1. LAMAS Working Group 29 June-1 July 2016
Agenda Item 5.2 Participation in education and training in the last 12 months
Eurostat

2. Outline
1- Current policy context 2- What kind of changes? (IESS framework) 3- Possible differences (2010 AES-LFS grant action)

3. 1- Current policy context
Strategic framework – Education & Training 2020 (ET 2020)
Participation of adults in lifelong learning (LLL indicator): Benchmark  people aged 25 to 64  formal education and non-formal education and training  data available from both AES and LFS (yet with differences)
LFS data chosen in spite of the shorter reference period (4 weeks) to monitor the progress as they are more frequently available…
... Yet a more relevant indicator will appear in the coming years thanks to new LFS features (IESS framework)

4. 2- What kind of changes? (IESS framework) (1/2)
Highlight: participation (formal/non-formal) with a 12 month reference period available from LFS (from 2020 at the earliest);
Same situation: 4 week reference period continued in LFS; guided-on-the-job training (GOJT) not in LFS; AES variables unchanged.
Now
Future (as from 2020?)
LFS 4 weeks
X (quarterly)
LFS 12 months
X (every 2 years)
AES 12 months
X (every 5 years)
X (every 6 years)

5. 2- What kind of changes? (IESS framework) (2/2)
To sum up:
 Reference period of 12 months in AES and LFS
 GOJT still out of LFS coverage
 ‘4 weeks’ data available quarterly (LFS, key indicators: Early leavers from education and training, Neither in employment nor in education or training, Employment rates of recent graduates)
 ‘12 months’ data available: every 2 years through the LFS - every 6 years through the AES
Consequences:
 Results from AES and LFS: benchmarked or kept separate
 Possible revision of the LLL indicator to monitor the progress
 Need for comparing the two sources, when data available

6. 3- Possible differences between the sources (1/3)
Methodology – Coverage: non-formal education and training excludes the category 'guided-on-the-job training' in the LFS;
Variables – Variables as implemented in both surveys differ (LFS variables are not as detailed as those of the AES);
Questionnaire – Not exactly the same in many countries as the overall survey set up is different (form and order can differ);

7. 3- Possible differences between the sources (2/3)
Data collection period – EU-LFS: continuous quarterly survey with interviews spread uniformly over all weeks of a quarter vs. AES: ad-hoc data collection with a fixed timeslot for the fieldwork (usually a few weeks/months);
Survey specificity – AES: dedicated to participation in education and training LFS: aims at collecting information on the labour market first and foremost (respondents might underestimate their participation in education and training and the interviewer might lack time for insisting by reformulating – which is common in AES). Moreover proxies are common in the LFS which is not the case in the AES.

8. 3- Possible differences between the sources (3/3)
Data collection mode – AES: more likely to be collected as paper or web-questionnaire
Sample size – LFS sample is usually much bigger than that of the AES

9. The LAMAS Working Group is invited to discuss and take note of:
the future new features of the EU-LFS as regards data on lifelong learning within the framework regulation on Integrated European Social Statistics (IESS)
the need to further analyse, when available, the results with a 12-month reference period from both the AES and the EU-LFS