The link between Education Attainment and Skills of Young Adults across the EU

1. The link between Educational Attainment
and Skills of Young Adults across the EU
Anja Meierkord
CIES2016
Vancouver, 09th March 2016

2. 1. Study context and objectives
2. Methodology
3. Key results
4. Conclusions
Presentation structure

3. Study context and objectives

4. 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)

5. Study context
AND 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]
140
160
180
200
220
240
260
280
300
320
340
Tertiary
(academic)
Tertiary
(professional)
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

6. 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

7. Data and methodology

8. • 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

9. Education production function:
ln(𝐻𝑖,𝑗)=𝛼𝑄(𝑠𝑖,𝑗)+𝛾𝐹𝑖,𝑗+𝛿𝐴𝑖,𝑗+𝜑𝑋𝑖,𝑗+𝐶𝑗+𝑣𝑖,𝑗
𝐻𝑖,𝑗 = competences of an individual i in country j
Q(𝑠𝑖,𝑗) = function of school inputs and 𝑠𝑖,𝑗 is individual educational attainment in
country j
𝐹𝑖,𝑗 are family and other socio-demographic inputs
𝐴𝑖,𝑗 is individual ability
𝑋𝑖,𝑗 are other inputs such as labour market experience
𝐶𝑗 are country fixed effects
𝑣𝑖,𝑗 is a stochastic term, assumed to be uncorrelated with 𝐻𝑖,𝑗.
Theoretical Model
Competence gain through
education

10. Theoretical Model

11. 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

12. Results

13. M1 M2 M3 M4
School/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 Yes
Constant 5.588*** 5.628*** 5.302*** 5.347***
(0.014) (0.002) (0.022) (0.022)
N 26,927 26,927 23,343 23,343
Number of countries 16
R2 0.183 0.214 0.311 0.332
Adj-R2 0.182 0.213 0.311 0.331
Robust standard errors in parentheses, *** p<0.01, ** p<0.05, * p<0.1

14. How does this vary between countries?
Figure 5.9 Comparison of competence differences for tertiary and upper secondary education, numeracy
0.00
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.10
0.12
0.14
0.16
0.18
SK DK EE DE IT UK
(EN/NI)
ES BE (FL) SE EU-16 NL IE FI AT PL CZ FR
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

15. 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 (+)

16. Conclusions

17. 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

18. 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

19. • 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

20. The report is now published and available in the EU
bookshop of the European Commission.
Thank you for your attention!