Education at a Glance 2020

OECD Indicators

Report

Education at a Glance

8 September 2020

Available in:

English
français

Download PDF

Indicator A6. How are social outcomes related to education?

Highlights

A larger share of children from low-educated families report being bullied. On average across OECD countries, 26% of 15-year-old students whose parents did not complete upper secondary education report experiencing at least one form of bullying, compared to 22% of students who have at least one parent with upper secondary or post-secondary non-tertiary education, and 23% of students who have at least one tertiary-educated parent.
Verbal bullying tends to be more common than physical forms of bullying. For example, across OECD countries, 15% of 15-year-old students whose parents did not complete upper secondary education report that other students made fun of them at least a few times a month, compared to 10% who report being hit or pushed around.
Students with more highly educated parents are also more likely to agree with statements about bullying prevention. This trend is more pronounced than for exposure to bullying; on average across OECD countries the differences are statistically significant between the three aggregated levels of parents’ educational attainment.

Figure A6.1. Exposure and attitudes related to bullying, by parents' educational attainment (2018)

Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA), OECD average

Context

Personal safety is a core element of well-being and an important indicator of good governance in societies (OECD, 2011[1]; OECD, 2017[2]). Feelings of insecurity have a variety of negative effects and tend to limit people’s daily activities. For example, a safe and supportive learning environment maximises educational attendance and the effectiveness of learning time. When students feel safe at school, they tend to have better educational outcomes. In contrast, an environment characterised by disrespect, bullying, victimisation or violence can act as a barrier to learning. Bullying at school can have long-lasting negative consequences for students’ psychological well-being and increases the likelihood of dropping out of school (Burns and Gottschalk, 2019[3]; OECD, 2017[4]). Students at schools without supportive norms, structures and relationships are more likely to experience violence and victimisation which is often associated with reduced academic achievement (Astor, Guerra and Van Acker, 2010[5]).

The promotion of social cohesion, often reflected in levels of civic and social engagement, is another policy priority in OECD countries. Civic participation helps maintaining and improving our societies. People are more likely to be politically engaged when they feel they can make a difference in how their country is run and when they understand the political issues facing their country (OECD, 2013[6]). Education can play an important role in ensuring social cohesion by fostering the social and emotional skills that can contribute to enhancing civic engagement.

Other findings

Data by country show some geographical patterns in exposure to bullying. In the four PISA-participating provinces/municipalities of the People’s Republic of China: Beijing, Shanghai, Jiangsu and Zhejiang (hereinafter referred as China), Japan and Korea, only 7% or less of 15-year-old students reported that other students had spread nasty rumours about them at least a few times a month, regardless of parents’ educational attainment. In contrast, in the Czech Republic, Hungary, Latvia and the Slovak Republic, at least 19% of students whose parents did not complete upper secondary education reported suffering from this type of bullying.
Students who expect to leave school before completing an upper secondary education are twice as likely on average across OECD countries to report that other students spread nasty rumours about them (20%) as those who expect to complete tertiary education (10%).
Data from the European Social Survey (ESS) and the International Social Survey Programme (ISSP) show that political efficacy and interest in politics increases with educational attainment. For example, on average across OECD countries that participated in ESS, 26% of 25-64 year-olds who did not complete upper secondary education feel that their political system allows people like them to have some say in what the government does. This share increases to 35% among those who completed upper secondary or post-secondary non-tertiary education, and to 52% among tertiary-educated adults.
On average across OECD countries participating in the ESS, 57% of tertiary-educated adults report being quite or very interested in politics. This share falls to 40% among those who completed upper secondary or post-secondary non-tertiary education, and to 30% among those who did not complete upper secondary education.

Note

The differences by educational attainment displayed in this indicator do not account for socio-economic status and other moderating or mediating factors. The educational attainment gradient should therefore be interpreted with caution.

Analysis

Bullying and educational attainment

Societies are increasingly concerned by the effects and the extent of bullying (Nansel et al., 2004[7]; Rigby, 2007[8]; National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, 2016[9]). The potential effect of bullying on psychological well-being and school dropout rates is well documented, but less is known about how people become bullies or the bullied. Traditionally bullying occurs at school, implying that bullied students can escape mistreatment when they leave the school premises. But with the development of technology, cyberbullying is now reaching beyond the school gate (Burns and Gottschalk, 2019[3]). Through instant messaging, social media and other forms of digital communication bullies can now reach their victim anytime, anywhere (National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, 2016[9]). Data from the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) do not yet distinguish cyberbullying from traditional bullying, but research show that girls tend to be more involved in this type of bullying than boys, both as victims and perpetrators (OECD, 2019[10]).

