Lifelong Learning in Europe: Tensions between economic and social imperatives

Monday 26th March 2007

Welcome and Brief Overview of the Project

Professor Sheila Riddell and Dr Elisabet Weedon, University of Edinburgh

Towards a Lifelong Learning Society in Europe

EU funded 6 th framework project

The Project

• Examines tensions between knowledge based society, LLL and social inclusion in the context of EU enlargement • Explores the contribution of the education system to LLL – focus on post-compulsory • Includes secondary and primary data • Aims to inform policy at EU and national level

Five subprojects

1. Review of literature and policy 2. Analysis of data from Adult Education Survey 3. Survey of adult returners in formal education system 4. SMEs and workplace learning 5. The examines the views of views of managers/stakeholders in educational institutions

The project team(s)

• 13 partner teams: Austria, Belgium (Flanders), Bulgaria, Czech Rep., Estonia (Lead), Hungary, Ireland, Lithuania, Norway, Russia, Slovenia, UK: England and UK: Scotland • Each subproject is led by a group of two/three partner teams

Review of literature and policy documents: SP1

• October 2005 to September 2006 • Each country produced a National Report according to set format • Subproject 1 team produced a Comparative Report based on the National Reports • Led to this seminar – it reports on some of the issues in relation to policy in Scotland, England and EU and explores the development of a typology of lifelong learning

A Scottish Policy Approach for Lifelong Learning

Gillian Little, Research Officer, Analytical Services Division Enterprise, Transport & Lifelong Learning Department

Introduction - The Lifelong Learning Strategy and a Smart Successful Scotland

Why Lifelong Learning?

• To keep pace with technological change • Demographics: we will have fewer young people entering the workforce in the future: by 2022, 42% of the population of Scotland will be aged over 50 • Closing the opportunity gap - learning plays an important role in providing a route out of poverty

Introduction - The Lifelong Learning Strategy and a Smart Successful Scotland informed by FEDS

Framework for Economic Development in Scotland FEDS

• To increase the economic opportunities for all on a socially and environmentally sustainable basis.

SSS aims to contribute to growth and productivity by

• Growing businesses • Learning & skills • Close the gap in opportunities and quality of life between different groups and areas within Scotland, strengthen communities and promote equality of opportunity.

The SE Lifelong Learning Strategy “Our vision for LL in Scotland is to provide the best possible match between the learning opportunities open to people and the skills, knowledge, attitudes and behaviours that will strengthen Scotland’s economy and society” (LL strategy) • Employment rate of 76.2% – highest rate since records began in 1992.

• Over 620,000 people of working age are currently inactive in Scotland.

• 35% of people not in work do not have any qualifications.

• 30% of people aged 25-64 have low skills – lower than UK • About 36,000 (14%) of 16-19 year olds are not in education, employment or training (NEET)

Introduction - The Lifelong Learning Strategy and a Smart Successful Scotland

Measurements of success

• reducing the proportion of 16-19 years old not in education, employment or training (NEET) • increasing support to 16-19 year olds from low income families to stay on at school and/or further education college • increasing the proportion of graduates in the workforce • reducing the proportion of working age adults whose highest qualification is below SCQF level 5 (SVQ 2) • reducing the proportion of 18-29 year olds whose highest qualification is below SCQF level 6 (SVQ 3) • increasing the proportion of people in employment undertaking training.

Key Elements of the Lifelong Learning Strategy Just to name a few… • Adult Literacy and Numeracy in Scotland - ALNIS • Education Maintenance Allowance - EMA • Individual Learning Accounts Scotland - ILA • Modern Apprenticeships - MA • Skillseekers • NEET Strategy – young people not in education, employment or training • Also, greater employer engagement, greater emphasis on IAG, recognition of importance of community learning and new & better equipped qualification framework the SCQF

Lifelong Learning - Building On Success: • A discussion of specific issues related to lifelong learning in Scotland • Themes • Engagement with Employers • Flexible Learning Opportunities, Entitlement and Discretionary Support • Information, Advice and Guidance • Community Learning and Development • Journeys Into and Through Learning

Leitch Review

Skills review recommends that UK commit to become world leader in skills by 2020:

• 95% of adults to achieve basic skills of literacy and numeracy.

• Exceeding 90% of adults qualified to at least level 2 (increase from 69% in 2005) • Shifting balance of intermediate skills from Level 2 to Level 3 • Exceeding 40% of adults qualified to Level 4 and above (up from 29% in 2005).

