/ EUROPEAN COMMISSION
EUROSTAT
Directorate F: Social Statistics and Information Society
Unit F-4: Education, culture and science statistics /
Doc. ESTAT/ETS-09-09EN
Version 21.09.2009
Item 4.3 – CVTS Commission Regulation: progress report
Feedback from the consultation on the
draft European outline questionnaire
(ANNEX 1 of foreseen Commission Regulation)
Meeting of the
Education and Training Statistics
Working Group
Luxembourg, 28-29 September 2009
Room Quetelet

A consultation on a draft European questionnaire took place between the 24 August and the 16th September 2009. The document sent for consultation on 24 August is attached is the appendix for information without changes.

Eurostat thanks the 16 countries who replied to the consultation: Bulgaria (BG), the Czech Republic (CZ), Denmark (DK), Germany (DE), France (FR), Cyprus (CY), Lithuania (LT), Hungary (HU), the Netherlands (NL), Austria (AT), Poland (PL), Portugal (PT), Finland (FI), the United Kingdom (UK), Norway (NO), Switzerland (CH) as well as CEDEFOP and BIBB (both Task Force members).

Due to the time constraint for the adoption of the revised Commission Regulation and its implementation in the Member States, Eurostat is proposing below alternatives to the main remarks received. These alternatives will be discussed by the TF in its November meeting according to the opinion of the Working Group expressed on 28-29 September in the ETS WG meeting.The proposal is the following:

Keep CVTS 3 questions of groups A to C deleting age and sex as presented in the draft questionnaire, delete the new occupational groups proposed in the draft, move to skills instead of fields in C5. Re-discuss the need and ways to isolate training offered due to legal requirements (C4).

Keep CVTS3 questions on 2011 future activities with one additional question on the type of skills to be covered (using the same list as in C5).

Re-order the questions and balance the need for rephrasing questions of group D. Simplify group F (IVT renamed apprentices and trainees) to a minimum set of questions (number of apprentices and trainees based on the definitions discussed in the EVHoS TF, main reasons on the scope of IVT)

Confirm stratification by NACE Rev 2 (only few replies received, one comment to be discussed).

This proposal would focus on adding very few new questions only and benefit f'rom the suppression of many quantitiave variables (shorter questionnaire). This would ensure the adoption of the Commission Regulation. In order to collect further information which might be used by few countries only (use at national level), certain questions have an optional status (i.e. optional to the Member States not to the enterprise).The main comments received during the consultation are listed by main topic below.

- General comments

Most of the countries welcomed the simplification of the questionnaire although some countries like FI and NL consider the reduction of burden very limited since a certain number of qualitative questions were added while deleting some quantitative variables. CZ and FI also highlighted that the changes were rather substantial and would have an impact on the time series. HU confirmed that these changes would require some time for a correct implementation in the national survey (preparation of the fieldwork). NO also added that all methodological information should be ready quite soon to ensure a proper implementation and faster data dissemination.

Proposal:The proposal above takes account of these remarks. A 4th meeting of the TF meeting early 2010 will ensure that the material needed for a proper implementation of the survey.

- Breakdowns by occupation

Many countries raised concerns on the additional burden that all occupational breakdowns would imply on respondents (especially for telephone interviews). The CVTS 2 difficulties and the facts that there will be no possibilities of tests of the groupings (2, 3 or 4[1]) makes it even more difficult. Many countries generally opposed to the use of these breakdowns (DE, NL, PL, FI, NO, CH) or raised concerns especially on the use of percentages (NL, PT) or the use of four groups (not more than two for FR, three for DE). Some other countries did not raise issues or would privilege the use of percentages: DK, AT, UK.

Proposal:delete all occupational breakdowns and collect on an optional basis two breakdowns if some countries would implement them at national level (through 2 or3-4 compatible breakdowns at national level).

- Fields of education (new C5) and new questions related to skills (new G)

As concern the replacement of field of education by skills (C5, G2), FI and HU considered the benefit was not clear enough compared to the loss of comparability in time series.

