EFP 16 17 Educação

Prévia do material em texto

ECONOMIA	E	FINANÇAS	PÚBLICASII	PARTEFORMAS	DE	INTERVENÇÃO	CONCRETA	DO	ESTADO	NA	ECONOMIA	PORTUGUESA
CAPÍTULO	5	– A	INTERVENÇÃO	NO	SECTOR	DA	EDUCAÇÃO
1
Capítulo 5 – A intervenção no sector daeducação
5.1. Objetivos da política de educação.
5.2. Benefícios da educação.
5.3. Argumentos para a intervenção pública na educação primária e
secundária.
5.4. Argumentos para a intervenção pública na educação terciária
(Ensino Superior).
5.5. Financiamento do Ensino Superior.
5.6. O sector da educação em Portugal: tendências.
2
• Principal objetivo da política de educação: melhorar os resultados
educacionais
• O que são bons resultados educacionais? (multidimensionalidade da
educação, abrangendo aspetos técnicos, económicos, sociais e culturais;
conhecimentos, competências, atitudes e valores).
• Como considerar os vários fatores que influenciam esses resultados?
(não apenas educação formal, mas também envolvimento da família,
posição socioeconómica, capacidades individuais).
3
5.1	Objetivos	da	política	de	educação
5.1	Objectivos	da	política	de	educação
• Objetivos secundários: usar os recursos de forma eficiente e distribuí-los
de forma equitativa.
• Eficiência
• Macro (externa): divisão entre níveis de ensino; por funções (gastos com
pessoal; edifícios; etc.); comparação com outros sectores (saúde, etc.)
• Micro (interna): eficiência na gestão das escolas.
• Equidade à igualdade de oportunidades: indivíduos com os mesmos
gostos e capacidades devem receber a mesma educação,
independentemente de outros fatores como o rendimento; equidade
vertical.
• E, no caso do Ensino Superior (terciário), garantir a liberdade e a diversidade
intelectual. 4
5.2	Benefícios	da	educação
• Benefícios	individuais
• Investimento:	salários	mais	elevados,	satisfação	com	o	trabalho.
• Técnicos:	conhecimentos.
• Benefícios	externos	(externalidades	positivas):
• Aumento dos impostos pagos no futuro.
• Aumento da produtividade.
• Adaptação e mudança tecnológica (aglomeração indústrias
intensivas em tecnologia; excelência científica à liderança
tecnológica).
• Crescimento económico.
• Coesão social.
5
Quais	são	os	argumentos	que	justificam	a	intervenção	pública	na	
área	da	educação?
Existem	diferenças	muito	substanciais	entre...	
•Educação	Primária	e	Secundária.
•Educação	Terciária	(Superior).
6
• Ausência de informação perfeita:
• As crianças não têm informação perfeita (e.g., restrição orçamental?).
• As crianças (consumidores diretos) não tomam as decisões mas sim os pais.
Estes também não têm informação perfeita (e.g., sobre qualidade da
educação) e podem não agir no melhor interesse da criança.
à soluções:
• Mercado: informação (rankings)
• Estado: regulação (obrigatoriedade, programas, standards de qualidade,
inspeções), financiamento, produção e provisão
• Ausência de concorrência perfeita:
• Oferta: Em localidades pequenasà nº limitado de escolas
à soluções: Regulação (dos preços)
5.3	Educação	primária	e	secundária
Argumentos Eficiência (falhas de mercado)
7
• Externalidades
• Existem	externalidades	 positivas	(ver	benefícios	externos,	slide	5).
à soluções:
• Regulação:	escolaridade	 obrigatória	até	determinado	nível	de	ensino.	
5.3	Educação	primária	e	secundária
Argumentos Eficiência (falhas de mercado)
8
5.3	Educação	primária	e	secundária
• Os problemas de informação são mais severos para indivíduos
de grupos socioeconómicosmais baixos.
à Soluções:
• Regulação: qualificações dos professores, características dos
equipamentos, ensino obrigatório, curricula.
• Quando existe subconsumo: financiamento do Estado.
• Produção e provisão (escolas públicas).
• Efeito redistributivo da educação pública.
9
Argumentos Equidade
• Não	há	problemas	de	informação	imperfeita:
• Do	lado	da	procura:
• Informação	disponível	(guias,	internet).
• Os	estudantes	conseguem	compreender	e	avaliar	a	informação.
• São	os	estudantes	que	fazem	as	escolhas.
• Os	estudantes	têm	gostos	diversos	e	sabem	melhor	do	que	ninguém	que	curso	
querem	frequentar.
• A	entrada	na	universidade	pode	ser	planeada;	existe	tempo	para	recolher	
informação	e	obter	aconselhamento.
• Do	lado	da	oferta:
• Massificação	à crescimento	nº	universidades	e	cursos	à disponibilização	de	
informação	sobre	conteúdos	e	qualidade.
• Informação	sobre	preços	está	disponível.
5.4	Educação	Terciária
Argumentos Eficiência (falhas de mercado)
10
5.4	Educação	Terciária
• Ao nível da concorrência, problemas identificados para outros
níveis de ensino não se verificam: mobilidade nacional e
internacional dos alunos universitários; ensino à distância,...
• Principal argumento:
• A educação terciária gera externalidade positivas, mas também gera
benefícios privados.
• solução: Financiamento
à divisão dos custos do ensino superior entre o estudante e os
contribuintes é eficiente e é equitativa.
11
Argumentos Eficiência (falhas de mercado)
5.4	Educação	Terciária
• Ausência de igualdade de oportunidades, associada ao
posicionamentosocioeconómico
• Causas de exclusão:
• Falta de informação sobre os benefícios do Ensino Superior.
• Incapacidadepara pagar propinas.
• Falta de qualidadena educação primária e secundária.
à soluções:
• Financiamento: Subsídios (bolsas), organização de empréstimos.
• Promoção do acesso.
• Divulgação de informação.
12
Argumentos Equidade
Argumentos	- síntese
Primário	e	Secundário
• As crianças não têm
capacidade para fazer
escolhas.
• É necessário uniformizar a
experiência educativa.
à Maior intervenção:
Regulação, financiamento,
produção/provisão.
Terciário
• Os jovens têm capacidade para
efetuar escolhas.
• A diversidade de cursos permite
satisfazer os seus gostos e
preferências.
àMenor intervenção:
Regulação, financiamento.
13
5.5	Financiamento	do	Ensino	Superior
• Como	deve	ser	financiado	o	Ensino	Superior?
• Conflito	entre:
• Necessidade de massificar o investimento em capital
humano, com qualidade.
• Restrições orçamentais (demografia, globalização).
14
5.5	Financiamento	do	Ensino	Superior
1) Impostos	
Solução	ineficiente	(dados	os	elevados	benefícios	privados)	e	não	
equitativa (potencial	regressividade).
Regressividade	– Ensino	Superior	reservado	a	uma	parcela	da	
população;	grupos	socioeconómicos	mais	elevados	consomem	
proporcionalmente	mais	este	serviço.
2) Impostos	+	propinas
• Recursos	das	famílias
• Recursos	atuais	dos	alunos	(trabalhadores-estudantes)
• Recursos	futuros	dos	alunos	– empréstimos
15
5.5	Financiamento	do	Ensino	Superior
Tipos	de	empréstimos:
•Tipo hipoteca (semelhante aos empréstimos à habitação;
duração fixa) – surgem problemas associados a imperfeições do
mercado de capitais: riscos para o estudante (rendimentos
futuros, inexistência de ativo físico) e para o banco (ausência de
garantia real).
•Amortizações dependentes do rendimento (% do rendimento
até amortizar capital e juros; duraçãovariável).
•Tipo imposto (durante toda a vida ativa; alguns indivíduos
pagam mais do que pediram emprestado, outros não pagam a
totalidadedo empréstimo). 16
Como escolher?
5.5	Financiamento	do	Ensino	Superior
Princípio do benefício – Aqueles que beneficiam mais do serviço
devem pagarmais
Princípio da capacidade para pagar – Aqueles que possuem mais
recursos oumaiores rendimentos devempagarmais
Ambos os princípios apontam para uma política de empréstimos
com amortizações dependentes do rendimento: indivíduos com
menores rendimentos pagam menos; indivíduos com
rendimentos baixos ao longo de toda a sua vida ativa podem
não pagar a totalidade do empréstimo (redução do risco para o
estudante). Adicionalmente, este tipo de empréstimos contribui
para o alisamento do consumo.
17
5.5	Financiamento	do	Ensino	Superior
Política	de	empréstimos	deve	ser	desenhadatendo	em	conta:
•Amortizações baseadas no rendimento.
•Montantes suficientes para cobrir propinas e custo de vida
(eliminação da pobreza estudantil, promoção do acesso,
alisamento do consumo).
•Taxa de juro idêntica ao custo de financiamento do Estado.
18
5.5	Financiamento	do	Ensino	Superior
Sistema de empréstimo em Portugal
1. Créditos universitários (funcionam como qualquer outro crédito, só
tem que ser estudante para o pedir; condições variam de banco para
banco; condições podemvariar de acordo com tipo de formação).
2. Empréstimos deGarantiaMútua para o Ensino Superior:
•Criados no ano letivo 2007-08 (21 408 alunos).
•Parceria entre o Ministério da Educação e Ciência, o sistema nacional de
garantia mútua e os principais bancos a operar em Portugal (atualmente
7);
•O Estado funciona como fiador;
•Spreads baixos e condições associadas aomérito escolar;
•Até ao máximo de€5.000, por ano de curso com aproveitamento. 19
20
5.5	Financiamento	do	Ensino	Superior
5.6	Sistema	de	educação	português
1. Expansão do sistema deensino,
… mas mantém-se o desafio da melhoria do perfil de qualificações da
população portuguesa
21
INDICATOR B2
Education at a Glance 2013: OECD Indicators © OECD 2013182
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
D
en
m
ar
k
Ic
el
an
d
K
or
ea
N
or
w
ay
1
Is
ra
el
U
ni
te
d 
St
at
es
N
ew
 Z
ea
la
nd
1
Ar
ge
nt
in
a
Be
lg
iu
m
Ca
na
da
Fi
nl
an
d
U
ni
te
d 
K
in
gd
om
Sw
ed
en
Ir
el
an
d
Ch
ile
Fr
an
ce
N
et
he
rl
an
ds
O
EC
D
 a
ve
ra
ge
M
ex
ic
o
Au
st
ra
lia
Es
to
ni
