What The World Really Thinks of Teachers
BY PROF. PETER DOLTON AND DR. ROBERT DE VRIES
In this investigation we explore three different methods for measuring the status of teachers: Ranked, Implicit and Explicit. In this section we explain the rationale for these three different measures and how they were computed.
Ranked Teacher Status
Our first measure of teacher status is based on a ranking of occupations in relation to each other. GTSI 2018 respondents were asked to rank the following 14 professions in the order of how well they thought were respected (with 14 being the highest and 1 being the lowest):[1]
Primary school teacher
Secondary school teacher
Head teacher
Doctor
Nurse
Librarian
Local government manager
Social worker
Website designer
Police officer
Engineer
Lawyer
Accountant
Management consultant
These occupations were deliberately chosen to require at least secondary education along with further training (which for the majority will be a degree, but for others will be professional training). The occupations were also carefully selected to cover a variety of different types of work in both the private and public sectors.
The rationale for this measure is that respondents are not required to make an explicit quantitative judgement about any specific occupation on any set dimension. Rather, the ranking measure taps into a more instinctive sense of which occupations are more or less prestigious. This is similar to the rationale for widely used CAMSIS measure of occupational status (Prandy and Jones, 2001).
The average rank for each occupation across all countries is given in Table 1.
Table 1: Average status rank across all countries
Highest=14; Lowest=1 | |
Occupation | Average Rank |
Doctor | 11.6 |
Lawyer | 9.5 |
Engineer | 9.1 |
Head teacher | 8.1 |
Police officer | 7.8 |
Nurse | 7.4 |
Accountant | 7.3 |
Local government manger | 7.3 |
Management consultant | 7.1 |
Secondary school teacher | 7.0 |
Primary school teacher | 6.4 |
Web designer | 5.9 |
Social worker | 5.8 |
Librarian | 4.6 |
This table shows that headteachers are, on average, ranked among the top four occupations, but that secondary and primary teachers are near the bottom, above only librarians, social workers and web designers. However, these averages disguise a high degree of heterogeneity between countries, as can be seen in Figure 1, below, which shows the average ranking accorded to each type of teacher in each of the countries participating in GTSI 2018.
Figure 1
Headteacher, secondary teacher and primary teacher occupational respect rankings by the general public across countries
Figure 1 shows some consistent patterns: headteachers were perceived as more highly respected than secondary teachers in every country except Taiwan and Hungary. Secondary teachers were perceived as more highly respected than primary teachers in every country except Turkey, the USA, and France. However, there are pronounced differences between countries in the status rank of teachers. Focusing on secondary teachers specifically, at the bottom of the scale in Brazil and Israel, they are on average ranked only fifth out of the 14 occupations. Whereas in China and Malaysia, at the other end of the scale, secondary teachers are ranked eighth or ninth.
It is these variations in teacher status (as measured by ranking measurement as well as by our implicit and explicit measurements) that we explore in this report. What explains why teachers are accorded so much more respect in some countries than others? And what are the implications of teacher status for students? Do students in countries where teachers are highly respected perform better?
Implicit Teacher Status
Our second measure of occupational status is an attempt to tap into respondents’ implicit (unconsidered, automatic) impressions of teachers. This is measured using a sequence of word associations. Respondents were asked to, as quickly as possible, indicate which one of the following pairs of opposite words they most associated with teachers:
Trusted/Untrusted
Well paid/Poorly paid
Influential/Not influential
Inspiring/Uninspiring
Respected/Not respected
High status/Low status
Hard working/Lazy
Caring/Uncaring
High flyer/Mediocre
Intelligent/Unintelligent
To create our measure of Implicit Teacher Status we combined information on whether the respondent gave a positive or negative response with information on how long they took to respond. Positive responses were given a positive score, and negative responses a negative score. The value of the score depended on the time taken to respond: responses given in under two seconds were given a score of +5 or -5 (depending on whether the response was positive or negative), responses given in two to four seconds were given a score of +4/-4, responses in four to six seconds a score of +3/-3, responses in six to eight seconds a score of +2/-2, and responses between eight to 10 seconds a score of +1/-1. Responses after 10 seconds were given a score of zero. These scores were summed and then rescaled to give a score from 0-100. In this way, quicker responses were assumed to be indicative of a more decisive view.
People who rank secondary school teachers highly also tend to rank primary school teachers highly. However, ranking of primary and secondary school teachers is much more weakly correlated with the ranking of headteachers.
