[pic] | COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES |

Brussels, 10.11.2005

SEC(2005) 1415

COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT

Annex to the : COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION Modernising education and training: a vital contribution to prosperity and social cohesion in Europe Draft 2006 joint progress report of the Council and the Commission on the implementation of the “Education & Training 2010 work programme” {COM(2005) 549 final

Table of contents

1. Introduction 6

2. The development of national policies and the Lisbon agenda 8

2.1. The Lisbon strategy in national policies 8

2.2. Evidence of a growing relationship between the Education and Training 2010 work programme and national developments 9

2.3. In-country mechanisms to coordinate national policies with Education and Training 2010 10

2.4. The impact of international comparative data on shaping national initiatives 11

2.5. Conclusions 12

3. Investing more and more efficiently: focussing reform on the key areas 12

3.1. Priorities for reform and investment 12

3.2. Increasing levels of investment 14

3.3. Measures to increase individual/household investment 15

3.3.1. Cost Sharing 15

3.3.2. Tax incentives 16

3.3.3. Vouchers 16

3.4. Measures to increase employer investment 16

3.4.1. Tax incentives 16

3.4.2. Co-financing 17

3.5. Increasing the Efficiency of Investment 18

3.5.1. Decentralisation 18

3.5.2. Funding Systems 18

3.5.3. Improving management 19

3.6. Monitoring Effectiveness 19

3.7. Conclusions 20

4. Putting in place coherent and comprehensive lifelong learning strategies 21

4.1. Progress in adopting national lifelong learning strategies 21

4.2. Coherence and comprehensiveness of strategies 21

4.3. Progress towards implementing lifelong learning objectives 23

4.3.1. Participation rates of adult learners 23

4.3.2. Key competences 25

4.3.3. Non-formal learning 27

4.3.4. National Qualifications Frameworks 27

4.3.5. Partnerships 28

4.3.6. Education and training of teachers 29

4.3.7. Information and Communication Technology (ICT) 29

4.3.8. Lifelong Guidance 29

4.3.9. Pre-school education 30

4.4. Obstacles to creating a culture of lifelong learning in Europe 30

4.5. Conclusions 32

5. Higher Education Reform 33

5.1. Higher Education in the Lisbon strategy 33

5.2. Compatibility of structures and degrees 33

5.3. Enhancement of competitiveness and attractiveness 33

5.4. Promotion of advanced learning and innovation 34

5.5. Promotion of structural changes at universities 35

5.6. Quality assurance and accreditation 36

5.7. Provision of lifelong learning and access for ‘non-traditional’ students 36

5.8. Technological partnerships and cooperation with enterprises 37

5.9. Maths, Science and Technology 38

5.10. Conclusions 38

6. Increasing the quality and attractiveness of vocational education and training 39

6.1. Implementation at national level of the tools developed under the Copenhagen process 40

6.2. Increasing participation in VET through improving its image and attractiveness 41

6.2.1. Policies concerning VET: reforms of the structure, the curricula, links with enterprises and the development of guidance and counselling. 42

6.2.2. Improving access to higher education and to general secondary education 45

6.3. The needs of low skilled and disadvantaged groups 46

6.4. Older workers – the role of VET 47

6.5. Improving the links of VET with the labour market and the anticipation of qualification needs 48

6.5.1. Improvement in the structure of VET and its links with the labour market 48

6.5.2. Measures in favour of work placements 49

6.5.3. Revision of standards 49

6.5.4. Early identification of skills needs and planning for VET provision 49

6.6. Professional Development of Vocational Teachers and Trainers 50

6.7. Conclusions 51

7. Consolidating the European Dimension of education and training 52

7.1. Increase mobility through removing obstacles and active promotion 52

7.1.1. Mobility in Higher Education 53

7.1.2. Mobility within primary and secondary education including virtual mobility 54

7.1.3. Quality of mobility 54

7.1.4. Policies aimed at increasing the mobility of teachers and trainers 55

7.1.5. The promotion of mobility in vocational education and training 56

7.1.6. Conclusions 56

7.2. European Dimension in national curricula 57

7.2.1. Main measures and policies to encourage a European dimension, including in the curriculum at primary and secondary level 57

7.2.2. Teacher education and support to teachers 60

7.2.3. Conclusions 60

8. EU implementation of the Education and Training 2010 work programme since the 2004 Joint Interim Report 61

8.1. Introduction 61

8.2. Education and Training and the mid-term review of the Lisbon strategy 62

8.3. Transition from the first to the second phase of the work programme 62

8.3.1. Strengthening support to implementation at the national level through peer learning 63

8.3.2. The creation of the Education and Training 2010 Coordination Group (ETCG) 64

8.3.3. Raising the visibility of the process and the participation of stakeholders 65

8.3.4. Monitoring and evaluating the implementation of the work programme 65

8.4. The state of play in relation to the priority areas of the work programme 66

8.4.1. Progress on lifelong learning policies 66

8.4.2. Outcomes of the working groups on the follow-up of the concrete objectives of education and training systems 68

8.4.3. Progress on higher education in the Lisbon strategy 73

8.4.4. Higher education and the Bologna process 74

8.4.5. Progress in implementing the Copenhagen process for vocational education and training 76

1. Introduction

“Europe must renew the basis of its competitiveness, increase its growth potential and its productivity and strengthen social cohesion, placing the main emphasis on knowledge, innovation and the optimisation of human capital.” (European Council conclusions, March 2005)

As underlined by the Council and the Commission in their 2004 Joint Interim Report on the implementation of the Education and Training 2010 work programme[1], urgent reforms of Europe’s education and training systems are needed in the medium-and long-term, in order to help to ensure that all citizens, the economy, and European societies in general, are able to face up to the challenges of the 21st century.

The mid-term review of the Lisbon strategy in 2005 has reinforced this message: while the broad mission of education and training systems is to serve society as a whole, they are of particular importance in helping to guarantee a return to sustainable growth and creating more and better jobs.

This Commission Staff Working Paper, which accompanies the Communication “Modernising education and training: a vital contribution to prosperity and social cohesion in Europe” (draft 2006 joint Council/Commission report), charts progress in implementing the Education and Training work programme since 2004, and thus provides an update of the 2003 Commission Staff Working Paper covering the first two years of implementation of the work programme[2]. The 2004 Interim Report stated that progress would be followed up every two years on the basis of information to be provided from Member States on developments at national level.

Each of the 32 countries participating in the work programme submitted a national report, structured on the basis of a guidance note from the Commission, which requested concise information relating to the major priority areas of the 2004 Interim Report, i.e. the relationship between national policies and the Lisbon agenda; investing more and more efficiently in education and training; implementing lifelong learning strategies; reforms of higher education and vocational education and training (VET); and developing the European dimension of education and training. Countries were asked to provide, in 20-30 pages, key information concerning strategies or policies either already in place or in the planning stage, specifying progress made and main obstacles encountered, along with measurable changes and trends.

A cross-country analysis of the national reports, according to these priority areas, is presented in sections 2-7 below[3]. Section 2 examines the growing relationship between the Lisbon strategy and national education and training policies, including the development of in-country mechanisms to coordinate the implementation of the Education and Training 2010 work programme, and the impact of international comparative data on shaping national initiatives. Section 3 gives an overview of Member States’ priorities for reform and investment, as well as of trends in levels of public investment, and measures for increasing investment by individuals, households and employers. This section also takes stock of countries’ efforts to increase the efficiency of investments, and to monitor the effectiveness of their education and training systems. Section 4 assesses Member States’ progress in adopting and implementing national strategies for lifelong learning, in view of the deadline of 2006 fixed in the 2004 Joint Interim Report. The coherence and comprehensiveness of strategies is discussed, and national progress in relation to key lifelong learning objectives is reported, including against the EU benchmarks for education and training adopted by the Council in 2003. Finally, an overview of the challenges and obstacles to creating a culture of lifelong learning in Europe is presented. Section 5 addresses higher education reform, both in relation to the Bologna process, including structural reform, and the Education and Training 2010 work programme, including the key issues of governance, attractiveness and innovation. Section 6 looks closely at Member States’ efforts to improve the quality and attractiveness of VET, including through the implementation of the tools developed under the Copenhagen process, and also through policies to increase participation in VET, to address the needs of low-skilled groups and older workers, to improve links with the labour market and to enhance the professional development of vocational teachers and trainers. The final part of the cross-country analysis concerns the European dimension of education and training, both in terms of mobility, where policies and measure to promote mobility of students, pupils and teachers are reported, and in terms of the European dimension in national curricula at primary and secondary level, and in teacher education.

Section 8 reports on the implementation of the Education and Training 2010 work programme at European level, noting developments in the broader framework of the mid-term review of the Lisbon strategy, and the transition from the first to the second phase of the implementation of the work programme. New developments such as the launching of peer learning activities, and improvements in the governance of the work programme, including a new Education and Training 2010 Coordination Group, are examined, as well as the state of play in relation to the priority areas of the work programme. As with the cross-country analysis, developments are reported in the perspective of an integrated approach, covering lifelong learning policies, the outcomes of the ‘objectives’ working groups, higher education in the Lisbon strategy and in the Bologna process, and finally the implementation of the Copenhagen process.

