2015, 2020, 2021, 2022, 2023)
Table X2.3 Pre-primary and primary teachers' statutory salaries, in national currencies, based on the most prevalent qualifications at
different points in teachers' careers (2024)
Table X2.4 Secondary teachers' statutory salaries, in national currencies, based on the most prevalent qualifications at different points
in teachers' careers (2024)
Table X2.5 Trends in teachers' statutory starting salaries, in national currencies (2000 and 2005 to 2024)
Table X2.6 Trends in teachers' statutory salaries after 15 years of experience, in national currencies (2000 and 2005 to 2024)
Table X2.7 Trends in teachers' average actual salaries, in national currencies (2000, 2005 and 2010 to 2024)
Table X2.8 Reference statistics used in calculating salaries of teachers and school heads (2000 and 2005 to 2024)
Table X2.9 Distribution of teachers, by minimum or most prevalent qualifications and level of education (2024)
Table X2.10 Distribution of teachers aged 25-64, by educational attainment and level of education (2024)
Table X2.11 Distribution of school heads aged 25-64, by educational attainment and level of education (2024)
StatLink 2 https://stat.link/c7vgxe
Data Download
To download the data for the figures and tables in this chapter, click StatLink above.
To access further data and/or other education indicators, please visit the OECD Data Explorer: https://data-
explorer.oecd.org/.
Data cut-off for the print publication 13 June 2025. Please note that the Data Explorer contains the most recent
data..
Notes for Tables
Table X2.1. Basic reference statistics in current prices (reference period: calendar year, 2015, 2020, 2021, 2022,
2023)
Note: For countries where GDP is not reported for the same reference period as data on educational finance, GDP is
estimated as: wt-1 (GDPt - 1) + wt (GDPt), where wt and wt-1 are the weights for the respective portions of the two
reference periods for GDP which fall within the educational financial year. Adjustments were made in Part C for
Australia, Canada, Japan, New Zealand, the United Kingdom and the United States.
1. The GDP mainland market value is used for Norway.
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
513
Source: OECD (2025), OECD Data Explorer, "Annual GDP and components - expenditure approach" and "Annual
government non-financial accounts and key indicators (Expenditure)" (https://data-explorer.oecd.org).
Table X2.2. Basic reference statistics (reference period: calendar year, 2015, 2020, 2021, 2022, 2023)
1. GDP deflator mainland figures are used for Norway.
Source: OECD (2025), OECD Data Explorer, "Annual Purchasing Power Parities and exchange rates", "Annual
population and employment, national concept", and "Annual GDP and components - expenditure approach"
(https://data-explorer.oecd.org).
Table X2.3. Pre-primary and primary teachers' statutory salaries, in national currencies, based on the most
prevalent qualifications at different points in teachers' careers (2024)
Note: The definition of teachers' most prevalent qualifications is based on a broad concept, including the typical ISCED
level of attainment and other criteria. The most prevalent qualification is defined for each of the four career stages
included in this table. In many cases, the minimum qualification is the same as the most prevalent qualification. The
minimum and the most prevalent qualifications are described in Table D.D3.3 in Education at a Glance 2025 Sources,
Methodologies and Technical Notes (https://doi.org/10.1787/fcfaf2d1-en).
1. Year of reference: 2023 (calendar year for Sweden).
2. Data on teachers in pre-primary programmes include the data for teachers in early childhood education and
care.
3. Data exclude the social security contributions and pension scheme contributions paid by the employees.
4. Actual salaries (including teachers of general subjects within vocational programmes in Sweden, and
excluding bonuses and allowances in the United States).
Table X2.4. Secondary teachers' statutory salaries, in national currencies, based on the most prevalent
qualifications at different points in teachers' careers (2024)
Note: The definition of teachers' most prevalent qualifications is based on a broad concept, including the typical ISCED
level of attainment and other criteria. The most prevalent qualification is defined for each of the four career stages
included in this table. In many cases, the minimum qualification is the same as the most prevalent qualification. The
minimum and the most prevalent qualifications are described in Table D.D3.3 in Education at a Glance 2025 Sources,
Methodologies and Technical Notes (https://doi.org/10.1787/fcfaf2d1-en).
1. Year of reference: 2023 (calendar year for Sweden).
2. Data include the average of fixed bonuses for overtime hours.
3. Data exclude the social security contributions and pension scheme contributions paid by the employees.
4. Actual salaries (including teachers of general subjects within vocational programmes in Sweden, and
excluding bonuses and allowances in the United States).
Table X2.5. Trends in teachers' statutory starting salaries, in national currencies (2000 and 2005 to 2024)
Note: Data on salaries for countries now in the euro area are shown in euros. Years 2006 to 2009, 2011 to 2014, 2016
to 2019 and 2021 to 2023 (i.e. Columns 3 to 6, 8 to 11, 13 to 16, 18 to 20, 24 to 27, 29 to 32, 34 to 37, 39 to 41, 45 to
48, 50 to 53, 55 to 58, 60 to 62, 66 to 69, 71 to 74, 76 to 79 and 81 to 83) are available for consultation on line (see
StatLink). The definition of teachers' most prevalent qualifications is based on a broad concept, including the typical
ISCED level of attainment and other criteria. The most prevalent qualification is defined for the career stage included
in this table. In many cases, the minimum qualification is the same as the most prevalent qualification. The minimum
and the most prevalent qualifications are described in Table D.D3.3 in Education at a Glance 2025 Sources,
Methodologies and Technical Notes (https://doi.org/10.1787/fcfaf2d1-en).
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
514
1. Actual salaries (including teachers of general subjects within vocational programmes in Sweden, and
excluding bonuses and allowances in the United States).
2. The most prevalent qualification for pre-primary and primary teachers in 2000 was a bachelor's degree or
equivalent (ISCED 6), and a master's degree or equivalent (ISCED 7) in subsequent years.
Table X2.6. Trends in teachers' statutory salaries after 15 years of experience, in national currencies (2000
and 2005 to 2024)
Note: Data on salaries for countries now in the euro area are shown in euros. Years 2006 to 2009, 2011 to 2014, 2016
to 2019 and 2021 to 2023 (i.e. Columns 3 to 6, 8 to 11, 13 to 16, 18 to 20, 24 to 27, 29 to 32, 34 to 37, 39 to 41, 45 to
48, 50 to 53, 55 to 58, 60 to 62, 66 to 69, 71 to 74, 76 to 79 and 81 to 83) are available for consultation on line (see
StatLink). The definition of teachers' most prevalent qualifications is based on a broad concept, including the typical
ISCED level of attainment and other criteria. The most prevalent qualification is defined for the career stage included
in this table. In many cases, the minimum qualification is the same as the most prevalent qualification. The minimum
and the most prevalent qualifications are described in Table D.D3.3 in Education at a Glance 2025 Sources,
Methodologies and Technical Notes (https://doi.org/10.1787/fcfaf2d1-en).
1. Figures for the pre-primary level refer to primary teachers (in primary schools only) teaching pre-primary
classes.
2. Actual salaries (including teachers of general subjects within vocational programmes in Sweden, and
excluding bonuses and allowances in the United States).
3. The most prevalent qualification for pre-primary and primary teachers in 2000 was a bachelor's degree or
equivalent (ISCED 6), and a master's degree or equivalent (ISCED 7) in subsequent years.
Table X2.7. Trends in teachers' average actual salaries, in national currencies (2000, 2005 and 2010 to 2024)¹
Note: Years 2011 to 2014, 2016 to 2019 and 2021 to 2023 (i.e. Columns 4 to 7, 9 to 12, 14 to 16, 21 to 24, 26 to 29,
31 to 33, 38 to 41, 43 to 46, 48 to 50, 55 to 58, 60 to 63 and 65 to 67) are available for consultation on line (see
StatLink). See explanations on the break in the time series in Table D.D3.12 in Education at a Glance 2025 Sources,
Methodologies and Technical Notes (https://doi.org/10.1787/fcfaf2d1-en).
1. Data on salaries for countries now in the euro area are shown in euros.
2. Data on teachers in pre-primary education include the data for teachers in early childhood education and
care.
Table X2.8. Reference statistics used in calculating salaries of teachers and school heads (2000 and 2005 to
2024)
Note: Values for PPPs and deflators were extracted from the OECD Data Explorer on national accounts on 02 April
2025. As 2024 PPPs were not available on this date, values for 2023 have been used for 2024. Deflators for the years
2006 to 2009, 2011 to 2014, 2016 to 2019 and 2021 (i.e. Columns 8 to 11, 13 to 16, 18 to 21 and 23) are available for
consultation on line (see StatLink).
1. Data on PPPs for countries now in the euro area are shown in euros
2. Data on PPPs and deflators refer to the whole country: Belgium for the Flemish and the French Community
of Belgium, and the United Kingdom for England and Scotland.
Table X2.9. Distribution of teachers, by minimum or most prevalent qualifications and level of education (2024)
Note: See Definitions and Methodology sections of Chapter D3 for more information.
1. Year of reference: 2023 (calendar year for Sweden).
2. Government-dependent private institutions included.
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
515
Table X2.10. Distribution of teachers aged 25-64, by educational attainment and level of education (2024)
1. Reference year differs from 2024: 2023 for Czechia, Slovenia and Sweden (calendar year); and 2022 for Chile
and France (calendar year).
Table X2.11. Distribution of school heads aged 25-64, by educational attainment and level of education (2024)
1. Reference year differs from 2024: 2023 for Chile, Czechia, Poland, Slovenia and Sweden (calendar year);
and 2022 for France (calendar year).
Control codes
a – category not applicable; b – break in series; d – contains data from another column; m – missing data; x – contained
in another column (indicated in brackets). For further control codes, see the Reader’s Guide.
For further methodological information, see Education at a Glance 2025: Sources, Methodologies and Technical Notes
(https://doi.org/10.1787/fcfaf2d1-en)].
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
516
Table X2.1. Basic reference statistics in current prices (reference period: calendar year, 2015, 2020,
2021, 2022, 2023)
Gross domestic product (GDP) Total government expenditure
(in millions of local currency, current prices) (in millions of local currency, current prices)
2015 2020 2021 2022 2023 2015 2020 2021 2022 2023
OECD countries (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10)
Australia 1 641 040 2 033 743 2 208 076 2 448 921 2 620 086 620 240 918 324 921 501 956 184 1 030 499
Austria 342 084 380 318 406 232 448 007 473 227 175 201 217 971 227 597 237 490 249 349
Belgium 415 538 463 751 506 023 563 544 596 321 223 896 271 076 277 962 294 400 317 595
Canada 1 999 215 2 299 350 2 614 599 2 871 658 m 812 749 1 182 045 1 173 641 1 180 084 1 257 226
Chile 158 622 903 201 257 745 239 561 981 263 842 661 281 870 321 40 935 942 61 261 849 82 121 706 73 214 343 m
Colombia 804 692 000 998 471 000 1 192 634 000 1 469 791 000 1 572 458 300 363 651 000 515 231 000 576 600 000 675 934 000 m
Costa Rica 30 171 919 36 495 246 40 326 626 44 810 031 47 059 272 9 099 110 12 475 503 12 648 102 17 933 221 19 236 534
Czechia 4 651 813 5 828 318 6 307 755 7 049 872 7 618 528 1 939 667 2 695 753 2 840 033 3 030 666 3 344 331
Denmark 2 030 206 2 326 592 2 567 520 2 844 228 2 804 742 1 104 800 1 240 994 1 269 114 1 276 893 1 313 529
Estonia 21 011 27 859 31 456 36 443 38 188 8 248 12 464 13 241 14 565 16 520
Finland 210 192 236 387 248 764 266 135 272 782 117 168 133 447 137 103 140 085 152 633
France 2 201 402 2 318 276 2 508 102 2 655 435 2 822 455 1 268 008 1 430 357 1 491 424 1 550 743 1 609 883
Germany 3 085 650 3 449 620 3 676 460 3 953 850 4 185 550 1 373 293 1 763 784 1 864 302 1 937 465 2 024 970
Greece 175 363 167 540 184 575 207 854 225 197 96 036 99 338 104 688 109 858 111 577
Hungary 34 984 755 48 807 766 55 556 986 66 165 628 75 086 595 17 616 154 24 907 128 26 715 126 32 244 502 37 146 477
Iceland 2 310 848 2 929 165 3 279 524 3 892 031 4 321 079 1 004 612 1 496 813 1 618 761 1 812 194 1 966 222
Ireland 272 544 382 207 449 217 520 935 509 952 76 430 101 915 105 804 107 285 115 912
Israel 1 179 534 1 414 039 1 582 324 1 764 412 1 878 373 450 852 643 833 643 262 662 013 752 095
Italy 1 663 278 1 670 012 1 842 507 1 998 073 2 131 390 835 694 948 296 1 032 343 1 096 547 1 144 854
Japan 539 615 375 543 001 575 554 927 725 568 357 625 m 208 962 800 248 455 700 243 338 200 242 646 800 240 295 200
Korea 1 740 776 000 2 058 466 500 2 221 912 900 2 323 781 500 2 401 189 400 504 008 400 738 883 100 786 289 800 860 322 100 844 308 600
Latvia 23 744 29 224 32 284 36 100 39 372 9 494 12 934 15 022 15 965 17 187
Lithuania 37 441 50 265 56 680 67 455 73 793 13 179 21 246 21 143 24 451 27 583
Luxembourg 54 142 64 524 72 361 77 529 79 310 21 861 30 341 30 974 33 986 37 968
Mexico 19 228 615 24 086 758 26 690 033 29 516 052 31 855 566 5 297 291 10 869 283 7 122 898 7 834 616 12 700 444
Netherlands 699 175 816 463 891 550 993 820 1 067 599 316 389 390 377 409 171 429 746 461 217
New Zealand 252 406 327 207 351 431 384 911 410 057 99 595 152 260 161 082 168 259 165 049
Norway 1 2 614 238 3 067 339 3 288 436 3 570 859 3 288 436 1 533 194 1 994 429 2 035 860 2 186 991 2 384 960
Poland 1 809 564 2 362 909 2 661 518 3 100 850 3 401 610 750 899 1 127 935 1 159 588 1 341 141 1 600 439
Portugal 179 393 201 033 216 494 243 957 267 923 86 677 98 754 102 495 107 034 113 362
Slovak Republic 80 376 94 321 101 960 110 089 122 919 35 467 41 972 45 767 47 333 59 572
Slovenia 38 494 46 739 52 023 56 909 63 951 19 052 24 209 25 956 27 120 29 723
Spain 1 087 112 1 129 214 1 235 474 1 373 629 1 498 324 474 893 580 164 611 124 637 117 680 952
Sweden 4 231 745 5 020 978 5 464 876 5 865 211 6 212 143 2 129 789 2 660 856 2 727 550 2 869 511 3 065 198
Switzerland 668 006 696 620 745 067 791 087 803 632 224 542 267 037 265 845 259 224 266 813
Türkiye 2 350 941 5 048 568 7 256 142 15 011 780 26 545 720 746 115 1 810 867 2 269 956 4 103 040 8 807 923
United Kingdom 1 935 250 2 148 965 2 345 657 2 574 151 m 813 093 1 102 353 1 102 577 1 176 256 1 277 831
United States 17 951 579 21 447 044 22 517 638 24 844 032 26 863 801 6 910 981 10 093 748 10 724 143 9 977 767 10 846 788
Partner and/or accession countries
Argentina 5 954 511 27 195 699 46 282 066 82 650 240 m 2 463 163 11 558 522 17 509 344 31 172 287 72 417 362
Brazil 5 995 787 7 609 597 9 012 142 10 079 677 10 856 112 3 921 250 5 354 228 5 486 479 m m
Bulgaria 89 571 121 088 139 602 168 360 185 233 36 173 50 018 57 882 69 401 71 857
China 70 251 150 103 486 760 117 382 300 123 402 940 129 427 170 21 837 060 36 310 049 37 434 933 40 260 431 41 728 905
Croatia 45 971 50 747 58 347 67 615 78 048 21 854 27 232 28 063 30 346 36 383
India 137 718 739 198 540 960 235 973 985 269 496 459 295 356 668 37 265 268 61 585 922 70 098 252 78 544 891 85 993 341
Indonesia 11 526 332 800 15 443 353 200 16 976 751 400 19 588 089 900 20 892 376 700 2 028 883 753 2 845 700 423 3 076 816 119 3 400 751 480 3 479 159 723
Peru 604 416 703 915 878 380 945 329 1 001 860 136 195 188 246 206 341 219 973 224 628
Romania 712 549 1 069 629 1 192 285 1 389 450 1 604 554 255 618 443 565 473 889 561 176 645 983
Saudi Arabia 2 510 566 2 753 517 3 278 085 4 157 143 4 003 436 1 001 292 1 075 734 1 038 933 1 174 310 1 293 235
South Africa 4 420 793 5 562 760 6 220 152 6 655 524 7 023 994 1 333 492 1 925 591 2 024 171 2 121 767 2 291 285
Note: For notes on this table and a link to download the data, see Notes for Tables section above.
