2. The broader social outcomes of education: Educating for thriving individuals and societies

Education translates into better health through better income and social protection, as well as healthier behaviours…

Education can translate into better health through a range of channels. Education helps individuals be better aware of risky health behaviours (e.g. excessive drinking) and better informed regarding available healthcare or medical services, thus taking better health-related decisions (Grossman, 1972[17]; Bradley and Green, 2020[16]). At the same time, education enhances other channels, such as income, that can in turn support a healthier life. Better-educated individuals are likely to have higher earnings, live in safer neighbourhoods and benefit from better health insurance through their jobs. Education can also improve health by reducing financial constraints to adopt a healthy and diverse diet, and stress due to low socio-economic conditions or difficulty in meeting basic financial ends (Marmot, 2017[18]; Lance, 2011[19]; Bradley and Green, 2020[16]).

The positive relationship between education and health has been documented in a variety of countries. Adults with better numeracy skills display better self-reported health in countries with available data in the OECD Survey of Adult Skills (PIAAC) (Figure 2.1.). In a similar vein, individuals having attained a higher qualification via formal adult education, even at a later stage in life, are more likely to report good health outcomes relative to those who did not attain a higher qualification (Desjardins, 2020[20]). Higher education levels are also associated with higher life expectancy. Recent evidence on the relation between education attainment and longevity in OECD countries shows that average absolute gaps in life expectancy between high and low-educated individuals at age 25 were of 5.2 years for women and 8.2 years for men (Murtin and Lübker, 2022[21]).

Figure 2.1. Effect of numeracy proficiency on high levels of self-reported health

Marginal effects (as percentage-point change) of one standard deviation increase in numeracy proficiency score on the probability to report good to excellent health

Statistically significant differences are marked in a darker tone. Adjusted differences are based on a regression model and take account of differences associated with the following variables: age, gender, education, immigrant and language background and parents' educational attainment. One standard deviation in proficiency in numeracy for the total population is 52 score points.

¹ Note by the Republic of Türkiye: The information in this document with reference to “Cyprus” relates to the southern part of the Island. There is no single authority representing both Turkish and Greek Cypriot people on the Island. Türkiye recognises the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (TRNC). Until a lasting and equitable solution is found within the context of the United Nations, Türkiye shall preserve its position concerning the “Cyprus issue”.

Note by all the European Union Member States of the OECD and the European Union: The Republic of Cyprus is recognised by all members of the United Nations with the exception of Türkiye. The information in this document relates to the area under the effective control of the Government of the Republic of Cyprus.

Source: Adapted from OECD (2019[22]), Skills Matter: Additional Results from the Survey of Adult Skills, https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/1f029d8f-en, Figure 5.7.

Yet the strength of the association varies across countries, populations and types of health outcomes…

However, the strength of the association between education and health varies across countries and type of health outcomes. While education-related inequalities in smoking are significant across most European countries, Canada and the United States, they tend to be even larger in some Northern, Central and Eastern European countries (OECD, 2019[23]). In a similar vein, gaps in life expectancy by education level display large cross-country differences. In 2016, tertiary-educated adults at age 25 in Estonia on average had a 8 years longer life expectancy than their lower-educated peers (Eurostat, 2021[24]). In contrast, the education-related gap in life expectancy was of only 1.3 years in Italy, where adults also displayed higher average life expectancy in general. This being said, inequalities in life expectancy across countries tend to be smaller for individuals with higher education attainment compared to individuals with lower education or less (Marmot, 2017[18]).

Understanding the extent to which better education translates into healthier lives is crucial for addressing health inequalities (within and between countries), achieving better health outcomes at the societal level (e.g. reducing the spread of diseases) and more effectively using public resources. Research evidence on the causal impact of education on health remains, nevertheless, mixed (Galama, Lleras-Muney and Kippersluis, 2018[15]; Grossman, 2015[25]; Bradley and Green, 2020[16]). It highlights substantial heterogeneity in the estimated effects of education on health across time, space, populations and health outcomes studied. For instance, education has a stronger effect on men’s mortality than women’s mortality. By contrast, education-related inequalities in overweight are higher for women than for men (OECD, 2019[23]).

There are many factors that can drive the variation in education effects on health…

Education policies are thus likely to generate different effects on health in different contexts and environments (Lance, 2011[19]). Beyond methodological aspects, a range of factors can drive the observed heterogeneity in education effects on health (Galama, Lleras-Muney and Kippersluis, 2018[15]).

• To start with, education translates into higher lifetime earnings that can be used for better health-related goods and services. At the same time, labour market returns to education vary for different groups of individuals, cohorts, in time and by academic streams or professional field (Bradley and Green, 2020[16]; Carneiro, Heckman and Vytlacil, 2011[26]).

• Variations in the availability of general safety nets and universal health care access is also a likely factor behind the variation in the health outcomes of education, as illustrated by Figure 2.1.. Countries with universal health care access tend to display lower net effects of education relative to those where health insurance is tied to individual earnings – hence to educational attainment to some extent (Lleras-Muney, 2018[27]).

• The availability of health-related information also matters as there is evidence suggesting that better-educated individuals are more responsive to it and thus more likely to adopt healthier attitudes and lifestyles where information is available (Galama, Lleras-Muney and Kippersluis, 2018[15]; OECD, 2019[23]). Illustrating this, while better-educated individuals displayed higher rates of smoking several decades ago, lower-educated individuals are now twice as likely to smoke (OECD, 2019[23]). The diffusion of information related to smoking risks is likely to have played a significant role in reducing the prevalence of smoking among the better-educated.

• Differences in the quality of schooling, and hence, in the extent to which education systems equip individuals with a well-rounded level of skills matter for education’s effect on health outcomes (Lleras-Muney, 2018[27]). Studies that examine the impact of specific skills emphasise the role of high-quality education for health-related outcomes. Low literacy skills among young children aged 5 have, for instance, been associated with worse self-reported health outcomes and worsening health-limiting conditions during adulthood (Schoon et al., 2015[28]). Similarly, academic achievement, measured by performance on standardised tests in literacy and numeracy across childhood, is related to better self-reported health in adolescence and early adulthood (Shuey and Kankaraš, 2018[4]; Lê-Scherban et al., 2014[29]). In addition, socio-emotional skills equally help predict health-related behaviours in terms of diet, exercise and smoking (Almlund et al., 2011[3]; Heckman, Stixrud and Urzua, 2006[30]). In fact, socio-emotional skills can be more important than cognitive ones for a range of health-related outcomes (e.g. smoking, obesity and self-reported health) (Conti, Heckman and Urzua, 2010[31]; Lance, 2011[19]).