Workforce plus – an Employability Framework for Scotland (2006)

Employability – encompassing those things that enable people to increase their chances of getting a job, staying in, and progressing further, in work.

Aims to reduce numbers dependent on DWP benefits in 7 priority areas Themes – Early interventions – Client focused interventions – Employer engagement – Sustaining and progressing employment – Joined up planning and delivery – Better outcomes

NEET – Young people 16-19 not in education, employment or training ‘More choices, more chances’ – The NEET strategy published 2006.

• Headline figure of 36,000 young people being NEET (14%) • Around 20-25,000 who will need additional support to access and sustain opportunities in labour market • Heterogeneous group – for some finite, transitional stage, for others symptom of disadvantage and disengagement indicating lifelong disengagement.

NEET – Young people 16-19 not in education, employment or training

Main Aims of the NEET strategy

: • Stem the flows into NEET – prevention rather than cure • Have a system wide focus on, ambitious for, ownership of, accountability for the NEET group • Prioritise education and training outcomes for the NEET group as step towards lifelong employability • Position NEET reduction as one of key indicators for measuring the pre and post 16 systems’ success.

NEET – Young people 16-19 not in education, employment or training

Policies supporting NEET strategy, pre and post 16:

• A curriculum for excellence (ACfE) including Determined to Succeed strategy and Schools of Ambition (SoA) • Developing careers guidance & support (e.g. Careers Scotland) and extended Post school psychological services (PSPS) • Educational Maintenance Allowances • Engaging employers • Growth in MAs and Skillseekers

The Lifelong Learning Strategy and a Smart Successful Scotland - Conclusions • Scottish qualification profiles are ‘better’ than the rest of the UK • Still polarisation between those engaged in learning and those not • Scotland’s long term economic growth is lower than the rest of the UK •

Challenges

• Participation needs to be deepened and widened • How to address needs of those most distant from learning • Need flexibility to respond to changing demography • How to encourage employer demand for skills and use of these

Lifelong Learning: Policy and Practice in England

Professor John Holford, Dept. of Political, International & Policy Studies, University of Surrey & LLL2010 Project Team

Outline

• Landmarks in policy formation – New Labour’s original vision; main policy documents • Institutional change • Policy themes – skills, widening participation, social purpose • Themes & explanations

Landmarks in policy formation

Three major early New-Labour policy contributions:

• Dearing (

Higher Education in the Learning Society

1997) – Higher Education • Kennedy (

Learning Works: Widening Participation in Further Education

1997) – Further Education • Fryer (

Learning for the 21 st Learning Cultures

1999)

Century

1998 &

Creating

– Continuing Education, lifelong learning (and everything)

LLL features centrally in all of these:

– following international policy development trends (OECD, EU, etc.) – on Major government’s agenda too

What imagined future?

• • •

Dearing

: – LLL ‘main organising concept of analysis’ of HE (Watson/Taylor) – credit & qualifications frameworks, ICT, work experience …

Kennedy

: – widening participation – learning key to economic prosperity & social cohesion: learning for life and learning for work are inseparable – equity: funding to people with less success in earlier learning – national campaign to stimulate mass

demand

for learning (flexible credits, fair student funding, etc.)

Fryer

: – Need for a ‘culture of LLL’; strategy across education & public policy; equity; – partnership; flexibility; LLL ‘a shared responsibility’ (gov’t, employers, individuals, etc.); ‘people before structures’

The essential policy framework

• •

The Learning Age

(green paper)

Learning to Succeed

(white paper) • Learning & Skills Act 2000 • Learning & Skills Council – responsible for all public post-16 education, except HE • Overarching targets: – HE participation at 50% of 18-30 yr olds by 2010 – improving basic skills of 1.5m adults by 2007 – reducing adults without NVQ2 by 40% by 2010

A new institutional order

Institutional ‘permanent revolution’ continued: • Learning & Skills Council – replaced FEFC and TEC – national & local LSCs – complex new relationships: with gov’t (Treasury, Health, DTI, etc.), local gov’t, employers, voluntary sector, etc.: Learning Partnerships, Careers/Connexions, Neighbourhood Renewal, libraries, … • Individual Learning Accounts … • HE: new structures and approaches

Overarching LLL policy themes

• •

Skills

: ‘Education is the best economic policy we have’* – big push on adults reaching Level 2 qualifications – need for change in workplace

culture

: guidance, focussing on individual needs

Widening Participation

: – progress to 50% participation target by 2010 – lower socio-economic groups under-represented – continuing emphasis on younger people, skills *Tony Blair quoted in

The Learning Age

(1998)

What about ‘social purpose’?

