UK lags behind competitor countries on education and training, says report

Statistics in the Education at a Glance report released by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) showed that the UK had three times the amount of NEETS as Germany and twice as many NEETS as France. 
 
One of the report's main conclusions is that 'with employment markets still weak, now is a good time to invest in education.' Worryingly, the report revealed that the UK is lagging behind its rivals when it comes to investing public money in higher education and UCU warned that Britain risks losing out to its economic competitors if more funding is not made available.
 
The report revealed that the UK spends 20% less of its gross domestic product (GDP) on universities than France, 10% less than the US, and 10% less than the OECD average. UCU estimates that in order to catch up with the OECD average the UK would need to spend an additional £1.4bn of public funds (at 2006-2007 prices) on higher education.
 
Key findings of the report:

• the number of NEETS in the UK is 5.6%
• the average number of NEETS in OECD countries is 4.7%
• the proportion of NEETS in France is 2.4%
• the proportion of NEETS in Germany is 1.7%
• UK public spending on higher education is just 0.9 % of GDP compared to 1.1 % in France and 1.0% in the US
• the average public spending on higher education in OECD countries, as a percentage of GDP, is 1.0%.

Commenting on the report, UCU general secretary, Sally Hunt, said: 'These figures make very disturbing reading. It should come as little surprise that countries who invest more public money in higher education have fewer young people not in employment, education or training. We simply cannot afford to be left behind when it comes to funding our universities, yet we are investing considerably less of our GDP than competitor countries.

'There is a clear economic case to be made for investing in our graduates. Aside from the obvious benefits of more teachers, nurses, doctors, engineers etc, graduates are less likely to commit crimes, they are less likely to be a burden on the NHS and less likely to stretch the creaking benefits system. We must abandon any notion, however, that this can be done on the cheap.'

The full report will be available on the OECD's website: www.oecd.org