EUROPEAN COMMISSION EUROSTAT Directorate F: Social and Information Society Statistics Doc. Eurostat/F/10/DSS/01/5.6EN POINT 5.6 INFORMATION ON ON-GOING ISCED REVIEW MEETING OF THE EUROPEAN DIRECTORS OF SOCIAL STATISTICS LUXEMBOURG, 11-12 MARCH 2010 BECH BUILDING, ROOM QUETELET
SUMMARY This document gives a strategic overview on the on-going ISCED review by underlining the main topics discussed and the positions and actions taken by Eurostat. It outlines the timing for the further work until the foreseen adoption of the revised ISCED by UNESCO's general conference in autumn 2011. The annex shows the minutes of the latest ISCED Technical Advisory Panel meeting which took place 3-4 December in Geneva. The DSS is invited to take note of the progress achieved in the ISCED review and Eurostat's work done in this regard. The DSS is invited to comment on: the directions taken in regard to the ISCED review and the corresponding planning towards the UNESCO 2011 general conference and beyond. 1. THE BACKGROUND AND HISTORY OF THE CURRENT ISCED REVIEW The UNESCO General Conference decided in autumn 2007 to review the 1997 version of the International Standard Classification for Education (ISCED). This review should be completed by autumn 2011 for presentation to the 2011 UNESCO General Conference. The UIS, UNESCO's Institute of Statistics is in charge of this review which would lead to a revision of ISCED 1. UIS-UNESCO, OECD and Eurostat have for some years been working closely together to improve the implementation of ISCED 1997. OECD and Eurostat are therefore actively engaged in the process of reviewing ISCED. The ISCED Technical Advisory Panel has been created by UIS to support the activities relating to the ISCED review. The first meeting was held at the UNESCO Institute for Statistics premises in Montreal on 19-20 January, 2009 with 15 participants. The following regions were represented at the meeting: Africa (Francophone and Anglophone), Asia (South West and East), Europe and Latin America, - as well as OECD and Eurostat. The 1 st meeting's objectives were reviewing existing ISCED issues, identification of new ones and prioritize them. Secondly, a strategy for the ISCED review towards presenting recommendations to the UNESCO General Conference in 2011 was set up. The first meeting resulted in Eurostat taking on the following main responsibilities: - To look at the scope of education covered by ISCED (in particular as concerns non-formal education as defined in CLA (the Classification of Learning Activities) - To further investigate ISCED level 4. - To provide guidelines for measurement of educational attainment. In addition, Eurostat is assisting on other issues where relevant. The second meeting of the ISCED TAP took place in July 2009 (Paris). All three subjects as outlined above were discussed at this meeting. This meeting also helped UIS in preparing a progress report for the 2009 UNESCO General Conference as well as supporting documents for regional consultations/conferences to be held in autumn 2009 and spring 2010. 1 Main documents regarding ISCED and the ISCED review can be consulted on the following UIS-UNESCO site: http://www.uis.unesco.org/ev_en.php?id=7433_201&id2=do_topic; 1
The main achievements of the meeting were progress on the issues of ISCED level 0 (early childhood education), redefining ISCED levels 4, 5 and 6 as well as agreement on the overall definition of educational attainment. The third meeting of the ISCED TAP took place 3-4 December (Geneva). This meeting reviewed the results of the first two regional meetings (Africa and Asia) as well as the results of the OECD INES discussion plus EU country comments (October-November 2009). It agreed on a detailed planning for the remaining part of the ISCED review until autumn 2011 and also discussed the follow-up after 2011. Further discussions and agreements regarding defining ISCED levels took place (for more details see below). 2. THE PLANNING TOWARDS THE ADOPTION OF THE NEW ISCED A detailed planning towards the adoption of the new ISCED in autumn 2011 was agreed at the 3 rd ISCED TAP meeting. It contains the following elements: - The creation of an ISCED TAP editorial group and the agreement of the ISCED TAP on the terms of references. The mandate of the group is to prepare the first draft of the reviewed ISCED text which will be sent in a worldwide consultation during summer 2010. ISCED TAP remains the ultimate decision making body and owner of the text. The editorial group consists of representatives of the three agencies (UIS-UNESCO, OECD and Eurostat) as well as three TAP members (Sheren Hamed, Claude Sauvageot and Silke Schneider.) The editorial group took responsibility for different parts of the ISCED review text and agreed on deadlines. - Three more ISCED TAP meetings will take place (April 2010, December 2010 and April 2011). The April 2010 meeting will review the global consultation draft. The December 2010 meeting would discuss and agree on the final version and the April 2011 meeting would be dedicated to follow-up mechanisms. The final ISCED recommendations for the UNESCO general conference should be delivered by the ISCED TAP in March 2011. - The editorial group will have meetings in relation to the ISCED TAP meetings but will also have additional meetings (March 2010 and October 2010). - An interagency meeting will be held on 20-21 May with the purpose of launching the worldwide consultation. The interagency meeting will bring in stakeholders who have an interest in ISCED (as the World Bank, UNSD, ILO, UNICEF etc.) The global consultation would run until September 2010. Eurostat is planning some specific activities in connection to the ISCED review. - Eurostat will hold a specific UOE meeting at the end of April 2010 where the ISCED review will be an information item. - Eurostat has agreed a contract with a consultancy firm (education statistics experts) which will support Eurostat in its work on the ISCED review. This support is divided into two main themes: firstly general support as regards the ISCED review (including looking at implementation issues) and secondly improvement of the field of education classification for better serving the Eurostat data collection instruments. - An ISCED workshop preliminary called 'the ISCED review and implementation issues' is planned for the 18-19 November 2010. The workshop is targeted at national delegates working with education and training data sources as the UOE, the AES and the education variables in the EU LFS. At this stage there would be a draft final version of the reviewed ISCED available as well as outcomes of the consultancy work started at the beginning of 2010. 2
