Which countries have the most highly skilled populations?

Education provides people with the skills they need for economic and social participation in society. How do countries in Europe, Northern America, Oceania, Japan and Korea compare when it comes to the average level of skills of their populations? And to what extent do they offer equal opportunities for all in the classroom? In Chapter 2 of Public sector achievement in 36 countries, we use various indicators to address these questions. Here we briefly present those which cover the largest number of countries and the longest periods of time.

Average performance in mathematics and reading

The report first looks at cognitive skills, analysing the average performance of 15-year-olds in mathematics and reading. Figure 1 reveals large differences between countries. In 2012, Korea and Japan had the highest scores and Southern, Central and Eastern Europe the lowest. Western and Northern Europe, Oceania and Northern America fell in between, with each region having comparable results. Intraregional differences were the largest in Central and Eastern Europe, with scores ranging from low in Bulgaria and Romania to quite high in Poland and Estonia.

In 2012, average performance in maths and reading was by far the strongest in Korea and Japan

However, a comparison with data from earlier years - 2000 for reading skills and 2003 for maths skills - shows that the differences between countries used to be even bigger. This is because most countries with low initial scores improved their performance over the period until 2012, while most countries with good scores at the outset fell back. Poland (maths and reading), Romania (maths only), and Latvia (reading only) achieved the biggest improvements in test scores, while Sweden and Finland witnessed the largest drops.

Equity in education opportunities

In 2012, inequality in educational opportunity was low in the Netherlands, the UK and Switzerland, but high in France and Belgium.

Education does not only provide the skills needed to participate in society, it also aims to promote equal opportunity (Van de Werfhorst and Mijs, 2010). It is not easy to measure the extent to which education offers equal opportunity in the studied countries. According to the OECD (2014b), equal opportunity does not suggest that all students should perform equally, but rather that students’ socioeconomic status should have little or no impact on their performance. In line with this definition, the OECD has created an indicator of inequality of opportunity by assessing the extent to which differences in maths performance are explained by differences in the socioeconomic status of students’ parents. Figure 2 shows that in 2012, average inequality figures were the lowest for Korea and Japan, followed by Northern Europe and Northern America. By contrast, inequality was higher in the rest of Europe and in Oceania. However, these regional averages mask considerable differences within regions. This occurs most notably in Central and Eastern Europe, where inequality was very low in Estonia (not shown due to missing data for 2003) and very high in Slovakia and Hungary. Western European countries also showed considerable differences, with inequality being low in the Netherlands, the United Kingdom (not shown due to missing data for 2003) and Switzerland, but high in France and Belgium. Germany, the Netherlands and Switzerland achieved the largest declines in inequality between 2003 and 2012, while Spain, Latvia and France witnessed the largest increases.

Notes: The figure above shows inequality in educational opportunity in 27 countries (Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Estonia, Lithuania, Malta, Romania, Slovenia, and the United Kingdom are not shown due to missing data) in 2003 and 2012. The diagonal line separates the countries that improved their score (located below the line) from the ones that saw their score deteriorate (located above the line). Inequality is measured as the R-squared of country-specific bivariate regressions of a student’s maths score on his/her parental socioeconomic status (PISA).
Source: OECD (2014b).

Relating average performance to equal opportunity

To assess how equal opportunity in education is related to average performance, Figure 3 plots inequality against the average maths performance of countries in 2012. It seems that countries with better average performance also do better in providing equal opportunity. However, the relationship is fairly weak and some countries, such as France, the United Kingdom, Belgium and Finland, show distinctly different levels of inequality, while their average performance levels are similar. These findings are consistent with the notion that policies aimed at improving educational performance only go some way towards achieving equal opportunity for students from disadvantaged social backgrounds.

Notes: The figure above shows average performance and inequality in educational opportunity in 34 countries (Cyprus and Malta are not shown due to missing data) in 2012. The dashed line represents the regression line of a bivariate regression of the percentage of variation explained by socioeconomic status on the mean maths score.
Source: OECD (2014b).

Performance in maths and reading is explained by …

The previous section dealt with the large differences we have observed between countries in the maths and reading performance of their 15-year-old children. Which factors explain these differences in cognitive skills? Is it mostly differences in the individual characteristics of children or their family background that matter? Are differences in school inputs, such as the quality of teachers or instructional resources, important? What is the role of institutional factors, such as the degree of school autonomy? The body of academic literature includes a large number of studies that address these questions.[1]

… student and family background, …

The results of our literature review indicate that student and family background are important determinants of the performance of 15-year-old children.

… the quality of teachers and instructional material …

Evidence on the effects of school inputs is mixed. While the quality of teachers and instructional resources really seems to matter, quantitative measures such as expenditure per student and class size are less relevant. This suggests that the education authorities should invest in talented teachers and first-rate instructional resources rather than in smaller classes.

… and institutional features of schools and the education system.

Three institutional features are important in explaining performance: accountability, school autonomy and the degree to which state schools face competition from private schools.

Institutional features of schools and education systems also seem to be important in explaining performance. Three distinct characteristics are positively associated with the test scores of 15-year-olds: (a) accountability; (b) the autonomy of schools and (c) the degree to which state schools face competition from private schools.

For policymakers wishing to boost the cognitive skills of 15-year-olds, we provide a brief summary of the recommendations found in the literature:

The following tables document for each country: the presence of the accountability mechanisms mentioned above; the level of school autonomy with regard to setting the budget, establishing the starting salaries of teachers, determining the content of courses and hiring teachers; and the percentage of children in privately operated schools and the percentage of school funding provided by national governments.

References