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
517
Table X2.2. Basic reference statistics (reference period: calendar year, 2015, 2020, 2021, 2022,
2023)
Purchasing power parity for GDP (PPP) Gross domestic product (GDP) per capita GDP deflator
(USD = 1) (local currency, current prices) (2020 = 100)
2015 2020 2021 2022 2023 2015 2020 2021 2022 2023 2015 2020 2021 2022 2023
OECD countries (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) (15)
Australia 1.474 1.431 1.396 1.360 1.366 68 905 79 291 85 966 94 137 98 319 87.2 100.0 107.2 114.2 117.2
Austria 0.799 0.729 0.720 0.700 0.735 39 641 42 652 45 381 49 488 51 828 91.8 100.0 101.9 106.8 113.9
Belgium 0.800 0.716 0.720 0.708 0.732 36 858 40 190 43 675 48 249 50 621 91.4 100.0 102.7 109.8 114.7
Canada 1.248 1.202 1.163 1.152 1.135 55 993 60 464 68 374 73 753 m 92.8 100.0 107.8 116.3 117.9
Chile 391.361 409.842 423.014 436.528 437.099 8 826 396 10 343 023 12 173 878 13 306 192 14 121 131 79.8 100.0 106.9 115.4 123.0
Colombia 1 289.324 1 270.744 1 340.326 1 373.871 1 445.980 17 744 641 20 269 008 23 880 681 29 107 551 30 815 672 81.9 100.0 107.8 123.8 131.7
Costa Rica 353.964 328.024 334.119 340.131 328.309 6 247 222 7 143 969 7 813 648 8 598 560 8 946 497 90.3 100.0 102.4 108.8 108.7
Czechia 12.935 12.150 12.562 12.775 13.177 442 711 554 964 600 690 655 221 700 358 86.8 100.0 104.0 113.1 122.2
Denmark 7.303 6.365 6.288 6.225 6.396 357 277 399 093 438 561 481 551 471 545 94.3 100.0 102.8 112.1 107.9
Estonia 0.537 0.515 0.534 0.565 0.596 15 999 20 964 23 650 27 364 27 958 85.8 100.0 105.4 122.0 131.8
Finland 0.908 0.802 0.791 0.781 0.793 38 353 42 741 44 891 47 893 48 908 94.2 100.0 102.5 108.8 112.6
France 0.808 0.693 0.704 0.694 0.709 33 197 34 280 36 954 39 006 41 332 93.9 100.0 101.2 104.5 110.0
Germany 0.778 0.707 0.707 0.698 0.726 37 774 41 481 44 190 47 183 49 525 92.0 100.0 102.8 109.1 115.8
Greece 0.609 0.530 0.521 0.511 0.526 16 206 15 660 17 347 19 647 21 349 100.6 100.0 101.4 108.0 114.3
Hungary 132.518 141.838 148.351 156.477 173.652 3 570 691 5 047 120 5 768 599 6 888 612 7 827 892 81.2 100.0 106.3 121.4 139.1
Iceland 141.937 143.253 142.588 138.402 143.869 7 121 257 8 223 372 9 069 479 10 516 160 11 386 243 86.9 100.0 106.4 115.8 122.4
Ireland 0.809 0.775 0.752 0.734 0.769 58 040 75 919 88 223 100 185 96 292 96.2 100.0 101.1 107.9 111.8
Israel 3.924 3.747 3.658 3.447 3.571 140 805 153 461 168 919 184 737 192 525 96.1 100.0 102.3 107.3 112.2
Italy 0.738 0.632 0.625 0.602 0.624 27 616 28 096 31 159 33 858 36 135 94.5 100.0 101.3 104.8 111.0
Japan 103.450 100.742 99.211 94.514 95.271 4 245 263 4 319 533 4 421 664 4 548 790 m 98.1 100.0 99.8 100.2 104.3
Korea 857.368 829.359 829.868 816.608 828.392 34 122 827 39 711 137 42 918 928 44 970 904 46 432 994 94.6 100.0 103.2 105.0 107.0
Latvia 0.497 0.470 0.464 0.481 0.502 12 008 15 374 17 129 19 139 20 926 87.3 100.0 103.3 113.5 120.3
Lithuania 0.446 0.433 0.440 0.472 0.505 12 861 17 885 20 182 23 822 25 698 87.9 100.0 106.0 123.0 134.1
Luxembourg 0.881 0.838 0.834 0.819 0.853 95 087 102 234 112 863 118 315 118 771 92.1 100.0 104.6 110.6 114.4
Mexico 8.326 9.815 10.061 9.816 9.879 161 516 190 585 209 145 229 550 246 336 77.0 100.0 104.5 111.4 116.4
Netherlands 0.810 0.748 0.742 0.728 0.763 41 274 46 810 50 850 56 145 59 719 90.7 100.0 102.7 109.1 117.1
New Zealand 1.475 1.423 1.464 1.434 1.471 54 419 64 196 68 725 74 847 78 061 89.8 100.0 104.5 110.2 114.9
Norway 1 9.930 9.588 8.985 8.531 9.202 503 707 570 243 608 069 654 363 595 731 89.2 100.0 103.5 110.1 115.3
Poland 1.765 1.698 1.753 1.828 1.991 47 643 63 577 71 986 82 078 90 395 90.3 100.0 105.3 116.6 127.7
Portugal 0.585 0.543 0.540 0.525 0.534 17 279 19 358 20 801 23 303 25 328 91.3 100.0 102.0 107.5 115.0
Slovak Republic 0.491 0.489 0.488 0.493 0.519 14 823 17 273 18 740 20 173 22 523 92.7 100.0 102.2 109.9 121.0
Slovenia 0.595 0.532 0.537 0.528 0.559 18 656 22 227 24 682 26 979 30 158 92.5 100.0 102.7 109.4 120.4
Spain 0.665 0.606 0.588 0.570 0.582 23 437 23 851 26 094 28 748 30 968 94.8 100.0 102.6 107.4 114.1
Sweden 8.852 8.436 8.364 8.426 8.766 431 847 484 957 524 671 557 149 586 084 89.9 100.0 102.7 108.7 115.2
Switzerland 1.235 1.105 1.057 0.987 0.999 80 582 80 587 85 559 90 077 90 141 101.0 100.0 101.3 104.4 105.3
Türkiye 1.162 2.111 2.752 4.518 7.350 30 056 60 545 86 232 176 651 311 109 54.7 100.0 129.0 252.8 425.4
United Kingdom 0.692 0.653 0.669 0.638 0.683 29 733 32 197 35 018 38 077 m 88.1 100.0 100.1 105.5 113.1
United States 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 55 731 64 638 67 749 74 480 80 141 92.4 100.0 104.6 112.0 116.1
Partner and/or accession countries
Argentina 6.883 26.887 38.783 61.499 139.722 138 053 599 330 1 010 331 1 787 619 m 18.9 100.0 154.2 261.6 m
Brazil 2.006 2.265 2.379 2.411 2.436 29 467 35 936 42 248 47 802 51 282 77.0 100.0 113.0 122.7 128.5
Bulgaria 0.679 0.675 0.693 0.727 0.766 12 825 18 485 21 453 26 041 28 733 80.7 100.0 107.0 124.0 133.9
China 3.782 4.015 3.987 3.790 3.637 50 787 73 285 83 097 87 411 91 814 89.7 100.0 104.6 106.5 105.8
Croatia 0.466 0.410 0.407 0.418 0.443 10 925 12 846 14 873 17 258 19 798 94.2 100.0 102.1 110.3 123.2
India 19.115 20.319 20.728 20.654 20.203 107 341 146 480 172 422 190 165 206 741 83.6 100.0 108.4 115.7 117.2
Indonesia 4 390.646 4 791.007 4 808.429 4 917.821 4 819.781 45 097 404 57 154 442 62 258 309 71 029 554 m 89.1 100.0 106.0 116.1 117.9
Peru 1.711 1.706 1.734 1.695 1.744 20 171 21 575 26 589 28 306 29 701 86.6 100.0 110.1 115.3 122.9
Romania 1.662 1.615 1.568 1.646 1.723 35 947 55 432 62 291 72 927 84 161 78.8 100.0 105.6 118.4 133.5
Saudi Arabia 1.617 1.921 1.909 2.103 1.970 80 587 78 416 106 487 129 204 121 985 92.4 100.0 114.1 133.2 m
South Africa 5.817 7.249 7.376 7.229 7.313 81 216 95 803 105 801 111 825 116 618 77.3 100.0 106.5 111.9 117.2
Note: For notes on this table and a link to download the data, see Notes for Tables section above.
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
518
Table X2.3. Pre-primary and primary teachers' statutory salaries, in national currencies, based on
the most prevalent qualifications at different points in teachers' careers (2024)
Annual salaries of full-time teachers in public institutions, by level of education
Pre-primary Primary
Salary after Salary after Salary after Salary after
10 years of 15 years of Salary at top 10 years of 15 years of Salary at top
Starting salary experience experience of scale Starting salary experience experience of scale
OECD countries (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8)
Australia 86 009 123 737 123 737 135 778 83 453 119 005 119 005 134 909
Austria1 m m m m 46 191 48 969 54 818 80 608
Canada m m m m 61 290 102 016 105 785 106 847
Chile 14 711 080 18 137 783 22 078 733 27 202 611 14 711 080 18 137 783 22 078 733 27 202 611
Colombia 50 662 601 92 393 869 92 393 869 92 393 869 50 662 601 92 393 869 92 393 869 92 393 869
Costa Rica 9 342 667 10 974 367 11 790 217 14 237 767 9 435 183 11 083 403 11 907 513 14 379 843
Czechia 369 600 381 600 391 200 434 400 392 400 416 400 435 600 513 600
Denmark 396 885 449 587 449 587 449 587 455 224 505 778 524 351 524 351
Estonia m a a a 21 556 a a a
Finland 2 32 846 35 814 36 156 36 156 36 194 41 493 44 401 47 065
France 32 164 35 329 36 492 51 812 32 164 35 329 36 492 51 812
Germany m m m m 57 991 66 735 70 304 75 289
Greece 13 664 16 496 17 912 26 408 13 664 16 496 17 912 26 408
Hungary 5 870 400 6 080 000 6 680 000 7 832 846 5 870 400 6 080 000 6 680 000 7 832 846
Iceland 8 092 140 8 169 372 8 526 552 8 709 696 8 092 140 8 169 372 8 526 552 8 709 696
Ireland a a a a 39 838 55 068 66 692 76 923
Israel 149 700 176 433 191 948 302 104 129 879 150 725 170 288 264 546
Italy 25 195 27 614 30 271 36 733 25 195 27 614 30 271 36 733
Japan m m m m 3 655 000 4 946 000 5 679 000 6 975 000
Korea 35 245 680 52 487 260 61 365 120 97 775 440 35 245 680 52 487 260 61 365 120 97 775 440
Latvia 14 880 m m 23 808 14 688 m m 23 496
Lithuania 21 384 22 074 24 590 27 981 21 384 22 074 24 590 27 981
Luxembourg 79 230 102 471 115 676 139 974 79 230 102 471 115 676 139 974
Mexico 282 519 351 213 435 915 544 293 282 519 351 213 435 915 544 293
Netherlands 46 681 66 992 76 169 95 773 46 681 66 992 76 169 95 773
New Zealand m m m m 61 329 97 920 97 920 97 920
Norway 485 400 556 600 556 600 569 100 592 100 609 200 609 200 654 700
Poland 57 696 68 399 83 102 86 610 57 696 68 399 83 102 86 610
Portugal 24 249 29 231 30 950 51 270 24 249 29 231 30 950 51 270
Slovak Republic 11 256 12 840 13 152 14 706 13 938 15 672 16 050 17 952
Slovenia 22 313 26 386 33 126 38 183 22 313 27 330 34 340 41 072
Spain 33 905 36 895 39 342 48 603 33 905 36 895 39 342 48 603
Sweden1, 3, 4 427 200 447 000 455 400 489 000 432 000 476 880 496 800 572 400
Switzerland 76 300 95 800 m 116 600 82 100 102 600 m 124 500
Türkiye 436 443 470 588 489 933 565 187 436 443 470 588 489 933 565 187
United States4 50 417 55 930 75 635 84 504 49 386 67 017 72 721 85 827
Other economies
Flemish Comm. (Belgium) 40 062 50 178 56 461 71 123 40 062 50 178 56 461 71 123
French Comm. (Belgium) 38 402 47 976 53 993 66 028 38 402 47 976 53 993 66 028
England (UK) 31 000 a 47 841 47 841 31 000 a 47 841 47 841
Scotland (UK) 38 339 48 120 48 120 48 120 38 339 48 120 48 120 48 120
Partner and/or accession countries
Argentina m m m m m m m m
Brazil 61 074 m m m 61 074 m m m
Bulgaria 22 236 22 932 23 820 m 22 236 22 932 23 820 m
China m m m m m m m m
Croatia m m m m 20 540 21 460 21 971 24 526
India m m m m m m m m
Indonesia m m m m m m m m
Peru 38 206 m m 79 133 38 206 m m 79 133
Romania 77 352 96 864 100 536 110 170 77 352 96 864 100 536 110 170
Saudi Arabia m m m m m m m m
South Africa m m m m m m m m
Note: For notes on this table and a link to download the data, see Notes for Tables section above.
