In most countries, government expenditure per student on upper secondary vocational programmes is higher than on general ones, with the average across OECD countries amounting to USD 12 826 per student for vocational programmes and USD 11 506 for general programmes. The difference in expenditure between the two types of programmes is largest in Denmark, Iceland and Spain.
Around one-quarter of expenditure or more on general upper secondary education programmes comes from private sources in Chile (24%), the Republic of Türkiye (33%) and the United Kingdom (25%), the largest share among OECD countries. In contrast, in Finland and Norway expenditure from private sources on these programmes is negligible.
In countries that make extensive use of apprenticeships in upper secondary education, relatively high shares of private expenditure reflect the role of companies in providing work-based learning. In Germany, private sources after public-private transfers account for 38% of expenditure on upper secondary vocational programmes. In Switzerland, the share of private sources is 31% for all upper secondary programmes (both before and after transfers).
Education at a Glance 2025
Context
Upper secondary education is the stage where many countries start diversifying provision, so that students may choose between different programmes or be guided to specific options. The diversity of provision means that the associated costs and funding arrangements will also vary not only between countries but also within countries depending on the type of programme.
General upper secondary programmes play a key role in preparing young people for further studies, often at tertiary level, and to a lesser extent for entry into the labour market. Within general programmes, students often have the option to study specific areas in more depth. In addition, most OECD countries have one or more vocational tracks at this level. The costs of delivering these programmes will vary, depending on their duration and forms of delivery (e.g. ranging from fully school-based programmes to apprenticeships where young people spend most of their time in a workplace). In a few OECD countries there is no distinct vocational track in initial upper secondary education or it is very small (e.g. in Canada except for the province of Québec, New Zealand and the United States). In these countries post-secondary non-tertiary and short-cycle tertiary programmes play a key role in preparing young people for the labour market.
This chapter looks at funding arrangements that underpin upper secondary education, focusing mostly on differences between general and vocational programmes. It also looks at post-secondary programmes, but with less detail given the relatively small size of this level of education on average across OECD countries.
In equivalent USD converted using PPPs, expenditure on educational institutions
1. Upper secondary (vocational) includes lower secondary vocational programmes.
2. Year of reference differs from 2022.
For data, see Table C4.1. For a link to download the data, see Tables and Notes section.
Other findings
The role of private sources in funding upper secondary education varies greatly. Some upper secondary institutions are fully government funded (e.g. Finland, Norway, Romania and Sweden). In contrast, private sources account for at least 15% of expenditure on upper secondary institutions in ten countries.
OECD countries spend the equivalent of 24% of GDP per capita on each student in upper secondary education. Expenditure per upper secondary student exceeds 30% of GDP per capita in France, Germany, Korea and Portugal.
On average across OECD countries, a similar share of GDP is allocated by governments to general upper secondary programmes as to vocational ones (0.4% each).
Differences in investment in vocational upper secondary and post-secondary non-tertiary education reflect differences in how countries use these programmes to prepare young people for labour-market entry. For example, some countries have relatively high public investment in post-secondary non-tertiary programmes (e.g. 0.19% of GDP in New Zealand, 0.07% in Australia and Lithuania), while some OECD countries offer no programmes at this level.
Figure C4.1 shows government expenditure per student in upper secondary education for general and vocational programmes, as well as both combined. It provides data on expenditure after public-private transfers –meaning that expenditure like government subsidies to companies to provide apprenticeships would be accounted for under private expenditure (see below). On average, OECD countries spend about USD 13 000 per student at this level, but the range is wide: from almost USD 30 000 in Luxembourg to slightly over USD 3 000 in Mexico and Türkiye.
In most countries, government spending per student in vocational programmes exceeds that in general programmes. The difference is highest in Austria, Denmark, Iceland and Spain. Higher costs in vocational programmes might be driven by various factors. Some vocational programmes require schools to purchase technical equipment and keep it up to date, which can be costly, particularly in fields that make extensive use of advanced technologies. This creates extra costs, especially in programmes where most of the practical training is delivered in school workshops. On average across OECD countries less than half of upper secondary vocational education and training (VET) students are enrolled in programmes where 10% or more of the time is spent learning in the workplace but this share varies across countries; for example, while all VET students in Denmark pursue combined school- and work-based programmes, only half do so in Austria. However, the location of practical training is not the only factor behind higher costs in vocational programmes; another driver is that some courses require smaller class sizes – practical training in a school workshop for would-be electricians requires smaller groups than a theory-focused biology lesson. The distribution of enrolment by fields of study also influences average costs in different countries. In countries where vocational provision includes a larger share of enrolment in fields like construction and manufacturing, the costs of providing VET will be higher than in countries with vocational programmes more heavily oriented towards service sectors.
