EUROSTAT
Directorate E: Social and regional statistics and geographical information system
Unit E-3: Education, health and other social fields /
Education and Training Statistics
Working Group meeting
held in Luxembourg
on 13-14 November 2000
DETAILED MINUTES
Main outcomes of the
Education and Training Statistics
Working Group meeting
held in Luxembourg
on 13-14 November 2000
Mr Skaliotis (Eurostat) opened the meeting saying that the main priorities objectives for Eurostat Education and Training Statistics (ETS) in the following years will be lifelong learning and enlargement. There is a need for coordination at international level as well as between Commission services but also at the national level in order to respond to these challenges. That is why it was proposed in the strategy document to have one contact point/focal point for education and training statistics at national level. The main objective of the ETS WG meeting was to review developments and decide on the organisational structures and strategies that would contribute to this direction.
Agenda and recent policy developments
After the adoption of the agenda (doc. ETS 01) and the presentation of progress made on the tasks decided at the April 1999 ETS WG meeting, recent policy developments and their implications for statistical work were presented.
Mr Marchetti (DG Education and Culture) presented the Leonardo da Vinci II programme and reminded that the next deadline for call for proposals is January 2001. He also referred to the DG EAC report on the quality of school education (16 indicators), to the Memorandum on lifelong learning (doc. ETS02), to the structured debate that would be organised for its follow-up within 2001 as well as to the so-called statistical annex which merely indicates the direction that statistical work should take in the next months.
Mr Pilos (Eurostat) gave some information on action 6.1 of the Socrates programme, presented then the reference to lifelong learning in the 2001 Employment guidelines. He has also presented the TSER (Targeted Socio-economic research) site of DG Research and in particular the part referring to the key action "Improving the Socio-economic Knowledge base". Countries were asked to follow these developments and to work in a co-ordinated way with Eurostat to answer to increased information requests.
Mr Hoerner (Germany) has asked for a list of scientists per country which will be sent by Eurostat when it becomes available. The Working Group will be informed, as far as possible, about all activities related to education and training and the ETS focal points will be receiving the contact points for their country for each activity in order to facilitate coordination at national level.
Presentations of relevant developments by Eurostat units E2 and D1
Ms Clemenceau (Eurostat-E2) presented the new ECHP, called EU-SILC (EU statistics on income and living conditions) to be implemented after 2002. This is to be developed on the basis of (a) Future users’ needs, (b) European Community Household Panel (ECHP) previous experience, (c) Harmonization of concepts and variables. The instrument will give priority to high quality cross-sectional data, will have a limited longitudinal dimension centered on income and some social exclusion indicators while timeliness will be a priority. The EU-SILC should become the EU reference source for income and Social Exclusion. A regulation is planned for EU-SILC, but it should remain flexible using as much as possible existing national surveys / registers. Education and basic training, life-long learning information, language skills and some basic information on Information and Communication Technology use and self-reported skills are to be included in the core of the survey while an ad hoc module with detailed information on training could be added to the survey in regular intervals (for example every 3 years). (The list of national contact points for the EU-SILC has been sent to participants after the meeting).
Mr Hoerner (Germany) mentioned that the variables included in the EU-SILC are very difficult to capture, definitely more difficult than those of the LFS and asked if there is methodological knowledge in this field. Ms Clemenceau answered that the experience from the ECHP, which is similar to the EU-SILC, will be used. But she stressed the need for coordination at national level, since this seems to have been the main problem for education in ECHP or for harmonisation with LFS.
To the question of Mr Abeln (Netherlands) whether private expenditure is included the answer was no, but it was indicated that a question on whether the person has sufficient resources to pay for education/learning could be added.
Ms Dunne (Ireland) asked whether quality control would be included in the new project, and Ms Clemenceau answered that these may even be included in the regulation.
Mr Deiss (Eurostat-D1) presented the Eurostat project on Information Society Statistics (ISS) and its link to e-Europe benchmarking and to e-learning. He stressed the importance of human resources and education in the new context. He has also presented the ISS horizontal questionnaire compiled by Eurostat which will be sent to countries (ISS focal points) when it is finalised. Some information on E&T is included in this. Unit E3 is the focal point for education in the ISS and for e-learning statistics in the context of e-Europe. (After the meeting the list of "ISS focal points" has been sent to countries).
Mr Levy (Luxembourg) mentioned that the connectedness is one thing but use and knowledge of ICT is much more important.
Mr Goy (France) said that they have already started getting data on the use of ICT. Ms Van Driessche (Belgium) said that the questionnaire should be linked to ISCED where possible, she asked for clear definitions and stressed the complexity of collecting data in the different countries.
Mr Canlin (UK) said that it would be good to use the IEA survey SITES.
Mr Pilos (Eurostat) said that Eurostat can not support this survey but nevertheless ISS national focal points may propose this as a source when it is needed.