It is important to stress that the picture that emerges from the cross-country analysis (sections 2-7) does not constitute a comprehensive overview of the huge diversity and complexity of national situations. Rather, it aims to provide a synthetic account of the main priorities, concerns, areas of progress and results still to be achieved, expressed by the national authorities themselves.

Nonetheless, where it has been appropriate and useful to do so, the information in the national reports has been supplemented with information and data from other official sources, notably earlier contributions from the national level to the Education and Training 2010 work programme (e.g. the reports provided in 2003 on the follow-up of the 2002 Council Resolution on lifelong learning[4]; the reports provided in the context of the ‘Maastricht’ study on vocational education and training[5]). The results of the Bologna process on higher education have also been taken into account[6]. In addition, the Commission’s 2005 progress report on indicators and benchmarks for Education and Training 2010 constitutes a key input as far as the measuring of progress in key areas of the work programme is concerned[7].

Most countries used established coordinating structures for the purposes of the exercise, or set up such structures, enabling them to draw in the contributions of other relevant ministries (notably employment), regional authorities (especially where responsibilities for education and training are devolved) and stakeholders (notably the social partners, and in some cases parents, teachers and students organisations).

2. THE DEVELOPMENT OF NATIONAL POLICIES AND THE LISBON AGENDA

2.1. The Lisbon strategy in national policies

Since the adoption of the Education and Training 2010 work programme, the Lisbon process for education and training at the EU level has developed rapidly, involving cooperation on the part of European governments and other stakeholders in the context of the open method of coordination (OMC). Over this time, Education and Training 2010, including the actions for higher education and for vocational education and training (the Copenhagen process), has become a clearer part of the national policy landscape, even though in most Member States participation in the linked work still remains to be extended to stakeholders beyond limited groups of policy makers.

Most of the 32 countries provide evidence in the 2005 national reports[8]that the Lisbon strategy is now a factor in their education and training policies. In this respect, and using the national reports as the source of evidence, the countries can be grouped into the following three categories:

1. Countries in which many key aspects of the Lisbon strategy now form an integral part of the frame of reference for national policy development. This includes Austria, Belgium ( -nl and –fr ) , Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Malta, Greece, Lithuania, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Slovakia, Slovenia, Romania, Spain and the UK. While some countries are actively implementing policies that relate closely to Lisbon, others, including candidate countries, are still mainly at the planning or preparatory stage.

2. Countries where there is synergy between national priorities and the Lisbon strategy, although it cannot be said that the latter has shaped the former. Countries in this category are Denmark, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Sweden and Turkey . In the case of Denmark and Sweden , for example, the national reports describe the Lisbon programme as implicit not explicit, as the country develops towards a knowledge-based economy, and has met most of the five reference levels of average performance, or benchmarks[9].

3. Countries where there is some link with the Lisbon strategy, but this remains ‘at arms length’. This comprises Iceland (‘at arms length’) and Norway (‘indirectly’).

Different aspects of the Lisbon goals are integrated in the European Youth Pact, which calls for actions for young people in employment, social inclusion, education and training and family-work balance, to be developed in a consistent fashion. The education and training strand of the Pact is built on elements of Education and Training 2010, with particular reference to the Lisbon process. The Pact does not feature explicitly in the national reports, given the timing of its adoption by the European Council (March 2005). Nonetheless, developments underway in the Member States can be traced throughout this report[10].

2.2. Evidence of a growing relationship between the Education and Training 2010 work programme and national developments

If Europe is to achieve the economic, social and environmental goals agreed at Lisbon, then action geared to meeting medium-and long-term objectives is needed. This will necessitate setting the conditions for improved investment in knowledge and innovation and accelerating and delivering the reforms already agreed. For education and training, a closer correspondence between the national goals and programmes and the Lisbon objectives and actions was called for by the 2004 Joint Education Council and Commission Report on ‘Education and Training 2010’, with the development of coherent and comprehensive lifelong learning strategies defined as the mechanism that could bring a clear focus on medium-and long-term developments. The 2005 national reports indicate, compared to the situation as assessed in 2004, a dynamic and strengthening relationship between the European and national levels of policy making and work programmes.

Most of the countries, certainly most of the EU Member States, have to a considerable extent adopted a common set of concepts and tools to describe how their policies are developing. In other words, a common language now exists to describe to one another and to the European Commission what partners are aiming to achieve in their implementation of the Education and Training 2010 work programme. The way in which the writers have reported is now closely aligned to:

- The objectives and priorities of Education and Training 2010. Governments have not only accepted the importance of the common objectives and priorities, but also gained experience of the collaborative work in the first phase of the Education and Training 2010 work programme.

- The five reference levels of European average performance in education and training (benchmarks). The European Commission now reports progress annually, on a country-by-country basis. In particular, many countries are now strongly aware of how they fare comparatively.

- The specific actions generated through the Bologna process (such as the European alignment of the cycles of higher education) and the Copenhagen process (such as the recognition of informal and non-formal learning, and targeting specific groups).

The five reference levels of average European performance, or benchmarks[11], are one of the tools for monitoring the implementation of the Education and Training 2010 work programme. While they do not define national targets, national actions are contributing to their achievement. Nonetheless, many countries report that they are using – to varying degrees – the EU benchmarks in the definition of specific national targets for education and training ( AT , BE ( -fr and –nl ), CY , CZ , DK , EE , ES, FI , FR , HU , IE , LT , LV, NL , MT, PO, PT, RO, SI, SK and TR [12]). For example, Austria has established an action plan based on EU benchmarks, but with higher targets, Slovenia and Spain have translated the EU benchmarks into national targets and the Netherlands ’ education benchmarks action plan links national developments to the EU benchmarks. Sweden reports a close follow up of the Lisbon objectives in the field of education and training and it was the first country to launch a national status report on the implementation of the Education and Training 2010 work programme.

Since the situation as assessed in the 2004 Interim Report, the content of most Member States’ national reports, and in some cases associated countries, has moved on from making quite general statements to include specific references to progressing or adapting policies, goals and objectives that have been agreed at the European level. Furthermore, these are to a greater extent expressed in terms of specific targets and outcomes. The relationship between the Education and Training 2010 work programme and the ways in which countries report on the development of national priorities and programmes has thus become closer in the short period between 2003 and 2005.

2.3. In-country mechanisms to coordinate national policies with Education and Training 2010

Most of the reports make reference to arrangements for coordination to connect the Education and Training 2010 work programme to national policy processes. We can largely distinguish between four approaches that countries report[13]:

- Ad hoc consultative arrangements , (e.g. EL, HR , IS, LI, NO, RO and TK ).

- Education ministries hold regular seminars or conferences , with reporting or monitoring processes established (e.g. BG , IT and LU ) and across authorities in federated States (e.g. DE ). Often these involve social partners and other stakeholders.

- Inter-ministerial standing arrangements involving in particular the education and labour ministries and usually social partners, with a reporting process (e.g. AT, BE ( -fr and –nl ), CY, DK, EE, EL, ES, FI, FR , IE , LT , MT, NL, PT , SE, and SI ). Latvia describes how the range of economic and employment policies are taken into full account, and a range of authorities and stakeholders involved. Poland has arrangements that bring together education and training, employment, and the regional and sectoral dimensions of planning. The UK also has joint international arrangements between the education and employment ministries, which involve social partners, as well as the devolved administrations, each of which have their own territorial responsibilities for lifelong learning.

- Coordination arrangements that bring under a single strategic umbrella all aspects of the Lisbon programme , by linking most of the economic, employment, research, innovation, environmental, inclusion and education and training aspects (e.g. CZ, HU and SK ). Slovakia has a competitiveness strategy for 2010, linking education, training, employment, science, research, innovation, entrepreneurialism and the information society.

According to the national reports, cooperation also takes place in some cases across national borders in geo-regional clusters. The clearest example is the well-established Nordic Council of Ministers (cited as an important impetus by the Nordic countries ). This is an expanding geo-regional, collaborative network that sits between the national and European levels that could be taken up in other parts of Europe, just as regional and sectoral collaboration already provides another trans-national feature in many European countries.

2.4. The impact of international comparative data on shaping national initiatives

Beyond the influence of the open method of coordination and the Education and Training 2010 work programme, many countries acknowledge the influence of OECD surveys. PISA in particular is cited as having a strong impact on policies to raise standards and initiate reform in several countries. Denmark, Germany, Hungary, Liechtenstein, Norway , Slovakia and Austria illustrate this most clearly. In Germany and Norway PISA is reported as having, in effect, the strength of a driver. In Austria , the PISA 2000 results are mentioned as contributing to the policy decision to streamline the school curriculum and split it into core and additional areas, while the TIMSS results led to the innovation in maths, science and technology teaching project. This has had a clear influence on concentrating policy reforms aimed to improve basic competences in compulsory schooling. Poland, Turkey and other countries mention the helpful impact on policy formation of OECD country reviews and other reports.

In terms of adult learning, the international surveys are cited infrequently as an influence on policy. Exceptions include Ireland , which records that the International Adult Literacy Survey (IALS)[14] has had a considerable impact on national policies for adult learning and continuing vocational training, Luxembourg , whose report indicates why the Labour Force Survey data does not give an accurate picture for the country, and Denmark who has implemented the recommendations from the IALS study. Ireland also mentions the impact of the OECD/European Commission research and publications on guidance. Lithuania specifically mentions the impact of the second Information Technology Survey.

