The news regarding the approval of Israel's candidacy for membership in the OECD left economists overjoyed and made all of us happy. One of the positive implications of this development is unifying the standards of statistical reports in Israel with those in OECD member states: That way we will finally know how similar and different we are compared to other countries and find out our exact ranking in the world based on various economic and social characteristics. This has already happened when it comes to education.

Without waiting for formal approval, the OECD included Israel in most of its publications in the area of education. The last comprehensive report on the state of education allows us to compare Israel and other countries in terms of a long list of figures regarding education systems, investment in education, student achievements, teachers' employment structure, higher education tuition rates, etc.

I examined this publication in order to look into the two agreements recently signed in Israel. The Teachers' Union and the Treasury and Education Ministry signed a multiyear agreement whose practical meaning is a deep change in the mix of a teacher's work at elementary schools and junior highs.

Meanwhile, university students signed an agreement with the government whose practical purpose is the prevention of tuition hikes.

Both agreements are good, should they be implemented properly. Why are they good? Because they bring Israel closer to the norm in successful western countries in terms of educational achievements.

Thus far, Israel stood out among OECD countries in terms of the very high number of frontal instruction hours by teachers at classes as opposed to the low number of extracurricular hours.

Here is the data: An Israeli elementary school teacher teaches 1,025 hours a year, as opposed to an average of only 805 hours in OECD countries - 27 percent less.

Finland as a model

This comes at the expense of other education activity at school - thus far, the Israeli teacher stayed away from school and rushed back home at the end of the day. In Israel, frontal instruction hours constitute 84 percent of a teacher's overall workload.

This is a global anomaly: A teacher at an average school in developed western countries dedicates only 71 percent of his or her stay at school to teaching classes. The rest of the time is dedicated to advancing students in small groups, providing guidance, assisting weaker students, etc.

The country boasting the world's most successful educational system is Finland. On the other hand, the United States features the most faltering system. In Finland, an average teacher at elementary school and junior high teaches 30 percent less hours than an Israeli teacher; in the US, the number of hours is equal to that in Israel.

While Finland takes first place in the world in student achievements, the US and Israel are among the last spots. The conclusion is clear: A significant change in the structure of teacher working hours is needed in Israel. We must move away from the American model and closer to the Finnish or Danish model. This is indeed what was done in the last agreement with the teachers.

The agreement barely increases the number of weekly frontal instruction hours (from 25 to 26) but greatly boosts the extracurricular work a teacher has to perform (up to 10 weekly hours.) In exchange, teacher salaries would be boosted by dozens of percent.

This move is commensurate with the custom in developed countries, and particularly those boasting a highly accomplished education system. Their model is worthy of emulation in Israel.

Those criticizing the agreement with the teachers because of the emphasis on keeping the teachers at school for longer hours are unfamiliar with the facts and did not read the immense research material on the subject - they speak out of ignorance.

The OECD experts' recommendation to education ministries is unequivocal: The less teachers spend teaching, but the longer they stay at school and dedicate their time to their students, the better the system becomes.

Free tuition?

And now, to the question of university tuition. As opposed to the perception created by the media, Israel is one of the countries that impose the highest tuition fees at public universities compared to OECD countries (in terms of purchasing power.) Here are the figures:

A total of 11 developed industrial countries do not charge students at all for studying at public universities: Germany, Greece, Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, Ireland, Iceland, Mexico, Poland, Sweden, and Slovakia. Meanwhile, students in Belgium, Austria, France, Hungary, Italy, Portugal, Spain, Switzerland and Turkey pay up to $1,000 a year.

Tuition rates are around $2,500 per year in Israel and New Zealand. Roughly $3,500 to $4,000 is the cost in Japan, Canada, and South Korea. Meanwhile, the average annual tuition at US public universities is about $4,500. And in Australia, students pay $5,300 per year, yet tuition is fully funded by state-issued loans.

When looking into those figures, there is certainly no room for raising tuition at Israeli institutions of higher education - certainly not by dozens of percent.