The rationale for this measure is based on a large volume of psychological research demonstrating that people’s spontaneous, unreflective feelings can be quite different to their deliberate, considered attitudes (Mayerl, 2013). In an often-studied example, spontaneous measures find evidence of negative attitudes towards ethnic minorities which are not picked up by conventional survey questions (Banaji, 2013).
This may be a consequence of social desirability bias: when asked a conventional survey question, respondents give the answer they think will reflect best on them, rather than their true feelings (Dovidio et al., 1997). Or it may be because the negative attitudes in question are largely implicit. Implicit attitudes are unconscious, automatically activated feelings and associations we hold in relation to certain subjects or groups (Greenwald et al., 1998). For example, consciously we may genuinely believe that women are no less technically competent than men. However, due to persistent exposure to sexist stereotypes, unconsciously we may associate greater technical competence with men (Moss-Racusin et al., 2012).
The majority of the previous literature on the difference between spontaneous and deliberate attitudes has focused on negative feelings about traditionally stigmatised groups (Banaji, 2013). Teachers clearly do not fit this description. However, precisely the same processes may apply to teachers as to other groups. When asked conventional survey questions, respondents may feel a social pressure to give a positive view of teachers, even if their true feelings or beliefs are quite different. Respondents may also hold positive or negative unconscious perceptions of teachers – feelings and associations of which they themselves are not fully aware. Measures which encourage spontaneous, reflexive responses may therefore offer an additional insight into the popular perception of teachers in the survey countries.
Figure 2 shows the average of this score across the countries in our sample.
Figure 2
Mean Implicit Teacher Status scores across countries
Figure 3
Mean Explicit Teacher Status scores across countries
Explicit Teacher Status
Our third measure of teacher status is based on participants’ explicit responses to questions about the characteristics of teachers and teaching. Respondents were asked to what extent they agreed or disagreed with the following nine propositions concerning the working conditions, abilities, and professionalism of teachers:
Being an effective teacher requires rigorous training.
It is too easy to become a teacher.
The quality of teachers is too variable.
Pupils respect teachers in my country.
The teachers in my children’s school are respected by their pupils.
Teachers work hard.
Teachers enjoy a positive media image.
Teachers have long holidays.
Teachers have the autonomy to exercise their professional judgement.
Response options were: Strongly Agree, Tend To Agree, Neither Agree Nor Disagree, Tend To Disagree, Strongly Disagree. We scored these responses as follows:
Strongly Agree (5)
Tend To Agree (3)
Neither Agree Nor Disagree (0)
Tend To Disagree (-3)
Strongly Disagree (-5)
The statements given in red text in the list above were considered to indicate a negative view of teachers (where the rest of the statements indicated a positive view). Responses to these statements were therefore scored in the reverse direction.
To these nine items we added a tenth (scoring indicated in parentheses):
“Imagine you had children. To what extent do you think you would encourage or not encourage them to become a teacher?”
Definitely Encourage (5)
Probably Encourage (3)
Maybe Encourage (0)
Probably Not Encourage (-3)
Definitely Not Encourage (-5)
The scores on these 10 items were summed, then rescaled to give a score from 0 to 100.
Figure 3 shows the average of this score across the countries in our sample.
Table 2 shows the extent of the correlation between our three measures of teacher status. Focusing first on the Ranking Measure, this table shows that the rank accorded to primary and secondary teachers is strongly correlated (0.55). People who rank secondary school teachers highly also tend to rank primary school teachers highly. However, ranking of primary and secondary school teachers is much more weakly correlated with the ranking of headteachers, suggesting that the extent to which headteachers are respected is to some extent separable from the respect accorded to the main body of the teaching profession.
Table 2 also shows that there is a strong correlation (0.52) between our implicit and explicit measures of teacher status. This suggests that, despite the differences in the way they are measured, these two measures may be capturing a common underlying concept. The correlation between these measures and the ranking measure is, however, much lower. This suggests that these two sets of measures may be capturing different elements of teacher status. It is plausible that our explicit and implicit measures are capturing respondents’ evaluations (explicit and implicit, respectively) of teacher attributes and characteristics. Whereas our ranking measure focuses more strongly on prestige and respect. The distinction between these concepts is clear if we recognise that a respondent may easily consider teachers to be good at their jobs (competent, trustworthy, inspiring, well-trained, etc.) while still feeling that they are not highly respected relative to other professionals.
