copy the linklink copied!Mexico
Context
Schools in Mexico have slightly more favourable disciplinary climates in science lessons compared to other OECD countries, according to students’ reports in the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) 2015, with an index of disciplinary climate of 0.04 (the average index value was 0.00). However, student truancy was higher than the OECD average: 25.8% of 15-year-olds reported skipping at least one day of school in the two weeks before the PISA 2015 test, compared to the OECD average of 19.7%. That being said, students in Mexico were more likely to report that their science teachers adapt their instructions much more frequently than the OECD average, with an index of adaptive instruction of 0.32, among the highest in OECD countries (the average index value was 0.01) (OECD, 2016[1]).
The PISA 2015 index of instructional educational leadership (measuring the frequency with which principals report doing leadership activities specifically related to instruction) was lower than the OECD average at -0.23 (the OECD average was 0.01) (OECD, 2016[1]). In 2017, teachers in Mexico had more net teaching hours for general programmes than the OECD average: teachers annually taught 800 hours at primary level and 1 047 hours at lower secondary level, compared to OECD averages of 784 and 696 hours, respectively (OECD, 2018[2]). According to school principals’ self-reports in PISA 2015, schools in Mexico have lower levels of autonomy over curriculum than the OECD average: 33.6% of principals reported that the school has primary autonomy over curriculum, compared to the average of 73.4% (OECD, 2016[1]).
According to the OECD Teaching and Learning International Survey (TALIS) 2018, 92.2% of teachers in Mexico said that if they could choose again, they would still become a teacher; this was higher than the OECD average of 75.6% and the highest rate across OECD countries. Furthermore, 41.7% of teachers felt that the teaching profession was valued in society, compared to an OECD average of 25.8% in 2018 (OECD, 2019[3]).
According to school leaders’ reports in PISA 2015, school leaders in Mexico are less likely than average to conduct self-evaluations of their schools (86.1% of students were in schools whose principal reported this, compared to 93.2% on average) and slightly less likely to undergo external evaluations (73.9% of students were in schools whose principal reported this, compared to 74.6% on average) (OECD, 2016[1]). Teacher appraisal levels, as reported in the earlier cycle of TALIS 2013, were higher than average: 84.5% of all teachers had reported then having received an appraisal in the previous 12 months, compared to 66.1% on average (OECD, 2014[4]).
In PISA 2015, the share of students enrolled in secondary schools whose principal reported that standardised tests are used to make decisions on students’ promotion or retention was 48%, compared to 31% on average (OECD, 2016[1]).
In 2017, all decisions on resource management (allocation and use of resources for teaching staff and principals) in Mexico were taken at the central and state levels, compared to only 30% for the OECD average. Annual expenditure per student at primary level in 2015 was USD 2 874, which was among the lowest in the OECD (the average was USD 8 631). At secondary level, Mexico spent USD 3 129 per student, compared to the OECD average of USD 10 010, while at tertiary level (including spending on research and development), Mexico spent USD 8 170 per student, compared to the OECD average of USD 15 656.
In 2015, expenditure on primary to tertiary education as a proportion of gross domestic product (GDP) in Mexico was 5.3%, compared to the OECD average of 5%. The proportion of expenditure on education (from primary to tertiary) coming from private sources (including household expenditure, expenditure from other private entities and international sources) in 2015 was relatively high at 20.2% of overall spending, compared to the OECD average of 16.1%. Between 2005 and 2015, the relative proportion of public expenditure on primary to tertiary education increased by 0.5 percentage points, compared to an average fall across OECD countries of 1.3 percentage points. During the same period, private expenditure decreased by 1.8 percentage points, compared to an OECD average increase of 10.6 percentage points (OECD, 2018[2]).
Evolution of key education policy priorities
Mexico’s key education policy priorities have evolved in the following ways over the last decade (Table 8.20).
Institutions
Selected education policy responses
School improvement
-
In Mexico, the goal of the School at the Centre strategy (2016) is to improve education delivery through six actions: 1) reducing schools’ bureaucratic burden; 2) directly providing more resources to schools; 3) fostering the School Technical Councils by teachers and school leaders; 4) encouraging greater social engagement through the Social Participation Councils; 5) promoting organisational flexibility within the school calendar; and 6) supporting extracurricular learning during the summer, including cultural activities, sports and tutoring (OECD, 2018[412]).
