Decisions about diverse aspects of public lower secondary education are most commonly made either at the school level or at the central or state level.
In most countries decisions on the organisation of instruction are predominantly taken at the school level, decisions on resources are more often made at school or local level and decisions related to planning and structures, personnel management are more likely to be made at higher levels of authority, although countries vary widely in this regard.
Education at a Glance 2018
OECD Indicators
Education at a Glance
Indicator D6. Who makes key decisions in education systems?
Figure D6.1. Percentage of decisions taken at each level of government in public lower secondary education (2017)
Countries are ranked in descending order of the percentage of decisions taken at the school level.
Source: OECD (2018), Table D6.1. See Source for more information and Annex 3 for notes (http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/eag-2018-36-en).
Context
The division of responsibility among national, regional and local authorities, and schools is a much debated topic in education policy. Since the early 1980s, a key aim of education reform has been to place more decision-making authority at lower levels of education systems. At the same time, many countries have strengthened the influence of central authorities in setting standards, curricula and assessments. For example, a loosening of “process” and financial regulations has often been accompanied by an increase in the central-level control of outputs.
There are many reasons for changes in patterns of decision making and responsibility, and they vary from country to country. The most common reasons to decentralise decision making are increased efficiency and improved financial control; reduced bureaucracy; increased responsiveness to local communities; more creative management of human resources; improved potential for innovation; and creating conditions that provide better incentives to improve the quality of schooling (Burns and Köster, 2016[1]).
This indicator shows where key decisions are made in public institutions at the lower secondary level of education. It does not capture the totality of decisions made within a school system. Instead, a set of 23 key decisions, organised across four domains, are considered. These decisions are based on a streamlined version of earlier rounds of data collection in 2003, 2007 and 2011 on levels of decision making in education (see Methodology section).
Other findings
In 16 of 38 countries, decisions are most often taken at the school level. In 10 of these countries, half or more of the decisions are taken at the school level. In the Czech Republic and the Netherlands, two-thirds or more of decisions taken at the school level.
In 11 of 38 countries, decisions made at the state or central level were the most prevalent. Luxembourg, Mexico and Portugal are the OECD countries and economies with the most centralised decision making, as more than three-quarters of decisions are taken at the central or state level.
Decisions on the organisation of instruction are predominantly taken by schools or the local level in most countries. However, in Germany, two out of three of these decisions are taken at the central or state level. Most decisions on personnel management and the use of resources are taken at the local or school level in around one-half of countries. Decisions on planning and structures are mostly taken at one of the more centralised tiers of government.
There are substantial differences between countries in the ways in which decisions are taken. On average across OECD countries, nearly one-third of the decisions taken at the school or local levels are taken in full autonomy, and two-thirds are within a framework set by a higher authority.
Analysis
Levels of decision making in public lower secondary schools
In this indicator, six distinct levels of government or education authority at which decisions can be taken are distinguished: central, state, provincial/regional, sub-regional, local and school levels (see Definitions section). As decisions in some countries are not made at one specific level, but rather taken at multiple levels, the category "multiple level" has been included (Box D6.1).
However, the figures group decisions across five different levels of government: school level; local level, regional or sub-regional level; state or central level; and multiple level. This grouping makes it possible to more readily compare federal countries and non-federal countries. For example, the state and national levels are grouped together, since the most central level at which decisions about education are taken in a federal country is typically the state level, and the most central level in a non-federal country is the national level. Similarly, the regional and sub-regional levels refer to the second-most central level in federal and non-federal countries, so it was logical to group these together as well.
The results reveal that the largest share of decisions is taken at the school level among the 38 countries and economies with available data. Across the 36 OECD countries and economies with available data, an average of 34% of all decisions covered in the survey are taken at the school level, about 34% were made centrally (i.e. at the central or state level), some 13% were made at the local level, which is the level just above the school level, and about 5% of the decisions were made at the regional or sub-regional levels. However, in some countries, decisions are taken by a combination of levels, and on average across OECD countries, 14% of the decisions are taken by multiple levels (Table D6.1 and Figure D6.1).