• ‘As well as securing our economic future, learning … helps make ours a civilised society, develops the spiritual side of our lives and promotes active citizenship. Learning enables people to play a full part in their community. It strengthens the family, the neighbourhood and … the nation. It helps us fulfil our potential and opens doors to a love of music, art and literature. … • ‘We are fortunate … to have a great tradition of learning. ... the great self help movements of the Victorian industrial communities … the creation of libraries, … workers' institutes, …pioneering efforts of the early trade unions, … evening classes, … Learning enriched their lives and they … enriched the whole of society. • ‘The Learning Age will be built on a renewed commitment to self improvement and on a recognition of the enormous contribution learning makes to our society.’ (D. Blunkett, Foreword to

The Learning Age

1998.)

Social purpose: community development

Major initiatives across government:

• Neighbourhood Renewal (ODPM/DCLG) – £900m over 3 years; support for community groups (Community Empowerment Fund; Community Chest, etc.) – skills & knowledge for professionals, practitioners, residents (training, networking, good practice) • Sustainable Communities – Skills for sustainable communities, ASC, etc. • Civil Renewal (Home Office) – Active Learning for Active Citizenship

Social purpose: adult education

• marginalisation of liberal adult education – reduction in public funding: “in October 2005 overall numbers of people aged 19+ in publicly-funded English FE were down 9% (to just 1.5 million) on the previous year.” (NIACE) – end of extra-mural AE in ‘old’ universities – reshaping WEA into LSC priorities – weakening of non-vocational (local authority) AE • shift of funding from older to younger learners – “Every age cohort over 30 decreased, most steeply among over 60’s where numbers were down by 23.8%.” (NIACE) – in tension with demographic trends – linked to impact of Learning & Skills Act 2000: LSC approximately ten fewer part-

must

“every extra young full-time student place is paid for by meet needs of 16-18 year olds; can only spend what is left on others: time adult students” (NIACE)

A DfES ‘concept map’ of education

• About the Department • Public Service Agreement targets: Review of performance in 2005 –06 • Children, Young People & Schools • Adults Skills & Further Education • Higher Education • Capability to Deliver: The Department’s Workforce; Capability to Deliver: Workforce Reform • Spending to Deliver; Investing to Deliver; Efficiency to Deliver [DfES

Departmental Report 2006

]

Themes

• learning a constant theme in policy rhetoric – increasing (though limited) recognition of informal learning • economic priorities outweigh social – though wider social contribution of learning recognised; especially in rhetoric (e.g. white paper forewords) & social renewal initiatives • markets key to effective delivery – institutions as bureaucratic impediments - rather than sources of knowledge, expertise, experience • new delivery structures – partnerships, service agreements, targets, etc. – contract relationships replacing trust, in all sectors – accountability, auditing

Explanations

• Role of international policy priorities – measure of continuity with Major governments • Role of education & AE in Labour traditions – Blunkett enthusiast for ‘soft’, ‘citizenship’ agendas • Labour acceptance of neo-liberal consensus – re competition, globalisation, skills, human capital, – re efficiency of markets (& failure of institutions, professionals, bureaucracies) as delivery mechanisms • Role of Treasury in policy-making – e.g. delivery against targets; Skills (Leitch review)

European Policy on Lifelong Learning

Jacky Brine Professor of EU Education Policy University of the West of England, Bristol [email protected]

1. The bigger EU policy picture 2. Lifelong Learning Programme 2006 3. European Social Fund 2007-2013

EU key texts

• 1993 White Paper: Growth, Competitiveness, Employment • 1995 White Paper: Education & Training • 1999 European Employment Strategy • 2000 Lisbon Strategy • 2000 Memorandum on Lifelong Learning • 2001 Commission Communication on LLL • 2002 Council Resolution on LLL • 2003 Education & Training Workprogramme 2010 • 2006 Lifelong Learning Programme 07-13 • 2006 European Social Fund (Regulation 07-13)

1993 White Paper: Growth, competitiveness, employment

The Community now faces the danger of

not only a dual labour market but also a dual society.

p134, original emphasis

White Paper: Education & Training (1995) ‘those that know … and those that do not’ • High knowledge-skill learner – ‘traditional’ (academic) – recognisable, transferable qualifications • Low knowledge-skill learner – ‘modern’ (vocational) – accreditation of experiences & competencies – personal skills card – unemployed or early school leaver

European Employment Strategy 1999

Aim is to increase in sustainable employment Four pillars: 1. improve employability 2. develop entrepreneurship 3. encourage adaptability of businesses & their employees 4. strengthen policies for equal opportunities between women and men

more from the EES …

• concern over ‘quality of school education’ – options of training, retraining, work practice, job or other employability measure.