Table 2: Correlations between the different measures of teacher status (Pearson’s R) in the full non-teacher sample
(N=35,566) | ||||||||||
| Rank (Primary) | Rank (Secondary) | Rank (Head) | Implicit status | Explicit status | |||||
Rank (Primary) | - | - | - | - | - | Rank (Primary): - | Rank (Secondary): 0.55 | Rank (Head): 0.18 | Implicit status: 0.20 | Explicit status: 0.17 |
Rank (Secondary) | 0.55 | - | - | - | - | Rank (Primary): 0.55 | Rank (Secondary): - | Rank (Head): 0.23 | Implicit status: 0.23 | Explicit status: 0.18 |
Rank (Head) | 0.18 | 0.23 | - | - | - | Rank (Primary): 0.18 | Rank (Secondary): 0.23 | Rank (Head): - | Implicit status: 0.13 | Explicit status: 0.10 |
Implicit status | 0.20 | 0.23 | 0.13 | - | - | Rank (Primary): 0.20 | Rank (Secondary): 0.23 | Rank (Head): 0.13 | Implicit status: - | Explicit status: 0.52 |
Explicit status | 0.17 | 0.18 | 0.10 | 0.52 | - | Rank (Primary): 0.17 | Rank (Secondary): 0.18 | Rank (Head): 0.10 | Implicit status: 0.52 | Explicit status: - |
Relationship Between Perceived Status and Perceived Pay
In addition to being asked to rank teachers in terms of their perceived status, GTSI 2018 respondents were also asked to rank them against the same professions in terms of their perceived pay. It is possible that people’s answers to these questions may influence each other. For example, respondents who rank teachers highly in terms of perceived respect may feel obligated, through a sense of consistency, to rank them highly in terms of perceived pay as well. To account for this possibility, a random half of the sample was asked the pay question before the respect question, and vice-versa.
Table 3 shows the correlations between the pay and respect questions for the full sample. This table re-affirms the disconnection between primary and secondary teachers on the one hand and headteachers on the other. The perceived pay of primary teachers is highly correlated with the perceived pay of secondary teachers, but the pay perceptions of both of these groups are only weakly correlated with the perceived pay of headteachers.
Table 3 also shows that there is only a moderate correlation between perceived pay and perceived respect for the three groups of teachers. This suggests perceptions of pay and respect are not strongly connected. Respondents recognise that while teachers may be highly respected, they may not be highly paid (or vice-versa).
We proceeded to repeat the same analysis separately for those respondents who answered the pay question first and for those who answered the respect question first. Our results show that the correlations are consistently higher among respondents who were asked the respect question first. This suggests that first asking respondents to consider the extent that teachers are respected encourages them to bring their responses on pay more closely in line with their respect ranking.
Table 3: Correlations between perceived teacher pay and perceived teacher status (Pearson’s R) in the full non-teacher sample
(N=35,566) | ||||||||||||
| Respect (Primary) | Pay (Primary) | Respect (Secondary) | Pay (Secondary) | Respect (Head) | Pay (Head) | ||||||
Respect (Primary) | - | - | - | - | - | - | Respect (Primary): - | Pay (Primary): 0.29 | Respect (Secondary): 0.55 | Pay (Secondary): 0.20 | Respect (Head): 0.18 | Pay (Head): 0.09 |
Pay (Primary) | 0.29 | - | - | - | - | - | Respect (Primary): 0.29 | Pay (Primary): - | Respect (Secondary): 0.21 | Pay (Secondary): 0.51 | Respect (Head): 0.04 | Pay (Head): 0.13 |
Respect (Secondary) | 0.55 | 0.21 | - | - | - | - | Respect (Primary): 0.55 | Pay (Primary): 0.21 | Respect (Secondary): - | Pay (Secondary): 0.27 | Respect (Head): 0.23 | Pay (Head): 0.13 |
Pay (Secondary) | 0.20 | 0.51 | 0.27 | - | - | - | Respect (Primary): 0.20 | Pay (Primary): 0.51 | Respect (Secondary): 0.27 | Pay (Secondary): - | Respect (Head): 0.09 | Pay (Head): 0.19 |
Respect (Head) | 0.18 | 0.04 | 0.23 | 0.09 | - | - | Respect (Primary): 0.18 | Pay (Primary): 0.04 | Respect (Secondary): 0.23 | Pay (Secondary): 0.09 | Respect (Head): - | Pay (Head): 0.30 |
Pay (Head) | 0.09 | 0.13 | 0.13 | 0.19 | 0.30 | - | Respect (Primary): 0.09 | Pay (Primary): 0.13 | Respect (Secondary): 0.13 | Pay (Secondary): 0.19 | Respect (Head): 0.30 | Pay (Head): - |
[1] The order of this list was randomised to ensure that responses were not biased by the order in which occupations were listed.
