Table of contents

Executive summary. 3

1. Introduction to the New Education and Training Monitor 5

2. Investment in education in a context of demographic change and economic crisis 7

2.1. Efficiency and effectiveness of education and training. 7

2.2. Demographic change and education spending. 9

2.3. The crisis and education spending. 10

3. Early leavers from education and training. 14

3.1. The problem of early school leaving. 14

3.2. Progress towards headline target and national targets 16

3.3. An EU trajectory towards 2020. 18

3.4. The road ahead for Member States 19

4. Encouraging participation in Higher Education. 21

4.1. The issue of attaining increased levels of higher education completion. 21

4.2. The current status and trajectories towards 2020. 24

4.3. The road ahead for Member States 26

5. The case for high-quality Early Childhood Education and Care. 27

5.1. The quality of ECEC provision. 28

5.2. Targeted support for disadvantaged groups 29

6. Acquiring the skills needed for the future. 30

6.1. Basic skills: reading, maths and science. 30

6.2. Language skills 32

6.3. ICT skills 37

6.4. Entrepreneurial skills 39

6.5. Civic skills 40

7. Student mobility in vocational training and Higher Education. 42

7.1. Promoting learning mobility of young people. 42

7.2. Mobility in vocational education and training. 42

7.3. Mobility in higher education. 43

8. Adult participation in lifelong learning. 47

8.1. Participation of adults in learning activities 47

8.2. The relevance of informal learning. 49

8.3. What levels of competences have adults acquired? 49

9. Matching educational outcomes and labour market needs. 51

9.1. The employment rate of graduates 51

9.2. The educational attainment of adults 54

9.3. Future skills needs 56

Annexes. 59

Annex 1. Further tables and figures 59

Annex 2. List of abbreviations 67

2.1. Country abbreviations 67

2.2. General abbreviations 68

Executive summary

Education and training play a key role for Europe's strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth, Europe 2020. To unlock the full potential of education as a driver for growth and jobs, Member States must pursue reforms to boost both the performance and efficiency of their education systems.

This Education and Training Monitor is a new analytical tool that provides the empirical evidence to underpin this reform agenda. It is a succinct yet comprehensive overview of the core indicators on education and training systems in Europe, enabling the reader to compare and contrast recent progress as well as identify the immediate challenges for Member States[1].

It supports the Commission Communication "Rethinking Education", and is part of a package of Staff Working Documents that elaborate on the education dimension of Europe 2020. It is also integral to a larger initiative bringing existing EU-level cooperation in education and training ("ET 2020") in line with Europe 2020 objectives[2].

Key findings of the Education and Training Monitor 2012 are:

1. Education is part of the solution to tackle the impact of the crisis, but only if investment is efficient. The returns on investment in education and training are undeniable, both monetary and non-monetary, for the individual as well as for society at large. Education spending up until 2009 did not decrease despite the challenges of the economic crisis, but cutbacks have been apparent since. Further demographic changes and budgetary constraints are likely to increase the need to improve efficiency of education expenditures.

2. Efforts to combat early school leaving must be increased as a matter of urgency. The early school leaving headline target is unlikely to be reached unless Member States step up their efforts. The prospects for early school leavers are getting worse, with their unemployment at an alarming rate and forecasted to increase. The problem is further aggravated by disparities according to gender and country of birth.

3. Action to widen participation in tertiary education now needs to be more targeted. In the last five years there has been significant progress in the share of 30-34 year olds who have successfully qualified from higher education. This trend means that it is possible to reach the headline target by 2020 at EU level, if present efforts are sustained. However, some Member States still have considerable progress to make to reach their national targets. Moreover the tertiary attainment rate for men is significantly lower than that for women – a cause for concern.

4. Improving early childhood education and care must continue to be a priority. The increasing level of participation in early childhood education and care is encouraging. But to provide a solid start for individuals and to be a potential equaliser for European societies, the provision must be of sufficient quality. Quality indicators, such as the child/staff ratio and total expenditure, show strong discrepancies between Member States and only slight improvements over the last few years.

5. Inequalities in achievement of basic skills must be tackled. A worrying number of 15-year-olds fail to reach basic ability levels in reading, maths and science. In addition, the EU average masks serious gender inequalities – with the share of low-achieving boys now close to twice the share of low-achieving girls, and significant low performance for foreign-born pupils even when taking socio-economic status into account.