Progress or impact: In 2017, the Technical School Councils became the space for planning, evaluation and decision making among teaching teams, and are tasked with systematically improving school functioning and student learning. Peer learning exchange sessions were held between different technical councils. More than 50 000 school communities received direct financial funding with priority given to indigenous schools and schools located in marginalised areas (Juárez Pineda, 2017[413]). The extra financial support allowed schools to improve overall equipment and training, among other areas. Overall pedagogical support was found to have improved through the provision of training (Juárez Pineda, 2017[413]). Yet, OECD evidence shows that, in 2018, the direct budget allocation to schools was still in its infancy, and was limited, considering the size of the system. The OECD recommended that more effort should be made to strengthen leadership and school-level collaboration to enact the School at the Centre strategy (OECD, 2019[414]).
-
Mexico introduced the National Certificates of Education Infrastructure for Schools (ECIEN, 2015). School assessment is based on key criteria, including, among others, safe learning environments, healthy learning environments and adequate supplies and equipment (OECD, 2018[412]). The programme follows three steps: surveying and qualifying the schools’ infrastructure and resources, providing funds and guidance to help schools improve their infrastructure and certifying compliance with the criteria. The school community is in charge of maintenance. The overall goal is to improve conditions in 33 000 of the most disadvantaged primary, secondary (lower and upper) and tertiary schools reaching a total student population of over 6 million, of which one in three comes from an indigenous community. In 2016/17, ECIEN merged into the Education Reform of Mexico programme (Reforma Educativa en México, 2016) (OECD, 2018[412]).
Progress or impact: By 2018, ECIEN was implemented in 1 421 municipalities (of a total of 2 457 municipalities in Mexico) (OECD, 2018[412]). ECIEN had funded 21 682 school sites (affecting roughly 4.4 million students in basic and upper secondary education), with an investment of MXN 33 159 million (of the available MXN 39 691 million allocated for the project) (SEP, 2018[415]). Furthermore, the ECIEN programme also targeted schools in indigenous areas, by tending to the needs of an expected 16 935 schools. While ECIEN has the potential to enhance equity, and progress has been made on projects in indigenous pre-schools and primary schools, its impact is nuanced, in terms of equity, especially considering community schools. In 2016-17, the total of ECIEN projects effectively implemented in community schools was 1.2% of the total community pre-schools in the country, 0.3% of community primary schools and 0.4% of community lower secondary schools. The programme also benefited fewer of the highest-need municipalities: only 11.7% of the projects were in highly marginalised municipalities, compared to 38% in municipalities with a low degree of marginalisation (OECD, 2019[414]).
-
Mexico’s Teacher Professional Service (Servicio Profesional Docente, SPD, 2013) intended to integrate different policy aspects of the profession in a coherent manner, covering primary to upper secondary education (OECD, 2018[412]). It also aimed to improve education by training teachers and clarifying career paths. The SPD set out the basis for selection, promotion, incentives and tenure possibilities for teachers. Based on pre-established policies, the policy components included: 1) an induction process in the first two years of teachers’ practice; 2) the establishment of the main stages of a universal teacher appraisal process; 3) the establishment of new horizontal incentive mechanisms to include or replace the different voluntary programmes that were available (for example, Carrera Magisterial and the Incentives Programme for Teacher Quality, 2008-09). Student teacher candidates had to pass a public selection process (Concurso) to enter the profession with a mentor assigned to each student for the first two years (OECD, 2018[412]). Also, the SPD introduced a new Technical Support Service to Schools (Servicio de Asistencia Técnica a la Escuela, SATE) (OECD, 2019[414]).
Progress or impact: As of 2016, teaching candidates can come from higher education institutions other than teacher colleges (escuelas normales) (OECD, 2018[412]). The Technical Support Service to Schools (SATE) provides assistance, advice and accompaniment to teachers and school principals. The support service is carried out by school leaders, supervisors, pedagogical advisors (Asesores Técnico-Pedagógicos, ATP) and recognised support staff under the school improvement law. ATPs are also subject to selection and recruitment processes and can take part in the different promotion mechanisms. New teachers are required to follow a mandatory induction programme; although introduction was slow and geographically uneven, in 2017/18, access to mentoring reached 88.9% of teachers (OECD, 2019[414]).
Also part of the reform, the National Strategy for Continuous Training of Teachers of basic and upper secondary education (2016) aimed to improve the skills of teachers who show below average qualifications in teacher appraisals (OECD, 2018[412]).
