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
TALIS 2018: Starting Strong Survey
Survey of Adult Skills (PIAAC): 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
TALIS 2018: Starting Strong Survey
  • Around 70% of staff report regular use of practices facilitating children's socio-emotional development or practices facilitating children's language development. Specific practices emphasising literacy and numeracy are used to a lesser extent.
  • The ability to cooperate easily with others is the most important ability among the list of skills and abilities important for young children to develop, as regarded by ECEC staff.
  • In pre-primary education centres, the average size of the target group varies from 15 children to more than 20. Staff working with larger groups report using more behavioural support practices (such as asking children to quieten down).
  • Staff in the ECEC field have typically completed education beyond secondary school. Training specifically to work with children is not universal, ranging from 64% of staff in Iceland to 97% of staff in Germany. Staff with more education and training and more responsibility report that they adapt their practices in the classroom or playroom to individual children's development and interests.
  • In all countries, more than 75% of staff report having participated in professional development activities within the 12 months prior to the Survey. However, staff who are less educated tend to participate less in professional development activities.
  • Staff in all countries report feeling more valued by the children they serve and their parents than by society in general. Satisfaction with salaries is low. Even so, staff report high levels of overall job satisfaction. In several countries, staff who feel that ECEC staff are more valued by society report more use of practices in the classroom or playroom adapted to individual children's development and interests.
  • Lack of resources and having too many children in the classroom or playroom are major sources of work-related stress among ECEC staff. For centre leaders, a primary source of work-related stress is having too much administrative work. Leaders also report that inadequate resources for the centre and staff shortages are the main barriers to effectiveness.
  • More than a third of centres in Germany, Iceland and Norway have 11% or more children whose first language differs from the language(s) used in the centre, while this is rare in Japan and Korea. In Chile, Germany and Iceland, staff in pre-primary centres with more children who have a different first language also report greater use of activities related to children's diversity.
  • Staff across countries and levels of education concur that reducing group size, improving staff salaries and receiving support for children with special needs are important spending priorities.

  • The following countries participated in the Starting Strong Survey: Chile, Denmark, Germany, Iceland, Israel, Japan, Korea, Norway and Turkey.


    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)
    Northern Ireland (United Kingdom)
    United States
    OECD average

    Non-OECD Countries

    G20 average
    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
    Ecuador
    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.