2. Teacher Status and Student Outcomes
In the GTSI 2018 report, we examined the relationship between our combined GTSI measure and the most recent PISA scores that were available at the time of writing (PISA 2015). Since that report was published, PISA scores from the tests pupils sat in 2018 have become available. These are much more directly relevant to measures in the GTSI 2018 survey, which was conducted in the same year. In this report we therefore update our previous analysis of the relationship between teacher status and student outcomes as measured by PISA scores. Here we also expand on our previous analysis by comparing the predictive power of our three alternative measures of teacher status. Based on our previous results, we expect that countries where teachers enjoy higher status will also have better student attainment.
Creating the GTSI score
The GTSI score was created using Principal Component Analysis (PCA). Through PCA, we examine the correlation between people’s responses to a variety of different survey questions, and accordingly determine whether these can be explained by a smaller number of underlying factors.
We applied a PCA model to the following four questions that were asked in the GTSI survey:
Ranking primary school teachers against other professions.
Ranking secondary school teachers against other professions.
Ranking of teachers according to their relative status based on the most similar comparative profession.
Perceived pupil respect for teachers.
The PCA reduced these four factors to a single fundamental measure of teacher status, which we re-scaled to produce a 0-100 score representing the status of teachers in each country. Full details of the statistical methodology and construction of the index may be found in the technical appendices of the GTSI 2018 report.
Teacher Status and PISA Scores: The Relationship
Figure 4 replicates our primary analysis from the GTSI 2018 report by plotting each country’s average GTSI 2018 score against its PISA 2018 score. The overall PISA score given in these figures is the mean average of each country’s absolute scores in Reading, Science, and Mathematics. The GTSI 2018 score represents our attempt to compile a single, global measure of teacher status for each country. It is not one of the three alternative measures of status we focus on in this report, but is included as an update of our findings as reported in the main GTSI 2018 report.
Figure 4 shows that there is a positive relationship between the 2018 GTSI and PISA scores. Countries in which our global measure indicates that teachers enjoy high status also tend to do better in the PISA assessments. However, this relationship is not particularly strong: The correlation coefficient is 0.28, indicating a moderate correlation. The R squared statistic reported on the chart is 0.08, indicating that around 8% of the variation in PISA scores between countries is explained by differences in teacher status as measured by GTSI 2018.
Figure 4
Scatterplot of country mean GTSI 2018 score against PISA 2018 scores
Figure 5
Scatterplot of mean secondary teacher respect rank against PISA 2018
Figures 5-7 show the same relationship between teacher status and PISA scores, but for each of our three measures of teacher status separately. For the ranking measure, we focus on secondary teachers specifically as PISA tests are administered to secondary school age students (aged 15).
Figures 5-7 show that, of the three teacher status measures, Implicit Teacher Status scores are the strongest predictor of PISA outcomes. The correlation between Implicit Teacher Status scores and PISA outcomes is remarkably strong (a correlation coefficient of 0.55), with the R-squared value showing that almost a third (0.31) of the variation in PISA scores can be explained by this measurement of teacher status. There is also a moderately strong correlation (a correlation coefficient of 0.36, an R-squared of 0.13) between Ranked Teacher Status and PISA scores. The relationship between our Explicit Teacher Status measure and PISA scores is considerably weaker (a correlation coefficient of 0.17, an R-squared of 0.03). From these results, it appears that the extent to which teachers are implicitly respected and admired is considerably more important for student outcomes than explicit evaluations of teacher quality and working conditions. This is a surprising finding, given that one might expect evaluations of teacher quality and working conditions to have a closer relationship with PISA scores, which are often considered to be an indicator of the quality of teaching and support students receive.
For the purposes of comparison, Figure 8 shows the relationship between PISA scores and the amount that secondary school teachers are paid in equivalent USD.[1] This figure shows that teacher wages are a strong predictor of PISA scores. However, notably, they are not as strongly related to PISA scores as our measure of Implicit Teacher Status.
