Education in States and Nations: 1991
(ESN) Introduction and Overview
In 1983, when A Nation at Risk highlighted both
the state of American education and its essential
role in our nation's prosperity, the report's first
piece of evidence was international comparisons of
mathematics and science achievement. It appeared
then that U.S. students were being outperformed by
students in other countries, including some
countries that educate their students at lower cost.
This report from an independent commission
appointed by the Secretary of Education suggested
that, at a time when a nation's power and
prosperity were more than ever before determined
by the collective brain power of its citizenry, the
U.S. education system seemed not to be
performing as well as it could. (1),
(2)
A few years later, in 1986, the National Governors'
Association issued A Time for Results, a report
similar to A Nation at Risk in tone, in the nature
of its evidence, and in its recommendations. A
Time for Results asserted even more strongly than
A Nation at Risk that global economic competition
meant that the most appropriate benchmarks for
education system performance were now global as
well. This report by a national association of state
governors was at once an assertion that education
was a national concern, and that it was still
primarily a state and local responsibility.(3)
Since publication of A Time for Results,
Americans have seen much activity on education
policy at the interstices of authority between the
separate branches and levels of government. The
Federal government and the nation's governors
joined their efforts formally at the Charlottesville,
Virginia education summit in 1989; and the
subsequently-formed National Education Goals
Panel and National Council on Education
Standards and Testing both included members from
the Congress, the White House, the U.S.
Department of Education, and the ranks of
governors and state legislators. Agreement on six
National Education Goals followed the
Charlottesville summit. In 1994, Congress added
two additional goals related to parental
involvement and teacher professional development.
A commitment to reaching world-class education
performance levels is explicitly expressed in
National Education Goals 5 and 6. Goal 5 declares
that U.S. students will be first in the world in
science and mathematics achievement by the year
2000. Goal 6 asserts that every adult American
will possess the knowledge and skills necessary to
compete in a global economy.(4)
By joining efforts with the Federal government, the
governors did not intend to share the management
of the public schools. However, they did agree
that the Federal government had an important role
to play in the collection and dissemination of
comparative data needed to manage the quality of
American education.
In 1988, the U.S. Congress authorized the
establishment of a Special Study Panel on
Education Indicators for the U.S. Department of
Education's
(NCES). This panel was chartered in July 1989
and directed to prepare a report, published in 1991,
Education Counts: An Indicator System to
Monitor the Nation's Educational Health. The
Panel's report recommended a variety of ways in
which NCES'should increase its collection and
presentation of indicator data. Among the many
recommendations, the report urged NCES to:
strengthen its national role in data collection and
provide technical assistance to the states; improve
its capacity to collect international data; and
develop a mixed model of indicators - international
and national indicators, state and local
indicators, and a subset of indicators held in
common.
Two of NCES's primary indicators projects include
The Condition of Education and the National
Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP).(5) The
Condition is an annual compendium of statistical
information on American education, including
trends over time, international country
comparisons, and some comparisons among various
groups (by sex, ethnicity, socioeconomic status,
and others). However, the Condition contains very
few state-by-state comparisons.
The National Assessment of Educational Progress
(NAEP) is a congressionally-mandated assessment
of the academic achievement of American students.
Begun in the late 1960s, NAEP has been reporting
assessment results state-by-state, on a trial basis,
only since 1990. In that year, 37 states, the
District of Columbia, and 2 territories participated
in a Trial State Assessment program in eighth-
grade mathematics. In the 1992 Trial State
Assessments in 4th-grade reading and mathematics
and 8th-grade mathematics, voluntary participation
increased to 41 states, the District of Columbia,
and 2 territories. The same number of jurisdictions
participated in the 1994 Trial State Assessment of
fourth grade reading.
At the same time that U.S. officials began looking
outside our borders for education policy lessons
and performance benchmarks, officials in other
countries were doing likewise. The Organization
for Economic Cooperation and Development
(OECD), which had for years published indicators
on macroeconomics, trade, industry, and
agriculture, began an effort in the 1980s to develop
and collect social indicators, starting with health
care. Turning its attention next to education, the
organization launched, in 1987, the Indicators of
Education Systems project (INES) in its Center for
Educational Research and Innovation (CERI).(6)
CERI organized several international groups of
experts to develop conceptual frameworks, to agree
on definitions, and to execute pilot studies to
determine the set of possible indicators that best
illustrated the condition of education in the OECD
countries. In 1992, the OECD published a set of
indicators, employing data from the late 1980s, in
Education at a Glance.(7) An updated second
edition, Education at a Glance (Edition 1993),
was published in December 1993, and a third
edition was released in January 1995.(8)
The first edition of Education in States and
Nations: Indicators Comparing U.S. States with
the OECD Countries in 1988, produced in 1993,
served as a logical next step and a U.S. companion
volume to Education at a Glance, incorporating
U.S. state-level data from the late 1980s. It not
only allowed state-to-state and country-to-country
comparisons, but state-to-country comparisons as
well. For perhaps the first time, states could
compare their support for education, the
participation of their youth in the education system,
or their educational outcomes with those of a
number of industrialized countries, including some
quite similar in size or wealth. In other words, on
a variety of measures, education in U.S. states
could now be compared internationally.
Why compare states to nations? In many
countries, public responsibility for education is
vested in the national government, in an education
ministry (9) In the United States, however, public
responsibility for education rests primarily at the
state level. (3a)
In 1992, state-level governments
provided 46 percent of revenues for public
elementary and secondary schools. This share of
contribution ranged from 8 percent in New
Hampshire to 90 percent in Hawaii. In many
cases, the most valid American counterparts to
other countries national ministries of education are
our state education departments.
This edition, Education in States and Nations:
Indicators Comparing U.S. States with Other
Industrialized Countries in 1991, is much larger
than its predecessor. This reflects both a greater
availability of suitable international indicators and
a greater effort to find relevant indicators, both
domestic and international. The large size of this
volume was not a goal in itself, but is coincident to
others. Education in States and Nations/1991 has
two goals:
- To improve the quality of indicators, where
possible, with better data; and
- To expand the domain of indicators to
encompass more topics pertinent to education policy.
With the addition of more topics and more and
better sources of data, this second edition of
Education in States and Nations offers more
depth and breadth than did its predecessor.
The Content of Education in States and
Nations/1991
Education in States and Nations/1991Education at a Glance
(Edition 1993), from the International Assessment
of Educational Progress (IAEP), and from several
other contemporary sources of international
education indicators. International indicators were
selected for use in
Education in States and
Nations/1991 if they were relevant to states and if
comparable state-level data on the indicators
existed. The indicators are grouped into six
categories:
- Background;
- Participation;
- Processes and Institutions;
- Achievement and Attainment;
- Labor Market Outcomes; and
- Finance.
Indicators were selected in an attempt to cover the
domain of the educational enterprise. The
background and finance indicators could be
described as "stocks" or "input" measures. Both of
these groups of indicators are richly represented,
with background indicators relating to geographic,
demographic, economic, and sociological factors,
and with finance indicators presenting revenues and
expenditures viewed several different ways.
Similarly, the indicators for participation and for
processes and institutions could be described as
"flows" or "throughput" measures, which represent
aspects of the size, character, and practices of the
formal education system. Finally, the indicators
for achievement and attainment and for labor
market outcomes present the "product" or "output"
of education systems, as measured by degree
completion, educational attainment, and economic
benefits.
The data come from a variety of sources. The data
on countries come from the Indicators of Education
Systems (INES) project of the OECD, the
International Assessment of Educational Progress
(IAEP), the National Science Board, the
Luxembourg Income Study, Asia Pacific Economic
Cooperation, the European Community, the World
Health Organization, UNESCO, the American
Federation of Teachers, and several other sources.
