ANNEX 1 Conclusions and Recommendations of the Task Force learning Mobility Statistics 17-18 April 2012

Task Force on Learning Mobility statistics Agenda point 9 Conclusions and Recommendations of the Task Force learning Mobility Statistics 17-18 April 2012 Eurostat unit F5: Education, health and social protection statistics (lene.mejer@ec.europa.eu) 17-18 April 2012 2

Outline Activities of the Task Force in relation to its second meeting; Conclusions and recommendations in regard to agenda point 4; results of test on credit mobility data -> technical features; Conclusions and recommendations in regard to agenda point 4; results of test on credit mobility data -> main issues to be underlined for the ETS WG; Conclusions and recommendations in regard to agenda point 5; degree mobility; Conclusions and recommendations in regard to agenda point 6; benchmark calculations -> which formula; Conclusions Task Force meeting on Learning Mobility Statistics 3

Outline Conclusions and recommendations in regard to agenda point 6; benchmark calculations -> from enrolment to graduate data in regard to credit mobility; Conclusions and recommendations in regard to agenda point 7; the methodological manual on learning mobility; Conclusions and recommendations in regard to agenda point 8; learning mobility to be captured via household surveys; 9. Further work still to be done by the Task Force and Eurostat for the ETS WG June 2012 meeting. Conclusions Task Force meeting on Learning Mobility Statistics 4

1. Activities of the Task Force in relation to its second meeting In its second meeting 17-18 April 2012, the Task Force on learning mobility statistics: I: reviewed the results of the pilot credit mobility tests and made recommendations given the outcome; II: reviewed the available data provided on mobile distance learners and ‘homecoming nationals’ for reviewing the UOE tables on degree mobility; III: discussed the different steps in the benchmark calculations thoroughly including coverage (geographical and by ISCED level), the formula for the benchmark as well as how to convert enrolment data to graduate data for credit mobility; IV: considered timing difficulties for achieving satisfactory statistical quality data and reflected on output harmonised instruments for using the full potential of available national data; Conclusions Task Force meeting on Learning Mobility Statistics 5

1. Activities of the Task Force in relation to its second meeting V: Reviewed progress with the methodological manual and asked for further improvements based on detailed written comments to be provided; VI: Reviewed the variables proposed for establishing a household survey module for measuring IVET and general youth mobility VII:Agreed on a number of actions to be done in the immediate future for finalising the Task Force work for the Education and Training Statistics Working Group meeting in Jue 2012. Conclusions Task Force meeting on Learning Mobility Statistics 6

2. Conclusions and recommendations in regard to agenda point 4; results of test on credit mobility data -> technical features. The pilot test on collecting credit mobility has shown that the format and the explanations for the two tables, CRED1 and CRED2, work. A number of Task Force countries also underlined the on-going improvements that they are doing to their data collections in this area. These would for most be achievable on a medium term. The Task Force recommends to collect graduate credit mobility data relevant for the HE Benchmark via the CRED2 table. The Task Force recommends to collect enrolment credit mobility data relevant for learning mobility indicators via the CRED1 table. E.g. these indicators are those beyond the benchmark but which would be seen as achievable given user needs within the current framework. The Task Force recommends to keep on collecting short learning mobility stays (below 3 months, because of user needs expressed (BFUG and EU Commission (DG EAC))). Conclusions Task Force meeting on Learning Mobility Statistics 7

2. Conclusions and recommendations in regard to agenda point 4; results of test on credit mobility data -> technical features. The Task Force agreed on a few changes to the format of the CRED2 table including isolating ‘short stays’ in separate rows, deleting the totals for ‘work placements’ and adding unknowns where justified. Beyond the changes outlined above, the Task Force agreed that the table would work, - including the duration criteria and the breakdown by type of mobility as suggested. The Task Force noted the difficulty in capturing ‘free movers’ and the possible undercoverage that this would lead to in the Benchmark calculations (SE example). Conclusions Task Force meeting on Learning Mobility Statistics 8