a1
Sl
ov
en
ia
Po
rt
ug
al
Po
la
nd
Au
st
ri
a
Br
az
il1
Sp
ai
n
Sw
it
ze
rl
an
d1
Ja
pa
n
Ru
ss
ia
n 
Fe
de
ra
tio
n1
Cz
ec
h 
Re
pu
bl
ic
It
al
y
Sl
ov
ak
 R
ep
ub
lic
H
un
ga
ry
1
1. Public expenditure only (for Switzerland, in tertiary education only; for Norway, in primary, secondary and post-secondary 
non-tertiary education only; for Estonia, New Zealand and the Russian Federation, for 2000 only).
Countries are ranked in descending order of expenditure from both public and private sources on educational institutions in 2010.
Source: OECD. Argentina: UNESCO Institute for Statistics (World Education Indicators Programme). Table B2.1. See Annex 3 
for notes (www.oecd.org/edu/eag.htm).
20102000 2005% of GDP
Chart B2.1. Expenditure on educational institutions as a percentage of GDP 
for all levels of education (2000, 2005 and 2010) 
WHAT PROPORTION OF NATIONAL WEALTH IS SPENT 
ON EDUCATION? 
t�In 2010, OECD countries spent an average of 6.3% of their GDP on educational institutions; 
Denmark, Iceland, Israel, Korea, New Zealand, Norway and the United States spent more than 
7%. 
t�Between 2000 and 2010, expenditure on all levels of education combined increased at a faster 
rate than GDP growth during that period in almost all countries for which data are available. 
t�While GDP rose (in real terms) in most countries between 2009 and 2010, public expenditure 
on educational institutions fell in one-third of OECD countries during that period, probably as 
a consequence of fiscal consolidation policies. 
How to read this chart
The chart shows investment in education as a proportion of the national income that countries devoted to spending on 
educational institutions in 2000, 2005 and 2010. It includes direct and indirect expenditure on educational institutions, from 
both public and private sources of funds.
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888932846880
 Context
This indicator presents a measure of expenditure on educational institutions relative to a nation’s 
wealth. The national wealth is estimated based on the GDP, and expenditure on education 
includes spending by governments, enterprises and individual students and their families.
Countries invest in educational institutions to help foster economic growth, enhance productivity, 
contribute to personal and social development, and reduce social inequality, among other reasons. 
The proportion of education expenditure relative to GDP depends on the different preferences 
of various public and private actors. Nevertheless, expenditure on education largely comes from 
public budgets and is closely scrutinised by governments. During times of financial crisis, even 
core sectors like education can be subject to budget cuts.
22
INDICATOR A1
Education at a Glance 2013: OECD Indicators © OECD 201326
TO WHAT LEVEL HAVE ADULTS STUDIED? 
t�The rate of tertiary education attainment among adults in OECD countries has increased by 
almost 10 percentage points since 2000.
t� In most OECD countries, 25-34 year-olds have the highest rate of tertiary attainment among 
all adults by an average of 7 percentage points. 
t�Gender gaps in educational attainment are not only narrowing, in some cases, they are 
reversing.
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888932846215
 Context
Educational attainment is frequently used as a measure of human capital and the level of an 
individual’s skills, in other words, a measure of the skills available in the population and the labour 
force. The level of educational attainment is the percentage of a population that has reached a 
certain level of education. Higher levels of educational attainment are strongly associated with 
higher employment rates and are perceived as a gateway to better labour opportunities and earnings 
premiums. Individuals have strong incentives to pursue more education, and governments have 
incentives to build on the skills of the population through education, particularly as national 
economies continue to shift from mass production to knowledge economies.
Over the past decades, almost all OECD countries have seen significant increases in the educational 
attainment of their populations. Tertiary education has expanded markedly, and in most OECD 
countries, an upper secondary qualification (ISCED 3) has become the most common education 
level attained by young people. Some countries have introduced policy initiatives to more closely 
align the development of particular skills with the needs of the labour market through vocational 
education and training (VET) programmes. These policies seem to have had a major impact on 
educational attainment in several OECD countries where upper secondary VET qualifications are 
the most common qualifications held among adults.
Indicators in this volume show that gender differences persist in educational attainment, 
employment rates and earnings. In OECD countries, younger women have higher attainment 
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
%
K
or
ea
Ja
pa
n
Ca
na
da
Ru
ss
ia
n 
Fe
de
ra
tio
n
Ir
el
an
d
U
ni
te
d 
K
in
gd
om
N
or
w
ay
Lu
xe
m
bo
ur
g
N
ew
 Z
ea
la
nd
Is
ra
el
Au
st
ra
lia
U
ni
te
d 
St
at
es
Fr
an
ce
Sw
ed
en
Be
lg
iu
m
Ch
ile
Sw
itz
er
la
nd
N
et
he
rl
an
ds
Fi
nl
an
d
Ic
el
an
d
Po
la
nd
Sp
ai
n
Es
to
ni
a
O
EC
D
 a
ve
ra
ge
D
en
m
ar
k
Sl
ov
en
ia
G
re
ec
e
H
un
ga
ry
G
er
m
an
y
Po
rt
ug
al
Sl
ov
ak
 R
ep
ub
lic
Cz
ec
h 
Re
pu
bl
ic
M
ex
ic
o
Au
st
ri
a
It
al
y
Tu
rk
ey
Br
az
il
Countries are ranked in descending order of the percentage of 25-34 year-olds who have attained tertiary education.
Source: OECD. Table A1.3a. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/edu/eag.htm).
25-34 year-olds 25-64 year-olds
Chart A1.1. Population that has attained tertiaryeducation (2011)
Percentage, by age group
5.6	Sistema	de	educação	português
23
chapter A THE OUTPUT OF EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS AND THE IMPACT OF LEARNING
A1 
Education at a Glance 2013: OECD Indicators © OECD 201328
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
%
Cz
ec
h 
Re
pu
bl
ic
Sl
ov
ak
 R
ep
ub
lic
Po
la
nd
Au
st
ri
a
H
un
ga
ry
Sl
ov
en
ia
G
er
m
an
y2
Ja
pa
n3
Es
to
ni
a
Sw
ed
en
4
U
ni
te
d 
St
at
es
3
O
EC
D
 a
ve
ra
ge
Lu
xe
m
bo
ur
g
Fi
nl
an
d
D
en
m
ar
k
Sw
it
ze
rl
an
d
N
or
w
ay
Ch
ile
3
Fr
an
ce
It
al
y
N
ew
 Z
ea
la
nd
G
re
ec
e
K
or
ea
3
Ru
ss
ia
n 
Fe
de
ra
ti
on
3
N
et
he
rl
an
ds
Ic
el
an
d
Ca
na
da
U
ni
te
d 
K
in
gd
om
3
Ir
el
an
d
Be
lg
iu
m
Is
ra
el
Au
st
ra
lia
Br
az
il3
Sp
ai
n
M
ex
ic
o3
Tu
rk
ey
Po
rt
ug
al
3
1. Excluding ISCED 3C short programmes.
2. Persons with ISCED 4A attainment in Germany have successfully completed both a general and a vocational programme. In this chart they have 
been allocated to vocational.
3. Countries for which no information about programme orientation is available.
4. Figures for Sweden include about 10% of 25-64 year-olds who have attained ISCED 3 or 4 in programmes that cannot be allocated by orientation.
Countries are ranked in descending order of the percentage of 25-64 year-olds with upper secondary or post-secondary non-tertiary attainment (ISCED 3/4) 
regardless of the orientation of the programmes.
Source: OECD. Table A1.5a. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/edu/eag.htm).
Upper secondary or post-secondary non-tertiary (ISCED 3/4) with general orientation
Upper secondary or post-secondary non-tertiary (ISCED 3/4) with vocational orientation
Upper secondary or post-secondary non-tertiary (ISCED 3/4) with no distinction by orientation
Chart A1.2. Population whose highest level of attainment is upper secondary 
or post-secondary non-tertiary education (2011)1
Percentage of 25-64 year-olds who have attained ISCED level 3 or 4 as the highest level, and programme orientation
Analysis
Attainment levels in OECD countries
Upper secondary attainment and the weight of vocational education and training (VET)
More adults (25-64 year-olds) have attained upper secondary education (including post-secondary non-tertiary 
education, but excluding upper secondary short programmes, i.e. ISCED levels 3A, 3B, 3C long and 4; see the 
Reader’s Guide for definitions of ISCED levels) than have attained any other level of education across OECD 
countries. More than a third of the population in most OECD countries, and more than half the population 
in Austria, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Germany, Hungary, Japan, Poland, the Slovak Republic, Slovenia and 
Sweden have attained an upper secondary education as the highest level of attainment (Table A1.4a).
Only in Mexico, Portugal and Turkey, less than 20% of the population attained upper secondary education 
as the highest level of education; and these countries, together with Italy and Spain, are the sole countries in 
which the proportion of people with below upper secondary education is larger than the proportion of adults 
with upper secondary education or with tertiary attainment (Table A1.4a). 
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888932846234
Chart A1.2 shows that the difference in upper secondary attainment rates between adults in vocational and 
