IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/oec/eduaaf/58-en.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

How do primary and secondary teachers compare?

Author

Listed:
  • OECD

Abstract

While policy debate is often focused on the whole teaching profession, primary and secondary teachers differ in more ways than one. While all countries require teachers to have at least a bachelor degree to enter the profession in primary or lower secondary education, the structure and content of the programmes vary and are less geared towards practice at secondary than primary level. Primary school teachers spend on average 10% more of their working time teaching, though their class size will be slightly smaller. Finally, primary teachers’ salaries are less competitive than their lower secondary peers in more than half of the countries. Improving the attractiveness and effectiveness of the teaching profession can only be addressed by recognising these differences and adapting a differentiated policy to address the challenges of each.

Suggested Citation

  • Oecd, 2018. "How do primary and secondary teachers compare?," Education Indicators in Focus 58, OECD Publishing.
  • Handle: RePEc:oec:eduaaf:58-en
    DOI: 10.1787/535e7f54-en
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1787/535e7f54-en
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1787/535e7f54-en?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Pedinotti-Castelle, Marianne & Astudillo, Miguel F. & Pineau, Pierre-Olivier & Amor, Ben, 2019. "Is the environmental opportunity of retrofitting the residential sector worth the life cycle cost? A consequential assessment of a typical house in Quebec," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 101(C), pages 428-439.

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oec:eduaaf:58-en. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: the person in charge (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/deoecfr.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.