Upload
others
View
3
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Qualification transitions and lifelong learning: an analysis of
the longitudinal LFS
Derek Bosworth and Rob Wilson
Interest in the qualifications mix cumulating evidence of skill‐biased technological
change, consistent with the growth in demand for graduates
government and business policies favouring increased demand for more highly qualified, better paid individuals, e.g. becoming more competitive in higher specification goods and services,
rather than price competition and cost‐reduction strategies a lack of supply of sufficiently qualified individuals will inhibit or kill
such “up‐market” policies and strategies.
in labour markets favouring more qualified individuals, workers without adequate skills find their wages reduced / face a greater threat of unemployment and inactivity
Qualification transitions: attainment levels surprisingly little seems to be known about actual
qualification transitions (see Orr, 1972) in the absence of evidence, the literature tends to
assume qualifications are obtained in a fixed sequence (no quals → GCSE → A → first degree)
routes have always been diverse and probably more so in recent years
routes appear important because, the small amount of research done on this topic suggests that: gross return to attaining a given higher qualification can be very different from different starting points
rate of return will almost certainly be different
Lifelong learningLifelong learning may not involve acquisition of formal qualifications, but often it will, e.g.: Government education initiatives e.g. the Skills for Life
(SfL) initiative, established in 2001 – funded to meet PSA literacy and numeracy qualification targets
Professional regulation e.g. changes in the regulation of professions, such as the 2007 Further Education Workforce Reforms in England, as well as changes to electrician and plumbing requirements
Employer needs training e.g. UK ESS (2012, pp. 118‐119) reports that, in the 12 months leading up to the survey, 3.4 million employees received training leading towards nationally recognised qualifications
Qualification miss‐measurement in LFSProblems include (Thompson, et al. 2010): non‐response bias (e.g. sample attrition, refusals and
non‐contacts) proxy response bias human issues arising from (e.g. poor understanding of
qualifications framework / LFS questions; memory recall / later revision of answer; interviewer miscoding)
LFS design (e.g. rotation effects; use of “catch‐all” qualification questions ‐ “Other”, “nes” and “foreign”)
measurement error and uncertainty in the population grossing totals (e.g. immigrant and emigrant numbers)
Problems isolating the transitions matrixProblems with isolating the education transitions matrix, main LFS: both time series & pseudo cohort models of qualifications mix
conflate increases in qualification attainments at a given age over time with the stock‐flow effects as younger, more qualified individuals grow older
both show the changing proportions at each qualification level by age and over time, but only the net changes to each state are observed (except “no qual” and QCF 8)
stochastic methods might unpick the flows from one state to another if the process is Markov in nature (e.g. regressing net change at one level on net changes in the other levels), but the process is not Markov
Longitudinal LFS the longitudinal LFS offers the chance to observe transitions directly
sweeps 1 and 5 cover a one year period (if individuals are interviewed at the same point)
Calendar quartersCohort Sweep 1 Sweep 2 Sweep 3 Sweep 4 Sweep 5
1 Jan‐March April‐June July‐Sept Oct‐Dec Jan‐March2 April‐June July‐Sept Oct‐Dec Jan‐March April‐June3 July‐Sept Oct‐Dec Jan‐March April‐June July‐Sept4 Oct‐Dec Jan‐March April‐June July‐Sept Oct‐Dec
Peak qualification quarter?
