EN    EN EN 
 
EN    EN  COMMISSION OF THE E UROPEAN COMMUNITIES 
Brussels,  
SEC(2008) 3047  
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 
accompanying the   
 
COMMUNICATION FROM THE CO MMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN 
PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL 
COMMITTEE AND THE COMMI TTEE OF THE REGIONS 
 
"An updated strategic framework for European cooperation in education and training'' 
 
Impact Assessment  
{COM(2008) 865 final} 
{SEC(2008) 3048} 
 
EN 3   EN TABLE OF CONTENTS 
1. Procedural issues and consulta tion of interested parties.............................................. 4 
1.1. Introduction and mandate............................................................................................. 4 1.2. Education and Training 2010 work programme .......................................................... 5 1.3. Consultation of countries, European social  partners and stakehol ders, and experts.... 6 
2. Problem definition........................................................................................................ 8 2.1. Economic and social challenges................................................................................... 8 2.2. Need for higher skills levels and the econom ic and social benefits of investment in 
education and training.................................................................................................. 9 
2.2.1. Attainment levels ....................................................................................................... .. 9 
2.2.2. Future labour market needs........................................................................................ 10 2.2.3. Economic impacts ...................................................................................................... 10  
2.2.4. Wider economic and social impacts........................................................................... 12 2.3. The EU's role in education and training: improving the implementation of the OMC13 3. Objectives.................................................................................................................. . 17 
3.1. General Objective: impr ove overall skills levels ....................................................... 17 
3.2. Intermediate objective: support Member St ates in reforming their education and 
training policies and systems ..................................................................................... 18 
3.3. Operational objectives: improving the eff ectiveness and impact of the OMC in 
education and training................................................................................................ 19 
4. Policy options............................................................................................................. 1 9 
4.1. Legal basis and the prin ciple of subsidiarity.............................................................. 21 
5. Analysis of impact ..................................................................................................... 22 6. Comparing the options ............................................................................................... 27 7. Monitoring and evaluation ......................................................................................... 30 
 
EN 4   EN Modifications following the Opinion of the Impact Assessment Board 
Following the opinion of the Impact Assessment Board several changes have been made to 
the impact assessment. 
Information on the results achieve d under the current OMC and in  particular performance in 
relation to the agreed benchmarks has been ad ded to section 2.3. Annex 2 has been added for 
a more comprehensive description of the curr ent OMC (the 'Education & Training 2010' work 
programme) and its role in suppor ting Member States' reforms."1 
In section 4 the characteristics of the baseline  scenario have been de scribed in some more 
detail.  
In section 5 more comprehensive analyses of how the individual options respond to the policy 
objectives has been added.  
In section 7 possible future success i ndicators of the OMC have been added. 
1. P ROCEDURAL ISSUES AND CONSULTATION OF INTERESTED PARTIES  
1.1. Introduction and mandate 
The political context of this in itiative is the follow- up to the Lisbon Strategy in the field of 
education and training. The European Counc il has on various occasions (most recently 
December 2007 and March 2008) emphasised that education and training/lifelong learning is 
a key driver of the Lisbon Strategy. This refl ects the integrated guidelines for growth and 
jobs, notably guidelines 23 and 24 on increasing i nvestment in human capital through better 
education and skills, guideline 8 on facilitati ng innovation and the knowledge triangle, and 
guideline 15 on promoting a more entrepreneurial culture.  
Furthermore education and training is iden tified as a key element throughout the renewed 
Social Agenda for opportunities, acc ess and solidarity. This stress es the role of education and 
training in relation to children and youth; investing in people,  more and better jobs and new 
skills; mobility; longer and healthier lives; and combating poverty and social exclusion2. This 
current proposal is therefore closely related to the Union's policies for employment, social 
inclusion, enterprise, re search and innovation. 
The initiative follows up the existing policy framework for the open method of coordination 
supporting the Lisbon process in the field of education and training which is entitled the 
"Education and Training 2010 work programme"  
The political mandate for the proposal for an updated strategic framework for European 
cooperation in education and training is an Ed ucation Council invitati on to the Commission 
                                                 
1 The most precise and explicit expl anation of the current state of play in education and training 
(including in relation to the five benchmarks) can be found in the 2008 Joint Progress Report of the 
Council and the Commission on the implementation of the 'Education & Training 2010' work 
programme "Delivering lifelong learning for knowledge, creativity and innovation", O J C 86/1 of 5 April 2008 
2 COM(2008) 412 
 
EN 5   EN expressed in key messages which were endor sed by the March 2008 European Council. This 
was based on a specific request in the 2008 Jo int Progress Report of the Council and the 
Commission.3  
1.2. Education and Traini ng 2010 work programme 
The Education and Training 2010 work program me (hereafter referred to as the OMC) 
provides an overall framework for polic y cooperation between Member States4 and the 
Commission in education and training (for a mo re comprehensive description of the work 
programme please see Annex 2). The 4 main elem ents of the OMC in education and training 
are: 
1) A set of common objectives  - the Council defined in 2001 thirteen objectives5 grouped 
around three strategic goals : a) Improving the quality and e ffectiveness of education and 
training systems in the EU; b) Facilitating the ac cess of all to education and training systems; 
c) Opening up education and traini ng systems to the wider world. 
2) Monitoring and reporting on progress  - since 2004 the Council and the Commission adopt 
every two years a joint report  on the overall progress in implementing the OMC. 
Furthermore the report adapts the objectives by defining new priorities for the next 2 years. 
The Council in 2003 adopted 5  benchmarks of average European performance . These are 
supported by a set of 16 core indicators which have  been developed and constantly 
improved. This framework provides a basis for th e preparation of annua l progress reports on 
benchmarks and indicators6 as well as the joint reports. 
3) Peer learning  - peer learning is since 2006 orga nised mainly through a set of 8  peer 
learning clusters7 bringing together countries with a particular interest in a given topic 
related to either national policy implementa tion or policy developmen t. Peer learning is 
furthermore carried out in the area of vocationa l education and training (VET) as part of the 
Copenhagen process or in the context of the implementation of the adult learning action plan8.  
4) EU reference tools supporting national reforms  and agenda-setting communications from 
the Commission – are a particular and ve ry important feature of the OMC in education and 
                                                 
3 2008 Joint progress report OJ C 86/1 of 5.4.2008, p. 9: "The Education and Training 2010 work 
programme provides practical support for Member States’ education and training reforms. Significant 
progress has been achieved since the programme was launched in 2002. Yet education and training reforms need time to bear fruit. Major challenges persist, new challenges have emerged. This work, 
including cooperation in the framework of the Bologna and Copenhagen processes, needs to be 
continued and indeed made more effective. Reflections on an updated strategic framework for European cooperation in education and training should theref ore start now. Given the crucial role of education 
and training to the Strategy for Jobs and Growth, this must be closely asso ciated with the future 
development of the Lisbon process." 
4 Also EFTA and applicant countries participating in  the Lifelong Learning Programme participate in the 
work programme. 
5 For the 13 detailed objectives see Annex 1. 
6 Latest Progress Report - Indicators and benchmarks 2008, SEC (2008) 2293. 
7 The clusters deal with the following issues: Mode rnising Higher Education, Best use of Resources, 
Teachers and Trainers, Access and Social Inclusio n, Math, Science and Technology, Key Competences, 
ICT, Recognition of Learning Outcomes. 
8 COM (2007) 558 
 
EN 6   EN training (e.g. the European Qu alifications Framework/EQF9, the Key Competences 
Recommendation,10 Communications on the modern isation of higher education11,adult 
education12 or schools13).  
The political steering of the OMC takes place through the Counc il and, since 2005, the 
implementation and coordination of the OMC is in the hands of the Education and Training 
2010 Coordination Group (ETCG)14. In addition, since 2002, a High Level Group  with 
representatives of all Member States is convened at leas t twice a year on the initiative of 
upcoming presidencies to discuss the political prio rities of these presidencies in the field of 
education and training, includ ing key issues arising concer ning the OMC and its future 
development.  
1.3. Consultation of countries, European social partners and stakeholders, and 
experts 
In the preparation of the Communication on an updated framework, the countries 
participating in the OMC (32), the European so cial partners (5) and European stakeholder 
organisations in education and tr aining (52) have been consulte d in various meetings and in 
writing. The different steps and elements in  this process have been as follows: 
– DG EAC's Expert Networks on the Economics of Education (EENEE) and on the 
Social Sciences of Education (NESSE)  produced a joint analytical report on the future 
challenges for European education and training systems15.  
– The ETCG  was consulted in a meeting 14 Apr il 2008 on the workin g methods of the 
current OMC and particularly on the bienni al reporting and peer -learning clusters. 
– The High Level Group (representing Member States)  was consulted in meetings on 24 
April and 16-17 June 2008 on the strategic ch allenges and policy priorities for the updated 
framework and on the nature of the update d OMC and its working methods. A further 
meeting of the High level Group took pl aceon 1 October 2008 to discuss future 
benchmarks.  
– A Stakeholders' Forum (44 participating organisations ) was held on 20 May 2008 for 
broad consultations of the European Stakehol ders representing civil society and of the 
European social partners.  
– In addition to these oral consul tations, the participating countri es, European social partners 
and stakeholders were consulted separately in writing16.  
                                                 
9 OJ C 111/1 of 6.5.2008 
10 OJ L 394/10 of 30.12.2006 
11 COM(2006) 208 
12 COM(2006) 614; COM(2007) 558 
13 COM(2008) 425 
14 Members of the ETCG are all participating countries (see footnote 4) and the European social partners. 
15 "European Education and Training Systems in the Se cond Decennium of the Lisbon Strategy" Idesbald 
Nicaise (ed.) Joint Analytical Report for the Eur opean Commission prepared by the European Expert 
Network on Economics of Education (EENEE) and the Network of experts in the Social Sciences of 
Education (NESSE). 
 
EN 7   EN – An Inter-Service Steering Group  met three times and had representatives from the 
following Directorate-Generals: Secretariat- General, Research, Employment, Social 
Affairs and Equal Opportunities, Information Society and Media, Economic and Financial 
Affairs, Enterprise and Industry and Eurost at (which was invited and included in the 
distribution of documents but did not actually participate). 
The key results of the consulta tions with countries (24 writte n responses), European social 
partners (5) and European stakeholders (13) are briefly summarised be low. Further reference 
to the results of the consultation on worki ng methods will be made in later sections 
(especially section 2.3). 
Challenges and political priorities 
On overall key challenges, the countries, European social pa rtners and European stakeholders 
generally agreed with the c onclusions drawn by the EENEE a nd NESSE networks that the 
bulk of key challenges facing European societ ies which have an impact on education and 
training systems in Europe have not radically  changed since the launch of the OMC in 
2001/02. Demographic change, global competiti on and the development of the knowledge 
society/technological change rema in crucial issues. There is however also agreement on the 
fact that increased attention needs to be given to issues related to mi gration and sustainability 
(for more details see section 2).  
On specific challenges  for the next 5-10 years, most cons ulted parties still find the original 
three broad goals and the thirteen specific objecti ves agreed in 2001 to be relevant. Especially 
quality and access are still given high priority. Social partners and stakeholders prioritised 
mostly the same issues as Member Sates, but wi th a more practical angl e often referring to the 
conditions for education and tr aining providers. The main sp ecific challenges mentioned 
during the consultation are the following : quality (including quality assurance for VET, in relation to the validation of  non-formal and informal l earning, and to early childhood 
education), social inclusion (i ncluding democratic citizenship through access, equality and 
diversity in lifelong learning; a particular emphasis was also put on migration and 
intercultural dialogue), creativit y/innovation/use of research (including follow-up to the work 
on evidence based policy making
17), skills deficiencies (addre ssing skills gaps, development 
of key competences, reducing th e number of early school leav ers and raising basic skills 
levels), professional development for teachers and trainers (includi ng pedagogical resource 
development). 
Working methods 
It is clear that countries see a general need for better links between the OMC in education and 
training and the Lisbon Strategy. At the same time , however, they also stress that education 
and training is about more than growth an d jobs. Addressing issues of citizenship and 
intercultural dialogue, for example, is also c onsidered essential for education and training.  
The majority of countries, social partners and stakeholders acknowledge that the OMC in 
education and training has eff ectively supported the developmen t of national education and 
                                                                                                                                                         