Ms Dunne (Ireland) said that Eurostat and the Commission, when sending out the ISS questionnaire, should not ask for things on which they already have information. This was a problem of internal Commission coordination. Answering to a remark by Mr Pauli (Austria) Mr Pilos said that there is no intention for the time being to use UOE for this type of information.
Use of international indicators at national and regional level - presentations
Ms Van der Perre (Belgium) has presented the project of Flemish indicators on education in an international perspective. According to the approach presented indicators ‘indicate’ but do not explain and they can be seen as ‘warning lights’ as well as a basis for further analysis. Their function is to stimulate dialogue, self-reflection and critical analysis during policy preparation, ‘action’ (monitoring) and policy evaluation. Using the CIPO model (Context-Input-Process-Output) they try since 2000 to link indicators and strategic and operational policy goals. Among the sources used are OECD, Eurostat / Eurydice, IEA, statistics of the Flemish Education Department and Flemish policy research projects. The expectations from Eurostat at the international level are to increase co-operation on content and methodology (e.g. lifelong learning, coverage, reduction of data burden) while at the European Commission level, it should have a more active role in European indicators projects (e.g. Open Co-ordination , 16 Quality Indicators etc). Eurostat should also have a counseling role for countries and be a platform for cooperation and have where possible a common European approach also at international fora. Answering to a question by Mr Skaliotis (Eurostat) Ms Van der Perre answered that there is no work on education indicators at the level of Belgium since there is no policy need for them, the educational systems of the different Communities being diverse and independent. The need of not comparing countries only but also comparing educational systems (that is regions with countries if necessary) is mentioned.
Mr Hoerner (Germany) asked what were the main problems met when trying to use intenational indicators for educational policy making; he stressed in particular the difficulty Laender in Germany had to use international indicators for their education policy which is made at the regional level. Ms Van der Perre answered that the main problem was to adapt them to the educational goals of their system, which was very complicated. She has also agreed, that countries should be more proactive as well, promoting the request for the collection of data or the development of indicators to the relevant EU policy bodies.
Mr Pilos (Eurostat) stressed that we should not forget the EU specific tables of the UOE data collection to cover European policy needs (for example at the regional level) . Countries should take advantage of this possibility.
Mr Andersen (Denmark) has then presented the project of the Danish ministry of education "Quality that can be seen" that tries to systematically analyse and develop the quality on the Danish educational system. The project was launched in 1997 and is a system level analysis that is based on targets and framework conditions. (The model is explained in document ETS04). He has shown, as an example, how the model could be been implemented for the evaluation of target number 4: "The population must have a high level of educational attainment with good subject-specific, general and personal qualifications". The indicators chosen to evaluate this target were: education profile for the population, the expected number of years in the education system, the ratio of 30-year olds with tertiary education and general qualifications of adults. After the target number 4 has been evaluated on the basis of the chosen indicators the model goes to the framework conditions. Focussing on financial and physical framework the following indicators are selected: financial resources in the "ordinary" education system, financial resources for adult education, number of students per computer and integration of ICT. If it is found that the fulfilment of the target is not satisfactory then there could be regulation on some of these indicators below the framework conditions. The criteria/benchmarks for this case are: 95% should complete upper secondary education, 50% of the youth cohort should complete tertiary education and the drop-out rate should be halved.
Relating this approach to the EU project he said that 9 out of the 16 indicators are used (indicators not used include Foreign languages*, Learning to learn*, Civics, evaluation of school education, Parents' participation, participation in pre-primary education* - those marked with * should be used soon). The model has been used but its' real influence on policy making remains to be seen.
Answering to Mr Hoffmann (ILO), he said that there was no new information collected for this exercise. Only existing information has been used.
Mr Abeln (Netherlands) stressed the increasing importance given recently by national policy makers not only to indicators but also to the way they are calculated and interpreted, something that is bound to mean changes in the future. Several countries have also mentioned their national publications using international indicators:
Netherlands: Fact & figures (booklet). Increased demand for information that is simple, readable and ready to use for policy making by government, parliament etc.
Sweden : (a) “Sweden 2000 in knowledge society” to be published in English on the occasion of the Swedish presidency (b) Publication of Comparison of Swedish educational system with other countries is planned (c) Evaluation of Swedish system at the national level (d) Comparison of Nordic countries. On organisation resources and results Sweden has a system of municipal indicators and does not use international indicators because it is more interesting for this to use the national classification of education.
Spain : (a) National System of indicators published by the National Institute for Quality and evaluation. (b) New Indicators for evaluating national vocational training system (including initial VET, VT for the unemployed and continuing VT) developed by the Ministries of Labour and education and social partners.
France: “30 indicators” are published but the main concern is to see how to use indicators. There is also a need for inter-regional comparisons to see what makes a region better than another.
Belgium - French Community: “Tableau de bord de l’enseignement”, a publication that is mostly meant to be a barometer for French-speaking education in Belgium and not to compare with other countries. Some comparisons are included in the publication with the other communities in Belgium.