2.5. Conclusions

In 2005, the Education and Training 2010 work programme (including the actions for higher education and for VET) has become a much clearer part of the national policy landscapes. Most countries provide evidence that the Lisbon strategy is a significant factor taken into consideration as they develop their education and training policies, and most indicate that many key aspects of the Lisbon strategy form part of the frame of reference for national policy development. In 2005, the national reports are now closely aligned to the objectives and priorities of Education and Training 2010, including the EU benchmarks and the specific actions generated through the Bologna and Copenhagen process. Many countries are now strongly aware of how they fare comparatively, particularly in terms of the EU benchmarks. Many of the countries have established or are establishing specific national targets in relation to the five benchmarks. The OECD PISA study is a strong international frame of reference; this is much less the case with surveys of adult learning, such as IALS which is based on relatively old data. As a consequence, OECD is in the process of developing a new survey on adult competencies. The Commission is also defining EU data needs, which is a first step in an increased cooperation with international organisations active in this field in accordance with the Council Conclusion on New Indicators of 24 May 2005.

Most countries are developing coordination arrangements to connect the Education and Training 2010 work programme to national policy processes. In some cases this is ad hoc under the leadership of the education ministry, although increasingly ministries have now developed (or are developing) more formal processes, which may involve the social partners and other stakeholders. A large group of countries has developed a wider process for involving a range of ministries that have a stake in education, training and lifelong learning. Only a few link all stakeholders to address all the different facets and aims of the Lisbon strategy, to integrate lifelong learning with the economic, employment, research, innovation, environmental, inclusion and cohesiveness aspects of the Lisbon goal. This, and involving wider publics and more actors, would be a strong step forward, since education and training policy tends still to be rather compartmentalised.

3. INVESTING MORE AND MORE EFFICIENTLY: FOCUSSING REFORM ON THE KEY AREAS

3.1. Priorities for reform and investment

Countries vary considerably in how they report on their priorities for investment in education and training. Some discuss priorities in very general terms (e.g. increasing participation and access or quality). Some are quite specific about the areas (levels/phases/policies) where extra funding will go. Other countries mention many areas but largely in aspirational terms. On the whole the reports do not give a precise picture of where new financial investments are going and how large these investments are.

The areas most frequently mentioned as reform priorities are in general terms consistent with the Education and Training 2010 objectives but not identical in the way they are described and the emphases given. The most frequently emphasised priorities in the reports are[15]:

- Developing skills for the knowledge economy

- Improving training and development for teachers and trainers;

- Improving standards and quality in compulsory and post-compulsory schooling

- Improving quality assurance systems;

- Ensuring access to ICT for all; and

- Expanding higher education enrolment/ Implementing Bologna/ internationalising higher education.

According to the national reports, all countries are prioritising the development of skills for a knowledge-based economy and for economic competitiveness. Equally, virtually all countries indicate that social inclusion – in terms of increasing equal opportunities – is a defining component of their lifelong learning strategy or policy. There is, in this context, quite widespread discussion of increasing access for certain groups (such as immigrants, ethnic minorities). Enhancing access to learning is mentioned more in relation to young people and formal education than to adult employees and work-based training, however. Investment in pre-school and learning opportunities for older citizens are also less emphasised. Initiatives to enhance social cohesion in the broader sense, for instance through promoting active citizenship and through equalising educational outcomes, are also less frequently mentioned as priorities, most probably because the guidelines for this reporting exercise did not specifically request information in relation to this.

The general priorities specified contain much reference to both economic and social factors. Several countries (e.g. AT , BE ( -fr and –nl ), DK, FI and SE ) describe a balance in their policies between economic and social objectives. High performing countries such as Finland and Sweden also point up how difficult it is to reach some target groups successfully. The approach taken in the UK report, while making a priority of the social inclusion agenda, implies that if the economic (productivity and growth) and employment agenda (high employment levels, skills, employability) is successful, the social agenda can be addressed more readily in consequence. Italy ’s prioritisation of policies illustrates a similar logic, while Estonia frames its lifelong learning strategy as part of competitiveness.

In terms of barriers to progress, financial constraints on spending on education and training are identified as a restraint on achieving a balance between competing policy priorities. A wide range of countries (including BE-nl, BG, CY, CZ, FR, LV, MT, PL, PT and RO ) emphasise economic constraints that have a limiting impact on achieving the whole range of policies.

It is notable that secondary and higher education are given more attention in the reports than other levels of education such as pre-school and primary education and adult continuing education and training. Continuing vocational training (CVT) seems to be a priority mostly in countries with higher levels of spending on education generally (e.g. AT , DK, FI , SE , and the UK ). There is a clear priority accorded to higher education in the reports from new Member States and candidate countries. The European Training Foundation (ETF) has underlined[16] the need also to prioritise secondary and initial vocational education and training (IVET), given the importance of intermediate level skills in these countries. As is the case for all countries, there is a danger of trading one policy area off against other policy areas, thus affecting the coherence of lifelong learning strategies.

3.2. Increasing levels of investment

The national reports, in general, do not provide detailed information on how patterns of investment have been adapted in order to confront priority reforms. Most data provided relates to formal education and there are very few data on aggregate public and private spending on education and training.

The Commission progress report on indicators and benchmarks 2005[17] indicates that although public expenditure on education and training as a percentage of GDP fell slightly[18]between 1995-2000, there has been an upward trend since 2000, at EU level and in most Member States. The data show strong differences in spending levels between countries, with a few spending over 7.5 % of GDP and some, even though their spending is increasing, spending less than four %.

In the national reports, a number of countries record recent increases in public expenditure on education and training as a proportion of GDP (e.g. BE - fl, CY , CZ, EE, EL, ES, NL, SE, SK and the UK ) while others mention targets for future increases[19]. A number of reports mention specific areas where levels of public funding are increasing. Austria notes a 25 percent increase in school spending, 1995-2005; Bulgaria notes a fourfold increase in government spending on employment training from 2002-4; Cyprus notes planned increases in spending for lengthening the school day, teacher training, improving school buildings, and ICT; the Czech Republic notes planned increases in spending for higher education; Denmark mentions plans for increases for ICT, VET and adult education; Malta notes substantial increases in government spending notably for higher education and vocational education and training, and Iceland for curriculum reform and university expansion.

Several new Member States mention that levels of funding are inadequate to reach their policy targets in general (e.g. CZ, HU and SK ) or in relation to particular areas, such as Romania in relation to teacher training targets. The Polish report notes the serious under-investment in capital expenditure and the Croatia report says the country needs another 1% of GDP to fund its reform programme and that it has inadequate resources to co-fund Socrates and Leonardo da Vinci initiatives.

There is a widespread recognition that reaching the targets (national and Lisbon) requires additional investment. Most attention in the reports is devoted to public expenditure, although many countries refer to the need to increase investment from other sources. Many reports discuss the importance of EU funding (European Social Fund (ESF) and PHARE etc.) or funding from other sources such as the European Investment Bank or the World Bank. However, the question of how to encourage more private investment in education and training internally is not treated very systematically in the reports. Notably, the reports indicate that measures to increase individual and household investment in education and training are developing more successfully than those aimed at increasing employer investment. There is little evidence of an overall increase of employer investment in training.

Countries generally perceive the need to increase significantly investment in human capital in line with the Lisbon goal. They also generally perceive that public expenditure cannot meet all the future spending requirements, and that private investments also need to be made. The State is expected to fund compulsory schooling, and the majority of initial post-compulsory education and training. In some countries the State also takes responsibility for funding second-chance education for adults who have low levels of qualification and lack personal funds to acquire basic skills and secondary level qualifications. However, countries increasingly expect individuals and firms to contribute to the costs of adult continuing training and higher education where there are high private rates of return. Little evidence, though, is provided on levels of private investment, and particularly company investment, which are thought to vary significantly between countries.[20]

3.3. Measures to increase individual/household investment

3.3.1. Cost Sharing

Increasing private individual investment through cost-sharing policies is the most commonly cited means of increasing investment in the reports. Such policies normally involve the charging or raising of tuition fees, in many countries accompanied by the provision of government loans or grants for those from families less able to pay. Tuition fees are most commonly mentioned in relation to higher education. A number of countries have or are about to introduce fees in higher education (e.g. AT since 2001, DK (for foreign students), ES, RO, SK, TR and the UK ) and some are currently deliberating on the issue (e.g. MT, PO, RO, and SE -for students from outside Europe). Some countries, including the Czech Republic, have discussed and rejected such policies. A few countries have recently introduced, or are about to introduce, tuition fees for adult education ( DK and the UK ). Tuition fees for private or independent schools also represent a form of cost sharing when these schools are part subsidised by government (e.g. FI) . Countries vary considerably in the prevalence of private schools and the degrees of government subsidy for them, but a number of countries, including Norway and Slovakia , refer to the increasing prevalence of private schools and policies adopted to make the foundation of new private schools easier.

