Education and Training Statistics Working Group, May 2011 Item 7.5 Fields of education classification – Strategic issues, recommendations and results of the enquiry Working Group - Education and Training Statistics, 23-24 May 2011, Luxembourg

Outline of presentation: Strategic issues: - Overall agreement to revise the field of education classification (FOET-99) as shown in this document. - Timing of the revision. - Timing of including the revision in ESS/Eurostat regulations and sources. Proposal for the revision of the FOET 99: - questionnaire replies show agreement to main proposals with very few exceptions -> ETS WG is asked to confirm. - Recommendations for specific solutions up for discission (could possibly by confirmed in written after the meeting). - a very few open issues (need for further work).

The ETS delegates are invited to: 1. Strategic issues The ETS delegates are invited to: Agree on the proposals as outlined in the document with a view to drawing up the final recommendations regarding the future revision of FOET-99. Agree to developing the Working Group document including its annex into a report showing the recommendations of the ETS WG including the proposal for the revised classification. To approve this report during the summer 2011 (by the ETS delegates and Eurostat). To transmit the report with the final recommendations to UIS-UNESCO during summer 2011 as an input to the revision of the fields of education as planned by the UIS-UNESCO.

1. Strategic issues As shown in the document: UIS-UNESCO plans to carry out a world-wide consultation on this issue during 2012. The revised classification is planned for adoption by the UNESCO General Conference in 2013. Eurostat is of the opinion that the revised ISCED levels and fields should be adopted in legislation and sources at the same time. The revised FOET should be implemented in 2014 as the WG agrees to implement levels in 2014.

1. Strategic issues The Eurostat proposal is to introduce the revised field of education classification in the LFS and ‘UOE’ legislation for adoption in late 2012 / early 2013 and thereby, to implement the revised classification starting from 2014 (at the same time as the levels). This proposal would mean, in all likelihood, that the results of the UIS-UNESCO world-wide consultation could be taken into (but not the final UIS-UNESCO proposal). Would the ETS WG agree to the Eurostat proposal ?

2. Proposal for the revised FOET The ETS delegates are invited to agree on the following 8 points (as detailed in the next slides) Revisions to the FOET-99 detailed field of education classification. Broad field 'health and welfare' split into two broad fields. Treatment of Interdisciplinary programmes. Treatment of non-formal programmes/fields. Aggregated classification for publication purposes. Level of detail to be submitted in the UOE data collection. Distinction professional and academic orientation at tertiary educational level. Classification/coding format.

2. Proposal for the revised FOET Countries agree on the following issues: Creation of new narrow field ‘languages’ (Q16) Creation of broad field ‘business and administration’ and ‘law’ level (Q17) Division of ‘Business and administration’ in ‘Business’ and ‘Management & Administration’ (Q18) Deletion of detailed field ‘computer science’ to be replaced by several detailed fields (Q24 and Q25). Recommendation that the ETS WG adopts these proposals. Countries do not agree on the following issues: The split of the broad ‘Law’ in two narrow fields ‘National law’ and ‘International law’ (which was requested from/suggested by DG EAC) is rejected, (Q22 and Q23) probably because some/most programmes include both types of content. -> Recommendation to study the issue further. The split into detailed fields ‘Management’ and ‘Administration’ is rejected (Q19). Recommendation to accept this rejection but try make further specifications regarding content of ‘management’ and ‘administration’

2. Proposal for the revised FOET ‘Health and Welfare’ The population of students in 'Health and welfare' is unevenly distributed since 80% of students are studying in narrow field 'Health', most of them studying either 'Medicine' or 'Nursing and caring'. The ETS delegates are invited to consider and agree with the German proposal

2. Proposal for the revised FOET When distribution of subjects studied is close to being equal → to use the new codes suggested for 'unspecified subjects' to indicate the magnitude of interdisciplinary programmes as a large majority of countries (86%) would agree to introduce the category 'unspecified' at narrow and detailed levels. Some countries (DE, EE, IS, SI and SE) which agree with this proposal also wish to keep code 0 for broad programmes.  But: Possible misuse of this category (e.g. opportunities for data providers to be vague).

2. Proposal for the revised FOET Recommendations interdisciplinary programmes: A change in the wording of the category (‘Unspecified detailed field + name of the narrow field’ / ‘Unspecified narrow field + name of the broad field’ / ‘Unspecified broad field’); A specification of the terms: ‘not known’ by the data collection and ‘not specified’ due to the programme; Further methodological notes on the implementation and especially its role regarding inter/multidisciplinary programmes; Firm recommendations as to when the categories unspecified broad field/narrow/detailed should be used e.g. by level and for interdisciplinary programmes; The categories unspecified broad field/narrow/detailed should be used for interdisciplinary programmes when the time distribution of subjects is sufficiently close e.g. at least 40-40 (20) for two subjects and at least 30-30-30 (10) for three subjects.

2. Proposal for the revised FOET – Non-formal programmes/fields No big problems in classifying non-formal education using either specific national classifications or the FOET-99. Recommendations: To study further specific classifications used in some countries (CH, DE, FI) for classifying non-formal programmes → purpose is using classification categories but not the classification system. To use the FOET-99 and subsequently the revised field of education classification for classifying non-formal education → the classification should be extended to show examples of the broad / narrow and detailed categories of typical non-formal programmes.

2. Proposal for the revised FOET – Aggregated classification for publication purposes A majority of countries see advantages in recommending a broader classification for publication purposes But Consideration should be paid to the purposes of the analysis. Recommendation: Specific aggregations should be clarified via data analysis; although different options for different publication purposes could also be indicated.

2. Proposal for the revised FOET – Level of details in the UOE data collection Recommendation: Advantages in transmitting the three digit level, To bring this forward to the UOE data collection revision foreseen for 2014. To collect only this level of detail for tertiary education.

2. Proposal for the revised FOET – professional/academic orientation at tertiary level Most countries use the theoretical content and not fields of education to make such distinction. Recommendations: To study further in order to deduct potential similarities in classification for use at international level. To suggest a convention based on the field of education classification. This would be transparent and easily distinguishable from national traditions. It would also be easier to work with statistically in terms of analysis.

2. Proposal for the revised FOET – Classification/coding format The enquiry made two proposals for coding the fields of education classification; one using letters and numbers, - and one using only numbers. Countries were divided equally in their preferences. Recommendations Only using numbers in the classification and that the new/revised fields should be placed in the numbering where they belong in terms of substance. Broad fields: 2 digits because 11 broad fields. Suggestions: ‘9’ signifies unknown or unspecified. Should this be detailed at broad, narrow and detailed levels? ‘0’ signifies unspecified ‘field’ – should this be at both narrow and detailed field? ’99’ not known or unspecified at broad level. Question: should ‘general programmes’ (ISCED field 0) be kept as it is?