3. Conclusions and recommendations in regard to agenda point 4; results of test on credit mobility data -> main issues to be underlined for the ETS WG; Collection of number of graduates who have been credit mobile during their study -> table format = CRED2 Method for converting enrolments to graduates to be implemented at national level (if graduate data are not collected directly). The Task Force recommended some improvements for the calculations methods proposed and these would be further explained for the ETS WG. Countries to report to Eurostat on their plans for providing data including quality assurance. Eurostat to provide further methodological support (to be defined). The tests had shown that use of information in LLP agencies is feasible in many countries and this would be part of the practical recommendation (eg. On how to use this data).Recommendation to cover Erasmus / EU sponsored programs as well as any other programs and free-movers fulfilling the credit mobility definition. Conclusions Task Force meeting on Learning Mobility Statistics 9

3. Conclusions and recommendations in regard to agenda point 4; results of test on credit mobility data -> main issues to be underlined for the ETS WG. 5. Recommendation to collect enrolment of credit mobile students by country of destination for covering both inbound and outbound credit mobility (via CRED1 which could be combined with present UOE table ENRL9). 6. Recommendation for country coverage of credit mobility information (reporting countries): EU and EHEA countries. 7. Recommendation for first data collection year 2014; first reference period will be school year 2012-2013. However, a number of Task Force delegates noted that the timing is very tight and the first data would in all likelihood underestimate the size of credit mobility. It would equally be important to document the data in terms of quality (particularly regarding under coverage). Conclusions Task Force meeting on Learning Mobility Statistics 10

3. Conclusions and recommendations in regard to agenda point 4; results of test on credit mobility data -> main issues to be underlined for the ETS WG. 8. The Task Force discussed output versus input harmonisation, notably in relation to recommending a survey option for collecting part of the data on credit mobility. However, this could not be recommended as a general solution (most Task Force countries are/would collect the data via administrative sources). Instead, country specific issues for the survey option on credit mobility could potentially be looked at by countries interested with the methodological support of Eurostat. 9. The Task Force concluded that the reporting country could only check for dual mobility by looking at their credit mobile population and see if they would also be degree mobile. In this case they should by classified as degree mobile. Conclusions Task Force meeting on Learning Mobility Statistics 11

4. Conclusions and recommendations in regard to agenda point 5; degree mobility. The Task Force recommends to follow the definition of learning mobility for the EU benchmark as stated in the Council Conclusions of November 2011 and therefore the definition in the UOE is recommended to be changed so it includes ‘home-coming nationals’ and excludes mobile distance learners.. This change is suggested to happen in 2014 when the revised UOE will be implemented. 2. However, it is recommended that mobile distance learners should not be separately identified in the mobile population because available evidence shows that it is not significant. So even if the definition excludes mobile distance learners then in practice they are included in the mobile population. This also avoids the issue of where else to classify them if not as part of the mobile population. Conclusions Task Force meeting on Learning Mobility Statistics 12

4. Conclusions and recommendations in regard to agenda point 5; degree mobility. 3. ‘Homecoming nationals’ should be separately identified in the UOE tables (what is now ENRL9 and GRAD9 in the UOE) in order to provide the analytical possibilities of including and excluding them according to goal of the analysis. 4. A separate identification of ‘homecoming nationals’ for credit mobility is not recommended because of substance (the analytical interest is not the same as for degree mobility) and because it is also a relatively smaller population. Conclusions Task Force meeting on Learning Mobility Statistics 13

4. Conclusions and recommendations in regard to agenda point 5; degree mobility. The Task Force reviewed the present UOE mobility tables and ascertained the following issues: 1. Necessary UOE learning mobility tables (degree mobility) for providing the data for the HE benchmark on learning mobility: Conclusion to collect GRAD9 (with separate identification of degree mobile ‘homecoming nationals’); CRED2 for securing benchmark calculations and in addition most important user needs; ENRL9 (with CRED1 (integrated or in separate table)) including identification of degree mobile ‘homecoming nationals’); 3. Separate identification in CRED2 of ‘short stays’ in tertiary education. 4. -> Eurostat would suggest these tables to be obligatory following the revised annex 1 of Commission regulation 88/2011. The UOE data requesters also recommend to keep the pilot tables on ENTR2_INT and GRAD4_INT. Conclusions Task Force meeting on Learning Mobility Statistics 14