• High-quality early childhood education and care can boost lifetime health outcomes, but the size of its effects can vary widely across beneficiaries. Early childhood education and care can bridge gaps between children of different backgrounds and ensure all children develop a well-rounded set of skills to thrive. For instance, a set of early childhood programmes targeted at disadvantaged children generated substantial benefits to participants in terms of reduced prevalence of heart disease, cancer, stroke and mortality across the lifecycle (García and Heckman, 2020[32]). While the programme resulted in large gains in terms of quality-adjusted life years for men, its benefits were relatively small for women. More generally, the type, beneficiaries and timing of early childhood interventions shape the size of their effects (Lleras-Muney, 2018[27]). Evidence from the Head Start early childhood education programme in the United States shows that the benefits of the programme vary largely across its recipients and depend on the quality of alternative care children would have received instead of Head Start (Kline and Walters, 2016[33]). The benefits are large for students who would otherwise be in home care, whereas they are negligible for those who would otherwise attend a different preschool.

Evidence suggests that the health benefits of education also play out in terms of positive externalities…

At the same time, education can also affect the health outcomes of peers or individuals’ own children, and education investment decisions need to account for such positive externalities. Research has documented, for instance, the existence of peer effects for teenagers’ excessive drinking or smoking behaviours (Lance, 2011[19]). In addition, parental education can have intergenerational effects on health. If better-educated mothers breastfeed more, provide healthier food for their children or ensure a better living environment for them, children’s health-related outcomes are likely to be enhanced. Better-educated parents can either spend more resources on health (e.g. live in better neighbourhoods or buy higher-quality medical products or services) or spend existing resources better (e.g. obtain better information about doctors or be more aware of health dangers and adapt their behaviour accordingly) (Bradley and Green, 2020[16]). Children’s health at a given time can therefore depend on children’s previous health condition, any parental investment made before and the environment in which children are born or evolve (e.g. parental relationship stability, school environment, whether they live in a better neighbourhood) (Conti and Heckman, 2014[34]). Parental education can thus affect children’s health at various life stages, from pregnancy and birth, until later in life when parental education shapes the environment in which children grow up and evolve.

High-quality education helps build the skills, knowledge and attitudes that support individuals’ mental health and psychological well-being throughout life...

Around one in two people experience mental health problems at some point in their life and the COVID-19 pandemic further increased the pervasiveness of mental health conditions such as anxiety and depression (OECD, 2021[35]). Increased mental health or psychological problems are costly for individuals, employers and society (OECD, 2021[36]). But education systems can equip individuals with the skills needed to protect their psychological well-being and thrive in life. Indeed, higher levels of educational attainment are correlated with increased life satisfaction and less pervasive negative feelings and states (Figure 2.2. ). It is worth noting though that these education-related inequalities in subjective well-being are smaller in countries whose populations have higher average life satisfaction overall.

There are several channels for education to translate into mental health…

Similarly to physical health, mental health can benefit from high-quality education through a range of channels. Better-educated individuals have access to better resources and develop better health-related behaviours that in turn can favour their mental health. At the same time, they may enter more stressful occupations or face higher pressure to maintain high achievement (academically or professionally) (Dahmann and Schnitzlein, 2019[37]). Causal evidence of education’s role for mental health remains nevertheless mixed and less developed relative to research on education’s impact on physical health, notably due to data availability challenges.

Socio-emotional skills seem to play a key role in shaping mental health outcomes…

Social-emotional skills matter for mental health outcomes. Early socio-emotional skills play a key role in supporting individuals’ psychological well-being, from early ages and until adulthood (OECD, 2020[38]; OECD, 2021[39]). Socio-emotional skills related to emotional regulation – optimism, stress resistance and emotional control – are also associated with teenage students’ life satisfaction and psychological well-being (OECD, 2021[39]). Among the Big Five personality traits2 put forward by psychology research Agreeableness (including skills such as co-operation or trust), Conscientiousness (including skills such as the ability for self-control or persistence) and Emotional Regulation (including skills such as stress resistance) relate positively and strongly to both mental and physical health (Strickhouser, Zell and Krizan, 2017[40]). Social and emotional skills are thus strong predictors of life satisfaction across different ages in adulthood, even after accounting for individuals’ income and employment status as adults (Flèche, Lekfuangfu and Clark, 2021[41]).

Social-emotional skills are malleable and can be learned. The environments in which individuals evolve (e.g. family, peers, life events) and the learning activities in which they engage shape the development of social and emotional skills (OECD, 2015[42]; OECD, 2021[39]). A range of policy interventions, innovations in teaching practices and parental efforts can support their development (OECD, 2021[39]). While OECD countries’ curricula mostly emphasise cognitive skills, they give equal prominence to a range of social and emotional skills students need to develop to thrive in life (OECD, 2020[7]). Interventions focused on social and emotional learning have been found to be effective at increasing pro-social behaviour and reducing the need for behavioural programmes (OECD, 2021[39]). In addition, teachers play a key role in enhancing students’ social and emotional development. A range of teaching practices and approaches, including interactions with students, emphasis on critical thinking in specific subjects and classroom organisation are effective at enhancing students’ social and emotional development (OECD, 2021[39]).

Figure 2.2. Prevalence of negative affect balance by educational attainment

Share of the population experiencing a negative affect balance yesterday, by highest level of educational attainment, 2010-18 pooled data

Note: The share of the population experiencing a negative affect balance yesterday is the share of the population reporting more negative than positive feelings and states on the previous day. Data are not shown for countries where the sample size in a given education category is fewer than 500 observations (i.e. data for primary education are omitted for Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Israel, the Netherlands, Sweden and the United States; data for tertiary education are omitted for Slovenia). These countries are also excluded from the OECD averages shown. Costa Rica is also excluded from the OECD average since it was not an OECD member country at the time of the preparation of this figure.

Source: Adapted from OECD (2020[43]), How's Life? 2020: Measuring Well-being, https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9870c393-en, Figure 8.10.

… While the evidence regarding cognitive skills and well-being is more mixed during school years due to the effects of school climate and test anxiety

While better education tends to be associated with enhanced well-being in adulthood, higher academic achievement can display more ambiguous effects during school years given the risks of test anxiety and bullying.

Early cognitive skills, self-regulation, self-awareness, emotional health and social skills relate positively with adult mental health (Shuey and Kankaraš, 2018[4]; OECD, 2020[38]; Schoon et al., 2015[28]). Five-year-old children with better receptive language skills, better self-regulation and visual-motor skills display better mental health outcomes as adults (Schoon et al., 2015[28]).

