Item 6.2 ISCED Fields of education and training 2013 (ISCED-F 2013) Sabine.Gagel@ec.europa.eu Eurostat F3 Education and Training Statistics Working Group – 1-2 June 2017

Implementation of ISCED-F 2013 Outline Implementation of ISCED-F 2013 ISCED-F and IESS – proposed level of detail for data transmission - Summary of the quick survey - Eurostat proposal

2016: implementation of ISCED-F 2013 EU-LFS Commission Regulation (EU) No 317/2013 on ISCED 2011 implementation in 2014 ISCED-F: implementation agreed for 2016 as not ready for 2014 1st level (broad fields) HATFIELD (yearly), (COURFILD/optional, yearly) LFS explanatory notes adapted and countries informed via LAMAS delegates 2016 AES Commission Regulation (EU) No 1175/2014 on 2016 AES 1st level (broad fields); 3rd level (detailed fields) optional HATFIELD, FEDFIELD, NFEFIELD

ISCED-F – should we change the level of detail for IESS? Users ISCED-F 1st level (broad field) is not sufficient Quick survey launched in April 2017 Level of detail for data collection at national level  Feasibility of collecting fields beyond 1st level of ISCED-F 2013 'Best' level of detail for data transmission to Eurostat User needs ISCED-F 2013 levels 1st level = 11 broad fields 2nd level = 29 narrow fields 3rd level = some 80 detailed fields

Quick survey – results (1) AES – data collection at national level (29 replies) 2016 AES variable Broad field Narrow field Detailed field Own list HATFIELD 12 15 2 FEDFIELD 14 1 NFEFIELD

Quick survey – results (2) LFS – data collection at national level (29 replies) LFS variable Broad field Narrow field Detailed field Own list HATFIELD 10 1 15 3 EDUCFILD (no more required) 4 6 2 COURFILD (optional) 9

Quick survey – results (3) Recommended ISCED-F level for data transmission (30 replies) Broad fields: 17 (1 LFS, 1 NFE) Narrow fields: 10 (1 AES, 1 FED) Detailed fields: 4 Tailor-made list: 1 Main comments Broad fields Best for international comparisons Too general for analyses Narrow fields Allow more analysis Adequate level for data transmission but not necessarily for dissemination More reliable than detailed fields Greater detail than narrow fields not useful/feasible

Quick survey – results (4) Main comments (ctd.) Detailed fields Rather for analyses, not for dissemination Sample size issues Good quality for FED Allocation to detailed fields difficult for respondents Problematic data collection modes: telephone interview (LFS) Collection at detailed level requires more questions (burden) Mixed lists / combination of levels Useful for some heterogeneous groups Logic and construction of ISCED-F already in line with user needs Reliability and accuracy for NFE? International comparability at 2nd and 3rd level?

User perspective Different situation for FED and NFE FED (HATFIELD and FEDFIELD) Broad fields not suitable for analyses due to their very heterogeneous nature  Narrow fields would be a major improvement as heterogeneity is reduced Ideally some narrow fields should be further singled out (e.g. 031) NFE (NFEFIELD) Only AES ISCED-F in theory also for NFE but NFE in practice different To be further discussed with AES TF Maybe consider list of skills rather than fields in future AES 031 Social and behavioural sciences 0311 Economics 0312 Political sciences and civics 0313 Psychology 0314 Sociology and cultural studies

Eurostat conclusions (1) General remarks Level of national data collection  level for data transmission to Eurostat Level for data transmission  level for dissemination HATFIELD (LFS, AES) and FEDFIELD (AES) Data collection for detailed fields at national level The majority of the countries already collects at this level of detail Data collection at this level could improve the overall quality of the data Diploma approach helps for the derivation of the field

Eurostat conclusions (2) HATFIELD (LFS, AES) and FEDFIELD (AES) Data transmission to Eurostat for narrow fields Analytical value of broad fields is too limited It can easily be derived for the majority of countries already collecting detailed fields Open issue: should particular narrow fields be further disaggregated into detailed fields, and if so – which? NFEFIELD (AES) To be further discussed by the AES TF

The ETS WG is invited to take note and discuss the implementation of ISCED-F 2013 in EU-LFS and AES Eurostat's conclusions from the quick survey - Eurostat proposes narrow fields for HATFIELD and FEDFIELD under the IESS-FR for data transmission to Eurostat - Eurostat proposes that the AES TF should look into NFEFIELD later