Review of European and OECD countries experiences

1
Measurement of non-market output in education and
health OECD/ONS workshopLondon, 3-5 October 2006

• Review of European and OECD countries experiences
  
• Education output methods

2
Importance of price and volume measures for the
European Union

• The availability of price and volume measures of
  GDP is essential for
• Monitoring economic development in the EU
• The monetary policy of the euro area
• The implementation of the Stability and Growth
  Pact

3
Some legal aspects in the EU

• Commission Decisions 98/715 and 2002/990
  clarified the principles for the measurement of
  prices and volumes.
• This Commission legislation has identified the
  most appropriate estimation methods to be applied
  (A and B methods) and the methods which shall not
  to be used (C methods).
• The old Member States were asked to remove the C
  methods by end 2006.

4
Aims of the list of questions

• In June 2006 Eurostat sent to all Member States a
  list of questions on price and volume measurement
  in the fields of non market health and education
  services.
• The main objective was to assess and monitor
  Member States progress towards removing C methods
  by end 2006.
• In this context, the sharing of experience
  between countries is of utmost importance.
• During the same month of June 2006, the OECD
  launched a similar questionnaire to OECD non-EU
  members, in the perspective of its non-market
  project (best practices).

5
Scope of the list

• The list covers solely the output methods
  currently used or being developed by the
  countries.
• 24 out of 27 EU countries (including Iceland and
  Norway) replied to the list.
• 7 OECD non-EU countries replied to the similar
  OECD questionnaire, but only 2 (AU, NZ) currently
  apply output methods and other 2 (KR, US) study a
  project.

6
Structure of the list

• The list covers five aspects
• Stratification
• Quantity indicators
• Weighting
• Quality indicators
• Availability of the data

7
Basic stratification (1)

• A and B methods require stratification for, at
  least, the following categories
• Pre-school (ISCED 0)
• Primary (ISCED 1)
• Lower secondary (ISCED 2)
• Upper secondary (ISCED 3)
• Higher education (ISCED 5 and 6)
• Other education (ISCED 4 and non
• formal)

8
Basic stratification (2)

• This basic stratification of the handbook is not
  always applied by some EU countries grouping two
  categories
• Lower and upper secondary (6 cases)
• Pre-school and primary (1 case)
• Primary and lower secondary (1 case)
• Upper secondary and higher education (1 case)
• Same problem with AU and EU (primary and lower
  secondary).

9
Complementary stratification

• Most countries apply some form of complementary
  stratification (by region and subject)
• Only six EU countries use no complementary
  stratification

10
Stratification

• As interesting examples of stratification we can
  mention
• A stratification in ordinary, severly disabled,
  other disabled used by Finland (also CZ, FR, NO,
  US for ordinary /disabled)
• A distinction between general and vocational
  education introduced by Finland and Norway
  (numerous fields) AT and FR.

11
Quantity indicators (1)

• Eurostat recommends the use of pupil hours as
  quantity indicator.
• Number of pupils is acceptable if it can be shown
  that hours per pupil are sufficiently stable.
• Number of pupils is recommended for tertiary
  education and distance-learning

12
Quantity indicators (2)

• 13 EU countries use mainly number of pupils as
  quantity indicator.
• 11 EU countries use mainly pupil hours or full
  time equivalent pupils.
• In this case most countries have estimated hours
  per pupil for one benchmark year and for the
  various categories identified. Then, they have
  considered that, for each category, hours per
  pupil are the same every year.

13
Quantity indicators (3)
14
M
Quantity indicators (4)
The sources used are mainly administrative data
15
Quantity indicators (5)

• As interesting examples we can mention
• UK uses pupils hours estimated as numbers of full
  time equivalent enrolled pupils adjusted to
  exclude pupil absences.
• Germany uses pupils hours by institutions under
  the assumption that for each institution they are
  the same as for the reference years

16
Quality indicators (1)

• Eurostat recommends the use of adjustments for
  quality but an output indicator method can be
  acceptable without quality adjutment (B method).
• When they are used, adjustments for quality are
  mainly based on
• Class size
• Scoring of pupils

17
Quality indicators (2)
18
Quality indicators (3)

• As interesting examples we can mention
• UK uses quality adjustment factor calculated to
  reflect the estimated contribution that each year
  of schooling makes to performance in school
  leaving examination
• Italy uses a conversion function based on class
  size

19
Quality indicators (4)
The italian model of class size (congestion)
20
Quality indicators (5)

• The issue of quality is, indeed, a very difficult
  one, both conceptually and in terms of
  implementation
• for instance, is it correct to refine the
  quantity indicator with pupil absence and to
  adjust on performance in school leaving
  examination ?
• Is not the performance / score when leaving
  school the true quality of output? (for each
  pupil counted for one)

21
Conclusion (1)

• Eurostat is interested to learn the ideas from
  this workshop.
• Eurostat will continue discussions at EU level
  with MS.
• It is important to work on administrative
  sources, in particular to help to reduce
  statistical burden.

22
Conclusion (2)

• The reflexions on spatial comparisons stimulate
  the ideas for temporal purpose also.
• The OECD hopes to have achieved some progress, in
  partnership with Eurostat, for a further workshop
  in Paris in June 2007.