During the school years, the relationship between student performance in cognitive assessments and their well-being is more ambiguous. 15-year-old students display lower average levels of life satisfaction than younger ones (OECD, 2021[39]) and better academic achievement does not automatically translate into higher life satisfaction. Students with very high and very low levels of life satisfaction display, for instance, lower reading scores in the PISA (2018) assessment (OECD, 2019[44]).

School climate and test anxiety are likely to shape these patterns. On the one hand, students’ life satisfaction is positively related to a good disciplinary climate in school, teacher support and feedback, students’ co-operation and sense of belonging in school. Students who were less exposed to bullying were also more likely to report higher life satisfaction (OECD, 2019[44]). On the other hand, more demanding learning environments for 15-year-olds, associated with higher parental and teacher expectations, and increased schoolwork pressure towards the end of compulsory education can limit students’ well-being. Students expressing a greater fear of failure displayed both higher academic achievement but also lower life satisfaction levels. Students’ life satisfaction and psychological well-being also relate negatively with test anxiety (OECD, 2021[39]).

Education policies and the focus of curricula on the whole child, including socio-emotional development, play a key role in addressing students’ psychological well-being and mental health conditions. Policy interventions should nevertheless ensure that while they seek to enhance all students’ well-being, they also provide specific, targeted support for learners experiencing mental health conditions (OECD, 2021[45]). Indeed, the characteristics and impact of mental health conditions require an integrated whole-of-government approach that brings together health, education, social protection and employment services (OECD, 2021[36]).

Education also supports the formation of well-informed citizens…

Beyond its role in shaping a range of economic and broader social individual benefits, education supports the formation of engaged and well-informed citizens who can better contribute to their communities. Education systems can instil civic and democratic values in students, through the knowledge, attitudes and skills the latter acquire in schools. Analytical, information-processing and critical-thinking skills developed in schools can make for more enlightened and engaged citizens and, in turn, better-functioning democracies. Creativity helps individuals innovate, thrive from a personal perspective but also challenge existing norms and find new solutions when unexpected disruptions arise in their societies. Critical thinking is a crucial pillar of well-functioning democracies, even more in the digital age with its abundancy of information sources, multiplicity of facts and views, and rise of “fake news” (Vincent-Lancrin et al., 2019[46]).

Evidence from PISA (2018) shows that education systems where more students are taught how to detect biased information in school also display higher proportions of students who are able to distinguish fact from opinion (Figure 2.3.). Yet, on average across OECD countries, only one in two 15-year-old students were trained at school on how to recognise biased information (OECD, 2021[47]), even though critical thinking and creativity can be taught, learned and assessed in primary and secondary education (Vincent-Lancrin et al., 2019[46]). The relationship between students’ access to training on how to recognise biased information and their ability to distinguish fact from opinion varies across countries, suggesting there is leeway for education systems to learn from each other and enhance the effectiveness of such training (OECD, 2021[47]).

Figure 2.3. Reading item of distinguishing facts from opinions and access to training on how to detect biased information in school

Note: Numbers in the figure correspond to the following countries/economies: 1. Bosnia and Herzegovina; 2. Malaysia; 3. Colombia; 4. Czech Republic; 5. Croatia; 6. France; 7. Lithuania; 8. Greece; 9. Austria; 10. Iceland; 11. Macao (China); 12. B-S-J-Z (China).

¹ In 2018, some regions in Spain conducted their high-stakes exams for tenth-grade students earlier in the year than in the past, which resulted in the testing period for these exams coinciding with the end of the PISA testing window. Because of this overlap, a number of students were negatively disposed towards the PISA test and did not try their best to demonstrate their proficiency. Although the data of only a minority of students show clear signs of lack of engagement (see PISA 2018 Results Volume I, Annex A9), the comparability of PISA 2018 data for Spain with those from earlier PISA assessments cannot be fully ensured.

Source: OECD (2021[47]), 21st-Century Readers: Developing Literacy Skills in a Digital World, https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/a83d84cb-en, Figure 2.4.

… and provides students with opportunities to exchange ideas and engage in collective activities to stimulate future civic engagement

In addition, education includes students in social networks, providing opportunities to interact, exchange diverse ideas and engage in collective activities. Schooling teaches students how to socialise in productive ways that matter for subsequent political and civic engagement (Glaeser, Ponzetto and Shleifer, 2007[48]). Collaboration skills can be taught and practiced in cognitive subjects (e.g. science, mathematics) but also in physical education class where students work together to reach common goals (OECD, 2017[49]). School and classroom activities and environments matter for students’ ability and attitudes towards collaboration. Students who engage in more communication-intensive activities (e.g. explaining ideas in science class, doing practical experiments and arguing about science questions) display more positive attitudes towards collaboration. Exposure to diversity in schools also relates positively to collaborative skills: students without an immigrant background tend to perform better in terms of collaborative skills when they are in schools with higher concentration of immigrant students (OECD, 2017[49]).

At macro level, there is strong correlation between education and the strength of democratic institutions, but equity of education outcomes seems to matter even more…

High-quality education matters for democracy and well-functioning institutions. Empirical analyses highlight the strong cross-country correlation between education and democracy, supporting the role of education as a crucial pillar for democracy (Lochner, 2011[50]; Apergis, 2018[51]). Macro-economic evidence on the effect of increases in a nation’s education on the strength of democratic institutions remains, however, mixed, reflecting a range of methodological challenges and differences in the estimation of a causal relationship. While most studies examine the role of average years of schooling, the distribution of education in a country appears to matter more than the average level of its population’s education for the implementation and sustainability of democracy (Castelló-Climent, 2008[52]). Indeed, greater equity in education outcomes is associated with stronger measures of political rights and civil liberties. In addition, evidence based on foreign students’ role for institutions in their home countries suggests that education systems’ efforts to teach democratic values tend to make a difference (Glaeser, Ponzetto and Shleifer, 2007[48]; Lochner, 2011[50]). Foreign-educated individuals tend to promote democracy at home when they acquire their foreign education in a democratic country (Spilimbergo, 2009[53]).

