Cross-national patterns associated with adult learning systems:

Patterns of participation, outcomes and coordination

Singapore, November 2017

RICHARD DESJARDINSUCLA Department of Education

Overview

§ What is meant by Adult Learning Systems?

§ Cross-national patterns of participationThe flow of adult learningIts impact on the stock of qualificationsThe growth of adult learning

§ Cross-national patterns of outcomesRelationship to labour market outcomes: employment and earnings

§ Cross-national patterns of coordinationCoordination of the demand and supply of AERole of qualification systems in fostering AERole of selected economic and social policy instruments in fostering AE

Two related products

DRAFT

PIAAC Thematic Report on Adult Learning

An adult learning system perspective

§ Adult learning/education are age related conceptsLifelong learning includes all learning cradle-grave (holistic)Adult learning is age-related (second chance/delayed, continued for work/societal/personal reasons)

§ Distinguishing adult vs regular students in FE difficultFE can be exclusively for either type … can include both but with adaptations to accommodate adults… can include both with no adaptations (differs by country)

§ ALS are the mass of organized learning opportunities available to adults…… along with their underlying structures and stakeholders that shape their organization and governance

§ Organized learning includes…FE qualifications attained by non-traditional studentsNon-formal education activities

§ Non-formal provisions (may be linked to qualifications)Directly or indirectly job-related (on-the-job training, basic skills)Non-job related (basic skills, community involvement, leisure)

Major types of organized adult learning

§ Types: Remedial (compensatory, second chance, basic skills)Liberal (community, leisure, basic skills)CTVET (initial vs continuing – age of students)AHE (regular/traditional vs adult/non-traditional)

§ Formal vs non-formal not very useful as a distinctionIncreasing links between the two in flexible mannerPIAAC does not reflect this reality

§ …Adult Basic Education(ABE) (may lead to ISCED: 1,2 for 19+) Mostly formal, but non-formal modules may lead to equivalent qualification

§ …Adult General Education(AGE) (may lead to ISCED: 3 for 21+)Typically formal – usually high school equivalence (e.g. GED)

§ …Adult Vocational Education(AVE) (may lead to ISCED: 4 for 21+, 5b for 26+)Formal and non-formal – extent of formal depends on how well country’s VET system is developed

§ …Adult Higher Education(AHE) (leads to ISCED: 5b,5a for 26+; 6 for 30+) Formal type

§ …Adult Liberal Education(ALE) Non-formal type, can be linked to ABE, AGE, AVE or AHE in certain countries

Features of ALS

§ General features of ALS conceptComprises governance, financing & provision structures related to AE

Beyond the responsibility of any given ministry or institution

Difficult to pinpoint

Views AE systems as overlapping with E&T and other systems

Embedded in society at intersection of E&T, LM, Welfare systems

Not seen as a system per se, but some countries feature more coordination and integration of key elements (common language and vision)

§ Distinguishing factors of advanced ALS in different countriesDegree of openness of FE systems to non-traditional students

Level of integration of ABE-AVE-AHE and ALE

Flexible and open qualification systems linking to AE and non-formal provisions (e.g. greater integration among ABE-AGE-AVE-AHE provisions)

High and widely distributed participation in AE & foundation skills

Diverse provision catering to diverse needs

Targeting and outreach to socially disadvantaged adults

Extent of AE: Stock vs flow

§ StockPast Formal AE à qualifications

Adults participated in credentialed (degree or diploma) programs

Including: Basic skill courses à ISCED 1, 2, 3

Apprenticeships à ISCED 4, 5b

Higher education à ISCED 5a, 6

Qualifications attained at older ages = past AE activity

§ FlowCurrent (last 12 mths) Formal and non-formal AE à future qualification?

Adults participate in: Basic skills courses; Credential (degree or diploma) programs; Apprenticeships; Work-related courses; Informal learning at work; Personal interest/personal development courses

Excludes students in regular initial cycle (those following normative path to qualifications)

Cross-national patterns of participation

Stock of qualifications attained via AE

0000

3011

13

24

000

22

111

20

44

12

11

21

04

65

13

25

20

23

74

74

19

16

94

81

72

812

913

129

52

138

1020

01

000

34

32

10

10

42

30

80

104

00

04

04

65

93

67

1

11

43

25

53

36

34

95

94

35

76

616

558

847

108

109

127

11

10

12

12

101

13

06

43

15

435

54

32

5356

54

210

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45

JapanFlanders (Belgium)

Cyprus¹Slovak Republic

TurkeyRussian Federation²

GreeceAustria

Czech RepublicItaly

FranceSpainKorea

PolandSingapore

EstoniaNorthern Ireland (UK)