Half of the countries (19 out of 38) reported that the largest proportion of decisions that affect lower secondary education are taken at the school level (16 countries) or local level (3 countries). In the set of decisions taken into account, most are taken at the school level (only) in Australia, the Czech Republic, England (United Kingdom), Estonia, the Flemish Community of Belgium, Iceland, Latvia, the Netherlands and New Zealand. Among the three countries that reported that the largest share of decisions is taken at the local level (i.e. by local school districts or local or municipal education authorities), the local level is the level of authority taking most of the decisions in Canada and the United States (Table D6.1).
The largest proportion of decisions is taken either at the state or central level in more than one-third of the countries (14 countries). Most of the decisions are taken at the state or central level in eight of these countries: France, Germany, Greece, Israel, Italy, Luxembourg, Portugal and Turkey. When central and state levels are combined, most of the decisions are also taken at these levels in Austria, Mexico and Spain (Table D6.1).
In Denmark, Korea, Norway and Sweden, decision making is more evenly distributed among the central, intermediate, and local or school level, and none of these levels makes more than 35% of the decisions taken into account (Table D6.1).
Box D6.1. Multiple levels of decision and influence of non-government entities
Multiple levels of government or an education authority (rather than a single level) can be involved in decision making on specific subjects in the four domains taken into account in the survey (see Methodology section).
In a few countries (Denmark, Hungary and Korea), multiple levels are involved in decisions on some or all subjects covered in the four domains. The levels of decisions involved may vary according to the type of decision, but in general some flexibility in the decisions is left to be determined at the lower levels of government. In Finland, all decisions are taken by multiple levels, as local and school levels are involved in all decisions, even when a more general framework is set at a higher level of government for some subjects. For example, in Korea, the central government stipulates a minimum instruction time per group of grades, but schools make decisions on allocation of the instruction time in each grade and can also decide to increase or decrease instruction time within a certain extent (set at the central level).
In other countries, multiple levels of decisions take place in fewer subjects, but usually result from the fact that there is some flexibility given to the school or local level to adapt or adjust the decisions. For example, duties of teachers in Norway are stated in the collective agreement between the employer (local authorities) and teachers, but additional duties might be decided at school level. In some other cases, different levels of government jointly take decisions. For example, in Lithuania, the hiring of school principals results from a competition process between applicants. The committee in charge of the final decision is composed of representatives from the central government, local authorities and the school board.
In addition to recognising the influence of different levels of government on decision making, many countries have noted that non-government entities may also be consulted or involved in establishing a framework for decisions taken at lower levels. The most common non-government participants are teachers’ unions. For example, when teachers’ unions negotiate with education authorities to set pay scales, they are helping to establish a framework for decisions related to teachers’ salaries for specific teachers. In many countries, teachers’ unions are involved in decisions relating to duties and conditions of work, salary scales and instruction time. The participation of teachers’ unions in decision making on these issues is notable in the Flemish Community of Belgium, Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Israel, Norway and Sweden and also in some Canadian provinces/territories.
In the Flemish Community of Belgium, for example, decisions on minimum and maximum instruction time are taken by the state governments, but in consultation with non-government entities, such as teachers’ unions and education networks. This is also the case in the French Community of Belgium, but within this framework, schools can decide about the instruction time and the programmes of study offered in the school. Teachers’ unions can influence decisions on professional development of teaching staff and their careers, as happens in Italy. In Norway, employers’ associations are involved in decisions about personnel management, including salaries. In the Netherlands, employers’ associations and a variety of civil society organisations are involved in decisions regarding education policies in general and those on how schools are run.
