National Educational Attainment Classifications (NEACs)

1. National Educational Attainment Classifications (NEACs) Item 9 of the agenda

2. Issue: quality and international comparability of data on educational attainment Reasons for the interest in this topic: • harmonisation of the core social variables used in the European social surveys, • at the European level, importance of data coming from the EU-Labour Force Survey regarding educational attainment (structural indicators on youth attainment levels and on early school leavers), • discrepancies between data on participation in education and educational attainment of recent graduates, • differences observed between data published by Eurostat and OECD, • international discussion about the necessity of improving or revising the ISCED classification. Education and Training Statistics Working Group

3. Results of the first analysis of the questionnaire on the NEACs • Collaboration with the OECD; questionnaire sent in February to all EU- and OECD-MS; replies received from 38 countries (27 EU-MS, candidates and EFTA countries, Australia, USA, Canada, Korea, Japan) • Collaboration between education and employment departments at national level: questionnaire sent to the experts from the LAMAS WG (LFS) and ETS WG: • the majority of replies came from education departments, for 8 countries – from the LFS side, for 7: both sides, for 3 countries - from the horizontal (methodological) departments of the NSIs. • importance of this collaboration: for the analysis of links between education and educational outcomes and returns (including matching of skills and jobs). Education and Training Statistics Working Group

4. Do you have a national educational attainment classification (NEAC) in your country? • Yes: positive answers were given by 17 EU-MS and 6 other OECD-MS • No: the NEAC does not really exist in 10 EU-MS and in the USA and Canada. • In these cases, educational attainment is coded mainly with: - more detailed classifications (on qualifications, diplomas) - a rather general list of codes as proposed in the EU-LFS Education and Training Statistics Working Group

5. Table 3 – Proposed codification othe variable HATFIELD from 2009 onwards Collaboration between employment and education statistics departments concerning the NEACs- mainly education statistics department and Ministry of Education responsible for elaboration and revising of the NEACsIssue to be investigated: once the NEAC elaborated - are the possible changes in the mappings of educational programmes communicated to the LFS teams?- only some cases where the horizontal (methodological) units of the NSI are involved. Education and Training Statistics Working Group

6. Consistency of the UOE and NEACs mappings: • The majority of countries state that these mappings are consistent (UOE mappings being in general more detailed). • Only one answer - “I don't know”. • In the cases of the negative answer, reported problems of consistence concern: - vocational programmes - different allocation of some programmes (reasons not explained) - distinction of ISCED 3c short and long programmes (different criteria applied) Education and Training Statistics Working Group

7. Comparison of data on recent graduates coming from the LFS with those from the UOE data collection: • the majority of countries gave a negative answer: they have never done such comparisons; • in some countries such analysis was done but only slight differences were noted; • discrepancies reported: • between ISCED 5A and 6 – could the LFS approach (sample) be a reason for this? • for ISCED 3 (especially ISCED 3c short and long) Education and Training Statistics Working Group

8. Major changes in the NEACs since 2000: • for the EU-MS: 10 - no, 4 - no answers, 13 - yes; in the OECD countries - changes not reported, apart from Australia • most numerous changes reported in 2003 and 2004 • main reasons for changes: educational reforms and improvement of the quality of data • ISCED levels concerned: especially ISCED 5/6 but also vocational programmes within ISCED 3 and 4 • treatment of these changes: • most frequent: breaks in series; • revisions back in time reported by FR, GR, LT and NO (in IS - planned) • issue to be investigated: communication on these changes (NEACs or only in UOE?) to international organisations Education and Training Statistics Working Group

9. Information on educational attainment collected by the LFS • Method used: • In the majority of countries: list of the most frequent educational programmes • In 7 countries : open question • In 4 countries: aggregated list of programmes • In 3 countries: registers • « Highest educational level successully completed »: • Issues to be more explored: • How is the the highest level defined in the case of several programmes completed? • Successful completion not always = certificate (duration and credit points reported by some countries as criteria used as well) • Recognition of some vocational programmesbelonging to non-formal education reported by 7 countries Education and Training Statistics Working Group