LithuaniaSlovenia

IrelandOECD Average

IsraelChile

England (UK)Australia

NetherlandsGermany

United StatesNew Zealand

CanadaFinland

SwedenNorway

Denmark

ISCED 2 or lower (19+) ISCED 3 (21+) ISCED 4 (21+) ISCED 5b (26+) ISCED 5a BA (26+), MA, PHD (30+) Percent

Recent AE flow in formal provisionsExpected to add to stock of qualifications

000

100

100

0000011

100

12

00

32

02

01

111

21

00

11

11

011

11

01

21

04

11

25

01

32

13

42

51

27

3

00

00

00

011

10

12

11

20

00

20

04

14

51

22

06

30

2

010

00

00

00

11

01

21

21

34

11

42

10

22

02

22

11

3

022

12

23

22

223

11

33

24

33

26

43

23

36

34

35

34

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14

JapanKorea

Cyprus¹France

Czech RepublicSlovak Republic

ItalyPoland

GreeceLithuania

AustriaRussian Federation²

GermanyFlanders (Belgium)

EstoniaSingapore

TurkeySlovenia

ChileOECD Average

Northern Ireland (UK)Israel

United StatesSpain

SwedenCanada

DenmarkFinland

AustraliaNetherlands

IrelandNorway

England (UK)New Zealand

ISCED 2 or lower (19+) ISCED 3 (21+) ISCED 4 (21+) ISCED 5b (26+) ISCED 5a BA (26+), MA, PHD (30+) Percent

Recent AE flow in all types of provisions

13

2112222

301

44

62

54

34

26

277

69

55

789

78

78

1015

21212121

2423

2726

2527

2731

263031

3235

3235

343638

3539

4141

4041

4342

01

10

1011

01

13

11

012

11

2111

11

112

211

111

1101101112

0111

31111101121110

221

221

622

35

54

73

77

1076

665

54

542

544

633

44

454

3

33

32

424

54

85

957

66

66

67

45

64

76

56

98

86

65

1918

1822

32303236

3443

414943

46484746

4746

51474751

5256

5753

5563

6362

656461

20 10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60

GreeceTurkey

Russian Federation²Italy

PolandSlovak Republic

LithuaniaCyprus¹France

SpainJapanKoreaChile

SloveniaIrelandAustria

IsraelOECD Average

Flanders (Belgium)Estonia

Czech RepublicNorthern Ireland (UK)

GermanyAustraliaCanada

United StatesEngland (UK)

SingaporeSwedenFinland

NetherlandsNew Zealand

DenmarkNorway

Adult Formal Education (AFE) (qualifications) - Job related Non-Formal Education (NFE) only - Job relatedAFE/NFE - Non-job related Total participation

Percent

Non-employer supported Employer-supported

Growth of AESince the 1990s

38

34

32

38

22

28

35

23

26

20

8

16

8

17

11

8

8

50

49

45

51

32

44

52

39

52

38

16

44

23

49

36

31

34

2

2

2

2

2

2

3

3

3

4

5

5

5

6

7

7

8

20 0 20 40 60

Finland

Sweden

England (UK)

Norway

Slovenia

United States

Denmark

Northern Ireland (UK)

New Zealand

Czech Republic

Italy

Canada

Poland

Netherlands

Flanders (Belgium)

Chile

Ireland

LFS annualized % change (ca 1992-2014)PIAAC 2012-2015

IALS 1994-1998

Percent

Annualized growth rate

Percent of adults participating in employer supported AE in PIAAC

vs IALS

22

58

53

56

45

42

48

46

33

32

31

36

27

14

22

22

19

22

63

63

64

54

56

61

65

46

46

55

62

47

32

47

48

43

0

1

1

1

1

2

2

2

2

2

3

3

4

4

5

5

5

20 0 20 40 60 80

Italy

Finland

Sweden

Denmark

England (UK)

United States

Norway

New Zealand

Slovenia

Northern Ireland (UK)

Canada

Netherlands

Czech Republic

Poland

Flanders (Belgium)

Ireland

Chile

LFS annualized % change (ca 1992-2014)PIAAC 2012-15

IALS 1994-1998

Percent

Annualized growth

rate

Percent of adults participating in any AE in PIAAC vs IALS

Summary of factors predicting take-up of employer supported AE

-0.3

-0.2

-0.1

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

Read at work ICT use at work Firm SizeOccupation Education Literacy skillSector Industry AgeImmigration-language status Gender

Effect sizes

Socio-demographic factors related to AEAdjusted probabilities of participating in any AE by age

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

16-25 (Youth) 26-40 (Early career aged)41-55 (Mid career aged) 56-65 (Late career aged)