Parents and parents’ organisations also have an influence on decision making (see Indicator D6, “How can parents influence the education of their children?” in Education at a Glance 2010 (OECD, 2010[2])). In Scotland (United Kingdom), for example, parent councils often participate in the selection of principals and education authorities are required by law to involve parents in matters of education. In Turkey, some decisions, including those on allocation of resources, are taken by the central government with the involvement of parent-teacher associations. Portugal involves teachers’ associations, experts and scientific societies in establishing a framework for instruction time and designing programmes of study.
More detailed information on the multiple levels of decision and non-government entities for all participating countries and economies is available in Annex 3.
In a few countries, decisions are taken by a combination of different levels of government. Most of the decisions are taken by multiple levels in Hungary and Finland. In Finland, all decisions covered in the survey are taken by a combination of different levels. Although the local authorities, as education providers, are responsible for most decisions in practice, many decisions in large urban districts are delegated to schools, particularly those related to staffing (Table D6.1).
Domains of decision making
Decisions about education systems are organised across four general domains of decision making: organisation of instruction, personnel management, planning and structures, and resource management (Table D6.2).
There are large differences in the levels of government responsible for decisions across these four domains. On average across OECD countries and economies, decisions related to the organisation of instruction are predominantly made at the school level (50%), decisions on resource management are more often made at the local or school level (48%), while decisions about planning and structures are most likely to be made at the central or state level (48%). Decisions on personnel management are more evenly distributed across the levels of decisions (Figure D6.2).
Because a general assessment of the roles played in the decision-making process includes decisions made about different domains, an aggregate measure can mask differences in the degree of centralisation within those areas. For example, a country may centralise almost all decisions about the curriculum, while schools may have nearly complete control over decisions about the programmes of study offered in the school (Figure D6.3b, available on line). The distribution of decisions taken by each administrative level across the four domains of decision making is an indicator of “functional decentralisation”, which takes into account the fact that decision making may be decentralised in certain activities and centralised in others (see Definitions and Methodology sections at the end of this indicator).
Figure D6.2. Percentage of decisions taken at each level of government in public lower secondary education in OECD countries, by domain of decisions (2017)
Source: OECD (2018), Tables D6.1 and D6.2. See Source for more information and Annex 3 for notes (http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/eag-2018-36-en).
Organisation of instruction
Three decisions on the organisation of instruction have been considered in the survey: the school that a child should attend; how children are grouped within the school; and the instruction time for children. Combining these decisions as a whole, about half are taken at the school level, but with large variation in the level of authority in charge of the decisions, both between countries and within countries (Table D6.2).
Decisions on these three matters are taken exclusively at the school level in Chile, the Czech Republic and the Netherlands. In other countries, decisions are split between central/state, local and school levels (Figure D6.3b available on line).
Decisions on the school that children should attend are mostly made at the local or school level. In nearly all countries, parents have also some choice in the school of their children. Only in Brazil, France, Greece, Israel, Norway and Switzerland are these decisions taken by others than parents (when children are enrolled in public institutions) (Table D6.5, available on line).
While decisions about grouping of pupils are taken by schools in nearly nine out of ten countries and economies with available data, decisions about instruction time are made at the state or central level in six out of ten countries and economies, and at school or local levels in most of the remaining countries, but within a centrally established framework. Only in England (United Kingdom) is instruction time decided autonomously by schools (Table D6.5 and Figure D6.3b, both available on line) (see Indicator D1 and Box D1.3 for more information).
Figure D6.3a. Decisions taken at each level of government and mode of decision making in public lower secondary education, by type of decision (2017)
Source: OECD (2018), Tables D6.5, D6.6a, D6.6b, D6.7 and D6.8 available on line. See Source for more information and Annex 3 for notes (http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/eag-2018-36-en).
Planning and structure
Decisions related to programmes of study and learning resources (designing programmes of study, selection of programmes of study offered in a particular school, selection of subjects taught in a particular school and definition of course content) are most often made at the state or central level, on average across OECD countries. Otherwise, these decisions are taken at the school level, or at multiple levels when decisions are not made by a single level. Local or regional levels are in charge of decisions in only a few countries (Table D6.2).
