.jpg?a4384ad645a7284c15259ce80248ac2e)
Russian Federation
Across most OECD countries, socio-economic status influences learning outcomes more than gender and immigrant status. In the Russian Federation, the proportion of children from the bottom quartile of the PISA index of economic, social and cultural status (ESCS) achieving at least PISA level 2 in reading in 2018 was 21% lower than that of children from the top ESCS quartile, a smaller share than the OECD average of 29%.
International student mobility at the tertiary level has risen steadily reaching about 282 900 students in the Russian Federation and representing 4% of tertiary students in 2019. The largest share of international tertiary students studying in the Russian Federation comes from Kazakhstan. Students from low and lower-middle income countries are generally less likely to study abroad. In 2019, they represented 29% of international students in OECD countries, compared to 38% in the Russian Federation.
In the Russian Federation, 0.3% of students in lower secondary and 0.1% in upper secondary initial education repeated a grade in 2019, compared to 1.9% and 3% respectively on average across OECD countries. Boys are more likely to repeat a grade at lower secondary initial education than girls. In the Russian Federation, 54% of repeaters at lower secondary level were boys, lower than the OECD average of 61%. At upper secondary level, the share of boys repeating a grade in the Russian Federation increases to 63%, compared to 57% on average across OECD countries.
Men are more likely than women to pursue a vocational track at upper secondary level in most OECD countries. This is also the case in the Russian Federation, where 57% of upper secondary vocational graduates in 2019 were men (compared to the OECD average of 55%). Women are generally more likely to graduate from upper secondary general programmes. This is also the case in the Russian Federation, where women represent 53% of graduates from upper secondary general programmes, compared to 55% on average across OECD countries (Figure 1).
Tertiary education has been expanding in the last decades, and, in 2020, 25-34 year-old women were more likely than men to achieve tertiary education in all OECD countries. In the Russian Federation, 69% of 25-34 year-old women had a tertiary qualification in 2018 compared to 55% of their male peers, while on average across OECD countries the shares were 52% among young women and 39% among young men.
Young women are less likely to be employed than young men, particularly those with lower levels of education. Only 48% of 25-34 year-old women with below upper secondary attainment were employed in 2018 compared to 68% of men in the Russian Federation. This gender difference is smaller than the average across OECD countries, where 43% of women and 69% of men with below upper secondary attainment are employed.
Tertiary attainment may vary significantly within a country. In the Russian Federation, the share of 25-64 year-old adults with tertiary education varies from 26% in the region of Chechen Republic to 75% in the region of City of Moscow, one of the highest regional variations across OECD countries with available data.
On average across OECD and partner countries with subnational data on labour-force status, there is more regional variation in employment rates among those with below upper secondary education (17 percentage points) than for those with tertiary education (8 percentage points). In the Russian Federation, there is a difference of 30 percentage points in the employment rate of adults with below upper secondary education between different regions of the country compared to 24 percentage points for tertiary-educated adults.
The proportion of young people who are NEET shows significant subnational as well as national variation across OECD and partner countries. In the Russian Federation, the difference in the share of 18-24 year-old NEETs between regions with the highest and lowest value is 42 percentage points, compared to 11 percentage points on average across OECD countries.
The spread of COVID-19 has continued to impede access to in-person education in many countries around the world in 2021. By mid-May 2021, 37 OECD and partner countries had experienced periods of full school closure since the start of 2020.
During periods of full school closure in 2020, 21 OECD and partner countries have opted to keep upper secondary general schools virtually open as a national level strategy, including the Russian Federation. However, in 4 countries, excluding the Russian Federation, each day of remote learning was not considered equivalent to a full day of in-person instruction. The way that online platforms have operated during school closures has varied between countries. In the Russian Federation, decisions on how online platforms should operate were made at the school level from primary to tertiary education.
The impact of COVID-19 and school closures on educational equity has been a concern for many countries. 30 out of the 36 OECD and partner countries surveyed, including the Russian Federation, declared that additional measures were taken to support the education of children who might face additional barriers to learning during the pandemic. 22 of these countries, including the Russian Federation, stated that they had subsidised devices for students to help them access education. Measures to encourage disadvantaged or vulnerable students to return to school after closures were also implemented in 29 OECD and partner countries, including in the Russian Federation.
20 OECD and partner countries, although not the Russian Federation, stated that the allocation of additional public funds to support the educational response to the pandemic in primary and secondary schools was based on the number of students or classes. At the same time, 16 countries targeted additional funds at socio-economically disadvantaged students as a way to ensure that resources targeted those that needed them the most, including in the Russian Federation.
Countries’ approach to prioritise teachers in vaccination campaigns against COVID-19 has varied. In total, 19 OECD and partner countries, excluding the Russian Federation, have prioritised at least some teachers as part of the government’s plans to vaccinate the population on a national level (as of 20 May 2021).