The data on individual states come from NCES,
the Department of Labor's Bureau of Labor
Statistics, the Department of Commerce's Bureau
of the Census, the Department of Health and
Human Services National Center for Health
Statistics, the National Science Board, the
American Federation of Teachers, the Center for
the Study of Social Policy, and Child Trends, Inc.
All these sources are described in more detail in
the "Sources of Data" section in the back of the
report. In addition, results from the 1992 NAEP
study of mathematics achievement of American
8th-graders have been statistically linked to results
from a similar 1991 study of the mathematics
achievement of 13-year-old students in various
countries. This linkage allows comparisons of
academic achievement between states and
countries.
The presentation of each indicator includes an
explanation of what it measures, why it is
important, and key results from a comparison of
countries and states. Throughout the report,
comparisons are most often made in the text
among "like-sized" entities: the United States to
the other large and relatively wealthy countries that
compose the so-called Group of Seven, or G-7
(Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, and the
United Kingdom); and U.S. states to all
industrialized countries for which data are
available, including the smaller and relatively less
wealthy ones.
It should be kept in mind, however, that these
comparisons are based on the data available. Not
all countries are represented here. Some countries
are not members of the international organizations
which collected the data. Other countries are
members, but did not participate in the relevant
data collections. Some countries participated in the
OECD's data collection but not the IAEP's, and
vice versa. If there is any systematic bias in such
"data driven" international comparisons, it is
probably toward the inclusion of countries with a
well-developed public data collection and
management capability and the exclusion of
countries without.
In addition to the explanations and key results, the
presentation of each indicator includes separate
tables for states and countries and a graph or set of
graphs that display states and countries together.
The graphs are, in most cases, simple bar graphs
with the states and countries listed in order of
highest value to lowest. This type of graph
highlights the distributional aspects of the
data - where countries and states stand in relation to one
another and the magnitude of the differences
between them. Where appropriate, notes on
interpretation describe special circumstances
affecting an indicator that warrant particular
consideration in making comparisons. Data
sources are listed at the bottom of each table and
graph. Because some of the terms used in this
report may not be familiar to all readers, a glossary
is included in the back. Finally, appendices
include supplemental and technical information on
how various measures in the indicators were
calculated.
In the remainder of the overview, we highlight
some of the more important concepts and results
from each of the six sections of the report.
Section 1: Background
Understanding the context in which education
systems exist is important to proper interpretation
of indicators. Each indicator in this report, while
measuring one particular aspect of education, is
affected by a host of other factors, some not
directly connected to education. The first group of
indicators in this report represent some of these
other factors that make up the context in which
education takes place. Indicators in this group are:
(1) Population and area;
(2) Youth and population;
(3) Labor force participation;
(4) GDP/GSP per capita;
(5) Percentage of population age 17 or younger in poverty;
(6) Births to teen mothers; and
(7) Youth violent death rate.
A complete comparative understanding of
education would require a consideration of still
more factors not represented here, such as:
differences in the levels of development of
education systems, national and state education
priorities and strategies, and cultural differences.
Nonetheless, the seven indicators presented in the
"Background" section provide some understanding
of the environments in which education programs
are set and should be considered when evaluating
data in the categories of participation, processes
and institutions, achievement and attainment, labor
market outcomes, and finance.
How closely do the states resemble other
industrialized nations demographically and
economically?
In general, the industrialized nations selected in
this publication had higher population densities
than the U.S. states. However, the U.S states
tended to be wealthier, to have higher labor force
participation rates, and to have greater proportions
of youth (i.e., persons 5- to 29-years-old) in the
overall population. For every indicator, one can
find individual states closely resembling certain
industrialized countries. For example:
- Pennsylvania had a population just slightly
larger than that of Hungary (Indicator 1), and
had the same percentage of 5- to 29-year-olds
in its population. (Indicator 2)
- Texas, North Dakota, New Zealand, and Italy
had similar labor force participation rates. (Indicator 3)
- The gross product per capita in South Dakota
was only marginally greater than that in Japan.
(Indicator 4)
How closely do the states resemble other
industrialized nations sociologically?
Thirty-eight of the U.S. states had higher
percentages of children living in poverty than all
17 of the other countries to which they are
compared. Births to teen mothers generally
constituted a higher percentage of all births in the
states than in many of the industrialized nations,
but the range of rates in those nations was the
same as that of the states. For the most part, a
greater percentage of youth died violently from
accidents, suicides, and homicides in the states than
in the nations. As with the demographic and
economic background indicators, a comparison can
be found between individual states and nations for
each sociological indicator included. For example:
- With the exception of New Hampshire and
Connecticut, the child poverty rate was higher
in the states than in Italy, France, the former
West Germany, the Netherlands, Sweden, the
United Kingdom, and several other countries
in some cases several times higher.(Indicator 5)
The poverty threshold used is an approximation of
the U.S. average - 40 percent of median
household income - and other countries data
are adapted to it. These poverty rates are measured
after taxes and transfers; that is, they account for
the effect of taxes and of governmental aid
programs to the poor. These data for nations come
from the Luxembourg Income Study's collection of
national household surveys.
- The proportion of all births that were to 15- to
19-year-old mothers was similar in Alabama
and Greece, 7.1 per 100 births. In 30 states,
fewer than 6 out of every 100 births was to a
teen mother, compared with 9 of the 12
European countries for which data are
available. (Indicator 6)
- While only 3 of the 30 countries for which we
have data had violent death rates among youth
higher than 500 per million, 19 of the U.S.
states did. The rates of suicide and accidental
death among youths aged 5 to 24 in Austria
were almost identical to those of Wisconsin;
the rates of homicide within the same age
group were slightly higher in Argentina and
slightly lower in the Soviet Union than they
were in Oregon, Kansas, or Kentucky.
(Indicator 7)
In summary, economic, demographic, and
sociological characteristics of the U.S. states were
similar in many cases to those of other
industrialized countries. While these similarities
between nations and states could almost always be
found, some overarching trends differentiating
states and nations are apparent. For example, the
states tended to have lower population densities,
greater wealth, and higher labor force participation
rates than the other industrialized countries.
Youths aged 5 to 29 typically composed a larger
portion of the population in states than they did in
other countries. This high proportion of young
citizens in the states seemed to confront a
relatively more negative social environment as
well, manifested in higher rates of violent death
among youth, of births to teen mothers, and of
child poverty.
Section 2: Participation
Participation in formal education is influenced not
only by demand - the number of persons who
can and wish to attend school - but also by the
supply - the number of places available. In
terms of supply, preprimary (which includes both
kindergarten and pre-kindergarten programs) and
postcompulsory education are more available in
some states and countries than in others. High
participation can reflect a large public or private
investment in education, a high valuation of
education by society, or an economy dependent on
a highly trained workforce. Measures of the
degree to which young people participate in their
state or country's education system are included in
this section. Indicators in this group are:
(8) Participation in formal education;
(9) Enrollment in preprimary education;
(10) Secondary education enrollment;
(11) Entry ratio to higher education;
(12) Non-university higher education enrollment; and
(13) University enrollment.
(International comparisons based on levels of
education can sometimes cause confusion because
the levels do not always have the same entrance
requirements or the same duration across countries.
To aid in understanding such comparisons, an
explanatory note is included in the supplemental
notes [on page 231].)
How does participation in education
change as people move from childhood to
adulthood?
Two different measures of enrollment are used in
this section: enrollment rates and enrollment ratios.
Enrollment rates represent the percentage of
students in a certain age group enrolled in a
particular level of education. Enrollment ratios
reflect the number of students of any age enrolled
in a particular level of education per 100 persons
in a reference age group, the ages typical of those
enrolled at that level. Although enrollment rates
are preferred to enrollment ratios, as they are not
inflated by enrollments either outside the typical
age of enrollment or by periods of enrollment
longer than the typical duration, the requisite data
needed to calculate enrollment rates - enrollment by
age - are often unavailable.