In 21 of the 38 countries and economies for which data are available on decision making by domain, at least 50% of decisions related to programmes of study and the subjects taught were taken at the state or central level. In Israel, Luxembourg, Mexico, Norway, Portugal, the Russian Federation, Switzerland and Turkey, all these decisions were made at either state or central level (Table D6.2 and Figure D6.3a).
However, there are variations in the level of authority in charge of decisions according to the type of decision. School and local levels are responsible for decisions on the design of the programme of study in about one-fifth of countries, but they are responsible for decisions on the selection of programmes of study offered in a particular school, of subjects taught in a particular school or, in a larger proportion of countries (up to one-third), for decisions on the definition of course content (Table D6.7, available on line).
Decisions at the school or local levels are not taken in full autonomy at these levels of authority, but within a defined framework set at a higher level or after consultation with other levels. An exception is Sweden, where the local level takes decisions in full autonomy on the selection of programmes of study offered in a particular school (Table D6.7 available on line).
Personnel management
Decisions about personnel management include hiring and dismissal of staff, duties and conditions for staff, and fixing salary levels. The survey distinguished between decisions related to teachers and those related to principals.
Focusing on decisions related to teachers, the responsible level of authority varies according to the type of decision.
Among the five different decisions covered in the survey, those most often taken at the school level are related to four issues: hiring, dismissal, duties, and working conditions of teachers. Among the 38 countries and economies with available information, 40% to 50% of countries report the school as the level of authority for these decisions. All four types of decisions are taken at the school level in nearly one-quarter of the countries with available information: the Czech Republic, Denmark, England (United Kingdom), Estonia, the Flemish Community of Belgium, Latvia, Lithuania, the Netherlands, the Slovak Republic and Slovenia. The state level is responsible for these four types of decisions in Australia and Mexico and the central level in Luxembourg and Turkey. In the remaining countries with available data, various levels of authority are in charge of each of these four types of decisions on teachers (Table D6.6a, available on line).
Decisions on setting salaries for teachers follow a different pattern (see Indicator D3 on and Box D3.2 for variation of salaries at subnational level). In more than half of the countries with available information, these decisions are the responsibility of the central or state level, whereas in more than one-quarter of the countries multiple levels are responsible for these decisions. In all but one of the remaining countries, local or school levels are the responsible authorities for these decisions (Table D6.6a, available on line).
In most countries, the level of authority responsible for decisions related to principals is the same as for decisions related to teachers. However, in a few countries, different levels of authority are in charge of decisions for teachers and school heads. This is the case for each of the five types of decisions on personal management in the Czech Republic, Estonia and Latvia. In these countries schools are responsible for decisions on teachers, while the local level is responsible for similar decisions on principals. In other countries with different levels of authority responsible for decisions on teachers and principals, only a few of the five types of decisions are taken at different levels of authority for teachers and principals. In most of these cases, decisions related to principals are taken at a more central level than those related to teachers (Tables D6.6a and D6.6b, available on line).
Allocation and use of resources
Compared to other types of decisions, those related to the allocation and use of resources are made less frequently at the central level (30% of decisions made at the central or state level). A clear difference in the level of authority responsible for decisions on the allocation of resources versus their use is also evident.
Central or state authorities take decisions on the allocation of resources for teaching staff and for teachers’ and principal's professional development in 14 to 19 countries (according to decisions considered) out of the 38 with available information. Decisions are taken at the school or local level in a slightly lower number of countries (in 13 to 16 countries according to decisions considered). In most countries (20 out of 38 countries), the three types of decisions on the allocation of resources are taken by the same level of authority, but in the remaining countries, these decisions are taken by two levels of authority. These three types of decisions are the responsibility of three different levels of authority only in the Slovak Republic (Table D6.8, available on line).