Despite the impact of the crisis on employment, the share of NEETs among 18-24 year-olds did not greatly increase in most OECD and partner countries during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic. On average, the share of 18-24 year-old NEETs in OECD countries rose from 14.4% in 2019 to 16.1% in 2020. In the Russian Federation, the share of 18-24 year-old NEETs was 14.4% in 2019, which increased to 14.9% in 2020.
Annual expenditure per student on educational institutions provides an indication of the investment countries make on each student. After accounting for public-to-private transfers, public expenditure on primary to tertiary educational institutions per full-time student in the Russian Federation was USD 5 596 in 2018 (in equivalent USD converted using PPPs for GDP) compared to USD 10 000 on average across OECD countries.
Between 2012 and 2018, expenditure per student from primary to tertiary education increased at an average annual growth rate of 1.6% across OECD countries. In the Russian Federation, expenditure on educational institutions grew at an average annual rate of 0.9%, while the number of students grew on average by 1.4% per year over this period. This resulted in an average annual growth rate of -0.5% in expenditure per student over this period.
The Russian Federation was among the ten OECD countries that spent the lowest proportion of GDP on primary to tertiary educational institutions. In 2018, the Russian Federation spent 3.4% of GDP on primary to tertiary educational institutions, which is 1.5 percentage points lower than the OECD average. Across levels of education, the Russian Federation devoted a lower share of GDP than the OECD average at both non-tertiary and tertiary levels (Figure 2).
The share of capital costs on total expenditure on educational institutions is lower than the OECD average at primary to tertiary level in the Russian Federation. At primary, secondary and post-secondary non-tertiary level, capital costs account for 8% of total spending on educational institutions, similar to the OECD average (8%). At the tertiary level, capital costs represent 10%, slightly lower than the average across OECD countries of 11%.
Compensation of teachers and other staff employed in educational institutions represents the largest share of current expenditure from primary to tertiary education. In 2018, the Russian Federation allocated 77% of its current expenditure to staff compensation, compared to 74% on average across OECD countries. Staff compensation tends to make up a smaller share of current expenditure on tertiary institutions due to the higher costs of facilities and equipment at this level. In the Russian Federation, staff compensation represents 71% of current expenditure on tertiary institutions compared to 80% at non-tertiary levels. On average across OECD countries, the share is 68% at tertiary level and 77% at non-tertiary level.
The average number of teaching hours per year required of a typical teacher in public educational institutions in OECD countries tends to decrease as the level of education increases: it ranged from 791 hours at primary level to 723 hours at lower secondary level (general programmes) and 685 hours at upper secondary level (general programmes) in 2020. In the Russian Federation, teachers are required to teach 561 hours per year at primary level, 483 hours at lower secondary level (general programmes) and 483 hours at upper secondary level (general programmes).
References
OECD (2021), Education at a Glance 2021: OECD Indicators, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/69096873-en.
OECD (2021), “Regional education”, OECD Regional Statistics (database), https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/213e806c-en (accessed on 27 July 2021).
OECD (2021), “The state of global education – 18 months into the pandemic”, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/1a23bb23-en.
For more information on Education at a Glance 2021 and to access the full set of Indicators, see: https://doi.org/10.1787/b35a14e5-en
For more information on the methodology used during the data collection for each indicator, the references to the sources and the specific notes for each country, see Annex 3 (https://www.oecd.org/education/education-at-a-glance/EAG2021_Annex3.pdf).
For general information on the methodology, please refer to the OECD Handbook for Internationally Comparative Education Statistics: Concepts, Standards, Definitions and Classifications (https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264304444-en).
Updated data can be found on line at https://doi.org/10.1787/eag-data-en and by following the StatLinks 2under the tables and charts in the publication.
Data on subnational regions for selected indicators are available in the OECD Regional Statistics (database) (OECD, 2021). When interpreting the results on subnational entities, readers should take into account that the population size of subnational entities can vary widely within countries. For example, regional variation in enrolment may be influenced by students attending school in a different region from their area of residence, particularly at higher levels of education. Also, regional disparities tend to be higher when more subnational entities are used in the analysis.
Explore, compare and visualise more data and analysis using the Education GPS:
https://gpseducation.oecd.org/
The data on educational responses during COVID-19 were collected and processed by the OECD based on the Survey on Joint National Responses to COVID-19 School Closures, a collaborative effort conducted by the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO); the UNESCO Institute for Statistics (UIS); the United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF); the World Bank; and the OECD.
This work is published under the responsibility of the Secretary-General of the OECD. The opinions expressed and arguments employed herein do not necessarily reflect the official views of OECD member countries.
This document, as well as any data and any map included herein, are without prejudice to the status of or sovereignty over any territory, to the delimitation of international frontiers and boundaries and to the name of any territory, city or area.
The statistical data for Israel are supplied by and 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.
The use of this work, whether digital or print, is governed by the terms and conditions to be found at www.oecd.org/termsandconditions/.