6. Providing relevant skills: a new EU benchmark for language competences. Foreign language provision is still far off the EU objective of learning 'mother tongue plus two' from a very early age, despite progress in primary, lower secondary and vocational education. In addition, first evidence of young people's language competences highlights low levels indicating that language teaching must become more effective. Against this background, the Commission will propose a new EU benchmark on language competences.

7. Embedding ICT and open educational resources (OER) in teaching and learning can combat the digital divide. The percentage of the adult population with some computer skills has significantly increased over the last five years, but there remain large differences between countries and gaps according to age and educational attainment. Action to increase ICT skill levels is needed, and education and training systems can contribute to this by embedding ICT and OER (open educational resources).

8. Entrepreneurship education should be prioritised. Most Member States have strategies or on-going initiatives addressing the implementation of entrepreneurship education into general education at primary and/or secondary level, yet only in a quarter of member states did a majority of adults believe they had the right skills and knowledge to start a business. Consequently, entrepreneurship needs to be introduced early, and included at all levels and in all disciplines of education and training.

9. A recent trend is that the learning mobility of young people is increasing across Europe. It is more developed in tertiary level education where close to 650000 EU students study outside their country of origin most in another EU country, with more than one third supported by Erasmus grants. Even with little available data, evidence suggests that mobility levels in initial VET are significantly lower.

10. Participation in adult learning is stagnating and must be urgently addressed. Adult lifelong learning is still far from a reality. Participation in learning activities is stagnating, with considerable variation between countries. New developments, such as open educational resources, could help to unlock the potential of informal learning amongst the adult population, allowing for self-guided and occasional learning from a variety of sources.

11. Significant effort is required to reach the employability benchmark by 2020. The employment rate of those with tertiary attainment is more than ten percentage points higher than those with only secondary education, while in the current crisis the population with lower attainment is most at risk of unemployment. However, the employment rate of young graduates has fallen since 2008 and strong efforts and additional measures are needed to reach the employability target set for 2020.

Education and training Monitor 2012 1. Introduction to the New Education and Training Monitor

The Education and Training Monitor contains a wealth of quantitative information and comparative analysis that will back up the country-specific assessment during the European Semester and the drafting of country-specific Recommendations. The insight it provides will also help to inform work under ET 2020, such as peer-learning, the identification of good practice or the debate with and among stakeholders.

It is a tool to foster and encourage evidence-based policy making, and draws on the working methods established through Europe 2020, in particular the Joint Assessment Framework (JAF), to help ensure consistent assessment of progress across Member States.

Under ET 2020, four strategic objectives have been agreed (table 1.1) and a number of EU benchmarks have been set (table 1.2), of which two – concerning early school leaving and tertiary educational attainment – have been taken up by Europe 2020 as headline targets. These benchmarks offer insight and help to gauge Member States' progress. They have been addressed systematically throughout the Monitor.

Table 1.1. Four ET 2020 Strategic Objectives

1. Making lifelong learning and mobility a reality;

2. Improving the quality and efficiency of education and training;

3. Promoting equity, social cohesion and active citizenship;

4. Enhancing creativity and innovation, including entrepreneurship, at all levels of education and training.

In 2012, an additional benchmark on employability was agreed and evidence is presented here for the first time. A further benchmark on language competences - that has been prepared upon request of the Council - is set out in a separate document[3], and once adopted will be addressed in future editions of the Monitor.

Table 1.2. Seven ET 2020 Benchmarks

1. At least 95% of children between the age of four and the age for starting compulsory primary education should participate in early childhood education;

2. The share of 15 year-olds with insufficient abilities in reading, mathematics and science should be less than 15%;

3. The share of early leavers from education and training should be less than 10%;

4. The share of 30-34 year-olds with tertiary educational attainment should be at least 40%;

5. An average of at least 15 % of adults (age group 25-64) should participate in lifelong Learning;

6. At least 20 % of higher education graduates and 6% of 18-34 year-olds with an initial VET qualification should have had a period of study or training abroad;

7. The share of employed graduates (20-34 year-olds) having left education and training no more than three years before the reference year should be at least 82%.