Although state and central authorities decide on how resources are allocated in nearly half of the countries, the use of resources within schools for staff and for professional development of teachers and principals is more often decided at the school or local level. In more than half of countries, schools decide on the use of resources for staff and professional development of teachers. However, although schools decide on use of resources for professional development of teachers in most of the 38 countries and economies with available information, schools are the decision level for use of resources for professional development of principals in less than a third of countries, as local levels decide in nearly a quarter of these countries (Table D6.10).
Mode of decisions taken at the school or local levels
Decisions on a specific subject are usually the responsibility of a single level of authority. However, this does not imply that this level of authority decides with full autonomy. Decisions may also be made after consulting with other bodies, or within a framework set by a higher level of authority. The different mode of decisions used could result from the need to ensure consistency of decisions across different subnational entities and avoid disparities within the country.
Combining both local and school levels to analyse decisions made at the lowest levels of decision making, nearly half of all decisions taken into account in the survey are made at the school or local level, on average across OECD countries and economies. Nearly one-third of these decisions (15% of all decisions) are made in full autonomy, whereas most (29% of all decisions) are made within a framework set by a higher authority. Decisions at these levels after consultation with other bodies in the educational system are relatively rare and represent less than 5% of all decisions taken into account. However, in Mexico, all decisions at school or local level (17% of the decisions) are made based on this consultation process. In addition to decisions taken directly by schools or local authorities, some decisions are taken at other levels after consultation with schools or local levels. These represent about 2% of the decisions taken into account (Table D6.3 and Figure D6.4a).
The mode of decision varies largely between the domains of decisions. Planning and structures is the domain with the lowest proportion of decisions made at the school or local level (less than 39% of the decisions), and a negligible proportion is taken in full autonomy (they are taken in full autonomy only in Sweden). Some 50% of all decisions related to resource management are made at the school or local level, with the majority of these decisions in full autonomy. In addition, another 5% of decisions related to resource management are made by higher levels of government, but they are made after consulting with schools or local levels. Organisation of instruction is the domain with the largest proportion of decisions made at the school or local level (nearly two-thirds of decisions). However, in this domain, only 19% of decisions are taken in full autonomy by schools or at the local level, and the largest proportion of decisions made by the school or local level are made within a framework set at a higher level (Table D6.4a and Figure D6.4a).
There are substantial differences among countries in the mode in which decisions are made (Tables D6.3 and D6.4a, and Figure D6.4b, available on line). All domains of decision combined, among the 19 OECD and partner countries and economies in which most decision making is in the hands of school or local levels (at least 50% of decisions made by these levels), most of these decisions are taken within a framework set at a higher level in most of them: in Australia, Canada, Chile, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, the Flemish Community of Belgium, Latvia, Lithuania, New Zealand, Scotland (United Kingdom) and Slovenia. However, at least half of these decisions are taken in full autonomy in England (United Kingdom), Finland, Iceland, the Slovak Republic and Sweden (Table D6.3).
Perhaps predictably, decisions taken by schools in countries that tend to have the largest proportions of decisions taken more centrally are more likely to be subject to an overarching framework. This is the case in France and Portugal, where 15% or less of decisions are taken at the school level, most or all of them within a framework set at a higher level (Table D6.3).
Even when decisions are taken at other levels, a substantial proportion of these decisions can be taken after consultation with the school or local level. In Australia and Luxembourg, at least 10% of all decisions are taken at other levels, but after consultation with schools or local levels (Table D6.3).
Figure D6.4a. Percentage of decisions taken at the local or school levels in public lower secondary education in OECD countries, by mode of decision making and domain (2017)
Source: OECD (2018), Table D6.3 and Tables D6.4a, D6.4b and D6.4c available on line. See Source for more information and Annex 3 for notes (http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/eag-2018-36-en).
Definitions
Central level: The central government consists of all bodies at the national level that make decisions or participate in different aspects of decision making.