general tracks is substantial in many OECD countries. In Austria, the Czech Republic, Germany, Poland, the 
Slovak Republic and Slovenia, at least half the population has attained upper secondary or post-secondary 
non-tertiary VET qualifications as the highest level of attainment; however in these countries, people tend to 
leave education after attaining upper secondary qualifications (Table A1.5a).
5.6	Sistema	de	educação	português
2. Elevados benefícios individuais da obtenção de um diploma de
Ensino Superior (empregabilidade eprémio salarial),
… embora se assista a uma redução desdeo início da crise
24
5.6	Sistema	de	educação	português
25
A6
What are the earnings premiums from education? – INDICATOR A6 chapter A
Education at a Glance 2013: OECD Indicators © OECD 2013 103
The relative earnings for tertiary-educated 55-64 year-olds are higher than those of all tertiary-educated adults 
(25-64 year-olds) in all countries with the exceptions of Austria, Ireland, Turkey and the United Kingdom. 
On average, the differential between the two groups is up to nearly 16 percentage points. For those with 
only below upper secondary education, the relative earnings disadvantage increases for older workers in all 
countries except Australia, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Germany, Luxembourg, Norway, the Slovak Republic, 
Sweden and the United Kingdom. The increase in this disadvantage is not as marked as the increase in the 
earnings advantage for those with a tertiary education – an indication that tertiary education is key to higher 
earnings at older ages (Table A6.1).
In Chart A6.3, the difference in relative earnings of 25-64 year-old workers is subtracted from the difference 
in relative earnings of older workers (in both cases, the differences are relative to the earnings of members 
of the same age group with upper secondary or post-secondary non-tertiary education). The result is the 
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
Index
Ch
ile
Br
az
il
H
un
ga
ry
Sl
ov
en
ia
Ir
el
an
d1
Cz
ec
h 
Re
pu
bl
ic
U
ni
te
d 
St
at
es
Po
la
nd
1
Sl
ov
ak
 R
ep
ub
lic
Fr
an
ce
2
Is
ra
el
Po
rt
ug
al
1
Fi
nl
an
d2
G
er
m
an
y
O
EC
D
 a
ve
ra
ge
Au
st
ri
a
G
re
ec
e
Lu
xe
m
bo
ur
g1
Ca
na
da
1
Tu
rk
ey
3,
 4
It
al
y2
U
ni
te
d 
K
in
gd
om
Sw
it
ze
rl
an
d
N
et
he
rl
an
ds
1
Au
st
ra
lia
2
K
or
ea
3
Es
to
ni
a
D
en
m
ar
k
Sp
ai
n1
Sw
ed
en
1
Ja
pa
n5
Be
lg
iu
m
3
N
ew
 Z
ea
la
nd
N
or
w
ay
1
Tertiary-type A or advanced research programmes 
Tertiary-type B education 
Below upper secondary education 
1. Year of reference 2010. 
2. Year of reference 2009. 
3. Earnings net of income tax.
4. Year of reference 2005.
5. Year of reference 2007.
Countries are ranked in descending order of the relative earnings of 25-64 year-old men with tertiary-type A (including advanced research programmes) education.
Source: OECD. Table A6.1. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/edu/eag.htm).
Men
Women
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
Index
Ch
ile
Br
az
il
H
un
ga
ry
Sl
ov
en
ia
Ir
el
an
d1
Cz
ec
h 
Re
pu
bl
ic
U
ni
te
d 
St
at
es
Po
la
nd
1
Sl
ov
ak
 R
ep
ub
lic
Fr
an
ce
2
Is
ra
el
Po
rt
ug
al
1
Fi
nl
an
d2
G
er
m
an
y
O
EC
D
 a
ve
ra
ge
Au
st
ri
a
G
re
ec
e
Lu
xe
m
bo
ur
g1
Ca
na
da
1
Tu
rk
ey
3,
 4
It
al
y2
U
ni
te
d 
K
in
gd
om
Sw
it
ze
rl
an
d
N
et
he
rl
an
ds
1
Au
st
ra
lia
2
K
or
ea
3
Es
to
ni
a
D
en
m
ar
k
Sp
ai
n1
Sw
ed
en
1
Ja
pa
n5
Be
lg
iu
m
3
N
ew
 Z
ea
la
nd
N
or
w
ay
1
Upper secondary 
or post-secondary 
non-tertiary education
Upper secondary 
or post-secondary 
non-tertiary education
Chart A6.2. Relativeearnings of 25-64 year-old workers, 
by educational attainment and gender (2011)
Upper secondary or post-secondary non-tertiary education = 100
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888932846576
5.6	Sistema	de	educação	português
3.	Os	benefícios	privados	de	um	diploma	de	Ensino	Superior	são	
superiores	aos	públicos
26
INDICATOR A7
Education at a Glance 2013: OECD Indicators © OECD 2013126
Private net returns Public net returns
Notes: Turkey refers to 2005. Japan refers to 2007. Italy, the Netherlands and Poland refer to 2008. All other countries refer to 2009.
Cashflows are discounted at a 3% interest rate.
Countries are shown in alphabetical order.
Source: OECD. Tables A7.3a and A7.4a. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/edu/eag.htm).
0 50 000 100 000 150 000 200 000 250 000 300 000 350 000 400 000
Equivalent USD
Australia
Austria
Belgium
Canada
Czech Republic
Denmark
Estonia
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Ireland
Israel
Italy
Japan
Korea
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Slovak Republic
Slovenia
Spain
Sweden
Turkey
United Kingdom
United States
OECD average
Chart A7.1. Net private and public returns associated with a man 
attaining tertiary education (2009)
As compared with returns from upper secondary or post-secondary non-tertiary education
WHAT ARE THE INCENTIVES TO INVEST IN EDUCATION? 
t�The private returns on investment in tertiary education are substantial. 
t�Not only does education pay off for individuals, but the public also benefits in the form of 
greater tax revenues and social contributions. 
t�The net public return on investment for a man in tertiary education is over USD 100 000 
across OECD countries – almost three times the amount of public investment in that man’s 
education. For a woman, the public return is around USD 60 000, which is almost twice the 
amount of public investment.
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888932846633
 Context
Higher educational achievement benefits both individuals and society, not only financially, but 
in the well-being with which it is also associated. For individuals, having a higher education 
improves chances for employment and reduces the risk of unemployment. Better opportunities 
in the labour market (see Indicator A5) and higher earnings expectations (see Indicator A6) are 
5.6	Sistema	de	educação	português
4.	Predomínio	do	financiamento	público
27
chapter B FINANCIAL AND HUMAN RESOURCES INVESTED IN EDUCATION
B2
Education at a Glance 2013: OECD Indicators © OECD 2013184
Analysis 
Overall investment relative to GDP
The share of national wealth devoted to educational institutions is substantial in all OECD and G20 countries 
with available data. In 2010, OECD countries spent an average of 6.3% of their GDP on educational institutions; 
and OECD countries as a whole spent 6.5% of their combined GDP on educational institutions, taking into 
account both public and private sources of funds. 
Expenditure on educational institutions (all levels combined) relative to GDP was greater than 6% in nearly 
half of the OECD and G20 countries with available data, and even above 7% in seven of them: Denmark (7.9%), 
Iceland (7.7%), Israel (7.4%), Korea (7.6%), New Zealand (7.3%), Norway (7.6%) and the United States (7.3%). 
At the other end of the spectrum, five countries spent less than 5% of their GDP on education, namely the 
Czech Republic (4.7%), Hungary (4.6%), Italy (4.7%), the Russian Federation (4.9%) and the Slovak Republic 
(4.6%).
5.5
5.0
4.5
4.0
3.5
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
N
ew
 Z
ea
la
nd
Ic
el
an
d
D
en
m
ar
k
U
ni
te
d 
K
in
gd
om
Ir
el
an
d
Ar
ge
nt
in
a
Be
lg
iu
m
Au
st
ra
lia
Is
ra
el
K
or
ea
Fi
nl
an
d
N
et
he
rl
an
ds
Fr
an
ce
Sw
it
ze
rl
an
d1
U
ni
te
d 
St
at
es
M
ex
ic
o
Sw
ed
en
Es
to
ni
a
Sl
ov
en
ia
Po
rt
ug
al
Ca
na
da
Po
la
nd
Au
st
ri
a
Lu
xe
m
bo
ur
g
Ch
ile
Sp
ai
n
It
al
y
Sl
ov
ak
 R
ep
ub
lic
Ja
pa
n
Cz
ec
h 
Re
pu
bl
ic
Ru
ss
ia
n 
Fe
de
ra
ti
on
N
or
w
ay
1
Br
az
il1
H
un
ga
ry
1
Tu
rk
ey
1
N
ew
 Z
ea
la
nd
Ic
el
an
d
D
en
m
ar
k
U
ni
te
d 
K
in
gd
om
Ir
el
an
d
Ar
ge
nt
in
a
Be
lg
iu
m
Au
st
ra
lia
Is
ra
el
K
or
ea
Fi
nl
an
d
N
et
he
rl
an
ds
Fr
an
ce
Sw
it
ze
rl
an
d1
U
ni
te
d 
St
at
es
M
ex
ic
o
Sw
ed
en
Es
to
ni
a
Sl
ov
en
ia
Po
rt
ug
al
Ca
na
da
Po
la
nd
Au
st
ri
a
Ch
ile
Sp
ai
n
It
al
y
Sl
ov
ak
 R
ep
ub
lic
Ja
pa
n
Cz
ec
h 
Re
pu
bl
ic
Ru
ss
ia
n 
Fe
de
ra
ti
on
N
or
w
ay
1
Br
az
il1
H
un
ga
ry
1
1. Public expenditure only (for Switzerland, in tertiary education only; for Norway, in primary, secondary and post-secondary non-tertiary education only).
Countries are ranked in descending order of expenditure from both public and private sources on educational institutions in primary, secondary and 
post-secondary non-tertiary education.
Source: OECD. Argentina: UNESCO Institute for Statistics (World Education Indicators Programme). Table B2.3. See Annex 3 for notes 
(www.oecd.org/edu/eag.htm).
Private expenditure on educational institutions
Public expenditure on educational institutions
Primary, secondary and post-secondary non-tertiary education% of GDP
5.5
5.0
4.5
4.0
3.5
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
Tertiary education% of GDP
OECD average (total expenditure)
OECD average (total expenditure)
Chart B2.2. Expenditure on educational institutions as a percentage of GDP (2010)
From public and private sources, by level of education and source of funds
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888932846899
5.6	Sistema	de	educação	português
28
 