PISA data show that low performers, especially boys, and students whose parents are less educated (often the same students), tend to report greater exposure to bullying (OECD, 2017[4]). Tippett and Wolke (2014[11]) found that low socio-economic status is associated with a greater likelihood of being involved in bullying, either as a bully or a victim. Parents’ educational attainment is one of the most important predictors of school performance and educational attainment (OECD, 2016[12]; Dubow, Boxer and Huesmann, 2009[13]). It is also a good proxy for socio-economic status. It is therefore interesting to study the association between parents’ educational attainment and exposure to bullying to see if the virtuous circle of high educational attainment is also associated with lower exposure to bullying. In other words, do students whose parents are highly educated suffer less from bullying than those coming from a low-educated family?

Exposure to bullying, by parents’ educational attainment

The data also show that the share of 15-year-old students who reported being exposed to different forms of bullying is highest among those whose parents did not complete upper secondary education. Students with at least one parent who completed at least upper secondary education are less likely to report being victimised. Surprisingly, the difference in exposure to bullying is not statistically significant when comparing students with parents who completed upper secondary or post-secondary non-tertiary education and those with at least one tertiary-educated parent. This means that, on average across OECD countries, there is no extra advantage to a tertiary education over an upper secondary one in this area (Figure A6.1, left panel).

The OECD average hides important variations across countries. Figure A6.2 shows that in about half of countries, there is no statistically significant difference by parents’ educational attainment in the percentage of 15-year-old students who report being bullied at least a few times a month. In Brazil, Indonesia, Mexico, the Russian Federation and Saudi Arabia, it is actually students from tertiary-educated families who are more likely to report being bullied. Across OECD and partner countries, the largest differences by parents’ educational attainment are observed in Canada, Hungary, Norway and the Slovak Republic where the share of students from tertiary-educated families reporting experiencing any type of bullying is at least 10 percentage points lower than the share of students whose parents did not complete upper secondary education (Figure A6.2).

A pattern emerges when analysing the different forms that bullying may take. Data from PISA 2018 show that, on average across OECD countries, students were more likely to report experiencing verbal forms of bullying than physical forms. For example, 15% of 15 year-old students whose parents did not complete upper secondary education reported that other students made fun of them at least a few times a month. The share drops to 10% when they were asked about being hit or pushed around. When reports of all forms of bullying are combined, 26% of these students reported experiencing some form of bullying at least a few times a month (Figure A6.1, left panel).

Figure A6.1 (left panel) shows that the widest gap by parents’ educational attainment relates to being the subject of nasty rumours. Data by country show similar pattern in some Asian countries in the likelihood of being exposed to this form of bullying. In China, Japan and Korea, 7% or less of 15-year-old students reported that other students spread nasty rumours about them at least a few times a month, regardless of their parents’ educational attainment. This implies that this form of bullying is not common in these Asian countries. In contrast, in some Baltic and East European countries such as the Czech Republic, Hungary, Latvia and the Slovak Republic, at least 19% of students whose parents did not complete upper secondary education reported suffering from the spread of nasty rumours about them. This implies that in these countries, students from low-educated families are more likely to report that other students are spreading nasty rumours about them (Figure A6.1 and Table A6.1).

Figure A6.2. Percentage of 15-year-old students who reported being exposed to any type of bullying at least a few times a month, by parents' educational attainment (2018)

Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA)

Exposure to bullying, by expectations of educational attainment

Differences in reported exposure to bullying are statistically significant in a larger number of countries when considering students’ own expectations of educational attainment rather than their parents’ attainment. This implies that exposure to bullying is not only higher for students from low-educated families, but it also associated with lower educational aspirations at the age of 15 (Table A6.1 and Table A6.4, available on line).

On average across OECD countries, only 3% of 15-year-old students do not expect to complete upper secondary education, but this group is twice as likely to report that other students spread nasty rumours about them (20%) than those who expect to complete tertiary education (10%). In Greece, Hungary and Norway, they are over three times more likely to suffer from this type of bullying. In contrast, in China, Japan, Korea and the Netherlands, less than 10% of students reported being targeted by the spread nasty rumours, regardless of their educational expectations (Table A6.4, available on line).