The provision of loans to students is mentioned in a number of reports. This includes Iceland (fully repayable and income contingent) , Norway (for foreign students and study at private universities), Estonia , Slovakia (under legislation), Finland, Latvia (for study abroad), Slovenia, Sweden, Turkey and the UK. Some countries make these convertible for those graduating within the time limit into tax-deductible loans ( Finland ) or grants ( the Netherlands ). The provision of grants for higher education students are also mentioned in a number of reports, specifically Austria -means tested; Germany – stressing their portability for studies abroad; Cyprus and Estonia – for study abroad; Finland, Greece, Malta -under consideration; Slovenia and Sweden . It is notable that most countries introducing fees for higher education do accompany these with some kind of loan or grant system to support the less affluent students. Grants for post-school study are a notable feature of the Nordic countries (including in some cases grants for high school study) as well as being characteristic of a number of new Member States.

3.3.2. Tax incentives

Many countries mention the use of tax incentives as means to encourage individual/household investment in education and training (e.g. CY, FI, HU, LT, MT, PT, SI and TR ). Tax incentives can take a number of different forms and can be targeted to different groups of persons in respect of different categories of personal education and training expenditure[21].

3.3.3. Vouchers

Tax incentives which encourage choice amongst users of education and training and which can be used either in the private sector or in public institutions have also been introduced in a number of countries, including in the form of the Individual Learning Accounts where government co-funds with individuals (e.g. Scotland and Wales in the UK ). Slovakia has launched a system issuing vouchers for primary school pupils participating in extra curricular activities. The Commission’s analysis of the 2003 national Lifelong Leaning Reports also found evidence of Lifelong Learning Accounts in Austria, Belgium and the Netherlands [22].

The reports do not give data on how much additional investment from individuals has been raised from the above measures. On the other hand, one may assume that substantial additional investments have been forthcoming in countries introducing student tuition fees. The reports frequently note that participation in higher education has risen and, where the introduction of fees applies, has not been adversely affected.

3.4. Measures to increase employer investment

3.4.1. Tax incentives

Most frequently mentioned policies to encourage employer investment in training involve forms of tax incentives for employer training (e.g. AT, EE, ES, FI, FR, NO and RO )[23]. Levies, typically in the form of a company payroll tax, which is placed in a collective fund to be distributed to employers who train, is also relatively common. Statutory Levies, where government organises re-distribution of funds, are common in Southern European States (e.g. CY, EL and ES ) and also in new Member States and candidate countries[24]. Sectoral levies, channelled into mutual funds organised by the social partners, tend to be more common in northern Europe (e.g. DK, FR and NL ) but have made little headway in the new Member States where the organisation of social partnership tends to be weaker. Several countries report current discussions about the introduction of levies (e.g. IT and PL ).

3.4.2. Co-financing

Co-financing by government is another means for encouraging employer investment in training. The Governments in Bulgaria and Cyprus are co-funding workplace training with employers and in Belgium-nl since 2001 the Government has paid up to half the cost of work-based training, assessment and guidance through ‘Training and Guidance Cheques’ . The Government co-funds the apprenticeship system in Denmark and in the UK . In France , the government grants specific tax exemptions to employers, which includes training provisions in job contracts with young people under 26 years of age and adults over 45 years of age. Arrangements for employers to contribute to the costs of educational institutions (as with equipment for vocational schools in France or the sponsoring of university Chairs in Iceland and Finland ) may be considered as another form of co-financing.

Private Public Partnerships (PPPs) represent a particular form of co-financing generally involving educational institutions sub-contracting private suppliers to manage and maintain buildings or to provide other non-teaching educational services[25]. This type of arrangement would seem to be increasingly prevalent. Poland has launched an act on PPPs in 2005. Ireland is using PPPs for school building management and maintenance, as is the UK . The reports from Belgium-fr, Estonia and Portugal mention PPP arrangements in place for VET and higher education ( PT also mentions PPPs for pre-school education and adult education and training), and the reports for Hungary and Spain note ongoing discussions for the same. The Croatia report also emphasises the importance of PPPs. There are many examples of PPPs around the provision of ICT services. The 2003 Lifelong Learning Reports gave little evidence of a growth in PPPs[26], so the evidence here suggests new developments in this area.

Other measures for encouraging greater private investment in education and training relate to the supply side. Increasing the transparency and reliability of qualifications is likely to encourage individual and employer investment in training by making it easier to value the outcome of such investments, although this is not explicitly discussed in the reports. The effort in many countries to reform their qualification systems to conform to more precise specifications of skills and competences, as well as the changes toward greater transparency involved in the Bologna process, should add to the transparency of qualifications and encourage greater investment in education and training. In general, improvements in the quality of education and training provision would be expected to encourage more investment in education and training amongst individuals and employers. Achieving higher quality in provision is a major priority throughout most of the reports.

3.5. Increasing the Efficiency of Investment

A number of reports discuss in general the importance of making better use of resources, but many are not specific about the means to do this. Generally, quantitative goals are not set for efficiency gains and there is little evidence provided that measures adopted are increasing efficiency[27]. Increasing efficiency through improving quality is the major theme for reform for most countries. Measures to reduce the costs of achieving given outputs are less frequently discussed. The main areas where policies are noted for improving cost efficiency relate to institutional regulation and management and funding allocation systems.

3.5.1. Decentralisation

Many reports (e.g. AT, BG, CY, EE, ES, FR, HU, LT, PT, RO, and SK ) mention reforms to decentralise decision making (to regional, local or institutional levels) as a way of improving cost efficiency (i.e. by making institutions more aware of costs and bringing decisions making closer to demand). Increasing institutional autonomy, including in relation to budgets, is one form of this specifically mentioned in a number of reports (e.g. AT, BE–nl, DE, FR, ES, NL, NO and SI ). In addition to noting the potential gains of decentralisation in terms of improving cost efficiency, a number of reports also note unwelcome effects in terms of increasing fragmentation, for example Hungary , or increasing inequalities between institutions or regions.

3.5.2. Funding Systems

Decentralisation often involves parallel changes in funding allocation mechanisms. Devolution of control to institutions often means changes towards lump-sum budgets or block grants where the institutions have more discretion over how to spend the budgets. This is thought to lead to more cost efficient decisions. There is an increasing trend towards this[28]. The Netherlands is extending its lump-sum funding system from secondary to primary schools. Slovenia reports developing lump sum funding for secondary schools and Croatia reports aiming to implement new lump sum funding system for higher education by 2006. The ETF notes a general trend towards this type of arrangement in new Member States and candidate countries[29].

The introduction of more transparent forms of formula funding is commonly reported as a way of increasing efficiency. In most cases this is through the introduction of per capita funding systems. Many countries report that they are developing, extending, or about to introduce this kind of system at different levels ( AT, BE, DK, EE, LT, NO and SK ). Finland, Germany, and the UK report having elements of outcome-related funding for some institutions, and a number of countries report that they are developing or extending such systems ( AT, DE, EE, and FI for universities and polytechnics). Value-added based funding attempts to reward institutions for student learning gain. The means for assessing aggregate learning gain at the level of the school, which would make this approach possible, have for example been developed in the UK . Attaching funding to learning gain would provide incentives to educational institutions to teach more effectively, rather than to select more pragmatically, and could therefore be considered both a more efficient and more equitable means of institutional funding.

3.5.3. Improving management

Improving institutional management and public administration is also seen as a means to greater efficiency in some cases ( AT, BE-nl, DK, FR, HU LT and PT ). A few countries mention the introduction of the measures and systems that might support this. The use of Management Information Systems and Performance Management Systems are reported in a few countries ( EE, IE, LT, TR and the UK ), although a number of countries are seeking to standardise teacher contractual conditions, such as in Austria . Performance-related payment for teachers is rarely discussed, although Sweden mentions new measures to give school heads more discretion in determining teacher pay. The Education and Training 2010 Working Group E ‘ Mapping Analysis’ found no clear patterns of performance-related pay for teachers across Europe[30].

Other Efficiency measures mentioned in the reports include:

- School mergers (e.g. EE , PT and SK)

- Encouragement of institutional income generation, mostly in universities and polytechnics ( FI, BE-nl- university contract research, AT, RO and SK )

- Cooperation between schools- BE-nl has established school cooperation communities for more efficient use of funds;

- Energy efficiency in buildings (e.g. BG and LT )

- Reducing study time to reduce costs per graduate- Austria and Finland in relation to higher education where students get tax relief if they finish studies in the approved period, and Norway ’s recent measure to convert loans into grants for students completing on time[31]. The Netherlands also has such a system in place.

3.6. Monitoring Effectiveness

The national reports demonstrate an increasing and widespread concern with quality assurance and evaluation. However, countries vary substantially in how far advanced their systems for evaluation and monitoring are in practice.

Some countries monitor student performance, teacher performance, institutional performance and system performance through a range institutional mechanisms including: government inspectorates, independent statutory statistical and evaluation agencies, institutional quality assurance systems, student feedback procedures and national students testing systems. Most countries seem to make use of international comparative data on outcomes (PISA, etc) to assess their system performance but many would not appear to have developed a full set of national performance indicators or to collect the necessary data.