17 
A more advanced use of computers 
during lessons is still not 
commonplace in many countries 
Figure 2.3. Share of private expenditure on educational institutions (2010) 
 
 
 
Source: Eurostat (UOE). Notes: Private expenditure corresponds to transfers from private sources to educational institutions. 
This includes private fees for educational services as well as public funding via subsidies to households. 
 
In relation to further use of a mix of private and public sources, the European Commission 
underlined the need for strengthening the knowledge triangle between education, research and 
business in the European Union in its Communication on European Higher Education in the World27. 
This was already the aim of recommendations made to BG, EE and SK within the context of the 
2013 European Semester in order to foster effective knowledge transfer. 
 
Private spending on educational institutions stands to face significant changes in coming years with 
the development of new relationships between educational institutions, households and 
enterprises. Significant efficiency gains can be expected with the increasing role of ICT in education 
and training and Open Educational Resources (see section 2.2) and with a better transferability 
between educational institutions, companies and sectors of skills acquired across different learning 
platforms and pathways (see section 2.3). 
 
 
2.2. Opening up education and training through new technologies 
 
Today new technologies offer unprecedented opportunities to make learning more effective, 
inclusive and engaging. Digital technologies can improve effectiveness of resources through 
economies of scale, expandingaccess to a wider number of people (e.g. through MOOCs28 and 
other Open Educational Resources (OER)) at lower costs or allowing teachers to focus on what they 
do best by automating or offloading more routine tasks. ICT can be used to foster more creative 
and innovative methods of learning (including personalised and collaborative learning)29, and it has 
the potential to facilitate collaboration, exchange and access to learning resources. 
 
A huge potential for the modernisation of education and training 
 
As highlighted in the Communication on Opening Up Education30, Europe is not fully exploiting the 
potential offered by new technologies and the upsurge across the globe of digital content in order 
to better fulfil learners' needs, cater for more individualised learning paths and offer high quality 
education. 
 
Even if data from TIMSS 201131 show that the use 
of computers at school (in grade 4) has increased, 
the differences across countries remain significant. 
In UK-ENG nearly all grade 4 students use ICT at 
school, whereas in AT, LT, SI and RO less than half 
of the students do so. To fully benefit from the 
 
