Search for specific education indicators by country, theme or level of education and compare the results using interactive charts and tables.

Base Theme

Education at a Glance 2019 (EAG 2019): Highlights
EAG 2019, Chapter A: The output of educational institutions and the impact of learning
EAG 2019, Chapter B: Access to education, participation and progression
EAG 2019, Chapter C: Financial resources invested in education
EAG 2019, Chapter D: Teachers, learning environment and organisation of schools
TALIS 2018: Full selection of indicators
Survey of Adult Skills (PIAAC 2015): Full selection of indicators
PISA 2015: Full selection of indicators
PISA 2015 (Volume III): Students' Well-Being
PISA 2015 (Volume IV): Students' Financial Literacy
PISA 2015 (Volume V): Collaborative Problem Solving
Access & Participation
Organisation & Governance
Finance & Funding
Learning environment
Teachers
Evaluation & Quality assurance
Equity
Gender
Digital divide
Special needs
Socio-economic status
Migrant background
Economic & Social outcomes
Internationalisation
Research & Innovation
School leadership
Trends shaping education
Attainment
Skills
Low performers
Computers, education & skills
Early childhood education & care
Tertiary education
Demographic, social & economic indicators
Migrant background
  • On average across OECD countries, 12.5% of students in 2015 have an immigrant background, up from 9.4% in 2006. The percentage of students with an immigrant background varies widely across countries (from 52% in Luxembourg to 0.07% in Korea) but also within countries, as immigrant children are often concentrated in schools and classrooms, amplifying the challenge of diversity for teachers and school leaders.
  • On average across countries with relatively large immigrant student populations, attending a school with a high concentration of immigrant students is not associated with poorer student performance, after accounting for the school's socio-economic intake.
  • The average difference in science performance between immigrant and non-immigrant students with a similar socio-economic profile is 31 score points. The average difference shrinks to 19 score points after taking into account the language spoken at home.
  • The average difference in science performance between immigrant and non-immigrant students with similar socio-economic status and familiarity with the test language narrowed by 6 score points between 2006 and 2015.
  • On average across OECD countries, and after taking their socio-economic status into account, immigrant students are more than twice as likely as their non-immigrant peers to perform below the baseline level of proficiency in science.
  • Immigrant students are more at risk of repeating a grade and being enrolled in a vocational programme than non-immigrant students in nearly all countries participating in PISA 2015.
  • Some 57% of first-generation immigrant students have at least one parent as educated as the average parent in the host country, but 45% of second-generation and 67% of first-generation immigrant students do not speak the language of the PISA test at home.
  • Immigrant adults with a foreign-language background have significantly lower proficiency in literacy, numeracy and problem solving in technology-rich environments than native-born adults, whose first or second language learned as a child was the same as that of the assessment, even after other factors are taken into account.


  • Browser View

    Select OECD Countries

    Australia
    Austria
    Belgium
    Belgium (Flanders)
    Belgium (excluding Flanders)
    Canada
    Alberta (Canada)
    Canadian provinces
    Chile
    Czech Republic
    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
    Turkey
    United Kingdom
    England (United Kingdom)
    United States
    OECD average

    Non-OECD Countries

    TALIS average
    Albania
    Algeria
    Argentina
    Buenos Aires (Argentina)
    Brazil
    Bulgaria
    Bosnia and Herzegovina
    China
    Beijing, Shanghai, Jiangsu, Guangdong (China)
    Hong Kong (China)
    Macao (China)
    Shanghai (China)
    Chinese Taipei
    Colombia
    Costa Rica
    Croatia
    Dominican Republic
    Egypt
    Georgia
    India
    Indonesia
    Jordan
    Kazakhstan
    Kyrgyz Republic
    Kosovo
    Lebanon
    North Macedonia
    Malaysia
    Malta
    Moldova
    Montenegro
    Morocco
    Peru
    Qatar
    Romania
    Russian Federation
    Saudi Arabia
    Serbia
    Singapore
    South Africa
    Tajikistan
    Thailand
    Trinidad and Tobago
    Tunisia
    United Arab Emirates
    Abu Dhabi (UAE)
    Ukraine
    Uruguay
    Viet Nam
    The data table will display up to four selected countries (unselect the OECD average to have one more).
    Click the arrows for more indicators:
    Click the arrows for more indicators:
    Click the arrows for more indicators:
    Click the arrows for more indicators:
    Country Profile quick links
    Note: These values should be interpreted with care since they are influenced by countries' specific contexts and trade-offs. In education, there is often no simple most- or least-efficient model. For instance, the share of private expenditure in education must be read against other measures designed to mitigate inequities, such as loans and grants; longer learning time is an opportunity to convey more and better content to students, but may hinder investments in other important areas. If you want further information on the nature of different variables, please take the time to read the analysis and contextual information, available at the website for each publication.
    The OECD average includes only OECD countries which are listed here: http://www.oecd.org/about/membersandpartners/

    *TALIS averages are based on all countries participating in the TALIS survey, including partner countries and economies. This explains the difference between the OECD average and the TALIS average. Data from the TALIS survey and Education at a Glance (EAG) may differ. See Annex E of the TALIS technical report and Annex 3 of EAG 2019 for more details about the data collections.

    For additional notes, please refer to annexes in the list of links below the introductory text.