16 A six weeks deadline was given for replying which made it possible to introduce a first set of 
conclusions from the written consultation to the m eeting of the High Level Group 16- 17 June.  
17 SEC (2007)1098 "Towards more knowledge-based policy and practice in education and training"  
 
EN 8   EN training policies. Particularly the OMC has pr ovided a knowledge base for national policy 
making and objective setting, ac hieved greater convergence between national policies, 
provided comparable data, established benchmar ks and indicators, and brought policy makers 
together to discuss policies, issues and good practice.  
On working groups, clusters and instruments, the feedback shows that th e more practical that 
the focus is the more useful they seem to be  to countries and others. Countries do, however, 
generally find it difficult to quan tify the direct impact on na tional policy of these methods. 
They recommend certain adjustments of the working methods. 
Conclusions of section 1 
The result of the broad consultation of countries, social partners and stakeholders on the 
results of the current OMC was largely favour able. The overall challenges and objectives 
remain valid. Adjustments to the working methods are recommended in order to increase their 
focus and effectiveness.  
2. P ROBLEM DEFINITION  
As illustrated in the previous chapter, there is general agreement that the OMC in education 
and training has effectively supported the deve lopment of national education and training 
policies and systems since 2001. Nevertheless, th ese policies and systems in Europe do not 
yet adequately provide citizens with the level a nd relevance of skills and competences that are 
needed to sustain a knowledge-based economy and society which is both competitive and 
socially inclusive. The problem needs to be  defined both in terms of the challenges to 
education and training systems throughout Europe and of how to  address these challenges at 
European level; that is the OMC itself.  
2.1. Economic and social challenges 
The Lisbon strategy was designed in 2000 to respond to three major challenges  for European 
societies and economies: the knowledge economy , demographic change  and globalisation . 
These challenges persist; their consequences can be increasingly felt. Globalisation has 
developed further with new fo rces of global competition (e.g. the so called BRIC countries – 
Brazil, Russia, India and China) becoming more and more relevant. Enlargement has led to a 
wider and more diverse Europe. Also the imp act of demographic changes – the ageing of 
European societies – will be  felt to a greater extent.  
In addition to these persisting challenges, there are also some additional issues which have 
become increasingly salient over the last years,  in particular migration and sustainability. 
Migration  is actually related to all three items menti oned before. It is as much an opportunity 
as a challenge for Europe. Migration may, on the one hand, help to compensate for the 
problem of a shrinking labour fo rce and attract high skilled labour to Europe. On the other 
hand, there are important challenge s in relation to the integrat ion of migrants in the host 
societies. And there are challenges in relation to competition with other parts of the world in attracting high skilled labour, top researchers etc.  and to avoiding brain-drain, both in Europe 
and in third world countries. Sustainability has become an important issue, in particular in 
relation to climate change a nd environmental degradation. Moving to a low-carbon, energy-
efficient economy will require huge effort s in innovation and the development of new 
 
EN 9   EN technologies. This does of course  pose certain challe nges to education an d training systems as 
far as providing the right competences.  
All these developments point to the crucial importance of highly performing education and 
training systems to maintain and improve comp etitiveness and employment. The EU will only 
be able to compete on the global market on th e basis of high productivity and a high capacity 
for creativity and innovation. This implies that an important part of the answer to those 
challenges lies in raising th e skills levels in the populat ion, both young and old, and in 
ensuring that they have the right skills which are adapted to the needs of today's economy and 
society and ensures their employability.  
In particular, the impact of the shrinking wo rking age population must be diminished by 
reducing the number of those at a risk of not be ing able to enter or stay on the labour market, 
because they are early school leavers, lack ba sic skills or have difficulties in accessing 
lifelong learning opportunities, and increasing their employabilit y. The full potential of the 
young generation must be used while more must be done to up-date the skills of the older 
generation. This is as much about ensuring competitiveness and employment as providing 
people the chance to play an active role in society and ensuring social cohesion.  
While education and training hence have a cruc ial impact on promoting growth and jobs, the 
challenges cited before also indicate why many respondents to the consu ltation stressed that 
there are also other dimensions which cannot be  neglected. Failing to ensure the provision of 
high quality education and training outcomes will also have an important impact on social 
inclusion  and citizenship . Students' experiences in primar y and secondary school helps shape 
the rest of their lives in term s of their attitudes and interest s, their prospects of going on to 
tertiary education and the jobs they are going to have. The competences and learning habits 
acquired at school are essential to develop new sk ills for new jobs later in life. People with a 
low level of skills are not well prepared for learning new skills and competences later in life and are increasingly at risk of being excluded from active participation in today's knowledge 
economy and society. Ensuring high quality and e quitable education and training outcomes is 
an important factor in order to ensure that young people get the best pos sible start in life and 
for citizens in general to have the basis for further personal de velopment, social participation 
and fulfilling careers.  
2.2. Need for higher skills levels and the eco nomic and social benefits of investment 
in education and training 
2.2.1. Attainment levels In view of the general need to raise the skills levels  in the population, some trends on skills 
development over the last years indicate a slow skills upgrading process. The educational attainment level of the working age population in  the EU (15 to 64 year olds) has risen during 
the last decade. In 2006 there were 7 million mo re persons in the labour force having a high 
educational attainment level, compared to 2000. Since 2000, upper seco ndary attainment in 
the EU increased slightly, from 76.6% of people aged 18-24 to 77.8% in 2006. In other 
words, higher education inst itutions produce about one milli on more graduates per year 
 
EN 10   EN compared to 2000. Furthermore, the number of graduates in maths, science and technology 
has increased by 26% since 2000.18 
However, the overall picture is still mixed. Im portant challenges persist. Almost 108 million 
people (about 1/3 of the labour force aged 15 to  64) still have a low educational attainment 
level. Adults' training programmes are still inad equate, and do not touch the adults with the 
highest needs. Adults whose educational atta inment level is less than upper secondary 
completion are, in the EU, three times less likely to participate in educ ation and training than 
those with high attain ment levels. Education systems still produce too many early school 
leavers. Every sixth young person (18 to 24 years old) still leaves school with only 
compulsory education attainment level or below (2006 data).  
2.2.2. Future labour market needs 
This mixed picture is completed by an analysis that the current trends in  skills upgrading will 
not be sufficient to meet the labour market needs. According to a Cedefop forecasting study19, 
Europe would loose 8.5 millions of jobs for workers with low qualification between 2006 and 
2015. At the same time, the economy would create 12.5 million additional jobs at the highest qualification level and 9.5 million at the medium le vel. Jobs that require high or intermediate 
skills would correspond to 79% of labour market  needs in 2015 (compared to 74% in 2006). 
Technological change and globalisation may ev en accelerate the shift in skills demand.  
The Cedefop forecast of the skills supply side does not yet allow a precise comparison with 
the forecast on the demand side. But some policy conclusions can already be drawn. One is that – as newcomers alone will not fill future skills  gaps – there will still be a strong need to 
upgrade the skills of the existing wo rkforce. If current trends were to continue, Europe would 
face serious risks of mismatch es between skills supply and demand, with shortages of high-
skilled workers as well as insufficient qualif ication levels, and hence a high unemployment 
level, of low qualified people. Bottlenecks in the high segments of the labour market may 
exert an upward pressure on th e wages of these workers. At the same time, there may be a 
"surplus" of unskilled workers, which would l ead to the deterioration of their bargaining 
power and, as a consequence, also a deterior ation of their living and working conditions. 
Studies in the UK
20, France21 and Germany22 already suggest a risk of polarisation on the 
labour market, due to a shift in skills demand.  
2.2.3. Economic impacts 
The economic benefits of education and tr aining are now well documented. Employment 
opportunities and wages are higher fo r those who attain upper-seconda ry or tertiary education: 
in 2007, the employment rate of people w ith high educational attainment was 83.8%, 
compared to 70.3% for those with medium educational attainment and 48.6% for low 
educational attainment23. Income from employment is highe r for the better educated in all 
                                                 
18 Progress Report - Indicators and benchmarks 2008, SEC (2008) 2293. 
19 CEDEFOP (2008), Future Skill Needs in Europe. Medium-term forecast , Synthesis report. 
20 Goos M. and Manning A. (2007), "Lousy and lovely jobs; the rising polarization of work in Britain", 
Review of Economics and Statistics , 89 (1), 118-133 
21 Centre d'analyse stratégique (2007), Les métiers en 2015, report, La documentation française. 
22 Dustman C., Ludsteck C., Schönberg U. (2007), "Revisiting the German Wage Structure", IZA 
Discussion Paper, no. 2685, March 
23 SEC(2008) 2293, p. 143 
 
EN 11   EN OECD countries24. Private returns to investment in e ducation are very important and surpass 
all other forms of investment25. 
More specifically, learner mobility has a positive impact on success in employment. A better 
educated population (including in relation to la nguage skills) is generally more conducive to 
labour mobility. Studies show in particular th at graduates who had studied abroad or had 
worked abroad during or just after graduati on, are more successful on the labour market 
(shorter periods of unemployment, hi gher income, international careers).26 
More ambitious education and tr aining policies also c ontribute to raisin g productivity. Skills 
supply is a driving factor for innova tion, economic growth and employment27. Empirical 
research shows that one year of additi onal education would increase the aggregate 
productivity of 5-6% in the short-term. The result of the impact of  higher education on 
technological progress could amount to another 3-5% in the long-run28. Also by analysing 
data from 11 European countries, it is estim ated that, if all dr opouts completed upper-
secondary education, total produc tivity would increase by 1.4%.  
These effects can also be iden tified at the macroeconomic level: in OECD countries, each 
year of additional schooling is st atistically significantly associ ated with a 0.3 higher rate of 
economic growth29. Higher PISA test scores are asso ciated with higher rate of economic 
growth of GDP per capita30.  
In addition to the positive effects of investme nt in education and training, there are also 
margins for improving education quality withou t increasing public spending in this sector. 
The reallocation of resources, training of teachers and use of effective pedagogies and 
organisational models are cost-e ffective tools that can improve the quality of education. The 
Data Envelopment Analysis indicates that the potential for increasing learning outcomes 
while maintaining existing level of resources is high – over 20%  across countries for which 
data exists31. 
                                                 