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
519
Table X2.4. Secondary teachers' statutory salaries, in national currencies, based on the most
prevalent qualifications at different points in teachers' careers (2024)
Annual salaries of full-time teachers in public institutions, by level of education
Lower secondary, general programmes Upper secondary, general programmes
Salary after Salary after Salary after Salary after
10 years 15 years Salary at top 10 years 15 years Salary at top
Starting salary of experience of experience of scale Starting salary of experience of experience of scale
OECD countries (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8)
Australia 83 361 118 697 118 697 134 820 83 361 118 697 118 697 134 820
Austria1 46 191 51 234 57 398 85 552 46 191 55 527 62 219 94 782
Canada 61 290 102 016 106 829 106 847 61 290 102 016 106 829 106 847
Chile 14 711 080 18 137 783 22 078 733 27 202 611 15 209 028 18 802 045 22 842 486 28 198 507
Colombia 50 662 601 92 393 869 92 393 869 92 393 869 50 662 601 92 393 869 92 393 869 92 393 869
Costa Rica 9 723 350 11 423 090 12 272 960 14 822 570 9 723 350 11 423 090 12 272 960 14 822 570
Czechia 392 400 417 600 435 600 517 200 392 400 417 600 435 600 516 000
Denmark 456 911 510 891 528 260 528 260 428 063 556 294 556 294 556 294
Estonia 21 556 a a a 21 556 a a a
Finland 38 880 44 571 47 696 50 557 40 823 49 019 51 465 54 553
France2 34 838 38 002 39 165 54 752 34 838 38 002 39 165 54 752
Germany 64 030 72 547 76 400 83 450 66 563 74 807 79 002 89 849
Greece 13 664 16 496 17 912 26 408 13 664 16 496 17 912 26 408
Hungary 5 955 008 6 168 800 6 780 800 8 156 496 5 955 008 6 168 800 6 780 800 8 156 496
Iceland 8 092 140 8 169 372 8 526 552 8 709 696 7 514 688 9 099 888 9 546 924 9 546 924
Ireland 41 191 56 434 67 345 77 576 41 191 56 434 67 345 77 576
Israel 130 527 160 155 174 887 264 546 120 852 154 701 172 287 245 641
Italy 27 079 29 895 32 892 40 309 27 187 30 603 33 806 42 116
Japan 3 655 000 4 946 000 5 679 000 6 975 000 3 655 000 4 946 000 5 679 000 7 158 000
Korea 35 245 680 52 487 260 61 365 120 97 775 440 35 245 680 52 487 260 61 365 120 97 775 440
Latvia 14 688 m m 23 496 14 688 m m 23 496
Lithuania 21 384 22 074 24 590 27 981 21 384 22 074 24 590 27 981
Luxembourg 89 794 112 243 123 864 156 084 89 794 112 243 123 864 156 084
Mexico 352 982 440 972 550 997 688 148 667 408 767 892 819 504 819 504
Netherlands 46 536 70 973 81 282 95 776 46 536 70 973 81 282 95 776
New Zealand 61 329 97 920 97 920 97 920 64 083 103 086 103 086 103 086
Norway 592 100 609 200 609 200 654 700 592 100 665 000 665 000 741 000
Poland 57 696 68 399 83 102 86 610 57 696 68 399 83 102 86 610
Portugal 24 249 29 231 30 950 51 270 24 249 29 231 30 950 51 270
Slovak Republic 13 938 15 672 16 050 17 952 13 938 15 672 16 050 17 952
Slovenia 22 313 27 330 34 340 41 072 22 313 27 330 34 340 41 072
Spain 38 004 41 384 44 091 54 326 38 004 41 384 44 091 54 326
Sweden1, 3, 4 444 360 489 000 505 200 585 600 450 000 497 400 513 600 591 600
Switzerland 90 400 116 000 m 137 700 102 600 131 500 m 155 800
Türkiye 436 443 470 588 489 933 565 187 436 443 470 588 489 933 565 187
United States4 50 512 70 466 76 221 86 750 52 893 69 182 76 442 83 410
Other economies
Flemish Comm. (Belgium) 40 062 50 178 56 461 71 123 49 922 63 563 72 452 90 230
French Comm. (Belgium) 38 402 47 976 53 993 66 028 47 732 60 794 69 306 83 493
England (UK) 31 000 a 47 841 47 841 31 000 a 47 841 47 841
Scotland (UK) 38 339 48 120 48 120 48 120 38 339 48 120 48 120 48 120
Partner and/or accession countries
Argentina m m m m m m m m
Brazil 61 074 m m m 61 074 m m m
Bulgaria 22 236 22 932 23 820 m 22 236 22 932 23 820 m
China m m m m m m m m
Croatia 20 540 21 460 21 971 24 526 20 540 21 460 21 971 24 526
India m m m m m m m m
Indonesia m m m m m m m m
Peru 38 206 m m 79 133 38 206 m m 79 133
Romania 77 352 96 864 100 536 110 170 77 352 96 864 100 536 110 170
Saudi Arabia m m m m m m m m
South Africa m m m m m m m m
Note: For notes on this table and a link to download the data, see Notes for Tables section above.
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
520
Table X2.5. Trends in teachers' statutory starting salaries, in national currencies (2000 and 2005 to
2024)
Annual statutory starting teachers' salaries in public institutions for teachers with the most prevalent qualifications,
by level of education
Pre-primary Primary
2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2024 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2024
OECD countries (1) (2) (7) (12) (17) (21) (22) (23) (28) (33) (38) (42)
Australia m m m 63 821 70 819 86 009 m m m 63 257 71 233 83 453
Austria m m m m m m m m m 29 022 38 414 46 191
Canada m m m m m m m m m 52 064 52 665 57 479
Chile m m m 7 569 485 11 654 016 14 711 080 m m m 7 569 485 11 654 016 14 711 080
Colombia m m m 22 612 928 34 696 391 50 662 601 m m m 22 612 928 34 696 391 50 662 601
Costa Rica m m m 9 122 311 9 342 667 9 342 667 m m m 9 122 311 9 435 183 9 435 183
Czechia m m m 242 000 338 400 369 600 m m m 251 200 360 000 392 400
Denmark m m m m 350 646 396 885 m m m m 404 229 455 224
Estonia m m m a a m m m m 10 400 15 520 21 556
Finland m m m 28 611 29 201 32 846 m m m 32 412 33 140 36 194
France 20 181 21 031 22 026 24 595 26 197 32 164 20 181 21 031 22 026 24 595 26 197 32 164
Germany m m m m m m m m m 44 860 51 695 57 991
Greece m m m 13 104 13 104 13 664 m m m 13 104 13 104 13 664
Hungary m m m 1 922 004 2 527 200 5 870 400 m m m 1 922 004 2 527 200 5 870 400
Iceland m m m m m 8 092 140 m m m m m 8 092 140
Ireland m m m m a a m m m 30 702 36 953 39 838
Israel m m m 98 968 108 318 149 700 m m m 85 936 95 287 129 879
Italy m m m 23 051 24 297 25 195 m m m 23 051 24 297 25 195
Japan m m m m m m m m m 3 171 000 3 394 000 3 655 000
Korea m m m 28 824 720 32 614 440 35 245 680 m m m 28 824 720 32 614 440 35 245 680
Latvia m m m 4 860 9 000 14 880 m m m 4 860 9 000 14 688
Lithuania m m m m 10 476 21 384 m m m m 14 573 21 384
Luxembourg m m m 67 129 67 391 79 230 m m m 67 129 67 391 79 230
Mexico m m m 164 657 230 295 282 519 m m m 164 657 230 295 282 519
Netherlands m m m 32 562 39 504 46 681 m m m 32 562 39 504 46 681
New Zealand m m m m m m m m m 46 117 54 318 61 329
Norway m m m 364 500 410 000 485 400 m m m 425 650 489 700 592 100
Poland m m m 29 044 35 880 57 696 m m m 29 044 35 880 57 696
Portugal m m m 21 960 22 351 24 249 m m m 21 960 22 351 24 249
Slovak Republic m m m 6 222 8 592 11 256 m m m 6 960 10 646 13 938
Slovenia m m m 16 864 19 529 22 313 m m m 16 864 19 529 22 313
Spain m m m 28 129 30 550 33 905 m m m 28 129 30 550 33 905
Sweden1 m m m 330 000 397 200 m m m m 330 000 402 000
Switzerland m m m 72 200 74 900 76 300 m m m 79 053 80 300 82 100
Türkiye m m m 39 802 72 036 436 443 m m m 39 802 72 036 436 443
United States1, 2 m m m 43 570 41 427 50 417 m m m 42 563 49 494 57 489
Other economies
Flemish Comm. (Belgium) m m m m 33 061 40 062 m m m m 33 061 40 062
French Comm. (Belgium) m m m m 32 010 38 402 m m m m 32 010 38 402
England (UK) m m m 22 023 25 305 31 000 m m m 22 023 25 305 31 000
Scotland (UK) m m m 21 867 32 034 38 339 m m m 21 867 32 034 38 339
Partner and/or accession countries
Argentina m m m m m m m m m m m m
Brazil m m m m m 61 074 m m m m m 61 074
Bulgaria m m m m m 22 236 m m m m m 22 236
China m m m m m m m m m m m m
Croatia m m m m m m m m m m m 20 540
India m m m m m m m m m m m m
Indonesia m m m m m m m m m m m m
Peru m m m m m 38 206 m m m m m 38 206
Romania m m m m m 77 352 m m m m m 77 352
Saudi Arabia m m m m m m m m m m m m
South Africa m m m m m m m m m m m m
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
521
Lower secondary, general programmes Upper secondary, general programmes
2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2024 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2024
OECD countries (43) (44) (49) (54) (59) (63) (64) (65) (70) (75) (80) (84)
Australia m m m 63 213 71 230 83 361 m m m 63 213 71 230 83 361
Austria m m m 30 340 38 224 46 191 m m m 31 775 38 325 46 191
Canada m m m 52 064 52 665 57 479 m m m 52 064 52 665 57 479
Chile m m m 7 569 485 11 654 016 14 711 080 m m m 7 756 420 12 051 072 15 209 028
Colombia m m m 22 612 928 34 696 391 50 662 601 m m m 22 612 928 34 696 391 50 662 601
Costa Rica m m m 12 657 737 9 723 350 9 723 350 m m m 12 657 737 9 723 350 9 723 350
Czechia m m m 251 200 360 000 392 400 m m m 251 200 360 000 392 400
Denmark m m m m 406 280 456 911 m m m m 382 229 428 063
Estonia m m m 10 400 15 520 21 556 m m m 10 400 15 520 21 556
Finland m m m 35 005 35 792 38 880 m m m 37 120 37 954 40 823
France 21 278 22 173 23 220 26 686 28 735 34 838 21 278 22 173 23 220 26 686 28 735 34 838
Germany m m m 50 448 57 311 64 030 m m m 50 764 59 935 66 563
Greece m m m 13 104 13 104 13 664 m m m 13 104 13 104 13 664
Hungary m m m 1 922 004 2 527 200 5 955 008 m m m 2 105 922 2 527 200 5 955 008
Iceland m m m m 6 854 066 8 092 140 m m m m m 7 514 688
Ireland m m m 30 702 36 953 41 191 m m m 30 702 36 953 41 191
Israel m m m 86 414 95 764 130 527 m m m 89 187 115 820 120 852
Italy m m m 24 849 26 114 27 079 m m m 24 849 26 114 27 187
Japan m m m 3 171 000 3 394 000 3 655 000 m m m 3 171 000 3 394 000 3 655 000
Korea m m m 28 884 720 32 674 440 35 245 680 m m m 28 164 720 31 954 440 35 245 680
Latvia m m m 4 860 9 000 14 688 m m m 4 860 9 000 14 688
Lithuania m m m m 14 573 21 384 m m m m 14 573 21 384
Luxembourg m m m 77 897 76 376b 89 794 m m m 77 897 76 376 89 794
Mexico m m m 211 345 292 733 352 982 m m m 409 330 563 277 667 408
Netherlands m m m 34 840 39 806 46 536 m m m 34 840 39 806 46 536
New Zealand m m m 47 700 54 318 61 329 m m m 49 282 54 318 64 083
Norway m m m 425 650 489 700 m m m m 477 700 531 700 611 600
Poland m m m 29 044 35 880 57 696 m m m 29 044 35 880 57 696
Portugal m m m 21 960 22 351 24 249 m m m 21 960 22 351 24 249
Slovak Republic m m m 6 960 10 646 13 938 m m m 6 960 10 646 13 938
Slovenia m m m 16 864 19 529 22 313 m m m 16 864 19 529 22 313
Spain m m m 31 415 34 121 38 004 m m m 31 415 34 121 38 004
Sweden1 m m m 330 000 414 000 m m m m 342 000 416 400 m
Switzerland m m m 89 509 89 500 90 400 m m m 100 477 100 800 102 600
Türkiye m m m 41 197 74 547 436 443 m m m 41 197 74 547 436 443
United States1, 2 m m m 44 322 49 211 59 273 m m m 43 678 49 710 56 537
Other economies
Flemish Comm. (Belgium) m m m m 33 061 40 062 m m m m 41 246 49 922
French Comm. (Belgium) m m m m 32 010 38 402 m m m m 39 817 47 732
England (UK) m m m 22 023 25 305 31 000 m m m 22 023 25 305 31 000
Scotland (UK) m m m 21 867 32 034 38 339 m m m 21 867 32 034 38 339
Partner and/or accession countries
Argentina m m m m m m m m m m m m
Brazil m m m m m 61 074 m m m m 32 738 61 074
Bulgaria m m m m m 22 236 m m m m m 22 236
China m m m m m m m m m m m m
Croatia m m m m m 20 540 m m m m m 20 540
India m m m m m m m m m m m m
Indonesia m m m m m m m m m m m m
Peru m m m m m 38 206 m m m m m 38 206
Romania m m m m m 77 352 m m m m m 77 352
Saudi Arabia m m m m m m m m m m m m
South Africa m m m m m m m m m m m m
Note: For notes on this table and a link to download the data, see Notes for Tables section above.
