What the expansion of higher education means for graduates in the labour market

by Markus Schwabe
Statistician, Directorate for Education and Skills

A university degree has always been considered as key to a good job and higher wages. But as the share of tertiary-educated adults across OECD countries has almost doubled over the last two decades, can the labour market absorb this growing supply of skills? At first glance, the answer isn’t encouraging: the number of unemployed tertiary-educated adults has been increasing across OECD countries for many years. However, a closer look reveals that the unemployment rate for these adults is still much lower than for those without a university degree.

The latest Education Indicators in Focus policy brief analyses long-term trends in employment outcomes of adults based on their highest level of educational attainment. The figure above shows that, in all OECD countries, adults with tertiary education still enjoy higher employment rates than those without by 10 percentage points, on average, and this advantage has changed little over the past two decades.

While this might seem reassuring, in some countries the reality is more troubling. In Korea, for example, labour market demand has not kept pace with an ever-increasing supply of tertiary graduates. As a result, the employment advantage of tertiary-educated adults decreased slightly, by 0.6 point, between 1995 and 2006. In 1995, tertiary-educated adults in Korea were 13% more likely to be employed than those with an upper-secondary or post-secondary non-tertiary education; today they are only 6% more likely to have a job. With 70% of young adults in Korea holding a tertiary degree, some might wonder whether tertiary expansion has reached its limit. But with populations of school-aged children shrinking across OECD countries, the worry about too many university graduates competing for too few high-skilled jobs might prove to be misplaced.

The “knowledge economy” has increased the demand for better-educated and well-skilled workers. But in many countries, even as enrolments in higher education have grown, companies still report that they cannot find workers with the skills they are looking for. While technological progress and globalisation continue to challenge education systems, automation and digitalisation will be, in the words of two Harvard economists*, an ongoing “race between education and technology”. Countries should thus worry less about the share of tertiary-educated adults in the labour force and more about the skills that education provides. Ensuring that the skills students graduate with are relevant to the labour market will go a long way towards making the expansion of higher education sustainable – and beneficial for all.

*Claudia Goldin and Lawrence F. Katz in their book The Race between Education and Technology (2008), Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press, Belknap.

Links

Education Indicators in Focus No. 57 - Is labour market demand keeping pace with the rising educational attainment of the population?
Education at a Glance 2017 - OECD Indicators

Join our OECD Teacher Community on Edmodo

Busting the myth about standardised testing

by Tarek Mostafa
Analyst, Directorate for Education and Skills

Standardised testing has received a bad rap in recent years. Parents and educators argue that too much testing can make students anxious without improving their learning. In particular, standardised tests that could determine a student’s future – entry into a certain education programme or into university, for example – might trigger anxiety and, if conducted too frequently, might lead to poorer performance, absenteeism and lower self-confidence. But are standardised tests really used all that frequently? And do they exacerbate anxiety and undermine performance?

Evidence from PISA dispels these myths.

On average across OECD countries, about one in four 15-year-old students attends a school where mandatory standardised tests are never used, and three in five attend schools where these tests are used only once or twice a year. In 11 countries, including Belgium, Costa Rica, Germany, Slovenia and Spain, more than one in two students are in schools that never assess students with mandatory standardised tests. In contrast, teacher-developed tests and judgemental ratings are used considerably more frequently. On average across OECD countries, nearly one in three students sits teacher-developed tests every month, and about two in five sit these tests more than once a month. In Belgium, Canada, France, the Netherlands, Singapore, Spain and Chinese Taipei, more than 50% of students sit teacher-developed tests more than once a month.

Moreover, contrary to commonly held beliefs, the frequency of tests, as reported by school principals, is not related to the level of test anxiety reported by students. In fact, on average across OECD countries, students who attend schools where they have to sit standardised or teacher-developed tests at least once a month reported similar levels of test anxiety as students who attend schools where assessments are conducted less frequently. One possible explanation is that test anxiety is triggered by aspects of the tests other than their frequency. For instance, the nature or difficulty of the task, the surrounding atmosphere, time constraints, characteristics of the examiner, the mode in which the test is conducted, and the physical setting of the test might influence a student’s psychological attitudes towards the test. All of these factors, in turn, interact with the student’s own ability, self-confidence, motivation, study and test-taking skills, and preparation.

The relationship between performance in science and the frequency with which schools or countries assess students is also weak. On average across OECD countries, students who are assessed with mandatory standardised tests at least once a year score slightly lower in science (by six points) than those who are assessed more frequently, while students who are assessed with teacher-developed tests at least once a month score somewhat higher (by five points) than those who are assessed less frequently. But after accounting for students’ and schools’ socio-economic profile, these associations are not significant.