Private sources in general and vocational upper secondary programmes
Education programmes may be financed by different stakeholders, in addition to governments. For example, families may pay tuition fees, while foundations may provide funding for schools. In the case of vocational programmes in particular, companies can play an important role. When they provide work-based learning as part of a formal education programme (e.g. apprenticeships or internships for VET students), they contribute to the cost of upper secondary provision. Figure C4.2 shows the share of expenditure on upper secondary institutions that comes from private sources: households and other private entities, which covers companies and non-profit organisations such as foundations. One caveat about the data on vocational programmes is that many countries lack data on the expenditure by companies in the context of apprenticeships and other combined school- and work-based programmes. In such cases private expenditure will be underestimated.
An important distinction needs to be made between initial funds (expenditure before transfers from the public to the private sector) and final funds (after transfers). For example, several countries provide a government subsidy to companies that provide apprenticeships. The amount of the subsidy will be included in government expenditure in the case of expenditure before public-private transfers, but will fall under private expenditure after public-private transfers. Data on expenditure before public-private transfers indicate where funding comes from, while data after public-private transfers show which stakeholder is ultimately doing the spending.
Table C4.1 shows the distribution of spending on upper secondary education both before and after public-private transfers, while Figure C4.2 is based on initial expenditure data, before such transfers. This explains why Norway, which has a strong apprenticeship system, reports all expenditure as public. In Norway, apprenticeships are the main form of vocational upper secondary provision with students spending two years in school and two years in a company. Companies that host apprentices receive a subsidy equivalent to the cost of one year of school-based education, designed to offset the costs for companies.
The role of private sources in funding upper secondary education varies greatly across countries. On average across OECD countries, 11% of initial expenditure on upper secondary institutions comes from private sources. In the Nordic countries and Romania, upper secondary programmes are nearly entirely government funded while in ten countries, private sources account for at least 15% of expenditure on upper secondary institutions. For general education programmes, around one-quarter or more of expenditure comes from private sources in Chile (24%), Türkiye (33%) and the United Kingdom (25%). Household contributions (which include tuition fees) are the key driver behind high shares of expenditure coming from private sources in general programmes (Figure C4.2 and Table C4.2).
In some countries, relatively high private initial expenditure reflects the role of companies in providing apprenticeships and other forms of work-based learning in the context of combined school- and work-based programmes. For example, in Switzerland (which lacks data broken down by programme orientation), the share coming from private sources is 31%. Nearly two-thirds of upper secondary students in Switzerland are enrolled in vocational programmes and these programmes are predominantly delivered through apprenticeships where apprentices spend four days a week in a company (OECD, 2023[1]). In Germany, where apprenticeships are the predominant form of upper secondary VET, private sources after public-private transfers account for 38% of expenditure on upper secondary vocational programmes (Germany lacks data on expenditure before public-private transfers). In France, where both apprenticeships and internships are commonly used in vocational programmes, 26% of initial expenditure on vocational programmes comes from private sources, rising to 28% of final expenditure after public-private transfers (Table C4.2).
In per cent, expenditure on educational institutions, initial funds (before public-private transfers)
1. Year of reference differs from 2022.
For data, see Table C4.2. For a link to download the data, see Tables and Notes section.
Expenditure as a share of GDP per capita
Expenditure per student as a share of GDP per capita shows investment relative to a country’s resources. Table C4.3 (available on line) shows data for different programme orientations and by type of institution. Expenditure per upper secondary student is at least 30% of GDP per capita in France, Germany, Korea and Portugal. On average, OECD countries spend the equivalent of 22% of GDP per capita on a student in general upper secondary education and 25% of GDP per capita on a student in vocational upper secondary education.
In general upper secondary education, private institutions receive more funding per student than public ones on average across OECD countries (24% of GDP per capita, compared with 21%). The difference is relatively large in some countries including Denmark (46% versus 11%) and Türkiye (25% versus 6%). In contrast, in the Netherlands, where private institutions are nearly all government-dependent and funded in the same way as public institutions, there is no difference in expenditure per student between public and private institutions. For vocational upper secondary programmes, OECD countries have similar expenditure per student as a share of GDP per capita across types of institution, but slightly higher in public institutions (27% of GDP per capita on average compared with 25%). In some countries, however, there is a large difference between public and private institutions (general and vocational programmes combined). For instance, in Türkiye expenditure on public institutions amounts to 9% of GDP per capita per student compared to 23% for private institutions, while in Israel the figures are 14% of GDP per capita for public institutions and 71% for private ones (Table C4.3, available on line).