Local level: The municipality or community is the smallest territorial unit in the nation with a governing authority. The local authority may be the education department within a general-purpose local government, or it may be a special-purpose government whose sole area of authority is education.
Multiple levels: Multiple decision-making levels refer to a combination of two or more of the above-mentioned authorities (e.g. the central government and the local authorities).
Regional level: The province or region is the first territorial unit below the national level in countries that do not have a “federal” or similar type of government structure, and the second territorial unit below the nation in countries with “federal” or similar types of governmental structures. Provincial/regional authorities or governments are the decision-making bodies at this level.
School, school board or committee refers to the individual school level only and includes school administrators and teachers or a school board or committee established exclusively for that individual school. The decision-making body (or bodies) for this school may be: an external school board, which includes residents of the larger community; an internal school board, which could include headmasters, teachers, other school staff, parents, and students; and both an external and an internal school board. “School networks”, “networks of schools”, “didactic circles” and “groups of schools” should be considered as schools.
State level: The state is the first territorial unit below the nation in “federal” countries or countries with similar types of governmental structures. State governments are the governmental units that are the decision-making bodies at this level. For countries other than federal or similar, where the extent of the state is identical with that of the country, this level is non-existent.
Sub-regional level: The sub-region is the second territorial unit below the nation in countries that do not have a “federal” or similar type of governmental structure. Sub-regional or inter-municipal authorities or governments are the decision-making bodies at this level.
Methodology
This indicator shows decision-making levels in public lower secondary education. Decentralisation is concerned with the division of power between levels of government. This concept has two dimensions: the locus of decision making (i.e. the level of decision-making authority) and the mode of decision making (related to the degree of autonomous or “shared” decision making).
Seven levels of decision making are distinguished: central governments; state governments; provincial/regional authorities or governments; sub-regional or inter-municipal authorities or governments; local authorities or governments; schools or school boards or committees; and multiple levels (see Definitions section above). For most of the decisions, there is only one level of decision-making authority, but it is possible to report that there are multiple decision-making levels for specific decisions.
The most important factor in determining the degree of autonomy to take decisions or the mode of decision is “who decides”. The following categories were provided in the survey: full autonomy; after consultation with bodies located at another level within the education system; independently but within a framework set by a higher authority; and other.
Some 23 general decisions were included in the survey (compared to 46 in the previous edition). These were separated into four domains:
1. Organisation of instruction: focusing on student admissions; instruction time; grouping students.
2. Personnel management: hiring and dismissal of teaching staff and principals; duties and conditions of service of teaching staff and principals; salary scales of teaching staff and principals.
3. Planning and structures: design of programmes of study; selection of programmes of study taught in a particular school; choice of subjects taught in a particular school; definition of course content.
4. Resources: allocation and use of resources for teaching staff and principals.
The number of decisions within each of these domains was not equal, and adjustments were made to give equal weight to each of the four domains. Because there are different numbers of items (i.e. decisions) in each domain, each item is weighted by the inverse of the number of items in its domain. Some items are split up into sub-items. The sum of weights of sub-items is equal to the weight of an item (in the same domain) without sub-items. Missing and not applicable items receive weight zero, causing other weights to change within a domain.
More detailed information on specific countries is provided in Annex 3 at http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/eag-2018-36-en. Information on additional subjects covered in the previous rounds of the data collection is available in Education at a Glance 2012 (OECD, 2012[3]).
Lithuania was not an OECD member at the time of preparation of this publication. Accordingly, Lithuania does not appear in the list of OECD members and is not included in the zone aggregates.
Source
Data are from the 2017 OECD-INES Survey on Locus of Decision Making and refer to the school year 2016-17. This updates the results of previous survey with a broader coverage which took place in 2011 (results published in Education at a Glance 2012 (OECD, 2012[3])).