Furthermore, the Local Education Authorities (AEL) conducted State Strategies for Continuing Education 2017. Between 2017 and 2018, the programme delivered 944 courses, 235 workshops and 183 diplomas (SEP, 2018[415]). The resource-intensive nature of face-to-face training is a challenge in Mexico, and so efforts have been made to expand online access to training. National targets aimed to have more than 1.5 million teachers using these resources in 2018 (OECD, 2019[414]).
In 2019, new education reform was approved by the Government of Mexico, which discontinued the Teacher Professional Service, and all contents derived from its secondary laws. The 2019 reform created in its place the National System for the Careers of Female and Male Teachers (Sistema Nacional para la Carrera de las Maestras y los Maestros). It declared suspended all teacher appraisal processes, although the Teacher Professional Service would continue to perform its processes and responsibilities until the new legislation for the New National System is in place (Government of Mexico, 2019[416])
Evaluation and assessment
-
In 2015-16, Mexico’s new approach to performance appraisal (Evaluación del Desempeño) for teachers in primary, lower secondary and upper secondary education, introduced as part of the comprehensive Education Reform (2013) held its first assessment round with the participation of 150 086 teachers and principals (National information reported to the OECD). At the beginning of the implementation, the assessment was a voluntary process that delivered promotions and economic incentives to those who had remarkable and good results. To evaluate competence and support development, the introduction of a new appraisal system focused on school improvement for teachers, school leaders and supervisors. The law assigned the authorisation of the precise appraisal tools to the National Institute for Education Evaluation (Instituto Nacional para la Evaluación de la Educación, INEE). If a teacher did not pass the first or second appraisal, individual coaching was provided, but teachers were dismissed if they did not pass the third appraisal. According to the law, teachers had to pass an appraisal at least once every four years. During implementation, it was voluntary (except for those teachers who did not previously obtain favourable results) with almost 87% of teachers following an appraisal process in 2016.
Progress or impact: In 2015, more than 50% of teachers who underwent appraisal obtained insufficient or sufficient results, compared to good, outstanding and excellent (OECD, 2018[412]). Henceforth, it was found essential to advance the implementation of incentives for teachers with good job performance and grant support to teachers who did not reach a good performance level. In 2016, appraisal became mandatory only for those who had previously obtained insufficient results or those aiming to become certified evaluators. Teachers aiming to access salary increases could participate voluntarily; those not taking the evaluation were not penalised. The gradual appraisal of all teachers became mandatory in 2017 (OECD, 2018[412]). Another OECD report found that the appraisal mechanism required some precisions, including better matching appraisals with support for learning among teachers (OECD, 2019[414]).
Between 2015 and 2018, some 1.5 million appraisals were conducted as part of teacher qualification processes for the National Education System at compulsory education levels, for performance evaluation and promotion to School Leadership, Supervision and Technical Pedagogical Advisory (ATP) positions. In 2018, around 206 390 teachers entered the public education service or were promoted through the evaluation process of the Teachers’ Professional Service (Servicio Profesional Docente) (SEP, 2018[415]). During the same year, the share of teachers who underwent appraisal and obtained insufficient or only sufficient results decreased to 43.4% (SEP, 2018[415]). With the new education reform approved by the Government of Mexico in 2019, all ongoing teacher appraisal processes were suspended, as well as all effects that could affect the teachers’ permanence in the profession, or processes related to admission, promotion or recognition in the profession (Government of Mexico, 2019[416]).
-
Mexico established a National Registry of Students, Teachers and Schools (Registro Nacional de Alumnos, Maestros y Escuelas, RNAME, 2011) to clarify available resources and facilitate better planning and improvement. It transformed into the National System for Education Information and Administration (Sistema de Información y Gestión Educativa, SIGED) in 2015 and covers four main domains: 1) student assessment data; 2) a teacher registry, including training and professional trajectory; 3) school data; and 4) documentation from other areas of the education system (OECD, 2019[414]).
Progress or impact: During the 2015/16 school year, some databases were integrated in the National System for Education Information and Administration (Sistema de Información y Gestión Educativa, SIGED). They included an assessment programme (Plan Nacional para la Evaluación de los Aprendizajes, PLANEA); an online interface to register school data (Sistema de Captura de Educación Inicial, Especial y Básica vía Internet, Formato 911) and the database of the infrastructure census (Diagnóstico de la infraestructura educativa) conducted by the National Institute of Physical Educational Infrastructure (INIFED) (National information reported to the OECD). An OECD report recently recognised the significant potential of the SIGED as a valuable tool in designing, implementing and monitoring education policy in Mexico. While implementation has progressed well, the SIGED can play a much more prominent role in the future (OECD, 2019[414]).