24 See table A9.1a of OECD (2007), Education at a glance , p. 156 
25 See table A9.5 and A9 .6 in OECD (2007), Education at glance , p. 165. 
26 Allen, J. and van der Velden, R. (eds) (2007), "The Flexible Professional in the Knowledge Society: 
General Results of the REFLEX Pr oject", Research Centre for the Education and the Labour Market, 
Maastricht University, The Nether lands. These results confirm the Commission's own evaluations of the 
Erasmus and Leonardo da Vinci programmes. 
27 Better educated workers for ex ample help their colleagues and contribute to developing more 
productive work organisation or new products. See al so Machin S. (2004), ‘Skill Biased Technology 
Change and Educational Outcomes’, in G. Johnes and J. Johnes (eds.)  International Handbook of the 
Economics of Education , (2004) and EENEE (European Experts Network on the Economics of 
Education) (2008), Analytical re port (title to be confirmed)  
28 De la Fuente A., (2003),  Human Capital in a Global and Knowledge-Based Economy, Part II: 
Assessment at the EU Country Level,  Report for the European Comm ission, Directorate-General for 
Employment and Social Affairs; Brunello G. and Comi S. (2004), "Education and Earnings Growth: 
Evidence from 11 Eu ropean Countries", Economics of Education Review , 23 (1), 75-83 
29 De la Fuente A., (2003),  Human Capital in a Global and Knowledge-Based Economy, Part II: 
Assessment at the EU Country Level,  Report for the European Comm ission, Directorate-General for 
Employment and Social Affairs, and EENEE (European Experts Network on the Economics of Education) (2007),  The Costs of School Failure. A Feasibility Study , Analytical Report for the European 
Commission. 
30 Hanusek E. and Woessmann L. (2007), "The role of  education quality in economic growth", The World 
Bank, Policy Research Working Paper 4122. 
31 Progress Report – Indicators and Benchmarks 2008, SEC(2008) 2293, chapter 8 
 
EN 12   EN 2.2.4. Wider economic and social impacts 
Research results are also available regardi ng the positive impact of  education on personal 
well-being and on society at large. Education affects health , for example, by changing 
behaviour and through higher incomes. A highe r level of education increases cognition by 
avoiding unhealthy behaviour , such as smoking, and in  following medical advice32 (EENEE, 
2007). A higher income allows the better educ ated to consume be tter food and buy better 
health care. As a consequence, an additional year of schooling significantly improves health 
status. The percentage of pe ople with a long standing disease is higher among early school 
leavers than for those who have completed upper  secondary education: the difference attains 8 
percentage point in countries such as Be lgium and Denmark and 17 points in Lithuania33.  
Additional years of schooling also reduce crime34. The economic benefits of this positive 
effect of education in the UK are estimated as  follows: if the proportio n of the working age 
population with no qualifications were reduced  by 1 percentage point and those people 
achieved A Level or equivalent qualifications, the saving in reduced  crime would be £665 
million per year. (The health and crime impacts of education and training will not, however, be addressed directly by the OMC as they are more positive side effects that actual priorities for education and training). Educational attainme nt has also significant effects on issues 
related to citizenship  such as voter participation, toleran ce, support of free speech and trust in 
other people
35.  
                                                 
32 EENEE (European Experts Network on the Economics of Education) (2007),  The Costs of School 
Failure. A Feasibility Study , Analytical Report for the European Commission. 
33 See EENEE (European Experts Network on the Economics of Education) (2007),  The Costs of School 
Failure. A Feasibility Study , Analytical Report for the European Commission). The effect is still 
significant after controlling for other factors: Feinstein (2002b), Quantitative Estimates of the Social 
Benefits of Learning, 2: Health (Depression and obesity) , Wider Benefits of Learning Research Report, 
No 6 and Groot W. and van der Brink H. M. (2007), "The Health effects of education", Review of the 
economics of education, 26(2), p. 186-200. Feinstein (2002b) tried to move beyond raw associations and document the causal effects of education on two health conditions, obesity and depression, in the 
UK. He can then estimate the value of the benefits of one half of the different groups in the population 
gaining level 1 qualification (relative to none): the corresponding reduction in the probability of obesity 
and depression is about £6 billion per year (Feinstein, 2002b). In a recent analysis using a large survey 
for the Netherlands, Groot and van der Brink (2007) estimate the absolute value of health gain due to one extra year of education: 600-1380 euros for men and 300-600 euros for women. These gains 
correspond to a significant percentage of GDP per capita (1.3-5.8%). In other words, taking into 
account the return to health, the rate of return to investment in education, as conventionally calculated 
in the economics of education, should be increased by up to 60 percent. See EENEE (European Experts 
Network on the Economics of Education) (2007),  The Costs of School Failure. A Feasibility Study , 
Analytical Report for the European Commission). 
34 See EENEE (European Experts Network on the Economics of Education) (2007),  The Costs of School 
Failure. A Feasibility Study , Analytical Report for the European Commission) and Feinstein (2002a), 
Quantitative Estimates of the Social Benefits of Learning, 1: Crime , Wider Benefits of Learning 
Research Report, No 5. 
35 EENEE (European Experts Network on the Economics of Education) (2007),  The Costs of School 
Failure. A Feasibility Study , Analytical Report for the European Commission; OECD (2006), 
Measuring the effects of educatio n on health and civic engagement , Paris: OECD and Baudelot and 
Leclerq (eds) (2005), Les effets de l'éducation , La documentation française 
 
EN 13   EN 2.3. The EU's role in education and traini ng: improving the implementation of the 
OMC 
The economic and social challenges described above are common to al l European countries. 
Some issues, such as migration and mobility fo r the purpose of work or study, have specific 
cross-border effects which cannot be solved by any one country alone. The awareness of the 
need for and value of European cooperation in  the field of education and training has hence 
grown steadily over th e last 25 years.  
Education and training was, from the start, identified as a cruc ial factor to achieve the overall 
objectives of the Lisbon Strategy. During the past years, a number (14 in 2006 and 16 in 
2007) of country specific recommendations have been issued to Member States relating to 
their performance in education and training, lifelong learning and skills on the basis of the 
integrated guidelines 23 & 24 on increasing investment in  human capital through better 
education and skills.  
The intergovernmental Bologna process in high er education and the EU Copenhagen process 
in the area of vocational education and trai ning, launched in 1999 and 2002 respectively, have 
strengthened the awareness of the value of e nhanced co-operation, mobility, transparency and 
portability of qualifications in a situation where countries have  different systems but shared 
goals. Both processes laid the foundation fo r the European Qualifications Framework 
(EQF).36 Furthermore, the Bologna process has increased considerably the convergence 
between national higher education systems a nd qualifications. The added value of the 
Copenhagen process has, on the other hand, helped to raise the profile an d status of vocational 
education and training and led to various EU inst ruments such as the EQF, principles for the 
validation of non-formal and informal learning, Europass37 and the proposed European Credit 
System for Vocational Edu cation and Training (ECVET).38 
The OECD's PISA surveys carri ed out since 2000 and assessing the results of students at 
school level have been an eye- opener for most countries. The re sults have made it abundantly 
clear that certain problems in schools are co mmon to many countries. And they have also 
shown that certain countries do measurably better  than others. This has paved the way for an 
increased interest in cooperating and learning from each other even on issues, such as school education,
39 which were for many years consider ed inappropriate for European co-
operation.40 
The Education and Training 2010 work programme was set up in 2001/0241 to contribute to 
achieving the Lisbon objec tives and has delivered  concrete results. It led to the identification 
of a common reform agenda, a structured exchange of good practi ce between countries, 
regular monitoring of progress on  the basis of both qualitative and quantitative reports using 
agreed statistical indicators and benchmarks, and the development of agreed common European tools supporting national reforms. Europe has register ed progress in a number of 
                                                
 
36 OJ C 111/1 of 6.5.2008 
37 OJ L 340/6 of 31.12.2004 
38 COM(2008) 180 
39 COM(2008) 425 
40 See Gornitzka, Ase, The Open Method of Coordi nation as practice – A watershed in European 
education policy? ARENA working paper No. 16, Oslo, December 2006. 
41 Report from the Education Council to the Europ ean Council "The concrete future objectives of 
education and training systems" of 12.2.2001 and OJ C 142/1 of 14.6.2002 
 
EN 14   EN areas but the pace of reform remains a major challenge.42 Areas of good progress include 
putting in place: explicit lifelong learning strategies43, national qualifica tions frameworks, 
which are linked to the establishment of the EQF44 and systems for the validation of non-
formal and informal learning. 
It is also clear, however, that while the Education and Training 2010 OMC has opened the 
way to intense co-operation and is  perceived as successful in many aspects, there is a need to 
improve  implementation  when it comes to other aspects.  Most notably, despite important 
progress being made, some of the agreed objec tives will not be met by 2010 and, particularly, 
progress on four out of the five European benchmarks (please see Annex 1 for a full list of the 
benchmarks and the attached indicators) will not  be sufficient to reach the targets set in 2003. 
Progress towards meeting the 5 benchmarks (EU average)
-80-70-60-50-40-30-20-100102030405060708090100110120130140150160170180190200
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Year2010 benchmarks = 100MST graduates
   Lifelong learning participation
Early school leavers
Upper secondary completion
Low achievers in readingprogress required
(below 0 = performance 
getting worse)
 
Figure 1 
As illustrated in Figure 1 education and training  systems in the EU are generally improving. 
The EU benchmark on mathematics, science and technology graduates was already reached in 
2005. However no progress was achieved in relati on to the sub-objective to reduce gender 
imbalance in this area. Yet although there is  broad progress, attain ing the benchmarks on 
early school leaving, completion of upper seco ndary education and lifelong learning by 2010 
will need more effective national initiatives. Ind eed the situation is getting worse for reading 
                                                 
42 2008 Joint Progress Report of the Council and the Commission on the implementation of the 'Education 
and Training 2010' work programme OJ C 86/1 of 5.4.2008; 
43 The Council agreed that Member States should have coherent and comprehensive lifelong learning 
strategies in place by 2006 (Council resolution on lifelong learning of J une 2002, 2004 Joint Report and 
2005 Spring European Council). 
44 COM (2006) 479. 
 
EN 15   EN literacy of young people (PISA-result s), the benchmark in the field of key competences. If the 
current trend holds up the benchmark on read ing literacy will ne ver be reached, the 
benchmark on participation in lifelong lear ning would be reached somewhere between 2015 
and 2020, the benchmark on early school leaver s would be reached around 2020 and finally 
the benchmark on upper secondary completion would be reached well after 2020. Currently 
20 Member States have set nationa l targets in some or all of the EU benchmark areas (further 
information on the current state of play of education and training in cluding the progress and 
targets of individual countries can be found in the 2008 Joint Progres s Report of the Council 
and the Commission on the implementation of  the 'Education & Training 2010' work 
programme "Delivering lifelong learning for knowledge, creativity and innovation"45  
Given that performance is very different betw een countries, there is a great potential for 
mutual learning at European level. It shoul d be recalled that Member States' are fully 
responsible for their education and training syst ems. The EU’s role is only a supporting one. 
As a consequence, any progress in this polic y area is fully dependant on Member States’ 
willingness to act and to pursue national reform  (see also Section 4.1 on the Legal basis and 
the principle of subsidiarity). Member Stat es' willingness to act and the way they pursue 
national reforms can however be influenced to a certain extent by the OMC. The main 
mechanisms through which the OMC can do this  is through the identif ication of relevant 
problems and possible solutions for them, th rough mutual learning, the mobilisation of 
relevant stakeholders and, more generally, thr ough raising political am bition. The setup of the 
OMC affects Member States' commitment to the process, their readiness to make use of its results and, finally, the chances for implementa tion of any policy recommendations resulting 
from it. The results of the consultations and th e experience of the past years with the OMC in 
education and training, somewhat similar to  the OMC in social protection and social 
inclusion
46, point to a number of weaknesses th at can be summarised as follows: 
– Strengthening the focus, polit ical commitment and visibility 
Although, there is a general cons ensus on the relevance of the 13 objectives agreed in 2001, at 
the same time there are doubts about their ca pacity to have a major impact on policy 
developments at national level. Ownership and vi sibility of these objectives at national level 
seems to be low. Countries s ee the need, on the one hand, for a more strategic approach and, 
on the other, for more flexible and focused immediate priorities which can be adapted to future challenges and newly emerging priorities.  
The benchmarks have clearly created political  commitment and visibility and 20 Member 
States have set up national targets in the EU benchmark areas. In most countries, the national 
reporting exercise under the OMC has however tended to be tr eated as an administrative 
obligation with limited relevance for the politi cal level and focusing on developments that 
were happening anyway in the re spective countries. C ountries now find that a more thematic 
approach to the OMC reporting might make the ex ercise more interesting and useful and they 
suggest incorporating the search for and identif ication of best practic e and, possibly, some 
degree of country compar ison into the reports.  
                                                
 
45 Official Journal C 86/1 of 5.4.2008, SEC(2008) 2293, 10.7.2008 
46 Following the impact assessment SEC(2008) 2169 accompanying the Communication "A renewed 
commitment to social Europe: reinforcing the Open Method of Coordination in Social Protection and Social Inclusion" COM(2008) 418 it appears that the experiences with the OMCs are to a large extent 
similar. 
 