Correct and incorrect reporting and apparent qualification transitionsSweep 5
Sweep1
Under Correct OverUnder No change Low to
mediumLowto high
Correct Mediumto low
No change Mediumto high
Over Highto low
High to medium
No change
Transitions matrixDKNOW NO OTHER QCF5 1 QCF5 2 QCF5 3 QCF5 4 QCF5 5 QCF5 6 QCF4 78
DKNOW 17.0 3.3 3.1 12.2 17.1 22.8 4.9 4.7 9.4 5.6NO 1.3 61.9 15.8 8.8 7.0 4.4 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.0OTHER 1.8 7.2 59.4 7.5 8.2 10.2 1.1 1.5 1.8 1.3QCF1 1 2.2 0.8 0.7 71.3 14.3 7.7 0.9 1.6 0.3 0.1QCF1 2 0.7 0.2 0.6 4.9 70.2 19.3 1.8 1.8 0.5 0.0QCF1 3 1.4 0.6 1.1 1.1 3.8 84.6 2.4 2.4 2.3 0.4QCF1 4 0.8 0.2 0.7 1.6 2.1 4.6 83.0 4.2 2.2 0.5QCF1 5 0.6 0.1 2.1 1.0 2.0 2.5 1.2 77.9 9.4 3.2QCF1 6 0.2 0.0 1.8 0.0 0.2 0.5 0.4 1.5 87.5 7.9QCF1 78 0.2 0.1 2.3 0.1 0.2 0.8 0.1 1.1 6.9 88.2
Transition proportions, 1‐>5, 2008IV‐2009IVLevel “Down” Unchanged “Up”Don’t Know 0 17.0 83.0No Quals 1.3 61.9 36.8Other Quals 9.0 59.4 31.6QCF1 1 3.7 71.3 25.0QCF1 2 6.3 70.2 23.5QCF1 3 8.0 84.6 7.4QCF1 4 10.1 83.0 6.9QCF1 5 9.5 77.9 12.6QCF1 6 4.6 87.5 7.9QCF1 7‐8 11.8 88.2 0.0
Moving “up” from no qualifications
0.010.020.030.040.050.060.070.080.090.0
16 19 22 25 28 31 34 37 40 43 46 49 52 55 58 61 64
Prop
ortio
n
Age
Highest qualification/trade apprenticeshipHigh Medium Low1 Higher degree 36 A‐level or equivalent 70 YT/YTP certificate
2 NVQ level 5 37 RSA advanced diploma 71 Key skills qual
3 Level 8 Diploma 38 OND/ONC/BTEC/… 72 Basic skills qual
4 Level 8 Certificate 39 City&Guilds Adv/Part 1 73 Entry level qual
5 Level 7 Diploma 40 Scottish 6 year cert … 74 Entry level Diploma
6 Level 7 Certificate 41 SCE higher … 75 Entry level Certificate
7 Level 8 Award 42 Access quals 76 Level 1 Award
8 First/foundation degree 43 AS‐level or equivalent 77 Entry level Award
9 Other degree 44 Trade apprenticeship 78 Other qual
10 NVQ level 4 45 Level 3 Certificate 79 No qual
Restricting transitions – those who “studied”
Studied in at least two sweeps
Studied in at least one
sweep
Individuals enrolled, sweeps 1‐4 (%)
‐4.0
‐2.0
0.0
2.0
4.0
6.0
8.0
10.0
12.0
14.0
0.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
70.0
80.0
90.0
100.0
16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 50 52 54 56 58 60 62 64
Percen
tage point differen
ce (2
008/9‐1997/8)
Prop
ortio
n en
rolled
Age% enrolled (1997I‐1998I) % enrolled (2008IV‐2009IV)Difference Poly. (% enrolled (1997I‐1998I))
Less than 6 months
0.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
70.0
80.0
18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 50 52 54 56 58 60 62 64
Prop
ortio
n
Age1997I‐1998I 2008IV‐2009IV Poly. (1997I‐1998I) Poly. (2008IV‐2009IV)