Systematic evaluation of institutional performance based on quantitative measurements would appear to exist only in a minority of countries. Even in these cases evaluation is only beginning to benefit from the development of more robust methodologies for measuring value-added or learning gain. Regular national testing of student performance only occurs in some countries. The use of robust methods to evaluate the impact of reforms is probably very rare indeed. There are strong intentions and efforts in most countries to develop better quality assurance systems, in line with the Lisbon objectives, but the methods for evaluation are still relatively underdeveloped, particular in relation to cause and effect and policy impact.

3.7. Conclusions

The need to invest more in education and training is widely appreciated. Most countries recognise that developing coherent lifelong learning strategies and meeting the Lisbon objectives will require higher levels of investment and that this investment will need to come both from the State and from individuals and employers. Efforts have been made in many countries to encourage greater individual investment and there is some evidence that this has been successful. Efforts to encourage employers to invest more have been less extensive and their effectiveness is less demonstrable.

Most countries are aware of the need to increase efficiency in their use of resources in education and training. This is most often manifested in measures to improve quality in the supply of education. The reports for many countries place less emphasis on measures to increase cost efficiency. Where such matters are addressed it is mainly in terms of reforms that seek to increase efficiency through decentralisation and more transparent forms of public funding allocation. There is very little discussion, however, of how effective these measures are, and no report provides evidence from any evaluations of impacts from such measures.

Many reports emphasise the importance of social inclusion, particularly in terms of achieving greater access for currently marginalised groups such as immigrants, ethnic minorities and those with special educational needs. However, relatively few address the needs of older people and the importance of active ageing.

The focus is on how countries perform overall, rather than how groups perform relative to each other, and this is reflected in the fact that the indicators used mainly concern aggregate educational outcomes rather than distributional outcomes (i.e. how evenly educational achievements are dispersed). Some countries do note the possible unwanted effects of decentralisation measures in increasing inequalities of funding between regions, and rectifying regional inequalities in funding is an explicit aim in several countries. Discussions of fee charging for higher education students are also frequently accompanied by consideration of effects on equity and measures to mitigate these, such as grants and loans for those from less affluent families. However, discussions on other topics, such as the private supply of education services or reforming funding mechanisms, rarely reflect on the effects these may have on equity.

Equal opportunities for access to higher education are widely considered, but inequalities in access to adult learning and work place training remains a key challenge.

4. PUTTING IN PLACE COHERENT AND COMPREHENSIVE LIFELONG LEARNING STRATEGIES

4.1. Progress in adopting national lifelong learning strategies

The ambition set by the Council and the Commission and supported by the European Council is that by 2006 all Member States should have in place comprehensive and coherent lifelong learning policies[32]. Comparison with the earlier 2003 lifelong learning reports[33] enables us to form a judgement as to whether, two years later, the 2005 national reports provide evidence as to the extent to which this ambition is being realised. Many, but by no means all, countries have developed or are developing over-arching statements on lifelong learning.

The countries that have adopted or are at some stage of adopting broad strategic statements include: Austria, Belgium-fl and- fr , Bulgaria (early stage) , the Czech Republic , Denmark , Estonia , Finland, Netherlands , Norway, Poland , Germany , Hungary , Iceland, Ireland , Latvia, Lithuania , Slovenia , Spain, Sweden , the UK (separate strategic statements across the devolved administrations in Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland as well as England ).

In Cyprus, plans are under way to set up and action plan for lifelong learning, and in Malta a ministerial review is expected to lead to a national action plan for lifelong learning. Furthermore, some countries have enacted framework legislation covering various aspects of lifelong learning. France has adopted the 2004 “Loi sur la formation professionelle tout au long de la vie” and the 2005 “Loi d’Orientation” , and a series of other legislative measures, Greece has now adopted ‘systemisation of lifelong learning and other stipulations’ , Romania adopted legislation in 2000 for the organisation and functioning of lifelong learning systems in educational institutions, but with separate legislation and policies for different phases. Spain enacted the ‘Organic Law on Education’ in 2004.

Some countries with federal or devolved systems for education and training (e.g. Belgium, Germany and the UK ) face structural barriers to framing overarching policy and legislation for all areas of lifelong learning across the whole territory. Germany provides insight into how a Member State with a federal constitution can develop a strategy for lifelong learning which identifies the aspects and contexts on which there is a broad consensus. In Luxembourg , many people in the labour market travel from neighbouring countries, making government-led coherence difficult to achieve.

4.2. Coherence and comprehensiveness of strategies

Countries vary on several axes. These include the extent to which the strategy has been formed, the priorities of the lifelong learning strategy including the weight given to economic and social aims, and the extent to which implementation is underway. In this regard, some reports point out that major reforms in education take time to have effect.

The 2005 national reports show that, despite having improved in terms of their coherence, lifelong learning strategies still tend to reflect similar imbalances to those identified in the European Commission’s 2003 progress report on this issue.[34]In other words, it is possible to distinguish between broadly different approaches to lifelong learning found in Europe. These range from ‘cradle-to-the-grave’ strategies, to largely employability-related approaches, to approaches where social inclusion is the main focus for lifelong learning policies. Such a typology may help countries to form an overview of the approaches to lifelong learning that are described and analysed in the national reports. The proviso attached to any typology of this kind is that it must be taken with care and treated as indicative rather than conclusive.

In terms of implementation, countries are at widely different stages. Using the self-analysis contained in the reports as the source of evidence we can illustrate the range:

- Some countries have well-advanced lifelong learning strategies, achieving highly on all of the indicators for education and training, and target resources to tackle identified priorities that remain, (e.g. DK , FI , NO and SE ).

- Some have defined priorities and agreed clear lifelong learning strategies with key stakeholders, and have built them as a centrepiece into their reform programmes and priorities. Yet, while some of the priority issues are being tackled successfully , the national reports record need for improvements in other respects (e.g. BE ( -fr and –nl ), IE and NL ). Ireland has developed a National Framework of Qualifications, which it uses for many purposes including bringing coherence to lifelong learning policy implementation.

- Other countries have emerging lifelong strategies, and are setting about meeting challenges – but describe themselves as having a long way to go to meet success, in spite of good achievements against some of the indicators (e.g. CZ, DE, EE, FR and the UK ). On the other hand, both Slovenia and Poland , who describe their lifelong learning strategies as in formation, are making rapid progress and perform creditably on several priority indicators.

- Some countries can be described as having an emerging lifelong learning strategy, in several areas at an early stage of implementation (e.g. IT ). Latvia and Lithuania both describe how aims and priorities have been identified and the legal framework for reform and organisational framework for wide cooperation have been developed. Portugal describes how pre-conditions have been achieved for setting up a lifelong learning strategy, but this has not yet reached full definition despite some progress in the implementation of specific measures. Greece has also developed a new strategy based on a combination of reforms involving key stakeholders.

- In others still, many initiatives and reforms are taking place but a much more structured and coordinated approach to lifelong learning is needed to meet the needs of individuals and the economy; this is ‘in the pipeline’ (e.g. MT ).

- Some other national reports, including Bulgaria, describe initiatives without the coherence that would suggest a comprehensive lifelong learning strategy, even in its early stages. Romania indicates that so far no global, integrative and coherent approach to lifelong learning has been agreed, nor has a partnership approach. Turkey reports being determined to come to terms with some basic challenges, but is, as are a few other countries, still at an early stage.

4.3. Progress towards implementing lifelong learning objectives

The national reports provide an analysis of progress, difficulties and challenges that countries experience in their efforts towards achieving the agreed lifelong learning objectives, including the EU benchmarks and other lifelong learning priorities. The Commission 2005 Progress Report on indicators and benchmarks provides data that places the national reports in a comparative framework.

As regards the benchmarks in particular, the EU would be more likely to achieve its 2010 goals if countries in the middle range of performers made significant progress. Positive developments are reported in a number of new Member States including Lithuania , Poland and Slovenia . However, the reader must be careful to avoid an over optimistic assessment of some of the data. In particular, some of the countries achieving high levels of upper-secondary completion and low levels of early school leaving, perform poorly in terms of basic competences of 15 year olds. Furthermore participation in adult learning is a key indicator for success in lifelong learning: most countries perform poorly in this respect and give it little emphasis for funding.

4.3.1. Participation rates of adult learners

Achieving major improvements in participation rates in continuing education and training on the part of adults is one of the five reference levels of average European performance, or benchmarks[35]. This implies systemic increases in levels of participation in adult learning and training, particularly on the part of specific target groups for which current levels of training are low. This includes women, older workers, those with lower levels of initial qualification, and workers in industries that have low training participation rates.

On current trends, however, the EU has considerable progress to make before achieving the benchmark for participation in education and training on the part of adults aged 25-64[36]. The EU benchmark is that by 2010 the EU average level of participation in education and training should be at least 12.5% of the adult working-age population[37]. The participation rate is increasing slowly: the percentage of the working age population participating in lifelong learning amounted to 9.9% in 2004, representing insufficient progress to meet the benchmark. Furthermore, in percentage terms, the participation gap between those with high and those with low educational achievement is widening.

A wide disparity exists between high-and low-performing countries. Sweden, Denmark and Finland are Europe’s top performers in relation to the benchmark in this area and the UK also records participation rates of above 20%, thus exceeding the EU benchmark. Slovenia and the Netherlands, which aims to reach 20% participation by 2010, already meet the benchmark. The European Commission reported in 2005[38] that all the other EU countries and two of the candidate countries have participation levels still considerably below the target level.