Figure 6
Scatterplot of mean Implicit Teacher Status score against PISA 2018
Figure 7
Scatterplot of mean Explicit Teacher Status score against PISA 2018
Figure 8
Scatterplot of mean annual secondary school teacher wage against PISA 2018
The analyses reported above examine only the straightforward, bivariate relationship between teacher status and pay and PISA scores. By contrast, Table 4 shows the results of a series of linear regression models predicting PISA 2018 scores from each of our measures of teacher status (and from perceived teacher pay rank) while holding constant average teacher wages. This table shows a clear relationship between the respect ranking of teachers and PISA scores: Countries in which secondary school teachers are ranked one place higher score 21.3 points better in PISA on average. By contrast, the perceived pay of teachers does not strongly predict PISA scores.
Table 4. Regression analysis of PISA 2018 scores on status score alternatives
t statistics in parentheses* p < 0.10, p < 0.05, * p < 0.01 | ||||||||||
| (1) Respect rank | (2) Pay rank | (3) Implicit score | (4) Explicit score | (5) GTSI 2018 | |||||
Teacher wage | 0.00152*** (3.24) | 0.00170*** (3.11) | 0.00106** (2.15) | 0.00156*** (3.12) | 0.00164*** (3.46) | Respect rank: 0.00152*** (3.24) | Pay rank: 0.00170*** (3.11) | Implict score: 0.00106** (2.15) | Explicit score: 0.00156*** (3.12) | GTSI 2018: 0.00164*** (3.46) |
Respect rank | 21.28** (2.24) | 26.12** (2.16) | - | - | - | Respect rank: 21.28** (2.24) | Pay rank: | Implict score: | Explicit score: | GTSI 2018: |
Pay rank | - | 9.483 (-0.66) | - | - | - | Respect rank: | Pay rank: 9.483 (-0.66) | Implict score: | Explicit score: | GTSI 2018: |
Implicit score | - | - | 2.082** (2.66) | - | - | Respect rank: | Pay rank: | Implict score: 2.082** (2.66) | Explicit score: | GTSI 2018: |
Explicit score | - | - | - | 2.178 (1.04) | - | Respect rank: | Pay rank: | Implict score: | Explicit score: 2.178 (1.04) | GTSI 2018: |
GTSI2018 | - | - | - | - | 0.779** (2.12) | Respect rank: | Pay rank: | Implict score: | Explicit score: | GTSI 2018: 0.779** (2.12) |
Constant | 279.7*** (4.13) | 295.3*** (4.08) | 327.0*** (8.04) | 310.7** (2.76) | 392.4*** (17.11) | Respect rank: 279.7*** (4.13) | Pay rank: 295.3*** (4.08) | Implict score: 327.0*** (8.04) | Explicit score: 310.7** (2.76) | GTSI 2018: 392.4*** (17.11) |
Observations | 30 | 30 | 30 | 30 | 30 | Respect rank: 30 | Pay rank: 30 | Implict score: 30 | Explicit score: 30 | GTSI 2018: 30 |
R2 | 0.374 | 0.384 | 0.411 | 0.286 | 0.364 | Respect rank: 0.374 | Pay rank: 0.384 | Implict score: 0.411 | Explicit score: 0.286 | GTSI 2018: 0.364 |
Matching the results reported in Figure 6, above, our Implicit Teacher Status measure also strongly predicts PISA scores, even after accounting for teacher wages: Countries where the Implicit Teacher Status score is 10 points higher (on our scale of 0-100) would be predicted to score 20.8 points higher on the PISA assessments. Also reflecting the above results, our Explicit Teacher Status score is not strongly predictive of PISA scores.
In addition to these findings, we also found that our existing GTSI 2018 score was a significant determinant of PISA attainment. This is an important result as it mirrors our findings from the 2013 and 2018 GTSI reports. This is notable because it shows that the relationship between teacher status and PISA scores remains robust over two different surveys of teacher status (GTSI 2013 and GTSI 2015) and three different PISA rounds.
[1] See the technical appendices to the GTSI 2018 report for a full explanation of how teacher pay was derived.
3. Teacher Status Across Countries
Why do teachers enjoy considerably higher or lower status in some countries than others? This is an important question in terms of determining what might be done to improve teacher status in countries where it is currently low. It is also important in terms of our efforts to understand how teacher status might affect student outcomes (particularly PISA scores). If some other factor (for example, education spending), strongly predicts teacher status and PISA scores, then perhaps it is this fact that explains why status scores and PISA attainment are linked, rather than a causal effect of teacher status.