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
522
Table X2.6. Trends in teachers' statutory salaries after 15 years of experience, in national
currencies (2000 and 2005 to 2024)
Annual statutory teachers' salaries in public institutions for teachers with 15 years of experience and the most
prevalent qualifications, by level of education
Pre-primary Primary
2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2024 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2024
OECD countries (1) (2) (7) (12) (17) (21) (22) (23) (28) (33) (38) (42)
Australia m 62 240 74 125 91 291 106 583 123 737 m 62 240 75 382 91 805 102 380 119 005
Austria1 m 31 050 35 526 m m m 25 826 31 050 35 526 38 225 46 156 54 818
Canada m m m m m m m m m 87 202 93 640 105 785
Chile m m 9 154 829 11 449 961 17 528 510 22 078 733 m m 9 154 829 11 449 961 17 528 510 22 078 733
Colombia m m m 41 239 431 63 276 168 92 393 869 m m m 41 239 431 63 276 168 92 393 869
Costa Rica m m m m 11 790 217 11 790 217 m m m m 11 907 513 11 907 513
Czechia m m m 251 160 358 800 391 200 m m m 272 200 399 600 435 600
Denmark m m m m 397 756 449 587 m m m m 465 241 524 351
Estonia m m m a a a 3 068 4 379 7 728 m a a
Finland 19 956 23 333 28 331 30 900 31 966 36 156 24 961 30 791 37 769 39 769 40 824 44 401
France 27 151 28 290 29 610 30 140 32 583 36 492 27 151 28 290 29 610 30 140 32 583 36 492
Germany m m m m m m m 43 320 47 647 56 267 63 484 70 304
Greece 16 292 21 237 25 001 17 592 17 352 17 912 16 292 21 237 25 001 17 592 17 352 17 912
Hungary 751 668 1 739 076 1 780 884 2 884 041 3 178 980 6 680 000 897 168 1 944 576 1 916 568 2 884 041 3 178 980 6 680 000
Iceland m 2 821 586 3 901 395 m 6 676 644 8 526 552 m 3 100 440 4 264 973 m 6 630 444 8 526 552
Ireland m m m m a a 33 370 48 206 57 390 57 390 62 072 66 692
Israel 72 174 82 076 99 707 145 012 158 912 191 948 75 912 82 179 115 299 130 922 138 394 170 288
Italy m 25 234 27 645 27 845 29 162 30 271 20 849 25 234 27 645 27 845 29 162 30 271
Japan m m m m m m 6 645 000 6 236 000 5 555 000 5 535 000 5 619 000 5 679 000
Korea m 38 608 000 42 003 257 50 422 920 57 579 740 61 365 120 m 39 712 000 42 003 257 50 422 920 57 579 740 61 365 120
Latvia 1 321 2 321 4 069 5 040 a m 1 321 2 321 4 069 5 040 a m
Lithuania m m m 6 220 13 158 24 590 m m m 9 031 16 727 24 590
Luxembourg m 62 139 93 182 106 536 98 391 115 676 m 62 139 93 182 106 536 98 391 115 676
Mexico 110 833 159 128 208 871 272 901 364 137 435 915 110 833 159 128 208 871 272 901 364 137 435 915
Netherlands m m m 49 002 60 939 76 169 m m m 49 002 60 939 76 169
New Zealand m m m m m m m m m 69 099 83 000 97 920
Norway m 287 000 353 700 419 500 500 000 556 600 m 327 500 386 000 460 850 536 800 609 200
Poland m 31 216 40 120 47 645 58 441 83 102 m 31 216 40 120 47 645 58 441 83 102
Portugal m 24 759 27 038 26 321 28 857 30 950 m 24 759 27 038 26 321 28 857 30 950
Slovak Republic m m 6 136 7 160 10 036 13 152 m m 7 492 9 794 12 258 16 050
Slovenia m m 26 635 24 607 28 275 33 126 14 123 21 465 27 164 25 550 29 333 34 340
Spain m 28 122 33 889 32 389 35 339 39 342 m 28 122 33 889 32 389 35 339 39 342
Sweden2 m 261 000 m 354 600 420 144 m m 283 200 m 379 200 463 200 m
Switzerland m m m m m m m m m m m m
Türkiye 4 560 16 464 27 701 42 367 77 517 489 933 4 560 16 464 27 701 42 367 77 517 489 933
United States2, 3 36 758 41 500 m m 62 193 75 635 38 046 51 413 52 742 60 705 62 102 72 721
Other economies
Flemish Comm. (Belgium) 29 586 35 417 40 042 43 842 46 673 56 461 29 586 35 417 40 042 43 842 46 673 56 461
French Comm. (Belgium) 28 485 33 428 38 610 42 425 45 056 53 993 28 485 33 428 38 610 42 425 45 056 53 993
England (UK) 30 018 33 978 35 929 38 584 41 687 47 841 30 018 33 978 35 929 38 584 41 687 47 841
Scotland (UK) 14 022 29 827 33 666 34 887 40 206 48 120 22 743 29 827 33 666 34 887 40 206 48 120
Partner and/or accession countries
Argentina m m m m m m m m m m m m
Brazil m m m m m m m m m m m m
Bulgaria m m m m m 23 820 m m m m m 23 820
China m m m m m m m m m m m m
Croatia m m m m m m m m m m m 21 971
India m m m m m m m m m m m m
Indonesia m m m m m m m m m m m m
Peru m m m m m m m m m m m m
Romania m m m m m 100 536 m m m m m 100 536
Saudi Arabia m m m m m m m m m m m m
South Africa m m m m m m m m m m m m
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
523
Lower secondary, general programmes Upper secondary, general programmes
2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2024 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2024
OECD countries (43) (44) (49) (54) (59) (63) (64) (65) (70) (75) (80) (84)
Australia m 62 384 75 382 91 903 96 709 118 697 m 62 384 75 382 91 903 102 467 118 697
Austria1 26 916 33 635 38 451 41 334 48 325 57 398 29 728 34 265 41 382 44 500 52 635 62 219
Canada m m m 87 202 93 640 106 829 m m m 87 202 93 640 106 829
Chile m m 9 154 829 11 449 961 17 528 510 22 078 733 m m 9 700 782 11 694 832 18 137 514 22 842 486
Colombia m m m 41 239 431 63 276 168 92 393 869 m m m 41 239 431 63 276 168 92 393 869
Costa Rica m m m m 12 272 960 12 272 960 m m m m 12 272 960 12 272 960
Czechia m m m 272 200 400 800 435 600 m m m 272 200 400 800 435 600
Denmark m m m m 469 723 528 260 m m m m 496 731 556 294
Estonia 3 068 4 379 7 728 m a a 3 068 4 379 7 728 m a a
Finland 28 293 34 677 40 791 42 951 44 090 47 696 31 115 36 550 43 168 46 363 47 584 51 465
France 28 249 29 433 30 803 32 231 35 121 39 165 28 249 29 433 30 803 32 231 35 121 39 165
Germany m 46 842 52 784 61 058 69 508 76 400 m 53 096 57 150 64 767 71 880 79 002
Greece 16 292 21 237 25 001 17 592 17 352 17 912 16 292 21 237 25 001 17 592 17 352 17 912
Hungary 897 168 1 944 576 1 916 568 2 884 041 3 178 980 6 780 800 1 128 996 2 432 388 2 262 636 3 171 916 3 532 200 6 780 800
Iceland m 3 100 440 4 264 973 m 6 630 444 8 526 552 m 3 198 000 4 104 000 m 7 187 328 9 546 924
Ireland 33 729 48 725 57 981 57 981 62 663 67 345 33 729 48 725 57 981 57 981 62 663 67 345
Israel 76 995 83 744 104 947 143 219 153 229 174 887 75 873 81 353 95 187 119 107 149 269 172 287
Italy 22 836 27 487 30 121 30 340 31 707 32 892 23 518 28 259 30 966 31 189 32 588 33 806
Japan 6 645 000 6 236 000 5 555 000 5 535 000 5 619 000 5 679 000 6 649 000 6 237 000 5 555 000 5 535 000 5 619 000 5 679 000
Korea m 39 616 000 41 907 257 50 482 920 57 639 740 61 365 120 m 39 616 000 41 907 257 49 762 920 56 919 740 61 365 120
Latvia 1 321 2 321 4 069 5 040 a m 1 321 2 321 4 069 5 040 a m
Lithuania m m m 9 031 16 727 24 590 m m m 9 031 16 727 24 590
Luxembourg m 81 258 99 782 111 118 106 005 123 864 m 81 258 99 782 111 118 106 005 123 864
Mexico 141 093 203 399 268 456 350 283 465 340 550 997 m m m 514 509 692 596 819 504
Netherlands m m m 61 556 69 554 81 282 m m m 61 556 69 554 81 282
New Zealand m m m 71 780 83 000 97 920 m m m 74 460 83 000 103 086
Norway m 327 500 386 000 460 850 536 800 609 200 m 364 000 434 700 524 400 588 100 665 000
Poland m 31 216 40 120 47 645 58 441 83 102 m 31 216 40 120 47 645 58 441 83 102
Portugal m 24 759 27 038 26 321 28 857 30 950 m 24 759 27 038 26 321 28 857 30 950
Slovak Republic m m 7 492 9 794 12 258 16 050 m m 7 492 9 794 12 258 16 050
Slovenia 14 123 21 465 27 164 25 550 29 333 34 340 14 123 21 465 27 164 25 550 29 333 34 340
Spain m 32 293 38 613 36 153 39 440 44 091 m 32 293 38 613 36 153 39 440 44 091
Sweden2 m 290 400 m 387 018 476 886 m m 313 600 m 401 400 478 800 m
Switzerland m m m m m m m m m m m m
Türkiye 4 813 17 402 28 883 43 762 80 027 489 933 4 813 17 402 28 883 43 762 80 027 489 933
United States2, 3 43 834 47 215 55 919 62 369 66 105 76 221 43 918 49 467 55 724 61 327 65 248 76 442
Other economies
Flemish Comm. (Belgium) 31 191 35 417 40 042 43 842 46 673 56 461 39 886 45 301 51 454 56 311 59 946 72 452
French Comm. (Belgium) 30 327 33 802 38 610 42 425 45 056 53 993 39 040 43 519 49 764 54 499 57 869 69 306
England (UK) 30 018 33 978 35 929 38 584 41 687 47 841 30 018 33 978 35 929 38 584 41 687 47 841
Scotland (UK) 22 743 29 827 33 666 34 887 40 206 48 120 22 743 29 827 33 666 34 887 40 206 48 120
Partner and/or accession countries
Argentina m m m m m m m m m m m m
Brazil m m m m m m m m m m m m
Bulgaria m m m m m 23 820 m m m m m 23 820
China m m m m m m m m m m m m
Croatia m m m m m 21 971 m m m m m 21 971
India m m m m m m m m m m m m
Indonesia m m m m m m m m m m m m
Peru m m m m m m m m m m m m
Romania m m m m m 100 536 m m m m m 100 536
Saudi Arabia m m m m m m m m m m m m
South Africa m m m m m m m m m m m m
Note: For notes on this table and a link to download the data, see Notes for Tables section above.
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
524
Table X2.7. Trends in teachers' average actual salaries, in national currencies (2000, 2005 and 2010
to 2024)¹
Annual average salaries (including bonuses and allowances) of teachers aged 25-64, by level of education
Pre-primary Primary
2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2024 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2024
OECD countries (1) (2) (3) (8) (13) (17) (18) (19) (20) (25) (30) (34)
Australia m m 77 641 m 101 104 113 890 m m 78 352 81 730 93 686 107 072
Austria m m m m m m m m m 47 416 b
51 860 62 243
Canada m m m m m m m m m m m m
Chile m m m 11 494 412 m m m m m 11 258 028 m m
Colombia m m m m m m m m m m m m
Costa Rica m m m m 14 012 470 14681 286 m m m m 14 691 156 15 117 447
Czechia m m 228 603 277 809 415 700 m m m 290 682 325 614 515 600 m
Denmark m m m m 393 200 442 181 m m m m 477 308 536 402
Estonia m m m 8 807 14 814 21 140 m m m 13 254 19 387 27 584
Finland 2 m m 29 759 32 637 34 406 39 313 28 723 35 654 40 458 44 085 45 301 49 722
France m m 31 467 33 835 38 202 m m m 30 881 32 978 37 111 m
Germany m m m m m m m m m 53 610 60 792 67 580
Greece m m m 16 085 17 328 18 127 m m m 16 085 17 328 18 127
Hungary m m 2 217 300 3 238 584 3 939 026 7142 672 m m 2 473 800 3 373 500 4 111 792 7 566 381
Iceland2 m m m 5 261 000 6 772 000 9370 000 m m m 5 966 000 7 450 000 9 704 000
Ireland m m m m m a m m m m 58 975 64 892
Israel m m 110 959 161 247 169 452 207 592 m m 123 151 162 049 175 071 206 679
Italy m m 25 774 28 672 29 157 32 870 m m 25 774 28 672 29 157 32 870
Japan m m m m m m m m m m m m
Korea m m m m m m m m m m m m
Latvia m m m 7 435 11 913 15 660 m m m 9 981 15 278 18 876
Lithuania m m m 9 732 18 576 29 592 m m m 9 732 18 576 29 592
Luxembourg m m 88 315 93 705 m m m m 88 315 93 705 m m
Mexico m m m m m m m m m m m m
Netherlands m m 43 374 45 126 56 127 70 008 m m 43 374 45 126 56 127 70 008
New Zealand m m m m m m m m m 68 833 79 291 97 045
Norway m 289 548 368 580 448 797 518 890 591 257 m 348 877 422 930 505 878 572 804 657 148
Poland m m 40 626 49 856 m 95 038 m m 46 862 57 738 m 111 338
Portugal m m m 31 234 33 805 36 749 m m m 28 561 30 502 34 523
Slovak Republic m m m 8 986 13 144 17 170 m m m 12 185 17 089 22 061
Slovenia2 m m m 17 349 22 298 m m m m 24 069 27 426 m
Spain m m m m m m m m m m m m
Sweden 204 516 252 268 296 997 343 285 403 158 m 239 887 288 154 323 621 378 684 457 892 m
Switzerland m m m m m m m m m m m m
Türkiye m m m m m m m m m m m m
United States 38 028 40 268 48 103 50 946 54 934 66 325 38 746 41 059 49 133 52 516 55 980 68 153
Other economies
Flemish Comm. (Belgium) m m 41 046 44 357 47 024 58 393 m m 41 543 44 848 46 582 57 311
French Comm. (Belgium) m m m 42 741 45 634 55 862 m m m 42 468 44 623 54 247
England (UK) 22 968 29 418 33 680 33 011 35 748 40 780 22 968 29 418 33 680 33 011 35 748 40 780
Scotland (UK) m m 31 884 33 166 37 492 46 786 m m 31 884 33 166 37 492 46 786
Partner and/or accession countries
Argentina m m m m m m m m m m m m
Brazil m m m m m m m m m m m m
Bulgaria m m m m m m m m m m m m
China m m m m m m m m m m m m
Croatia m m m m m m m m m m m m
India m m m m m m m m m m m m
Indonesia m m m m m m m m m m m m
Peru m m m m m 49 540 m m m m m 50 944
Romania m m m m m 101 352 m m m m m 104 909
Saudi Arabia m m m m m m m m m m m m
South Africa m m m m m m m m m m m m
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
525
Lower secondary, general programmes Upper secondary, general programmes
2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2024 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2024
OECD countries (35) (36) (37) (42) (47) (51) (52) (53) (54) (59) (64) (68)
Australia m m 78 221 82 516 95 270 107 225 m m 78 225 82 542 93 298 107 295
Austria m m m 55 799 b 58 483 68 215 m m m 60 152 b 66 081 73 487
Canada m m m m m m m m m m m m
Chile m m m 11 325 494 m m m m m 12 365 587 m m
Colombia m m m m m m m m m m m m
Costa Rica m m m m 17 669 394 20 020 925 m m m m 17 669 394 20 020 925
Czechia m m 289 771 325 034 512 000 m m m 313 534 338 662 537 100 m
Denmark m m m m 480 476 539 628 m m m m 566 438 633 059
Estonia m m m 13 254 19 387 27 584 m m m 13 254 19 387 27 584
Finland 2 32 919 39 519 44 421 48 497 50 398 54 619 37 728 44 051 49 808 54 378 56 929 61 385
France m m 37 232 38 508 41 442 m m m 41 794 43 338 45 887 m
Germany m m m 59 153 67 007 74 107 m m m 62 760 70 913 77 555
Greece m m m 17 103 18 522 18 889 m m m 17 103 18 522 18 889
Hungary m m 2 473 800 3 373 500 4 111 792 7 566 381 m m 2 814 100 3 588 180 4 471 546 7 802 739
Iceland2 m m m 5 966 000 7 450 000 9 704 000 m m 5 172 300 7 931 000 9 988 000 12 519 000
Ireland m m m m 61 414 68 231 m m m m 61 414 68 231
Israel m m 126 309 176 907 186 766 216 583 m m 133 790 160 763 199 084 210 631
Italy m m 27 170 28 581 31 269 34 952 m m 28 986 30 991 33 261 37 196
Japan m m m m m m m m m m m m
Korea m m m m m m m m m m m m
Latvia m m m 9 320 15 069 18 876 m m m 10 430 16 499 19 116
Lithuania m m m 9 732 18 576 29 592 m m m 9 732 18 576 29 592
Luxembourg m m 101 471 106 650 m m m m 101 471 106 650 m m
Mexico m m m m m m m m m m m m
Netherlands m m 52 831 56 796 65 212 76 055 m m 52 831 56 796 65 212 76 055
New Zealand m m m 70 223 79 885 96 997 m m m 74 624 86 522 102 582
Norway m 348 877 422 930 505 878 572 804 657 148 m 372 694 449 704 555 315 621 412 714 983
Poland m m 47 410 58 907 m 114 721 m m 46 147 57 837 m 121 315
Portugal m m m 27 903 29 686 34 182 m m m 30 431 32 093 36 650
Slovak Republic m m m 12 185 17 089 22 061 m m m 12 176 17 737 23 391
Slovenia2 m m m 24 504 27 918 m m m m 25 989 29 409 m
Spain m m m m m m m m m m m m
Sweden 247 793 290 058 324 639 389 624 476 260 m 265 488 315 592 347 967 405 662 484 829 m
Switzerland m m m m m m m m m m m m
Türkiye m m m m m m m m m m m m
United States 39 500 41 873 50 158 53 548 58 625 70 578 41 124 43 588 52 188 55 328 61 162 72 927
Other economies
Flemish Comm. (Belgium) m m 41 277 43 718 46 590 57 589 m m 54 381 56 594 55 965 69 341
French Comm. (Belgium) m m m 41 586 43 463 53 240 m m m 53 006 55 100 66 718
England (UK) 25 347 32 355 36 173 36 650 39 860 48 548 25 347 32 355 36 173 36 650 39 860 48 548
Scotland (UK) m m 31 884 33 166 37 492 46 786 m m 31 884 33 166 37 492 46 786
Partner and/or accession countries
Argentina m m m m m m m m m m m m
Brazil m m m m m m m m m m m m
Bulgaria m m m m m m m m m m m m
China m m m m m m m m m m m m
Croatia m m m m m m m m m m m m
India m m m m m m m m m m m m
Indonesia m m m m m m m m m m m m
Peru m m m m m 49 924 m m m m m 49 924
Romania m m m m m 105 831 m m m m m 107 757
Saudi Arabia m m m m m m m m m m m m
South Africa m m m m m m m m m m m m
Note: For notes on this table and a link to download the data, see Notes for Tables section above.