Attitudes towards bullying, by parents’ educational attainment

In 2018, PISA included five new questions on attitudes towards bullying in its background questionnaire (Figure A6.1, right panel). These five questions allow the survey to capture 15-year-olds’ attitudes towards bullying and weigh their opinions about actions to protect the bullied or discourage bullying. On average across OECD countries, higher parental educational attainment is associated with a higher likelihood of students agreeing or strongly agreeing with statements about bullying prevention. This is true for all five questions on attitudes towards bullying and the differences are statistically significant between each level of parental educational attainment: below upper secondary education, upper secondary or post-secondary non-tertiary education and tertiary education. The question that gives rise to the largest gaps asks students if they agree that it is a wrong thing to join in bullying. On average, 82% of 15-year-old students whose parents had below upper secondary attainment agreed or strongly agreed with this statement. The share reaches 89% among students with at least one tertiary-educated parent. Among other factors, the higher social desirability among students from highly educated families could partly explain why the differences in attitudes towards bullying by parents’ educational attainment are higher than the differences in exposure to bullying. (Figure A6.1, right panel).

Figure A6.3. Percentage of 15-year-old students who think that it is wrong to join in bullying, by parents' educational attainment (2018)

Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA)

At the country level, the attitude of 15-year-old students towards this specific question on bullying shows a similar association with parents’ educational attainment. Figure A6.3 shows that in 3 out of 4 countries, there is a statistically significant difference in the percentage of 15-year-old students who agreed or strongly agreed that it is a wrong thing to join in bullying by parents’ educational attainment (Figure A6.3).

Generally, the countries with smaller gaps on this measure also have a high share of students who agreed or strongly agreed that it is a wrong thing to join in bullying. For example, in Belgium, China, Denmark, Finland, Ireland, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom and the United States, at least 90% of students agreed or strongly agreed that it is a wrong thing to join in bullying, regardless of their parents’ educational attainment. In contrast, in Israel, Latvia, Lithuania, the Russian Federation and the Slovak Republic, the share of students who agreed or strongly agreed is 85% or less, and the gap by parents’ educational attainment is over 10 percentage points. Despite what the list of countries may suggest, there is no strong relationship between the gap in attitudes by parents’ educational attainment and PISA performance. For example, the gap is similar in both Indonesia and Sweden but students perform much better in Sweden (OECD, 2019[14]) (Figure A6.3).

Attitude towards bullying, by expectations of educational attainment

On average across OECD countries, 90% of 15-year-old students who expect to attain tertiary education agreed or strongly agreed that it is a wrong thing to join in bullying. This falls to 83% among students who expect to complete upper secondary or post-secondary non-tertiary education, and 73% of those who do not even think they will complete upper secondary education. As with exposure to bullying, differences in attitudes towards preventing bullying are greater when the analysis focuses on students’ educational expectations rather than their parents’ attainment: the difference between those who expect to attain a below upper secondary and a tertiary education is 17 percentage points, 10 percentage points more than the gap relating to parents’ educational attainment (Annex Table A6.2 and Table A6.5, available on line).

In the Czech Republic, Lithuania, Norway and the Slovak Republic, the share of students who agreed or strongly agreed that it is a wrong thing to join in bullying is over 25 percentage points more among those who expect to complete tertiary education than among those who do not expect to complete upper secondary education. The largest gap is observed in the Czech Republic where 91% of students who expect to complete tertiary education agreed or strongly agreed with this statement, but only 57% of students who do not expect to complete upper secondary education. In contrast, the smallest gap was in Belgium where 91-95% of students agreed or strongly agreed, regardless of their educational attainment expectations (Table A6.5, available on line).

Box A6.1. Cyberbullying during the COVID-19 lockdown

During the lockdown, Internet use has increased by 50% in some parts of the world (World Economic Forum, 2020[15]). Children and students are massively turning on line to study, socialise and play. According to the latest PISA survey, on average, 9 out of 10 students have computers at home for homework and are connected to the Internet. While online material represents great learning opportunities, the virtual world also represents threats for children and teenagers. Cyberbullying, online sexual exploitation and harmful content are examples of the potential risks related to Internet use (UNICEF, 2020[16]). This can particularly be the case if security measures are not implemented for distance learning. According to the latest PISA survey, only 35% of schools had an effective platform to support online learning. With the increase in time spent on line, countries are also observing increases of online hacking and abuse. For example, since December 2019, the AI-based start-up L1ght recorded a 70% increase in hate speech among children and teenagers during online chats (L1ght, 2020[17]).

