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

2. 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

3. 2016: implementation of ISCED-F 2013
EU-LFS
Commission Regulation (EU) No 317/2013 on ISCED 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

4. 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

5. 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

6. 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

7. 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

8. 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?

9. 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

10. 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

11. 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

12. 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