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
526
Table X2.8. Reference statistics used in calculating salaries of teachers and school heads (2000
and 2005 to 2024)
Purchasing power parity (PPP) for private consumption¹
Reference year Reference year
Jan Jan Jan Jan Jan Jan Jan Jan Jan Jan for statutory for actual
2022 2023 2024 2023 2024 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2022 2023 2024 salary data salary data
OECD countries (1) (2) (3) (4)= [(1)+(2)]/ 2 (5)= [(2)+(3)] /2 (6) (7) (12) (17) (22) (24) (25) (26) (27) (28)
Australia 1.44 1.45 1.45 1.45 1.45 69 78 91 100 107 113 119 124 2024 2024
Austria 0.73 0.75 0.75 0.74 0.75 76 82 90 100 108 115 125 132 2023/24 2023/24
Canada 1.23 1.22 1.22 1.23 1.22 80 87 93 100 106 113 118 121 2023/24 m
Chile 482.88 490.98 490.98 486.93 490.98 58 68 83 100 116 131 143 151 2024 2024
Colombia 1 546.10 1 597.05 1 597.05 1 571.58 1 597.05 48 66 83 100 123 142 158 170 2024 m
Costa Rica 364.00 364.48 364.48 364.24 364.48 30 52 83 100 110 120 126 126 2024 2024
Czechia 13.79 14.35 14.35 14.07 14.35 75 84 94 100 112 127 141 149 2023/24 2022/23
Denmark 7.37 7.16 7.16 7.26 7.16 77 84 93 100 103 108 114 116 2023/24 2023/24
Estonia 0.65 0.66 0.66 0.65 0.66 57 68 86 100 113 126 143 151 2023/24 2023/24
Finland 0.84 0.83 0.83 0.84 0.83 76 82 90 100 104 110 116 119 2023/24 2023/24
France 0.74 0.74 0.74 0.74 0.74 82 89 96 100 104 109 115 121 2023/24 2022
Germany 0.73 0.73 0.73 0.73 0.73 81 87 93 100 106 113 121 127 2023/24 2023/24
Greece 0.59 0.58 0.58 0.59 0.58 75 86 99 100 98 102 107 111 2023/24 2023/24
Hungary 176.60 194.02 194.02 185.31 194.02 51 70 88 100 115 133 153 167 2023/24 2023/24
Iceland 153.59 155.98 155.98 154.79 155.98 45 55 84 100 110 120 129 138 2023/24 2023/24
Ireland 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 82 96 95 100 106 113 122 129 2023/24 2023/24
Israel 3.84 3.88 3.88 3.86 3.88 75 81 92 100 100 104 108 112 2023/24 2023/24
Italy 0.67 0.66 0.66 0.67 0.66 74 84 93 100 104 110 116 120 2023/24 2023/24
Japan 104.97 104.84 104.84 104.90 104.84 108 103 100 100 102 104 107 110 2023/24 m
Korea 927.74 933.10 933.10 930.42 933.10 67 79 90 100 107 112 116 120 2024 m
Latvia 0.57 0.58 0.58 0.58 0.58 53 66 94 100 110 121 134 142 2023/24 2023/24
Lithuania 0.53 0.55 0.55 0.54 0.55 70 70 92 100 110 127 144 151 2023/24 2023/24
Luxembourg 0.91 0.90 0.90 0.91 0.90 74 84 92 100 108 113 118 121 2023/24 m
Mexico 10.67 10.79 10.79 10.73 10.79 47 62 83 100 123 139 146 150 2023/24 m
Netherlands 0.78 0.79 0.79 0.78 0.79 75 86 93 100 108 119 127 133 2023/24 2023/24
New Zealand 1.51 1.54 1.54 1.52 1.54 77 83 94 100 106 114 121 126 2024 2024
Norway 9.61 9.58 9.58 9.59 9.58 75 83 92 100 112 120 127 134 2023/24 2023/24
Poland 1.90 2.01 2.01 1.95 2.01 67 81 92 100 107 122 136 145 2023/24 2023/24
Portugal 0.59 0.59 0.59 0.59 0.59 72 85 94 100 106 112 119 123 2023/24 2023/24
Slovak Republic 0.58 0.60 0.60 0.59 0.60 61 80 92 100 106 117 130 139 2023/24 2023/24
Slovenia 0.59 0.61 0.61 0.60 0.61 63 82 94 100 104 113 122 127 2023/24 2022/23
Spain 0.64 0.62 0.62 0.63 0.62 71 83 94 100 104 110 117 122 2023/24 m
Sweden 8.66 8.74 8.74 8.70 8.74 82 88 96 100 108 115 123 128 2023/24 2023/24
Switzerland 1.17 1.13 1.13 1.15 1.13 95 98 103 100 101 102 104 106 2023/24 m
Türkiye 4.83 7.30 7.30 6.07 7.30 13 48 70 100 172 309 521 841 2023/24 m
United States 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 75 83 92 100 107 116 122 125 2023/24 2023/24
Other economies
Flemish Comm. (Belgium)2 0.77 0.77 0.77 0.77 0.77 75 83 92 100 108 117 127 131 2023/24 2023/24
French Comm. (Belgium)2 0.77 0.77 0.77 0.77 0.77 75 83 92 100 108 117 127 131 2023/24 2023/24
England (UK)2 0.73 0.75 0.75 0.74 0.75 77 82 91 100 107 114 123 128 2023/24 2023/24
Scotland (UK)2 0.73 0.75 0.75 0.74 0.75 77 82 91 100 107 114 123 128 2023/24 2023/24
Partner and/or accession countries
Argentina m m m m m 10 16 31 100 519 1 226 2 554 7 459 m m
Brazil 2.48 2.49 2.49 2.48 2.49 33 51 68 100 130 156 168 175 2024 m
Bulgaria 0.76 0.78 0.78 0.77 0.78 62 74 92 100 112 128 143 153 2023/24 m
China m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m
Croatia 0.49 0.51 0.51 0.50 0.51 67 78 93 100 102 111 122 128 2023/24 m
India m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m
Indonesia m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m
Peru m m m m m m m 87 100 112 124 133 138 m m
Romania 1.95 2.00 2.00 1.97 2.00 24 61 86 100 115 130 145 156 2023/24 2023/24
Saudi Arabia 1.94 1.91 1.91 1.92 1.91 m m m m m m m m m m
South Africa 7.46 7.60 7.60 7.53 7.60 m m m m m m m m m m
Note: For notes on this table and a link to download the data, see Notes for Tables section above.
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
527
Table X2.9. Distribution of teachers, by minimum or most prevalent qualifications and level of
education (2024)
Teachers who have either the minimum or a higher than minimum (and most prevalent) qualification, in public
institutions
Lower secondary, Upper secondary,
Is there a difference between “minimum” Pre-primary Primary general programmes general programmes
Is there a difference between “minimum”
Is there a difference between “minimum”
Is there a difference between “minimum”
Percentage of teachers in a salary range
Percentage of teachers in a salary range
Percentage of teachers in a salary range
Percentage of teachers in a salary range
Percentage of teachers in a salary range
Percentage of teachers in a salary range
Percentage of teachers in a salary range
Percentage of teachers in a salary range
to enter the teaching profession in 2024
to enter the teaching profession in 2024
to enter the teaching profession in 2024
to enter the teaching profession in 2024
and “most prevalent” qualifications?
and “most prevalent” qualifications?
and “most prevalent” qualifications?
and “most prevalent” qualifications?
based on the minimum qualification
based on the minimum qualification
based on the minimum qualification
based on the minimum qualification
(and most prevalent) qualification
(and most prevalent) qualification
(and most prevalent) qualification
(and most prevalent) qualification
for teachers to enter the teaching
for teachers to enter the teaching
for teachers to enter the teaching
for teachers to enter the teaching
based on a higher than minimum
based on a higher than minimum
based on a higher than minimum
based on a higher than minimum
profession in 2024
profession in 2024
profession in 2024
profession in 2024
OECD countries (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12)
Australia No 100 a No 100 a No 100 a No 100 a
Austria1 m m m Yes 36 m Yes 34 m Yes 20 m
Canada m m m m m m m m m m m m
Chile No m a No m a No m a No m a
Colombia Yes 8 40 Yes 16 35 No 42 d a No x(8) a
Costa Rica Yes 6 94 Yes 13 77 Yes 9 66 Yes 9 66
Czechia No 100 a No 100 a No 100 a No 100 a
Denmark No 100 a No 100 a No 100 a No 100 a
Estonia m a a No m a No m a No m a
Finland No 100 a No 57 a No 90 a No 97 a
France No 98 a No 98 a No 82 a No 64 a
Germany m a a No 100 a No 100 a No 100 a
Greece No 100 a No 100 a No 100 a No 100 a
Hungary No 100 a No 100 a Yes 42 58 No 100 a
Iceland No m a No m a No m a No m a
Ireland m a a No 34 a No 33 a No 33 a
Israel No 60 a No 49 a Yes 37 m Yes 41 m
Italy No 100 a No 100 a No 100 a No 100 a
Japan m a a No m a No m a No m a
Korea Yes m m No m a Yes m m Yes m m
Latvia No 100 a No 100 a No 100 a No 100 a
Lithuania No m a No m a No m a No m a
Luxembourg No 71 a No 85 a No 64 a No 77 a
Mexico m m m m m m m m m m m m
Netherlands No 100 a No 100 a No 100 a No 100 a
New Zealand a a a No 53 a No 46 a Yes 16 69
Norway No 100 a No 10 d a Yes x(5) x(6) Yes 6 54
Poland Yes 7 93 Yes 2 98 Yes 3 97 No 99 a
Portugal No 100 a No 100 a No 100 a No 100 a
Slovak Republic No m a No m a No m a No m a
Slovenia No 100 a No 100 a No 100 a No 100 a
Spain No 100 a No 100 a No 100 a No 100 a
Sweden1 No 100 a No 100 a No 100 a No 100 a
Switzerland No 100 a No 100 a No 100 a No 100 a
Türkiye No m a No m a No m a No m a
United States No 46 a Yes 41 50 Yes 38 51 Yes 32 55
Other economies
Flemish Comm. (Belgium)2 No 100 a No 100 a No 94 a Yes 23 77
French Comm. (Belgium) No 98 a No 90 a No 79 a Yes 5 79
England (UK) No 100 a No 100 a No 98 a No 98 a
Scotland (UK) No 100 a No 100 a No 100 a No 100 a
Partner and/or accession countries
Argentina m m m m m m m m m m m m
Brazil No m a No m a No m a No m a
Bulgaria No m a No m a No m a No m a
China m m m m m m m m m m m m
Croatia m a a Yes 12 d 88 d Yes x(5) x(6) No 100 a
India m m m m m m m m m m m m
Indonesia m m m m m m m m m m m m
Peru No m a No m a No m a No m a
Romania Yes 2 98 Yes 2 98 No 100 a No 100 a
Saudi Arabia m m m m m m m m m m m m
South Africa m m m m m m m m m m m m
Note: For notes on this table and a link to download the data, see Notes for Tables section above.