EN 16   EN Interest in concrete tools stemming from a nd developed through the pr ocess of co-operation 
has been high (i.e. Recommendation on Key Co mpetences, the EQF, Europass) as has the 
interest in participating in working groups and peer learni ng activities. These tools and 
activities have been perceived as  meaningful and useful to the civil servants and others who 
have participated. However one of the weaknesse s identified is that the results have been 
inadequately disseminated to colleague s, policy-makers and Ministers.  
– Strengthening the involvement of stakeholders 
The involvement of stakeholders in policy maki ng is an important factor securing ownership 
and promoting effective policy development and actual implementation in education and 
training. The degree to which soci al partners and stakeholders are involved in European and 
national decision-making varies considerably between countries and sectors of education and 
training. And even though the concept of partne rship has been repeatedly stressed by the 
Commission and the Council, it does not yet seem  to be strongly devel oped in all countries 
and all policy areas47. Insufficient implementation and lack  of political ow nership are also 
related to problems concerning th e involvement of stakeholders, especially those representing 
education and training providers , but also other groups such students, parents, economic 
actors and civil society in the broader sense.  
The visibility of the OMC as such is not very  high among stakeholders at European level, let 
alone the national le vel. Individual elements are visible and certain stakeholders have been 
involved in specific policy developments or implementation exercises (e.g. EQF, Europass), 
but, as overall impact will also depend on the visibility of the full programme that does not suffice. 
– Strengthening mutual learning  
Mutual learning is a key element of the OMC in  education and training and its importance and 
benefits for national policy makers is widely appreciated. There is however considerable 
scope for increasing its impact on policy reforms through a better dissemination of the results 
to policy-makers and by raising its visibility and use at the pol itical level. P eer learning and 
possible future peer-reviews also need to be  more targeted towards addressing the most 
serious, relevant and pressing polit ical priorities identified at the European and national levels 
in terms of policy development and implementa tion, including the national follow-up and use 
of the reference tools agreed at the Europe an level. The current system for involving 
stakeholders in the peer learning activities is ra ther weak as it is up to the hosting country to 
invite local stakeholders to the peer lear ning activities. The incr eased involvement of 
stakeholders in peer learning could strengthen its impact.  
– Strengthening coordination acro ss education and training sectors 
The lifelong learning (LLL) paradigm
48 is one of the main prin ciples underlying the current 
OMC and it has been taken on board in all Memb er States’ national policies to a greater or 
                                                 
47 See also 2008 Joint Report, OJ C 86/1 of 5.4.2008. 
48 It was set out in the Commission's Communica tion "Making lifelong learning a reality" COM (2001) 
678 which defined lifelong learning as "all learning activity undertaken throughout life, with the aim of improving knowledge, skills and competences within a personal, civic, social and/or employment-
related perspective". 
 
EN 17   EN lesser extent. In additio n to underlining the importance of "cradle to grave" learning, the 
second essential element of the LLL concept is th at it brings together the different education 
and training sectors while resp ecting their existence and speci ficities (e.g. schools, higher 
education, vocational education and training, a dult learning). However, it emphasises that 
education and training policy must  also deal with transversal issues which cannot be treated 
within these different sectors alone.  
The OMC has nevertheless not always been ab le to assume a LLL coordination role across 
the different education and training sector s falling under the Education and Training 2010 
work programme. While this is in part natural du e to the specificities of the different sectors 
and associated stakeholders (e .g. the Copenhagen process for V ET), it entails the risk of 
duplication, dispersion of effort and lack of coherence. It can also have negative effects on the 
achievement of central objectives formulat ed in the work programme, notably the 
development of coherent and comprehensive national lifelong learning strategies which 
ensure that the different areas of education and training are better linked to each other. This is 
reflected in weaknesses in LLL co ordination at the European and at the national level where, 
in many countries, the different education an d training policy areas continue to develop 
independently from each other.  
Conclusions of section 2 
The Lisbon policy challenges of the know ledge economy, demographic change and 
globalisation persist but issues such as migrat ion and sustainability ha ve become salient in 
later years. There are serious  risks of mismatches between  skills supply and demand, with 
shortages of high-skilled workers and insufficien t qualification levels of low-skilled people. 
There is thus an urgent need to upgrade the skil ls of the workforce and of those at the risk of 
exclusion. There is hard economic evidence of  the considerable benefits for the economy, 
society and the individual of investment in ed ucation and training, in terms of employability, 
social inclusion and citizenship, including the reduction of crime and improvement of health. 
Education and training is a crucial factor in  the Lisbon Strategy and its OMC has delivered 
concrete results, increasing countri es participation in and benef its from European cooperation 
and reducing barriers to  citizens' mobility and lifelong le arning. However, major challenges 
and weaknesses in national systems still pers ist. There is a need to improve national 
implementation and thus the impact of the OMC on national systems by ensuring a stronger 
focus on immediate priorities, greater political commitment and visibility, better involvement 
of stakeholders, more effective mutual learni ng and stronger lifel ong learning coordination 
across education and training sectors. 
3. O BJECTIVES  
3.1. General Objective: improve  overall skills levels  
The overall objective of European cooperation in education and training is to raise the overall 
skills levels of the population and ensure that  all citizens, irrespective of age or socio-
economic background, have a realistic chan ce to acquire the knowledge, skills and 
competences needed to participate in society an d ensure their employab ility, social inclusion 
and active citizenship. This will help to meet the challenges outlined in sections 2.1 and 2.2: 
the further development of the knowledge ec onomy, demographic change, globalisation, 
 
EN 18   EN migration and sustainability. In  particular, action is needed to raise employability and 
citizenship and to face potential skills mismat ches. The OMC should help to make lifelong 
learning and mobility a reality, improve the qual ity and efficiency of education and training 
provision and outcomes, promote equity an d citizenship, and enhance innovation and 
creativity at all levels of education and training. 
This will also help to ensure that Europe can meet key goals of the Lisbon Strategy which 
includes the priorities "Investi ng in people and modernising labour  markets" and "Investing in 
knowledge and innovation". It includes top leve l performance for some as well as a broad 
skills base in the population. And it will cont ribute to implementing the renewed Social 
Agenda, with its focus on increasing opportuniti es, providing access and solidarity with the 
most disadvantaged49.  
The timeframe for achieving this overall general objective will be rather long-term as reforms 
in education and training usually take many year s to show measurable e ffects at the level of 
individuals. Progress can be mon itored with a set of indicators and benchmarks, such as those 
which already exist under Education & Training 2010.  
The impact of an updated framework for European cooperation on the final results in 
achieving these goals will, of course, depend  on many factors. Some of these can be 
addressed more specifically and are di scussed under the following objectives. 
3.2. Intermediate objective: support Memb er States in reforming their education 
and training policies and systems 
The key function of the OMC in  education and training is to  support countries in their 
educational reforms. Member States are themse lves responsible for th e organisation of their 
education and training systems. But against th is background, the objective of the OMC is to 
spread best practice and achie ve greater convergence in achie ving the main EU goals. This 
method is designed to help Member States to develop progressively their own policies taking 
into account their specific circumstances50. As described in sectio ns 1.3 and 2.3, there is a 
wide consensus among countries that the OMC is useful in supporti ng national policy-making 
and that improvements are necessary and possible.  
The timeframe for this objective is medium-term.  The change to be achieved is to provide 
better and more targeted support to countries; s upport which is as useful as possible at any 
given point in time to the implementation of the reforms needed in each country based on the 
context and challenges it faces. On ly if progress is made at the national level in all countries, 
will it be possible to obtain the overall object ive of improving skills levels throughout the EU.  
                                                 
49 COM(2008) 412 
50 The method involves fixing guidelines for the Union combined with specific timetables for achieving 
the goals which they set in the short, medium and long terms; establishing, where appropriate, 
quantitative and qualitative indicators and benchmarks against the best in the world and tailored to the 
needs of different Member States and sector s as a means of comparing best practice; translating these 
European guidelines into national and regional policies by setting specific targets and adopting measures, taking into account natio nal and regional differences; periodic monitoring, evaluation and 
peer review organised as mutual learning processes. 
 
EN 19   EN 3.3. Operational objectives: improving the e ffectiveness and impact of the OMC in 
education and training 
The third level would be the mo st operational and consist of a ddressing specific elements in 
the way the OMC works. The suggestions for improvements can be grouped under the following headings, based on the problems identified in section 2.3: 
• To strengthen focus, political commitment and visibility.  
• To strengthen the involv ement of stakeholders.  
• To strengthen mutual learning. 
• To strengthen horizontal coordination acr oss education and training sectors.  
The timeframe for achieving the operational objective is fairly short-term. Most possible 
measures could be fully functioning within a year after the adoption of an updated strategic 
framework.  
Conclusions of section 3 
Three objectives are defined for an updated st rategic framework for Eu ropean cooperation in 
education and training: raising overall skills levels (long-term ), support countries in their 
education and training reforms (medium-term) and, finally, addressing specific elements to 
improve the effectiveness and impact of the OMC, notably through be tter focus, political 
commitment and visibility, stakeholder involvement, peer learning and horizontal 
coordination across education and training sectors (short-term). 
4. P OLICY OPTIONS  
Four policy options arise from the challenges and objectives identified in sections 2 and 3 
above. The four options are esse ntially described in terms of how the various measures under 
the OMC (in particular the setting of object ives, the organisation of mutual learning, 
monitoring and reporting, and the steering of th e OMC) vary according to the option. They 
reflect differing degrees of education and trai ning specificity, political commitment to the 
process of co-operation and invest ment in terms of resources.  
The four options can be br iefly described as follows: 
Option 1: No specific OMC for education and training  – abandon a specific OMC in 
education and training such as the Education & Training 2010  OMC and continue work under 
the overall Lisbon Strategy (notably  guidelines 8, 15, 23 and 24).  
Objectives would only be set und er the integrated guidelines for growth and jobs. Peer-
learning would be integrated into the existi ng mutual learning programmes, notably that 
forming part of the European Employment  Strategy. Reporting would be organised 
exclusively via the reporting on the impl ementation of the Lisbon national reform 
programmes. Education and training actors an d stakeholders would feed into the Lisbon 
process via the structures se t up under the macroeconomic, microeconomic and employment 
pillars of the Lisbon strategy, i.e. the Economic Policy Committee and the Employment 
 