• Each MS will review and, where appropriate, refocus its benefit & tax system and provide incentives for unemployed or inactive people to seek and take up work or measures to enhance their employability.

Lisbon Strategy 2000 … towards 2010

The Union must become the most competitive and dynamic knowledge-based economy in the world, capable of sustainable growth with more and better jobs and greater social cohesion.

2.

Lifelong learning … towards Council Resolution 2002

• Lifelong…. – pre-nursery to post-retirement • Lifewide…. – formal, non-formal & informal • Employability • Active citizenship • Social inclusion • Personal fulfilment • Knowledge economy / society high or low knowledge-skilled learners

the low knowledge-skilled learner

• Curricula content – basic & social skills • Identified as: – people on low incomes – disabled people – ethnic minorities & immigrants – early school leavers – lone parents – unemployed people – parents returning to the labour market – workers with low levels of education & training – people outside the labour market – senior citizens (including older workers) – ex-offenders 2001 Communication on LLL, p13

the high knowledge-skilled learner • recognisable, transferable qualifications • provision • identified only as graduate / post-graduate – workers in paid (continual) employment – stayed at school and gained high levels of education – on middle to high incomes – able bodied – ‘white’ British – below retirement age – not a lone parent – not an ex-offender

Lifelong learning programme 2006

The overarching priority of the Lifelong Learning Programme is to reinforce the contribution made by education and training to achieving the Lisbon goal of making the EU the most competitive knowledge-based economy, with sustainable economic development, more and better jobs, and greater social cohesion. Every part of the programme will give priority to action supporting development of

national

LLL strategies ….

• • ‘from childhood to old age’ €6,970 million for 2007-2013 period LLL Programme General Call for Proposal (2006) p2 (emphasis added)

The ‘4 pillars’ of the lifelong learning programme 2006 ….. ‘mobility’

– Comenius – €1,047 m pre-school & school education 3m children in joint educational activities – Erasmus – €3,114 m higher education 3m individuals in student mobility by 2012 – Leonardo da Vinci – €1,725 m vocational E&T 80,000 placements per year in enterprises – Grundtvig – €358 m adult education support mobility of 7,000 individuals annually (involved in adult education)

• • • • • • •

3. European Employment Strategy + European Social Fund

ESF 1999-2006 linked to EES UK €9.4 billion 07-13 (€15.85 billion 00-06) MS National Reform Programme (Lisbon) MS National Strategic Reference Framework – priorities for Funds NSRF informs detailed Operational Programmes – E,S,W,NI DTI coordinates UK Framework Regional Skills Partnerships – regional ESF strategy

ESF 2007-2013 Priorities for assistance

• increase adaptability of workers, enterprises and entrepreneurs • enhancing access to employment and preventing unemployment • reinforcing social inclusion of disadvantaged people & combating discrimination in the labour market • enhancing human capital • promoting partnerships at all levels

Social Fund in the UK

• Convergence funding to (€2.6 billion) • Cornwall & Isles of Scilly • West Valleys and the Valleys • Highlands & Islands • All other areas of UK eligible for competitiveness funding ( €6.2 billion) – South Yorkshire & Merseyside (ring-fenced ‘phasing in’ funding)

UK Social Fund priority 1

1. extending employment opportunities – unemployed & economically inactive people – disadvantaged groups – people with disabilities & health conditions – lone parents – older workers – ethnic minorities – young people – disadvantaged & excluded people – reducing numbers of young people not in education, employment or training, … reforming vocational routes for 14-19 year olds

UK Social Fund priority 2

2. developing a skilled & adaptable workforce – basic literacy & numeracy – progression from Foundation to level 2 – tackling ‘skills deficit’ in workforce – improving ‘enterprise’ skills – occupational/sectoral gendered under representation – develop small business skills for knowledge based economy

+ some scope for supporting

• training trainers to deliver basic skills to target groups • progression of disadvantaged groups to higher education • technical, management & enterprise skills in small businesses

EU lifelong learning policy is …..