The OECD publication How’s Life in the Digital Age? (OECD, 2019[10]) evaluates the opportunities and risks associated with digital technologies across 11 key dimensions of well-being, including personal security and civic engagement and governance. Data collected prior to the outbreak show that on average across OECD countries, 9% of 15-year-olds reported experiencing cyberbullying at least once in their life, with a larger share of girls than boys reporting being victimised. With the rise of cyberbullying during the confinement period, these numbers are likely to underestimate the share of children who will suffer from this type of harassment in 2020.

While the Internet may help people overcome loneliness and social exclusion, cyberbullying and online harassment can negatively affect children’s social experiences. Parents therefore have an important role to play in providing the skills and information their children need to navigate the online world safely. Setting appropriate parental controls and maintaining an open dialogue with their children can help parents prevent online harm. But parents themselves need to be aware of the risks and have sufficient digital skills to guide their children. The digital generation divide is likely to be smaller for families with highly educated parents.

Some countries have developed policies and guides around cyberbullying. For example, Saskatchewan (Canada) developed a policy guide for school division officials to work with school administrators and teachers to help students build an understanding of safe and appropriate online behaviour (Government of Saskatchewan, 2019[18]; OECD, 2019[19]). France developed a bullying prevention programme aiming at increasing awareness and addressing this issue in schools. Its 2018-19 programme focused on the prevention of cyberbullying and sexting (Ministère de l'éducation nationale et de la jeunesse, 2020[20]). Another example is Chile where the Ministry of Education developed orientations for schools to regulate the safe use of mobile devices in the school, as well to engage with parents and guardians in promoting responsible use. On 14 March 2019, schools organised workshops and documentary screenings to increase awareness for the National Day Against Cyberbullying (Ministry of Education - Chile, 2019[21])

Political efficacy and interest in politics, by educational attainment

Political efficacy refers to people’s feeling that their political views can affect the political process and, therefore, that it is worthwhile for them to perform their civic duties (Acock, Clarke and Stewart, 1985[22]). Political efficacy is related to different elements of citizens’ lives. For example, diverse media, the ability to create petitions, the right to protest and fair elections all contribute to increased political efficacy. In contrast, political efficacy will be low when citizens feel powerless in their own country. Personal characteristics, socio-economic background and people’s experiences with their political institutions therefore also influence political efficacy (Miller and Listhaug, 1990[23]; OECD, 2017[2]).

Political efficacy is closely related to interest in politics. People with a high level of political efficacy are likely to report being interested in politics. Overall interest in politics is an important factor for social cohesion as it influences behaviour such as voting and other civic engagement. Personal characteristics are also related to interest in politics; for example younger adults generally report a lower level of interest. It is however a policy priority that most citizens feel concerned about politics and actively take part in the political life of society (OECD, 2016[24]).

The European Social Survey (ESS) and the International Social Survey Programme (ISSP) ask respondents about their general interest in politics and if they think that their government allows people like them to have a say in what the government does. Combining these questions with information about educational attainment provides information on how political efficacy and interest in politics vary according to education levels. As for PISA question on attitude towards bullying, it is possible that social desirability influences the answers to these questions. For countries having participated in ISSP and ESS, only data from one of the two sources is kept. Generally the source with the better data on educational attainment is selected.

Figure A6.4. Percentage of adults who feel they have a say in what the government does, by educational attainment (2016 or 2018)

European Social Survey (ESS-2018) and International Social Survey Programme (ISSP-2016), 25-64 year-olds

Political efficacy, by educational attainment

On average, across selected OECD countries participating in the ESS, 52% of tertiary-educated adults report that their political system allows people like them to have some or a great deal of say in what the government does. This share falls to 35% among those who completed upper secondary or post-secondary non-tertiary education, and to 26% among those who did not complete upper secondary education. Similar findings are observed in the selected countries that participated in the ISSP, where educational attainment is positively associated with political efficacy (Figure A6.4).