… While at micro level, education tends to translate into higher voter engagement, but less so in volunteering activities

At the individual level, investment in schooling tends to translate into higher voter engagement (e.g. voter registration, voting), political information (e.g. following campaigns and public affairs) and support for free speech (Lochner, 2011[50]; Bradley and Green, 2020[16]). Available research on the effect of schooling for civic engagement tends, however, to rely on data from the United States, with additional evidence stemming from Germany and the United Kingdom. Evidence from the OECD Survey of Adult Skills shows that adults who have attained a higher educational qualification, even at later stages in life, display higher levels of political self-efficacy - a sense of being able to influence the government (Desjardins, 2020[20]). In contrast, higher educational attainment does not necessarily translate into higher engagement in volunteering activities (Bradley and Green, 2020[16]). The opportunity cost of time, which is higher for better-educated individuals who earn more and hence, may lose more in terms of earnings if they devote time to volunteering, may explain some of these findings.

Education also plays a key role in reducing criminal behaviour

The effects of education on crime can run through a range of channels. Education increases wages and hence, the opportunity cost of crime. Measures that prevent high school dropout and enhance labour market skills can therefore be very effective at reducing crime. Education also keeps children in the classroom and thereby off the streets where they could get involved in criminal activities. In addition, by keeping children away from potential criminal activities, education helps reduce criminal intensity and the risk that students leave school with a criminal record. Students who remain in school longer leave education with better chances of abiding the law later in life, making education a promising instrument for crime reduction (Lochner and Moretti, 2004[54]; Bell, Costa and Machin, 2022[55]).

In addition, education can also teach individuals how to be more patient and change their preferences towards risk, highlighting the crucial role of socio-emotional skills (Lochner, 2011[50]; Bradley and Green, 2020[16]). In fact, research evidence suggests that socio-emotional skills matter more than cognitive ones for predicting low engagement in criminal activity (Jason Baron, Hyman and Vasquez, 2022[56]; Cunha, Heckman and Schennach, 2010[57]) (OECD, 2021[39]). Early socio-emotional skills are associated with a lower likelihood of individual involvement in crime, delinquent or antisocial behaviour later in life (OECD, 2020[38])).

Fostering the development of socio-emotional skills from an early age can thus translate into lifetime social benefits. For instance, a two-year long training on social skills and self-control targeted at disruptive kindergarten boys from low socio-economic backgrounds helped increase self-control and trust later in life (Algan et al., 2022[58]). The intervention enhanced educational achievement, reduced criminality as young adults and increased social capital in adulthood. Even when the labour market returns to the individual are not accounted for, the benefits of the training programme in terms of reduced education costs (e.g. grade repetition), crime (arrest and court costs) and social transfers already compensate the programme’s costs (Algan et al., 2022[58]).

Crime entails substantial social costs and education’s role in reducing crime translates into social benefits that go beyond the private returns to individuals. Research estimates show that education-related policies can translate into sizeable social benefits (Box 2.2). Increases in years of high school attendance and policies that enhance schooling of individuals who belong to more crime-prone groups (Lochner, 2011[50]). In a similar vein, increases in public school funding – whether these run through operating expenditures (e.g. teacher salaries) or capital expenditure (e.g. building renovations) – that translate into improvements in school can also be a cost-effective crime prevention measure (Jason Baron, Hyman and Vasquez, 2022[56]). In fact, the estimated cost effectiveness of increases in school funding for crime reduction appears to be similar to that of a range of early childhood education interventions (e.g. Head Start in the United States) (Jason Baron, Hyman and Vasquez, 2022[56]; Anders, Barr and Smith, 2022[59]).

Education is a strong determinant of trust…

Education is a key predictor of social capital, including actual social relationships and networks (see previous section) and norms of trust and reciprocity that facilitate co-operation between individuals (Borgonovi and Andrieu, 2020[60]; Algan, 2018[61]). A large literature has documented the role of social capital, and particularly of trust (trust in others and trust in institutions), for economic growth, government performance, financial development or economic exchanges, health-related behaviours, crime and well-being (for a review, see (Algan and Cahuc, 2010[62]; Algan, 2018[61])). During the COVID-19 crisis, social capital has played a mediating role in reducing the spread of the virus (Makridis and Wu, 2021[63]). Individuals in communities with high levels of social capital reduced their mobility directed at retail and recreational activities faster than individuals living in communities with low social capital (Borgonovi and Andrieu, 2020[60]). In addition, trust in scientists during the pandemic has shaped support for and compliance with non-pharmaceutical interventions (e.g. closing nonessential businesses, implementing a curfew, mandating the use of face masks in public places) and vaccination (Algan et al., 2021[64]).

Trust is the foundation of social capital (Borgonovi and Burns, 2015[65]) and education is one of the strongest determinants of trust. Increases in individual education and in the average level of education of individuals in the surrounding community are associated with higher levels of trust (Helliwell and Putnam, 2007[66]). Education builds the cognitive and socio-emotional skills needed to interpret the behaviour of other individuals and engage in effective collaborations with them (Borgonovi and Burns, 2015[65]). Evidence from the OECD Survey of Adult Skills shows that information-processing skills related positively with trust (OECD, 2019[22]) and that individuals who attain a higher education qualification are more likely to report trust in others than those who did not reach such a qualification (Figure 2.4.). The effect of education on trust appears progressive: each extra qualification is associated with higher levels of interpersonal trust (Borgonovi and Burns, 2015[65]). Moreover, teaching practices matter for the production of such social capital: horizontal teaching practices, such as working in groups, are associated with more pro-social beliefs, including higher levels of trust (Algan, Cahuc and Shleifer, 2013[67]). While only correlational, evidence based on PISA data suggests that education systems could play a key role in rebuilding trust in scientists, which has proved to be an issue during the COVID-19 pandemic. There is a significant association at the system-level between students’ performance in science and trust in scientists (Algan, 2021[68]).

…although consensus on the mechanics driving the relationship between education and trust has not been reached

While education and trust display strong positive associations, the research literature has not yet achieved consensus on the mechanisms underpinning this relationship (Borgonovi and Pokropek, 2017[69]). A range of factors can shape the positive association between education and trust. Personal ability and intelligence can support both higher levels of trust and educational attainment. In addition, better-educated individuals may find it easier to trust others if they engage in more social interactions throughout their studies (Yang, 2019[70]). Evidence based on the OECD Survey of Adult Skills (PIAAC) shows that a large part of the association between education and generalised trust is mediated by literacy skills, income and occupational prestige (Borgonovi and Pokropek, 2017[69]).

Figure 2.4. Adjusted probabilities of reporting trust in others for adults who attained a bachelor's degree (ISCED 5a) as traditional or non-traditional students

Note: Adjusted results control for the degree of labour market attachment as measured by the intensity of working time, as well as gender, immigrant and language status, parents’ education, literacy proficiency and earning. The model is fitted using the binary logistic regression procedure and log odds were converted to adjusted probabilities.