• agreed by MSs & MEPs • directly related to agreed EU objectives & strategies (EES, Lisbon) • directly related to National plans & strategies also agreed with EC • a significant funding stream for MSs • focused primarily on low-knowledge skilled learners – exception Erasmus • concerned primarily with – mobility & transferability (LLL Programme) – employability & vocational skills (Social Fund) – social inclusion (Social Fund) • not directly concerned with – personal fulfilment – ie ‘non-vocational’ learning

Employment rates: 18-state pension age, people with no qualifications (excluding students) (UK)(Freud Report on Welfare Reform, 2007)

A Typology of Lifelong Learning in Europe

Sheila Riddell, Judith Litjens, Elisabet Weedon, University of Edinburgh

Three worlds of welfare capitalism (Esping-Andersen,1989) • the ‘liberal’ welfare state - limited social insurance plan and means tested benefits. Beneficiaries usually low income working-class (e.g. United States and United Kingdom); • the ‘conservative-corporatist’ regime - aims to retain existing social hierarchies. Strong emphasis on social insurance (e.g. Belgium, Austria); and • the ‘social-democratic’ regime - aims to promote equality and provide universal benefits. Has a universal insurance scheme but uses some means-testing in provision of benefits (e.g. Norway).

Welfare families (Castles) • English-speaking family (Ireland, UK) • Nordic family • Continental Western European group (France, Germany, Italy, Netherlands) • Southern European group (Greece, Portugal, Spain)

Variants on new European socioeconomic model (Aiginger) • Scandinavian • Continental • Anglo-Saxon • Mediterranean • Catching-up

Methods of typology development • Data gathered on range of indicators e.g.

• GDP & % spent on education • Employment rate • Employment protection, poverty risk, measures to support disadvantaged • Ed. System characteristics & outcome • Participation in lll • Policies on lll

Table 1: Data contributing to typology of lll

Data contributing to typology of lifelong learning Nor UK - Sco UK - UK Eng GDP (% GDP spent on ed.) Employ. rate Employ. protection Poverty risk

198 (7.6%) 74.8

118.6 (7%) 71.5 : : 2.6 : 11 : : : 124 (5.4%) 71.7

160 (4.4%) 120.5 (5.6% in 67.6

2001) 64.3

128 (5.5%) 68.6

57 (6%) 66 33 (5.9%) 56.9

36 (4.6%) 28 (5.7%) 22 (5.2%) 10 (4.2%) 64.8

64.4

62.6

55.8

: (3.7% 2002) 65 1.1

18

Ire Bel - Fla

1.3 2.5 (B) 21 15 (B)

Aus

2.2

13

Slo

2.9

10

Hun

1.7

12

Cze

1.9

8

Est

2.6

18

Lit

2.7 : 15

Bul

14 : :

Rus Support for disadv groups

Adequate Partial Partial Partial Partial Partial Partial Adequate Partial : : : Partial No info in NR

Compulsory ed. % with upper sec ed % in any LLL % in formal LLL % in formal and non formal LLL % in LLL by work status

: Comp 95.3

Comp 70.6

Comp 34.7 : : : 3.9 : : 17.8 : :

% in any

Low: 15

learning by ed

Med: 30

att

High: 51

Emphasis on HC Emphasis on SC Emphasis on PD

High High High : High Medium Medium Comp 76.4

Comp 85.3

Stratified Stratified Comp 69.8

85.3

39.8

8.4

27.5

48.9 41.9 (B) 5.4 4 (B) 7.4

9.1

Stratified 89.2 Stratified 3 12.9

Stratified : : : High Em: 23.1 Un: 20.5 In: 13.9

Low: 12 Med: 37 High: 61 Em: 6.1 Un: 5.5 In: 6 Em: 11.4 Un: 12.6 In: 5.2

Em: 12.7 Un: 14.9 In: 8.1

Stratified Low: 35 Med: 51 Low: 23 Med: 42 High: 66 High: 67 Low: 87 Med: 89 High: 95 Stratified Stratified High High High High Stratified Medium High Medium High High High Low/Medi um Medium/ Low Low Low Stratified Stratified Comp Comp 83.4

Comp 90.9

Comp 82.2

Comp 86.1

Comp 11.7

28.7

31.4

27.8

76 70.7 (2002) 16.1 : 2.9

1.4

3.7

3 1.2 : Em: 4.5 Un: 3.2 In: 3.2

3.9

Low: 4 Med: 11 High: 27 High Low Low Em: 6.6 Un: 2.2 In: 3.7

Low: 10 Med: 26 High: 63 High Low/Medi um Medium/ Low 5.6

Em: 7.2 Un: 4.6 In: 4.2

Low: 10 Med: 25 High: 52 High Medium/ High Low 5.9

Em: 6.8 Un: 3.8 In: 3.4

Low: 6 Med: 21 High: 60 High Medium/L ow Medium/ Low 6 : High 1.3 : Low: 2 Med: 12 High: 45 Low/Medi um Low : : High Low Low