EN 20   EN Committee. The Education Committee would remain  in place but its range of action would be 
limited (e.g. without join t progress reporting). 
As a sub-option a specific pe er-learning programme for edu cation and training could be 
developed to focus separately on education a nd training under the in tegrated guidelines. 
Option 2: Status quo (dynamic baseline scenario) - the OMC in education and training 
remains based on the objectives and working me thods developed under the existing Education 
& Training 2010 OMC. It should be  noted that the current OMC is  not static but has a certain 
dynamic element build in as both policy prio rities and working methods have undergone 
incremental changes based on the biennial joint progress reports and coul d also continue to do 
so in the future.  
Under this option however the cu rrent set of basic objectives agreed in 2001 would remain 
stable. New challenges especially of a transver sal nature such as mi gration or innovation and 
creativity could not be highlighted as specific priorities under the object ives agreed in 2001. 
Peer learning would continue to  be organised under thematic cl usters of countries interested 
in particular priorities as well as under the Copenhagen process. Reporting would continue to 
comprise biennial joint progress reports in their present format  (i.e. overall progress reports 
supported by horizontal thematic assessments and annual reports on progress in relation to 
indicators and benchmarks). The operationa l coordination of the OMC would continue 
through the Education & Training 2010 co-ord ination group. The Education & Training 2010 
OMC would continue to feed into the Lisbon re porting process at both national and European 
level.  
The OMC would continue to evolve through in cremental changes on the basis of gradual 
adaptations of the immediate objectives and the working methods in the context of the 
biennial joint progress reports . The current OMC (the Education and Training 2010 work 
programme), however, only covers the period until 2010 and hence has an implicitly built in "sunset clause". Continuation of the curre nt OMC beyond 2010 would hence also require a 
specific decision by the Comm ission and the Council. 
Option 3: Updated strategic framework - an update would aim to rationalise, simplify and 
improve the effectiveness of the OMC both in terms of objective-setting and working 
methods.  
An updated set of strategic objectives would be set to replace those agreed in 2002 and to 
increase the links between the challenges in  education and training policy and the overall 
Lisbon process as well as the renewed Social Agenda. These long-term  strategic objectives 
would be supported by a limited se t of immediate and flexible priorities (e.g. for 2009-11) 
with a stronger focus and a be tter reflection of recen t developments. Peer learning would also 
be streamlined and organised in a more lightwei ght and flexible way in order to adapt to the 
needs of specific themes and newly-emerging political priorities and the possibilities of performing peer-reviews will be explored. Th e biennial progress reports would include a 
stronger thematic focus and country-specific asse ssments providing a basis for the analysis of 
the education and training/skil ls component of the national Lisbon reform programmes and 
the preparation of the Lis bon country recommendations.  
Although it would remain an informal body, the strategic role of the existing High Level 
Group in defining and coordinating the OMC (setting priorities, steering, monitoring and 
 
EN 21   EN coordination across sectors) would be stre ngthened, feeding into Education Council 
discussions and conclusions.  
Option 4: A wider and deeper OMC - the OMC in education and training is expanded to 
develop simultaneous work in all dimensions and areas of education and training, including 
bilateral dialogue with al l Member States, and the working me thods would be reinforced in an 
ambitious manner.  
On the assumption that all elements of educatio n and training are equally important, the wider 
and deeper OMC would exclude no areas from ongoing cooperation at EU  level (i.e. instead 
of the thematic focus of option 3). A new set of specific objectives covering all education and 
training dimensions and areas would be deve loped, each linked with European benchmarks 
and concrete national targets. Peer learning would cover all specific priorities at the same time 
(no thematic priorities), peer review would be  used where necessary and, in general, the 
working methods would be expanded to cover all areas. Countries would be expected to take 
active part in any work where they might ha ve useful experience thus increasing their 
contribution to other countries' policy development.  
The focus on the specific developments in each country would be expanded considerably 
compared to option 3. Structured, bilate ral dialogue, monitoring and progress reporting 
(including joint reports) would b ecome annual (instead of bie nnial), including national action 
plans and country recommendations also under the education and training OMC.  
A legislative proposal would be  prepared to give the existing informal High Level Group a 
formal and higher political status similar to that of the Economic Policy Committee and the 
Employment Committee. 
Coordination and coherence within education an d training would be considerably enhanced to 
ensure that all processes are integrated as fa r as possible (e.g. the Copenhagen process would 
no longer continue separa tely) with the aim of achieving a fully consolidated lifelong learning 
policy framework at the Europ ean level. Mainstreaming and coordination of education and 
training with other policies (employment, social inclusion, innova tion, enterprise, and 
research) would be strengthened co nsiderably compared to option 3. 
4.1. Legal basis and the principle of subsidiarity 
The legal basis for the cooperation and support to  Member States’ policies in education and 
training and for this initiative can be found in  articles 149 and 150 of the Treaty. The options 
that have been examined are not conti ngent upon the adoption of the Lisbon Treaty. 
All the options fully respect the principle of subsidiarity  and it is entirely up to the Member 
States whether or not to pursue and implemen t the common objectives at the national level, 
choosing measures suitable in the context of their respectiv e circumstances. None of the 
proposals contained in any of the policy options departs from this  principle even if they are 
different in terms of the level of political co mmitment, coordination a nd peer pressure they 
envisage. Any European recommendations, guidelines, instruments etc. will continue to be developed on a voluntary basis after full consulta tion of Member States and stakeholders. No 
sanctions are possible or desi rable in the event a Member State not respecting them. No 
harmonisation is sought but a grad ual convergence may continue.  
 
EN 22   EN The OMC in education and traini ng is, therefore, built on Memb er States' voluntary political 
commitment, in order to achieve  better policy outcomes, to co -operate with and be supported 
by each other and the Commission, based on broa d common objectives and mutual learning. 
Member States have found that  the current OMC has provided added value  (in particular in 
relation to supporting national refo rms with the help of concre te tools developed through the 
process of co-operation, i.e. the recomme ndation on key competences, the EQF, Europass) 
and have expressed keen intere st in continued cooperation on these terms on key issues in 
education and training. As described in sect ion 2.3, they see the need  to strengthen the 
effectiveness of the OMC in certain ways to achieve better outcomes. As all the policy 
options are defined within the OMC, countries can decide preci sely how far they want to go 
and to what extent they want to commit themselves. Given the major challenges facing education and training systems and their crucial importance to  the Lisbon Strategy and the 
renewed Social Agenda, all of the options are considered proportional . However, given that 
education and training policies, especially on the organisation of national school systems, are 
sensitive in terms of Member States' responsib ilities, option 4 is cont roversial for certain 
countries because of the level of political co mmitment and co-operation Member States would 
be invited to accept across the board, includi ng a much more ambitious set of European 
benchmarks.  
Conclusions of section 4 
Four policy options are define d: no specific OMC for educati on and training, the status quo, 
an updated strategic framework and a wider an d deeper OMC. They each demand a different 
type of commitment from countries and worklo ad in terms of co-ope ration activities but all 
respect the principle of subsidiarity and ar e proportional to the major challenges facing 
education and training with in the Lisbon Strategy and renewed Social Agenda.  
5. A NALYSIS OF IMPACT  
The purpose of this initiative is to set out an  overall policy response, through the OMC, to the 
challenges facing European education and tr aining. Given the voluntary nature of the 
instrument (see Section 4.1 on the Legal basis and the principle of subsid iarity), impact could 
be analysed in several ways.  
Firstly, in terms of national policy making, countries have confirmed that the current OMC 
has been useful in supporting national policymaki ng in a number of ways, especially in terms 
of knowledge and evidence, and that its effect iveness can be improved (see sections 1.3 and 
2.3). Countries are however hesitant to confir m clear causal linkages between the OMC and 
their general policies except when it come s to very concrete tools such as the 
Recommendation on Key Competences51 and, especially, the European Qualifications 
Framework (EQF).52 The EQF is proving to be a dynami c catalyst for policy reform based on 
emerging national qualification fram eworks in nearly all countrie s, systems for the validation 
on non-formal and informal learning and a gr adual move towards the introduction of a 
learning outcomes approach.  
                                                 
51 OJ L 394/10 of 30.12.2006 
52 OJ C 111/1 of 6.5.2008 
 
EN 23   EN Secondly, a similar conclusion coul d be arrived at in terms of policy convergence, where  one 
can identify specific areas of convergence su ch as the gradual development of national 
lifelong learning strategies or th e momentum towards the modern isation of higher education, 
although in this case it is diffi cult to distinguish between th e effect of the OMC organised 
under the auspices of the EU and the intergovernmental Bologna Process.  
Thirdly, the most difficult assessment is wh ether the OMC is responsible for certain policy 
outcomes : for example does the OMC contribute to  increasing literacy or reducing early 
school leaving? Although the final aim is to im prove such outcomes, it is difficult to assess 
the impact of the OMC on the performance of e ducation and training systems in terms of the 
European average benchmarks (which is currently  disappointing) or of national targets (which 
do not exist in all countri es) due to the multitude of contributing factors.  
Although there is clear evidence of  the economic and social imp act of education and training 
(see section 2.2), the economic and social im pact of the OMC itself cannot always be 
measured in quantitative terms (and the future environmental impact of  education leading to 
innovation in clean technologies is  even more indirect and diffi cult to measure). Therefore, 
the appraisal of the proposed initiative is mo re of a qualitative eval uation of the potential 
effects of the OMC than of its immediat e consequences on policy outcomes, whether 
economic, social or environmental.  
This proposal is mainly concerned with improvi ng the effectiveness and impact of the OMC, 
both in terms of policy objectives  and working methods. In this context, the pertinent question 
is: will this proposal make the OMC a more effective tool for Eur opean cooperation in 
education and training within the context of the Li sbon and renewed Social Agendas, and for 
the achievement of common objectives and the re form of national policies and systems? On 
this basis, the following assessments are made on  the four options in relationship to the three 
objectives defined in section 3 (for a tabled ove rview of the likely impact of the four options 
in relation to each of the objectives descri bed in section 3 see table 3 in Annex 2): 
Option 1: No specific OMC for education and training 
General assessment 
The Lisbon guidelines 8, 15, 23 an d 24 have a strong education and training content (human 
capital development) and work to support coun tries education and trai ning policies could be 
carried out under these guidelines.  It would, however, have tw o complications. Firstly, these 
guidelines only address directly some objectiv es of education, primar ily those related to 
employment and competitiveness, while other ke y objectives, for example equity, citizenship 
and creativity, are not specifi ed. Secondly, the work on impl ementing the guidelines is 
managed by the ministries of employment a nd does not include education ministries and 
stakeholders. This would increase the problem  of inadequate owne rship and political 
commitment by the education and training wo rld and, most likely, would reduce the overall 
impact. Adding a sub-option of a separate peer-learning programme could compensate 
somewhat for stakeholders but it would still be insufficient because of the lack of political 
steering / commitment and the diminished st atus of the social, cultural and creative 
dimensions of education and training. It woul d thus, in reality, become a "do less" option 
which would not match the need for strong politic al focus on education and training in the 
Lisbon and renewed Social Agendas.  
 