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
528
Table X2.10. Distribution of teachers aged 25-64, by educational attainment and level of education
(2024)
Percentage of teachers
Lower secondary, Upper secondary,
Pre-primary Primary general programmes general programmes
Short- Master’s Short- Master’s Short- Master’s Short- Master’s
cycle Bachelor’s or doctoral cycle Bachelor’s or doctoral cycle Bachelor’s or doctoral cycle Bachelor’s or doctoral
tertiary or or tertiary or or tertiary or or tertiary or or
or below equivalent equivalent or below equivalent equivalent or below equivalent equivalent or below equivalent equivalent
OECD countries (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12)
Australia m m m m m m m m m m m m
Austria m m m m m m m m m m m m
Canada m m m m m m m m m m m m
Chile1 1 99 d x(2) 1 99 d x(5) 1 99 d x(8) 3 97 d x(11)
Colombia m m m m m m m m m m m m
Costa Rica m m m m m m m m m m m m
Czechia1 66 23 11 8 5 87 6 7 87 2 4 94
Denmark m m m m m m m m m 0 0 100
Estonia 23 52 25 10 27 62 8 21 71 4 16 80
Finland 14 79 7 3 1 96 3 2 95 0 1 99
France1 x(4) x(5) x(6) 9d 58 d 33 d x(10) x(11) x(12) 6d 54 d 41 d
Germany m m m m m 100 m m 100 m m 100
Greece x(4) x(5) x(6) 1d 79 d 21d x(10) x(11) x(12) 0d 69 d 31 d
Hungary 5 92 3 1d 72 d 27 d x(4) x(5) x(6) 0 8 92
Iceland 21 53 26 10 d 56 d 34 d x(4) x(5) x(6) 15 32 53
Ireland m m m m m m m m m m m m
Israel 1 60 39 2 49 49 1 37 62 5 41 55
Italy m m m m m m m m m m m m
Japan m m m m m m m m m m m m
Korea 16 62 22 0 72 28 0 68 32 0 65 35
Latvia 27 47 25 x(7) x(8) x(9) 4d 36 d 61 d 4 25 71
Lithuania m m m m m m m m m m m m
Luxembourg m m m m m m m m m m m m
Mexico 18 70 12 8 78 14 14 70 17 m m m
Netherlands x(4) x(5) x(6) 0d 81 d 19 d x(10) x(11) x(12) 0d 64 d 36 d
New Zealand m m m 6 89 6 5 87 8 1 82 16
Norway 5 94 1 5d 78 d 18 d x(4) x(5) x(6) 2 46 51
Poland 0 7 93 0 2 98 0 3 97 0 1 99
Portugal 0 11 89 0 5 95 0 2 98 0 2 98
Slovak Republic m m m m m m m m m m m m
Slovenia1 9 70 21 12 8 80 15 4 81 1 5 94
Spain m m m m m m m m m m m m
Sweden1 24 71 5 3 59 38 2 25 73 1 12 86
Switzerland m m m m m m m m m m m m
Türkiye m m m m m m m m m m m m
United States 0 45 55 0 40 60 1 37 62 2 31 67
Other economies
Flemish Comm. (Belgium) 1 99 1 1 96 3 4 86 10 2 24 74
French Comm. (Belgium) 0 98 2 1 92 7 1 79 20 1 10 90
England (UK) x(4) x(5) x(6) 1d 42 d 57 d x(10) x(11) x(12) 1d 21 d 78 d
Scotland (UK) m m m m m m m m m m m m
Partner and/or accession countries
Argentina m m m m m m m m m m m m
Brazil m m m m m m m m m m m m
Bulgaria 3 39 58 1 32 67 2 34 64 1 23 76
China m m m m m m m m m m m m
Croatia m m m x(5) 12 d 88 d x(5) x(5) x(6) a a 100
India m m m m m m m m m m m m
Indonesia m m m m m m m m m m m m
Peru m m m m m m m m m m m m
Romania m m m m m m m m m m m m
Saudi Arabia m m m m m m m m m m m m
South Africa m m m m m m m m m m m m
Note: For notes on this table and a link to download the data, see Notes for Tables section above.
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
529
Table X2.11. Distribution of school heads aged 25-64, by educational attainment and level of
education (2024)
Percentage of school heads
Lower secondary, Upper secondary,
Pre-primary Primary general programmes general programmes
Short- Master’s Short- Master’s Short- Master’s Short- Master’s
cycle Bachelor’s or doctoral cycle Bachelor’s or doctoral cycle Bachelor’s or doctoral cycle Bachelor’s or doctoral
tertiary or or tertiary or or tertiary or or tertiary or or
or below equivalent equivalent or below equivalent equivalent or below equivalent equivalent or below equivalent equivalent
OECD countries (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12)
Australia m m m m m m m m m m m m
Austria m m m m m m m m m m m m
Canada m m m m m m m m m m m m
Chile1 0 100 d x(2) 0 100 d x(5) 0 100 d x(8) 0 100 d x(11)
Colombia m m m m m m m m m m m m
Costa Rica m m m m m m m m m m m m
Czechia1 53 27 20 2 2 96 2 2 96 2 2 97
Denmark m m m m m m m m m 0 0 100
Estonia 0 22 78 0 8 92 0 7 93 0 2 98
Finland 15 61 24 0 1 99 0 1 99 0 0 100
France1 x(4) x(5) x(6) 9d 58 d 33 d m m m m m m
Germany m m m m m m m m m m m m
Greece x(4) x(5) x(6) 0d 57 d 43 d x(10) x(11) x(12) 0d 23 d 77 d
Hungary 1 93 6 0d 68 d 32 d x(4) x(5) x(6) 0 44 56
Iceland 19 45 36 3 48 49 3 48 49 8 31 61
Ireland m m m m m m m m m m m m
Israel a a a 0 3 97 0 1 99 2 18 80
Italy a a a a a 100 d a a x(6) a a x(6)
Japan m m m m m m m m m m m m
Korea 1 6 92 0 11 89 0 10 90 0 9 91
Latvia x(10) x(11) x(12) x(10) x(11) x(12) x(10) x(11) x(12) 0d 19 d 81 d
Lithuania m m m m m m m m m m m m
Luxembourg m m m m m m m m m m m m
Mexico m m m m m m m m m m m m
Netherlands x(4) x(5) x(6) 0d 63 d 37 d x(10) x(11) x(12) 0d 49 d 51 d
New Zealand m m m m m m m m m m m m
Norway 4 94 2 2d 85 d 13 d x(4) x(5) x(6) 2 47 51
Poland 0 1 99 0d 0d 100 d x(4) x(5) x(6) 0 0 100
Portugal a 5d 95 d x(1) x(2) x(3) x(1) x(2) x(3) x(1) x(2) x(3)
Slovak Republic m m m m m m m m m m m m
Slovenia1 0 47 53 0d 0d 100 d x(4) x(5) x(6) 0 3 97
Spain m m m m m m m m m m m m
Sweden1 33 56 11 9d 45 d 46 d x(4) x(5) x(6) 9 22 69
Switzerland m m m m m m m m m m m m
Türkiye m m m m m m m m m m m m
United States 0 2 98 0 2 98 0 2 98 0 2 98
Other economies
Flemish Comm. (Belgium) 1 94 6 1 94 6 0 61 39 1 10 90
French Comm. (Belgium) 0 100 0 0 100 0 0 100 0 0 100 0
England (UK) x(4) x(5) x(6) 0d 48 d 51d x(10) x(11) x(12) 0d 15 d 85 d
Scotland (UK) m m m m m m m m m m m m
Partner and/or accession countries
Argentina m m m m m m m m m m m m
Brazil m m m m m m m m m m m m
Bulgaria 0 12 88 0d 6d 94 d x(4) x(5) x(6) x(4) x(5) x(6)
China m m m m m m m m m m m m
Croatia m m m m m m m m m m m m
India m m m m m m m m m m m m
Indonesia m m m m m m m m m m m m
Peru m m m m m m m m m m m m
Romania m m m m m m m m m m m m
Saudi Arabia m m m m m m m m m m m m
South Africa m m m m m m m m m m m m
Note: For notes on this table and a link to download the data, see Notes for Tables section above.
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
530
Contributors to this publication
INES Working Party
Ms. Marisol Acosta (Argentina) Mr. Juan SALAMANCA (Chile)
Ms. María Florencia Álvarez (Argentina) Mr. Sebastian ARBELAEZ (Colombia)
Mr. Nilo Coras Ávila (Argentina) Ms. Jeimy ARISTIZABAL (Colombia)
Mr. Santiago Damiani (Argentina) Mr. Joan BOFILL (Colombia)
Mr. Julián Falcone (Argentina) Ms. Paula BOTERO (Colombia)
Mr. Emiliano Iadevito (Argentina) Ms. Johana MARIN (Colombia)
Ms. Agustina Lejarraga (Argentina) Mr. Rubén Moreno (Colombia)
Ms. Laura C. Mendez (Argentina) Ms. Elsa NELLY VELASCO (Colombia)
Ms. Cecilia S. Remorini (Argentina) Ms. Erika VILLAMIL (Colombia)
Ms. Florencia Sourrouille (Argentina) Ms. Carolina CHAVES (Costa Rica)
Ms. Mercedes Tarzibachi (Argentina) Ms. Dixie BRENES (Costa Rica)
Mr. Stuart FAUNT (Australia) Mr. Olman MADRIGAL (Costa Rica)
Ms. Manon GAHAN (Australia) Ms. Cinthya PICADO (Costa Rica)
Ms. Alex GORDON (Australia) Mr. Walter SEGURA (Costa Rica)
Dr. Caterina HO (Australia) Ms. Annia ZUÑIGA (Costa Rica)
Dr. Steve NERLICH (Australia) Ms. Marija GOJEVIĆ (Croatia)
Ms. Siobhán PIELOW (Australia) Ms. Ana ŠOJAT (Croatia)
Ms. Ping YU (Australia) Ms. Ivana Pilko Čunčić (Croatia)
Dr. Beili Zhu (Australia) Ms. Mia Trcol (Croatia)
Mr. Mark NÉMET (Austria) Ms. Gordana Bralić (Croatia)
Ms. Sabine MARTINSCHITZ (Austria) Ms. Josipa Jurić (Croatia)
Mr. Wolfgang PAULI (Austria) Mr. Vladimír HULÍK (Czech Republic)
Ms. Helga POSSET (Austria) Mr. Václav JELEN (Czech Republic)
Ms. Natascha RIHA (Austria) Ms. Simona PIKÁLKOVÁ (Czech Republic)
Mr. Martin MAYERL (Austria) Ms. Petra PRCHLÍKOVÁ (Czech Republic)
Mr. Anton DERKS (Belgium) Mr. Anand ENGBÆK (Denmark)
Mr. Philippe DIEU (Belgium) Ms. Sofie JARLSTRØM CLAUSEN (Denmark)
Ms. Ruth JANSSENS (Belgium) Ms. Trine PIEPGRAS CARSTENS (Denmark)
Ms. Nathalie JAUNIAUX (Belgium) Mr. Klaus RASMUSSEN (Denmark)
Mr. Teun PAUWELS (Belgium) Mr. Thomas SKJØDT (Denmark)
Mr. Guy STOFFELEN (Belgium) Mr. Thomas SKJØDT (Denmark)
Mr. Robert THOLEN (Belgium) Mr. Ken THOMASSEN (Denmark)
Ms. Juliana MARQUES DA SILVA (Brazil) Ms. Kristel BANKIER (Estonia)
Ms. Christyne CARVALHO DA SILVA (Brazil) Ms. Marianne LEPPIK (Estonia)
Mr. Patric BLOUIN (Canada) Ms. Käthrin RANDOJA (Estonia)
Mr. Marouane MOHAMED (Canada) Ms. Heleri GAPONENKO (Estonia)
Ms. Linda WANG (Canada) Mr. Jukka HAAPAMÄKI (Finland)
Mr. Graham ZIEGLER (Canada) Ms. Petra PACKALEN (Finland)
Ms. Paola LEIVA (Chile) Mr. Mika TUONONEN (Finland)
Ms. Javiera CUEVAS (Chile) Mr. Louis BODELIN (France)
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
531
Ms. Alexandra FARRUGIA (France) Ms. Francesca SALVINI (Italy)
Ms. Valérie LIOGIER (France) Ms. Maria Teresa MORANA (Italy)
Mr. Louis Meuric (France) Ms. Keiko KIMURA (Japan)
Mr. Fabrice MURAT (France) Mr. Yorihisa ONEDA (Japan)
Mr. Robert RAKOCEVIC (France) Mr. Masataka ISASHIKI (Japan)
Ms. Sylvie ROUSSEAU (France) Ms. Hitomi MURAI-SUZUKI (Japan)
Ms. Saskia BADERSCHNEIDER (Germany) Ms. Aya NAGANUMA (Japan)
Ms Pia. BRUGGER (Germany) Ms. Narumi NISHI (Japan)
Ms. Mareen HALLIER (Germany) Mr. Hyoungshik PARK (Korea)
Ms. Marie LEISTE (Germany) Ms. Dayoung YOON (Korea)
Mr. Michael LENZEN (Germany) Ms. Jeeeun MOON (Korea)
Mr. Martin SCHULZE (Germany) Ms. Hyojung HAN (Korea)
Mr. Hans-Werner FREITAG (Germany) Mr. Keunyoung PARK (Korea)
Ms. Saskia SANDFORTH (Germany) Mr. Changmo YEON (Korea)
Ms. Maria FASSARI (Greece) Ms. Eunji LEE (Korea)
Ms. Lida GEORGIOPOULOU (Greece) Ms. Hyojin HAN (Korea)
Ms. Eirini GYFTAKI (Greece) Ms. Youngho SON (Korea)
Ms. Vassiliki MAKRI (Greece) Mr. Donghyun KIM (Korea)
Mrs. Theano TYFOXYLOU (Greece) Ms. Hansol NA (Korea)
Mr. Ábel Ferenc Urbán (Hungary) Ms. Eunji JANG (Korea)
Ms. Zsófia Ashabere (Hungary) Ms. Jinyi HWANG (Korea)
Mr. Zsombor Kanyári (Hungary) Ms. Jieun PARK (Korea)
Mr. Helgi Eiríkur Eyjólfsson (Iceland) Ms. Jeehye SON (Korea)
Ms. Hildur Kristjánsdóttir (Iceland) Ms. Evija BALTIŅA (Latvia)
Ms. Ásta M. URBANCIC (Iceland) Ms. Eva BĒRZE (Latvia)
Mr. Jason KELLY (Ireland) Ms. Iveta BIRZIŅA (Latvia)
Mr. Paul ALEXANDER (Ireland) Ms. Ieva ERVALDE (Latvia)
Mr. Patrick O’Rourke (Ireland) Ms. Annika GĒGERMANE (Latvia)