-
The National Plan for Learning Assessment (PLANEA, 2015) replaced the previous school and student assessments (Evaluación Nacional del Logro Académico en Centros Escolares, ENLACE; and Examen para la Calidad y el Logro Educativo, EXCALE) in Mexico. It is a formative tool that provides information on how well students are advancing throughout the system (OECD, 2018[412]). PLANEA does not address school ranking or other formal consequences for students, teachers or schools. It combines three distinct standardised student assessments that monitor student learning outcomes at different levels of the education system, including national and sub-national data and information on schools and individual students. The sample-based standardised student assessment is used for the national (or sub-national) monitoring of student learning outcomes (Evaluación de Logro referida al Sistema Educativo Nacional, ELSEN). The results are made public at the national and sub-national levels. It covers the last year of pre-school and grades 6, 9 and 12. INEE undertakes the assessment every two years. The annual formative census-based standardised student assessment takes place in grade 4 (Evaluación Diagnóstica Censal, EDC). The results are used within schools, formatively, to inform subsequent teaching strategies. The standardised student assessment takes place in grades 6, 9 and 12. It covers all schools in the country – with results made public at the school level (Evaluación del Logro Referida a los Centros Escolares, ELCE) and is implemented by SEP, as monitored by INEE (OECD, 2018[412]).
Progress or impact: OECD evidence underlines Mexico’s progress in establishing standardised student assessment mechanisms. Unlike preceding student assessments, all of PLANEA’s tests are produced with items calibrated to a single measurement scale. The pedagogy is based on the same learning objectives, and the feature is found particularly significant as a contribution of the new mechanisms. Also, in 2018, the INEE issued new guidelines for PLANEA, which replace the 2015 guidelines. As of 2018, the evaluations of PLANEA SEN (PLANEA related to the Compulsory Education System) will alternately add Natural Sciences and Civic Education and Ethics. The government will continue developing the Diagnostic Census Assessment (EDC), which for 2019 is scheduled to be applied to students who start the 3rd and 5th primary education grades of all schools in the country.
At the same time, PLANEA needs to ensure that the results of standardised student assessments are systematically used for learning and general education enhancement at the classroom level. The OECD recently commended PLANEA as a significant step towards reinforcing the role of standardised assessment to improve student learning but recommended that more resources be invested to ensure teachers use all the materials derived from PLANEA for formative purposes and are adapted to the needs of all students (OECD, 2019[414]).
Additional education policies of potential interest to other countries
School improvement
-
Mexico has been undertaking efforts to restructure the yearly learning calendar. Mexico temporarily implemented the possibility for schools to choose between two calendars. Both calendars, of either 185 days or 195 days, were implemented in the 2017/18 and 2018/19 cycle. Schools could decide which calendar to follow, but the total number of hours delivered during the school year had to remain the same regardless of the calendar used. The government had established guidelines on the different mechanisms that could be used for this, depending on the schools’ situation. A third calendar of 200 days existed for teacher-training schools (National information reported to the OECD). In 2019/20, a single calendar of 190 days was implemented for all public and private schools, with 13 additional days for teacher meetings as part of the school technical councils, after consultation with parents and schools. The number of days for teacher-training schools remained unchanged (SEP, 2019[417]).
Systems
Selected education policy responses
Governance
-
In 2013, Mexico’s federal government introduced the Educational Reform of Mexico (Reforma Educativa en México, 2013) to improve the quality and equity of its education system by focusing on several key areas: 1) strengthening equity and inclusion among students; 2) improving and empowering schools; 3) improving infrastructure and educational supplies; 4) providing professional development for teachers; 5) revising the educational model; 6) creating a stronger link between education and the labour market; and 7) improving the education system’s administration and management for greater transparency and effectiveness. The reform built upon the Pact for Mexico (Pacto por México, 2012) and further changes to the Mexican Constitution during the same year. A broad range of actors contributed to the implementation of the Educational Reform of Mexico, including legislative powers and different levels of government, the National Institute for Education Evaluation, teachers and their unions, administrators, parents and civil society organisations. The reform resulted in new administration management as well as new policies. For example, a new education model was developed (OECD, 2018[412]).