Adj. Probability

Socio-demographic factors related to AE Adjusted probabilities of participating in any AE by literacy

proficiency

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

Level 4/5 Level 3 Level 2 Level 1 or below

Adj. Probability

Cross-national patterns of outcomes

Employment advantage of having attained ISCED 3 as an adult (21+) vs not attaining ISCED 3 at all

Adv

anta

ge o

f hav

ing

atta

ined

IS

CED

3 b

eyon

d no

rmat

ive

age

vs n

ot a

ttain

ing

ISC

ED 3

0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0

JapanUS

EstoniaIreland

SwedenKorea

NorwayItaly

DenmarkUK

NetherlandsFranceAustriaFinland

GermanySpain

BelgiumCyprusPoland

Czech RepublicSlovak Republic

Advantage of having attained ISCED 3 beyond normative age vs not attaining ISCED 3ISCED 3, beyond normative age >20ISCED 3, within normative age <=20Did not complete ISCED 3

Adj. Probability

Earnings advantage of having attained ISCED 5a as an adult (26+) vs not attaining HE at all

0.3 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0

Czech Republic

US

Japan

Spain

Cyprus

UK

Finland

France

Denmark

Norway

Austria

Estonia

Belgium

Italy

Sweden

Korea

Ireland

Netherlands

Poland

Slovak Republic

Germany

Advantage/disadvantage of completing beyond normative ageEarnings premium for ISCED 5a (BA), beyond normative age >25Earnings premium for ISCED 5a (BA), within normative age <=25

Adj. Probability

Adv

anta

ge o

f hav

ing

atta

ined

qu

alifi

catio

n be

yond

vs

with

in

norm

ativ

e ag

e

Disadvantage of having attained qualification beyond vs w

ithin norm

ative age

Openness of FE systems to adults students and employment rate

y = 0.9919x - 0.5258R² = 0.25125

0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25

0.30

0.35

0.40

0.45

0.50

0.50 0.55 0.60 0.65 0.70 0.75 0.80 0.85Employment rate

Perc

entw

ho a

ttain

ed h

ighe

st q

ualif

icat

ion

beyo

nd n

orm

ativ

e ag

e

Correlation = 0.5

Openness of HE systems to adults students and literacy skills

AT

CA

CY

CZ

DK

ET

FI

FR

DE

IR

KO

NL

NO

PL

SL

ES

SE

UK

US

IT

R² = 0.38242

0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25

0.30

0.35

0.40

250 255 260 265 270 275 280 285 290 295 300Average literacy skill score (PIAAC) of adult populations

Ratio of HE graduates over 30 vs under 30

Correlation = 0.62

Cross-national patterns of coordination

Fostering demand is a key challenge but so is helping citizens overcome barriers

25 27 28 28 31 31 36 37 37 38 38 41 42 42 46 47 50 55 55 5765 67

7 7 6 6 10 4 9 12 7 12 10 7 7 12 5 5 6 7 8 4 8 3

26 25 25 2027

1822 20 23

21 2216 14

2014 12 14 15 11

89

6

42 41 42 46 3247 33 32 33 29 30

36 3726

35 35 30 23 2631 18

25

80

60

40

20

0

20

40

60

80

No demand Unmet demand Partially met Met demand

Percent

Source: PIAAC, 2012

Coordinating the supply and demand for AE

Demand not met• Shortage of provision• Unable to overcome

barriers

Coordinating adult learning systems§ Qualification systems

Open and flexible (good for motivation, reach…)

§ Public support for educationNeeds to be combined with open and flexible FE structures

§ Active labour market policiesNeeds to be connected to training, qualification attainmentSuccess probably related to diversified & flexible provision

§ TargetingRelates to progressive social policy designed to mitigate inequality and barriers of socially disadvantaged citizens

§ Stimulating ‘quality’ jobsHigh skill jobsNon-routine jobs

Coordinating tools: Total welfare spending unrelated to advancedness to ALS

Source: PIAAC, 2012

Important to distinguish between welfare expenditures that are proximal or distal to activating learning

DK

FI

NO

DE

NL

UK

US

KO

JA

SEATBE

IRCZ

ET

POSV

FR

ITES

CA

Average

3

8

13

18

23

28

33

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45

Percent

Probabilityofparticipation formostdisadvantagedgroup

Totalw

elfare

spen

ding(%

ofG

DP)

Percent

Coordinating tools: Impact of public education spending depends on openness of FE

Higher public education spending does not automatically translate into opportunities for adults, particularly disadvantaged adults

AustraliaAustria Canada

Chile

Czech Republic

Denmark

Estonia

Finland

France

Germany

Ireland

Israel

ItalyJapan

Korea

Netherlands

New Zealand

Norway

Poland

Slovak Republic

Slovenia

Spain

Sweden

Turkey

United StatesLithuania

R² = 0.43914

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

5.0

5.5

6.0

6.5

7.0

7.5

8.0

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16

Percent

Probabilityofparticipation inFormalAE

Publicsp

endingoned

ucation(%

ofG

DP)