Source: Desjardins (2020[20]), PIAAC Thematic Review on Adult Learning, https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/864d2484-en, Figure 4.22.

 StatLink https://stat.link/lwzsb3

More generally, the social environment in which individuals evolve shapes the strength of the mechanisms that drives the link between education and trust. Greater birthplace diversity supports a stronger positive relationship between literacy skills and generalised trust, while greater income inequality diminishes the strength of the association (Borgonovi and Pokropek, 2017[69]).The quality of government institutions also matters. Evidence based on European countries shows that at the individual level, increases in education translate into higher levels of social trust when individuals reside in a high-quality institutional setting, with impartial and non-corrupt institutions (Charron and Rothstein, 2016[71])). As individuals get better educated, they also become better aware of favouritism and more likely to detect corruption behaviours, which in turn reduces their level of trust in the absence of high-quality government. As a matter of fact, the role of education for trust tends to become negligible in the absence of impartial and non-corrupt institutions.

Education can also help foster social inclusion and support social mobility…

Education systems can help build more inclusive economies and societies. Social inclusion can be broadly understood as “the process of improving the ability, opportunity and dignity of people, disadvantaged on the basis of their identity, to take part in society” (Cerna et al., 2021[72]; World Bank, 2013[73]). Education can promote equal opportunities for all, and ensuring equity of participation and outcomes in initial education is a first step.

Education participation and attainment have largely increased across OECD countries (OECD, 2021[2]). At the same time, education mobility remains a concern: in the last decades, mobility from the lower and middle education levels to the upper levels has been slowing down (OECD, 2018[74]). Although access to education has largely increased in the past decades, large inequalities by socio-economic status remain in the completion of tertiary education (OECD, 2018[75]), and inequality in education is persistent across several generations (Blanden, Doepke and Stuhler, 2022[76]). Rising inequalities and low social mobility hamper growth and productivity, can translate into rising social tensions and societal divides, while increasing individuals’ exposure to hazards, violence and reduced capacity to fulfil their potential (OECD, 2018[74]).

Inequalities in learning opportunities start early and for students of low socio-economic backgrounds, a great teacher and a good school are often one of the most powerful paths for moving up the social ladder (OECD, 2019[77]). While in many OECD countries, a student’s postal code remains a core predictor of their chances to succeed, evidence from PISA and the OECD Survey of Adult Skills (PIAAC) shows that excellence and equity in education and training systems often go hand in hand (OECD, 2019[77]; OECD, 2019[78]). Indeed, many countries that ensure inclusiveness in skills development also display high levels of foundational skills among their youth, tertiary graduates and adults (OECD, 2019[78]). In contrast, countries that display the lowest equity performance also display low levels of average performance.

Achieving equity within education systems is a key precondition for achieving equity in subsequent lifetime outcomes. Early intervention is key to break the cycle of intergenerational disadvantage and smoothen lifetime income mobility for individuals from lower socio-economic backgrounds (OECD, 2018[74]). Education policies that ensure equitable learning opportunities and outcomes during compulsory schooling can support upward mobility in education and equity in educational attainment (OECD, 2018[75]). While several countries, including Denmark, Estonia, Japan and Korea, maintain equity of learning (in terms of participation and quality) from initial to advanced education, few countries achieve maintaining equity in advanced education in spite of low equity in initial education (Figure 2.5).

Figure 2.5. Equity in initial and advanced education

Note: The indicator of equity in initial education is the average of the normalised scores of different proxy indicators or equity in initial education (from early childhood to secondary education): share of disadvantaged students (bottom quarter of 15 year-olds in PISA 2018) who attended early childhood education for at least two years (equity of participation indicator); and difference in the share of low-achievers in PISA 2018 between top and bottom quarter ESCS 15 year-olds (equity of outcomes indicator).

The indicator of equity in advanced education is the average of the normalised scores of different proxy indicators or equity in advanced education (post-secondary non-tertiary and tertiary education): difference in the share of 28-34 year-olds with tertiary education between those with high and low-educated parents (equity of participation indicator); difference in the share of adults aged 35 years and older enrolled in at least a post-secondary non-tertiary programme (post-secondary non-tertiary education or tertiary education) between those with high and low-educated parents (equity of participation indicator); difference in the share of 16-34 year-olds who have not completed post-secondary or tertiary education between those with high and low-educated parents (equity of outcomes indicator); and difference in the share of 25-64 year-old adults lacking basic skills between those with high and low-educated parents (equity of outcomes indicators).

All country values on the indicators of equity in initial/advanced education are then compared to the OECD average, and the differences expressed in percentages are represented on the chart. The OECD average corresponds to the arithmetic mean of the respective indicators for each of the OECD countries or sub-national entities included in the figure.

For data coming from the OECD Survey of Adult Skills (PIAAC): Data for Belgium refer to Flanders only. Data for the United Kingdom refer to England and Northern Ireland jointly. The United States has collected three waves of data using the PIAAC instruments and data for the United States in the figure are based on mean of the United States observations available (combined data from the 2012 and 2014 collections, and data from the 2017 data collection).

Source: Adapted from OECD (2018[79]) and data from OECD (2018[80]), PISA Database 2018, https://www.oecd.org/pisa/data/2018database/ (for indicators on equity in initial education) and OECD (2012, 2015, 2017[81]), Survey of Adult Skills (PIAAC) Database 2012, 2015 and 2017, https://www.oecd.org/skills/piaac/data/ (for indicators on equity in advanced education).

 StatLink https://stat.link/lfwyz6

…and also help build societies that are more cohesive, through the formation of more tolerant and open-minded individuals

Cohesive societies help support the well-being of their members, fight exclusion and marginalisation, promote trust and foster a sense of belonging, while supporting upward social mobility (OECD, 2011[82]). Beyond its role for trust and well-being, as well as for helping individuals move up the social ladder, education can also support the formation of more tolerant and open-minded individuals and of more cohesive societies as a consequence.

Education is a key determinant of tolerance and low levels of discriminatory attitudes. Research evidence suggests that lower education levels are associated with greater levels of in-group favouritism, prejudice, ethnic exclusionism, xenophobia and negative attitudes towards immigrants (for a review, see (Easterbrook, Kuppens and Manstead, 2016[83]; Mezzanotte, 2022[84]; Borgonovi and Pokropek, 2019[85])). Encouragingly, across OECD countries, most students are interested in learning about other cultures and students who are different from them. Such an interest is positively associated with students’ respect for people from other cultures and awareness of intercultural communication (OECD, 2020[86]). A range of education activities can foster students’ global competence or capacity to live in a diverse and interconnected world. Indeed, students’ interest in learning about other cultures, their ability to understand different perspectives and their awareness of intercultural communication are all positively associated with the number of learning activities related to such topics they engage in at school (OECD, 2020[86]).