The national reports on lifelong learning shed some light on how some countries are currently achieving rapid progress. Austria , for example, reports that permeability, second chance schooling, continuous reform of VET and the promotion of adult learning are the identified priorities and that in 2005 alone the budget for general adult learning has increased by 28%. In Slovenia there is a clear drive to link existing adult and tertiary education strategies to the emerging lifelong learning strategy. In Sweden , the ‘Adult Education Initiative’ that ran from 1997-2002 targeted mainly adults with low levels of formal qualifications and the programme reached in total 20% of the workforce. Denmark describes its approach to lifelong learning as being sufficient to ensure that all the EU benchmarks for education and training are met. Non-traditional approaches to engaging learners have been developed in most of these countries, and the countries that show most success and most rapid increases in this area all spend above the EU average on education and training and have specifically targeted adult learning or adult workplace learning. In Italy the education provision for adults is being developed, in particular through local adult learning centres (CTP).

With the expected impact of demographic change, special attention has to be given to the skills upgrading and competence development of older workers. The target for the employment rate for 55-64 year olds was fixed at 50% in 2001 at the Stockholm European Council. Older workers are currently under-represented in the uptake of training, though it could certainly contribute to increasing their employment rate. The need for older workers to update and adapt their skills is a very serious challenge, particularly since they tend to have fewer formal qualifications than younger workers. The rate of adult participation in education and training in 2004 in the EU25 reached 9.9%. However for older workers in particular, the rate was considerably lower. Just over 4% of 55-65 year olds undertook training as compared with 14% of 25-29 year olds[39].

Numerous barriers to achieving high levels of participation among adult target groups are cited in the national reports. The following are prominent:

- Insufficient priority is given in national policies and spending plans, and national cultures that do not see continuing vocational training (CVT) or adult participation in a positive light are difficult to shift

- Employers (particularly SMEs) are reluctant to invest in training, and individuals are reluctant to participate. Stakeholders tend to be ignorant of the benefits of learning

- Governance is slow to reform, compartmentalised and takes an ad hoc approach

- There is a lack of coherent data

- Early school leavers and other target groups are reluctant to return to learning; and

- Both work organisation and learning provision tend to be inflexible.

4.3.2. Key competences

Three EU benchmarks examine the extent to which compulsory schooling and the post-compulsory phases of education and training equip young people with the knowledge, skills and competences that they will need to thrive in a knowledge society and economy. These are:

- Reducing levels of early school leaving

- Raising completion rates at the upper secondary level;

- Improving literacy and basic competences at age 15.

The Commission’s 2005 Report on ‘Progress towards the Lisbon objectives in Education and Training’[40] provides the best available evidence on progress towards these benchmarks.

(i) Reducing the numbers of early school leavers

The EU benchmark is that by 2010 an EU average of no more than 10 % of early school leavers[41] should be achieved. In 2004, only Austria, Croatia the Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, Lithuania, Norway, Poland, Slovakia, Slovenia and Sweden had levels of early school leaving below the 10% target and – while caution must be used when interpreting all the data – eight countries’ performance had worsened between 2000 and 2004. Overall, boys perform less well than girls. There is a marked gap between the participation rates of high and low socio-economic groups, and this grows more prominent with higher-level qualifications. The same is true for non-nationals and migrants.

At the current rate of improvement the ratio of early school leavers will be 14 % in 2010, and therefore more substantial efforts are needed for the EU to reach the benchmark. Addressing the situation effectively will require sustained and successful policy interventions in many countries. The countries with the lowest performance are currently Bulgaria, Cyprus and Malta, (which indicate in their national reports that they are now making progress in terms of raising upper secondary participation and reducing early school leaving) Italy, Portugal , Romania, Spain and the UK . Portugal and Italy are reporting steady improvement over the last three years. In Italy, the government has funded initiatives in the national education system to encourage and incentivise improved staying on rates. The UK is also making some progress: one measure reported to have an impact is the recent introduction (in parts of the UK) of means-tested allowances (education maintenance allowances) for 16-to-19 year olds who remain in education. Turkey has expanded upper secondary education from three years to four years and plans to expand compulsory education from eight years to 12 years, including years of upper secondary education. In Hungary the ‘Development Programme for Vocational Training Schools’ targets the reintegration of disadvantaged students into the education system. Within this framework specific measures are targeting pupils, who have not completed lower secondary education, encouraging them to take up vocational training.

(ii) Completion of upper secondary education

The EU benchmark is that by 2010 at least 85 % of 22 year olds in the European Union should have completed upper-secondary education. The average rate across the EU improved with the accession of the new Member States[42], but the present average rate of upper secondary completion at age 20-24 stands at 76.4 %. Given the rate of overall improvement between 2000-2004, the benchmark will be difficult to achieve in 2010, and therefore increased efforts are required in this area.

Several countries ( AT, CZ, IE, LT, NO, PL, SE, SI and SK ) already have completion rates above the EU benchmark, while others ( BE, CY, EE, EL, FI, FR and HU ) are close to reaching it. However, improvement towards this target is slow, although the two countries that perform the least well ( MT and PT ) are making comparatively rapid progress. Portugal aims to double participation in technical and vocational courses by 2010, to build basic competences during compulsory schooling and to expand and diversify pathways. In order to increase levels of participation and qualification at upper secondary level, Malta has integrated its vocational colleges to provide a more coherent and flexible offer, and provides financial support for post-compulsory students, and more young people (as well as employers) are attracted to take up vocational pathways. Italy has launched single system comprising two pathways with equal status: general education and vocational education and training, with the possibility for learners to move from one pathway to the other.

(iii) Improving literacy and basic competences at age 15

The EU benchmark is that by 2010 the percentage of low-achieving 15-year olds in reading literacy[43] in the EU should have decreased by at least 20 % compared to the year 2000. In 2000, 19.8% of students were at or below level 1 (i.e. low-achieving), and a reduction of 20% in 2010 would mean bringing this percentage down to 15.5%. For the EU countries for which there is comparable data over the two years[44], there is no overall reduction in the proportion of students performing at or below level 1 of the PISA scale. Given that there is no overall progress, this benchmark, like those cited above, is a major challenge for the EU to achieve by 2010.

Nevertheless, a number of countries instigated reforms after PISA 2000, and it is to be hoped that these will bear fruit by 2010. Reforms in Germany , Austria and Norway have already been mentioned in this report in this respect. After a national debate to identify reform priorities a socle commun is to be introduced in France , placing emphasis on the entitlement of all children in compulsory schooling to acquire the key competences. The different parts of the UK have been developing and implementing their strategies for improving literacy and numeracy for some years. The Czech Republic is implementing reforms focused on the modernisation of initial education to strike a balance between key competences, knowledge, attitudes and values.

Performance on the PISA scales varies greatly between countries in terms of the average scores, the extent of the distribution of scores, and the extent to which school-and social-factors affect performance. Finland not only performs very highly in all the PISA tests, but also has the lowest proportion of low achievers, followed by Ireland , the Netherlands, Sweden , and Liechtenstein . Sweden reports that an ‘uneven’ distribution of resources in favour of pupils with special needs is laid down in regulations. Among the (19) countries for which published results are available for 2003, Hungary , Austria , Spain , Portugal , Germany , Luxembourg , Italy , Slovakia and Greece all have in excess of 20 % of 15-year-olds at or below level 1. It should be noted that some new Member States such as Slovakia and Hungary perform well in terms of upper secondary participation and early school dropout, compared to a much poorer performance on the part of 15 year olds in basic competences. This suggests the need for continuing modernisation of the curriculum and programmes of study in some of the new Member States, notwithstanding their high performance on some indicators, if the wider goals of lifelong learning are to be achieved. Turkey has entered PISA for the first time as part of the modernisation process and, as the government had anticipated, the proportion of low achievers was well in excess of other countries in Europe. Reforms of primary and secondary education curricula tend to focus on outcomes and the development of key competences.

4.3.3. Non-formal learning

The inventory on validation of non-formal learning[45] shows that a few countries (e.g. FI, FR and PT ) have well-established systems for validation, while several others have recently introduced measures, or are in the process of doing so (e.g. BE-nl, DK, ES, NL, NO, SE and SI ). Virtually everywhere validation is an important topic in the context of national debates and reforms, despite the wide range of levels of development and implementation.

According to the national reports several countries, including France, Belgium ( -fr and –nl ) , and Portugal , indicate that they have recently introduced regulations and systems for the validation of informal and non-formal learning based on the jury-evaluation of portfolios. These should lead quite gradually to increased numbers of people gaining recognition for informal and non-formal learning. Finland indicates the success of its longer-established Noste reforms, based on competence assessment in the workplace, in bringing recognition to the informally acquired knowledge and competences of large numbers of workers. All, or almost all countries are in agreement on the importance of developing effective systems for recognising informal and non-formal learning in response to major labour market, qualifications and demographic trends. The challenges involved are hinted at in the country report of the Netherlands stating that in many respects the ‘leap’ from formal to non-formal learning pathways has not yet been made. While countries recognise the importance of this aspect of reform, this probably reflects the situation in many countries. Many governments recognise this to be an important area for development, but development is at an early stage; for example Slovakia faces both a lack of public awareness and some resistance from education providers.

