Philadelphia’s Hite Seeking an End to Teacher Seniority
Philadelphia school superintendent William R. Hite Jr. knows all about controversy. Since taking... Read More
There’s a tremendous cost to both individuals and society when people leave school without a degree, writes C.M. Rubin.

Andreas Schleicher, Head of the Indicators and Analysis Division (Directorate for Education) for OECD
Investment in education is investment in people and in a nation’s future. And it is also about money!
“The cost to individuals and society of young people leaving school without a qualification keeps rising,” stated OECD Secretary-General Angel Gurría in connection with the OECD’s annual Education at a Glance report.

C. M. Rubin
According to this report, the global economic crisis has proved much tougher for people without university degrees. Unemployment rates in 2009 among university graduates stood at 4.4% versus 11.5% for those people who did not complete high school. Current graduation trends indicate that 82% of young people today will complete upper secondary education, but those who don’t will face greater challenges entering and staying in the job market. Over 50% of 15 to 19 year olds who are not in school are unemployed or out of the labor force.
Governments therefore need to invest in education. Better educated people are less likely to need unemployment benefits or welfare assistance, and pay more tax when they enter the job market. A person with a tertiary education will pay back an average $91,000 in income taxes and social contributions over his working life, over and above what the government pays for his degree. Education pays for individuals, too: the gross earnings premium for an individual with a tertiary degree exceeds $300,000 for men and $200,000 for women across the OECD countries, over their working lives.
The Education at a Glance report, which for the first time includes an analysis of education systems in Brazil, China, India, Indonesia, Russia and South Africa, shows the global picture is changing. At present, one in three university-educated retirees resides in the U.S., but only one in five university graduates entering the workforce does. Conversely, while only 5% of adults in China have a tertiary degree, because of its population size, the country now ranks second behind the U.S. and ahead of Japan in the number of people with tertiary attainment among OECD and G20 countries. China (including Hong Kong) also contributes 19.5% of all international students from non-OECD countries.
OECD Division Head Andreas Schleicher points out: “The cross-country correlation is high ( 0.51) between the proportion of students performing below proficiency level 3 in PISA and expected years not in education and unemployed or out of the labor force. If we look at the percentage of 15-29 year- olds not in education and unemployed or out of the labour force, the correlation with the PISA reading Score is -0.37, and for the proportion of students performing below proficiency level 3 in PISA, the correlation is 0.35.”
Other findings of the report showed that OECD countries spent 6.1% of their GDP on education in 2008. Between 2000 and 2008, education expenditure increased at a faster rate than GDP in 25 of the 32 countries for which data are available. Between 2000 and 2009, teachers’ salaries increased in real terms in most countries. The largest increases, of well over 50%, were seen in the Czech Republic, Estonia and Turkey. Women make up the majority of students and graduates in almost all OECD countries, and largely dominate in the fields of education, health and welfare, humanities and arts. Young women are more likely than men to finish upper secondary education in every OECD country except for Germany and Switzerland. Men dominate in engineering, manufacturing and construction. For more information: Education at a Glance 2011: OECD Indicators and The Global Search for Education.
Follow C. M. Rubin on Twitter: www.twitter.com/@cmrubinworld
Thursday
September 15th, 2011
Philadelphia school superintendent William R. Hite Jr. knows all about controversy. Since taking... Read More
Following along with Microsoft’s changes to its popular productivity suite Office, Adobe... Read More
Sometimes the pace of change can take everyone by surprise. For decades, people in the sciences... Read More
Researchers are expecting a surge in the number of students educated at home by their parents over... Read More
Plan your career as an educator using our free online datacase of useful information.
Comments
This is probably the best argument I’ve read recently about the importance of investment in education. The payback you get far outweighs the initial costs – it’s the best investment a government can make, in my opinion.
The key point in my opinion is that it’s better for the government AND the actual person. The government has to pay less in unemployment benefits etc whilst the person earns more over their careers. It’s a win-win situation.
Essentially, the government gets more back than it puts in. I’d love to know why it is being so inactive about implementing change for the better, then!
That’s a fascinating study, it highlights brilliantly our strengths and weaknesses relative to other countries.
Yes if only it were as simple as pumping money into the system and getting out equal or greate value. Unfortunately it doesn’t work that way. We now spend almost four times as much per student annually in real inflation-adjusted dollars as we did in 1960, and results have been essentially flat since then. Every economic analysis I’ve ever seen regarding our public schools indicates that they are completely resistant to improvement via monetary investment. Our schools are more lavishly appointed and they have more expensive staff than ever, but achievement is flat or dropping. So obviously the problem is something other than lack of investment.
[...] Read More… [...]