3. MAIN DISCUSSION POINTS AND EUROSTAT POSITIONS The sections below outline the main discussion points until now and the positions taken by Eurostat regarding them. It should be kept in mind that some issues will not be treated in the current ISCED review; notably the field of education classification as found in the current ISCED 1997 manual. Such issues will be treated post-2011. Secondly, the ISCED TAP group is very aware of the need for having a constant follow up on the reviewed ISCED given the experience with the ISCED 1997 where the follow-up promised was never realised. Likewise, there is a need to illustrate the correspondence between ISCED 1997 levels and the reviewed levels. Appropriate back-data or running the two classifications in parallel could be considered. It should be noted the UIS, OECD and Eurostat have already agreed on a UOE pilot project regarding the Bologna structures with countries (EU, OECD and Bologna countries). Finally, Eurostat is also coordinating the ISCED issue internally (notably by working together with the classification department). One important concern is to assure that there is an appropriate use of ISCED in sources where educational levels are used at the most aggregated levels (as in national accounts, price statistics, and, in general, in household surveys). The appropriate use goes together with improved explanations at the aggregate level. 3.1 Modernisation, Simplification and flexibility The main strategic lines for reviewing ISCED were already discussed at an ISCED seminar initiated by Eurostat and held in September 2008 (Paris), (co-operation between the three agencies.) The keywords are modernisation, simplification and flexibility. - Modernisation - ISCED 1997 is not an old classification; however it became quite quickly outdated in regard to the structures and levels proposed for tertiary education within Europe. The intergovernmental Bologna process as it was started around 2000 suggested different structures for the higher education sector than those described in ISCED 1997, - notably by distinguishing the bachelor and master levels. In the rest of the world there was also a need to review ISCED in relation to educational developments coined by notions as 'basic education', early childhood education etc. ISCED 1997 did not contain any recommendations as regards the definition and concepts on educational attainment. It has been acknowledged that there is a need for such universal recommendations. Finally, the scope of education needs further clarification from a European and Eurostat point of view. Eurostat developed with countries the Classification of Learning Activities in connection with the pilot Adult Education Survey. This classification distinguishes between formal and nonformal education and informal learning. ISCED needs to take into account such different learning activities and what it means in terms of notions of levels. - Simplification - ISCED 1997 has two dimensions as opposed to 'normal' statistical classifications which are one dimensional (organised in a hierarchy of levels). ISCED is a classification of educational programmes; e.g. the basic unit is the educational programme and two dimensions of the programme are distinguished: the orientation (general, pre-vocational or vocational) and the destination (a, b, c). The destination dimensions should basically illustrate path ways in education systems and could be used analytically to look at typical pathways (for example ISCED 1 -> 2A -> 3A -> 5A). However, pathways in education systems are becoming more and 3
more flexible (and numerous) and the ISCED 1997 destination dimensions have been used very little empirically (in fact these were never implemented by UNESCO where the basic distinction of ISCED 1976 was kept (general and vocational orientation). Eurostat has therefore suggested to put the emphasis on the orientation dimension in the ISCED review work (empirically it has also been shown that the category 'pre-vocational' is a rare occurrence and there is general agreement about abolishing this part of the orientation dimension.) Putting emphasis on the orientation dimension means also that considerations regarding the definitions of 'general' and 'vocational' programmes have been illustrated and discussed. And, there is a concern to look at pathways for analytical purposes (general education programmes are normally destined for giving access to higher levels of education whereas vocational programmes could be distinguished according to their finality (labour market destination) or to giving access to further vocational specialisations.) Such issues are being studied in depth in the current ISCED review 2. Finally, the UOE data collection instrument is a good example of how the two dimensions of the current ISCED are not sufficient for describing the education structures in European countries. In fact the UOE provides detailed data on both dimensions as well as for sublevels distinguished according to the duration of the programme. This gives many ISCED level categories which, according to Eurostat, have partly become obsolete and are not used for analytical purposes. The Eurostat view is that ISCED levels could be simplified as the analytical needs at international level does not require defining such detailed levels of education. - Flexibility - However, there is a concern about being able to use ISCED in a flexible way, understood as it being adequate for use in detailed specialised education and training sources as well as at the very aggregate level in sources where education is not the main topic. At the moment the discussion centers on defining blocks of programmes with similar characteristics which can be build into a one-dimensional classification system. Similarly, there is a need for more flexibility in terms of defining types of education data in order to reflect the flexibility of current education systems. For example, being enrolled in a level of education would not necessarily mean that the student upon graduation attains the level. Modular programmes and point systems (for example as in the Bologna structures, the ECTS points (European Credit Transfer System)) needs to be treated in this respect. 