EDUCATIONAL

OPPORTUNITY FOR ALL:

OVERCOMING INEQUALITY

THROUGHOUT THE LIFE

COURSE

Dirk Van Damme

OECD/EDU

2

3

Educational disadvantages are transmitted

from one generation to the other

4

After controlling for age, gender, educational attainment and

immigrant status, there still is a 20-point difference in literacy

between adults with and without tertiary-educated parents

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Ru

ssia

n F

eder

atio

n²

Cyp

rus¹

Lith

uan

ia

New

Ze

alan

d

Esto

nia

Au

stra

lia

Jap

an

Gre

ece

Swed

en

Irel

and

No

rway

Ko

rea

Turk

ey

Can

ada

Den

mar

k

Net

her

lan

ds

Spai

n

Ital

y

OEC

D a

vera

ge

Slo

vak

Rep

ub

lic

Au

stri

a

Fin

lan

d

Cze

ch R

epu

blic

No

rth

ern

Irel

and

(U

K)

Flan

der

s (B

elgi

um

)

Engl

and

(U

K)

Fran

ce

Ch

ile

Slo

ven

ia

Po

lan

d

Isra

el*

Ger

man

y

Un

ited

Sta

tes

Sin

gap

ore

Jaka

rta

(In

do

nes

ia)

Unadjusted difference Adjusted difference

Score-pointdifference

• The intergenerational transmission of inequality through education

– Less well-off families tend to relatively invest less in education

– Inequality and poverty lead to harms (malnutrition, brain damage, etc.) which affect educational achievement

– Lower quality of education and lower learning outcomes at bottom of distribution in countries with higher inequality

– ‘Opportunity hoarding’ by middle class

– The education gradient in various other outcomes: education redistributes many other ‘goods’ such as jobs, health, income, … living standards and life satisfaction which in turn determine investments and life choices for the next generation

The central role of education in transmitting inequality

5

Educational disadvantage in the life-course

Individual’s background (micro level)Gender, Ethnicity,

Cognitive and socio-emotional skills, Socio-economic status

Learning environments (meso level)

Socio-Economic and Cultural Status

(income and wealth, education, occupation,

social class)

Education institutions (public/private institutions,

teachers, coaches, principals and supporting staff)

Neighbourhood(peers, colleagues, local

authorities and community facilities)

Socio-economic, cultural and political context (macro level)

Political and economic context(economic, labour market and political conditions and technological change)

Education policies related to equity (policies supporting equitable provision of

quality education for all)

Social and cultural context

(openness, trust, perceptions, beliefs)

6

Amount of money spent by US households on child

development

7

8

Across OECD countries, disadvantaged students are

almost 3 times more likely to not attain the baseline

level of proficiency in science

3.8 3.8

3.5

3.4 3.43.3

3.2 3.2 3.1

2.9 2.92.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.7

2.6 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.62.4

2.32.2

2.12.0

1.7

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

Fra

nce

Hung

ary

Luxe

mb

ou

rg

Bulg

aria

Belg

ium

Cze

ch R

ep

ub

lic

Slo

vak R

epu

blic

Germ

any

Sw

itze

rla

nd

Spa

in

Austr

ia

Port

ug

al

Pola

nd

OE

CD

ave

rag

e

Ma

lta

Ire

land

Gre

ece

Rom

ania

Slo

ven

ia

Italy

Fin

land

Ne

the

rla

nds

Sw

ede

n

Mo

ldova

Lithu

ania

Denm

ark

Norw

ay

Un

ited

Kin

gd

om

Esto

nia

Latv

ia

Icela

nd

Odds ratioIncreased likelihood of students in the bottom quarter of ESCS scoring below Level 2 in science,relative to non-disadvantaged students (3 other quarters of ESCS)

9

Percentage of resilient students

48

43

3938

35 35 35 3534

3130 29 29

28 27 27 27 26 26 25 25 2423

2221

1918 18 17

14 1311

9

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Esto

nia

Fin

land

Spa

in

Port

ug

al

Un

ited

Kin

gd

om

Latv

ia

Slo

ven

ia

Pola

nd

Germ

any

Neth

erla

nds

Ire

land

OE

CD

ave

rag

e

Sw

itze

rla

nd

Denm

ark

Belg

ium

Fra

nce

Italy

Norw

ay

Austr

ia

Czech R

ep

ub

lic

Sw

ede

n

Cro

atia

Lithu

ania

Ma

lta

Luxe

mb

ou

rg

Hung

ary

Gre

ece

Slo

vak R

epu

blic

Icela

nd

Bulg

aria

Mo

ldova

Rom

ania

Mo

nte

neg

ro

% Percentage of resilient students 2015

Resilient students come from the bottom 25% of the

ESCS index within their country/economy and

perform among the top 25% across all

countries/economies, after accounting for socio-

10

Societies with more social inequality, show larger skills

gaps by parental education backgroundAverage numeracy score by parent educational background (PEB) and inequality

240

250

260

270

280

290

300

0.18 0.23 0.28 0.33 0.38

Nu

mer

acy

sco

re

Inequality (Gini coefficient)

Low PEB Medium PEB High PEB

11

A stronger impact of parental educational status

correlates with higher inequality in numeracy skills

Australia

Austria

Flanders (Belgium)Canada

Czech Republic

Denmark

EstoniaFinland

France

Germany

Ireland

Italy

JapanKorea

NetherlandsNorway

Poland

Slovak Republic

Spain

Sweden

England/N. Ireland (UK)

