With the strengthening of the global economy, contemporary societies have come to view the educational achievements of their young people as a major component of national competiveness. But there are substantial variations in the strategies employed by different nations. To maximize educational achievements, some nations believe that the provision of a stratified system of schooling is effective, at least for the minority who are able to gain entry to the elite academic stream. In contrast, other nations prefer a more egalitarian strategy to education where all students attend a common school devoid of ability streams until well into their secondary level studies. The egalitarian strategy is believed to be just and fair. But does it enhance educational achievement? Several other strategies are also being advanced, and the same questions can be asked about them. There are a number of studies that explore the academic consequences of different strategies within particular national systems, but there are relatively few studies that explore these questions across several national systems. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development-supported Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) studies enable a cross-national analysis; but the official reports from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development primarily provide bivariate analyses of these relations whereas a multivariate strategy taking into account several system level variables is preferred. In this paper we examine the historical origins of six contemporary strategies, and draw on the PISA studies to compare the relative efficacy of these strategies relying on path modeling.