Data sources (see glossary) • Eurostat • Euridyce • EU communications • National Reports

Difficulties in typology development • General problems with welfare state typologies (welfare states & nation states) • Basis for inclusion in particular category • Including new member states • Consistency and reliability of data

Country similarities & differences: broad economic & social indicators • Marked divide in GDP between old & new member states • Less variation in % GDP spent on education – but richest country (Norway) spends highest %) • Highest employment rates: Norway, Scotland • UK & Ireland have least regulated labour markets • Slovenia & Norway have ‘adequate’ measures for disadvantaged • Risk of poverty – greatest in Ireland & UK; least in Norway & Slovenia

Percentage with at least upper secondary education (2003)

120 100 80 60 40 20 0 Bel - Fla UK - Sco Rus Bul UK Est Hun

Countries

Ire Aus Lit Slo Cze Nor % with upper sec

Percentage with at least secondary ed: key points • Most systems comprehensive: exceptions Austria & Flanders • Countries grouped closely together – but little variation between old & new member states • Flanders - lowest percentage • Norway – highest percentage

Percentage of the population in formal LLL (2003)

1 0 4 3 2 9 8 7 6 5 Bul Cze Hun Aus Lit Est

Countries

Nor Bel - Fla Ire Slo UK % in formal LLL

Percentage in formal lll: key points • UK - high proportion if formal lll, followed by Slovenia & Ireland - flexible HE • Austria - relatively low participation (behind Estonia & Lithuania) - rigid HE system • Lowest participation – Bulgaria (also poorest country)

LLL participation by educational attainment (2003)

120 100 80 60 40 20 0 Hun Bul Lit Est Cze Nor

Countries

UK Bel - Fla Ire Slo Aus Low Med High

Lll by educational attainment: key points • In all countries, those with higher levels of educational attainment most likely to be involved in lll (formal, non-formal, informal) • Austria appears to have highest participation, but LFS data for 2003 did not include informal learning for all countries

Aiginger’s typology applied to lll (1) • Scandinavian model: Norway - emphasis on human capital, social capital & personal development. High investment in lll combined with regulated labour markets • Anglo-Saxon model: Ireland, Scotland, England – High participation in lll, low labour market regulation, high poverty risk Lll seen as driver of economy & means of combating social exclusion

Aiginger’s typology applied to lll (2) • Continental model: Rigid & stratified education system. Emphasis on lll as creator of human capital, less on social capital Tightly regulated labour market, but little attention to disadvantaged • Catching-up model: Slovenia has many features in common with old member states, particularly emphasis on social inclusion.

• Estonia & Lithuania – some features of Baltic states?

• Hungary & Czech Republic – reflections of continental model?

• Need for much greater focus on developments in Central & Eastern European countries.

Research into Macro-level Characteristics that Influence Participation in Lifelong Learning in the EU-15

Ella Desmedt, Steven Groenez, Gert Van den Broeck, m.m.v. Miet Lamberts

Commissioner and commissioner’s worry

• Flemish minister of work, education and training • 1 aug ’06 – 15 dec ’06 • Lisbon Target: 12,5% • Flanders: Stagnation ??

2004 2005 Flanders 9,8% 9,13% EU-25 9,4% 10,7% EU-15 10,7% 11,2%

• • •

Research questions

Which macro-level (country) characteristics can account for the

inequalities

in

overall participation rates

in

LLL

between the

EU-15

?

Which macro-level (country) characteristics explain the differences between the EU-15 in

inequalities in participation rates

(according to

age

,

level of education

,

working status

and

sex

)? What is the

role of government policy

stimulating or hampering (inequalities in) participation?

in

Method

• Comparative education: system approach – LLL is functional within the broader economic, social and cultural systems in which it is embedded – All subsystems strongly interact • Methodological empirism (Noah & Eckstein, 1969, 1998) – Stage 1: literature review  system ‘map’ – Stage 2: find appropriate indicators/proxies – Stage 3: quantitatively exploring this ‘map’ by means of multivariate regression analysis

Literature review

• Inventory of relevant system characteristics – Education (initial – LLL) – Economy – Labour market – Welfare system – Demography – Culture – Next slide: Indicate by markers (+,- , ?) the expected effect of the characteristic on • overall participation rate in LLL (first marker) • inequalities in participation rate (second marker)

ECONOMY

Economic growth Level of innovation Industrial structure: size of companies Product market competition

WELFARE SYSTEM Active labour market policy Generosity of replacement incomes and early retirement systems

+ ↓ ? LLL + + + +

LABOUR MARKET

Labour market flexibility Employment rate Occupational structure: share of employees in knowledge intensive jobs Industrial relations Trade union membership Level of wage compression Employment rate women Employment rate older workers + ↑ + + ? ? + -

EDUCATION

Initial education Educational attainment of the population Institutional differentiation (stratification) Strong system of vocational education Length of compulsory education + ?