4.3.4. National Qualifications Frameworks

The development of a national qualifications framework is seen by many countries as a key means of enabling lifelong learning. The principal aims of a qualifications framework are to clarify for all users and stakeholders the main routes to a particular qualification, how progress can be made, to what extent transfer is allowed (including the use of credit), on what basis decisions for recognition are taken (including through validation of non-formal learning), etc. Qualification frameworks are also used for quality assurance and development purposes[46].

Qualifications frameworks have been, or are being, established in many countries and sectors (in Europe and beyond) and take many different forms according to national and sectoral specificities. Common to them all is a wish to tackle the increasing complexity of modern education, training and learning systems.

A small number of countries, for example in Ireland, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales have adopted single national qualifications frameworks, covering all levels of education and training, including continuing education and training. Belgium-nl is moving rapidly in this direction. In France , Denmark , and Finland , for example, well developed competence-based VET qualifications systems, including validation of non-formal learning, allow the linking of different subsystems. Other countries have adopted a system of reference levels for vocational qualifications (e.g . EE, ES and NL) . Finally, an example of a country where the development is at an early stage of development work is Romania , where a Qualifications Authority has been set up (within the National Adult training board) to support the development of an national qualifications framework covering all VET qualifications. The development of national qualifications frameworks seems partly to be inspired by developments in non-European countries and increasingly by the work on a European Qualifications Framework (for example in Germany )[47].

4.3.5. Partnerships

The national reports point up clearly the importance of cooperation for effective governance of lifelong learning. This consists partly in effective working arrangements between different government departments, not least between education and labour ministries, and in the active involvement in partnership of social partners and other key stakeholders such as parents and teachers/trainers, the voluntary sector and local actors. Such partnerships are not widespread, however, and the national reports identify barriers to achieving them.

Other reports, particularly the Maastricht Study[48], have highlighted the role of learning partnerships, which often involve government or local administration, schools and universities (the learning providers and researchers), industry and the wider community in generating and sustaining innovation. Much innovation of this kind takes place at the local or regional level. The barriers to achieving lifelong learning reported at the end of this section serve as a reminder of the challenges the countries face in developing both coherent governance and innovative learning partnerships.

4.3.6. Education and training of teachers

Most countries report that extensive reforms to teacher education have taken place or are under way. Thus, the Czech Republic report, for example, indicates the importance of training teachers for their new role in a knowledge society. While several countries, including Norway, report that teacher training is already an integrated part of higher education, a common denominator is to bring teacher education into line with the Bologna structures for higher education; this implies that a single structure for teacher education is tending to supersede the more varied structures for different phases that have existed in many countries. A number of countries, including Austria and Hungary , link the Bologna process to raising the standards of teacher training and to introducing or improving provision for continuing training. Countries that emphasise this factor, including Estonia , are in the process of identifying national occupational standards and an identified set of competences for effective teachers. Some countries link this development to the extension of school autonomy, approaches to lifelong learning and to more individualised student learning plans.

Similarly, the initial and continuing training of VET teachers and trainers is raised in several reports (see section 6). Several of the national reports emphasise the importance of training teachers for particular subjects, including languages, or phases, including more inclusive provision of early years teaching and care for target groups of at-risk young people. Though some countries, including Finland, mention the expansion of teacher training, few are explicit on the challenge of raising the status or rewards of teaching as a measure to respond to the ageing professional profile, although several mention the growth in assistants and para-professionals.

4.3.7. Information and Communication Technology (ICT)

Most countries indicate that that making maximum and best use of ICT in education and training remains a high priority, although it is not a new priority for most. Thus, Denmark indicates that using technology to the full is a characteristic of virtually all new measures, aimed to ensure that learners learn ICT literacy and skills to the best possible level. The emphasis is on integration across schooling, training and teacher education, and many countries indicate that the resources allocated have increased. Several countries highlight that ICT opens up possibilities for varied and flexible learning (e.g. EE ), ranging from assessing ICT skills (the UK , for 14-16 year olds) and outcomes for learners with special needs (e.g. DK ), to up-skilling people in the workplace (e.g. IE ) and improving access to work for low-skilled women (e.g . ES ), as well as the professional development of teachers. Norway reflects on the need to integrate ICT better into learning processes and suggests that it is a major challenge for the education systems of tomorrow to integrate ICT and digital learning as a natural part of all teaching and learning at all levels in the system.

4.3.8. Lifelong Guidance

Although this does not appear as such a high priority as a number of other areas for reform in several national reports, the development of guidance systems is accorded a measure of priority in many reports. Countries such as Denmark and Belgium relate that reforms under way aim to offer young people relevant, independent guidance to provide an adequate basis for making education and employment decisions. In terms of integrating guidance services, the Czech Republic describes ambitious work that is under way to develop both horizontal integration (different systems operated by the education and labour ministries) and vertical integration (guidance for all stages of lifelong learning), while Estonia also describes moves towards more integrated systems. In Finland , on the other hand, guidance services appear to be differentiated to meet specific needs, whether in schools or in the skills market. A number of new member States, including Hungary and Poland , describe the difficulties that guidance systems have worked under through the period of transition, as well as measures for reform.

4.3.9. Pre-school education

Virtually all of the national reports that mention this aspect agree on the importance of early years as laying the foundation for successful learning later in life. Poland , for example, describes the small proportions of children in pre-school education, particularly in rural areas, as a major challenge, while Portugal shows that raising the numbers of young children in pre-school education over the past decade has been an important prerequisite for other reforms. Norway emphasises the importance of reaching groups at risk of exclusion, specifically children from minority language backgrounds, disabled children and children in danger of developing reading and writing difficulties. In some countries, such as Latvia , this has led to changes in the regulations on schooling and in teacher training; indeed, the national report states, Latvia’s improvement in international surveys is largely due to the concentration on meeting needs of low-achieving young people.

Many countries have introduced new programmes for early years learning, though it is not always clear from the national reports whether the emphasis is on learning through play or the introduction of more formal learning, or in what combination. As Denmark points out, some traditional distinctions are becoming blurred, as pre-school classes become more part of compulsory schooling. This blurring is reflected in the OECD’s use of the term ‘Early Childhood Education and Care’ to cover the spectrum. The unanimity on the importance of early learning on later performance probably signifies that this aspect merits higher priority in the open method of coordination and peer learning activities.

4.4. Obstacles to creating a culture of lifelong learning in Europe

Countries vary in the ways in which they have presented the obstacles to lifelong learning. Some national reports are explicit about challenges, difficulties and obstacles; some do not refer directly but give indications elsewhere in the text. However, on balance, countries are becoming more open in describing their difficulties to their international peers. Furthermore, as the reports are written, descriptions of challenges to be tackled overlap with the analysis of descriptions of barriers to creating a culture of lifelong leaning. Estonia offers the view that it is more a matter of challenges, rather than barriers, the greatest challenge being the creation of a funding system for adult education. Portugal , among others, offers a clear analysis of its main barriers. Slovenia offers a summary analysis of both factors for progress and barriers.

The national reports cite a wide range of barriers to creating a culture of lifelong learning. These cluster round seven main issues: governance; funding; imbalances in public, employer and individual approaches to lifelong learning; the supply of education and training; labour market imbalances; the supply/ training of teachers and trainers; and, international links. The main barriers that the countries identify are cited in the table that follows.

Table: Examples of the main challenges and barriers to lifelong learning identified in national reports

Governance | Incoherence in approach to lifelong learning Lack of effective cooperation within devolved frameworks Lack of legal framework for continuing learning and CVT; Compartmentalisation of responsibilities; Lack of political mandate or of continuity of policy linked to frequent reforms that are not given time to bed in; Reform is slow; Slow to extend decentralisation; Lack of coordinated data. |

Funding | Under-investment Competing priorities for funding, specifically in VET; Lack of local funding for full participation in EU programmes (candidate countries). |

Imbalances in public, employer and individual approaches | Unequal access to training, in some cases due to growth of marginalised populations Traditional cultures reluctant to shift VET skills and qualifications are insufficiently valued Too little attention to early schooling and intervention; Too little attention to adult learning for older workers, disadvantaged groups or isolated populations Early leavers reluctant to re-enter learning. Increasing early drop out Reluctance to enter science, maths and technology; Difficulties in finding new ways to combine working and learning; Low take-up from low-skilled individuals to make use of their educational opportunities; Employers and employees not convinced of returns to training SMEs reluctant to engage Legacy of only moderate education achievement. |

Supply of education and training | Reluctance of schools to move to competence-based curriculum or to move from memorisation to problem solving Difficulties in meeting the needs of migrants and other target groups A lack of: transparency/status/quality of VET Disappearance of guidance with major changes Lack of or insufficient approach to recognising informal/non-formal learning Insufficient pathways linking VET and higher education Lack of flexible adult provision Rising demands and rising population Lack of cohesion between pathways. |

Labour market imbalances | Mismatch between supply/demand High incidence of low basic skills in many sectors. |

Supply/ training of teachers/ trainers | Teacher training requires modernisation Insufficient supply of skilled teachers. |

International links | Insufficient mobility Difficulty in linking higher education levels with other systems. |

4.5. Conclusions

In response to the ambition agreed by the European Council that by 2006 Member States should have in place comprehensive and coherent lifelong learning policies, the national reports indicate that many countries have adopted or are adopting overarching vision statements on lifelong learning, although these are at different stages of conception and development. In some countries this is supported or replaced by framework legislation. Some countries report that a clear national strategy document is not yet in place, while a number of countries with federal constitutions or devolved authorities report on the unlikelihood of a single national document.