- For most countries and states, the ratio of
persons enrolled in formal education (total
enrollment divided by the population in the 5-
29 age range) was between 50 and 60 (Indicator 8).
- Of the states, Nevada had the smallest ratio
of persons enrolled in formal education,
with a ratio of 52, which was higher than
in 9 of the 22 other countries for which
data are available. (Indicator 8)
Preprimary participation rates are affected by the
relative value placed on early socialization of
children in society, the availability of low-cost or
public preprimary programs, and the degree of
participation of women in the labor market.
Enrollment rates in preprimary education at ages 3
and 6 varied greatly across states and nations.
(Indicator 9)
- In the G-7 countries for which data are
available, 1991 preprimary education
enrollment for 3-year-olds ranged from
approximately 20 percent in Japan to almost
100 percent in France. In the United States,
about one-third of 3-year-olds were enrolled.
- None of the states had an enrollment rate
higher than 39 percent among 3-year-olds,
while 7 of 14 other countries did.
In the 50 U.S. states and in most industrialized
countries, participation in primary and lower
secondary education (the equivalent of grades 1 to
9 in the United States) has become almost
universal, and in most cases is legally mandated.
Upper secondary education (the equivalent of U.S.
grades 10 to 12) encompasses the final stage of
compulsory education in most industrialized
countries. Because the age at which students can
legally leave school typically arrives before their
secondary education is complete, participation rates
for those age 16 and older reflect the desirability
and importance of secondary education credentials
(like the high school diploma).
Furthermore, the nature of secondary education
varies across countries. For example, in Germany
and Austria, many vocational students obtain the
equivalent of apprenticeship training in a basic skill
while enrolled in secondary school. Some of them
even return to secondary school later, after gaining
several years work experience, to obtain a second
credential, typically in a higher skilled trade. In
the U.S. states, participation in secondary education
was minimal beyond age 18, whereas enrollment
rates for 20- and 21-year-olds were significant in
some countries. (Indicator 10)
- In 9 of the 19 other countries, over 20 percent
of 19-year-olds attended secondary school;
however, none of the U.S. states had
enrollment rates above 10 percent among 19-
year-olds. Likewise, among 21-year-olds, 7 of
the 19 other countries had rates above 5
percent, while none of the U.S. states had rates
above 3 percent at that age. (Indicator 10)
Participation rates continue to drop off as
secondary students make the transition to non-
university higher education (the equivalent of U.S.
community colleges) and university education (4-
year colleges and universities in the United States),
although some countries and states are higher than
others. For example, higher education enrollment
rates are generally much higher in the United
States and Canada than in other industrialized
countries. (Indicator 8) When students are counted
at the location of their higher education institution
rather than at the location of their original
residence entry ratios into higher education at the
entry reference age ranged from approximately 74
percent in North Dakota to 15 percent in Turkey.
(Indicator 11)
In some countries, higher education is highly
career-oriented, and admission is often quite
selective. In the U.S. states, however, the higher
education system in general is less selective and is
available to almost any high school graduate.
Many U.S. students also enter higher education
without focusing on a particular career, while their
peers in many other countries focus exclusively on
their area of specialization from day one of higher
education.
- Among 18- to 21-year-olds in 1991, the
United States had relatively high full-time
enrollment rates in non-university higher
education (7.5 percent), as did Canada and
France. (Indicator 12).
- There was much variation in full-time
enrollment rates of 18- to 21-year-olds in non-
university higher education in both U.S. states
and other countries. The range was wider
across the states, however, than across the
countries. The states ranged from 0.3 percent
enrolled in the age group in South Dakota to
18.3 percent in Wyoming for a difference of
18 percentage points, while the countries
ranged from 0.7 percent in Denmark to 14.0
percent in Belgium for a difference of 13.3
percentage points. (Indicator 12)
- In university education, the U.S. states
generally had higher full-time enrollment rates
among 18-to 21-year-olds than did the
countries for which data were available. Full-
time enrollment rates exceeded 20 percent in
36 states, but did so in only 2 countries. The
range of part-time enrollment rates among 18-
to 21-year-olds was wider across the states
than across the countries. Part-time enrollment
rates were 6.2 percent in Alaska, and 2.3
percent in Australia, the country with the
highest rate. (Indicator 13)
In summary, participation in formal education was
virtually universal in every state and country for
youths at the primary and lower secondary levels.
Enrollment rates in early childhood education
fluctuated across countries and states, with rates
ranging from 0 to almost 100 percent for each age
of preprimary enrollment. Early childhood
enrollment in the U.S. states was most prevalent
among 5-year-olds, with sparse enrollments among
children aged 3 and 6 (most 6-year-olds in the
United States are enrolled in primary school).
Participation was nearly universal for only part of
the upper secondary years; enrollment rates
dropped dramatically in some countries beginning
at age 16. Higher education participation rates
were highest in Canada and the United States and
more people enrolled in university than non-
university higher education in every country except
the Netherlands.
Section 3: Processes and Institutions
The indicators in this section measure two
components of the instructional arena - the
instructional process and the organization of
personnel serving students' instructional needs.
The instructional process involves both the time
spent in the classroom - how students are taught
and the tools used to teach them - and the effort
required of students at home to reinforce classroom
learning. Indicators in this group are:
(14) Staff employed in education;
(15) Number of schools and school size;
(16) Class size;
(17) Student use of technology;
(18) Student time spent doing homework and watching television;
(19) Instructional strategies in mathematics courses; and
(20) Time in formal instruction.
How does the amount of time students in
the United States spend in the classroom compare
to that of students in other countries? Do students
in the United States spend more or less time doing
homework or watching television than their
international counterparts?
Although the number of days per year that U.S.
students spend in school is generally lower than
that in other countries, the hours of instruction per
day often are greater. For the most part, the U.S.
states had a higher average number of hours per
year in formal instruction than the other
industrialized countries. (Indicator 20)
- The average hours of instruction per year in
the United States (1,003) exceeded that of 13
of the other countries for which data are
available. Only France, Taiwan, China,
Switzerland, and Scotland had more
instructional hours annually; the former West
Germany and Israel had about the same.
- U.S. states and most countries were fairly
evenly distributed throughout the range defined
by Ireland (931 hours of instruction per year)
and China (1,276 hours per year).
Nonetheless, 7 countries had less than 900
hours of instruction per year.
When not in class, however, lower secondary
students in the United States reported doing less
homework than did their counterparts in most other
countries. Across the states, between 19 and 34
percent of public 8th grade students reported that
they did 2 or more hours of homework each day.
Instead, U.S. students spent more time watching
television than did students in most other countries
for which data are available. Across the states,
between 72 and 90 percent of public 8th grade
students reported watching 2 hours or more of TV
daily. (Indicator 18)
- The percentage of public 8th grade students in
the states who reported doing 2 or more hours
of homework daily was generally lower than it
was for 13-year-old students in the other
countries for which data are available. Twelve
of 18 other countries had percentages above
40, whereas none of the states did.
- Among the states, only Utah, Wyoming, and
Colorado had less than 80 percent of 8th grade
public school students report watching TV for
2 hours or more daily. However, 12 of the 18
other countries had percentages that low.
How do teaching strategies employed in
mathematics classrooms differ across countries and
states?
Similar resources can be applied in quite different
ways to achieve desired educational goals.
Sometimes the manner in which instruction is
organized derives from tradition or some other
cultural context; other times, it may result from an
explicit policy decision to adopt one instructional
strategy over another. For example, 8th grade
mathematics classes in U.S. public schools were
more likely to be organized by ability groups than
their counterparts in other industrialized countries.
Ability grouping was used more frequently only in
England, Israel, Ireland, and Taiwan. It must be
kept in mind, however, that ability grouping can
occur at the school, in addition to the class level.