further information at http://www.nesse.fr/nesse. 
27 European higher education in the world (COM(2013) 499 final). 
28 Massive Online Open Courses. 
29 See e.g. JRC-IPTS (2012) Innovating Learning: Key Elements for Developing Creative Classrooms in Europe 
(http://ftp.jrc.es/EURdoc/JRC72278.pdf). 
30 Opening Up Education: Innovative teaching and learning for all through new technologies and open educational 
resources (COM(2013) 654 final). 
31 Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study by the IEA (http://timss.bc.edu/). See also Section 3.4. 
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
UK CY MT NL SK BG ES DE PL CZ LT SI LV FR IT AT IE PT EE HR DK BE RO SE FI IS CH NO
EU28 
5.6	Sistema	de	educação	português
29
chapter B FINANCIAL AND HUMAN RESOURCES INVESTED IN EDUCATION
B3
Education at a Glance 2013: OECD Indicators © OECD 2013200
The proportion of expenditure on tertiary institutions covered by individuals, businesses and other private 
sources, including subsidised private payments, ranges from 5% or less in Denmark, Finland and Norway 
(tuition fees charged by tertiary institutions are low or negligible in these countries), to more than 40% in 
Australia, Canada, Israel, Japan and the United States, and to over 70% in Chile, Korea and the United Kingdom 
(Chart B3.2 and Table B3.2b). Of these countries, in Korea and the United Kingdom, most students are enrolled 
in private institutions (around 80% in private universities in Korea; 100% in government-dependent private 
institutions in the United Kingdom), and most of the budget of educational institutions comes from tuition 
fees (more than 70% in Korea, and more than 50% in the United Kingdom).
1. The change between 2000 and 2010 is not available as the value for 2000 is missing.
2. Some levels of education are included with others. Refer to “x” code in Table B1.1a for details.
Countries are ranked in descending order of the share of private expenditure on educational institutions in 2010.
Source: OECD. Argentina: UNESCO Institute for Statistics (World Education Indicators Programme). Table B3.3. See Annex 3 for notes 
(www.oecd.org/edu/eag.htm).
20102000 2005
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
%
Ch
ile
1
U
ni
te
d 
K
in
gd
om
K
or
ea
Ja
pa
n2
U
ni
te
d 
St
at
es
Au
st
ra
lia
Is
ra
el
Ca
na
da
Ru
ss
ia
n 
Fe
de
ra
ti
on
1
N
ew
 Z
ea
la
nd
1
It
al
y
O
EC
D
 a
ve
ra
ge
Po
rt
ug
al
M
ex
ic
o
Sl
ov
ak
 R
ep
ub
lic
2
Po
la
nd
N
et
he
rl
an
ds
Es
to
ni
a1
Ar
ge
nt
in
a1
Sp
ai
n
Cz
ec
h 
Re
pu
bl
ic
Ir
el
an
d
Fr
an
ce
Sl
ov
en
ia
1
Au
st
ri
a
Be
lg
iu
m
Sw
ed
en
Ic
el
an
d
D
en
m
ar
k2
Fi
nl
an
d
N
or
w
ay
Ch
ile
1
U
ni
te
d 
K
in
gd
om
K
or
ea
Ja
pa
n2
U
ni
te
d 
St
at
es
Au
st
ra
lia
Is
ra
el
Ca
na
da
Ru
ss
ia
n 
Fe
de
ra
ti
on
1
N
ew
 Z
ea
la
nd
1
It
al
y
O
EC
D
 a
ve
ra
ge
Po
rt
ug
al
M
ex
ic
o
Sl
ov
ak
 R
ep
ub
lic
2
Po
la
nd
N
et
he
rl
an
ds
Es
to
ni
a1
Ar
ge
nt
in
a1
Sp
ai
n
Cz
ec
h 
Re
pu
bl
ic
Ir
el
an
d
Fr
an
ce
Sl
ov
en
ia
1
Au
st
ri
a
Be
lg
iu
m
Sw
ed
en
Ic
el
an
d
D
en
m
ar
k2
Fi
nl
an
d
N
or
w
ay
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
-5
-10
Percentage points
Change (in percentage points) in the proportion of private expenditure
between 2000 and 2010
Chart B3.3. Share of private expenditure on tertiary educational institutions 
(2000, 2005 and 2010) and change, in percentage points, in the share of private expenditure 
between 2000 and 2010
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888932846994
5.	Eficiência
5.1	Despesa	por	aluno
30
INDICATOR B1
Education at a Glance 2013: OECD Indicators © OECD 2013162
HOW MUCH IS SPENT PER STUDENT? 
t�On average, OECD countries spend USD 9 313 per student per year from primary through 
tertiary education: USD 7 974 per primary student, USD 9 014 per secondary student, and 
USD 13 528 per tertiary student.
t�In primary and secondary education, 94% of total expenditure per student is devoted to 
core educational services. Greater differences are seen at the tertiary level, partly because 
expenditure on R&D represents an average of 31% of total expenditure per student
t�From 2005 to 2010, expenditure per student in primary, secondary and post-secondary 
non-tertiary educational institutions increased by 17 percentage points on average across 
OECD countries; but between 2009 and 2010, investment in education fell in around 
one-third of OECD countries as a result of the economic crisis.
How to read this chart
The amount of expenditure per student by educational institutions provides a measure of the unit costs of formal education. 
This chart shows annual expenditure (from public and private sources) per student by educational institutions in equivalent 
USD converted using purchasing power parities (PPPs), based on the number of full-time equivalent students. It distinguishes 
expenditure by type of services: core educational services, ancillary services, and research and development. Expenditure on 
core educational services includes all expenditure that is directly related to instruction in educational institutions. This covers 
all expenditure on teachers, school buildings, teaching materials, books, and the administration of schools.
Core services
Ancillary services (transport, meals, housing provided by institutions) and R&D
16 000
14 000
12 000
10 000
8 000
6 000
4 000
2 000
0
In equivalent USD 
converted using PPPs Total
U
ni
te
d 
St
at
es
Au
st
ri
a
N
et
he
rl
an
ds
Ir
el
an
d1
Be
lg
iu
m
Au
st
ra
lia
Sw
ed
en
U
ni
te
d 
K
in
gd
om
Sp
ai
n
Fr
an
ce
Fi
nl
an
d
Sl
ov
en
ia
It
al
y1
O
EC
D
 a
ve
ra
ge
Po
rt
ug
al
1
K
or
ea
Is
ra
el
Po
la
nd
1
Cz
ec
h 
Re
pu
bl
ic
Sl
ov
ak
 R
ep
ub
lic
H
un
ga
ry
1
Ch
ile
Br
az
il1
M
ex
ic
o
Sw
it
ze
rl
an
d1
N
or
w
ay
D
en
m
ar
k
Ja
pan
Ic
el
an
d
N
ew
 Z
ea
la
nd
Es
to
ni
a
Ru
ss
ia
n 
Fe
de
ra
ti
on
1
Ar
ge
nt
in
a
1. Public institutions only.
Countries are ranked in descending order of expenditure per student by educational institutions for core services.
Source: OECD. Argentina: UNESCO Institute for Statistics (World Education Indicators programme). Table B1.2. See Annex 3 for 
notes (www.oecd.org/edu/eag.htm).
Chart B1.1. Annual expenditure per student by educational institutions, 
by type of service (2010)
In equivalent USD converted using PPPs, based on full-time equivalents, 
for primary through tertiary education 
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888932846747
 Context
The demand for high-quality education, which can translate into higher costs per student, must 
be balanced against other demands on public expenditure and the overall tax burden. Policy 
makers must also balance the importance of improving the quality of education services with 
the desirability of expanding access to education opportunities, notably at the tertiary level. A 
comparative review of trends in expenditure per student by educational institutions shows that in 
many OECD countries, expenditure has not kept up with expanding enrolments. In addition, some 
OECD countries emphasise broad access to higher education, while others invest in near-universal 
5.6	Sistema	de	educação	português
31
B1
How much is spent per student? – INDICATOR B1 chapter B
Education at a Glance 2013: OECD Indicators © OECD 2013 165
N
or
w
ay
Sw
it
ze
rl
an
d1
U
ni
te
d 
St
at
es
D
en
m
ar
k2
Au
st
ri
a
Sw
ed
en
Ic
el
an
d
Au
st
ra
lia
U
ni
te
d 
K
in
gd
om
Sl
ov
en
ia
Be
lg
iu
m
Ir
el
an
d1
Ja
pa
n2
It
al
y1
N
et
he
rl
an
ds
Fi
nl
an
d
Sp
ai
n
N
ew
 Z
ea
la
nd
Fr
an
ce
K
or
ea
Po
la
nd
1
Po
rt
ug
al
1
Is
ra
el
Sl
ov
ak
 R
ep
ub
lic
2
Es
to
ni
a
H
un
ga
ry
1
Cz
ec
h 
Re
pu
bl
ic
Ch
ile
Ar
ge
nt
in
a2
Br
az
il1
M
ex
ic
o
1. Public institutions only (for Canada, in tertiary education only; for Italy, except in tertiary education).
2. Some levels of education are included with others. Refer to “x” code in Table B1.1a for details.
Countries are ranked in descending order of expenditure on educational institutions per student in primary education.
Source: OECD. Argentina: UNESCO Institute for Statistics (World Education Indicators Programme). Table B1.1a. 
See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/edu/eag.htm).
 Secondary education Lower secondary education Upper secondary education 
30 000
28 000
26 000
24 000
22 000
20 000
18 000
16 000
14 000
12 000
10 000
8 000
6 000
4 000
2 000
0
In equivalent USD 
converted using PPPs
Lu
xe
m
bo
ur
g
N
or
w
ay
Sw
it
ze
rl
an
d1
U
ni
te
d 
St
at
es
D
en
m
ar
k2
Au
st
ri
a
Sw
ed
en
Ic
el
an
d
Au
st
ra
lia
U
ni
te
d 
K
in
gd
om
Sl
ov
en
ia
Be
lg
iu
m
Ir
el
an
d1
Ja
pa
n2
It
al
y1
N
et
he
rl
an
ds
Fi
nl
an
d
Sp
ai
n
N
ew
 Z
ea
la
nd
Fr
an
ce
K
or
ea
Po
la
nd
1
Po
rt
ug
al
1
Is
ra
el
Sl
ov
ak
 R
ep
ub
lic
2
Es
to
ni
a
H
un
ga
ry
1
Cz
ec
h 
Re
pu
bl
ic
Ch
ile
Ar
ge
nt
in
a2
Br
az
il1
M
ex
ic
o
Tu
rk
ey
20 000
18 000
16 000
14 000
12 000
10 000
8 000
6 000
4 000
2 000
0
In equivalent USD 
converted using PPPs
Lu
xe
m
bo
ur
g
N
or
w
ay
Sw
it
ze
rl
an
d1
U
ni
te
d 
St
at
es
D
en
m
ar
k2
Au
st
ri
a
Sw
ed
en
Ic
el
an
d
Au
st
ra
lia
U
ni
te
d 
K
in
gd
om
Sl
ov
en
ia
Be
lg
iu
m
Ir
el
an
d1
Ja
pa
n2
It
al
y1
N
et
he
rl
an
ds
Fi
nl
an
d
Sp
ai
n
N
ew
 Z
ea
la
nd
Fr
an
ce
K
or
ea
Po
la
nd
1
Po
rt
ug
al
1
Is
ra
el
Sl
ov
ak
 R
ep
ub
lic
2
Es
to
ni
a
H
un
ga
ry
1
Cz
ec
h 
Re
pu
bl
ic
Ch
ile
Ar
ge
nt
in
a2
Br
az
il1
M
ex
ic
o
Tu
rk
ey
22 000
20 000
18 000
16 000
14 000
12 000
10 000
8 000
6 000
4 000
2 000
0
In equivalent USD 
converted using PPPs Primary education
Secondary education
Tertiary education
OECD average
OECD average
OECD average
Chart B1.2. Annual expenditure per student by educational institutions for all services, 
by level of education (2010)
In equivalent USD converted using PPPs, based on full-time equivalents
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888932846766
32
B1
How much is spent per student? – INDICATOR B1 chapter B
Education at a Glance 2013: OECD Indicators © OECD 2013 169
Note: : Please refer to the Reader's Guide for the list of country codes used in this chart.
Source: OECD. Argentina : UNESCO Institute for Statistics (World Education Indicators Programme). Tables B1.1a, B1.4 and Annex 2. See Annex 3 
for notes (www.oecd.org/edu/eag.htm). 
30 000
28 000
26 000
24 000
22 000
20 000
18 000
16 000
14 000
12 000
10 000
8 000
6 000
4 000
2 000
0
Expenditure per student 
(in equivalent USD converted using PPPs)
Primary education
Secondary education
Tertiary education
14 000
12 000
10 000
8 000
6 000
4 000
2 000
0
Expenditure per student 
(in equivalent USD converted using PPPs)
GDP per capita (in equivalent USD converted using PPPs)
14 000
12 000
10 000
8 000
6 000
4 000
2 000
0
Expenditure per student 
(in equivalent USD converted using PPPs)
10
 00
0 
12
 50
0 
15
 00
0 
17
 50
0 
20
 00
0 
22
 50
0 
25
 00
0 
27
 50
0 
30
 00
0 
32
 50
0 
35
 00
0 
37
 50
0 
40
 00
0 
42
 50
0 
45
 00
0 
47
 50
0 
50
 00
0 
52
 50
0 
55
 00
0 
GDP per capita (in equivalent USD converted using PPPs)
GDP per capita (in equivalent USD converted using PPPs)
10
 00
0 
12
 50
0 
15
 00
0 
17
 50
0 
20
 00
0 
22
 50
0 
25
 00
0 
27
 50
0 
30
 00
0 
32
 50
0 
35
 00
0 
37
 50
0 
40
 00
0 
42
 50
0 
45
 00
0 
47
 50
0 
50
 00
0 
52
 50
0 
55
 00
0 
10
 00
0 
12
 50
0 
15
 00
0 
17
 50
0 
20
 00
0 
22
 50
0 
25
 00
0 
27
 50
0 
30
 00
0 
32
 50
0 
35
 00
0 
37
 50
0 
40
 00
0 
42
 50
0 
45
 00
0 
47
 50
0 
50
 00
0 
52
 50
0 
55
 00
0 
 R2 = 0.8
6
 R
2 = 0.
63
 R2 = 0.92
BRA CHL MEX 
SVK ISR 
KOR 
SVN 
JPN 
ISL 
SWE IRL 
USA 
NOR DNK NLD
EST 
TUR 
MEX 
BRA CHL CZE 
HUN 
SVK 
ISR POL 
EST PRT 
KOR FIN 
JPN 
IRL 
AUS 
ITA 
UKM 
SWE ISL CHE 
NOR 
SVN 
TUR 
BEL 
CHL 
CZE EST 
FRA 
ISL 
IRL 
ITA 
JPN 
KOR SVN MEX POL 
ISR 
SWE 
UKM 
USA 
BRA 
AUS 
DNK 
CAN 
RUS
ARG 
NZL ESP FRA
BEL CAN NLD
USA
AUTDNK
ARG
RUS
HUN
POL
PRT
UKM
FIN
AUS
AUT
FRA
ESP
NZL
BEL
ITACZE
NZL 
ESP
HUN
PRT
NLD
NOR
CHE
FIN
AUT
SVK
Chart B1.5. Annual expenditure per student by educational institutions 
relative to GDP per capita (2010)
In equivalent USD convertedusing PPPs, by level of education
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888932846823
5.2	Abandono	escolar
33
 