Country priorities for lifelong learning show a considerable variety. While some countries emphasise meeting the needs of the learner irrespective of age, stage or context, others make a strong distinction between formal education (whether paying particular attention to early years, secondary or higher education) and meeting the needs of adult learners. All countries cite the importance of social inclusion as well as a more directly economic agenda, and some countries place strong emphasis on the former.

Similarly, there is a marked variety in terms of how far down the road countries are towards achieving the EU education and training benchmarks. The continuum between countries in this respect is certainly a long one. The position for large numbers of Europeans in disadvantaged adult groups (by education level, age, gender, occupation and status) is likely to leave most countries far short of the EU benchmark for adult participation in lifelong learning, unless barriers can be overcome a rapid progress achieved. Equally, it is disappointing to record that the data show that none of the benchmarks for raising basic skills among young people, tackling early school leaving and raising levels of participation in the upper secondary phase are likely to be reached in 2010 on the basis of current trends.

The main obstacles and barriers to achieving lifelong learning, as highlighted in the national reports, cluster round several issues: governance, funding, imbalances in the approaches taken by governance, employers and individuals, the supply of education and training, the inadequate supply and training of teachers and trainers, labour market imbalances, and difficulties in achieving effective international links.

5. HIGHER EDUCATION REFORM

5.1. Higher Education in the Lisbon strategy

The Bologna reforms are put very much in the foreground for reforms in higher education, while the Lisbon agenda plays an implicit rather than an explicit role in this sector, for example concerning the issues of knowledge transfer and cooperation between higher education and industry which are central. Thus issues raised are fully in line with the Lisbon Strategy but are not necessarily identified with it.

The Communication from the Commission “Mobilising the brainpower in Europe”[49]underlines the importance of better system and institutional management in higher education and highlights the fact that European universities[50]call for more autonomy in order to be able to make necessary changes for the future, but with retained or even strengthened State responsibility for the higher education system as a whole. The Communication proposes that universities should be responsible for medium-term priority setting, managing and developing human resources, defining curricula and professionally managing their facilities and financial resources. The Commission calls for all Member States to take action ensuring that their regulatory frameworks enable and encourage university leadership to undertake genuine change and pursue strategic priorities. This should include multi-annual agreements and empowering universities to take and implement decisions by way of a leadership team, which has sufficient authority and management capacity.

5.2. Compatibility of structures and degrees

Current higher education reforms in all countries are very much focused on introducing the three-cycle structure of degrees. Appropriate legislation is in place in all the countries and the three-cycle structure is already implemented or will be in the very near future. In some of the countries implementation is more or less completed (e.g. EL, NO and NL ). With the introduction of the three-cycle structure most countries have introduced (or are in the process of introducing) a number of complementary measures, like the workload-based European Credit Transfer Systems (ECTS) or at least a credit point system compatible with ECTS, the issuing of a Diploma Supplement and provisions for joint or double degrees, e.g. through the international programmes in Italy. In several countries the Bologna reforms are part of a more far-reaching reform to restructure the higher education system (e.g. the quality reform in Norway , the Master Plan for Higher Education in Slovenia , the higher education development programme in Hungary or the draft plan for higher education development currently prepared by the Lithuanian government). Some countries (e.g. HU, SI and SE ) report that the Bologna agenda has triggered profound structural changes or has had a significant impact on developments in higher education.

5.3. Enhancement of competitiveness and attractiveness

Concerning the enhancement of competitiveness and attractiveness, many of the countries refer mainly to measures undertaken to facilitate mobility of incoming as well as of outgoing students and staff. Interestingly, there is frequently more emphasis on attracting foreign students and removing obstacles for them or even providing them with grants than sending more of the national students abroad. Countries thus tend to focus on incoming students and less on outgoing students. Competitiveness of this kind in combination with tuition fees might indicate (in the medium term) that some countries are keen to keep students at home, while actively trying to attract students from abroad. A few countries (e.g. FI, FR, DE, IE and the UK) report initiatives that go beyond the issues of mobility such as active marketing and targeted international recruitment activities. For the majority of the other countries which only refer to mobility, targeted international recruitment and marketing appear to remain somewhat less prioritised.

Several national reports mention joint or double degree programmes as an activity lending itself to further enhancing competitiveness and attractiveness. Central and Eastern European countries, in particular, are keen to increase their partnerships with higher education institutions in other countries for the provision of joint degrees and opportunities to attract more foreign students into their countries. Four countries ( CY, LI, LU and IS ) report that a high percentage of their students commonly study abroad.

5.4. Promotion of advanced learning and innovation

Most countries make reference to a commitment to raising the percentage of the GDP spent on research and technological development. Quite a few national reports inform about initiatives to establish centres or poles of excellence (e.g. AT, BE ( -fr and -nl ) , DK, FI, FR, IT and NO ) or rural knowledge centres within the framework of national innovation strategies (e.g. IS ). In particular, many of the Central and Eastern European countries use funds from the European Social Fund or other European Structural Funds (e.g. EE, HU, LT, PL, SI and SK ) to establish such centres of excellence, to promote lifelong learning or to attract post-doctoral students to stay in the universities or in innovation centres.

National innovation strategies also frequently include an increased emphasis on strengthening university/industry collaboration and knowledge transfer. Finland has launched a comprehensive national innovation system stimulating collaborative relations between producers of knowledge (e.g. universities and polytechnics, research institutes and businesses) and users of knowledge (e.g. businesses and industry, private citizens, policy-makers and administrators), which has led to a substantial increase in private funding of research and development. Several countries provide special funds for the support of start-ups, spin-offs, incubators, science parks etc (e.g. ES, LT, SI and the UK ). A ten-year framework for science and research in the UK includes plans to increase spending on research in both the private and pubic sectors. Sweden also plans to increase spending on research in both the private and public sectors and universities are required to cooperate with the surrounding environment, in-company incubators are funded jointly by the Swedish Agency for Innovation Systems and the State owned Technology Transfer Foundations. A few national reports also mention particular activities to provide opportunities to post-docs and integrate them in innovation activities (e.g. ES ).

A number of national reports mention reforms in doctoral education and training to reduce the time it takes to obtain the degree and provide more structure for this level of qualification. The preferred measure is the establishment of formal doctoral programmes or (post-) graduate schools. Austria has initiated doctoral programmes, whereas the Netherlands has established a Research Masters programme. Finland established a graduate school system in 1995 to make postgraduate education more systematic, improve the quality of research and further national and international cooperation in education and research. Estonia is also setting up graduate schools and a similar initiative in France focuses on international co-supervision of doctoral students. However, apart from a few exceptions, the reforms of doctoral training are mainly seen in the context of the Bologna reforms (consolidating the third cycle), while innovation strategies and strengthening collaboration between enterprises and academia are seen as a separate exercise. Exceptions are where “professional doctorates” are established and also when reforms in doctoral training are linked to regional development.

In Ireland there is a high level of investment in research and development by creating new centres and research programmes, by improving labour market skills of researchers, by creating new opportunities for university-industry research collaboration and by financially assisting higher education institutions to enhance and develop their research capabilities. In order to support these activities, a Chief Science Advisor has been appointed by the government.

Three countries make specific reference to increasing the number of maths, science and technology graduates ( HU , NO and DE) . In Germany there is a specific policy to attract more women to science and technology using mentoring programmes.

5.5. Promotion of structural changes at universities

The reports focus primarily on the introduction of new and more managerial forms of institutional governance. Quite a number of countries have introduced various forms of contractualisation to regulate the relationships between higher education institutions and the State as well as a basis for internal resource allocation. In Austria, Denmark and Iceland the autonomy of universities has been increased, and multi-annual agreements and budgets have been introduced in Austria , and multi-annual agreements between the universities and the national authorities in Iceland . In Germany and Austria performance-related funding has been introduced based on an agreement on objectives and in Portugal it takes into consideration the performance of the higher education institutions. In the Czech Republi c the changes have involved introducing administrative boards, which is also the case in Slovakia where in addition the universities have been granted a new status of non-profit public bodies. Reform of the status of universities is in the planning stages in Lithuania and the French report underlines the need for an evolution of governance, organisation, regulations and financing. However, there are still countries in which institutional autonomy has only been granted partially by the State. Nevertheless, performance contracts are frequent and appear to be becoming more widespread.

Some of the Central and Eastern European countries are still faced with challenges related to a relatively fragmented nature of the university sector. Recent legislation in Slovakia is redressing this problem, though some fragmentation will persist due to a number of small universities, so that new forms of institutional management can take effect. The general trend seem to be to include more external stakeholders into the new institutional governance regimes through the composition of university boards (e.g. AT ) or involving unions, students and employers in the higher education reform processes (e.g. HR ). Slovenia has adopted a very comprehensive reform of legislation besides a number of me