United States

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

105 110 115 120 125 130 135 140

Sc

ore

-po

int

dif

fere

nc

e, b

y p

are

nts

' h

igh

es

t le

ve

l o

f e

du

ca

tio

na

l a

tta

inm

en

t

Score-point difference between the top and the bottom 10% in numeracy proficiency

Correlation between inequality in numeracy skills and the impact of parents' education

Correlation = 0.57

Native born only, controlling

for age and gender

12

Participation in adult education and training by skills,

education, parents’ education and labour market status

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Pa

rti

cip

ati

on

ra

tes

of

25

-64

ye

ar

-old

s i

n

for

ma

l a

nd

/or

no

n-f

or

ma

l e

du

ca

tio

n

Level 4/5

Level 3

Level 2

Level 0/1

Literacy proficiency level:

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Tertiary

Upper secondary or post-secondary non-tertiary

Below upper secondary

Educational attainment level:

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Employed

Unemployed

Inactive

Labour market status:

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Tertiary

Upper secondary or post-secondary non-tertiary

Below upper secondary

Educational attainment level of parents:

13

Skills and skills use foster adult learning

Adult participation in formal and/or non-formal education, by frequency of use of reading skills in everyday life (2012 or 2015)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Fin

land

Den

ma

rk

Sw

ed

en

Isra

el

Neth

erl

an

ds

Esto

nia

New

Zea

land

Norw

ay

Slo

ve

nia

Ko

rea

Unite

d S

tate

s

Chile

Sin

ga

pore

Sp

ain

Can

ad

a

Au

str

alia

OE

CD

avera

ge

Ire

lan

d

Po

lan

d

EU

22

avera

ge

Lith

uan

ia

Czech

Rep

ublic

Ge

rma

ny

En

gla

nd (

UK

)

Fla

nd

ers

(B

elg

ium

)

Tu

rke

y

Nort

he

rn Ire

lan

d (

UK

)

Au

str

ia

Jakart

a (

Ind

one

sia

)

Jap

an

Slo

va

k R

ep

ub

lic

Italy

Gre

ece

Fra

nce

Ru

ssia

n F

ed

era

tio

n

%

Participation among adults with the highest frequency of use of reading skills in everyday life

Participation among adults with the lowest frequency of use of reading skills in everyday life

14

15

Gap in literacy performance between adults

with and without tertiary-educated parents

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Pola

nd

Ire

lan

d

Hu

ng

ary

Czech

Re

pu

blic

Au

str

alia

Gre

ece

Ita

ly

Fra

nce

Spain

Sw

ed

en

Un

ite

d K

ing

do

m

Lu

xe

mb

ou

rg

Be

lgiu

m

Slo

ve

nia

Ne

the

rla

nd

s

Po

rtu

ga

l

OE

CD

ave

rag

e

Ca

na

da

Tu

rke

y

Sw

itzerland

De

nm

ark

Fin

lan

d

Ne

w Z

ea

land

Au

str

ia

Ice

lan

d

No

rwa

y

Un

ite

d S

tate

s

Ge

rma

ny

Slo

va

k R

ep

ub

lic

Esto

nia

High Medium Low Downward mobility Upward mobility

Intergenerational mobility in education (2009)Percentage of 25-34 year-old non-students whose educational attainment is higher than their parents’

(upward mobility), lower (downward mobility) or the same (status quo) and status quo by parents'

educational level (low, medium, high)

Intergenerational educational mobility

(PIAAC)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Czech…

Ger

man

y

Au

stri

a

Un

ited

Sta

tes

Slovak…

Ital

y

No

rway

Den

mar

k

Englan

d/N

.…

Spai

n

Ave

rage

Au

stra

lia

Jap

an

Swed

en

Esto

nia

Can

ada

Net

her

lan

ds

Po

lan

d

Irel

and

Fran

ce

Flan

ders…

Fin

lan

d

Ko

rea

Russian…

Downward mobility Upward mobility%

17

Intergenerational upward mobility by age group

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

55-64 45-54 35-44 25-34

Up

wa

rd M

ob

ility

Age groups

Average France Germany Italy

Spain Sweden United States England/N. Ireland (UK)

18

Invest early in early childhood education

1. Removing the barriers to access ECEC

2. Supporting family and community-based interventions

Financial costs, availability of quality ECEC facilities

Lack of information on ECEC services

Parenting guidelines and programmes for families

Home visits for troubled families

Subsidies to boost family income

19

1. Identifying low performers early on and provide targeted

support

2. Supporting disadvantaged schools

Early identification and support for low performers

Delaying tracking and minimizing grade repetition

Holding high expectations for all students

Allocation of adequate resources to disadvantaged schools

Investing in high-quality human resources such as school leaders and

teachers

Creation of networks and greater opportunities for “professional

knowledge exchange”

Support low performers from disadvantaged

backgrounds and disadvantaged schools

20

Provide continuing education opportunities for

adults

1. Providing targeted learning support for the most vulnerable groups

2. Focusing on improving basic literacy, numeracy and language

acquisition

3. Providing innovative and flexible learning opportunities to overcome

access barriers

4. Combining adult education, and practical job training and career

guidance to reintegrate unemployed adults into the labour market

21

Thank you !

dirk.vandamme@oecd.orgwww.oecd.org/edu

twitter @VanDammeEDU

22