Progress or impact: In 2019, Mexico’s new education reform introduced significant changes to the education system. For example, the 2019 reform made higher education compulsory; created the National System for the Careers of Female and Male Teachers (Sistema Nacional para la Carrera de las Maestras y los Maestros) to replace the Teachers’ Professional Service (Servicio Profesional Docente); and also created the National System of Continuous Education Improvement (Sistema Nacional de Mejora Continua de la Educación) to replace the National Institute for Education Evaluation (Instituto Nacional para la Evaluación de la Educación, INEE) (Government of Mexico, 2019[416]). At the time of writing of this report, this new reform was in its first implementation stages, pending approval of secondary regulation.
-
Since 2009, Mexico has been working to reactivate Social Participation Councils (Consejos de Participación Social en la Educación). Having been formally established during 1992/93, they did not function in practice before 2009 (OECD, 2010[418]). Mexico has relaunched social participation councils at the schools, municipalities and states, and at national level to increase parental and societal engagement in education. They are composed of parents, school principals, teachers, union representatives, former students and community members. In many councils, the Secretariat of Public Education (Secretaría de Educación Pública, SEP) has trained members in education assessment and management (OECD, 2018[412]).
Progress or impact: In 2016, a National Council (CONAPASE) was established to reflect and support the school councils across Mexico. It has quarterly national sessions and follows a formal and legal structure for consultation and operation (OECD, 2019[414]). Data indicates that the coverage of participation councils has continued to expand in recent years. In 2017, 94% of states and 65% of municipalities had their own council (National information reported to the OECD). A total of 1 597 Municipal Councils of Social Participation in Education were registered in the Public Registry of the Councils of Social Participation in Education (REPUCE) with the slowest development seen in the State of Mexico, Oaxaca and Mexico City. The expansion has been particularly significant at the school level: in 2017, there were around 200 000 School Councils of Social Participation in education with almost 2 million counsellors participating (National information provided to the OECD) (SEP, 2017[419])
-
In 2015, the federal Secretariat of Public Education (Secretaría de Educación Pública, SEP) divided the country into five education regions (regiones educativas): Northwest, Northeast, West, Centre, and South-Southeast. SEP did this to improve regional management and enable greater interactions among states to support and monitor each other, so as to encourage progress towards goals. Mexico expects the education regions to facilitate improved state-state and state-federation co-ordination, while also fostering co-operation between different education stakeholders and regional decision makers (OECD, 2018[412]).
Progress or impact: A mechanism for regional co-ordination in education (SEP-CONAGO) was created, dividing the country into five education regions. This mechanism aims to co-ordinate and monitor the progress of the School at the Centre strategy, Escuelas al CIEN, and the National Campaign for Literacy and Abatement of the Education Gap, among other current and future projects on national and regional levels. The mechanism also oversees the development of short- and medium-term goals (SEP, 2017[420]).
-
In 2012, Mexico granted autonomy to the National Institute for Education Evaluation (Instituto Nacional para la Evaluación de la Educacion, INEE) as a technical standards-setting body. The INEE co-ordinated the National Educational Evaluation System (Sistema Nacional de Evaluación Educativa, SNEE, 2013). The law that established SNEE also gave INEE autonomy over the evaluation of the compulsory education system (OECD, 2018[412]). One of the tasks of the INEE at the SNEE was to chair the Conference of National Educational Assessment System. This collegial body was composed of the members of the INEE Governing Board; under-secretaries of the sub-secretaries of basic education, upper secondary, and Planning and Evaluation of Education Policy of SEP; the General Director of Evaluation Educational Policy of the Secretariat; and the education secretaries of all the states. In addition, INEE established the teacher evaluation processes (2014-17) and collaborated with the SEP and decentralised bodies to strengthen evaluation (OECD, 2019[414]).
Progress or impact: The OECD found that the collaboration between INEE, SEP and state authorities helped Mexico design a complex and powerful evaluation and assessment system for education – including an assessment for students, appraisal for teachers, as well as evaluations for the system’s policies and processes (OECD, 2019[414]). In 2019, new legislation created the National System of Continuous Education Improvement (Sistema Nacional de Mejora Continua de la Educación), which will replace INEE (Government of Mexico, 2019[416]). At the writing of this report, the transition to the new national system was starting.