Hence, through its socialisation role, education helps improve communication in society between individuals with different backgrounds (e.g. socio-economic, cultural, and religious), with implications for economic growth (Gradstein and Justman, 2002[87]). Beyond a socialisation role, education can also help reduce perceptions of economic or cultural threat and thereby translate into more tolerance towards individuals who are different. Evidence based on cross-country data suggests that better-educated individuals display lower opposition to migration than lower-educated ones and that this increased acceptance levels are largely due to lower feelings of threat (Borgonovi and Pokropek, 2019[85]).

During the pandemic, digital skills have made a difference to continue engage in society, work, learn and to access health care online…

During the pandemic, many public and private services have moved online. Having a well-rounded level of skills has made a difference between continuing to engage in society, work, learn and access health care, and being left out or left behind. Already before the pandemic, lower-educated individuals were more likely to feel left out of society and this perception has become more acute during the COVID-19 crisis (OECD, 2021[8]). While a range of factors may have triggered this feeling, digital divides that prevented individuals from connecting to other people or accessing a range of services during lockdowns are likely to have exacerbated this perception. Without basic skills, individuals are locked out of the benefits of an increasingly digital world. Lacking basic literacy and numeracy skills constitutes a barrier to performing activities online, while lacking problem-solving skills in technology-rich environments is a barrier to performing more diverse and complex activities (OECD, 2019[1]).

Figure 2.6. Effects of skills on the likelihood to perform diverse and complex Internet uses rather than for information and communication only

Relative risk ratios (comparison profile – “Diversified and complex use”, reference profile – “Use for information and communication”)

Note: People in this “Diversified and complex use” profile perform on average the largest number and greatest variety of activities on line. They carry out the biggest share of online tasks linked to e-finance, learning and creativity, activities that are performed by the smallest range of individuals and that can also be considered more complex. People in the ”Use for information and communication profile” mainly use communication tools and access the Internet to obtain information. Each bar displays the relative risk ratio obtained from a multinomial logit regression in which the dependent variable is the profile of Internet user to which each individual belongs and the independent variable of interest is a dummy equal to 1 if the individual has a given level of skills. For a good level of literacy (numeracy) skills: individuals with a good level of skills score at least Level 3. For a good level of literacy and numeracy skills: individuals with a good level of skills score at least Level 3 in literacy and numeracy. For a good level of problem-solving skills (in technology-rich environments: individuals with a good level of skills score at least Level 2 (inclusive) in problem-solving. For the skills mix (all skills): individuals with a well-rounded skill set score at least Level 3 (inclusive) in literacy and numeracy and at least Level 2 (inclusive) in problem solving. The analysis was performed on a matched OECD Survey of Adult Skills (PIAAC) - European Community Survey on Information and Communication Technology (ICT) Usage in Households and by Individuals (CSIS) file including seven countries (Czech Republic, Finland, France, Ireland, Italy, Lithuania and Spain). Other independent variables included in the estimation include: age categories, educational attainment level, employment status, gender and country dummies. The sample for the analysis on the effect of good problem-solving skills and that of having a well-rounded skills set includes individuals from the Czech Republic, Finland, Ireland and Lithuania. France, Italy and Spain did not participate in the problem-solving skills in technology-rich environments assessment. Relative risk ratios are obtained by an exponential transformation of the estimated coefficients from the multinomial logit. Significance levels have been obtained from the estimated coefficients of the multinomial logit. In the Survey of Adult Skills (PIAAC): Lithuania- year of reference 2015; all other countries- year of reference 2012. *** - significant at the 1% level. ** - significant at the 5% level.

Source: OECD (2019[1]), OECD Skills Outlook 2019: Thriving in a Digital World, https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/df80bc12-en, Figure 4.12.

Digital skills are also important to protect against the risks associated with digital technologies…

Skills also enable individuals to better protect themselves – and their children – against any risks associated with digital technologies. The increasing use of digital devices and Internet may be detrimental to individuals’ well-being and social relationships. While a causal relationship has been challenging to establish, evidence suggests that excessive uses of digital technologies are associated with lower life satisfaction, increased risk of depression and anxiety, lower sleep quality and higher prevalence of negative feelings (e.g. feeling sad and miserable) (OECD, 2021[90]; Hooft Graafland, 2018[91]; OECD, 2019[44]).

Better-educated- individuals are potentially better informed about digital-related risks, have access to other non-digitally based activities during their leisure time, or are more careful about their online engagement. Students who perform better in the PISA assessments are, for instance, less likely to report feeling bad without an Internet connection (OECD, 2019[1]). In addition, skills also shape how individuals take care of their online safety and data privacy. A good level of skills increases the likelihood that individuals take action to enhance their online security by managing access to their personal information, using anti-tracking software or changing settings to limit cookies (OECD, 2019[1]). Digital skills also help children to better cope with cyberbullying, for instance by enabling them to take the necessary actions to block senders and delete messages (Gottschalk, 2022[92]).

By integrating digital technologies in teaching and learning, education can help build the skills needed for a digital world and bridge divides…

Education systems play a key role in laying the foundations for thriving students and citizens in an increasingly digital world. Beyond seeking to equip students with a well-rounded mix of skills and learning attitudes, education systems have equally focused their efforts on integrating digital technologies in students’ learning. The introduction and use of digital technologies and Internet in schools has been one of the main drivers of innovation in education practices observed in the past decade in OECD countries (Vincent-Lancrin et al., 2019[93]) and the pandemic has further boosted the digital transformation of education systems. Data from PISA (2018) show that on average across OECD countries, around two-thirds of students had experienced the use of digital devices as part of their science, reading or mathematics classes in the previous month3. In science, such uses were in most cases performed either by teachers and students together (for 31% of all science students) or teachers only (for 31% of all science students) in contrast to student-led uses (for 12% of all science students).