There is a moderate correlation between what a country spends on education and the status of teachers in that country
Teacher status and educational indicators
In this section, we examine the relationship between teacher status and a variety of important education indicators. Because our previous analyses showed that our measure of implicit status was most closely associated with PISA, we focus on this measure for these analyses.
Unless otherwise stated, all educational indicators are taken from the World Bank Education Statistics database (EdStats) for the year 2018 or the most recent available previous year.
We begin by examining the relationship between teacher status and indicators of national wealth and education spending. It is plausible that teachers would enjoy higher status in richer countries that spend more on education. Figures 9 and 10 show that this is indeed the case, though the correlation in both cases is only moderate.
Figure 9
Scatterplot of mean Implicit Teacher Status score against GDP per capita
Figure 10
Scatterplot of mean Implicit Teacher Status score against the proportion of total government spending allocated to education
Figure 11
Scatterplot of mean Implicit Teacher Status against the proportion of secondary school pupils who are enrolled in privately run schools
In addition to national wealth and spending, the composition of the education system itself may affect the status of teachers. For example, teachers may be evaluated differently in education systems that are strongly dominated by the private rather than the public sector. Figure 11 plots the relationship between teacher status and the proportion of secondary school pupils who are enrolled in privately run institutions.[1] This shows that there is in fact no relationship between teacher status and the extent to which secondary schools are privately versus publicly run.
In terms of pupil characteristics, we also hypothesised that teachers may enjoy lower status in countries where the secondary education system is more strongly focused on vocational education. However, Figure 12 also shows that teacher status is not related to the fraction of secondary school students enrolled in vocational (as opposed to academic) programmes.
Finally, we hypothesised that, due to sexist attitudes, teachers may enjoy lower status in countries where the profession is more strongly dominated by women. Figure 13 shows that there is indeed a moderate negative correlation between teacher status and the proportion of secondary school teachers who are female.[2]
Figure 12
Scatterplot of mean implicit teacher status against the proportion of secondary school pupils enrolled in vocational programme
Figure 13
Scatterplot of mean Implicit Teacher Status against the proportion of secondary school teachers who are female
These results show that there are a number of factors which may be important predictors of Implicit Teacher Status, including national wealth, spending on education, and the gender composition of the teaching workforce. If these factors are also predictors of PISA attainment, they may therefore at least partly explain the link between the social status of teachers and performance in international standardised testing.
To account for this possibility, we first examined the relationship between each indicator and PISA scores. This showed that only GDP had a positive relationship with both teacher status and PISA scores. A subsequent linear regression model demonstrated that the relationship between Implicit Teacher Status and PISA scores was robust to adjustment for GDP per capita. As we show in the previous section, the association between Implicit Teacher Status and PISA scores is also not explained by teachers being paid more in countries where they are accorded higher status.
Implicitly held beliefs about teachers are affected by national wealth, spending on education and the gender composition of the teaching workforce.
Teacher status and cultural values
In this section we take a different approach to examining cross-national variation in teacher status. Table 5 ranks all of the countries in the dataset by their scores on our three alternate measures of teacher status. A simple way to read this table is to pick a specific country and examine its rank in each ordering. For example, consider China. Reading across the columns we see that China is ranked in the top three for all of our status measures. By contrast, Israel is in the bottom four for all three measures.
Doing this repeatedly for each country we can see that there is a high degree of concordance between the rankings (as would be suggested by the high degree of correlation we observed in a previous section).