3.2 The scope of education ISCED covers 'all organized and sustained learning opportunities for children, youth and adults including those with special needs education, irrespective of the institution or entity providing them or the form in which they are delivered.' (ISCED 1997, par. 1). 'It follows that education for the purpose of ISCED includes a variety of programmes and types of education which are designated in the national context' (ISCED 1997 par. 12), but 'that education, for the purpose of ISCED, excludes communication that is not designed to bring about learning. It also excludes various forms of learning that are not organized. Thus, while all education involves learning, many forms of learning are not regarded as education. For example, incidental or random learning ' (ISCED 1997, par. 13). 2 At EU level there has recently been an emphasis on classifying skill levels through the European Qualification Framework and the national qualification frameworks being developed. From a European perspective it is important to be aware of and discuss similarities and differences between how levels in the two systems are defined. 4
From the above it is clear that ISCED covers all types of education, - and not only formal education (as it is sometimes interpreted as covering). However, the statistical instruments developed in ISCED 1997 may be more or less suited for application to different types of education. The Classification of Learning Activities was therefore developed in order to show how different types of education could be distinguished statistically. CLA is intended to cover all types of learning opportunities and education/learning pathways. The CLA classifies education and learning into four broad categories: Formal education (F), Non-Formal education (NF), Informal learning (INF) and random/incidental learning. Based on the definition of learning activities, random learning is excluded from statistical observation because it is not intentional. Informal learning activities are not institutionalized but is to be distinguished from random learning by being intentional or carried out deliberately. It is one of Eurostat's purposes with the ISCED review to define more clearly what should be understood by formal and non-formal education. The present CLA makes the distinction between the two dependent on the 'National Qualification Framework', which may or may not exist and under all circumstances suffers from the weaknesses of being nationally and not universally defined 3. What is being considered is defining formal education in relation to the hierarchy of levels, e.g. successful completion of an educational level would typically correspond to the situation in which a pupil/student attends and completes a formal education programme. Non-formal programmes, on the other hand, serves for acquiring specific skills through education and/or training programmes but would not, upon completion, mean having acquired a higher educational level or give access to a higher educational level. Eurostat and ISCED TAP are working on such conceptual issues currently. Experience, which have been obtained with the Adult Education Survey, is studied in this regard. 3.3 Current ISCED levels 0, 1, 2 and 3 From Eurostat's point of view there are no major issues regarding the current ISCED levels 0 and 1. The ISCED review needs to adapt the definition of ISCED 1 to make it clear that it does not necessarily start when education becomes obligatory in a given country. Likewise, ISCED level 0 could be defined more clearly in regard to the distinction between child care and education. The distinctions between formal and non-formal education and informal learning might be usefully applied in this context. On the other hand there are some clear issues in regard to ISCED levels 2 and 3. These concern the simplification as described above and in particular the need for looking more closely at vocational training (both as orientation and path ways). The Australia Government Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations undertook a quick survey to study the definition of vocational training used in different countries and this study is used for further 3 The national qualification frameworks as defined in relation to the EQF (skill levels) would normally cover all education activities in a country and should not be confused with the NQF concept as it is treated in the CLA. 5