The use of digital technologies in education systems can be part of the solution for building the skills needed for a digital world, including digital skills. Although children are exposed to digital technologies from an ever earlier age, not all young individuals are technologically savvy and the use of digital technologies in schools can enhance students’ digital skills (OECD, 2015[94]; OECD, 2017[95]) (Malamud and Pop-Eleches, 2011[96]; Malamud et al., 2018[97]; Bulman and Fairlie, 2016[98]). Evidence from PISA (2018) shows that students who had more opportunities to learn digital skills at school are more likely to perform well in emergent aspects of reading, such as distinguishing fact from opinion (OECD, 2021[47]). While divides in access to digital technologies at home persist in many OECD countries, schools can help bridge inequalities in students’ access to such technologies and in the extent to which they seize their benefits for learning.

Digitalisation also provides new opportunities for education systems to shift away from a “one-size-fits-all” teaching approach to personalised learning experiences. Smart uses of digital technologies hold great potential in terms of inclusion, through adaptive learning, enhanced personalisation of learning experiences, access to a greater array of learning resources and equipment (e.g. through remote laboratories), or the use of Artificial Intelligence-based tools to accompany instruction with diagnosis and personalisation. Learning analytics4, based on big data gathered from online navigation, social networks or networked devices and sensors, also support the development of more personalised learning experiences (OECD, 2019[99]; OECD, 2021[100]). These allow for easier identification of students at risk of dropout and assessment of the effectiveness of a variety of teaching strategies. Such innovative uses of data and digital technologies in education systems provide pathways for more inclusive and high-quality learning experiences.

The use of digital technologies in teaching and learning can enhance student academic performance, but many countries are yet to reap the benefits of digital education

Indeed, when technology enters teaching and learning practices in innovative ways, it can translate into higher student performance and engagement (Paniagua and Istance, 2018[101]; OECD, 2019[1]; OECD, 2021[100]). Evidence from PISA (2018) shows that the use of digital devices as part of teaching activities can support better student performance, although not all education systems have managed to tap into the potential of digital technologies for effective teaching and learning (Figure 2.7).

PISA data also suggests, however, that seizing this potential depends on how technology is being used in the teaching and learning process and the underlying pedagogical intent. Indeed, teacher-led and (though to a somehow lesser extent depending on countries) combined student-teacher uses of digital devices for learning tend to be more positively associated with student performance than student-led uses of digital devices, even after accounting for students and schools’ socio-economic background, school digital infrastructure or student perceived digital competence. In Australia and New Zealand, countries where combined teacher-student uses of digital technologies are very frequent (OECD, 2021[47]), such uses also display the largest association with student performance relative to the other types of digital devices use, suggesting that students in these countries are seizing the benefits of digital technologies through enhanced instructional practices. More generally, these findings are in line with research evidence pointing at the importance of engaging teachers in the use of digital technologies rather than sidestepping them, and building capacity within the education system for the pedagogical use of digital technologies instead of merely focusing on digital infrastructure availability (Beg et al., 2022[102]; Sailer, Murböck and Fischer, 2021[103]).

In contrast, student-led uses of digital technologies tend to display mostly negative associations with student performance, suggesting that students may not perform the most productive uses of digital tools, particularly if teachers do not oversee or guide student use and students get distracted or make passive uses of technology. At the same time, student-led uses tend to be more recurrent in socio-economically disadvantaged schools than advantaged ones on average across OECD countries5. The potential of digital technologies for inclusion and bridging learning gaps may therefore not be reached in the absence of policies that support more innovative uses of digital technologies in disadvantaged schools (e.g. through targeted teacher professional learning opportunities, provision of external expertise and guidance for the introduction of digital technologies in teaching and learning, development of students’ digital skills).

Figure 2.7. Use of digital devices for learning and teaching, and student performance

Performance differences stemming from the use of digital devices for learning and teaching during lessons within the previous month by type of user (only teacher, both teacher and student, only students) relative to no device use

Note: Values that are not statistically significant are highlighted in light grey. The reference category is students who report no uses of digital devices for learning during lessons within the previous month. Regression controls include: the PISA index of student’s socio-economic status, schools' socio-economic status, time spent using digital devices outside of classroom lessons for each specific subject, time spent using digital devices during subject lessons, principals' reports on the school capacity to enhance learning and teaching using digital devices (sufficient number of Internet-connected devices, sufficient school Internet bandwidth, availability of adequate software, teachers with necessary skills to integrate digital devices in instruction, availability of professional resources for teachers to learn how to use digital devices, availability of an online learning support platform, incentives for teachers to integrate digital devices in teaching, sufficiently qualified technical assistant staff), availability of digital infrastructure in schools (number of school computers per student and proportion of Internet-connected computers), availability of home computer for school work, students’ perceived ICT competence.

Source: Adapted from OECD (2018[80]), PISA Database 2018, https://www.oecd.org/pisa/data/2018database/ (accessed on 10 November 2022).

 StatLink https://stat.link/32gx9d

Evidence from Figure 2.7 also shows that countries have unequally seized the benefits of the digital transformation in their education systems. The average positive associations between teacher-led or combined student-teacher uses of digital devices in teaching and learning suggest that there is great potential for most countries to further leverage the digital transformation in education, but that countries need to adopt a range of policies to support effective digital education. Students in a number of education systems, including Australia, Finland, New Zealand or the United Kingdom, appear to derive more substantial benefits from teacher-led and combined student-teacher uses of digital devices in contrast to their peers in other OECD countries. Evidence from TALIS (2013) shows that Australia, Finland, New Zealand or the United Kingdom were also ahead already in 2013 in terms of the preparation and training of their teachers for digital technologies use (OECD, 2019[1]). These countries have likely managed to design a digital education policy ecosystem (including polices to ensure the availability of digital education infrastructure and foster innovation in digital education technologies, capacity building to ensure their effective use, etc.) that enables more effective and innovative uses of digital technologies for learning and teaching.

Education plays a key role in raising awareness and sensitivity about a range of global and environmental issues…

Education is instrumental in raising awareness and sensitivity about a range of global issues and forming citizens who are prepared to live and act for a sustainable future. Skills shape students’ and citizens’ ability to live in an interconnected world and take action for collective well-being (OECD, 2020[86]). Building a sustainable future also requires behavioural changes, understanding and acceptance of climate action policies.

The PISA 2018 assessment has examined the competences students need to develop to be able to thrive in a diverse and interconnected world. Students who display higher values in indices that reflect their attitudes and dispositions regarding global issues (e.g. awareness of global issues, interest in learning about other cultures, cognitive adaptability) are more likely to report that they take actions for collective well-being and sustainable development (OECD, 2020[86]). Such positive attitudes and dispositions regarding global issues are positively related to students’ global competence test performance. While positive attitudes and dispositions towards global issues are likely to shape students’ motivation and performance in learning about these topics, it is also likely that better understanding such issues can result in more positive dispositions and likelihood that students take action.