Table 5. Ranking countries by our three measures of teacher status
Asian countriesSouth American countries | ||||||||||
| Rank (Primary) | Rank (Secondary) | Rank (Head) | Implicit status | Explicit status | |||||
1 | China | China | Malaysia | China | Indonesia | Rank (Primary): China | Rank (Secondary): China | Rank (Head): Malaysia | Implicit status: China | Explicit status: Indonesia |
2 | Turkey | Malaysia | Indonesia | Ghana | China | Rank (Primary): Turkey | Rank (Secondary): Malaysia | Rank (Head): Indonesia | Implicit status: Ghana | Explicit status: China |
3 | Malaysia | Taiwan | China | Singapore | India | Rank (Primary): Malaysia | Rank (Secondary): Taiwan | Rank (Head): China | Implicit status: Singapore | Explicit status: India |
4 | Korea | Indonesia | India | Canada | Uganda | Rank (Primary): Korea | Rank (Secondary): Indonesia | Rank (Head): India | Implicit status: Canada | Explicit status: Uganda |
5 | Indonesia | Korea | Finland | Malaysia | Ghana | Rank (Primary): Indonesia | Rank (Secondary): Korea | Rank (Head): Finland | Implicit status: Malaysia | Explicit status: Ghana |
6 | Taiwan | Turkey | Russia | India | Singapore | Rank (Primary): Taiwan | Rank (Secondary): Turkey | Rank (Head): Russia | Implicit status: India | Explicit status: Singapore |
7 | UK | India | Czech Republic | USA | Malaysia | Rank (Primary): UK | Rank (Secondary): India | Rank (Head): Czech Republic | Implicit status: USA | Explicit status: Malaysia |
8 | Russia | Greece | Korea | Taiwan | Taiwan | Rank (Primary): Russia | Rank (Secondary): Greece | Rank (Head): Korea | Implicit status: Taiwan | Explicit status: Taiwan |
9 | India | Singapore | UK | Indonesia | USA | Rank (Primary): India | Rank (Secondary): Singapore | Rank (Head): UK | Implicit status: Indonesia | Explicit status: USA |
10 | Greece | Russia | Greece | Switzerland | Canada | Rank (Primary): Greece | Rank (Secondary): Russia | Rank (Head): Greece | Implicit status: Switzerland | Explicit status: Canada |
11 | Canada | Switzerland | Singapore | Uganda | New Zealand | Rank (Primary): Canada | Rank (Secondary): Switzerland | Rank (Head): Singapore | Implicit status: Uganda | Explicit status: New Zealand |
12 | New Zealand | Germany | Uganda | UK | Colombia | Rank (Primary): New Zealand | Rank (Secondary): Germany | Rank (Head): Uganda | Implicit status: UK | Explicit status: Colombia |
13 | France | UK | Italy | Finland | Turkey | Rank (Primary): France | Rank (Secondary): UK | Rank (Head): Italy | Implicit status: Finland | Explicit status: Turkey |
14 | Panama | Canada | France | Netherlands | Netherlands | Rank (Primary): Panama | Rank (Secondary): Canada | Rank (Head): France | Implicit status: Netherlands | Explicit status: Netherlands |
15 | USA | Egypt | Japan | New Zealand | Finland | Rank (Primary): USA | Rank (Secondary): Egypt | Rank (Head): Japan | Implicit status: New Zealand | Explicit status: Finland |
16 | Singapore | Finland | Germany | France | Russia | Rank (Primary): Singapore | Rank (Secondary): Finland | Rank (Head): Germany | Implicit status: France | Explicit status: Russia |
17 | Finland | New Zealand | Switzerland | Korea | Chile | Rank (Primary): Finland | Rank (Secondary): New Zealand | Rank (Head): Switzerland | Implicit status: Korea | Explicit status: Chile |
18 | Switzerland | Panama | Turkey | Turkey | Switzerland | Rank (Primary): Switzerland | Rank (Secondary): Panama | Rank (Head): Turkey | Implicit status: Turkey | Explicit status: Switzerland |
19 | Japan | Hungary | Portugal | Germany | Korea | Rank (Primary): Japan | Rank (Secondary): Hungary | Rank (Head): Portugal | Implicit status: Germany | Explicit status: Korea |
20 | Spain | France | New Zealand | Portugal | Spain | Rank (Primary): Spain | Rank (Secondary): France | Rank (Head): New Zealand | Implicit status: Portugal | Explicit status: Spain |
21 | Egypt | Czech Republic | Egypt | Japan | UK | Rank (Primary): Egypt | Rank (Secondary): Czech Republic | Rank (Head): Egypt | Implicit status: Japan | Explicit status: UK |
22 | Chile | Japan | Israel | Czech Republic | France | Rank (Primary): Chile | Rank (Secondary): Japan | Rank (Head): Israel | Implicit status: Czech Republic | Explicit status: France |
23 | Colombia | Netherlands | Colombia | Russia | Brazil | Rank (Primary): Colombia | Rank (Secondary): Netherlands | Rank (Head): Colombia | Implicit status: Russia | Explicit status: Brazil |
24 | Peru | USA | Canada | Italy | Peru | Rank (Primary): Peru | Rank (Secondary): USA | Rank (Head): Canada | Implicit status: Italy | Explicit status: Peru |
25 | Portugal | Spain | Netherlands | Brazil | Japan | Rank (Primary): Portugal | Rank (Secondary): Spain | Rank (Head): Netherlands | Implicit status: Brazil | Explicit status: Japan |