School-level tracking (or streaming, as it is called
in England) occurs both in countries that allow
greater parental choice of schools and in those that
assign students to either vocational or academic
lower secondary schools based on their prior
academic performance.
- For the most part, a higher percentage of
students were in math classes based on ability
in the U.S. states in 1992 than in the other
nations for which data are available in 1991.
Fourteen of 19 nations, but only 1 state, had
less than 40 percent of their students in math
classes based on ability. (Indicator 19)
Another instructional strategy is to have students
work in small groups within classes. In 1991, 49
percent of U.S. 13-year-olds reported working in
such small groups in their mathematics classes
each week. A higher percentage of students
reported working in small groups in 8 of the 18
other countries for which data are available.
(Indicator 19)
- In 13 of 18 other nations, over 40 percent of
13-year-olds reported working in small groups
in their math classes at least once a week. In
only 4 states did 8th grade public school
students report working in small groups that
often.
Relative frequency of classroom testing is another
form of instruction for which cross national data
are available. U.S. 13-year-olds were more likely
to take math tests or quizzes weekly than their
counterparts in almost all of the other nations
included - only Taiwan and Jordan had equal or
higher frequencies. (Indicator 19)
- In 11 of 18 other countries, 40 percent or
fewer of the 13-year-olds reported taking math
tests or quizzes at least once a week. In every
state, at least 40 percent of public 8th grade
students reported being quizzed that often.
Louisiana, Taiwan, Mississippi, and Alabama
had percentages greater than 80.
Are U.S. students more or less likely than their
counterparts in other countries to use computers
and calculators in the classroom?
Some educators argue that technology, effectively
employed, can assist students in developing higher-
order thinking skills. Two of the more common
technologies utilized by teachers and students are
calculators and computers. The use of calculators
in class was relatively common in the United
States in 1991, with 54 percent of 13-year-olds
using them in school. Although this rate was
about average for the countries, it was significantly
lower than that in France, where 94 percent of the
students used calculators in school. (Indicator 17)
- In 1991, 90 percentage points separated the
countries with the highest and lowest rates of
in-school calculator usage among 13-year-olds:
France at 94 percent and Korea and Brazil at 4
percent. Half of all the nations for which data
are available reported percentages of less than
50 percent. Across the U.S. states in 1992,
calculator usage rates among public school 8th
graders ranged from at least 87 percent in
Minnesota and Maine to 47 percent in
Mississippi.
In every U.S. state, at least a quarter of the
students used computers for homework or school
work. Half of the nations reporting data had lower
rates of computer use. (Indicator 17)
- About a quarter of public 8th grade students in
Tennessee reported that they use computers for
school work or homework. Although this
percentage was the lowest among the states, it
was higher than in 9 other countries, including
the former Soviet Union, Spain, and Taiwan.
The students of Maine matched those of
Slovenia in the highest rate of computer usage.
(61 percent)
The instructional process is also affected by the
way in which resources are organized in different
education systems. Do the states and nations
organize their instructional and non-instructional
efforts differently? The organization of students
and staff is the subject of the following three
indicators: staff employed in education, class size,
and the number of schools and average number of
students per school.
How do the states and nations compare in their
level of staffing?
A large proportion of the labor force employed in
education reflects an extensive education system.
Among the several industrialized nations for which
data are available, teaching and non-teaching staff
employed in education comprised between 3 and 7
percent of the total labor force. In the United
States this proportion was 5.6 percent, slightly
below France's 5.9 percent, but well above Japan's
3.1 percent. Countries vary, however, in the
degree to which social and other non-instructional
services are provided directly by the schools. In
the United States, for example, school districts
commonly pay directly for school-based health
services, school cafeterias, pupil transportation,
vocational and psychological counseling, building
construction and maintenance, and administrative
management of the schools. In other countries,
many or all of these services are either provided by
non-education public authorities (such as the
Ministry of Health) or by the private sector. The
United States had the largest non-teaching staff in
education, as a percentage of the total labor force
(2.9 percent), of the 7 countries reporting data.
(Indicator 14)
- The range across countries in the percentage of
the total labor force employed in teaching was
3 percentage points: from about 2 percent in
Turkey to over 5 percent in Belgium. This
exceeded the range across the states of 1.4
percentage points: from 2.2 percent in Florida
to 3.6 percent in Alaska.
- For the 6 countries other than the United States
for which data are available, teaching staff
outnumbered non-teaching education staff.
Teaching staff outnumbered non-teaching staff
in 18 of the 49 U.S. states for which data are
available.
How do the states and nations compare in their
class sizes?
The number of students a teacher faces during a
period of instruction - measured as average
class size - is an indicator of the typical
teacher's pupil load. Small classes may allow
students to receive more personal attention from
their teachers. Large classes, however, can be less
expensive and do not necessarily hinder instruction.
Depending on teaching style, student behavior, and
other factors - such as the opportunity for
students to meet with teachers outside of class
large classes may function as effectively as small
ones.
- The countries reported a wide range of average
class sizes, from 18 in Switzerland to 49 in
Korea. That range is three times wider than
the range across the states, from 19 in
Wyoming and Vermont to 30 in Utah.
(Indicator 16)
How do the states and nations compare in their
school sizes?
School size may be determined by population
density or a more deliberate organizational policy.
The prevailing educational philosophy in the
United States for the past three decades has been
that large schools could offer more comprehensive
curricula and a wider variety of programs at lower
cost. Small schools, however, may have beneficial
effects upon student participation, attendance,
satisfaction, and achievement. (Indicator 15)
- Students were organized into larger schools in
the United States than they were in most other
countries. Only Taiwan and Korea, among 12
other countries, had larger schools on average
than did the United States at the preprimary
through secondary level. Only Germany,
Taiwan, and Korea, of 10 other countries, had
larger schools at the higher education level.
- The average number of students per preprimary
through secondary school in Taiwan was 873, a
figure more than five times greater than those
of Finland or France, the countries with the
smallest averages (at 156 and 166,
respectively). For the most part, the schools in
the U.S. states from the preprimary through
secondary levels were larger than those in
other countries: schools in 28 states, but only
2 countries - Korea and Taiwan
averaged above 400 students.
- The U.S. states generally had higher average
numbers of students per school at the higher
education level than did the other countries.
Five states, but none of the countries, had
averages above 6,000; whereas half of the
other countries, but only 15 of the states, had
averages below 3,000.
In summary, although students in the United States
spent fewer days per year in school, they received
a larger number of instructional hours per day than
students in most other industrialized countries.
U.S. students, therefore, received more instructional
hours per year than did students in the majority of
industrialized countries included here. The type of
instruction students receive in class and the
prevalence of student adoption of common
instructional technologies varied across countries
and states. U.S. lower secondary students were
more often placed in math classes according to
ability than were students in other nations. U.S.
lower secondary teachers also tended to give math
tests or quizzes more often than teachers in other
countries; 68 percent of U.S. 13-year-olds reported
taking a math test or quiz at least once a week.
Work in small groups was also more common in
lower secondary math classrooms in the United
States than it was in math classrooms in other
countries. Calculator usage was of average
prevalence among U.S. math students (54 percent)
compared to that among students in other
industrialized nations, where, in 12 of 17 other
countries, calculator usage was either above 70
percent or below 30 percent. However, the use of
computers for homework and school work was
more common among students in the United States
than it was among their international counterparts.
At least 25 percent of public school 8th-graders in
each U.S. state claimed to use computers for
school work or homework.
Outside of class, students in other nations generally
reported spending less time watching television and
more time doing homework than students in the
United States. Only 29 percent of 13-year-olds in
the United States did 2 hours or more of
homework each day - a percentage lower than
that in all but 4 other countries included here.
Eighty-four percent of U.S. students watched TV
for 2 hours or more daily.