Ms. Sophie ARTSEV (Israel) Ms. Dace KALSONE (Latvia)
Mr. Yoav AZULAY (Israel) Ms. Kristīne KNIPELE (Latvia)
Ms. Orit BARANY (Israel) Mr. Viktors KRAVČENKO (Latvia)
Mr. Pinhas KLEIN (Israel) Ms. Žanete LARIONOVA (Latvia)
Ms. Hana COHEN (Israel) Mr. Andrejs PUDĀNS (Latvia)
Ms. Tsofiya Fishman (Israel) Mr. Ričardas ALIŠAUSKAS (Lithuania)
Ms. Dganit GAILIS (Israel) Ms. Rita DUKYNAITĖ (Lithuania)
Mr. Aviel KRENTZLER (Israel) Ms. Jolita LIEPYTĖ (Lithuania)
Mr. Daniel LEVI-MAZLOUM (Israel) Ms. Vilma MALINAUSKIENĖ (Lithuania)
Ms. Orit LEVIN (Israel) Ms. Aušra Urbonaitė (Lithuania)
Mr. David MAAGAN (Israel) Ms. Jolanta ZABIETIENĖ (Lithuania)
Ms. Iris Avigail MATATYAHU (Israel) Mr. Romain MARTIN (Luxembourg)
Mr. Amos MESSIKA (Israel) Ms. Elisa MAZZUCATO (Luxembourg)
Mr. Dov NATAN (Israel) Mr. Bruno RODRIGUES (Luxembourg)
Ms. Hagit SARID (Israel) Ms. Nevena ZHELYAZKOVA (Luxembourg)
Mr. Haim Portnoy (Israel) Mr. Marco CALDERÓN ARGOMEDO (Mexico)
Ms. Daniela DI ASCENZO (Italy) Ms. María DEL CARMEN REYES GUERRERO
(Mexico)
Ms. Claudia PIZZELLA (Italy)
Ms. Alicia DEL ROSARIO NAVA CARDONA
Mr. Paolo TURCHETTI (Italy) (Mexico)
Ms. Lucia DE FABRIZIO (Italy) Mr. René GÓMORA CASTILLO (Mexico)
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
532
Mr. Gerardo H. TERRAZAS GONZÁLEZ (Mexico) Ms. Ana-Maria Vasilescu (Romania)
Mr. Tomás RAMÍREZ REYNOSO (Mexico) Ms. Andoria Ioniță (Romania)
Mr. Lorenzo VERGARA LÓPEZ (Mexico) Ms. Gabriela Deacu (Romania)
Mr. César MORÓN ROJAS (Mexico) Ms. Sultana Stan (Romania)
Mr. René AERNOUDTS (Netherlands) Ms. Liliana Pintilia (Romania)
Ms. Karlijn BAKKER (Netherlands) Mr. Adi Trifu (Romania)
Ms. Cheyenne RAMADA (Netherlands) Ms. Oana Năstăsescu (Romania)
Mr. Sybren SPIT (Netherlands) Mrs. Camelia Mircea-Sturza (Romania)
Ms. Fleur Steenkamer (Netherlands) Mrs. Veronica Chirea (Romania)
Mr. Dennis VAN GESSEL (Netherlands) Mrs. Roxana Mihail (Romania)
Ms. Daniëlle VAN KLAVEREN (Netherlands) Mrs. Laura Capita (Romania)
Ms. Laura WIELENGA (Netherlands) Mr. Adrian Barbulescu (Romania)
Mr. Mark ZUIDERWIJK (Netherlands) Mrs. Cristina Mangiurea (Romania)
Mr. Minghong DENG (New Zealand) Mr. Florin Popa (Romania)
Mr. Paul MAHONEY (New Zealand) Mrs. Marioara Dobrescu (Romania)
Mr. David SCOTT (New Zealand) Mr. Victor Iliescu (Romania)
Mr. Rory Sudfelt (New Zealand) Mrs. Antonela Toma (Romania)
Mr. Sebastien BRANDSRUD (Norway) Mrs. Dumitra Moldovean (Romania)
Ms. Andrine STENGRUNDET (Norway) Mrs. Ana-Maria Radulescu (Romania)
Mr. Nawid FAZLI (Norway) Mr. Virgil Ion (Romania)
Ms. Kristin GÅSEMYR (Norway) Mrs. Gabriela Jitaru (Romania)
Mr. Frode HOVLAND SØREIDE (Norway) Ms. Eva HLADIKOVA (Slovak Republic)
Ms. Ane LANDØY (Norway) Ms. Miriama CISAROVA (Slovak Republic)
Ms. Anne Marie RUSTAD HOLSETER (Norway) Mr. Ondrej FERENCI (Slovak Republic)
Ms. Kristin Mathilde DRAHUS (Norway) Ms. Gabriela SLODICKOVA (Slovak Republic)
Mr. Geir NYGÅRD (Norway) Ms. Ana NOVAK (Slovenia)
Ms. Birthe SØNNESYN (Norway) Ms. Martina KONTELJ (Slovenia)
Ms. Katrina Bjerke Thronsden (Norway) Ms. Petra PEČAN (Slovenia)
Ms. Jiaying YE (Norway) Ms. Andreja KOZMELJ (Slovenia)
Ms. Yasmin Milagros Villaizan Vicuña (Peru) Ms. Duša MARJETIČ (Slovenia)
Mr. Carlos Isidoro Villanueva Pardave (Peru) Ms. Mojca IFKO PINOSA (Slovenia)
Mr. Luis Fernando Manuel Tarazona Ramos (Peru) Mr. Nejc Jensterle (Slovenia)
Mr. Piotr JAWORSKI (Poland) Ms. Melita SELJAK (Slovenia)
Ms. Renata KARNAS (Poland) Ms. Tatjana ŠKRBEC (Slovenia)
Ms. Barbara DŁUŻEWSKA (Poland) Ms. Mamphokhu KHULUVHE (South Africa)
Mr. Andrzej STOLARCZYK (Poland) Mr. Bheki MPANZA (South Africa)
Ms. Joanna WYZINA (Poland) Ms. Nthabiseng TEMA (South Africa)
Ms. Agnieszka ZALIWSKA-SZYMAŃSKA (Poland) Ms. Edzani NETSHIFHEFHE (South Africa)
Mr. Nuno Miguel RODRIGUES (Portugal) Ms. Rirhandzu BALOYI (South Africa)
Ms. Rute NUNES (Portugal) Dr. Junitha SURJU (South Africa)
Mr. José RAFAEL (Portugal) Ms. Ayesha SULEMAN (South Africa)
Mr. Joaquim SANTOS (Portugal) Mr. Pablo ESTEBAN MARTÍNEZ (Spain)
Ms. Helena SALEIRO (Portugal) Ms. Raquel HIDALGO GARCÍA (Spain)
Mr. Adrian Barbulescu (Romania) Mr. Jesús IBAÑEZ MILLA (Spain)
Ms. Veronica Chirea (Romania) Ms. Pilar MARTIN JIMENEZ (Spain)
Ms. Roxana Mazilescu (Romania) Mr. José María GALLEGO ALONSO-
COLMENARES (Spain)
Ms. Camelia Mircea-Sturza (Romania)
Mr. Ricardo MARTÍNEZ ZAMORANO (Spain)
Ms. Dumitra Moldovean (Romania)
Ms. Cristina MONEO OCAÑA (Spain)
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
533
Ms. Carmen TOVAR SÁNCHEZ (Spain)
Mr. Jaime VAQUERO JIMÉNEZ (Spain)
MS. Isabel YUN MORENO (Spain)
Mr. David VARAS DEL PESO (Spain)
Mr. Mattias FRITZ (Sweden)
Ms. Anna BENGTSSON (Sweden)
Mr. Alexander GERLINGS (Switzerland)
Ms. Katrin MÜHLEMANN (Switzerland)
Dr. Yusuf CANBOLAT (Türkiye)
Dr. Muzaffer Can DİLEK (Türkiye)
Ms. Emine ÖZDEMİR (Türkiye)
Dr. Merve BÜDÜN (Türkiye)
Ms. Esra KIRKIL (Türkiye)
Mr. Nadir YILDIRIM (Türkiye)
Mr. Murat KAPIKIRAN (Türkiye)
Ms. Yasemin YAZICIOĞLU (Türkiye)
Mr. Yanhong Zhang (UNESCO)
Mr. Oscar Milafu Onam (UNESCO)
Mr. Olivier Labé (UNESCO)
Mr. Adolfo Gustavo Imhof (UNESCO)
Mr. Alasdair Mc William (UNESCO)
Ms. Silvia Montoya (UNESCO)
Mr. Patrick Searle (United Kingdom)
Ms. Emma BOLDWYN (United States)
Mr. Cristobal DE BREY (United States)
Ms. RaeAnne FRIESENHAHN (United States)
Ms. Jillian HARRISON (United States)
Ms. Jana KEMP (United States)
Ms. Maeve LOHNES (United States)
Ms. Ashley ROBERTS (United States)
Ms. Lauren ROBERTSON (United States)
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
534
LSO Network
Mr Stuart FAUNT (Australia) Mr. Martin SCHULZE (Germany)
Ms Caterina HO (Australia) Ms. Dimitra Aggelopoulou (Greece)
Mr Steve NERLICH (Australia) Ms. Maria Fassari (Greece)
Ms Ping YU (Australia) Ms. Lida GEORGIOPOULOU (Greece)
Dr Beili Zhu (Australia) Ms. Vassiliki Makri (Greece)
Mr Mark NÉMET (Austria) Mr. Panagiotis Passas (Greece)
Ms. Natalie HORN (Austria) Ms. Eirini Gyftaki (Greece)
Ms Geneviève HINDRYCKX (Belgium) Ms. Ásta M. URBANCIC (Iceland)
Mr Guy Stoffelen (Belgium) Mr. Jason Kelly (Ireland)
Mr Robert THOLEN (Belgium) Mr. Paul Alexander (Ireland)
Ms Maira Bonna LENZI (Brazil) Mr. Patrick O’Rourke (Ireland)
Ms. Rosária Duarte MELO (Brazil) Ms. Sophie ARTSEV (Israel)
Ms Christyne CARVALHO DA SILVA (Brazil) Ms. Hana COHEN (Israel)
Ms Juliana MARQUES DA SILVA (Brazil) Ms. Tanya BEN-GIGI (Israel)
Ms. Camila Neves SOUTO (Brazil) Ms. Merav PASTERNAC (Israel)
Ms Melissa Riani Costa MACHADO (Brazil) Ms. Raffaella CASCIOLI (Italy)
Mr. Patric Blouin (Canada) Mr. Gaetano PROTO (Italy)
Ms. Linda Wang (Canada) Mr. Hyoungshik PARK (Korea)
Mr. Daniel SCHEUREGGER (CEDEFOP) Ms. Dayoung YOON (Korea)
Mr. Marco SERAFINI (CEDEFOP) Ms. Jeeeun MOON (Korea)
Ms. Paola LEIVA (Chile) Mr. Myunghwan YOO (Korea)
Ms. Javiera CUEVAS (Chile) Ms. Inyoung HWANG (Korea)
Mr. Carlos GIMENEZ (Colombia) Ms. Hyojung HAN (Korea)
Mr. Camilo MENDEZ (Colombia) Mr. Keunyoung PARK (Korea)
Ms. Liliana MORALES (Colombia) Ms. Youngho SON (Korea)
Mr. Camilo RAMIREZ (Colombia) Ms. Sandra CERIŅA (Latvia)
Ms. Mauren GARCÍA (Costa Rica) Ms. Zane PALLO-MANGALE (Latvia)
Ms. Dianny HERNÁNDEZ (Costa Rica) Ms. Kristina AITMANĖ (Lithuania)
Mr. Vladimír HULÍK (Czech Republic) Ms. Ugnė CIBULSKAITĖ (Lithuania)
Mr. Václav JELEN (Czech Republic) Ms. Jolita GALECKIENĖ (Lithuania)
Ms. Simona PIKÁLKOVÁ (Czech Republic) Ms. Evelina RAUDYTĖ-LIPEIKIENĖ (Lithuania)
Ms. Petra PRCHLÍKOVÁ (Czech Republic) Ms. Eglė REMEISIENĖ (Lithuania)
Ms. Trine Piepgras CARSTENS (Denmark) Ms. Lolita ŠIAUČIULYTĖ (Lithuania)
Mr. Thomas SKJØDT(Denmark) Ms. Elisa MAZZUCATO (Luxembourg)
Ms. Marianne LEPPIK (Estonia) Ms. Nevena ZHELYAZKOVA (Luxembourg)
Ms. Elodie CAYOTTE (Eurostat, European Mr. Gerardo H. TERRAZAS GONZÁLEZ (Mexico)
Commission)
Ms. Sabine GAGEL (Eurostat, European Mr. Andre DE MOOR (Netherlands)
Commission) Ms. Teja OUWEHAND (Netherlands)
Mr. Mika WITTING (Finland)
Ms. Francis van der Mooren (Netherlands)
Mr. Allan Seuri (Finland)
Ms. Laura CASTELL (France) Mr. Asaad Ali (New Zealand)
Mr. Paul Mahoney (New Zealand)
Mr. Jérôme DOMENS (France)
Mr. Cyrille GODONOU (France) Mr. David SCOTT (New Zealand)
Ms. Kristin GÅSEMYR (Norway)
Ms. Claire HAGEGE (France)
Mr. Mathieu ORZONI (France) Ms. Ane LANDØY (Norway)
Ms. Hild Marte BJØRNSEN (Norway)
Mr Hans-Werner FREITAG (Germany)
Ms. Sophie SÆTERNES (Norway)
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
535
Ms. Andrine STENGRUNDET (Norway) Mr. Jesús IBAÑEZ MILLA (Spain)
Mr. Jacek MAŚLANKOWSKI (Poland) Ms. Beatriz Teresa DACOSTA ALBASANZ (Spain)
Ms. Renata KARNAS (Poland) Ms. Isabel YUN MORENO (Spain)
Ms. Barbara ANTOSIEWICZ (Poland) Mr. Mattias FRITZ (Sweden)
Mr. Andrzej STOLARCZYK (Poland) Ms. Lotta LARSSON (Sweden)
Ms. Barbara DŁUŻEWSKA (Poland) Ms. Louisa VOGIAZIDES (Sweden)
Mr. Carlos Alberto MALACA (Portugal) Ms. Wayra CABALLERO LIARDET (Switzerland)
Mr. Nuno Miguel RODRIGUES (Portugal) Mr. Emanuel von Erlach (Switzerland)
Ms. Rute NUNES (Portugal) Mr. Murat KAPIKIRAN (Türkiye)
Mr. Joaquim SANTOS (Portugal) Ms. Yasemin YAZICIOĞLU (Türkiye)
Mr. Adrian Barbulescu (Romania) Dr. Yusuf CANBOLAT (Türkiye)
Ms. Veronica Chirea (Romania) Dr. Muzaffer Can DİLEK (Türkiye)
Ms. Roxana Mazilescu (Romania) Ms. Emine ÖZDEMİR (Türkiye)
Ms. Camelia Mircea-Sturza (Romania) Dr. Merve BÜDÜN (Türkiye)
Ms. Dumitra Moldovean (Romania) Ms. Esra KIRKIL (Türkiye)
Ms. Ana-Maria Vasilescu (Romania) Mr. Nadir YILDIRIM (Türkiye)
Ms. Steluța Rădoi (Romania) Ms. Amal Abdullahi (United Kingdom)
Ms. Mirela Ioniță (Romania) Mr. Cristobal DE BREY (United States)
Mr. Frantisek BLANAR (Slovak Republic) Ms. RaeAnne FRIESENHAHN (United States)
Ms. Melita SELJAK (Slovenia) Ms. Ashley ROBERTS (United States)
Ms. Hana VRATANAR (Slovenia)
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
536
NESLI Network
Ms. Chanel BERNAL (Australia) Ms. Hanna KANEP (Estonia)
Mr. Stuart FAUNT (Australia) Ms. Marianne LEPPIK (Estonia)
Dr. Caterina HO (Australia) Ms. Käthrin RANDOJA (Estonia)
Dr. Steve NERLICH (Australia) Ms. Kristel VAHER (Estonia)
Ms. Holly NEWELL (Australia) Ms. Hille VARES (Estonia)
Ms.Amanda PASFIELD (Australia) Ms. Eve TÕNISSON (Estonia).