analysis in the ISCED TAP (the aim being a consistent application of the definition of the vocational orientation). Furthermore the duration of education at ISCED level 3 is also being studied in more detail. 3.4 The Bologna structures and ISCED levels 4, 5 and 6 The Bologna process as it is taking place in a large number of European countries (46 at the moment) is the driving force behind the demand for reviewing the ISCED structures for obtaining comparability with the three cycle bachelor, master and ph.d. structures. As described above, a 2009 UOE pilot collection of enrolment and graduate data following the Bologna structures has also been agreed between UIS, OECD and Eurostat. It is expected that this pilot collection will also give useful feedback to the ISCED review. The proposal for redefining present ISCED levels 4, 5 and 6 is the most advanced in the ISCED review process. The review process has been defining different scenarios and blocks which are being modelled at the moment. In general there is agreement on distinguishing bachelor, master and ph.d. programmes at separate levels. There is also general agreement on including a block which is considered to consist of tertiary education level programmes of less than 3 years duration. However, there is still quite some discussion on how to classify present ISCED level 4 programmes (mainly vocational orientation) which are not considered to be at tertiary level. In itself, this is a very small group of programmes (and in many countries non-existing). However, countries resist classifying them at tertiary level because they in a national context is not considered higher education (although from an international perspective they have many characteristics in common with the vocational programmes some countries classifiy as higher education.) Furthermore it has been concluded on a preliminary basis that the still existing long first degrees (for example in medicine and dentistry) should be grouped with master level programmes. The UOE pilot collection on the Bologna structures will give more insights into sub-blocks of programmes and their classification in the generally agreed structure of bachelor, master and ph.d levels. There is also a concern in some countries that the four upper levels of ISCED should equal to the four upper levels of the European Qualification Framework. This seems a priori to be the case as it stands at the moment, - but the subject is being investigated in more detail. 3.5 Definitions and concepts for measuring educational attainment In regard to the measurement of educational attainment, a proposal has been elaborated by the Task Force EVHoS (improvement of the quality of educational variables in the LFS and other social household surveys) with the collaboration of the OECD INES network on learning outcomes. The proposal was transmitted to the UIS and the ISCED TAP after consultation of all EU-Member States for discussion in its July 2009 meeting. The ISCED TAP agreed on the proposal but asked for more explanations in the document concerning illustrating the measurement of educational attainment in sample surveys. A revised version has been prepared by Eurostat/OECD and UIS accordingly for the third ISCED TAP meeting. However, no final agreement has yet been reached at the level of ISCED TAP and the ISCED TAP editorial group has taken over the further work. 6
Eurostat has in this regard noted that the usefulness of the duration criteria is not limited to the definition of educational attainment but is an issue which should be treated in general by ISCED and its levels. Therefore, Eurostat considers that the educational attainment definitions and concepts to be included in the reviewed ISCED could be limited to the following paragraphs: 1. The educational attainment level of an individual is defined as the highest level of educational programme successfully completed in the ISCED ladder, the success being validated by a recognised credential. 2. The concept of educational programme successfully completed typically corresponds to the situation in which a pupil/student attends and completes a formal education programme. Educational attainment corresponds to the highest level successfully completed in the ISCED ladder in that perspective. 3. Only credentials (used as a generic term covering wordings as certificates, diploma, degrees) recognised by the formal education system define an individual's educational attainment. 4. Credentials obtained upon successful programme completion are the best proxies for measuring attainment in a data collection. But, in countries and in cases where educational programmes at ISCED levels 1 and 2 do not lead to a certification, the criteria of full attendance in the programme and, upon completion, giving access to a higher level of education, should be used instead. 5. Following paragraph 4, for ISCED levels 1 and 2, for programmes not providing direct access to the higher ISCED level, the theoretical duration of studies at the ISCED level is to be used as criteria for determining whether a programme qualifies to be counted as completion of an ISCED level. 6. An educational programme successfully completed should be considered as an output and as such needs to be distinguished from the process (attendance/enrolment) which leads to it. The educational attainment level(s) of a given population expresses the stock (as opposed to a flow) at any given time. 7. Two additional concepts are useful for specification and thereby clarification of the definition of educational attainment: a. Educational programmes attended (with or without successfully completing them). Information on educational programmes attended but not necessarily successfully completed could be a basis for additional analyses of transitions in the educational systems, drop-outs or skills and competences. b. Validated skills and competences (credential recognizing the acquisition of skills and competences not necessarily by enrolment in an educational programme). Results on validated skills and competences would provide further information on human capital. 8. Educational attainment data must cover attainment in both current and past educational structures/programmes because the target population includes individuals of all age groups. 7
9. In order to achieve comparability across countries and time, educational programmes should be classified on the basis of their characteristics at the time of successful completion. The classification according to ISCED levels of current programmes that might (at national level) be perceived to be equivalent should not be done since it does not reflect actual educational attainment. 10. For countries where modular educational programmes are offered, the highest educational level successfully completed is validated by the successful completion of all requirements of this level. The proposal above has been submitted to the ISCED TAP editorial group where it is being considered at the moment. 8