In the United States, teaching and non-teaching
staff employed in education accounted for 5.6
percent of the total workforce, an average
proportion in comparison to that of other countries.
The percentage of the total workforce employed as
non-teaching educational staff, however, was
higher in the United States than in any other
industrialized nation included here. In no other
country reporting data, but in almost two-thirds of
the U.S. states, non-teaching staff outnumbered
teaching staff. Compared to other countries, the
organization of education personnel in relation to
students resulted in larger schools for the most part
(at both the primary- secondary and higher
education levels) but smaller classes (at the lower
secondary level).
Section 4: Achievement and Attainment
There are many outcomes of education. The six
indicators in this section provide information on
educational attainment; completion rates for
programs of study; and exhibited academic skills
and knowledge. They are:
(21) Educational attainment of the population;
(22) Educational equity for women;
(23) Secondary school completion;
(24) University completion; and
(25) Mathematics achievement (experimental).
The organization of levels of education in the
United States is often quite different than it is in
other countries. In most countries the end of
compulsory education is the completion of lower
secondary education which is roughly equivalent to
8 or 9 years of education. In the United States,
compulsory education is described in terms of age
or the completion of high school. For example,
most states require young people between the ages
of 6 and 15 to be enrolled in school. In many
countries, upper secondary education is
differentiated; that is, several different types of
programs are available. Some programs are
designed to prepare young people to work in a
particular occupation; others are designed to
prepare young people to pursue studies at a
university. In the United States, almost all high
schools (grades 9 to 12) are comprehensive,
providing both academic and vocational courses;
however, the latter is rarely of great depth.
Despite differences in the organization of
education, it is useful to compare the educational
attainment of the population in states and countries
in order to compare the investment people in these
states and countries have made in their own
education.(10)
How well educated are the citizens of the
states and the industrialized countries?
Although there was considerable variation among
U.S. states, most had higher levels of educational
attainment than most of the other industrialized
countries. (Indicator 21) For the most part, the
percentages of 25- to 64-year-olds who had
finished high school in the states were greater than
the percentages of 25- to 64-year-olds who had
completed upper secondary education in other
countries - for the purposes of international
comparisons, high school completion is regarded as
roughly equivalent to upper secondary completion.
University completion rates (a bachelor's degree or
higher in the United States) for this age group in
the other industrialized countries ranged from 3
percent in Portugal to 17 percent in Canada, while
the percentage holding this level of education in
the states ranged from 14 percent in West Virginia
to 31 percent in Massachusetts and Connecticut.
Included in the age range of 25 to 64 are many
people who grew up in an era when educational
opportunities in their countries, particularly for
higher education, were less available than they are
today. It is, therefore, illustrative to compare
levels of educational attainment of older and
younger members of the working-age population.
For all countries and all but 3 states, high school
(upper secondary) attainment levels were higher for
younger people (25- to 34-year-olds) than for older
people (25- to 64-year-olds). This indicates that
over time larger and larger percentages of new
cohorts are finishing high school or its equivalent.
(Indicator 21)
- Across the states, the percentage of 25- to 34-
year-olds having attained at least an upper
secondary level of education (high school or
more) ranged from 77 percent in Mississippi to
93 percent in Minnesota and North Dakota.
Across other countries, the distribution was
wider, ranging from 22 percent in Turkey to 88
percent in Norway, Germany, and Switzerland.
The same trend is not as prevalent for college
completion. In 2 of 21 countries and in 18 of the
U.S. states, the proportion of persons in the older
age cohort completing university education (a
bachelor's degree or higher in the United States)
exceeded that in the younger age cohort. (Indicator
21)
- University completion rates were generally
higher for U.S. states than for other
industrialized countries. The percentage of 25-
to 34-year-olds holding bachelor's degrees
ranged from 14 percent in Nevada and West
Virginia to 34 percent in Massachusetts, while
university attainment rates in other countries
ranged from 5 percent in Spain to 18 percent
in Canada.
Is there a gap between the levels of
educational attainment reached by women and men
in the nations and states?
To illustrate whether or not women share in the
educational opportunities available to their male
counterparts in their nation or state, the percentage
of various educational attainment groups who were
women are compared across countries and states.
Because women represented about 50 percent of 25-
to 64-year-olds in each state or country,
percentages above 50 percent suggest women were
over represented in the group, and percentages
below 50 percent suggest they were
underrepresented in the group. In general, U.S.
women seem to have fared better than women in
other industrialized countries relative to their male
counterparts in attaining upper secondary and
university levels of education. Across all nations
and states, however, women continued to compose
a smaller proportion than men of the population
having attained a university degree. (Indicator 22)
- In 15 of the 20 other countries represented
here, over half of women 25 to 64 years old
had not completed upper secondary education.
However, women comprised that large a
proportion of high school dropouts in only 2
U.S. states.
- In every country or state, women comprised
less than half of 25- to 64-year-old university
graduates (college graduates in the United
States). In 14 of the 20 other countries
represented here, the percentage of college
graduates who were women was 43 percent or
less. However, in only 3 of the U.S. states
was the percentage who were women that
small.
How well do American students compare to
students of other nations in mathematics
achievement?
To compare the performance of students in states
and nations on mathematics performance, an
experimental indicator was developed. The
mathematics proficiency scores of participants in
the Second International Assessment of Educational
Progress (IAEP) were mapped to a scale used to
report scores of U.S. students in the National
Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP). This
cross-linking allows comparisons of the average
and percentile scores of 13-year-old students in
selected industrialized countries (not all of them
OECD members) to 8th graders from public
schools in selected U.S. states. (Indicator 25) The
NAEP scale for mathematics ranges from 0 to 500.
The supplemental note to Indicator 25 addresses
the conceptual issues surrounding the task of
linking two different assessments and the effects of
alternative methods of linking assessments on the
results.
- Among the 7 largest countries (who assessed
virtually all age-eligible children) the average
proficiency score of 13-year-olds ranged from
262 in the United States to 285 in Taiwan.
The average proficiency score was 273 in
France and 270 in Canada.
- The range in average mathematics proficiency
across states was similar to the range across
countries. Average proficiency scores for
public 8th grade students in 1992 ranged from
246 in Mississippi to over 280 in Iowa, North
Dakota, and Minnesota. Average scores for
13-year-olds students in 1991 ranged from 246
in Jordan to over 280 in Taiwan and Korea.
- Over 25 percent of 13-year-olds in Taiwan and
Korea scored above 300 in 1991, while about
10 percent of students of the same age scored
above that level in the United States. However,
in 4 states 25 percent or more of U.S. 8th
grade public school students (who are generally
older than 13 years) scored above this level in
1992.
To help interpret these differences, it is useful to
consider another type of comparison: differences
within the United States between the mathematics
proficiency of better and poorer performers of the
same grade level. The 10th percentile of
mathematics proficiency among public 8th grade
students in Mississippi was 201, and the 90th
percentile was 291, a difference of 90 points,
which is more than twice the 39-point difference
between the average Taiwanese 13-year-old and
Mississippi 8th grader. This suggests that variation
among students within countries is far larger than
variation in averages between countries.
In summary, the population of 25- to 64-year-olds
in the United States generally had higher levels of
educational attainment than did their international
counterparts. The proportion of this age group that
completed lower secondary education or less was
smaller in the United States than it was in 18 of
the 20 other countries included here. Inversely, of
all the countries for which data are available, the
United States had the second highest percentage of
this age cohort that attained an upper secondary
education, and the second highest proportion that
attained a university education. However, much of
the gap in educational attainment between the U.S.
and other countries has narrowed considerably in
recent years, as one can see by looking at the
educational attainment rates in the younger age
groups.
Section 5: Labor Market Outcomes
Although the four indicators in this section also
measure educational outcomes, they focus on long-
term outcomes, such as unemployment rates and
earnings among graduates of various levels of
schooling. and gender differences in earnings. The
labor market outcome indicators are:
(26) Unemployment and education;
(27) Earnings and education;
(28) Gender difference in earnings; and
(29) New scientists and engineers.