When it comes to students’ preparedness for building a sustainable future in particular, evidence from several PISA rounds highlights that students’ environmental awareness and pro-environmental attitudes are positively associated with their science performance (OECD, 2021[6]). Students with a better understanding of science are thus more likely to be environmentally aware and equally display a deeper sense of responsibility for sustainable development issues (OECD, 2021[104]; Echazarra, 2018[105]). The number of science activities in which students participate at school and their exposure to enquiry-based teaching also matter for their attitudes towards the environment. More generally, students’ attitudes regarding global issues relate positively with the number of global competence activities they engage in at school, even after accounting for students’ and schools’ socio-economic profile (OECD, 2020[86]).

Students’ awareness of environmental problems is strongly associated with the content of students’ curriculum…

Beyond learning activities organised in schools, the content of formal curricula can also help improve students’ awareness of and attitudes towards such issues. A number of countries (e.g. Australia, Denmark and Estonia) already prioritise environmental awareness and stability among their education goals (OECD, 2020[5]). Evidence from PISA 2018 shows that almost all students have environmental issues included in their curricula and that including such topics in the curriculum matters. Students’ awareness of climate change and global warming is strongly associated with their inclusion in students’ curriculum on average across OECD countries (OECD, 2020[86]). At the same time, students’ environmental sustainability competence displays large overall variance and a high level of general educational achievement is not sufficient for developing greater awareness of environmental problems (Borgonovi et al., 2022[106]; Borgonovi et al., 2022[107]). In contrast, being a top performer in science is positively associated with higher levels of environmental awareness even after accounting for students’ reading and mathematics achievement. These findings highlight the importance of the content of education curricula, and of science education in particular, for equipping students with the relevant skills needed to promote a sustainable future (Borgonovi et al., 2022[106]; Borgonovi et al., 2022[107]).

But educating citizens who take action for a sustainable future also requires developing students’ agency and sense of empowerment

To form citizens who can promote a sustainable future, education systems also need to focus on developing students’ agency and sense of empowerment that enable them to take impactful actions for the future (OECD, 2021[104]). Although students have a high level of awareness, self-efficacy and interest in environmental issues, only one in two students feels that they can do something about the problems of the world (OECD, 2021[104]). Students with higher levels of science proficiency tend to be more pessimistic about the future of the environment. While complacency with environmental issues may be problematic, pessimism about the future that impedes students to take action is equally undesirable (OECD, 2021[104]; Echazarra, 2018[105]).

Educating students and citizens for a sustainable future thus requires going beyond the core set of knowledge and skills related to environmental issues. Building a sense of empowerment and resilience is crucial. Indeed, students who display a higher sense of agency and self-efficacy regarding the environment are more likely to take action for the environment (Figure 2.8). Specific pedagogies such as learning in real-life contexts, project- and enquiry-based learning, and discussion-based teaching can be effective at developing both knowledge and students’ agency and confidence to take action (OECD, 2021[6]). Evidence in Figure 2.8 shows that students’ engagement in actions for the environment also relates to their parents’ engagement in such actions. Whether this positive association reflects the crucial role played by parents in the socialisation of their children or the scope for children to shape their own parents’ participation in actions for the environment, it highlights the need for education systems to involve parents and caregivers in the development of children’s skills for a sustainable future (Borgonovi et al., 2022[107]).

In addition, evidence from PISA (2018) shows that building students’ cognitive adaptability can be a pathway for fostering resilience, a capacity to deal with uncertainty and an ability to understand different perspectives (OECD, 2020[86]). Indeed, cognitive adaptability refers to students’ ability to adapt their “thinking and behaviour to the prevailing cultural environment or to novel situations and contexts that might present new demands or challenge” (OECD, 2020[86]). Students’ cognitive adaptability and resilience are positively associated across all countries and other participants in PISA 2018, even after accounting for students and schools’ socio-economic profiles.

Figure 2.8. Students’ environmental awareness and self-efficiency, and engagement in actions for the environment

Change in students' engagement in actions for the environment index associated with a one-unit increase in indices of students’ environmental-related attitudes and parents’ environmental engagement in actions for the environment

Note: The index of students' engagement in actions for the environment for the environment is computed as the average over the following dummy variables, where student report to: reduce the energy used at home (e.g. by turning the heating or air conditioning down or by turning off the lights when leaving a room) to protect the environment; choose certain products for ethical or environmental reasons, even if they are a bit more expensive; sign environmental or social petitions on line; boycott products or companies for political, ethical or environmental reasons; participate in activities in favour of environmental protection. Environmental efficacy is defined based on students’ ability to: explain how carbon-dioxide emissions affect global climate change; explain why some countries suffer more from global climate change than others; discuss the consequences of economic development on the environment. Both estimations (with and without parental data) account for students’ performance in science, the PISA index of economic, social and cultural status, gender, learning minutes (per week) in science and the inclusion of climate change and global warming topics in students’ formal curriculum. The estimation with parental data also accounts for parents’ engagement in actions for the environment, interest in environmental issues in their own country and in other countries, and extent to which parents feel well-informed about climate change and global warming. The estimation with parental data is performed on countries with available data in the PISA 2018 parental questionnaire, namely: Chile, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Korea, Mexico and Portugal.

Source: Adapted from OECD (2018[80]), PISA Database 2018, https://www.oecd.org/pisa/data/2018database/ (accessed on 10 November 2022).

 StatLink https://stat.link/kdn6re

Education systems thus play a major role in nurturing resilient learners who can tackle disruptions and adapt to changing environments, capitalise on existing opportunities and reach their potential (OECD, 2021[45]). Most countries/jurisdictions with available data in the OECD Future of Education and Skills 2030-Curriculum database embed student agency concepts in around one-third of their curricula and not all teachers feel prepared to support the development of student agency (OECD, 2020[7]). Beyond the inclusion of student agency in future-oriented curricula and support for teachers’ professional learning, a range of other approaches can foster learners’ resilience and ability to shape a sustainable future. Education systems that foster student agency are those where teachers and students co-construct active learning environments instead of putting teacher-led instruction at the core (Schleicher, 2021[108]). In addition, policy efforts that encourage student engagement and nurture positive learning climates, provide adaptive pedagogies for all and support to the most vulnerable learners can equally help develop more resilient students (OECD, 2021[45]). Empowering learners to navigate confidently in uncertain and changing worlds also requires a whole-child approach of education that brings together the development of students’ social and emotional skills, their well-being and mental health (OECD, 2021[45]).