25 
3. Tackling early school leaving and raising 
the bar in school education 
 
 
This chapter looks at the main challenge in school education; raising the bar for a strong start for 
everyone. The cornerstone – and starting point in section 3.1 – is the performance of Member 
States in relation to the Europe 2020 headline target and national targets on early leavers from 
education and training. Section 3.2 examines the provision of early childhood education and care, 
which has been identified as one of the most effective measures to give children a good start in 
education. Moving from prevention to intervention, section 3.3 takes a look at the teaching 
workforce. Lastly, section 3.4 looks at how these various determinants of low attainment also 
affect the development of foundation skills at a young age. 
 
 
3.1. Reducing the rate of early leavers from education and training 
 
Completing upper secondary education is recommended as the minimum entrance qualification 
when making the crucial transition from education to the labour market (chapter 5). There is ample 
evidence that early leavers from education and training58 are more at risk of unemployment and 
social exclusion, resulting in monetary and non-monetary costs to themselves and, in the longer 
run, to society59. This is why an early school leaving rate of less than 10.0% is one of the Europe 
2020 headline targets. 
 
In 2012, nearly 5.5 million young people across the EU between 18 
and 24 years old had not finished upper secondary education and 
were no longer in formal or non-formal education and training. The 
EU average rate of early leavers from education and training was 
12.7% in 2012; down 0.7 percentage points from 2011. This 
improvement is mainly due to progress in some larger Member 
States and hides negative trends in a number of other countries. 
 
 
Figure 3.1. Early school leaving (2012) 
 
 
Source: Eurostat (LFS). 
 
Since 2009, the EU has on average decreased its early school leaving rate by 1.5 percentage 
points, which is an average annual progress of 3.7%. Knowing that the EU early school leaving rate 
needs to be below 10.0% by 2020, it is possible to calculate the minimum annual progress that the 
EU as a whole will have to make on average between 2009 and 2020. Figure 3.2 plots the recent 
change in early school leaving rates (2009-2012) against the current performance (2012) of each 
country. This enables a more comprehensive comparison between current performance and recent 
change, keeping in mind the headline target and the minimum annual progress necessary to reach 
it by 2020. 
 