EN 24   EN Assessment in relations to intermed iate and operational objectives  
The objective of supporting countries in their ed ucation and training policy reforms could be 
met to some extent as countries would still be supported through the Lisbon process. The risk is that work would be too disconnected fr om the actual work undertaken in education 
ministries (ministries of empl oyment, finance and ec onomic affairs are in the lead in most 
countries) and also in educat ional institutions. It would not  cover some of their major 
concerns (e.g. citizenship and intercultural dialogue) as it would only focus on lifelong 
learning from an employability perspective. 
As for the objective of improving the functioni ng of the OMC in education and training a 
specific OMC for education and training woul d be abandoned under this option and action 
would be restricted to the ar eas covered by the gui delines for jobs and growth. This would 
mean greater focus, but the risk is that impor tant stakeholders woul d disagree with that 
particular choice. This would risk increasi ng the problem of ownership and political 
commitment of key education a nd training stakeholders whose contribution is important to 
ensure implementation and impact. As there is  a substantial consen sus around the positive 
results of the OMC in education and training  and the wish to improve  and strengthen it, the 
abandonment of the specific OMC in education and training could also result in the loss of an 
important ' acquis '. It would be difficult to involve a number of stakeholders to whom the 
focus on jobs and growth is too narrow. These st akeholders would insist  on also dealing with 
other key dimension. It would be difficult to act ually strengthening mutu al learning under this 
option, as it will be more difficult to address the specific needs of education and training 
actors and stakeholders (although this could be  partially addressed by having a specific 
education training peer learning  programme). Better horizontal coordination between different 
sectors of education and traini ng (schools, vocational educati on and training, higher education 
and adult learning) would be equally difficult as this objectiv e is too specific to be addressed 
in the overall broad-based Lisbon strategy. 
Option 2: Status quo 
General assessment 
This option has proved to have been useful with some results but the impact has been 
insufficient due to inadequate national visib ility, political commitme nt and implementation, 
and also insufficient stakeholder involvement. Fu rthermore, the original  detailed objectives do 
not currently reflect fully th e current priorities and work  actually being done under the 
existing OMC. Without an updating strategic framework, an increased focus and greater 
flexibility, the existing work programme would continue to be out of touch with current 
challenges and future needs, th e renewed Social Agenda and Me mber States' recent requests 
for an improved OMC in education and training.  
Assessment in relations to intermed iate and operational objectives  
The objective of supporting count ries in their education and training policy reforms has 
clearly been met to a certai n extent under the current OMC and with good re sults, but not 
enough to ensure sufficient impact, except in very specific areas. 
Improving the functioning of the OMC in educa tion and training would be difficult under the 
current OMC as the detailed objectives agreed in 2001 no longer reflect fully the priorities done at this point in time. Continuing with the existing work programme would thus not 
 
EN 25   EN reflect the current and increase the problems of  ensuring political commitment and visibility. 
In particular, new challenges such as migra tion or creativity and in novation could not be 
highlighted as specific priorities under the obj ectives agreed in 2001. This option would also 
not sufficiently address the weaknesses of the cu rrent OMC. The European  social partners are 
currently fully involved, while European stak eholders in educati on and training do not 
participate in all activities and show a lack of commitment to the OMC. Mutual learning 
already exists, but the problem of insufficien t flexibility, visibility, impact and political 
follow-up would not be addresse d. Horizontal coordination acro ss areas has experienced some 
success through promoting the c oncept of lifelong learning, but there are still parallel 
developments in the different education and tr aining sectors (schools, VET, HE, adults) both 
at the European and national levels. 
 
EN 26   EN Option 3: Updated strategic framework 
General assessment 
This option takes into account that, although the original challenges to education and training 
systems remain, new ones have emerged as ha ve certain weaknesses of the current OMC. 
Countries are supportive of the e ducation and training OMC as an  instrument for co-operation 
and reform but have pointed to a number of potential improvements to its effectiveness which 
could be addressed in a clearl y visible way in this option. An updated strategic framework 
would ensure that the OMC could be strengt hened and working methods streamlined while 
the degree of coordination and de velopment at EU level would re main at an acceptable level 
for Member States. The OMC would become a more  strategic and flexible  tool supporting the 
Lisbon and Social Agendas and, thus, could be come more dynamic with a greater impact at 
the higher political levels and on policy outcomes for the benefit of citizens, the economy and society. 
Assessment in relations to intermed iate and operational objectives  
The objective of supporting countries in their ed ucation and training policy reforms could be 
strengthened by being more pr ioritised and focused on specifi c and relevant needs. More 
focus on immediate priorities c ould increase impact. Countries ha ve expressed support for the 
idea of such an updated strategic framework li nked more closely to the Lisbon and renewed 
Social Agendas. 
To improve the functioning of the OMC in education and training a simplified work 
programme in terms of fewer but more strate gic objectives could in crease attention and 
commitment. Countries are supportive of the OMC but have requested improvements which 
this option would provide. An updated fram ework would strengthen the OMC while the 
coordination and development at EU level would remain at an acceptable level to countries. A 
more systematic involvement of relevant stak eholders in thematic peer learning and policy 
development, and in consultation on the st eering of the OMC, could increase their 
commitment and their contribution to impl ementing the objectives. More flexible and 
lightweight methods with pla nned outputs could allow more effective mutual learning on 
newly-emerging priorities. Enha ncing the role of the High Level Group could improve the 
strategic steering of peer learning on priorities and ensure better use of its results for policy-
making and Ministers. A new set of strategic obj ectives with a lifelong pe rspective, covering 
all education and training sect ors and enhancing the role of  the High Level Group could 
contribute to achieving better coordination across educati on and training sectors.  
Option 4: A wider and deeper OMC 
General assessment 
While this option could increase the potential  impact, it could also be unrealistic and over-
ambitious. In particular, given the political sens itivity of the policy area, some countries might 
not be willing to accept and endorse this leve l of political commitment, activity and scrutiny 
of their performance. Also, it would demand c onsiderably increased human resources from 
both Member States and the Commission at a time  of tight budgetary constraints. The option 
is so ambitious in terms of resource implications that it is actually likely to be counterproductive in terms of achieving the defined objectives. 
 
EN 27   EN Assessment in relations to working methods objectives  
Support to countries would be increased substan tially as work would be done in all areas of 
education and training. This option would, however , run the risk of ove rburdening administra-
tions and education and training systems beca use it requires co-ope ration on a very broad 
range of topics at the same time and ther efore a heavy commitment in terms of human 
resources for both Member States and the Commission.  
When it comes to the objective of improving the functioning of the OMC such a 
comprehensive approach requiring all countries to get involved in a large number of topics 
would be the opposite of increasing focus. It is unlikely that c ountries would agree to such a 
broad approach. They expressed cl ear interest in a more selective approach, i.e. to concentrate 
on issues that they regard as high political priori ties also at the nationa l level. There may be a 
high degree of visibility, but it is doubtful that  this would actually improve implementation, as 
it will be less likely to meet national priorities. Some countries might also feel that this option 
starts to come into conflict with the principle of  proportionality. There would be a certain 
potential for involving stakeholde rs better but again this would require substantial resources 
as work would be done in many areas at the sa me time. This option mi ght strengthen mutual 
learning, but participation in a comprehensive set of peer learning activities across many areas 
would be too resource intensive for both Member States and the Commission. Strict 
coordination mechanisms would have to be put  in place for this comprehensive option which 
could have positive impact.  
Conclusions of section 5  
The impact of the OMC on national policy ma king and policy convergence is challenging to 
assess for all four options. It is, in particular, difficult to show robust evidence of casual 
linkage between the OMC and na tional policy outcomes in terms of quantifiable results. 
Based on the experience to date, the current OM C is clearly perceived by Member States and 
stakeholders as contributing to national pol icy development but with areas requiring 
improvement. Strengthening its effectiveness th rough either option 3 or  4 would, therefore, 
most likely, increase its overall impact on the reform of national systems contributing to the 
Lisbon and renewed Social Agendas. 
6. C OMPARING THE OPTIONS  
As a precise quantification of the economic, social and environmental impacts of the OMC 
itself is difficult, as explained earlier the f our options are compared on the basis of their 
impact on the objectives  to be achieved (see section 5) and on the basis of their feasibility. 
The concept of feasibility refers to: political acceptance, availability of human resources and 
the administrative burden, and the extent to which instruments are available. The estimates are rough as no elements are available to calcula te precise impacts. Please note that a dynamic 
baseline scenario has been chosen to present a realistic picture of the current OMC. This 
means that also the current OMC can change in crementally through the bi ennial joint progress 
reports hence some progress might be possibl e even under this scenario. The ranking of 
impacts and feasibility is defined as in the table below: 
Table 1 - Ranking criteria 
 ++ + 0 - -- 
Impact positive impact small positive 
impact  neutral impact   small negative 
impact negative impact 
Feasibility  feasible  more or less feasible  feasibility difficult to 
assess slightly difficult difficult  
 
EN 28   EN Table 2 - Comparing the policy options with regard to the impa ct on the problems addressed and the rating of feasibility 
Rating of impact on the problems addressed in terms of 
objectives (based on section 5 and Table 3 in Annex 2)  Rating of feasibility  
 
Objective to be 
achieved  No specific 
OMC for 
education and 
training 
(Option 1) Status quo  
(Option 2) 
DYNAMIC 
BASELINE Updated 
strategic 
framework  
(Option 3) Wider and 
deeper OMC  
(Option 4) No specific 
OMC for 
education and 
training 
(Option 1) Status quo 
(Option 2) 
DYNAMIC 
BASELINE Updated 
strategic 
framework  
(Option 3) Wider and 
deeper OMC  
(Option 4) 
Improve skills 
levels in the 
population 
(including 
citizenship etc.)  - + + + - + + - 
Support 
countries in 
reforming their 
education and 
training policies - + ++ ++ 0 + ++ + 
Improve the 
functioning of 
the OMC in 
education and 
training  - - 0 ++ + - - 0 ++ + 
 
EN 29   EN Based on the describtion and analysis of impact s and feasibility in the tables 1 and 3 the 
following conclusions can be draw n regarding the four options: 
Option 1: No specific OMC for education and training 
The Lisbon guidelines 8, 15, 23 an d 24 have a strong education and training content (human 
capital) and work to support countries educatio n and training policies could be carried out 
under these guidelines. As illustrated in table 3 the option would, however, fall short of 
impact expectations due to a certain disconnection with stakeholders in education and training. Furthermore, it cannot be considered feasible as it would not  reflect the political 
mandate for a high political profile for educatio n and training not only in the Lisbon Strategy 
but also in the renewed Social Agenda. Fina lly, it would not meet the expectations of 
countries and stakeholders for a comprehensiv e lifelong learning definition of the relevant 
dimensions in education and tr aining (including equity, citi zenship and creativity) or their 
requests for a strengthened OM C in education and training. 
Option 2: Status quo 
While this option has been useful and produ ced positive results, the impact has been 
insufficient due to inadequate national visibi lity, political commitment and implementation 
and also insufficient stakeholder involvement. It  would, of course, conti nue to have a certain 
impact but this would be insufficient gi ven persistent problem s and new challenges. 
Furthermore, the original detailed objectives do not adequately reflect the work currently 
being done under the OMC. 
Option 3: Updated strategic framework 
Countries are supportive of the OMC but have poin ted to a number of ar eas where they would 
like to see it strengthened. They have also i ndicated their support for a more strategic 
approach. This option would meet the demand s for a more strategic and dynamic approach 
and would attract more political attention and commitment which should increase impact. An 
updated strategic framework would provide a stronger and more effective OMC while the 
coordination and development at EU level would remain at an acceptable level to countries. 
Option 4: A wider and deeper OMC 
The potential impact of this comprehensiv e option would be high  were it not for the 
considerable extra political and administrative commitment expected from countries. The 
increased cooperation would provide expande d support to countries but the OMC would 
become so all-encompassing that but it could be  very difficult to manage. Both the level of 
commitment in terms of extra human resources and the sensitivity of such an approach for Member States undermine the f easibility of this option.  
Conclusions of section 6  
While the different options all have their adva ntages, it is clear that  only option 3 meets the 
demands for the OMC to have a greater impact on increasi ng overall skills levels and on 
national reforms of education a nd training systems and to become  a more effective instrument 
of co-operation and policy developmen t. This option is also feasible. 
 