What are the long-term economic effects of
educational attainment in states and nations?
In general, higher levels of educational attainment
are associated with lower rates of unemployment
and higher earnings. In the United States in 1990,
the unemployment rate for 25- to 64-year-olds who
did not complete high school was 5 percentage
points higher than for high school graduates. In 19
countries and all 50 U.S. states, the unemployment
rates for university graduates were lower than for
those with only the equivalent of a high school
education.
The relationship between education and earnings
can be illustrated by calculating the mean annual
earnings for a particular level of educational
attainment as a percentage of the mean annual
earnings of workers who completed just upper
secondary education. For example, in 46 states
and 7 of 12 countries university-educated males
had mean earnings percentages of 150 or greater
on this measure; that is, they received a 50 percent
premium in earnings compared to their
counterparts who only completed upper secondary
education. The strength of the earnings and
education relationship is indicated by the difference
between the earnings premium of being a
university graduate to the earnings disadvantage of
completing, at most, lower secondary education.
In general, the relationship between earnings and
educational attainment was stronger in the U.S.
states than in many other countries.
- Almost without exception, higher levels of
educational attainment were associated with
lower rates of unemployment. Switzerland was
an exception. Although their unemployment
rates were generally very low, they were
somewhat higher among university graduates
than among those with lower educational
credentials. (Indicator 26)
- In the United States in 1990, the
unemployment rate for people who had not
completed high school (10.4 percent) was more
than double that for those who had completed
high school but not gone on to college (5.1
percent). A large difference in unemployment
rates between those two education levels
(lower and upper secondary) also existed in
Canada (5 percentage points), but was not quite
as large in France, Germany, or the United
Kingdom (each 4 percentage points). (Indicator
26)
- In all countries and all states in the early
1990s, higher levels of education were
associated with higher mean annual earnings.
(Indicator 27)
- For university-educated females, 45 states and
9 of 12 countries had earnings ratios of 150 or
greater. Similarly, for university-educated
males, 46 states had ratios of 150 or greater, as
did 7 of 12 countries. (Indicator 27).
- In all the countries represented here, not having
completed an upper secondary education
resulted in the lowest earnings ratio. In 1991,
Portugal had the lowest earnings ratio among
the countries for the lowest level of educational
attainment: below 70, for both males and
females. Not having finished high school by
1990 resulted in earnings ratios that low for
males in California, Louisiana, and Texas, as
well as for females in those three states and
also Colorado, Delaware, and Virginia.
(Indicator 27)
How well have women fared relative to
their male counterparts in earnings in the states
and in the nations?
As Indicator 22 illustrated, not only did women
still constitute a smaller portion than men of those
having attained a university level of education in
states and nations, but earnings within that
attainment population were also unequally
distributed when broken down by gender. U.S.
women seem to have fared better than women in
other industrialized countries relative to their male
counterparts in attaining upper secondary and
university levels of education. But, they were
generally paid less than women in other
industrialized countries relative to their male
counterparts at these levels. (Indicator 28)
Included in the age range 25 to 64, however, are
many people who grew up in an era when
occupational opportunities for women were less
available than they are today. Thus, even if
selection for jobs is made equitably from this point
forward, the disparity in earnings would take some
time to dissipate.
- In all countries and states, the average annual
earnings for females aged 25 to 64 was less
than that of males of the same age cohort and
level of educational attainment.
- Half of the other countries included here
reported ratios of mean annual earnings of
women to men of 64 or more in 1991. All of
the U.S. states had lower ratios in 1990. A
similar pattern held for three of the four levels
of educational attainment: half the countries
had ratios of mean annual earnings of women
to men higher than the ratio of the U.S. state
with the highest ratio.
Do more students in the United States pursue
careers as scientists and engineers than in other
countries?
At first glance, it would appear that the U.S.
education system puts more emphasis on science
and engineering training in its higher education
system than do the education systems in other
countries. Science and engineering graduates
generally comprise a larger proportion of their age
group (at a typical graduation age - 22 years
old) in the United States than they do in other
countries. (Indicator 29) But, then, as was
mentioned previously, the U.S. graduates more
persons in the typical age group in general,
regardless of the type of degree. When the number
of science and engineering degrees in a nation or
state are counted as a proportion of all degrees, the
U.S. proportion is much lower than that in most
countries.
- In 1991, the number of U.S. university students
who graduated with science or engineering
degrees amounted to about 5 percent of the
population of 22-year-olds. Among the G-7
countries in various years between 1988 and
1991, only Japan and Canada produced higher
percentages of science and engineering degrees.
Germany's percentage was about the same as
the United States.
- Four out of 30 other countries (Finland,
Bulgaria, Japan, and South Korea) had
percentages of science and engineering degrees
among 22-year-olds of 6 or above. Twenty of
the states had percentages that high.
In summary, educational attainment exhibited a
strong correlation with labor market outcomes as
measured by unemployment and earnings.
Educational attainment was positively associated
with annual earnings and negatively associated
with unemployment rates in all states and all
countries, except Switzerland.
Gender differences in earnings indicate that
women, in general, earn less than men. The ratio
of mean annual earnings of women to men varied
across states and countries, but in all cases, women
earned less than men having the same educational
attainment. In the United States, the ratio of
earnings of women to men was lower at every
level of educational attainment than that of most of
the other industrialized countries reporting data.
Section 6: Finance
This section includes the following indicators of
education finance:
(30) Current public expenditure on education
as a percentage of GDP/GSP;
(31) Current public expenditure on education
as a percentage of total public expenditures;
(32) Current public expenditure per student;
(33) Current public expenditure per student as
a percentage of GDP/GSP per capita;
(34) Distribution of current public expenditure
on education;
(35) Teacher salaries;
(36) Sources of funds for primary and
secondary education; and
(37) Sources of funds for higher education.
Through most of this section, the focus is on
expenditure from public sources, rather than on
total investment in education, which would include
money from private sources. In some cases,
expenditure from private sources amounts to a
substantial portion of total educational expenditure.
However, financial data on private education are
not available from some countries.(11)
Which countries and states provide the
strongest financial support to education?
Financial support for education can be viewed from
several different angles, each of which focuses on
certain factors and not on others. For example,
total expenditure on education is useful for
determining who spends the largest sum of money
on education, but may be misleading when
comparing small countries or states to larger ones,
for a small country may spend less in the aggregate
but may spend more per-student. Likewise, a
poorer country may spend as much per student as a
richer country, seeming to make a greater effort to
educate its citizens; however, that would not be
apparent by looking only at aggregate spending or
per-student spending.
Because there is no universally superior measure of
public financial support for education, several
indicators are presented here. The first, current
public expenditure per student (Indicator 32),
presents the amount of public financial support for
one student's education in each country or state.
- At the primary through secondary level, the
United States spent more public money per
student ($4,605), and at the higher education
level, the United Kingdom ($10,228) and
Canada ($8,555) spent more per student, than
the other G-7 countries.
- For the primary through secondary level,
Sweden ($5,825) had the highest level of per-
student public expenditure among the countries
for which data are available; and Alaska,
Connecticut, New Jersey, and New York had
the highest levels among the states (all above
$6,400). Japan, Australia, Spain, and Hungary
all spent about the same or less than
Mississippi, the lowest spending state ($2,648).
- At the higher education level, public
expenditure per students varied greatly across
both the countries and the U.S. states. The
United Kingdom had the highest level of per-
student expenditure among the countries
($10,228), although Alaska and Hawaii spent
more. Spain and Japan both spent less public
money per student on higher education than
New Hampshire, the lowest spending state
($3,624).