5. Conclusions and recommendations in regard to agenda point 6; benchmark calculations -> which coverage. Coverage of benchmark in tertiary education: 1. In terms of ISCED 2011 coverage the Task Force questioned the necessity for covering ISCED level 5 vocational training. This point would be analysed by getting the further advice of the Task Force delegates and main users. 2. There is a recommendation to cover ISCED level 5 general orientation, level 6, 7 and 8 (under all circumstances and showing the different levels separately). Conclusions Task Force meeting on Learning Mobility Statistics 15

Benchmark calculations 5. Conclusions and recommendations in regard to agenda point 6; benchmark calculations -> which formula. Benchmark calculations The Task Force had a thorough discussion on how to calculate the benchmark in detail. 1. The Task Force agreed to recommend that it is within the remit of the European Statistical System to detail the exact way the benchmark should be calculated and according to the quality standards applicable within the ESS (the Code of Practice). This would subsequently be confirmed by the ETS and DSS meetings as well as with policy makers at EU level. Conclusions Task Force meeting on Learning Mobility Statistics 16

Benchmark calculations (Italy was used as an example) 5. Conclusions and recommendations in regard to agenda point 6; benchmark calculations -> which formula. Benchmark calculations (Italy was used as an example) The Task Force considered three relevant options for calculating the benchmark with the following characteristics; 1. the nominator in all three options would be the same: -> the credit mobile population (IT-B) -> the degree mobile population (IT-C+(IT+D)). 2. the discussion concerned three options for the denominator: I: national approach (percentage) II: domestic approach (non-mobile and mobile credit and degree mobile in the domestic graduate population) (ratio) III: non-degree domestic mobility population (e.g. (IT-B+IT-C+(IT-D))/IT-A Conclusions Task Force meeting on Learning Mobility Statistics 17

Benchmark calculations 5. Conclusions and recommendations in regard to agenda point 6; benchmark calculations -> which formula. Benchmark calculations All three options are feasible. In terms of level of the benchmark the options give a hierarchy as follows: I and II < III. The relationship between options I and II depends on the size of the inward and outward degree mobile population of a country. Conclusions Task Force meeting on Learning Mobility Statistics 18

6. Conclusions and recommendations in regard to agenda point 6; benchmark calculations -> from enrolment to graduate data in regard to credit mobility. The Task Force discussed how to convert credit mobile enrolments into credit mobile graduate data. The Task Force agreed on output harmonisation in the sense that a common methodology and recommendations on implementation will be provided by Eurostat (and agreed within the ESS) but the actual implementation in terms of instrument and detailed variables/information used would be left to the discretion of countries. The actual estimation model(s) will be improved in the following aspects as recommended by the Task Force: -> use of entrants data by ISCED 2011 tertiary levels. -> use of duration of programme information. -> disregard the first year of study because there is no student mobility. -> completion rates: if no information is available at national level to use 100%. If information on completion rate of credit mobile students is available separately in reporting country this is recommended to be used. 3. There was a general recommendation to share practices and methodologies for the conversion between countries. Conclusions Task Force meeting on Learning Mobility Statistics 19

7. Conclusions and recommendations in regard to agenda point 7; the methodological manual on learning mobility. The Task Force reviewed progress with the learning mobility methodological manual, however it was concerned about the exactness of some of the issues treated and suggested to provide further detailed comments in written (until Friday 11th of May). Notably the following issues were raised: Too much emphasis on citizenship and the treatment of usual residence/permanent residence abroad should be clarified. DG EAC would provide detailed comments to clarify treatment of ‘specific cases’, - the case of not including cumulative periods was raised. The examples mentioned in the manual hould be better explained (including the country examples). Conclusions Task Force meeting on Learning Mobility Statistics 20

8. Conclusions and recommendations in regard to agenda point 8; learning mobility to be captured via household surveys. About the variables proposed: IVET mobility: The distinction of two categories for IVET mobility is not valid -> proposal to reformulate the variable: “Stay abroad for learning purposes for at least two weeks during the vocational education at ISCED level 3 (including apprenticeships)” Proposal to ask about the participation in the EU programme (Leonardo da Vinci): refused as not always known Mobility in tertiary education: Asking about duration: only optional (pilot exercice should be as simple as possible) Mobility in non-formal education: Informal learning should be deleted as a category (concept not clear for respondents) Clarification from the DG EAC needed as concerns « voluntary service » Germany re-confirmed their opposition to the pilot data collection without a legal basis Conclusions Task Force meeting on Learning Mobility Statistics 21