The link between Educational Attainment and Skills of Young Adults across the EUAnja MeierkordCIES2016Vancouver, 09th March 2016

1. Study context and objectives

2. Methodology

3. Key results

4. Conclusions

Presentation structure

Study context and objectives

Study context

Shifting focus on competences

“There is strong evidence that the cognitive skills of the population – rather than mere school attainment – are powerfully related to individual earnings, to the distribution of income, and to economic growth.” (Hanushek/Wößmann 2007)

“Education and training can only contribute to growth and job-creation if learning is focused on the knowledge, skills and competences to be acquired by students (learning outcomes) through the learning process, rather than on completing a

specific stage or on time spent in school” (EC 2012: Rethinking Education)

Study contextAND strong variation in average competence levels by level of educational

attainment in European Member States

Figure 5.1 Average numeracy proficiency of young adults by highest qualification level obtained, non-adjusted[1]

BE FI CZ NL AT DE SE EE FR EU-16

DK SK UK IE PL IT ES140

160

180

200

220

240

260

280

300

320

340

Tertiary (academic)

Tertiary (pro-fessional)

Post-secondary (non-tertiary)

Upper secondary

Primary and Lower secondary

Notes: n=29946, 20-34 year old respondents, PIAAC data, ordered by average scores achieved by those with tertiary (academically oriented) attainment (descending), data missing on post-secondary non-tertiary for NL, FR, data missing on tertiary (professionally oriented) for IE, PL, SK

Objectives of the study

Provide the Commission with an analysis of the relationship between education systems and formal educational attainment at secondary and tertiary level and the level of competences in literacy and numeracy of ‘young people’ both from a cross-country and within-country perspective.

Analysis of the link between basic competences and formal educational attainment, rather than an analysis of what explains varying average performance with regards to basic competences across countries

Data and methodology

• OECD programme for the International Assessment of Adult Competences (PIAAC), collected between August 2011 – March 2012

• Conducted in 24 countries, including 17 European Member States• Total sample size of 160,000, min. Of 5,000 respondents surveyed per country• Samples for each country are representative probability samples of the

population of 16-65 year olds, although sampling schemes varied. Sample:

• 16 EU Member States: AT, BE (FL), CZ, DK, EE, FI, FR, DE, IE, IT, NL, PL, SK, ES, SE, UK (EN, NI), exclusion of Cyprus

• Young people aged 20-34• Excluding those with literacy related non-response; including migrants• Around 30,000 observations

Data

Education production function:

ln ( , )=𝐻𝑖 𝑗 𝛼 ( , )+ , + , + , + + ,𝑄 𝑠𝑖 𝑗 𝛾𝐹𝑖 𝑗 𝛿𝐴𝑖 𝑗 𝜑𝑋𝑖 𝑗 𝐶𝑗 𝑣𝑖 𝑗𝐻𝑖, = competences of an individual i in country j𝑗Q( , ) = function of school inputs and , is individual educational attainment 𝑠𝑖 𝑗 𝑠𝑖 𝑗in country j𝐹𝑖, are family and other socio-demographic inputs𝑗𝐴𝑖, is individual ability𝑗 𝑋𝑖, are other inputs such as labour market experience𝑗

𝐶𝑗 are country fixed effects𝑣𝑖, is a stochastic term, assumed to be uncorrelated with , . 𝑗 𝐻𝑖 𝑗

Theoretical ModelCompetence gain through education

Theoretical Model

M1: null-model. Does not control for individual background and country level variables. Ignores that data is nested within countries.

M2: null-model including country-specific fixed-effects. Takes into account the nested structure of the data.

M3: introduces individual level control variables, e.g. gender and migration background, to account for background factors which may have an influence on competence levels.

M4: additionally adds country level fixed effects to control for the fact that individuals are nested within different country settings, which may have an effect on their competence levels (fixed effects model).