Other countries supported the transition or did no make comment (UK, DK) but preferred to keep a detail by hours of training (PT, CEDEFOP) or would need to have an overview of the coherence of the list with other sources/frameworks (AT). DE, FR, NL, NO would privilege the use of a question without occupational groups.

As concerns block G (future skill needs dropping G3, which should obviously be deleted), DK, DE, NL supported the proposal (with or without occupational groups according to the country). FR and NO questioned the usefulness of the G4 breakdowns. CH proposed to delete the questions on 2011 CVT needs. NL also raised some concerns about the future enterprise survey on skills needs coordinated by CEDEFOP with the support of DG EMPL (overlap especially for big enterprises).

Proposal: keep G1 and G2 without occupational breakdown.

- Coherence with the Classification of Learning Activities (B2)

Many comments were received on the way the rough division between non-formal and informal activities was proposed in question B2 (DK, DE, FI, UK) but also on the quantitative information to be collected, i.e. preferably on the whole set (PT) or for each of the 5 categories (HU, PL, NL, DE) instead of the three groups proposed. Some countries even argued in favour of dropping the quantitative information due its lack of accuracy (FR, DK).

Proposal:the TF will re-discuss the distribution of activities (minor adaptations of labels if necessary only) and will make an assessment of the pros and cons of a total of participants on the 5 categories or of a total by group (as in CVTS 3). This would take into account the use and accuracy of the information on participants (easier for one overall figure) versus events (for 5 individual groups as in CVTS 3).

- Training performed due to legal requirements (new C4)

Few countries opposed to this proposal due to its meaning at national level or due to the increase in burden (FI, DE). Other countries considered that this question could be envisaged if some clarifications are proposed on the activities to be covered (AT, NO). The use of percentages and the coverage (paid working time) for this questions should also be discussed (CZ, PT).

Proposal:review the proposal (without occupational breakdowns), the terminology and the use of percentages versus stocks of participants.

- Coherence with the Community Innovation Survey (CIS) and use of reference periods all over the questionnaire

CZ and PT proposed the use of precise reference periods instead of the term ‘usually’ in group D.

As concerns the coherence with CIS, the extension to the other CIS questions (marketing and organisational innovation) or the three year reference period for the innovation question(s) was supported by HU and FR (especially on organisational changes) and AT (three years to be further discussed) while UK and CH considered this as an unnecessary burden.

DE reminded about the need to review block G reference periods (future skill needs) taking into account the date of the field work (2011).

Proposal: limit to one year but re-discuss the CIS question on “organisational changes”, review the use of reference periods all over the questionnaire.

- IVT (apprentices and trainees)

PT and CEDEFOP agreed on the use of “apprentices and trainees” instead of IVT (provided that a good definition is available). Other countries would however like to discuss further the definitions: CZ, DE (would a priori prefer to keep CVTS3 definitions), FR, AT. CZ proposed to use the term ‘training' instead of 'working’ in the description of F1 and to review the filtering of subsequent variables.

UK argued that an optional status was not sufficient to promote the improvement of these variables due their high relevance. LT, HU, CH, FR, DE, NL (who would prefer to drop F2c - labour cost of trainers/mentors) and NO raised concerns on this block but would agree with an optional status of the main burdensome variables. UK, FR, NL, DE proposed to review question F4 (main reasons for offering IVT).

Proposal: discussUK experience on the national question on the reasons for offering apprenticeship (for a question F4) to cope with the EP/Council regulation requirements on the CVTS.

National categories used by the UK to ask for the reasons for offering apprenticeship: training the workforce of the future, difficulty to recruit staff with the skills needed, be more attractive to potential staff, mutual benefit, etc.

- Other methodological issues, order of questions

DK and NL proposed to delete even more gender breakdowns. As concerns the order of questions, many countries claimed for a re-ordering (e.g. DE whose proposal will be discussed in the next TF meeting) and re-checking of the use of verbs in the past form in all questions (CZ).

The definition of the number of employees in the year 2010 was also questioned by CY and AT (in favour of the use of averages, very relevant for the tourism sector for instance).