The Netherlands shows the greatest variation by educational attainment among selected OECD countries participating in the ESS: 74% of tertiary-educated adults feel that their political system allows people like them to have some or a great deal of say in what the government does, but only 32% of adults with below upper secondary education. In contrast, Italy has the smallest difference by educational attainment. Italians also report a low level of political efficacy overall: only 22% of tertiary-educated adults think that their political system allows some or a great deal of say in what the government does, while for adults with below upper secondary education the share is 9% (Figure A6.4).

Data from Korea show high levels of political efficacy regardless of educational attainment. Among the selected OECD countries that participated in the ISSP, Korea has the second highest share of tertiary-educated adults who disagreed or strongly disagreed that people like them don't have any say about what the government does (67%). It scores the highest for adults with upper secondary or post-secondary non-tertiary education (60%) and for adults with below upper secondary education (58%). In contrast, in India, Latvia, Lithuania and the Slovak Republic, less than 30% of adults disagreed or strongly disagreed with this statement, regardless of their educational attainment (Figure A6.4).

Figure A6.5. Percentage of adults who reported being interested in politics, by educational attainment (2016 or 2018)

European Social Survey (ESS-2018) and International Social Survey Programme (ISSP-2016), 25-64 year-olds

Interest in politics, by educational attainment

On average across selected OECD countries participating in the ESS, 57% of tertiary-educated adults reported being quite or very interested in politics. The share falls to 40% among those who completed upper secondary or post-secondary non-tertiary education, and to 30% among those who did not complete upper secondary education. Similar findings are observed among selected countries that participated in the ISSP, where educational attainment is also positively associated with interest in politics (Figure A6.5).

Austria shows the greatest variation by educational attainment among selected OECD countries participating in the ESS: 68% of tertiary-educated adults reported being quite or very interested in politics, while the share is only 24% among those with below upper secondary education. In contrast, the Czech Republic and Hungary have the smallest difference by educational attainment. Adults in these countries show little interest in politics, with 30% or less reporting being quite or very interested in politics, regardless of their educational attainment (Figure A6.5).

Data from Norway show that interest in politics is high regardless of educational attainment. Among the selected OECD countries taking part in the ISSP, Norway has the highest share of adults who reported being somewhat to very interested in politics, regardless of educational attainment: 90% among tertiary-educated adults, 85% among those with upper secondary or post-secondary non-tertiary education and 83% among adults with below upper secondary education. In contrast, in Chile less than 52% of tertiary-educated adults report being somewhat to very interested in politics, and it reaches a low of 19% for those who did not complete upper secondary education (Figure A6.5).

Definitions

Age groups: Adults refer to 25-64 year-olds.

Bullying (exposure): PISA measures exposure to bullying by asking 15-year-old students: During the past 12 months, how often have you had the following experiences in school? Some experiences can also happen in social media. / Please select one response: Never or almost never, A few times a year, A few times a month, Once a week or more.

Other students left me out of things on purpose.
Other students made fun of me.
I was threatened by other students.
Other students took away or destroyed things that belonged to me.
I got hit or pushed around by other students.
Other students spread nasty rumours about me.

Bullying (attitudes): PISA measures attitudes associated to bullying by asking 15-year-old students: To what extent do you agree with the following statements? Please select one response: Strongly disagree, Disagree, Agree, Strongly agree.

It irritates me when nobody defends bullied students.
It is a good thing to help students who can’t defend themselves.
It is a wrong thing to join in bullying.
I feel bad seeing other students bullied.
I like it when someone stands up for other students who are being bullied.

Educational attainment refers to the highest level of education reached by a person.

Expected level of education refers to the level of education 15-year-old students selected when they were asked about the level of education they expect to complete.

Interest in politics is measured by the ESS by asking adults: How interested would you say you are in politics, are you: Very interested, Quite interested, Hardly interested, or Not at all interested? For the ISSP, it is measured by asking adults: How interested would you say you personally are in politics? Please select one response: Very interested, Fairly interested, Somewhat interested, Not very interested, Not at all interested, Can't choose.

Levels of education: See the Reader’s Guide at the beginning of this publication for a presentation of all ISCED 2011 levels.

Parents’ educational attainment: Below upper secondary means that both parents have attained ISCED 2011 levels 0 to 2; upper secondary or post-secondary non-tertiary means that at least one parent (whether mother or father) has attained ISCED-2011 levels 3 or 4; and tertiary means that at least one parent (whether mother or father) has attained ISCED-2011 levels 5 to 8.