Empirical Models

Results

  M1 M2 M3 M4School/Education effects        Tertiary educational attainment (D) 0.094*** 0.103*** 0.055*** 0.065***(compared to upper secondary attainment) (0.013) (0.011) (0.008) (0.008)

Lower secondary educational attainment (D) -0.165*** -0.16*** -0.107*** -0.104***

(compared to upper secondary attainment) (0.01) (0.011) (0.005) (0.007)

Still in education (D) 0.052*** 0.051***(0.008) (0.01)

Family/Socio-demographic characteristics        

Gender (male) 0.047*** 0.048***(0.002) (0.003)

Age 30-34 (D)     -0.005 -0.001(compared to 20-24 year olds)     (0.09) (0.008)Age 25-29 (D)     0.004 0.007(compared to 20-24 year olds)     (0.008) (0.007)At least one parent has tertiary education (D)     0.083*** 0.068***

(compared to neither parent having attained upper secondary)     (0.006) (0.007)

At least one parent has upper secondary and post-secondary (non tertiary) (D)

    0.033*** 0.028***

(compared to neither parent having attained upper secondary)     (0.007) (0.005)

Test language same as home language (D) 0.051*** 0.055***

(0.010) (0.011)No migrant background (D) 0.099*** 0.103***(compared to first generation migrants) (0.008) (0.005)2nd generation immigrants (D) 0.059*** 0.055***(compared to first generation migrants) (0.011) (0.009)Health status (Low -1 to High-5)     0.006*** 0.005***      (0.002) (0.002)

How large is the overall effect of educational attainment on competences?

Work experience        Number of years of paid work     0.002** 0.002**      (0.001) (0.001)Skilled occupations (D) 0.094*** 0.088***(compared to elementary occupations) (0.011) (0.010)Semi-skilled white collar occupation (D) 0.052*** 0.051***(compared to elementary occupations) (0.006) (0.006)

Semi-skilled blue collar occupation (D) 0.011 0.010(compared to elementary occupations) (0.011) (0.011)Country FE No Yes No YesConstant 5.588*** 5.628*** 5.302*** 5.347***  (0.014) (0.002) (0.022) (0.022)N 26,927 26,927 23,343 23,343Number of countries 16R2 0.183 0.214 0.311 0.332Adj-R2 0.182 0.213 0.311 0.331Robust standard errors in parentheses, *** p<0.01, ** p<0.05, * p<0.1

How does this vary between countries?

Figure 5.9 Comparison of competence differences for tertiary and upper secondary education, numeracy

SK DK EE DE IT UK (EN/NI)

ES BE (FL) SE EU-16 NL IE FI AT PL CZ FR0.00

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

0.10

0.12

0.14

0.16

Tertiary Upper Secondary/Post-Secondary Non-Tertiary

**

*

Notes: own elaboration based on PIAAC data, significance at 0.05 level, * differences between education levels are not significant

What explains these cross-country differences?

Figure 5.9 Comparison of competence differences for tertiary and upper secondary education, numeracy

Dimension Variable Significant effects Competence Dimension

at 0.05 level

at 0.1 level

Numeracy Literacy

Participation

Upper secondary attainment rate, age 20-34

No Yes Tertiary (+), Upper Secondary (-)

Upper Secondary (-)

enrolment rate at age 15-19

No Yes Tertiary (+)

School autonomy

Autonomy on budget decisions (PISA 2003)

No Yes Tertiary (+)

Autonomy on staffing decisions (PISA 2003)

No Yes Upper Secondary (+)

School choice and competition

Choice of school to attend because local -pisa2003

No Yes Tertiary (-), Upper Secondary (+)

Education system type

Differentiated Yes Yes Upper Secondary (-)

Tertiary (+), Upper Secondary (-)

Comprehensive Yes Yes Upper Secondary (-)

Mixed Yes Yes Tertiary (+)

Conclusions

There is a significantly positive link between educational attainment on competence levels, when controlling for a range of individual and country-level factors…

…but to different degrees in different phases of education:

• Those with tertiary education have approximately 6.5% higher competence scores on average than those with upper secondary education

• Those with upper secondary education have 10.4% higher competence scores on average compared to those with only lower secondary education

…and the direction of causality can not be determined

Conclusions

Additionally, some other individual level factors are equally important determinants of numeracy and literacy competences, e.g.:

• being currently in education

• parental educational background

• migrant/non-native speaker status

• health status

• work experience and the extent to which the occupation held by an individual is skilled

Conclusions

• Some types of education systems improve or maintain competences at upper secondary level better than others (i.e. dual systems compared to differentiated systems)

• Some education system characteristics have an effect on the link between educational attainment and competences, e.g. participation at and completion of upper secondary education

Conclusions

The report is now published and available in the EU

bookshop of the European Commission.

Thank you for your attention!