58 The terms early school leavers and early leavers from education and training are used interchangeably. 
59 Reducing Early School Leaving in the EU, authored in 2011 by GHK at the request of the European Parliament. 
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
ES MT PT IT RO UK EU BG BE FR HU EL CY DE EE LV IE DK FI NL LU AT SE LT PL CZ SK SI HR
2012 National target Headline target
5.5 million young 
people have left 
school without 
finishing upper 
secondary education 
5.6	Sistema	de	educação	português
34
INDICATOR A4
Education at a Glance 2013: OECD Indicators © OECD 201364
HOW MANY STUDENTS COMPLETE TERTIARY EDUCATION? 
t�On average across OECD countries with available data, around 70% of students who enter a 
tertiary programme graduate with a first degree at this level.
t�Women enrolled in tertiary-type A programmes are more likely than men to earn a tertiary 
degree at the end of the programme: their completion rate is an average of 10 percentage 
points higher than men’s.
 Context
Tertiary completion rates can indicate the efficiency of tertiary education systems, as they 
show how many of the students who enter a tertiary programme ultimately graduate from it. 
However, low completion rates do not necessarily imply inefficiency, as students may leave a 
tertiary programme for a variety of reasons: they may realise that they have chosen a subject or 
educational programme that is not a good fit for them; they may fail to meet the standards set 
by their educational institution, particularly in tertiary systems that provide relatively broad 
access; or they may find attractive employment opportunities before completing the programme. 
Students may find that the educational programmes offered do not meet their expectations or 
labour-market needs, or that the programmes last longer than the student wishes to remain 
outside the labour market. Low completion rates (i.e. high drop-out rates) may indicate, on the 
other hand, that the education system is not meeting students’ needs.
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
%
Ja
pa
n
Au
st
ra
lia
1
D
en
m
ar
k
Fr
an
ce
Sp
ai
n1
Fi
nl
an
d
G
er
m
an
y1
Tu
rk
ey
Be
lg
iu
m
 (F
l.)
N
et
he
rl
an
ds
Cz
ec
h 
Re
pu
bl
ic
1
U
ni
te
d 
K
in
gd
om
Sl
ov
ak
 R
ep
ub
lic
O
EC
D
 a
ve
ra
ge
Po
rt
ug
al
Is
ra
el
1
M
ex
ic
o
Au
st
ri
a1
Po
la
nd
N
ew
 Z
ea
la
nd
N
or
w
ay
Sw
ed
en
2
U
ni
te
d 
St
at
es
H
un
ga
ry
Note: Some of the students who have not graduated may be still enrolled, or may have finished their education at a different 
institution than the one they originally attended, as occurs frequently in the United States. Please refer to Table A4.1 for details 
concerning methods used to calculate the completion rates.
1. Tertiary-type A only.
2. Includes students entering single courses who may never intend to study all courses needed for a degree.
Countries are ranked in descending order of the proportion of students who graduate from tertiary education with at least a first degree.
Source: OECD. Table A4.1. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/edu/eag.htm).
Total Men Women
Chart A4.1. Proportion of students who enter tertiary education and graduate 
with at least a first degree/qualification at this level, by gender (2011) 
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888932846424
5.6	Sistema	de	educação	português
6.	Score	tests
35
 
35 
The determinants of basic skills 
 
Achievement in reading, maths and science has been the cornerstone for comparative surveys in 
the field for many years. The next results from the OECD’s  Programme  for  International  Student  
Assessment (PISA) are expected by the end of 2013 and will provide an update on the 
performance of Member States in relation to the ET 2020 benchmark on basic skills, which states 
that by 2020, the share of 15 year-olds with low achievement in reading, mathematics and science 
should be less than 15%81. The IEA82’s  PIRLS83 and TIMSS84 focus on comparable skills of younger 
pupils85. Across the EU Member States participating in these surveys, 19.8% fails to reach a 
minimum threshold of literacy skills, versus 28.5% in mathematics and 25.2% in science (see 
Table 3.2)86. 
 
 
Table 3.2. Pupil achievement in reading, maths and science (2009, 2011) 
 
 Reading Mathematics Science 
 FAILING IIB* in 
PIRLS 2011 
FAILING LEVEL 2 
IN PISA 2009 
FAILING IIB* in 
TIMSS 2011 
FAILING LEVEL 2 
in PISA 2009 
FAILING IIB* in 
TIMSS 2011 
FAILING LEVEL 2 
in PISA 2009 
EU** 19.9 19.6 28.5 22.2 25.2 17.7 
BE - 17.7 - 19.1 - 18.0 
 BE fr 29.6 23.3 - 26.0 - 24.7 
 BE nl - 13.4 10.8 13.5 27.3 12.9 
BG 22.9 41.0 - 47.1 - 38.8 
CZ 12.7 23.1 28.2 22.3 19.0 17.3 
DK 11.7 15.2 18.1 17.1 22.0 16.6 
DE 15.4 18.5 19.3 18.6 22.0 14.8 
IE 14.9 17.2 23.4 20.8 28.3 15.2 
ES 27.6 19.6 43.8 23.7 32.5 18.2 
FR 24.8 19.8 - 22.5 -19.3 
HR 10.2 22.5 39.6 33.2 24.8 18.5 
IT 15.0 21.0 31.3 24.9 24.2 20.6 
LT 20.1 24.3 20.9 26.2 26.7 17.0 
HU 18.9 17.7 29.6 22.3 22.1 14.1 
MT 44.8 36.3 36.9 33.7 59.4 32.5 
NL 9.9 14.3 11.6 13.4 14.1 13.2 
AT 19.6 27.5 29.6 23.2 21.0 21.0 
PL 23.2 15.0 44.4 20.5 33.2 13.1 
PT 16.0 17.6 19.5 23.7 24.8 16.5 
RO 34.8 40.4 43.0 47.0 34.0 41.4 
SI 20.5 21.2 28.0 20.3 25.6 14.8 
SK 17.8 22.3 31.2 21.0 21.1 19.3 
FI 7.9 8.1 15.3 7.8 7.9 6.0 
SE 14.7 17.4 31.5 21.1 21.0 19.1 
UK - 18.4 - 20.2 - 15.0 
 UK-ENG 17.3 18.4 22.4 19.8 24.5 14.8 
 UK-NIR 13.4 17.5 15.0 21.4 25.7 16.7 
Source: OECD (PISA 2009), ACER (PISA 2009+) and IEA (PIRLS 2011 and TIMSS 2011). Notes: * Intermediate International 
Benchmark. ** Weighted EU average is based on 25 Member States for PISA, 23 for PIRLS and 21 for TIMSS. 
 
In terms of low achievement in reading, MT and RO show the most unfavourable results, with FI 
and NL at the other extreme. Underperformance in mathematics is most common in PL, ES, RO 
and HR (the latter showing a stark contrast with its favourable reading results) and least 
pronounced in BE nl and NL. When it comes to science there is a strong diversity between Member 
States, with MT showing by far the highest rate of underperformance and FI showing by far the 
lowest rate of underperformance. 
 