10. ISCED issues • no problems in 7 countries, • all specified problems in 2 countries, • 10 EU-MS report problems with the distinction within ISCED level 3 (a, b, c) • 3 EU-MS have problems with the distinction between ISCED 3 and 4 • 5 countries: ISCED 4 and 5 B • 2 countries: ISCED 5A and 5B • 5 countries: with the content of ISCED level 5 • other difficulties with ISCED: special secondary education, adult education, vocational programmes in ISCED 2 or 3c, distinction between ISCED 5 and 6, completion of ISCED 3, necessity of disaggregation of programmes for estimations • warning expressed by some countries: even if allocation of the programme seems to be unproblematic for the country, question remains about international comparability of allocations… Education and Training Statistics Working Group

11. (Re)Classification of older educational programmes • you place old programmes according to where they have fallen in ISCED when they existed and you keep this allocation through time • 15 EU-MS reported to use this solution or • you allocate old programmes according to where they would fall in ISCED if they were taken today • 11 countries use this approach since many years • not many comments on this question were sent nor explanations nor clear replies how the countries manage with the changes. This topic needs more investigation. Education and Training Statistics Working Group

12. Problems of comparison with the ISCED concepts used by different international organisations (Eurostat, OECD…) related to the programmes ISCED 3c short/long? • 20 countries reported no problems (what is obvious for no members of the OECD or no EU-MS or countries not concerned because without programmes ISCED 3c) • 14 countries apply a limit of 2 years in data sent to Eurostat and OECD • 3 countries: for both organisations - criterion of 3 years • 5 countries: for both organisations - similar length to ISCED 3a • OECD but no EU-MS: AU - limit of 2 years, CN and US - this distinction is not applicable; JP - similar to ISCED 3a, KO - 3 years • + problem of the consistency of criteria used between UOE and LFS data collection Education and Training Statistics Working Group

13. Orientation and field of the highest educational level • In 14 EU-MS distinction between general and vocational education is already possible in the LFS (in HATLEVEL) - further consultation with the EU-MS (while preparing the LFS ahm 2009) showed that this information is available in different countries at the different levels of details (school-based, apprenticeships, etc.) • In 12 EU-MS information on field of education achieved at 3-digits level seems to be available following the Eurostat classification. Education and Training Statistics Working Group

14. Educational attainment – core variable in social surveys • 20 EU-MS declare the use of the NEAC (or other similar classification) in other (than LFS) social surveys (but some countries mention only one or two additional surveys) • in some countries, the response is not clear, 2 declared they do not know. • sometimes in other surveys aggregated categories are used • easy answer in the case of using registers as source of data for different surveys • it is not always clear how different surveys treat the problem of the distinction of ISCED 3c short and long Education and Training Statistics Working Group

15. Thanks to the questionnaire on the NEACs – identification of problems and issueswhich would need further more investigation: • Quality and comparability of data on educational attainment: • how the NEACs look and are used in different surveys? If there is no NEAC, how data on educational attainment are obtained, coded and transmitted to international organisations? • how the methods of investigation/questions used in the survey influence accuracy of responses? How consistent are UOE and NEAC mappings? • how to treat educational attainment taking into account not only certificates or not only formal education? • which is the extent and reasons for differences in data published by different international organisations and how to eliminate these discrepancies? (problem of ISCED 3c short/long) • how to treat and communicate at international level changes of allocation of programmes to the ISCED levels? • ISCED:identification of the most frequent problems of classifying educational programmes according to the ISCED levels and detailed analysis how the countries resolve these problems. • Collaboration between education and employment statisticsdepartments in the field of educational attainment – core variable in different social surveys, national analysis of educational outcomes and returns. • Possibilities for having more detailed information on highest educational level attained – its orientation and more detailed field. Education and Training Statistics Working Group

16. Proposal for the future steps of the workconcerning statistics on educational attainmentat international level: • first discussion during the ETS WG meeting on 24-25.09.07 and identification of the priorities of countries for the future work • discussion at the OECD forum, during the meeting of the Network B to be held on 17-19 October 2007 in Vienna • contact with UNESCO for closer collaboration, mainly on ISCED issues • end of the year: elaboration of the concrete proposal for sharing tasks within the three organisations (and possibly voluntary countries), with the timetable for this work. Education and Training Statistics Working Group

17. ETS WG members are asked to:comment onand approve the proposal for the nexts steps for international cooperation on this topic. Education and Training Statistics Working Group

18. Thank you in advance for your collaboration! Marta.Beck-Domzalska@ec.europa.eu Education and Training Statistics Working Group