The findings also show that students’ school experience have a stronger relationship with their likelihood of feeling anxious than the frequency with which they are assessed. PISA shows that students reported less anxiety when their teachers provide more support or adapt the lessons to their needs. In contrast, students reported greater anxiety when they feel that their teachers treat them unfairly, such as by grading them harder than other students, or when they have the impression that their teachers think they are less smart than they are.

In a nutshell, when it comes to standardised tests the evidence from PISA is clear: The negative influence these tests have on schoolwork-related anxiety is a myth, and the bad rap they have received in recent years is unwarranted. Standardised and teacher-developed tests play an important role in monitoring student performance and academic progress. They do not exacerbate anxiety, especially when students perceive that their teachers treat them fairly, and help them build their self-confidence.

Links
The Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA)
PISA in Focus No. 79 - Is too much testing bad for student performance and well-being?
PISA 2015 Results (Volume II) - Policies and Practices for Successful Schools
PISA 2015 Results (Volume III) - Students' Well-Being

Follow the conversation on Twitter: #OECDPISA

Image source: @Shutterstock

Citizenship and education in a digital world

by Marc Fuster
Consultant, Directorate for Education and Skills

"Everyone believes in the atrocities of the enemy and disbelieves in those of his own side, without ever bothering to examine the evidence”, George Orwell wrote in 1943. And in an era of ‘fake news’ and post-truth, it resembles our world today.

Democracies are built upon the principles of equality and the participation of citizens in public deliberation and decision making. But participation can only work if people have at least a basic understanding of the system’s norms and institutions, can form opinions of their own and respect those of others, and are willing to engage in public life one way or another. A new Trends Shaping Education Spotlight looks at how civic education can support students in developing the knowledge and skills needed to take part in the democratic process, especially in an increasingly digitalised world.

Equipping young citizens with civic and political knowledge and skills is at the centre of education’s mission, and civic education is part of the curriculum in all OECD countries. Nevertheless, data from an international assessment on civic knowledge and attitudes show that the majority of adolescent students in many countries lack a deeper understanding of how democracy works in the world they live in, even if they know basic facts about democracy. This raises questions about how teachers and schools can do better at preparing young people for the world.

Evidence suggests that civic-specific subjects and rote-learning approaches have little influence on students’ civic knowledge or on their attitudes about civic and political engagement. Instead, effective civics pedagogy depends on a classroom climate that encourages students’ participation in open discussions on political issues connected to their daily life and interests.

Participation in extracurricular activities or decision making bodies at school can also increase students’ civic skills and engagement. Furthermore, experiential pedagogical approaches, such as service learning, allow students to benefit from both the hands-on experience of serving community needs and the subsequent discussion and reflection in class. Research shows that service learning works best when projects establish a clear set of learning objectives and identify the kind of service opportunity that bests suits them.

These days, the world is also online. Technology facilitates political participation and contributes to keeping us informed -- or not. As social media develops, people increasingly rely on the online information that is shared by those they trust. But such information is not always verifiable, which can make it difficult to sort fact from fiction. This challenges our capacity to make informed decisions and undermines the quality of public deliberations.

As societies grow increasingly digitalised and become awash with ‘fake news’, citizens’ digital literacy becomes more and more important. Proficiency in digital reading is the ability to plan and execute a search, evaluate the usefulness of information, and assess the credibility of sources. However, the assessment of digital reading in PISA 2012 revealed that only about 8% of 15 years-old across OECD countries are able to navigate online information autonomously and efficiently, evaluate information from several sources and assess its credibility and usefulness. Thus, more needs to be done to develop students’ digital skills in online reading and also in producing and sharing digital content. Furthermore, raising students’ awareness on what is appropriate to share -- and how -- is essential for developing more ethical (digital) attitudes and behaviour.

So the mission of teachers and schools to provide their students with the civic and political knowledge needed for adult life needs more attention than ever. In the 21st century, this requires a focus on digital democratic citizenship and the kind of skills and attitudes that come with it. Sustaining democratic institutions and social relations over time depends on the way we support and encourage young people to become active and engaged citizens, both on and offline.

Links

Trends Shaping Education Spotlight No. 13: Citizens with a say
Centre for Educational Research and Innovation (CERI)

Students, Computers and Learning - Making the Connection

Join us on Edmodo

Image source: @Shutterstock

Educating our youth to care about each other and the world

by Andreas Schleicher
Director, Directorate for Education and Skills

In 2015, 193 countries committed to achieving the 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) of the United Nations, a shared vision of humanity that provides the missing piece of the globalisation puzzle. The extent to which that vision becomes a reality will in no small way depend on what is happening in today’s classrooms. Indeed, it is educators who hold the key to ensuring that the SDGs become a real social contract with citizens.