PL proposed to ask for the total hours of training (and after ‘of which: paid working hours’). CZ also claimed for a review of the treatment of training during unpaid working time. Some difficulties were emphasised on question C7 on costs (PL, DK, NO), on question C8 (DK) or suggestion provided to improve B2 and D2 (CZ), C6, C7, D2 (NL), C6 (AT), D3-D5, new D8 (DK, HU), D15 and E1 (NL) and G1 (NO). FR argued about not changing the labels of D8-D11, which were satisfactory in the 2005 survey. CZ proposed a number of small linguistic corrections in A2, A3, B1, B2, B3, C1, C4, D3-D4, new D8, D13, D14a to D14c, D15/E1, blocks G and F.

Some countries proposed to delete D2-D4 and D14a (CH), D3 (NL), D13, D14b, D14c (DE) or to move D4-D5 with block G (skill needs). NO proposed to address D1, D6, and D7 on training enterprises only and to add few breakdowns by the number of employees concerned in D3-D5. DE proposed D14 to be optional.

As concerns other costs, which might need to be covered by C7, there was no information provided or no further needs.

Proposal: review the proposals for improvements listed above. Review the status of the variables (optional or not) as well as the filter for (non-)training enterprises

- Extension to other NACE sectors, calibration, quality report

HU, FI, CY, NO did not agree for an extension to 3 new sectors or preferred to propose it as optional for CVTS 4. BG, AT and UK supported it or have it already implemented in the national survey.

DE supported the stratification by 6 NACE groups as proposed for large countries (already implemented). As for the new groupings proposed for the stratification (NACE Rev 2), AT proposed a slightly different grouping (to be discussed). NO agreed but all countries will need to express their views on this issue before the next TF meeting.

CZ reminded there will small adjustment to be done on the annex of the Commission Regulation, which concerns the quality reports (indicator list for IVT, breakdowns by age and gender).

Proposal: make the extension of sectors optional (Eurostat would collect the data available as already for small enterprises), Member States to confirm the new groupings for the stratification.

APPENDIX: Draft European outline questionnaireversion 24 August 2009 without changes

The following diagram illustrates the structure of the questionnaire of CVTS 3. The same structure and numbering are kept for the time being in order to better highlight the changes proposed by Eurostat after the first two meetings of the Task Force on the preparation of the CVTS 4. The structure and sequence of questions will be dicusssed in the third meeting of the task force.

The terminology will need to be reviewed for the final draft (indicative wording also in the proposals). Questions should be as clear and short as possible. Some suggestions are alredy provided in this draft version, especially for section D. The TF will add examples or explanations, if appropriate. The possible answers have also been reviewed in order to have clear “yes”, “no”, “not applicable”, “do not know” (i.e. always filled in) to avoid any ambiguous reply. This would imply avoiding the selection of categories such as “main…”.

The remarks are displayed in black and white (remarks) while deletions appear in grey (deleted).

Structure of the CVTS3 questionnaire

Note: it is proposed to ask most of the questions of section D to all enterprises (the graph below would be adapted accordingly)

1

ASTRUCTURAL DATA ON THE ENTERPRISE

A1 - What is the principal economic activity of the enterprise?

NACE CODE * / A1
Principal economic activity of the enterprise **

* This information should be entered from the business register from which the sample is selected.

A2 - What were the total number of persons employed(def. 10) by the enterprise?

Total number of persons employed
Total / Males / Females
31.12.2009 / A2tot09
31.12.2010 / A2tot10 / A2m10 / A2f10

A3 – A3: breakdown by age deleted

New A3 - What were the total number of persons employed(def. 10) by the enterprise by main occupational group?

Total number of persons employed
Total
a) Managers, professional staff and technicians / A3a
b) Clerks, service and sales workers / A3b
c) Skilled manual workers / A3c
d) Unskilled employees / A3d

Notes:

- This question might be asked as a distribution of the number of persons employed (in percentages)

- Each MemberState should use the closest but also most suitable terminology for enterprises since the objective of this question is not to have a precise occupational structure by ISCO but to better understand enterprise strategies. Group "a" should correspond to ISCO 1-3, Group "b" to ISCO 4-5, group "c" to ISCO 6-8 and Group "d" to ISCO 9.

A4 - What was the total number of hours worked (def. 11) by persons employed(def. 8) for the enterprise?