Political efficacy is measured by the ESS by asking adults: And how much would you say that the political system in [country] allows people like you to have an influence on politics? Please select one response: Not at all, Very little, Some, A lot, A great deal. For the ISSP, it is measured by asking adults: How much you agree or disagree with the following statement: People like me don't have any say about what the government does. Please select one response: Strongly agree, Agree, Disagree, Neither agree nor disagree, Disagree, Strongly disagree, Can't choose.

Methodology

For the 2018 European Social Survey (ESS) and the 2016 International Social Survey Programme (ISSP), percentages of adults for each educational attainment level were compared at a country level with their respective percentages in Indicator A1. Following consultations with countries, data on educational attainment were recoded to improve compatibility with the levels in Indicator A1 for the following countries participating in the ISSP:

Chile, France, Hungary, Israel, New Zealand, Norway, the Russian Federation, the Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Sweden, the United Kingdom and the United States.

See Annex 3 (https://doi.org/10.1787/69096873-en) for more information on the discrepancies in the survey sample distribution.

Information regarding the proportion of the PISA sample covered for each variable is included in Annex 3 (https://doi.org/10.1787/69096873-en). For the tables presented in the Annex, no symbol means at least 75% of the population were covered; one dagger (†) means at least 50% but less than 75%; and one double-dagger (‡) means less than 50% were covered. The PISA threshold for publication is at least 30 students and 5 schools.

Source

Data from the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) 2018 provided evidence on bullying for OECD member and partner countries (OECD, 2019[14]).

Data from the European Social Survey (ESS) (2018) provided evidence on political efficacy and interest in politics for European OECD member countries (ESS, 2019[25]).

Data from the International Social Survey Programme (ISSP) (2016) provided evidence on political efficacy and interest in politics for non-European OECD member and partner countries (ISSP Research Group, 2018[26]).

References

[22] Acock, A., H. Clarke and M. Stewart (1985), “A new model for old measures: A covariance structure analysis of political efficacy”, The Journal of Politics, Vol. 47/4, pp. 1062-1084, https://doi.org/10.2307/2130807.

[5] Astor, R., N. Guerra and R. Van Acker (2010), “How can we improve school safety research?”, Educational Researcher, Vol. 39/1, pp. 69-78, http://dx.doi.org/10.3102/0013189x09357619.

[3] Burns, T. and F. Gottschalk (eds.) (2019), Educating 21st Century Children: Emotional Well-being in the Digital Age, Educational Research and Innovation, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/b7f33425-en.

[13] Dubow, E., P. Boxer and L. Huesmann (2009), “Long-term effects of parents’ education on children’s educational and occupational success: Mediation by family interactions, child aggression, and teenage aspirations”, Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, Vol. 55/3, pp. 224-249, http://dx.doi.org/10.1353/mpq.0.0030.

[25] ESS (2019), Round 9 Data. Data File Edition 1.1., European Social Survey, http://dx.doi.org/10.21338/NSD-ESS9-2018.

[18] Government of Saskatchewan (2019), Digital Citizenship in Saskatchewan Schools: K-12, Government of Saskatchewan, https://publications.saskatchewan.ca/#/products/74037.

[26] ISSP Research Group (2018), International Social Survey Programme: Role of Government V - ISSP 2016, ZA6900 Data file Version 2.0.0, GESIS Data Archive, Cologne, http://dx.doi.org/10.4232/1.13052.

[17] L1ght (2020), Rising Levels of Hate Speech & Online Toxicity During This Time of Crisis, L1ght, https://l1ght.com/Toxicity_during_coronavirus_Report-L1ght.pdf (accessed on 27 April 2020).

[23] Miller, A. and O. Listhaug (1990), “Political parties and confidence in government: A comparison of Norway, Sweden and the United States”, British Journal of Political Science, Vol. 20/3, pp. 357-386, http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s0007123400005883.

[20] Ministère de l’éducation nationale et de la jeunesse (2020), Non au harcèlement website, http://www.nonauharcelement.education.gouv.fr (accessed on 4 May 2020).

[21] Ministry of Education - Chile (2019), National Day Against Cyberbullying, http://convivenciaescolar.mineduc.cl/compromiso-sana-convivencia/dia-contra-el-ciberacoso/ (accessed on 16 July 2020).