Goal 4, which commits to quality education for all, is intentionally not limited to foundation knowledge and skills, such as literacy, mathematics and science, but emphasises learning to live together sustainably. This has inspired the OECD Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA), the global yardstick for success in education, to include global competence in its metrics for quality, equity and effectiveness in education. PISA will assess global competence for the first time ever in 2018.

PISA conceives of global competence as a multidimensional, lifelong learning goal. Globally competent individuals can examine local, global and intercultural issues, understand and appreciate different perspectives and world views, interact successfully and respectfully with others, and take responsible action toward sustainability and collective well-being.

It is worth looking at these four dimensions in some more detail.

Examine issues of local, global and cultural significance. This refers to the ability to combine knowledge about the world with critical reasoning whenever people form their own opinions about a global issue. Globally competent students can draw on and combine the disciplinary knowledge and modes of thinking acquired in school to ask questions, analyse data and arguments, explain phenomena, and develop a position regarding a local, global or cultural issue. They can also access, analyse and critically evaluate messages delivered through the media, and can create new media content.

Understand and appreciate the perspectives and world views of others. This highlights a willingness and capacity to consider global problems multiple viewpoints. As individuals acquire knowledge about other cultures’ histories, values, communication styles, beliefs and practices, they begin to recognise that their perspectives and behaviours are shaped by many influences, that they are not always fully aware of these influences, and that others have views of the world that are profoundly different from their own. Engaging with different perspectives and world views requires individuals to examine the origins and implications of others’ and their own assumptions. This, in turn, implies a respect for and interest in the people who acknowledge and appreciate the qualities that distinguish individuals from one another are less likely to tolerate acts of injustice in their daily interactions. On the other hand, people who fail to develop this competence are considerably more likely to internalise stereotypes, prejudices and false heuristics about those who are “different”.

Engage in open, appropriate and effective interactions across cultures. Globally competent people can adapt their behaviour and communication to interact with individuals from different cultures. They engage in respectful dialogue, want to understand the other, and try to include marginalised groups. This dimension emphasises individuals' capacity to bridge differences with others by communicating in ways that are open, appropriate and effective. “Open” interactions mean relationships in which all participants demonstrate sensitivity towards, curiosity about, and a willingness to engage with others and their perspectives. “Appropriate” refers to interactions that respect the cultural norms of both parties. In “effective” communication, all participants can make themselves understood and understand the other.

Take action for collective well-being and sustainable development. This dimension focuses on young people's role as active and responsible members of society, and refers to individuals’ readiness to respond to a given local, global or intercultural issue or situation. It recognises that young people can have an impact on personal and local situations, but also on digital and global issues. Competent people create opportunities to take informed, reflective action and have their voices heard. Taking action might imply standing up for a schoolmate whose human dignity is in jeopardy, initiating a global media campaign at school, or disseminating a personal opinion about the refugee crisis through social media. Globally competent people are engaged to improve living conditions in their own communities and also to build a more just, peaceful, inclusive and environmentally sustainable world.

Naturally, global competence can be developed in many contexts; but schools can play a crucial role in this regard. Schools can provide opportunities for young people to critically examine developments that are significant to both the world at large and to their own lives. They can teach students how to use digital information and social media platforms critically and responsibly. Schools can also encourage intercultural sensitivity and respect by encouraging students to engage in experiences that nurture an appreciation for diverse peoples, languages and cultures. This central role of schools makes a strong case for PISA to examine global competence.

All of this leads to the question: How does one assess global competence? In 2018, PISA will make a first start with a two-part assessment consisting of a cognitive test and a background questionnaire. The cognitive assessment elicits students’ capacities to critically examine news articles about global issues; recognise outside influences on perspectives and world views; understand how to communicate with others in intercultural contexts; and identify and compare different courses of action to address global and intercultural issues.

In the background questionnaire, students will be asked to report how familiar they are with global issues; how developed their linguistic and communication skills are; to what extent they hold certain attitudes, such as respect for people from different cultural backgrounds; and what opportunities they have at school to develop global competence. Answers to the school and teacher questionnaires will provide a comparative picture of how education systems are integrating international and intercultural perspectives throughout the curriculum and in classroom activities.