26 | Germany | Chile | Panama | Colombia | Panama | Rank (Primary): Germany | Rank (Secondary): Chile | Rank (Head): Panama | Implicit status: Colombia | Explicit status: Panama |
27 | Netherlands | Peru | Chile | Chile | Portugal | Rank (Primary): Netherlands | Rank (Secondary): Peru | Rank (Head): Chile | Implicit status: Chile | Explicit status: Portugal |
28 | Argentina | Colombia | Spain | Spain | Argentina | Rank (Primary): Argentina | Rank (Secondary): Colombia | Rank (Head): Spain | Implicit status: Spain | Explicit status: Argentina |
29 | Hungary | Portugal | Argentina | Panama | Hungary | Rank (Primary): Hungary | Rank (Secondary): Portugal | Rank (Head): Argentina | Implicit status: Panama | Explicit status: Hungary |
30 | Czech Republic | Uganda | USA | Argentina | Italy | Rank (Primary): Czech Republic | Rank (Secondary): Uganda | Rank (Head): USA | Implicit status: Argentina | Explicit status: Italy |
31 | Italy | Italy | Peru | Hungary | Egypt | Rank (Primary): Italy | Rank (Secondary): Italy | Rank (Head): Peru | Implicit status: Hungary | Explicit status: Egypt |
32 | Israel | Argentina | Taiwan | Greece | Germany | Rank (Primary): Israel | Rank (Secondary): Argentina | Rank (Head): Taiwan | Implicit status: Greece | Explicit status: Germany |
33 | Brazil | Ghana | Ghana | Egypt | Czech Republic | Rank (Primary): Brazil | Rank (Secondary): Ghana | Rank (Head): Ghana | Implicit status: Egypt | Explicit status: Czech Republic |
34 | Uganda | Israel | Hungary | Peru | Greece | Rank (Primary): Uganda | Rank (Secondary): Israel | Rank (Head): Hungary | Implicit status: Peru | Explicit status: Greece |
35 | Ghana | Brazil | Brazil | Israel | Israel | Rank (Primary): Ghana | Rank (Secondary): Brazil | Rank (Head): Brazil | Implicit status: Israel | Explicit status: Israel |
A notable facet of this table is that countries on the same continent tend to be grouped together. This is particularly clear for the Asian countries (marked in red), which consistently appear near the top of the table. It is also apparent that the South American countries (marked in green) often (though slightly less consistently) appear in the bottom half of the table. This geographical clustering suggests that there may be common cultural factors which explain differences in teacher status. This is of course not to suggest that all Asian or South American countries share a common culture, but merely that countries which are closer together geographically also tend to be more similar in terms of cultural exchanges, languages and a shared history.
We explored this possibility by examining the association between teacher status and a variety of cultural values captured by the 2010-2014 World Values Survey (the most recently collected data).[3] We found that, in general, Implicit Teacher Status was not closely correlated with indicators of individualism (the extent to which people in the country valued personal wealth and achievement versus helping others) or with the proportion of a country’s population who felt that obedience versus self-expression was a quality that should be encouraged in children. However, we found that Implicit Teacher Status was moderately negatively correlated (a correlation coefficient of -0.34) with an indicator of the extent of respect for authority (the proportion of the population who believed that “greater respect for authority” would be a positive development). This suggests that in countries where respect for authority is more highly valued, teacher status is lower.[4] Although there is the odd exception these results were broadly consistent for our other two measures of teacher status (explicit and ranking).
Teacher status may be strongly determined by culture – it may be part of a broader cluster of beliefs and attitudes concerning the value of education.
Based on the geographical clustering of teacher status, our analysis suggests that teacher status may be strongly culturally determined. However, it does not appear to be strongly predicted by other plausibly related cultural values such as individualism. Instead, it is possible that teacher status is part of a broader cluster of attitudes and beliefs concerning the value of education.
[1] Note that schools which depend on government funding but are otherwise managed by private institutions (such as academy schools in England) are considered “privately run institutions” for the purposes of calculating this figure.
[2] In this figure, data for Japan, Canada, and Israel are taken from the OECD Education at a Glance database. For Canada, the figure for ‘Upper Secondary’ is taken to represent secondary education as a whole.
[3] Full details of the variables used in this analysis are given in the Technical Appendix.
[4] This correlation is only moderate so there are a number of exceptions, for example China.
Comments