Note regarding data from Israel
The statistical data for Israel are supplied by and are under the responsibility of the relevant Israeli authorities. The use of such data by the OECD is without prejudice to the status of the Golan Heights, East Jerusalem and Israeli settlements in the West Bank under the terms of international law.
References
[1] Burns, T. and F. Köster (eds.) (2016), Governing Education in a Complex World, Educational Research and Innovation, OECD Publishing, Paris, http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264255364-en.
[3] OECD (2012), “Indicator D6 Who makes key decisions in education systems?”, in Education at a Glance 2012: OECD Indicators, OECD Publishing, Paris, http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/eag-2012-34-en.
[2] OECD (2010), “How can parents influence the education of their children?”, in Education at a Glance 2010: OECD Indicators, OECD Publishing, Paris, http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/eag-2010-30-en.
Indicator D6 Tables
Table D6.1. Percentage of decisions taken at each level of government in public lower secondary education (2017)
Table D6.2. Percentage of decisions taken at each level of government in public lower secondary education, by domain (2017)
Table D6.3. Percentage of decisions taken at the school level in public lower secondary education by mode of decision making (2017)
Table D6.4a. (Web only) Percentage of decisions taken at the local or school levels in public lower secondary education, by mode of decision making and domain (2017)
Table D6.4b. (Web only) Percentage of decisions taken at the school level in public lower secondary education, by mode of decision making and domain (2017)
Table D6.4c. (Web only) Percentage of decisions taken at the local level in public lower secondary education, by mode of decision making and domain (2017)
Table D6.5. (Web only) Level of government at which different types of decisions about organisation of instruction are taken in public lower secondary education (2017)
Table D6.6a. (Web only) Level of government at which different types of decisions about the management of teachers are taken in public lower secondary education (2017)
Table D6.6b. (Web only) Level of government at which different types of decisions about the management of principals are taken in public lower secondary education (2017)
Table D6.7. (Web only) Level of government at which different types of decisions about planning and structures are taken in public lower secondary education (2017)
Table D6.8. (Web only) Level of government at which different types of decisions about resources are taken in public lower secondary education (2017)
Figure D6.3b. (Web only) Percentage of decisions taken at each level of government in public lower secondary education, by domain (2017)
Figure D6.4b. (Web only) Percentage of decisions taken at the local or school levels in public lower secondary education, by mode of decision making and domain (2017)
Cut-off date for the data: 18 July 2018. Any updates on data can be found on line at http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/eag-data-en.
Table D6.1. Percentage of decisions taken at each level of government in public lower secondary education (2017)
Note: See Definitions and Methodology sections for more information.
Source: OECD (2018). See Source section for more information and Annex 3 for notes (http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/eag-2018-36-en).
Please refer to the Reader’s Guide for information concerning symbols for missing data and abbreviations.
Table D6.2. [1/2] Percentage of decisions taken at each level of government in public lower secondary education, by domain (2017)
Note: See Definitions and Methodology sections for more information.
Source: OECD (2018). See Source section for more information and Annex 3 for notes (http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/eag-2018-36-en).
Please refer to the Reader’s Guide for information concerning symbols for missing data and abbreviations.
Table D6.2. [2/2] Percentage of decisions taken at each level of government in public lower secondary education, by domain (2017)
Note: See Definitions and Methodology sections for more information.
Source: OECD (2018). See Source section for more information and Annex 3 for notes (http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/eag-2018-36-en).
Please refer to the Reader’s Guide for information concerning symbols for missing data and abbreviations.
Table D6.3. Percentage of decisions taken at the local and school levels in public lower secondary education, by mode of decision making (2017)
Note: See Definitions and Methodology sections for more information.
1. Number of decisions taken at other levels but in consultation with local or schools levels as a percentage of all decisions.
Source: OECD (2018). See Source section for more information and Annex 3 for notes (http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/eag-2018-36-en).
Please refer to the Reader’s Guide for information concerning symbols for missing data and abbreviations.