[7] Nansel, T. et al. (2004), “Cross-national consistency in the relationship between bullying behaviors and psychosocial adjustment”, Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine, Vol. 158/8, p. 730, http://dx.doi.org/10.1001/archpedi.158.8.730.

[9] National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (2016), Preventing Bullying Through Science, Policy, and Practice, The National Academies Press, Washington, DC, https://doi.org/10.17226/23482.

[19] OECD (2019), Education Policy Outlook 2019: Working Together to Help Students Achieve their Potential, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/2b8ad56e-en.

[10] OECD (2019), How’s Life in the Digital Age?: Opportunities and Risks of the Digital Transformation for People’s Well-being, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264311800-en.

[14] OECD (2019), PISA 2018 Results (Volume I): What Students Know and Can Do, PISA, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/5f07c754-en.

[4] OECD (2017), “Bullying”, in PISA 2015 Results (Volume III): Students’ Well-Being, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264273856-12-en.

[2] OECD (2017), How’s Life? 2017: Measuring Well-being, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/how_life-2017-en.

[12] OECD (2016), Education at a Glance 2016: OECD Indicators, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/eag-2016-en.

[24] OECD (2016), Society at a Glance 2016: OECD Social Indicators, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264261488-en.

[6] OECD (2013), OECD Skills Outlook 2013: First Results from the Survey of Adult Skills, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264204256-en.

[1] OECD (2011), How’s Life?: Measuring Well-being, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264121164-en.

[8] Rigby, K. (2007), Bullying in Schools: And What to Do About It, ACER Press.

[11] Tippett, N. and D. Wolke (2014), “Socioeconomic status and bullying: A meta-analysis”, American Journal of Public Health, Vol. 104/6, pp. e48-e59, http://dx.doi.org/10.2105/ajph.2014.301960.

[16] UNICEF (2020), COVID-19 and Its Implications for Protecting Children Online, Unicef, https://www.unicef.org/media/67396/file/COVID-19%20and%20Its%20Implications%20for%20Protecting%20Children%20Online.pdf (accessed on 23 April 2020).

[15] World Economic Forum (2020), Will the coronavirus break the internet?, World Economic Forum website, https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2020/03/will-coronavirus-break-the-internet/ (accessed on 23 April 2020).

Indicator A6 Tables

Table A6.1 Percentage of 15-year-old students who reported being exposed to different forms of bullying at least a few times a month, by parents' educational attainment (2018)

Table A6.2 Percentage of 15-year-old students who agreed or strongly agreed with statements about bullying, by parents' educational attainment (2018)

Table A6.3 Political engagement, by educational attainment (2016 or 2018)

WEB Table A6.4 Percentage of 15-year-old students who reported being exposed to different forms of bullying at least a few times a month, by students' expected level of educational attainment (2018)

WEB Table A6.5 Percentage of 15-year-old students who agreed or strongly agreed with statements about bullying, by students' expected level of educational attainment (2018)

WEB Table A6.6 Distribution of parents' educational attainment and expected level of educational attainment of 15-year-old students (2018)

Cut-off date for the data: 19 July 2020. Any updates on data can be found on line at http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/eag-data-en. More breakdowns can also be found at http://stats.oecd.org/, Education at a Glance Database.

StatLink: https://doi.org/10.1787/888934162755

Featured topics

Agriculture and fisheries

Climate change

Development

Digital

Economy

Education and skills

Employment

Environment

Finance and investment

Governance

Health

Industry, business and entrepreneurship

Regional, rural and urban development

Science, technology and innovation

Society

Taxation

Trade

Energy

Nuclear energy

Transport

Featured topics

Agriculture and fisheries

Climate change

Development

Digital

Economy

Education and skills

Employment

Environment

Finance and investment

Governance

Health

Industry, business and entrepreneurship

Regional, rural and urban development

Science, technology and innovation

Society

Taxation

Trade

Energy

Nuclear energy

Transport

Countries A - C

Countries D - I

Countries J - M

Countries N - R

Countries S - T

Countries U - Z

Regional and global engagement

Countries

Countries A - C

Countries D - I

Countries J - M

Countries N - R

Countries S - T

Countries U - Z

Regional and global engagement

Publications

Publications

Featured publications

Data

Data

Featured data

News & Events

News & Events

Featured Events

About OECD

About

Engage with us

Work with us

Featured topics

Agriculture and fisheries

Climate change

Development

Digital

Economy

Education and skills

Employment

Environment

Finance and investment