EN 30   EN 7. M ONITORING AND EVALUATION  
As indicated in section 5, the results and impact s of the OMC in educatio n and training can be 
principally monitored and ev aluated in terms of the impact on both nati onal policy-making 
and policy convergence. Policy outputs can be primarily mon itored as direct outcomes of the 
national systems.  
Evaluation of the OMC would normally take pla ce through biennial joint progress reports and 
adaptations will be made on a regular basis. However, the definitive reporting mechanism of the updated framework would be determined in  the context of future discussions on the 
Lisbon strategy. 
To monitor the impacts of an updated stra tegic framework on national policy-making, one 
instrument is already available:  biennial national reports as i nput to the OMC's biennial joint 
progress reports. This would, as far as possible,  be strengthened and adapted to the needs of 
an updated framework. No new instruments are needed. On a regular basis, the High Level 
Group representing Member States would assume  a more comprehensive and strategic role, 
providing feedback and monito ring, ensuring coherence and coordination of the OMC and 
advising the Education Council.  
The monitoring and evaluation of policy converg ence and outcomes would take place via the 
biennial joint progress reports and, especia lly for policy outcomes, via the annual progress 
reports on indicators and benchmarks. The effectiv eness of the biennial joint progress reports 
would benefit from a new emphasis on thematic priorities and by including assessments of the 
situation in indi vidual countries.  
Dialogue and consultations with  the European social partners and education and training 
stakeholders will be expanded and structured through annual Stakeholders’ Forums. This would constitute a change from the current OM C where they have been involved more on an 
individual basis, in smalle r groups or on a case by case basis. This would provide an 
additional basis for feedback to monitor the actual results and impact of the OMC.  
Possible success indicators on the OMC could be:  
• Successful consensus building on key policy initiatives and on  coordination across sectors 
• The extent to which we can identify policy developments in Member States related to the 
areas in which peer l earning has taken place  
• Increased interest by national stakeholders to respond to awareness rais ing calls (awareness 
of the policy priorities) 
• Regular and fruitful dialogue with European  stakeholders through annual Stakeholders' 
Forum’s and through the successful set-up of a Lifelong learning Platform (a platform of 
European civil society stakehol ders in the field of  lifelong learning which would provide a 
more stable basis for contributions to policy development, the identification of best practices and function as a multiplier vis-à-vis stakeholders and civil society in general at national level). 
 
EN 31   EN Conclusions of section 7  
The mechanisms to monitor and evaluate the impact on national policy-making, policy 
convergence and policy outcomes of the OMC in e ducation and training already exist in the 
form of biennial joint progress reports and a nnual reports on indicators and benchmarks. Their 
effectiveness would be strengthened by an emph asis on thematic priorities, the inclusion of 
country assessments and improved feedback from Member States and stakeholders.  
 
EN 32   EN LIST OF REFERENCES  
Allen, J. and van der Velden, R. (eds) (2007), "T he Flexible Profession al in the Knowledge 
Society: General Results of the REFLEX Project ", Research Centre for the Education and the 
Labour Market, Maastricht University, The Netherlands.  
CEDEFOP (2008), Future Skill Needs in Europe. Medium-term forecast, Synthesis report.  
Centre d'analyse stratégique (2007), Les métiers  en 2015, report, La documentation française  
Dustman C., Ludsteck C., Schönberg U. (2007), "Revisiting the German  Wage Structure", 
IZA Discussion Paper, no. 2685, March 
De la Fuente A., (2003), Human Capital in a Global and Knowledge-Based Economy, Part II: 
Assessment at the EU Country Level, Repor t for the European Commission, Directorate-
General for Employment  and Social Affairs 
De la Fuente A., Ciccone A. (2002), Human Ca pital and Growth in a Global and Knowledge-
Based Economy, Report for the European Comm ission, Directorate-Gene ral for Employment 
and Social Affairs 
European Commission ( 2006), SEC(2006) 1096, Accompa nying document to the 
Communication "Efficiency and equity in Eu ropean education and training systems" 
COM(2006) 481  
European Commission (2008) , Progress Report - Indicators and benchmarks 2008, 
SEC(2008) 2293 
EENEE (European Experts Network on the Economi cs of Education) (2007), The Costs of 
School Failure. A Feasibility  Study, Analytical Report fo r the European Commission 
Goos M. and Manning A. (2007), "Lousy and lovely  jobs; the rising pola rization of work in 
Britain", Review of Economics and Statistics, 89 (1), 118-133. 
Gornitzka, Ase, The Open Meth od of Coordination as practice – A watershed in European 
education policy? ARENA working paper No. 16, Oslo, December 2006. 
Hanusek E. and Woessmann L. (2007), "The role  of education quality in economic growth", 
The World Bank, Policy Research Working Paper 4122 
Leitch Review of Skills (2006), Prosperity for a ll in the global economy - world class skills, 
Final report  
Machin S. (2004), ‘Skill Biased Technology Ch ange and Educational Outcomes’, in G. 
Johnes and J. Johnes (eds.) International Handbook of the Economics of Education, (2004) 
Nicaise, Idesbald (ed.) "European Education and Training Systems in the Second Decennium 
of the Lisbon Strategy" Joint Analytical Repor t for the European Commission prepared by the 
European Expert Network on Economics of Edu cation (EENEE) and the Network of experts 
in the Social Sciences of Education (NESSE). 
OECD (2007); Education at glance, Paris: OECD   
 
EN 33   EN ANNEX  1: OVERVIEW OF THE OBJECTIVES AND THE BENCHMARKS AND CORE INDICATORS 
IN THE CURRENT OMC  "EDUCATION AND TRAINING 2010" 
Overview of the objectives of the current OMC "Education and Training 2010"  
"Future objectives of educati on and training systems" (2001):  
1. Improving the quality and effectiveness of education and training systems 
1.1 Improving education and training for teachers 
1.2 Developing skills for the knowledge society 1.3 Ensuring access to ICT for everyone 1.4 Increasing recruitment to scie ntific and technical studies 
1.5 Making best use of resources 
2. Facilitating the access of all to  education and training systems 
2.1 Creating an open learning environment 
2.2 Making learning attractive 2.3 Supporting active citizenship, equal opportunities and social cohesion 
3. Opening up education and traini ng systems to the wider world 
3.1 Strengthening the links with work and research and society at large 
3.2 Developing the spirit of enterprise 3.3. Improving foreign language learning 3.4 Increasing mobility and exchange 3.5 Strengthening European co-operation 
Overview of benchmarks and core indicators currently in use in "Education and 
Training 2010"  
Benchmarks set in 2003  
The reference levels of European average pe rformance (benchmarks), to be achieved by 2010, 
are: 
• Not more than 10% early school leavers;  
• To cut the percentage of low-achievi ng pupils in literacy by at least 20%;  
• At least 85% of young peopl e to complete upper s econdary education;  
• Increase the number of unive rsity graduates in mathema tics, science and technology 
(MST) by at least 15%, and to  decrease the gender imbalance in these subjects;  
• 12.5% of the adult population should participate in lifelong learning.  
Core indicators  
1. Participation in pre-school education  2. Special needs education 3. Early school leavers 4. Literacy in reading, mathematics and science 
 
EN 34   EN 5. Language skills 
6. ICT skills 7. Civic skills 8. Learning to learn skills  9. Upper secondary completion rates of young people 10. Professional development of teachers and trainers  11. Higher education graduates 12. Cross-national mobility of students in higher education 13. Participation of adults in lifelong learning 
14. Adult skills 
15. Educational attainme nt of the population  
16. Investment in education and training 
 
EN 35   EN ANNEX  2: DESCRIPTION OF THE EDUCATION AND TRAINING 2010  WORK PROGRAMME  
The Education and Training 2010 work programme in its current form provides a framework 
for policy cooperation between Member States and the Commission in e ducation and training. 
The main elements of the open method of co-o rdination (OMC) in education and training are 
(1) a set of common objectives, (2) a proce ss of reporting and monitoring on progress, (3) 
peer learning, and (4) age nda-setting Communications fro m the Commission and (5) the 
development of EU reference tools supporting national reforms (e.g. the recommendations on 
key competences, on quality assurance in vo cational education and training or higher 
education or the European Qualifications Framework. These actions are complemented by 
pilot actions and the testing of new appro aches through the Lifelong Learning Programme. 
Common objectives 
One of the crucial milestones for EU cooperatio n in education and training was the definition 
by the Council in 2002 of thirteen objectives (please see annex 1 of this report for an 
overview of the 13 objectives)  grouped around three strategic goals  1. Quality and 
effectiveness 2. Access for all 3. Opening up to the wider world. These objectives guided work in the initial phase of the work programme  and in particular the setting up of specific 
thematic working groups (2002-2005). 
Another milestone was the adoption in May 2003 of five European benchmarks  (please see 
annex 1 of this report for a li st of the 16 core indi cators attached to th e benchmarks) to be 
achieved by 2010: (1) No more than 10% early school  leavers; (2) Decrease  of at least 20% in 
the percentage of low-achieving pupils in reading literacy; (3) At least 85% of young people should have completed upper secondary education; (4) Increase of at least 15% in the number 
of tertiary graduates in Mathematics, Scie nce and Technology (MST), with a simultaneous 
decrease in the gender imbal ance; (5) 12.5% of the adult p opulation should participate in 
lifelong learning. 
The 13 objectives have however never been th e only policy framework guiding education and 
training policy cooperation at the European level.  Other detailed objectives were set in the  
• 2000 Action Plan for Mobility  / 2001 Recommendation  of the European Parliament and 
of the Council on mobility for students, persons undergoing  training, volunteers, teachers 
and trainers;  
• the lifelong learning  communication and reso lution of 2001 and 2002;  
• the Copenhagen  process for European cooperation in  vocational education and training 
established in 2002; 
• the intergovernmental Bologna  process and, since 2003, with a growing recognition of the 
importance of higher education for the Lisbon  agenda, important agenda-setting 
Communications from the Commission and subsequent  Council resolutions in higher 
education .  
• 
The 2006 Commission Communicati on and Council resolution on " Efficiency and equity  
in European education and training systems" 
• The 2006/07  Communication and action plan for adult learning . 
 
EN 36   EN In addition, as the EU's overall strategy for education and training takes place within the 
broader Lisbon process , the EU's priorities for education and training are also defined in the  
Lisbon  integrated guidelines  for jobs and growth which include important references to 
innovation (GL 8), entrepreneurship education (GL 15), investment in human capital (GL 23) 
and adapting education and training systems in  response to new competence requirements 
(GL 24).  
Hence, since the adoption of the first joint progress report in 2004, the biennial reporting 
process fulfils an impo rtant function of brin ging together, under a single umbrella , these  
different strands of policy development. In rea lity, however, there is a natural tension between 
the different education and trai ning sectors (schools, VET, HE, adult learning) operating 
independently and the need to address cross-cutting issues. 
Finally, all three joint reports adopted since 2004 have also had the important function of 
defining new priorities  for the next 2 years ahead and thus to adapt the political objectives in 
view of newly emerging issues. This has step-by- step modified the role of the 13 objectives as 
guiding principles of the OMC.  
The policy paradigm which has been central fo r the OMC in education and training during the 
last years is lifelong learning . The lifelong learning paradigm ha s had the merit of attracting 
our attention both to the very early (pre-primary) and later phases of lear ning in the life-cycle 
(continuing training, adult learning). Its main distinctive feature, however, is its holistic 
approach. While allowing for a focus on different education and training sectors (e.g. schools, 
higher education, VET, adults),  it emphasises that education and training policy must deal 
with transversal issues which cannot be treated in these different sectors alone; it raises the 
issues of the relation between formal, non-formal and informal learning53 and the interactions 
between different sectors. Examples of such transversal issues are:  
– Which type of key competences are needed to pr epare people for learning at later times of 
their life?  
– How to improve transition between the different  education and training sectors and flexible 
career pathways (e.g. through the promoti on of a learning outcomes approach)? 
– How does the performance of a particular sect or, e.g. schools, affect citizens' access to 
other levels, e.g. higher education or adult learning/conti nuing training?  
– How to assess and set policy priorities for education and training policies as a whole? 
The lifelong learning paradigm has been e nhanced by the 2006 Commission Communication 
and Council resolution on efficiency and equity  in education and training. As it 
demonstrated, the dual challenge of efficiency and equity can actually be used to address 
individual E&T sectors separate ly while it can also be used  to look at E&T systems as a 
whole.  
                                                 