Government expenditure as a share of GDP
Figure C4.3 compares countries based on government expenditure on vocational and general education institutions as a percentage of GDP. This measure shows countries’ public investment in different types of upper secondary education relative to the size of their economy. The focus on government expenditure (instead of total expenditure, which includes funding from private sources) emphasises public investment and avoids the comparability issues that may arise from the fact that some countries cannot or can only partially report companies’ expenditure on vocational programmes.
On average across OECD countries, governments spend a similar share of GDP on general upper secondary programmes as on vocational ones, around 0.4% each (Figure C4.3). Eight countries – led by Belgium, Finland and Norway – allocate more than 0.5% of GDP to their upper secondary vocational programmes. These countries have a relatively large upper secondary vocational sector that is predominantly publicly funded. Countries with smaller vocational systems at this level tend to have higher public expenditure on general upper secondary programmes relative to GDP. For instance, the United States does not have a separate vocational track at upper secondary level and dedicates the equivalent of 0.85% of GDP to general programmes.
These results are driven by a combination of expenditure per student in each type of programme (Figure C4.1) and total enrolment in each programme. For example, within France and the United Kingdom expenditure per student is similar in general and vocational upper secondary education. In both countries, government expenditure as a percentage of GDP is higher for general programmes than for vocational ones (Table C4.4, available on line), as enrolment in general education is higher than in vocational programmes.
In per cent, expenditure on educational institutions
1. Upper secondary (vocational) includes lower secondary vocational programmes.
For data, see Table C4.4, available online. For a link to download the data, see Tables and Notes section.
Post-secondary non-tertiary education (not included in Figure C4.3) plays different roles across OECD countries, and is given varying weights within national education systems. These programmes are predominantly vocational. They tend to be relatively important, as indicated by expenditure as a share of GDP, in countries where vocational training largely takes place after the completion of initial schooling. For example, in New Zealand, government expenditure on post-secondary non-tertiary programmes is equivalent to 0.19% of GDP, exceeding the amount dedicated to upper secondary vocational programmes (0.17% of GDP), which also largely serve adult learners. Australia’s government expenditure accounts for the equivalent of 0.07% of its GDP to post-secondary non-tertiary programmes, compared to 0.15% of its GDP for vocational upper secondary programmes. Ireland has limited vocational training in upper secondary education, and government expenditure on post-secondary non-tertiary programmes amounts to the equivalent of 0.07% of GDP (Table C4.4, available on line).
The role of different levels of government
Countries vary widely in the roles played by different levels of government in funding upper secondary education, ranging from fully centralised funding arrangements to systems where regional or local governments are the only sources of public funding for schools. In addition, countries may also transfer funding between levels of government for spending on schools, with some making extensive use of transfers – typically from central to regional or local levels.
Table C4.5 (available on line) shows how expenditure on upper secondary education is shared between different levels of government, both before inter-governmental transfers (initial funds) and after (final funds). On average, about two-thirds of government expenditure initially comes from central governments, but they spend only 55% of it directly: transfers to regional and local governments account for the remainder. This reflects a broader pattern across OECD countries: government spending (captured here by expenditure after inter-governmental transfers) tends to be more decentralised than revenue and this holds across different sectors, not just education (OECD, 2021[2]).
In Costa Rica, Greece, Iceland, Luxembourg and New Zealand, the funding of upper secondary education is fully centralised, with central government acting as the sole source of public funding. Funding is also highly centralised in Denmark, Hungary, the Slovak Republic and Türkiye, with over 95% of public expenditure spent directly by central governments. At the other end of the spectrum, the data show the key role played by autonomous communities in Spain, where over 80% of government expenditure comes from and is managed by regional level governments. In Switzerland cantons play a major role in financing upper secondary education, with 94% of funds spent by regional governments (Table C4.5, available on line). While not measured here, there is also considerable variation across countries in the kind of roles and decision-making powers regional and local authorities have. For example, subnational authorities may have different responsibilities depending on the type of expenditure (e.g. capital versus current) or the level of education considered (OECD, 2017[3]).