Percent

Higher public spendingLower openness of FE

Lower public spendingHigher openness of FE

Correlation = 0.66

Coordinating tools: Impact of ALMPs contingent on provision structures that cater to disadvantaged adults

Not all ALMPs appear to be effective at reaching disadvantaged adults

DK

FI

NO

DE

NL

UK

US

KOJA

SE

AT

BE IR

CZ

ET

PO

SV

FR

IT

ES

Average

R² = 0.2259

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

2.0

10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60

Percent

Probabilityofparticipation ofadultswithlowestlevelsofeducation

Publicsp

endingonactiv

elabo

urmarketp

olicies(%ofG

DP)

Percent

Correlation = 0.48

Higher ALMP spendingLower openness of FELower targeting

Lower ALMP spendingHigher openness of FEHigher targeting

Coordinating tools: Targeting of low skilled increased since 1990s

14

11

11

13

27

24

22

35

29

38

38

16

23

33

39

41

43

47

48

48

49

52

50 40 30 20 10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Italy

Poland

Belgium

Ireland

United Kingdom

United States

Netherlands

Finland

Norway

Sweden

Denmark

Percent

Participation rate of adult scoring at Level 2 or below in

IALS 1994-1998

Participation rate of adult scoring at Level 2 or below in PIAAC 2012

Coordinating tools: Fostering skilled work boosts access to learning

Proportion of high skill jobs strongly related to openness of FE

DK

FI

NO

DE

NL

UK

US

KO

SE

AT

IRCZ

ET

PO

FR

IT

ES

Average

R² = 0.31706

20

25

30

35

40

45

10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45

Percent

Proportionofqualificationsattained viaformalAE

Prop

ortio

nofsk

illed

occup

ations

Percent

Correlation = 0.56

Some implications for improving the coordination of adult learning systems

§ Support broad economic and social policies thatFoster demand - Good for citizens’ perception of opportunity structureHelp families and workers overcome situational barriers (e.g. family assistance)Maintain affordability (welfare spending related to activation more effective)Sustain governance and provision structures (public education spending in connection with a vibrant and flexible provision more effective)

Some implications for improving the coordination of adult learning systems

§ Foster broad stakeholder coordination that helps toShare information not so easily shared via the market mechanism and thus compensate for market failures related to information assymmetriesIdentity local and more specific individualised needsPool risks associated with uncertainty surrounding investment in adult learningValidate all kinds of learning and integrate opportunties with qualification systemsDevelop common language to enhance coherence in governance of ALS

§ Design specific policies that target socially disadvantaged adults

§ Promote adaptation of formal and non-formal provision that isOpen, flexible, customized, and linkable to qualification systems

Summary and measurement of adult learning systems

Summary of key findings§ Majority of AE is… employer supported, job-related, non-formal

Employers supporting FE leading to qualifications at high rate in 10+ countries

§ Flow rates of employer supported AE/year …Large variation across countries

at or near 50% in 6 countries (most advanced ALS, progressive social policy)Between 40-50% in 5 countriesBetween 30-40% in 12 countriesBetween 20-30% in 7 countriesBelow 20% in 4 countries

§ FE systems open to adult studentsLarge variation across countriesBoosts qualificationsLinked to observed boost in employment for those adults and overallLinked to observed boost in earnings for those adultsLinked to active aging and learning in late career/life

§ ALS are growing fastEmployer supported AE growing faster than overall AECountries with adult learning opportunities linked to qualifications expected to experience large boost in qualifications via AE

§ Major differences across countries confirm existence of sharp differences……In extent ALS are well developed and coordinated across advanced industrial nationsMay signify key source of variation explaining economic success & other outcomes

Measuring adult learning systems§ Some data on link between NFE activity and FE qualifications

NFE activity increasingly the norm in many countriesNeed more detail for policy relevant analysis

§ Better data on past AE activity that led to qualificationsLargely ignored in prior studies and in PIAACAt the moment, this is based on the age at which the highest qualification was attained

§ Better data on motivations and sources of support Government support completely ignored in PIAACMotivations are multi-dimensional, overlap (non-job related important)No data on whether AE was for basic skills programme in PIAAC

§ Better data on barriersInadequate data on barriers given state of art on topicInadequate link to social policy instruments designed to mitigate inequalityNo data on why adults do not to participate (cost, time, available supply à relevant)

§ System level featuresStudy and define ALS system level features to collect dataCan improve policy relevant analyses and policy learning in an international context