53 This is often referred to as the dimension of "lifewide" learning 
 
EN 37   EN Monitoring and reporting  
Indicators and benchmarks play an essentia l role in Education and Training 2010. They are 
key elements of evidence-based policy making a nd the monitoring of progress essential to the 
Lisbon process. Thus a comprehensive set of indicators and benchmarks  has been developed 
as a basis for the biennial Joint reports  of the Council and the Commission on the 
implementation of Education and Training 201 0 and the preparation of the Commission's 
annual progress reports on i ndicators and benchmarks.  
In May 2003, the Education Council adopted five  European average performance benchmarks 
in the areas of early school leaving, reading literacy, secondary attainment, mathematics, 
science and technology graduates and adults' pa rticipation in lifelong learning. In May 2007, 
it concluded on a coherent framework of 16 core  indicators for monitoring progress towards 
the Lisbon objectives54.  
Since 2004, Member States reports every two years on the implementation of the work 
programme at national level, on the basis of which the C ouncil and the Commission adopt a 
Joint Report on the overall progress in impl ementing Education and Training 2010, including 
the identification of policy priorities for the immediate future. National reports are analysed in detail in a Staff Working Do cument supporting the Commissi on's Draft Joint Report which 
provides a horizontal thematic anal ysis by education and training sector
55.  
In addition, the Commission produces every y ear a Staff Working Document on progress 
made in relation to the indicators and benchmarks56. 
Finally, education and training also has a pr ominent place in many countries' Lisbon national 
reform programmes for growth and jobs and th e related reports. These are assessed in the 
Commission's Lisbon Annual Progress Reports  and followed-up, where appropriate, by 
country-specific recommendations of the Council57 on education, traini ng, lifelong learning 
and skills. It follows therefore that national re porting in the area of education and training and 
under the Lisbon process should be closely linked. 
Peer learning activities, clusters, working groups and networks 
Peer learning as defi ned in the Lisbon strategy in 2000 is  a central element of the OMC in 
education and training and, as confirmed by the di scussions in the Educa tion Council, is seen 
as a crucial tool with consider able potential to s upport education and training reforms. In 
order to improve and streamline th e OMC, the question is how to organise peer learning in the 
most efficient and effective way so that it has a real impact – the 2008 Joint Report stressed 
the importance of "ensuring that the results of peer-learning activities reach policy makers and 
ministers". And how to ensure that it is flexible and lightwei ght enough to respond to 
evolving high-level priorities within a limited timescale.  
The existing peer learning activities (PLAs) under Education and Training 2010 are mainly 
organised, planned and prepared through 8 thema tic clusters (groups of countries with a 
                                                 
54 http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUri Serv.do?uri=OJ:C:2007:311:0013:0015:EN:PDF  
55 For the 2008 Joint Progress Report see Official Journal C 86/1 of 5.4. 2008 
56 Latest Progress Report – Indicators and benchmarks 2008, SEC (2008) 2293 
57 Recommendations based on articles 99 and 128 of the Treaty 
 
EN 38   EN particular interest in a given topic). The clusters, which effec tively started peer learning in 
2006, were designed as a lighter structure (each Member State only participating in a limited 
number of clusters) than the previous work ing groups established in 2001 which addressed 
the 13 common objectives.  
The cluster themes and priorities in 2005/0658 were agreed with Member States. While several 
of the clusters aimed to support the national im plementation of agreed European principles 
(e.g. the key competences recommendation), others  aim to build a reflection on new thematic 
priorities (e.g. higher education,  access and social inclusion, learning outcomes). On average 
each cluster has organised 4 meetings per annum , including peer learning activities hosted by 
Member States. 
The clusters are not, however, the only Europe an education and training groups organising 
peer-learning activities.  For example, peer-learning has also been carri ed out under the 
Copenhagen process as a result of meetings of  the Directors General for Vocational Education 
and Training and the recently created adult le arning working group will also initiate peer 
learning. In the area of quality assurance (for highe r education and VET) and guidance, EU 
reference tools are also followed up by Euro pean networks managed by Member States 
(ENQA-HE, ENQA-VET, the European Lifelong Guidance Policy Network).  
Steering of the process 
The political steering of the OMC takes place through the Counc il and, since 2005, the 
implementation and coordination of the OMC is in the hands of the Education and Training 
2010 Coordination Group (ETCG)59. In addition, since 2002, a High Level Group  with 
representatives of all Member States is convened at leas t twice a year on the initiative of 
upcoming presidencies to discuss the political prio rities of these presidencies in the field of 
education and training, includ ing key issues arising concer ning the OMC and its future 
development.  
                                                 
58 The clusters deal with the following issues: Mode rnising Higher Education, Best use of Resources, 
Teachers and Trainers, Access and Social Inclusio n, Math, Science and Technology, Key Competences, 
ICT, Recognition of Learning Outcomes. 
59 Members of the ETCG are all participating co untries and the European social partners. 
 
EN 39   EN ANNEX  3: TABLE 3 - OVERVIEW OF THE FOUR OPTIONS CONSIDERED IN TERMS OF IMPACT  
Objective to be 
achieved  Option 1   
No specific OMC for education 
and training  Option 2  
Status quo (baseline scenario)  Option 3  
Updated strategic framework  Option 4  
Wider and deeper OMC  
Improve skill levels in 
the population  The objective would not be fully 
met as action would be limited to 
certain objectives of education and 
training covered by the guidelines for jobs and growth. Questionable 
whether the whole population and 
all forms and levels of education 
and training could be addressed. It is difficult to prove that the 
current OMC has contributed 
directly but, in any event, there 
has been insufficient national progress towards this objective 
(see lack of results compared to 
benchmarks, section 2.3). 
Improvements could be made 
within the current method, but these might not be sufficient to 
contribute to significant progress.  If objectives were set more 
strategically, with a limited 
number of pertinent high-level 
objectives and national targets, and the working methods were 
made more effective, the overall 
impact of the OMC on this 
objective could be enhanced.  Objective could, in theory be met, 
in particular as all areas are 
potentially important to the 
success of education and training systems. But this would depend on 
overcoming difficulties in terms of 
Member States' commitment to 
this option and its practical imple-
mentation.  
Support countries in reforming their education and training 
policies 
 Countries would continue to be 
supported through the Lisbon process. The risk is that work 
would be too disconnected from 
the actual work undertaken in education ministries (ministries of 
employment, finance and econo-
mic affairs are in the lead in most 
countries) and also in educational 
institutions. It would not cover 
some of their major concerns as it would only focus on lifelong 
learning from an employability 
perspective.  Has already provided support to 
countries and with good results, but not enough to ensure sufficient 
impact, except in certain specific 
areas.  Support could be more prioritised 
and focused on specific and relevant needs. More focus on 
immediate priorities could 
increase impact. Countries have expressed support for the idea of 
such an updated strategic 
framework linked more closely to the Lisbon and renewed Social 
Agendas. Support to countries would be 
increased substantially as work would be done in all areas of 
education and training. This 
option would, however, run the risk of overburdening administra-
tions and education and training 
systems because it requires co-operation on a very broad range of 
topics at the same time and 
therefore a heavy commitment in terms of human resources.  
Improve the functioning of the 
OMC in education 
and training  
•      

 
EN 40   EN Objective to be 
achieved  Option 1   
No specific OMC for education 
and training  Option 2  
Status quo (baseline scenario)  Option 3  
Updated strategic framework  Option 4  
Wider and deeper OMC  
• To strengthen focus, 
political 
commitment and 
visibility  
 As a specific OMC for education 
and training would be abandoned, 
action would be restricted to the 
areas covered by the guidelines for jobs and growth. This would mean 
greater focus, but the risk is that 
important stakeholders would disagree with that particular 
choice. This would risk increasing 
the problem of ownership and 
political commitment of key 
education and training stake-holders whose contribution is 
important to ensure implemen-
tation and impact. As there is a substantial consensus around the 
positive results of the OMC in 
education and training  and the 
wish to improve and strengthen it, 
the abandonment of the specific 
OMC in education and training could also result in the loss of an 
important ' acquis '. As the detailed objectives agreed 
in 2002 no longer reflect the 
actual work being done at this 
point in time, continuing with the existing work programme would 
not reflect the current OMC and 
increase the problems of ensuring political commitment and 
visibility. This option would not 
sufficiently address the 
weaknesses of the current OMC. A simplified work programme in 
terms of fewer but more strategic 
objectives could increase attention 
and commitment. Visibility would be strengthened by setting a small 
number of high level political 
objectives.  Countries are 
supportive of the OMC but have 
requested improvements which 
this option would provide. An 
updated framework would 
strengthen the OMC while the coordination and development at 
EU level would remain at an 
acceptable level to countries.  
 Such a comprehensive approach would be the opposite of 
increasing focus. It is unlikely that 
countries would agree to such an approach for reasons related to the 
resources needed for its 
implementation and because they already prefer a more selective 
approach, i.e. to concentrate on 
issues that they regard as high 
political priorities also at the 
national level. There may be a high degree of visibility, but it is 
doubtful that this would actually 
improve implementation, as it will be less likely to meet national 
priorities. Some countries might 
also feel that this option starts to come into conflict with the 
principle of proportionality. 
• To strengthening the 
involvement of stakeholders.  
 Many education and training 
stakeholders would not be attracted, as they will find the 
focus on jobs and growth too 
narrow and would insist on also 
dealing with the other key 
dimension  The European social partners are 
fully involved, while European stakeholders in education and 
training do not participate in all 
activities and show a lack of 
commitment to the OMC.  A more systematic involvement of 
relevant stakeholders in thematic peer learning and policy 
development, and in consultation 
on the steering of the OMC, could 
increase their commitment and 
their contribution to implementing the objectives.  Potentially positive impact. 

 
EN 41   EN Objective to be 
achieved  Option 1   
No specific OMC for education 
and training  Option 2  
Status quo (baseline scenario)  Option 3  
Updated strategic framework  Option 4  
Wider and deeper OMC  
• Strengthening 
mutual learning  
 Hard to achieve under this option, 
as it will be more difficult to 
address the specific needs of 
education and training actors and stakeholders (although this could 
be partially addressed by having a 
specific education training peer learning programme). Peer learning alr eady exists, but 
the problem of insufficient 
flexibility, visibility, impact and 
political follow-up would not be addressed. More flexible and lightweight 
methods with planned outputs 
could allow more effective work 
on newly-emerging priorities. Enhancing the role of the High 
Level Group could improve the 
strategic steering of peer learning on priorities and ensure better use 
of its results for policy-making 
and Ministers. Potentially positive, but 
participation in a comprehensive 
set of peer learning activities 
across many areas would be too resource intensive for both 
Member States and the 
Commission.  
• Strengthening 
coordination across 
education and training sectors.  
 Would be difficult to meet as this 
objective is too specific to be 
addressed in the overall broad-based Lisbon strategy. Some success through promoting 
the concept of lif elong learning, 
but there are still parallel developments in the different 
education and training sectors 
(schools, VET, HE, adults) both at the European and national levels.  A new set of strategic objectives 
with a lifelong perspective, 
covering all education and training sectors and enhancing the role of 
the High Level Group could 
contribute to achieving this objective. Potentially positive impact. 

 
EN 42   EN