↑ ?

↓ + Adult education Supply of adult education Transparancy and information Visibility and recognition of learning Quality A large role of the government in financing LLL Autonomy and deregulation in provision LLL + ↓ + ↓ +? +? ?

↓ ? -

CULTURE

-

Values social democratic ideology work ethics esteem for education individualism readiness to take risks

+ ↓ + + + +

DEMOGRAPHY

Age structure: share of young persons in the active population Late transition adolescence-adulthood Amount of divorces + + +

• •

Data: indicators

Participation LLL – LFS, 2004, population aged 25-64, ref. period 4 weeks prior to the interview – Participation in formal and non-formal learning activities System characteristics – EUROSTAT/OECD – Availability: • • OK: economy, labour market, welfare system, initial education,… Problem:

adult education

 ‘proxies’ e.g. based on ‘European report on quality indicators of lifelong learning’: comprehensiveness/coherence LLL policy

• • •

Limitations of the data

Very global indicator for participation: no information on e.g. volume of LLL, goal or content of LLL, job- or person related,… Small sample Interrelated structural characteristics   Cautious interpretation: regression analysis used as exploratory tool Cross-validation between literature and (exploratory) data-analysis

Results

Overall participation LLL in EU-15 (LFS, aged 25-64, ref period 4 weeks) 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 Gr ee ce Po rtu ga l Sp ain Ire lan d Ita ly Fr an ce Ge rm an y Be lg iu Lu m xe Fl m bu em rg ish re gi on Th Au e N str eth ia er lan ds UK Fi nl an d De nm ar k Sw ed en

Participation rate in LLL in EU-15 split up by employment status (LFS, aged 25-64, ref period 4 weeks)

Overall part rate Part rate employed

35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 G re ec e Po rt ug al Sp ai n Ir el an d It al y Fr an ce G er m an y B el gi um Lu xe m Fl bu em rg is h re gi on T A he us tr N ia et he rl an ds UK Fi nl an d D en m ar k Sw ed en

Regression models explaining general participation in LLL in EU-15 (LFS, 25-64, ref period 4 weeks)

General participation rate Intercept GDP/capita Innovation-index Employment rate # schooltypes 15-year olds Share empl. in knowledge intensive jobs Trade union membership Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5 Model 6 Model 7 st. coeff st. coeff st. coeff st. coeff st. coeff st. coeff st. coeff 0 0.066 0 -0.091 0 0 0 0.842 *** 0.568 *** 0.558 *** 0.412 ** 0 0.242 * 0 0.442 ** 0.361 ** 0.381 *** 0.389 *** 0.461 *** -0.314 *** -0.401 *** -0.349 *** -0.363 *** 0.219 * 0.225 ** 0.315 *** F-value Adj R 2 DF ***: <0.01 **: <0.05 *: <0.10 Source: own calculations 0.06 0.00 (1,13) 0.243 ** 0.354 *** 13.23 *** 25.51 *** 33.14 *** 31.33 *** 36.44 *** 36.46 *** 0.636 (2,12) 0.778 (2,12) 0.873 0.897 0.927 0.910 (3,11) (4,10) (5,9) Other variables: (4,10) -No extra explanation -Multicollinearity

Product market regulation Trade union membership Public expenditure education # school types 15 y Level of innovation Educational level % empl knowl Employment rate

Participation LLL

Legend Negative correlation

Explaining inequalities in participation

• Separate regression models for – Employed – unemployed – inactive – Low – middle – highly educated adults – Age categories (25-39, 40-59, 50-64) • Regression models for – Relative participation rates women - men – Relative participation rates middle-young and old-young adults – Relative participation rates low – highly educated adults

Participation rate in LLL in EU-15 split up by employment status (LFS, aged 25-64, ref period 4 weeks)

Overall part rate

35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 G re ec e Po rt ug al Sp ai n Ir el an d

Part rate employed

It al y Fr an ce G er m an y B el gi um Lu xe m Fl bu em rg is h re gi on T A he us tr N ia et he rl an ds UK Fi nl an d D en m ar k Sw ed en