Ms. Kyli Sadadcharan (Australia) Ms. Nathalie BAIDAK (Eurydice)
Ms. Emma STACEY (Australia) Ms. Anita KREMO (Eurydice)
Ms. Imogen WESTWOOD (Australia) Ms. Teodora PARVEVA (Eurydice)
Ms. Ping YU (Australia) Mr. Jari-Matti RIIHELAINEN (Eurydice)
Dr. Beili Zhu (Australia) Mr. Teijo KOLJONEN (Finland)
Mr. Stefan POLZER (Austria) Ms. Hanna LAAKSO (Finland)
Mr. Philippe DIEU (Belgium) Ms. Petra PACKALEN (Finland)
Mr. Teun PAUWELS (Belgium) Ms. Mélanie DREGOIR (France)
Ms. Bernadette SCHREUER (Belgium) Mr. Franck EVAIN (France)
Mr. Robert THOLEN (Belgium) Ms. Alexandra FARRUGIA (France)
Ms. Nathalie JAUNIAUX (Belgium) Ms. Pascaline FEUILLET (France)
Ms. Christyne Carvalho DA SILVA (Brazil) Ms. Anne GAUDRY-LACHET (France)
Ms. Juliana MARQUES DA SILVA (Brazil) Mr. Louis MEURIC (France)
Ms. Rosária Duarte MELO (Brazil) Mr. Thomas ECKHARDT (Germany)
Ms. Melissa Riani Costa MACHADO (Brazil) Ms. Marie LEISTE (Germany)
Ms. Camila Neves SOUTO (Brazil) Mr. Marco MUNDELIUS (Germany)
Mr. Marouane Mohamed (Canada) Ms. Vassiliki Makri (Greece)
Ms. Rhonda Shaw (Canada) Mr. Panagiotis Passas (Greece)
Mr. Graham ZIEGLER (Canada) Ms. Maria Fassari (Greece)
Ms. Paola LEIVA (Chile) Ms. Eirini Gyftaki (Greece)
Ms. Javiera CUEVAS (Chile) Mr. Ábel Ferenc Urbán (Hungary)
Mr. Sebastian ARBELAEZ (Colombia) Ms. Zsófia Ashabere (Hungary)
Ms. Jeimy ARISTIZABAL (Colombia) Mr. Zsombor Kanyári (Hungary)
Mr. Joan BOFILL (Colombia) Ms. Asta URBANCIC (Iceland)
Ms. Paula BOTERO (Colombia) Mr. Helgi Eiríkur Eyjólfsson (Iceland)
Ms. Johana MARIN (Colombia) Mr. Paul Alexander (Ireland)
Mr. Rubén Moreno (Colombia) Mr. Patrick O’Rourke (Ireland)
Ms. Elsa Nelly VELASCO (Colombia) Mr. Jason Kelly (Ireland)
Ms. Erika VILLAMIL (Colombia) Mr. Yoav AZULAY (Israel)
Ms. Carolina CHAVES (Costa Rica) Ms. Hana COHEN (Israel)
Mr. Olman MADRIGAL (Costa Rica) Mr. Pinhas KLEIN (Israel)
Ms. Cinthya PICADO (Costa Rica) Mr. Aviel KRENTZLER (Israel)
Ms. Marija GOJEVIĆ (Croatia) Mr. Amos MESSIKA (Israel)
Ms. Ana ŠOJAT (Croatia) Mr. Daniel LEVI-MAZLOUM (Israel)
Mr. Vladimír HULÍK (Czech Republic) Mr. David MAAGAN (Israel)
Mr. Václav JELEN (Czech Republic) Mr. Dov NATAN (Israel)
Ms. Simona PIKÁLKOVÁ (Czech Republic) Ms. Gianna BARBIERI (Italy)
Ms. Petra PRCHLÍKOVÁ (Czech Republic) Ms. Lucia DE FABRIZIO (Italy)
Ms. Trine Piepgras CARSTENS (Denmark) Ms. Annarita Lina MARZULLO (Italy)
Mr. Thomas SKJØDT (Denmark) Ms. Maria Teresa Morana (Italy)
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
537
Ms. Daniela Di Ascenzo (Italy) Mr. Adrian Barbulescu (Romania)
Ms. Keiko KIMURA (Japan) Ms. Veronica Chirea (Romania)
Mr. Yorihisa ONEDA (Japan) Ms. Roxana Mazilescu (Romania)
Mr. Masataka ISASHIKI (Japan) Ms. Camelia Mircea-Sturza (Romania)
Ms. Hitomi MURAI-SUZUKI (Japan) Ms. Dumitra Moldovean (Romania)
Ms. Aya NAGANUMA (Japan) Ms. Ana-Maria Vasilescu (Romania)
Ms. Narumi NISHI (Japan) Mrs. Camelia Mircea-Sturza (Romania)
Mr. Hyoungshik PARK (Korea) Mrs. Veronica Chirea (Romania)
Ms. Dayoung YOON (Korea) Mrs. Roxana Mihail (Romania)
Ms. Jeeeun MOON (Korea) Mrs. Laura Capita (Romania)
Ms. Hyojung HAN (Korea) Mr. Adrian Barbulescu (Romania)
Mr. Keunyoung PARK (Korea) Mrs. Cristina Mangiurea (Romania)
Ms. Eunji JANG (Korea) Mr. Florin Popa (Romania)
Ms. Youngho SON (Korea) Mrs. Marioara Dobrescu (Romania)
Mr. Kārlis BERNĀNS (Latvia) Mr. Victor Iliescu (Romania)
Ms. Brigita KUKJALKO (Latvia) Mrs. Antonela Toma (Romania)
Mr. Arkādijs ZVAIGZNE (Latvia) Mrs. Dumitra Moldovean (Romania)
Ms. Fung Kwan TAM (Layout) Mrs. Ana-Maria Radulescu (Romania)
Ms. Vaida KOSTYGOVA (Lithuania) Mr. Virgil Ion (Romania)
Mr. Viktoras MICKEVIČIUS (Lithuania) Mrs. Gabriela Jitaru (Romania)
Ms. Svajonė MIKĖNĖ (Lithuania) Ms. Eva HLADIKOVA (Slovak Republic)
Ms. Rima ZABLACKĖ (Lithuania) Ms. Zuzana ORLOVSKA (Slovak Republic)
Ms. Daiva VIPARTIENĖ (Lithuania) Mr. Juraj ZDINAK (Slovak Republic)
Mr. Xavier Kamphaus (Luxembourg) Mr. Nejc Jensterle (Slovenia)
Ms. Charlotte MAHON (Luxembourg) Ms. Duša MARJETIČ (Slovenia)
Ms. Elisa MAZZUCATO (Luxembourg) Ms. Karmen SVETLIK (Slovenia)
Mr. Lorenzo VERGARA LÓPEZ (Mexico) Ms. Tanja TAŠTANOSKA (Slovenia)
Mr. Marco CALDERÓN ARGOMEDO (Mexico) Mr. Jaime VAQUERO JIMÉNEZ (Spain)
Mr. César MORÓN ROJAS (Mexico) Mr. Juan Carlos GIRÓN ORTEGA (Spain)
Mr. René GÓMORA CASTILLO (Mexico) Mr. David VARAS DEL PESO (Spain)
Mr. Casper Lemmens (Netherlands) Ms. Anna ENEROTH (Sweden)
Mr. Alex MULDER (Netherlands) Ms. Elina STENGÅRD (Sweden)
Mr. Minghong Deng (New Zealand) Ms. Melanie STUTZ (Switzerland)
Mr. David SCOTT (New Zealand) Dr. Yusuf CANBOLAT (Türkiye)
Ms. Kristin GÅSEMYR (Norway) Dr. Muzaffer Can DİLEK (Türkiye)
Ms. Ane LANDØY (Norway) Ms. Emine ÖZDEMİR (Türkiye)
Ms. Kristin Mathilde DRAHUS (Norway) Dr. Merve BÜDÜN (Türkiye)
Ms. Birthe SØNNESYN (Norway) Ms. Esra KIRKIL (Türkiye)
Ms. Renata KORZENIOWSKA-PUCUŁEK (Poland) Mr. Nadir YILDIRIM (Türkiye)
Ms. Anna NOWOŻYŃSKA (Poland) Mr. Olivier Labé (UNESCO)
Ms. Barbara ANTOSIEWICZ (Poland) Mr. Robert Patman (United Kingdom)
Mr. Joaquim SANTOS (Portugal) Mr. James Deaton (United States)
Mr. Nuno Miguel RODRIGUES (Portugal) Ms. RaeAnne Friesenhahn (United States)
Mr. Marco PIMENTA (Portugal) Ms. Audrey Garrett (United States)
Mr. Rute NUNES (Portugal) Ms. Jana KEMP (United States)
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
538
Other Contributors
Mr Eric Gonnard (OECD)
Ms. Sally Hinchcliffe (Edition)
Ms Fung Kwan Tam (Layout)
Ms. Eleonore Morena (Concordance)
Ms. Jennifer Allain (Concordance)
EDUCATION AT A GLANCE 2025 © OECD 2025
Education at a Glance 2025
OECD Indicators
Education at a Glance is the authoritative source of information on the state of education worldwide. It offers
comprehensive data on the structure, financing, and performance of education systems across OECD countries
and partner economies. This publication features more than 100 charts and tables that present key insights into
the output of educational institutions, the impact of learning across countries, access and participation in education,
financial investment in education, and the roles of teachers and school organisation.
The 2025 edition places a special focus on tertiary education, examining attainment rates, variations in labour market
outcomes by field of study, completion rates, and the skills of adults with tertiary qualifications. An additional chapter
provides results from the Survey of Adult Skills 2023 (PIAAC) and links them to other indicators in the publication.
PRINT ISBN 978-92-64-89238-5
PDF ISBN 978-92-64-81156-0
9HSTCQE*ijcdif+
You might also like
- Governments Are Increasingly Looking To International Comparisons of Education Systems As They Develop Policies To Enhance IndividualsNo ratings yetGovernments Are Increasingly Looking To International Comparisons of Education Systems As They Develop Policies To Enhance Individuals23 pages
- Education at A Glance 2020: Oecd IndicatorsNo ratings yetEducation at A Glance 2020: Oecd Indicators476 pages
- Education at A Glance 2016 OECD IndicatorsNo ratings yetEducation at A Glance 2016 OECD Indicators510 pages
- OECD Handbook For Internationally Comparative Education StatisticsNo ratings yetOECD Handbook For Internationally Comparative Education Statistics128 pages
- OECD 2025 Empowered Citizens, Informed Consumers and Skilled Workers - Designing Education and Skills Policies For A Sustainable FutureNo ratings yetOECD 2025 Empowered Citizens, Informed Consumers and Skilled Workers - Designing Education and Skills Policies For A Sustainable Future114 pages
- Education at A Glance 2024 - Country Notes PeruNo ratings yetEducation at A Glance 2024 - Country Notes Peru5 pages
- Envisioning The Future of Education and Jobs - Trends, Data and Drawings, 2019No ratings yetEnvisioning The Future of Education and Jobs - Trends, Data and Drawings, 201920 pages
- Making Education Count For Development Data Collection and Availability in Six PISA For Development Countries (Etc.) (Z-Library)No ratings yetMaking Education Count For Development Data Collection and Availability in Six PISA For Development Countries (Etc.) (Z-Library)142 pages
- How Does New Zealand's Education System Compare?No ratings yetHow Does New Zealand's Education System Compare?37 pages
- Education Policy in Greece Preliminary Assessment 2017No ratings yetEducation Policy in Greece Preliminary Assessment 201792 pages
- Class 18 Spotlight On Tertiary EducationNo ratings yetClass 18 Spotlight On Tertiary Education32 pages
- Marketing An Introduction 12th Ed Armstrong Ebook and TestBank Bundle Exam PrepNo ratings yetMarketing An Introduction 12th Ed Armstrong Ebook and TestBank Bundle Exam Prep312 pages
- Jigsaw Technique for Reading ComprehensionNo ratings yetJigsaw Technique for Reading Comprehension8 pages
- Internship Request for B. Pharmacy StudentsNo ratings yetInternship Request for B. Pharmacy Students1 page
- Class Viii Lesson Plan English Prose Chapter 3 Glimpses of The Past100% (2)Class Viii Lesson Plan English Prose Chapter 3 Glimpses of The Past31 pages
- Complete Power of Art Revised 3 Ed Lewis Ebook and TestBank Bundle VerifiedNo ratings yetComplete Power of Art Revised 3 Ed Lewis Ebook and TestBank Bundle Verified324 pages
- Report On Biological Pedagogical InternshipNo ratings yetReport On Biological Pedagogical Internship33 pages
- Assignment No. 1 Q.1 Explain The System of Elementary Education in Pakistan. Describe The Steps Taken by The Government For Compulsory EducationNo ratings yetAssignment No. 1 Q.1 Explain The System of Elementary Education in Pakistan. Describe The Steps Taken by The Government For Compulsory Education14 pages
- CBSE Maths Notes For Class 10 - NCERT Notes Class 10 MathsNo ratings yetCBSE Maths Notes For Class 10 - NCERT Notes Class 10 Maths19 pages
- Academic and Administrative Audit OverviewNo ratings yetAcademic and Administrative Audit Overview3 pages
- CLASS 10 Geography Chapterwise Topicwise Notes CHAPTER-2 Forest and Wildlife Resources0% (1)CLASS 10 Geography Chapterwise Topicwise Notes CHAPTER-2 Forest and Wildlife Resources48 pages
- Earthquake Resistant Building Construction by "Base Isolation Method"No ratings yetEarthquake Resistant Building Construction by "Base Isolation Method"5 pages
- First Term Examination History Primary 5 (Basic 5) Exam Questions - ClassRoomNotesNo ratings yetFirst Term Examination History Primary 5 (Basic 5) Exam Questions - ClassRoomNotes6 pages
- Business Management Resume - Jacob TrotterNo ratings yetBusiness Management Resume - Jacob Trotter1 page
- AIML R23 JNTU GV B.tech Course Structure and SyllabusNo ratings yetAIML R23 JNTU GV B.tech Course Structure and Syllabus197 pages