2 to 3 years education and training
0.0
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
30.0
18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 50 52 54 56 58 60 62 64
Prop
ortio
n
Age1997I‐1998I 2008IV‐2009IV Poly. (1997I‐1998I) Poly. (2008IV‐2009IV)
Enrolled in any sweep 1‐4, 2008IV‐2009IVEnrolled sample Difference all populationDown Same Up Down Same Up
DON'T KNOW 0 13.8 86.2 0.0 ‐3.2 3.2NO QUALS 1.4 31.1 67.5 0.1 ‐30.8 30.6OTHER QUALS 11.7 45.4 42.9 2.7 ‐14.0 11.3QCF1 1 4.0 48.4 47.6 0.2 ‐22.9 22.6QCF1 2 4.7 52.7 42.7 ‐1.6 ‐17.6 19.2QCF1 3 6.1 76.8 17.1 ‐1.8 ‐7.8 9.6QCF1 4 12.3 72.8 15.0 2.2 ‐10.3 8.1QCF1 5 13.0 68.4 18.6 3.5 ‐9.5 6.0QCF1 6 5.3 79.4 15.2 0.7 ‐8.1 7.3QCF1 7‐8 13.8 86.2 0 2.1 ‐2.1 0.0
“Correcting” don’t know and other, 2008IV‐2009IV“Corrected” sample Difference all populationDown Same Up Down Same Up
DON'T KNOW 0 57.8 42.2 0.0 40.8 ‐40.8NO QUALS 0.5 42.7 56.8 ‐0.8 ‐19.2 19.9OTHER QUALS 8.7 62.6 28.8 ‐0.3 3.2 ‐2.8QCF1 1 3.3 52.1 44.6 ‐0.4 ‐19.2 19.7QCF1 2 3.8 59.2 37.0 ‐2.5 ‐11.0 13.5QCF1 3 5.8 80.8 13.4 ‐2.2 ‐3.8 6.0QCF1 4 11.2 76.6 12.2 1.1 ‐6.4 5.3QCF1 5 10.5 72.4 17.2 1.0 ‐5.5 4.5QCF1 6 3.9 82.8 13.2 ‐0.7 ‐4.7 5.4QCF1 7‐8 12.0 88.0 0 0.3 ‐0.3 0.0
“Corrected” moving up, 2008IV‐2009IVPopulation in cohort 1 (%)
Enrolled in 1‐4 (%) Moving up (%)
Pop this level at sweep 1
moving up (%)DON'T KNOW 3.5 18.2 86.2 15.7NO QUALS 14.8 10.6 67.5 7.1OTHER QUALS 6.3 15.3 42.9 6.6QCF1 1 11.7 16.8 47.6 8.0QCF1 2 15.5 29.9 42.7 12.7QCF1 3 18.0 22.2 17.1 3.8QCF1 4 4.4 18.8 15.0 2.8QCF1 5 5.4 20.8 18.6 3.9QCF1 6 13.3 20.3 15.2 3.1QCF1 7‐8 7.1 20.9 0.0 0.0
Current state of transitions matrix, 2008IV‐2009IV
DKNOW NO OTHER QCF5 1 QCF5 2 QCF5 3 QCF5 4 QCF5 5 QCF5 6 QCF5 78DKNOW 57.8 7.5 0.0 0.0 14.0 12.4 2.9 1.7 1.7 1.9NO 0.5 42.7 4.6 15.8 29.7 4.7 0.3 1.3 0.4 0.0OTHER 0.8 7.8 62.6 1.4 10.3 8.6 0.0 2.8 3.7 2.0QCF1 1 1.6 1.2 0.5 52.1 27.1 11.9 1.0 4.0 0.5 0.2QCF1 2 0.1 0.0 0.5 3.2 59.2 31.6 2.5 1.4 1.3 0.1QCF1 3 0.3 0.8 0.2 0.8 3.6 80.8 3.5 3.8 5.8 0.3QCF1 4 0.7 0.3 0.9 2.0 2.6 4.7 76.6 4.4 7.8 0.0QCF1 5 0.2 0.0 1.2 1.5 3.0 2.6 2.0 72.4 11.9 5.3QCF1 6 0.2 0.0 0.9 0.0 0.4 0.9 0.6 1.0 82.8 13.2QCF1 7‐8 0.2 0.5 1.5 0.0 0.0 1.8 0.0 1.7 6.4 88.0
Flows into and out of QCF 2, 2008IV
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
16182022242628303234363840424446485052545658606264
Flow
s into and
out of Q
CF2
AgeMoving av out Moving av in
16 Year old cohort at QCF 2 by age, 2008IV
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
0.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
70.0
16 19 22 25 28 31 34 37 40 43 46 49 52 55 58 61 64
Per cen
t rem
aining
at Q
CF 2
(moving average)
Per cen
t rem
aining
at Q
CF 2
AgeQCF 2 Moving average