Mr Skaliotis summed up the national presentations saying that it was clear that a lot of initiatives and a lot of interest exist, and since some of them are related to what is happening at the international level, it is important to coordinate at a sufficiently early stage.
Presentation by Eurydice
Ms Delhaxhe (Eurydice European Unit) presented the recent and planned activities of the Eurydice network. She stressed the need for enhancing national coordination and increasing cooperation with CEDEFOP and the Special Needs education agency, as well as for better definitions also for qualitiative information on education. Eurydice publications and other activities include :
–Report on "the contribution of educational systems to the LLL policy" it will be updated following the Lisbon summit conclusions
–ICT in education chapter of the publication "Key Data on Education in Europe" - it will be updated and published separately
–A Eurydice focus on languages has been published while the full report on foreign language learning in Europe will be published in January 2001
–A report has been published on 20 years of reform in higher education
–The 2nd volume of the Key Topics in Education series on financing of schools (compulsory education) is about to be published (check the Eurydice site for the electronic version)
–The 3rd volume of Key Topics in Education will focus on teaching staff and motivation for the teaching profession"
–The 2nd volume of the glossary of education (institutions) has been published
She also referred to the celebration for the 20 years of existence of the Eurydice Network, which gave the opportunity for a debate on the future mandate of the Network and the ways to improve development and use of international indicators for policy making. All publications, including Key Data on Education in Europe and a brochure for the 20 years of the Eurydice network, are available at the internet address
Ms Silvestrini (Italy) raised the issue of not using ISCED definitions for the glossary. Both Eurostat and Eurydice have agreed that this is something to be discussed in general for the combination of qualitative and quantitative data on educational systems, while Euydice stressed the fact that harmonisation of terms with ISCED should not harm in any case the representation of the specificities of the educational systems (the single structure system for Nordic countries was given as an example).
Mr Pilos mentioned that a further step in this direction is the inclusion of ISCED mappings as an integral part of the regular UOE data collection, which has been in principle agreed by the Unesco, OECD and Eurostat quite recently.
Strategies for ETS - Mandate of the ETS WG
Mr Pilos (Eurostat) presented document ETS05 on the proposed "Strategies for education and training statistics in the European Statistical System". Annexed to the strategies document was the “Mandate of the ETS Working Group”, which was adopted.
As a consequence of the relevant discussions it was decided to create two new technical subgroups under the ETS WG:
A) a UOE subgroup. This group will include candidate countries and will be the forum to discuss the further development of Eurostat specific UOE tables (currently limited to regions and languages). Furthermore, among the most urgent issues for the UOE subgroup are included:
- The coverage of the UOE data collection
- The development of EU specific indicators - Statistical support for EU policy-making needs (benchmarking etc)
- The use of ISCED for a better integration with the qualitative data collected through the Eurydice network and published in the joint publication Key Data on Education in Europe
- The implementation of ISCED
- The development of the EU part of the UOE questionnaire, etc
Denmark, Germany, Italy, Ireland, Netherlands, Luxembourg, Spain, Sweden, Norway, Czech republic, Slovak republic and Croatia expressed their interest to participate in the UOE subgroup to be established.
B) a subgroup on "Education in LFS" (LFS-E sub group). This group will focus in its first year on the development of the LLL ad hoc module for LFS 2003. Both these subgroups will work closely with relevant groups at international level (INES TG, Network B etc). Belgium (INS), Denmark, France, Finland, Germany, Ireland, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Spain, Sweden, and Croatia expressed their interest to participate in the LFS-E subgroup to be established .
An official letter for expression of interest to participate in these groupswill be sent shortly to the ETS national focal points on this issue, which will include also a draft mandate for each subgroup to be adopted at their first meeting. Eurostat stressed that it is important to keep the groups flexible both in size and in operational arrangements.
The document on strategies has been adopted in principle by the group but delegates were asked to send any further comments on it that would reflect even better the opinion of their country, in their role as "national focal points" for Education and Training Statistics in their country. The points made during the discussion were the following:
Mr Abeln (Netherlands) stressed that we definitely need a European System of indicators. Although this can be based on existing indicators that were developed in the framework of OECD, for example, this is not enough to cover EU-specific issues. The reason is that we need instrumentation for indicators (for example to implement the Lisbon conclusions). The ETS WG should coordinate the process but it is important to have a good connection with other groups (for example the quality indicators group, the group on indicators to be proposed by the French after the Leyden seminar in the Netherlands etc). He also referred to the need for indicators on lifelong learning as well as on other issues raised by the Lisbon conclusions. This means that countries need coordinated support by international bodies to develop their national indicators in a comparable way. Then the ETS WG group should support synthesis and target-setting of this national information, a work that should be done by DG EAC according to the Netherlands. It is important that all indicator groups cooperate; he mentioned as well that it could even be better just to have one group.