A4: breakdown by gender deleted

Total number of hours worked in the reference year 2010 / A4 / A4m / A4f

A5 - What were the total labour costs of persons employed (def. 12)by the enterprise?

Total labour costs (direct + indirect) of all persons employed / A5

A6 – In the year 2010, did the enterprise introduce any newor significantly improved goods, services, or methods of producing or delivering these goods or services?

YES / A6
NO / A6

BCONTINUING VOCATIONAL TRAINING ACTIVITIES OF THE ENTERPRISE

This section of the questionnaire addresses Continuing Vocational Training (CVT) of persons employed by the enterprise
The qualifying criteria for a CVT are the following :
  • The training must be planned in advance
  • The training must be organised or supported with the specific goal of learning
  • The training must be financed at least partly by the enterprise

B1 - Did persons employed by the enterprise participate in either Internal (def. 14) or External (def. 15) CVT courses ?

CVT Courses / Did persons employed by the enterprise participate in CVT courses during 2010 ?
Yes / No
a) Internal CVT courses / B1a
These are courses which are principally designed and managed by the enterprise itself.
b) External CVT courses / B1b
These are courses which are principally designed and managed by a 3rd party organisations.

B2 – Did persons employed by the enterprise participate in any of the following other forms of CVT (def. 6) ?

Number of participants only for the three groups

Other Forms of CVT (non-formal) / Did persons employed by the enterprise participate in any of the 3 identified
other forms of CVT ? / If yes
How many persons employed participated in each of the 2 main groups below?
Yes / No
a) / Planned training through on-the job-training(def. 16) / B2aflag / B2a
Planned periods of training, instruction or practical experience undertaken in the work place using normal tools of work, either at the immediate place of work or in the work situation.
b) / Planned training through job-rotation,exchanges, secondments or study visits(def. 17) / B2bflag / B2btoc
Transfers of workers from one job to another, which are not part of a planned developmental programme, should notbe included.
c) / Attendance at conferences, workshops, trade fairs and lectures(def. 20) / B2cflag
Attendance at these events is counted as training, only when they are planned in advance and the primary intention of a person employed attending them is training/learning.
Other Forms of CVT (informal) / Did persons employed by the enterprise participate in any of the 2 identified
other forms of CVT below? / If yes
How many persons employed participated in this group of activities
d) / Planned training through participation in learning or quality circles(def. 18) / B2dflag / B2dtoe
Learning circles are groups of persons employed who come together on a regular basis with the primary aim of learning more about the requirements of the work organisation, work procedures and work places. Quality circles are working groups with the objective of solving production and work place problems through discussion.
e) / Planned training by self directed learning(def. 19) / B2eflag
Self directed learning occurs when an individual engages in a planned learning initiative where he or she manages the, training time and the place at which the learning takes place.

Some additional minor corrections will be needed in the labels (e.g. guided-on-the-job training) or position of certain activities (e.g. trade fairs with informal "d" rather than "c" non-formal): to discussed in the TF 3rd meeting

New B3 (ex B3 and B4 for 2009 activities only. 2011 actvities in G1)

a) Did the enterprise provide CVT Courses for its persons employed in the previous year, 2009?

YES / B3a
NO / B3a
Not Applicable / B3a

a) Did the enterprise provide Other Forms of CVT for its persons employed in the previous year, 2009?

YES / B4a
NO / B4a
Not Applicable / B4a

According to the option retained in question B2, B3 and G1 might need to be adapted although "other forms" (a to e) could remain together in the context of a wide definition of education and training activities.

Filter for the following sections of the questionnaire

If persons employed by the enterprise participated in CVT courses during the reference year 2010

[(B1a or B1b) = YES]

then answer

sections C, D, F, and G

Countries should take care with filter on B1a

so that costs can be collected for C8 contributions even if there are no CVT participants in the enterprise

If persons employed by the enterprise did NOT participate in CVT courses but did participate in other forms of CVT during the reference year 2010

[(B1a and B1b) = NO

and

(B2aflag or B2bflag or B2cflag or B2dflag or B2eflag) = YES]

then answer