81 For the latest available PISA data (2009) see the summary table in chapter 1 and the country reports that accompany 
this Education and Training Monitor (http://ec.europa.eu/education/monitor). 
82 International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement. 
83 Progress in International Reading Literacy Study. 
84 Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study. 
85 Both TIMSS and PIRLS focus on the foundation skills of pupils in fourth grade (not below 9.5 years old). Although 
PISA adopts a different assessment framework and has a different performance scale than TIMSS and PIRLS, the two 
approaches aim to rest the same underlying theoretical constructs, and both include certain benchmark performance 
levels. 
86 Arguably most comparable to PISA Level 2 – used as the achievement threshold for the ET 2020 benchmark on basic 
skills – is the Intermediate International Benchmark in TIMSS and PIRLS. Reaching this level means students can 
retrieve information, make straightforward inferences, use some presentational features and begin to recognize 
language features. For maths and science it means students can apply basic mathematical knowledge in 
straightforward situations and have a basic knowledge and understanding of practical situations in the sciences. 
5.6	Sistema	de	educação	português
7.	Propinas	e	apoio	aos	estudantes
36
chapter B FINANCIAL AND HUMAN RESOURCES INVESTED IN EDUCATION
B5
Education at a Glance 2013: OECD Indicators © OECD 2013224
Analysis 
Annual tuition fees charged by tertiary-type A institutions for national students
The cost of higher education, and the best way to support students in paying for it, are among the most hotly 
debated public-policy topics in education today. The level of tuition fees charged by tertiary institutions – as 
well as the level and type of financial assistance countries provide through their student support systems – can 
greatly influence the access to and equity in tertiary education.
Striking the right balance between providing sufficient support to institutions through tuition fees and 
maintaining access and equity is challenging. On the one hand, higher tuition fees increase the resources 
available to educational institutions, support their efforts to maintain quality academic programmes 
and develop new ones, and can help institutions accommodate increases in student enrolment. However, 
tuition fees may also restrict access to higher education for students – particularly those from low-income 
backgrounds – in the absence of a strong system of public support to help them pay or reimburse the cost of 
their studies. In addition, when labour-market opportunities are not sufficient, high tuition fees may prevent 
some students from pursuing fields that require extended periods of study.
6 000
5 000
4 000
3 000
2 000
1 000
500
0
Note: This chart shows the annual tuition fees charged in equivalent USD converted using PPPs. Countries in bold indicate that tuition fees refer to 
public institutions but more than two-thirds of students are enrolled in private institutions. The net entry rate and expenditure per student (in USD) 
in tertiary-type A programmes are added next to country names.
This chart does not take into account grants, subsidies or loans that partially or fully offset the student’s tuition fees.
1. Public institutions do not exist at this level of education and almost all students are enrolled in government-dependent private institutions.
Source: OECD. Tables B1.1a, B5.1 and Indicator C3. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/edu/eag.htm).
Please refer to the Reader’s Guide for information concerning the symbols replacing the missing data. 
Average annual 
tuition fees in USD
United States (72%, 25 575)
United Kingdom1 (64%, 15 862)
Australia (96%, 16 502)
Canada (m, 27 123)
New Zealand (76%, 10 923) 
Netherlands (65%, 17 172)
Italy (48%, 9 576)
Portugal (m, 10 578) 
Spain (53%, 14 072)
Austria (52%, 15 101), Switzerland (44%, 23 457)
Belgium (Fr. and Fl.) (m, m)
 France (39%, 15 997)
 Turkey (39%, m)
Korea (69%, 11 271)
Japan (52%, 17 544)
Chile (45%, 9 580)
 Poland (81%, 8 892), Denmark (71%, 18 997), Finland (68%, 16 714), Iceland (81%, 8 728), 
Mexico (34%, 7 872), Norway (76%, 18 512), Slovenia (73%, 9 693), Sweden (72%, 20 750)
Chart B5.2. Average annual tuition fees charged by tertiary-type A public institutions 
for full-time national students (2011) 
Converted in USD using PPPs for GDP, academic year 2010-11
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888932847127
5.6	Sistema	de	educação	português
B5
How much do tertiary students pay and what public support do they receive? – INDICATOR B5 chapter B
Education at a Glance 2013: OECD Indicators © OECD 2013 227
Loans also shift some of the cost of education to those who benefit most from higher education, namely, the 
individual student. Opponents of loans argue that student loans are less effective than grants in encouraging 
low-income students to pursue their education. They also argue that loans may be less efficient than anticipated 
because of the various types of support provided to borrowers or lenders and the costs of administration and 
servicing. 
OECD countries spend an average of about 22% of their public budgets for tertiary education on support 
to households and other private entities (Chart B5.4). In Australia, Chile, Denmark, Iceland, Japan, the 
Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, the United Kingdom and the United States, public support accounts for 
more than 25% of public spending on tertiary education. Only, the Czech Republic, Mexico and Switzerland 
spend less than 7% of total public spending on tertiary education support. However, in the Czech Republic, 
subsidies for students’ grants are sent directly to institutions, which are responsible for distributing them 
among students (Table B5.4).
OECD research (see OECD, 2008) suggests that having a robust financial support system is important for 
ensuring good outcomes for students in higher education, and that the type of aid is also critical. Chart B5.4 
presents the proportion of public tertiary education expenditure dedicated to loans, grants and scholarships, 
and other types of support given to households. 
More than one-third of the 31 countries for which data are available rely exclusively on scholarships/grants 
and transfers/payments to other private entities. Iceland provides only student loans, while other countriesmake a combination of grants and loans available. Both types of support are used extensively in Australia, 
Chile, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Sweden, the United Kingdom and the United States. 
In general, the countries that offer student loans are also those in which public support to households accounts 
for the largest proportion of all public expenditure on tertiary education. In most cases, these countries also 
spend an above-average proportion of their tertiary education budgets on grants and scholarships (Chart B5.4 
and Table B5.4).
Transfers and payments to other private entities
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
% of total public expenditure 
on education
U
ni
te
d 
K
in
gd
om
U
ni
te
d 
St
at
es
D
en
m
ar
k
Sl
ov
en
ia
It
al
y
Sl
ov
ak
 R
ep
ub
lic
Ch
ile
Au
st
ri
a
Po
rt
ug
al
Fi
nl
an
d
H
un
ga
ry
N
ew
 Z
ea
la
nd
Be
lg
iu
m
O
EC
D
 a
ve
ra
ge
Ir
el
an
d
Au
st
ra
lia
Po
la
nd
N
et
he
rl
an
ds
N
or
w
ay
Is
ra
el
Sw
ed
en
Sp
ai
n
Fr
an
ce
Sw
it
ze
rl
an
d
Ca
na
da
Br
az
il
Es
to
ni
a
M
ex
ic
o
K
or
ea
Cz
ec
h 
Re
pu
bl
ic
Ar
ge
nt
in
a
Ja
pa
n
Ic
el
an
d
Countries are ranked in descending order of the share of scholarships/other grants to households and transfers and payments to other private entities in total 
public expenditure on tertiary education.
Source: OECD. Argentina: UNESCO Institute for Statistics (World Education Indicators Programme). Table B5.4. See Annex 3 for notes 
(www.oecd.org/edu/eag.htm).
Scholarships /other grants to households
Student loans
Graphique B5.4. Public support for tertiary education (2010)
Public support for education to households and other private entities as a percentage 
of total public expenditure on tertiary education, by type of subsidy
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888932847165
37
5.6	Sistema	de	educação	português
8.	Internacionalização
38
C4
Who studies abroad and where? – INDICATOR C4 chapter C
Education at a Glance 2013: OECD Indicators © OECD 2013 311
that offer similar educational opportunities at a lower cost (Chart C4.3). Advanced research programmes 
in New  Zealand, for example, have become more attractive since 2005 when tuition fees for international 
students were reduced to the same level as those paid by domestic students (Box C4.3). 
Public funding that is “portable” across borders, or student support for tertiary education, can ease the cost of 
studying abroad, as is evident in Chile, Finland, Iceland, the Netherlands, Norway and Sweden. 
Immigration policy 
In recent years, several OECD countries have eased their immigration policies to encourage the temporary or 
permanent immigration of international students (OECD, 2008). This makes these countries more attractive 
to students and strengthens their labour force. As a result, immigration considerations as well as tuition fees 
may also affect some students’ decisions on where to study abroad (OECD, 2011).
Other factors 
Students also make decisions on where to study based on other factors such as: the academic reputation of 
particular institutions or programmes; the flexibility of programmes in counting time spent abroad towards 
degree requirements; recognition of foreign degrees; the limitations of tertiary education in the home country; 
restrictive university admission policies at home; geographical, trade or historical links between countries; 
future job opportunities; cultural aspirations; and government policies to facilitate the transfer of credits 
between home and host institutions.
Extent of international student mobility in tertiary education 
Among countries for which data on international students are available, Australia, Austria, New Zealand, 
Switzerland and the United Kingdom show the highest levels of incoming student mobility, measured as 
the proportion of international students in their total tertiary enrolment. In Australia, 19.8% of tertiary 
students enrolled are from another country. Similarly, international students represent 14.7% of total tertiary 
enrolments in Austria, 15.6% in New Zealand, 16.2% in Switzerland, and 16.8% in the United Kingdom. 
In contrast, international students account for less than 2% of total tertiary enrolments in Chile, Norway, 
Poland and Slovenia (Table C4.1 and Chart C4.4). 
20
15
10
5
0
%
Au
st
ra
lia
U
ni
te
d 
K
in
gd
om
Sw
it
ze
rl
an
d
N
ew
 Z
ea
la
nd
Au
st
ri
a
Be
lg
iu
m
Sw
ed
en
D
en
m
ar
k
Ca
na
da
¹
Ir
el
an
d
Ic
el
an
d
N
et
he
rl
an
ds
Fi
nl
an
d
H
un
ga
ry
Sl
ov
ak
 R
ep
ub
lic
Ja
pa
n
U
ni
te
d 
St
at
es
Po
rt
ug
al
Sp
ai
n
Es
to
ni
a
Sl
ov
en
ia
N
or
w
ay
Po
la
nd
Ch
ile
Fr
an
ce
Cz
ec
h 
Re
pu
bl
ic
So
ut
h 
Af
ri
ca
¹
G
re
ec
e
It
al
y
Sa
ud
i A
ra
bi
a
Ru
ss
ia
n 
Fe
de
ra
ti
on
K
or
ea
Is
ra
el
Tu
rk
ey
Ch
in
a
Br
az
il
1. Year of reference 2010.
2. Foreign students are defined on the basis of their country of citizenship, these data are not comparable with data on international students and 
are therefore presented separately in the chart.
Countries are ranked in descending order of the percentage of international or foreign students in total tertiary education.
Source: OECD and UNESCO Institute for Statistics for most data on non-OECD countries. Table C4.1. 
See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/edu/eag.htm).
International students Foreign students2
OECD average
Chart C4.4. Student mobility in tertiary education (2011)
International or foreign student enrolment as a percentage of total tertiary enrolment
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888932847602
5.6	Sistema	de	educação	português
Referências	bibliográficas
Barr, N. (2011) The Economics of the Welfare State, Oxford
University Press (capítulos 11 e 12).
39