An advantage of using per-student expenditure as
an indicator of a nation's or state's financial effort
to support education is that it takes into account
the size of the student population. On the other
hand, one disadvantage is that much of the
variation between states and countries may in fact
be caused by the relative wealth of that state or
nation. The second finance indicator, current
public education expenditure as a percentage of
GDP/GSP (Indicator 30), is a measure of what
states and nations spend on education in terms of
the economic resources available to them.
- Of the G-7 countries, only Canada had a
higher level of current public expenditure as a
percentage of GDP (6.1 percent) than did the
United States and France (both 4.6 percent).
Canada's proportion was almost twice that of
Japan's (3.1 percent).
- The distribution of levels of expenditure across
states and countries was quite similar.
Montana, Canada, West Virginia, Vermont, and
New Mexico had the highest levels of
educational expenditure as a percentage of
GDP/GSP (6.0 percent or above). The lowest
levels were found in Japan, Nevada, West
Germany, and Delaware (3.3 percent or less).
Another disadvantage of the simple per-student
expenditure measure is that much of the variation
between states and countries may in fact reflect the
relative size of the public sector in a nation or
state. The third finance indicator, current public
education expenditure as a percentage of total
public expenditure (Indicator 31), attempts to show
what states and nations spend on education in
terms of the size of their public sectors generally.
- Finland, Canada, and the United States had the
highest level of education expenditure as a
percentage of total public spending among the
countries represented here; West Germany and
Italy, the lowest.
- The U.S. states figures on this measure
generally exceeded those of the countries
represented here. Two-thirds of the countries
reported levels of current public education
spending as a percentage of all public spending
to be lower than that of Virginia, the state with
the lowest level.
The second and third finance indicators provide
measures of a nation's or state's spending on
education in relation to its available resources or in
relation to its total public spending, but education
spending is also highly influenced by the size of
the student population. All other factors being
equal, a country or state with a relatively small
student population is likely to spend a smaller
portion of its GDP/GSP or of its total public
spending on education than a country with a large
student population. Thus, the fourth finance
indicator, current public education expenditure as a
percentage of GDP/GSP per capita (Indicator 33),
provides a measure of fiscal effort to support
education that takes into account both a country's
or state's available financial resources and the size
of the student population. It is calculated by
dividing the first finance indicator, public
expenditure per student, by a nation's or state's per-
capita gross product.
On this measure, some states and countries with
higher per-student expenditure (Indicator 32)
appeared to be not so high when their available
resources were taken into account (Indicator 33).
- For example, of the 4 states - New Jersey,
New York, Alaska, and Connecticut - with
the highest per-student expenditure at the
primary through secondary level, New Jersey,
New York, and Connecticut remained among
the states with the highest ratios of per-student
expenditure to per-capita GSP. Alaska,
however, fell below 43 other states, moving
from the highest on the first measure to near
the bottom on the second.
- On the other hand, among countries for which
data were available, those with the highest per-
student expenditure at the primary through
secondary level - sweden, Denmark, the
United States, Norway, and Canada - remained
the highest ranking countries even
when available resources were taken into
consideration. However, the United States fell
lower when education expenditure was divided
by gross product per capita.
Do states and countries differ in the relative
proportion of public expenditure devoted to
different levels of education?
Many factors affect this "balance," including the
relative size of student populations and system-
wide education goals and strategies. For example,
some countries or states may choose to invest
heavily in higher education in order to increase the
number of professionals and managers, while
others may feel a more pressing need to focus on
basic education for the larger populace by
providing more primary and secondary schools. It
is important to note, however, that this indicator
does not give a complete picture of the distribution
of total resources between the two levels, since
some countries (such as the United States, West
Germany, and Japan) had considerable private
funds going to education (see tables 3 through 6
in the supplemental Notes for examples of the
relative size of private expenditures across
countries).
Regarding the balance of expenditure between
levels of education (Indicator 34), the United
States expenditure on the primary through
secondary level as a percentage of all current
public education expenditure lay in the bottom half
of the range among all the nations represented
here. Of thes nations, Japan, Italy, and France
devoted a larger share of current public expenditure
to this level. If West Germany's large
"undistributed" proportions were allocated entirely
to the primary-secondary level, its primary-
secondary shares might exceed those of the United
States as well. Hungary, Spain, and Sweden had
the highest percentages of current expenditure at
the primary through secondary level (without
counting the undistributed proportion). New
Jersey, New Hampshire, and Vermont, the highest-
spending U.S. states, spent a slightly larger share at
that level of education. At the higher education
level, Australia, Canada, Utah, North Dakota, New
Mexico, and Hawaii reported relatively high
proportions of spending.
Where does the funding of education originate in
each nation or state? What is the balance between
public and private financing or among the levels of
government?
Two more finance indicators trace the path of all
education expenditures back to their origin among
the levels of government and between public and
private sectors. The initial source of money for
education sometimes differs from the ultimate
spender. For example, though local school districts
in the United States generally operate and fund the
local public schools, much of the financing arrives
in the form of transfers from state governments.
Some of the state money, in turn, arrives in the
form of transfers from the Federal government.
The initial sources of those transferred funds, then,
are state and Federal governments. Likewise, the
initial source of funds spent on public schools can
be either public or private.student tuition and
fees are one example of a private source of public
expenditure. Funding by private firms of youth
apprenticeship programs in Germany and Austria is
another example. Moreover, the initial source of
funds spent on private schools can be either public
or private. Unlike the United States, most other
OECD countries maintain large numbers of
privately-operated schools that are mostly or
entirely publicly funded.
Tracking funds to their initial source illuminates
where responsibility is actually assumed in a nation
or state for financing education, either at the
primary through secondary level (Indicator 36) or
at the higher education level (Indicator 37).
- Of the 11 other countries reporting public
elementary and secondary expenditure data by
level of government, only Canada raised less
money for education at the national level than
did Mississippi, the U.S. state that relied the
most on the Federal government for funds.
- In the United States, local government
provided a portion of public higher education
funding higher than that in any of the 11 other
countries reporting data (6 percent).
Conversely, the percentage of funds derived
initially from the central government was
lowest in the United States among all the
nations. The United States and Belgium were
the only 2 nations in which the share of public
funding of institutions of higher education from
the regional, or state, level exceeded 50
percent.
How much are teachers paid across nations and
states?
Teacher salaries are an important indicator of both
the level of investment in and the quality of a
nation's or state's education system. Without
exception across nations and states, teacher salaries
constitute the greatest portion of education
expenditure. The amount of money paid to
teachers is a primary factor in attracting and
retaining top-quality candidates to pursue careers as
educators. Therefore, salaries influence the level
of quality and experience with which students are
instructed. This indicator (Indicator 35) presents
data on average salaries for teachers for the United
States and its states and for secondary school
teachers with approximately 15 years of experience
in other countries. The ratio of teacher salary to
country or state per capita gross product is also
included.
- The average teacher salary in the United States
for the school year 1991 to 1992 was about
$34,000. That was the median among thes
countries for mid-career secondary school
teachers. The mid-career salaries in former
West Germany, France, and Canada were
highest (almost $40,000 in former West
Germany). The mid-career salaries in England,
Japan, and Scotland (representing the United
Kingdom), and Italy were lowest (less than
$22,000 in Italy).
- The range of mid-career secondary school
teacher salaries was slightly wider across
countries than the range of average salaries for
teachers across states. Teachers in
Connecticut, the state with the highest salaries,
received twice the income of their counterparts
in south Dakota.secondary school teachers in
switzerland, the country with the highest-paid
teachers, received almost two-and-a-half times
the salary of Italian secondary school teachers.
- The ratio of a teacher's average salary to per
capita gross domestic product was about 1.5 in
the United States. That was higher than Italy's
ratio for secondary school teachers (1.23) but
lower than the ratios for others countries
(England and Scotland as proxies for the
United Kingdom). The ratios for France,
former West Germany, England, and Scotland
were about one-third higher than that of the
United States.