-
Mexico updated its curriculum through the Educational Model for Compulsory Education: Educating for Freedom and Creativity (Modelo Educativo para la Educación Obligatoria: Educar para la Libertad y la Creatividad, 2017). The Educational Model was developed based on 18 forums organised between 2014 and 2016. The forums resulted in over 28 000 consultations with teachers and other specialists, and over 300 000 comments and suggestions from different stakeholders, including teachers, parents and entrepreneurs. Following this, the Secretariat of Public Education developed new curricula, new official textbooks, and teacher training (OECD, 2018[412]). The curriculum includes knowledge, skills, values and attitudes, taking into account well-being and socio-emotional education (OECD, 2019[414]).
Progress or impact: Participants in the national consultations highlighted the need for a set of guidelines to adapt the model, which resulted in the 2017 Roadmap for the Implementation of the Educational Model (Ruta para la implementación del Modelo Educativo) (OECD, 2018[421]). The main implementation phase of the new curriculum took place during 2017/18 and included some pilot projects, in curricular autonomy, for example (OECD, 2018[412]). An OECD report found that the efforts to consult with stakeholders from diverse corners of the education system to elaborate the curriculum were commendable, and resulted in a high-quality curriculum. The education authorities also proved extremely skilful at managing large-scale projects, such as the production of new instructional material, on a tight schedule. Shortcomings include a perceived lack of training and a lack of workforce support to take ownership and effectively translate the curriculum into better learning, particularly in the new areas of socio-emotional skills and education. Also, the short timeline for implementation made the need for professional flexibility and support mechanisms (that were not in place by mid-2018) all the more pressing (OECD, 2019[414]).
-
Mexico established the commitment in 2012 to attain universal coverage of upper secondary education enrolment by 2022, as part of other goals defined in the Pact for Mexico (Pacto Por México, 2012) (OECD, 2018[412]). A related programme, the expansion of upper secondary and tertiary education (Expansión de la Educación Media Superior y Superior, 2013), aimed to increase coverage, inclusion and equity among all population groups by expanding the education infrastructure and diversifying the education offers of public tertiary education institutions (Government of Mexico, 2018[422]).
Progress or impact: Enrolment rates in upper secondary education increased from 65.9% (2012/13) to 78.5% (2017/18), according to national data (OECD, 2018[412]). Tertiary education coverage (excluding postgraduate degrees) reached 38.4% in 2017/18 (SEP, 2018[423]). A 2017 evaluation on the developments of the programme of upper secondary and higher education found that there was a need to update the diagnostic document to specify for each educational institution that receives funding, the type of authority it relies on and the total tuition fees (SEP, 2017[424]). It would also be helpful to develop a flowchart to explain the data collection by the education institutions. Another recommendation was to implement a scheme, which outlines the procedures through which the educational institutions have access to the programme benefits (SEP, 2017[424]).
Funding
-
Mexico implemented the National Fund of Allocations for the Teachers’ Payroll and Operative Expenditure (Fondo de Aportaciones para la Nómina Educativa y Gasto Operativo, FONE, 2015) so that funding would reach the most disadvantaged regions. Federal funding for education services and teacher colleges (escuelas normales) for these regions had been decreasing under the previous allocation formula. FONE relies on a data analysis system to monitor vacancies, recruitment, staff and salary payments. Every two weeks, the system processes information from 1.8 million places in the country. It also uses information from other data-collection sources such as Statistics 911 to identify variations between places (SEP, 2017[419]). Since 2014, the national government also holds one single salary negotiation with the National Educational Workers Union (Sindicato Nacional de Trabajadores de la Educación, SNTE) (OECD, 2018[412]). Before this, negotiations were held between each federal state and SNTE.
Progress or impact: By centralising teacher salaries, the irregular status of over 40 000 teachers could be identified and rectified, according to recent OECD research. The fund’s budget has increased every year since its implementation. In 2015, FONE spent over EUR 16 million on the payroll for 988 000 workers that hold 1 847 656 job positions in the basic education and teachers college systems. In 2016, the government established the same budget to cover the payment of 1 854 337 positions (OECD, 2018[412]). About EUR 15.5 million was allocated for the 2017 budget (SEP, 2017[419]).
More information is available at http://www.oecd.org/education/policyoutlook.htm.
Metadata, Legal and Rights
https://doi.org/10.1787/2b8ad56e-en
© OECD 2019
The use of this work, whether digital or print, is governed by the Terms and Conditions to be found at http://www.oecd.org/termsandconditions.