Participation rate in LLL in EU-15 split up by employment status (LFS, aged 25-64, ref period 4 weeks)

Part rate employed

40 35 10 5 0 30 25 20 15 G re ec e Po rt ug al Sp ai n Ir el an d

Part rate unemployed

It al y Fr an ce G er m an y B el gi um Lu xe m Fl bu em rg is h re gi on T A he us tr N ia et he rl an ds

Part rate inactive

UK Fi nl an d D en m ar k Sw ed en

Regression models for participation LLL in EU-15– unemployed (LFS, 25-64, ref period 4 weeks)

Participation rate unemployed Intercept Part. rate employed Unemployment rate Innovation-index # schooltypes 15-y olds Share part-time empl Trade union membership Replacement ratio unempl benefit Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5 Model 6 Model 7 Model 8 st. coeff st. coeff st. coeff st. coeff st. coeff st. coeff st. coeff st. coeff 0 0.954 *** 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -0.455 * -0.345 * -0.492 *** -0.410 *** -0.312 ** -0.283 ** -0.315 *** 0.667 *** 0.551 *** 0.436 *** 0.141 -0.502 *** -0.564 *** -0.512 *** -0.515 *** -0.510 *** 0.250 * 0.404 ** 0.480 *** 0.436 *** 0.349 ** 0.450 *** 0.443 *** 0.141 * F-value Adj R 2 DF 131.55 0.90 (1,13) 3.40 *** 0.146 (1,13) 10.66 *** 22.90 *** 23.17 *** 26.84 *** 34.08 *** 34.03 *** 0.580 0.824 0.864 0.902 0.904 0.922 (2,12) (3,11) (4,10) (5,9) (4,10) (5,9) ***: <0.01 **: <0.05 *: <0.10 Source: own calculations

Participation in LLL in EU-15 split up by initial educational attainment (LFS, aged 25-64, ref period 4 weeks)

Overall part rate Part rate <=LSE Part rate HSE Part rate HE

50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 G re ec e Po rt ug al Sp ai n Ir el an d It al y Fr an ce G er m an y B el gi um Lu xe m Fl bu em rg is h re gi on T A us he tr N ia et he rl an ds UK Fi nl an d D en m ar k Sw ed en

35 30 25 20 15 10 5 Relative participation rate LLL in EU-15: low versus high educated (LFS, aged 25-64, ref period 4 weeks)

Overall part rate (left axis) Relative part rate <=LSE versus HE (right axis) 0,5 0,5 0,4 0,4 0,3 0,3 0,2 0,2 0,1 0,1 0,0

0 G re ec e Po rt ug al Sp ai n Ir el an d It al y Fr an ce G er m an y B el gi um Lu xe m bo Fl ur em g is h re gi on A us tr N ia et he rl an ds U ,K , Fi nl an d D en m ar k Sw ed en

Regression models for participation LLL in EU-15 (LFS, 25-64, ref period 4 weeks) Relative participation rate low versus highly educated adults

Intercept General participation rate Relative employment rate low versus highly educated Adj R 2 DF Model 1 st. coeff 0 0.847*** Relative employment rate women versus men Expenses ALMP per unempl and as % GDP Coherence policy LLL Comprehensivity policy LLL F-value 32.94 0.695 (1,13) ***: <0.01 **: <0.05 *: <0.10 Source: own calculations Model 2 st. coeff 0 0.180 * 0.44 0.03 (1,13) Model 3 st. coeff 0 0.808 *** 24.45 *** 0.626 (1,13) Model 4 st. coeff 0 0.487 *** 0.627 *** 99.40 *** 0.934 (2,12) Model 5 st. coeff 0 0.343 *** 0.604 *** 0.207 ** 91.33 *** 0.951 (3,11) Model 6 st. coeff 0 0.368 *** 0.584 *** 0.204 ** 96.69 *** 0.954 (3,11)

Product market regulation Level of innovation Trade union membership Public expenditure education # school types 15 y Compulsory education Age 1st selection Educational level Employment rate % empl knowl

Participation LLL

-

Inequalities in participation LLL

Policy LLL coher/ compreh Active labour market policy Legend Negative correlation Explanation general part LLL Possible government interventions to reduce inequalities in participation

Further research

• Take information on volume, content, motives, … of participation into account • Investing in multilevel analyses on micro-data to grasp full complexity and establish causality – Individual – Immediate social environment (education, work, family,…) – System characteristics • Effects of participation?  AES? LLL2010?

Thank you!

Steven Groenez Higher Institute for Labour Studies (HIVA) – Catholic University Leuven Belgium [email protected]