In summary, a comparison of 1991 public
education expenditures across countries finds that
the United States spent more public funds per
student at the primary through secondary level than
did any of the others countries. At the higher
education level, the United States spent more
public money per student than the other G-7
countries except Canada and the United Kingdom.
When public education expenditures are measured
as a percentage of gross product, only Canada's
ratio, among all thes countries, exceeded that
of the United States, whereas France's was about
the same. Finally, combining two of the previous
measures into a single measure of fiscal effort -
current public education expenditure per capita
divided by per capita gross product - finds
Canada on top again, ahead of Italy, France, and
then the United States among the G-7 countries.
Comparing the U.S. states to all the countries
represented here (rather than just the G-7),
sometimes presents a different picture of the
relative level of public education spending in the
United States. Particularly because some smaller
northern European countries spent at higher levels,
the distribution among states was more uniform
than that among countries.
The proportional allocation of public education
funds from among different levels of government
varies widely across nations and states. The
United States relied more on both state and local
governments than did other countries.
Other related NCES projects
This second edition of
Education in States and
Nations continues a series of occasional reports
comparing the education systems of different states
and countries. This series, however, is just one
part of an overall NCES international effort.
NCES serves as the representative for the United
States in the OECD's INES project mentioned
earlier. In connection with the INES project,
NCES commissioned two reports to improve the
comparability of education finance data across
countries:
The International Expenditure
Comparability Study and
Improving the
Comparability of International Expenditure Data.
These'studies have reviewed ten countries
statistical reports and interviewed their officials in
order to identify differences in the content and
categorization of expenditures, both in national
finance statistics and in data submitted to the
OECD and UNESCO. The studies have developed
revised estimates of countries education
expenditures that adjust for deviations from an
international standard. These reports should be
available soon.
NCES has also sponsored another project to clarify
the content of indicators published in international
comparisons. Education Indicators: An
International Perspective presents a set of
indicators for the United States and other countries,
along with additional information about the
education systems in those countries. The various
structures of the education systems and other
contextual factors help to explain the structure of
the indicators, and help U.S. readers understand the
indicators in all their complexity.
These projects and others comprise a major
ongoing effort to not only compare education
systems across states and countries, but also to
improve the comparability of data and to deepen
understanding of the context of the data.
In addition to these indicators and research
projects, NCES continues to work in cooperation
with its counterparts in other countries to
administer international assessments and collect
and analyze their data. These projects include: the
International Association for the Evaluation of
Educational Achievement (IEA) Reading Literacy
Study, conducted from 1989 to 1992; the IEA's
Third International Mathematics and science study
(TIMSS), being conducted now; the pilot testing of
the OECD's Cross-Curricular Competency Test in
1995; and the International Adult Literacy survey,
conducted in 1994. The International Adult
Literacy survey (IALS) was a collaborative effort
by seven governments and three intergovernmental
organizations (UNESCO, Eurostat and the OECD)
to fill the information gap on literacy in
industrialized countries.
Notes
(1) ... Many observers attribute the origins of the current wave of education
reform in the United States to the 1983 publication of A Nation at
Risk. Other observers trace the origins to the late 1970s, when the first of many states passed student minimum competency requirements. The National Commission on Excellence in Education, which wrote A Nation at Risk, and many others, however, would distinguish the minimum competency movement as an earlier, separate, and failed effort to reform education (see, for example, pages 19 to 21 of A Nation at Risk). . . . return to section
(2) ... The explicit mission of the commission that wrote A Nation at
Risk was
to study the quality of learning and teaching in our nation's schools.
since then, education reformers have often employed the language and
methods of the historically parallel quality management movement.
Indicators are needed in order to monitor processes and measure progress
toward goals. Outcome measures are as important as input measures.
Goals and standards should be universally accepted by stakeholders, clear
enough to serve as a common focus, measurable, and challenging.
standards, or benchmarks, from outside one's own organization serve to
ground plans in a reality not defined by vested interests.
. . . return to section
(3) ... It should be recognized that, in this publication, the meaning of the
wordstate is the U.S. version, a sub-national, regional jurisdiction.
National jurisdictions are called countries or nations throughout. . . . return to section
(3a) ... It should be recognized that, in this publication, the meaning of the
wordstate is the U.S. version, a sub-national, regional jurisdiction.
National jurisdictions are called countries or nations throughout.
. . . return to section
(4) ... The other original National Education Goals were: 1) All children will
start school ready to learn. 2) The high school graduation rate will
increase to at least 90 percent. 3) students will demonstrate subject
area competency at grades 4, 8, and 12 and be prepared for good
citizenship, further learning, and productive employment. 7) Every
school will be free of drugs and violence and offer a safe, disciplined
environment conducive to learning.
The two National Education Goals added in 1994 are: 4) Teachers will
have access to programs to improve their skills. 8) schools will promote
parental involvement. . . . return to section
(5) ... Since 1991, the National Education Goals Panel has developed education
indicators that pertain to progress toward the National Goals, which are
published in the annual National Education Goals Report. Other
organizations making similar national efforts include the Council of
Chief State School Officers, the National Science Board, and the
Education Commission of the states. . . . return to section
(6) ... The increased demand for information on education and the need for
improved knowledge on the functioning of education systems raised many
questions not only for data collection but also the organization,
reporting and interpretation of the data. These questions led
authorities in the member countries of the OECD to consider new ways of
comparing their education systems. Agreement was reached on the
feasibility and utility of developing an international set of indicators
that would present in statistical form the key features of the education
systems of the member countries.
The Centre for Educational Research and Innovation responded to this
demand for comparative information by initiating the Indicators of
Education systems Project (INES). This project grew out of two
preparatory conferences: one hosted by the government of the United
states in November 1987, and the second by the French authorities in
March 1988. A meeting to review progress and discuss the plan of work
was subsequently convened in Austria in September 1989. The results
achieved during the initial phases of the project were presented at an
international conference in Lugano,Switzerland in September 1991. . . . return to section
(7) ... The nations of the OECD include Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada,
Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Iceland, Ireland, Italy,
Japan, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal,Spain,
Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, the United Kingdom, and the United States.
Because Greece and Iceland did not participate in the OECD's Indicators
of Education systems (INES) project, data on these countries are not
included in this report. Data for several OECD observer countries, such
as Hungary and the former Czechoslovakia, are included as data are
available. . . . return to section
(8) ... Education at a Glance was the product of a collective effort to
improve
the gathering and reporting of comparative information on education in
the OECD countries. In the process of developing the indicators, CERI
established an international consultative mechanism for exchanging
viewpoints and creating a common understanding of issues related to the
definition, measurement, and organization of the indicators.
Education
at a Glance thus represents the combined effort of several networks
and
technical groups composed of policy-makers, administrators, and
researchers.
The indicators were influenced by the concerns of the different parties
that were involved in their development. Three principles guided the
work. The first was that the indicators be targeted to a broad audience.
second, total coverage through a large and complex set of measures was
not the aim; rather, the indicators were selective and intended to be
policy-relevant, providing information useful for decision-making and
evaluation. Third, in addition to being reliable and valid at the
national level, the indicators were standardized in a way that makes them
comparable among the OECD countries. . . . return to section
(9) ... Several other OECD countries have federal systems like the United
states in which a major responsibility for education rests with regional
(provincial or state) governments. These countries are Australia,
Belgium, Canada, Germany, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom. . . . return to section
(10) ... Again, international comparisons based on levels of education can
sometimes cause confusion because the levels do not always have the same
entrance requirements or the same duration across countries. To aid in
understanding such comparisons, an explanatory note is included in the
supplemental notes.
. . . return to section
(11) ... See
supplemental note on private higher education expenditure in Japan
and the United States
. . . return to section
Notes on International Comparisons
Indicator 1