Taken together, the cognitive assessment and the background questionnaire will allow educators and policy makers to address important questions, such as:

• To what degree are students able to critically examine contemporary issues of local, global and intercultural significance?
• To what degree are students able to understand and appreciate multiple cultural perspectives (including their own) and manage differences and conflicts? 
• To what degree are students prepared to interact respectfully across cultural differences? 
• To what degree do students care about the world and take action to make a positive difference in other peoples’ lives and safeguard the environment? 
• Are there inequalities in access to education for global competence between and within countries? 
• What approaches to multicultural and intercultural education are most commonly used in school systems around the world?
• How are teachers being prepared to develop students’ global competence?

This assessment offers a tangible opportunity to provide the global community with the data it needs to build more peaceful, equitable and sustainable societies through education. It will provide a comprehensive overview of education systems’ efforts to create learning environments that encourage young people to understand one another and the world beyond their immediate environment, and to take action towards building cohesive and sustainable communities. It will help the many teachers who work every day to combat ignorance, prejudice and hatred, which are at the root of disengagement, discrimination and violence.

Some have already raised concerns about the feasibility of measuring students' readiness to engage with the world through an international test. International comparisons are never easy, and they are not perfect, particularly when it comes to measuring such complex competences. But without quality data, it will be difficult to initiate a fruitful, global dialogue about what works in education.

Links
Preparing our youth for an inclusive and sustainable world: The OECD PISA global competence framework

Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA)

Follow the conversation: #OECDPISA and #GlobalCompetence

How can countries close the equity gap in education?

by Dirk Van Damme
Head of the Skills Beyond School Division,  Directorate for Education and Skills

Education plays a dual role when it comes to social inequality and social mobility. On the one hand, it is the main way for societies to foster equality of opportunity and support upward social mobility for children from disadvantaged backgrounds. On the other hand, the evidence is overwhelming that education often reproduces social divides in societies, through the impact that parents’ economic, social and cultural status has on children’s learning outcomes.

The social divide is already apparent very early in the life of a child, in the time their parents spend on parenting or in the number of words a toddler learns. It progresses through early childhood education and becomes most obvious in the variation in learning outcomes, based on social background, among 15-year-old students who participate in the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA). And when literacy and numeracy skills among adults are assessed, such as in the OECD Survey of Adult Skills (PIAAC), we still see the impact of socio-economic status on skills development. A new report, Educational Opportunities for All, which contributes to the OECD Inclusive Growth initiative, charts the trajectory of educational inequality over a lifetime using OECD datasets on education and learning outcomes.

Children from disadvantaged families, measured by the proxy of parents’ educational attainment, have less chance than their peers from more advantaged backgrounds to benefit from early childhood education and excellent learning opportunities at school. The later stages in a person’s educational career often reinforce the accumulated disadvantage from previous stages.

The chart above shows,for the cohort born between 1985 and 1988, that the impact of social background continues to be strong between the age of 15, when students sit the PISA reading test, and the ages of 25-28, when PIAAC conducts a similar test in literacy. In most cases, the difference in the standardised scores between children with tertiary-educated parents and those without a tertiary-educated parent increases between the two measurements. This is probably because poor literacy proficiency at school translates into different trajectories into further education, into more difficult transitions between school and work, and into work environments that offer fewer opportunities to improve literacy skills either by using those skills or through training.

Is this then a completely pessimistic story? Should we forget about the potential of education to foster a more equal and inclusive society? Not at all! The report shows that children’s educational trajectory is not set in stone. Many children seem to be able to move beyond the destiny to which their background seems to condemn them. But there are large differences among countries in the extent to which these children succeed in school. The report includes a dashboard of 11 indicators of equity in education – a clear sign that policies and practices matter. The right policies and the right kind of incentives can make a huge difference in whether a country is able to provide educational opportunities for all.

Throughout its work on learning, education and skills, the OECD has identified policies that matter with regard to equity. Those identified in this new report are not surprising: invest in accessible, high-quality early childhood education; improve learning opportunities for children at risk and target resources to those schools that need them most; focus on employability skills for adults from disadvantaged backgrounds; and provide opportunities for second-chance and lifelong education.

There is no magic formula that will work for all countries. In some countries, a lack of quality early childhood education creates huge equity issues, while in others, secondary school is the stage at which equality of educational opportunity is jeopardised. In still other countries, it is the transition to work that is the most challenging for disadvantaged young people. As shown in the chart above, Sweden, New Zealand and Norway are relatively successful in guaranteeing equitable learning outcomes in secondary school. But in contrast to the two Nordic countries, New Zealand doesn’t seem able to extend its equitable approach into skills development among young adults, probably because of segregating mechanisms in work allocation and adult learning programmes.