In some countries central governments play a more important role in funding vocational upper secondary programmes than in general programmes. For example, in Latvia and Lithuania, central governments are responsible for less than 15% of the expenditure on general upper secondary programmes, but it accounts for over 95% of expenditure of vocational programmes (after inter-governmental transfers). Similarly, in Estonia, the central government’s share of expenditure after transfers is much lower for general programmes (23%) than for vocational programmes (87%). In Germany, regional governments (Bundesländer) are the main funders of general upper secondary programmes, with the central government responsible only for 2% expenditure before inter-governmental transfers and 1% of expenditure after. However, in the case of vocational programmes around 30% of government expenditure occurs at the central government level. In some countries, this reflects the fact that central government involvement is aimed at ensuring the portability of vocational skills within the country. In Germany, for example, primary and lower secondary education falls under the responsibility of federal states, while the central government is responsible for the vocational component of upper secondary programmes. Similarly, in Switzerland cantons are the sole funders of general upper secondary programmes, while the central government accounts for 21% of expenditure (before transfers) on vocational upper secondary education (Table C4.5, available on line).
In Australia, Austria and the Slovak Republic the opposite pattern can be observed in upper secondary programmes, although with less marked differences between the two programme orientations. For example, in Australia, after intergovernmental transfers, the central government is responsible for 29% of expenditure on general programmes, but only 14% of that on vocational programmes. In Austria, while central government is the main funder for both orientations, it accounts 86% of expenditure on general programmes but only 65% of expenditure on vocational ones, where regional governments play a more important role. In the Slovak Republic most expenditure at upper secondary level occurs at local level, but particularly so in funding vocational programmes, where 77% of expenditure comes from local government, against 59% for general programmes (Table C4.5, available on line)
For the definitions of direct government expenditure on educational institutions and direct private expenditure on educational institutions, refer to Chapter C1.
For the definition of public and private educational institutions, refer to Chapter C2.
For an overview of the methodology, see Chapter C1. For more detailed information, please refer to the OECD Handbook for Internationally Comparative Education Statistics (OECD, 2018[4]). For country-specific notes, see Education at a Glance 2025 Sources, Methodologies and Technical Notes.
For the data sources used in this Chapter, refer to Chapter C1. For additional details, see Education at a Glance 2025 Sources, Methodologies and Technical Notes).
References
[1] OECD (2023), Education at a Glance 2023: OECD Indicators, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/e13bef63-en.
[2] OECD (2021), Fiscal Federalism 2022: Making Decentralisation Work, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/201c75b6-en.
[4] OECD (2018), OECD Handbook for Internationally Comparative Education Statistics 2018: Concepts, Standards, Definitions and Classifications, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264304444-en.
[3] OECD (2017), The Funding of School Education: Connecting Resources and Learning, OECD Reviews of School Resources, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264276147-en.
To download the data for the figures and tables in this chapter, click StatLink above.
To access further data and/or other education indicators, please visit the OECD Data Explorer: https://data-explorer.oecd.org/.
Data cut-off for the print publication 13 June 2025. Please note that the Data Explorer contains the most recent data.
Table C4.1. Expenditure on upper secondary and post-secondary non-tertiary educational institutions per student (2022)
Note: Columns showing data on post-secondary non-tertiary education as well as upper secondary general and vocational programmes by type of institution are available for consultation on line.
1. Upper secondary includes post-secondary non-tertiary education.
2. Government expenditure on educational institutions includes transfers and payments to the non-educational private sector.
3. Total expenditure on educational institutions includes payments of households outside educational institutions.
4. Upper secondary (vocational) includes lower secondary vocational programmes.
5. Upper secondary includes lower secondary education.
6. Private institutions mainly concern government-dependent private institutions that receive their financing mainly from the government.
7. Vocational upper secondary includes vocational post-secondary non-tertiary education.
8. Year of reference 2021.
Table C4.2. Distribution of expenditure on upper secondary educational institutions, by source of funds, before and after transfers (2022)
Note: Columns showing data on all upper secondary (general and vocational) are available for consultation on line.
1. Upper secondary includes post-secondary non-tertiary education.
2. Total expenditure on educational institutions includes payments of households outside educational institutions.
3. Upper secondary (vocational) includes lower secondary vocational programmes.
4. Upper secondary includes lower secondary education.
5. Vocational upper secondary includes vocational post-secondary non-tertiary education.
6. Year of reference 2021.
a – category not applicable; b – break in series; d – contains data from another column; m – missing data; x – contained in another column (indicated in brackets). For further control codes, see the Reader’s Guide.
For further methodological information, see Education at a Glance 2025: Sources, Methodologies and Technical Notes (https://doi.org/10.1787/fcfaf2d1-en)
In equivalent USD converted using PPPs for GDP, direct expenditure within educational institutions, by programme orientation and type of institution
Note: For notes on this table and a link to download the data, see Tables and Notes section above.
In per cent, direct expenditure within educational institutions, by programme orientation
Note: For notes on this table and a link to download the data, see Tables and Notes section above.