The Flemish Community of Belgium provides a contrasting picture: the secondary school system there shows large disparities in learning outcomes between disadvantaged and advantaged children, but the inequitable outcomes are, to some extent, compensated in early adulthood by more inclusive labour-market and social-protection systems. Countries thus need to search for the specific mix of policies that will work for them.

More equitable and inclusive education and skills policies are not only beneficial for individual people; they can have a huge impact on society. Such policies can guarantee that the routes to upward social mobility remain open to talented people, regardless of their social background. Countries will benefit socially and economically when they stop wasting the talents of those who are penalised simply because of where they came from. At a time when skills are the ticket to brighter futures, developing everyone’s skills is the best strategy towards economic prosperity and social cohesion.

Links
Educational Opportunities for All, Overcoming Inequality throughout the Life Course
Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA)

Survey of Adult Skills (PIAAC)

OECD Inclusive Growth initiative

Join our OECD Teacher Community on Edmodo

Who really bears the cost of education?

by Marie-Hélène Doumet
Senior Analyst, Directorate for Education and Skills

It can be difficult to get your head around education finance. Who actually pays for it, where does the money come from, and how is it spent are all crucial questions to ask if you want to understand how the money flows in education. In many countries, basic education is considered a right, and governments are expected to ensure universal access to it. However, educational attainment has reached unprecedented levels, and more people are participating in education than ever before, leaving governments struggling to meet the demand through public funds alone. The role of private funding has become more significant in the past decade, particularly at the pre-primary and tertiary levels of education. 

But the reality is more complex than a binary public-private model would suggest. Other financing mechanisms, involving the transfer of funds between governments, households and other private entities, are blurring the lines of what is commonly understood as public or private.

Take government-subsidised loans to students. A loan, by definition, needs to be repaid, and so is commonly considered as a private cost to households.  But before that, loans actually come out of the public purse, and so are actually a public cost to governments at the time the loan is issued. The cost, however, shifts to individuals once they enter the labour market and start earning enough to make repayments.  

The latest Education in Focus brief  tries to answer the question “Who really bears the cost of education?” by looking at these transfers as two sides of the same coin.  Separating out transfers from the traditional public-private split of costs also provides more granularity on the sourcing of private expenditure, differentiating what comes in the form of government support from what is truly out-of-pocket costs. 

Consider, for example, two countries well known for their reliance on private expenditure to fund tertiary education: the United Kingdom and Japan. In 2014, both countries relied on private funding to provide around 70% of the cost of tertiary education (when considering the final allocation of funds after transfers). However, two-thirds of that private funding in the United Kingdom comes from government transfers to private non-educational entities, mostly in the form of loans, with advantageous repayment schedules and conditions, to students. This means that while the private sector is ultimately responsible for this expenditure, it is the public sector that bears a significant share of the initial cost, not only of the value of the loan, but also the risk of future default on payments. By contrast, in Japan, only 20% of final private expenditure originated from government transfers, leaving the private sector, a large share of which are households, to fund the rest from their own pockets.  

The chart above shows the extent to which countries balance out public and private funding in tertiary education, and how they compensate for private funding through government transfers to households, students and other non-educational private entities. Interestingly, some countries with the largest share of private funding in education provide the least financial support as a share of total private expenditure. This is the case in Chile, Japan, Korea and the United States. By contrast, countries such as Belgium, the Netherlands and Slovenia cover a large share of private expenditure through public-to-private transfers, and households bear much less of a financial burden. In between the two models, countries such as Australia, New Zealand and the United Kingdom rely on public funds to unlock private ones.  A strong financial support system, mostly structured on publicly subsidised loans, lightens the initial high cost of education for individuals, but allows graduates to repay the loans when they are most able to do so.    

Central to the idea of who should bear the cost of education is the philosophy behind who actually benefits the most from it: the public or the individual. Primary and secondary education are generally considered as a fundamental human right to basic skills that should mostly be provided by governments, which, indeed, is often the case. However, the earnings premium provided to higher education opens the debate as to who benefits the most from higher education and therefore, who should be paying for it. But thinking mainly in terms of public or private spending misses an essential element: what happens behind the scenes in the form of public-to-private transfers. Understanding these financial transfers provides insights as to how the cost of education shifts between the public and private sectors over time, and sheds some light on a sometimes overlooked measure of education finance.  

Links

Education Indicators in Focus No. 56 - Who really bears the cost of education? How the burden of education expenditure shifts from the public to the private sector

Education at a Glance 2017 - OECD Indicators

Join our OECD Teacher Community on Edmodo