Note: benchmarks (3) and (4) together form a headline target of the Europe 2020 strategy. An eighth benchmark, covering foreign language skills and based on the European Language Competence Survey, is currently being developed, with a view of an adoption by the Council in the first semester 2013.

This first Education and Training Monitor provides an EU-wide overview of where Member States stand in relation to the ET 2020 benchmarks, looking at different subgroups where the data allows for such differentiation. To support the Communication on Rethinking Education, particular attention is given to indicators that describe the situation and trends in terms of skills.

Chapter two addresses education in relation to the crisis and to demographic changes. Chapters three and four examine the Europe 2020 education headline targets on early school leaving and tertiary educational attainment respectively. Chapters five through nine deal with the further ET 2020 benchmarks and related indicators, with a focus on various skills and competences in chapter six.

Table 1.3. Summary of Education & Training Indicators

Source: Eurostat (UOE, LFS), OECD (PISA), Cedefop, Global Entrepreneurship Monitor, European Survey on Language Competences ESLC. 07 =2007, 08 =2008, 09 =2009, 10 =2010, 11 =2011, e= estimate, b= break, p= provisional. Number of countries included in EU average: PISA=25, Entrepreneurship=18, Language skills=13, ICT/Computers at school=13. 1= having carried out 5-6 specific computer related activities, 2= average of skills tested in reading, listening, writing.

2. Investment in education in a context of demographic change and economic crisis

Two important developments are changing the context in which education and training systems operate. The first one is the impact of the economic, financial and sovereign debt crisis on our labour markets, economies and societies. The second one is the process of demographic ageing and in particular its impact on the labour market.

Education and training are part of the solution to face up to both of these challenges, as they help to boost productivity, innovation and competitiveness. However, to reap the benefits of investing in education and training presupposes the ability to mobilise the necessary funding first. In times of tight public finance, it would be contra-productive to cut down investment in growth-enhancing policies, such as education. At the same time, Member States are scrutinising their education and training systems to make them more efficient and effective so that they contribute to an exit from the crisis and help by compensating the effects of demographic ageing.

2.1. Efficiency and effectiveness of education and training

The effectiveness of education and training systems refers to the output they generate, be it the number of graduates or the level of skills they master when leaving the education and training system. Effectiveness can also be defined as the longer term benefits of education and training, both for the individual (e.g. increased earnings) and for society at large (e.g. labour productivity, increased tax payments, GDP growth)[4].

The efficiency of education and training systems is established when looking at their effectiveness (learning outcomes and long term benefits) and comparing this to the monetary input made to generate these outcomes. In other words, what is the output per unit spent? Funding can come from different sources, such as government expenditure, private sector contributions or individual payments and fees.

Figure 2.1. Public cost and benefits for a man obtaining ISCED 3/4 (2008)

Source: OECD (2012), Education at a Glance 2012, Chart A9.5. Note: countries are ranked in ascending order of the net present value. Deviating source years for Portugal (2006) and Slovenia (2007).

Figures 2.1 and 2.2 illustrate the efficiency of European education and training systems in terms of their public monetary costs (direct costs and foregone taxes on earnings) and public monetary benefits over an individual's working life (income taxes, increased social insurance payments and lower social transfers). The public returns of upper secondary or post-secondary non-tertiary education are positive in all European countries except Estonia (figure 2.1). Although the figure only illustrates the net gains for male students, both men and women yield public benefits that, on average, are about twice as large as the overall public costs at this level.[5] The public returns of tertiary education are much higher still, partly because individuals bear some of the cost of the education provided in some countries (figure 2.2). Public benefits outweigh the costs by a factor of three for men and a factor of two for women, on average. In Hungary, the benefits are 14 times larger than the public sector’s initial investment in a man’s tertiary education.

Figure 2.2. Public cost and benefits for a man obtaining ISCED 5/6 (2008)

Source: OECD (2012), Education at a Glance 2012, Chart A9.5. Note: countries are ranked in ascending order of the net present value. Deviating source years for Portugal (2006) and Slovenia (2007).

In 2009, an independent study on the efficiency and effectiveness of public spending on tertiary education in the EU[6] identified a slightly different distribution of efficiency across Member States. The study consistently found the UK and to a lesser extent the Netherlands to generate the highest levels of efficiency, whereas the Czech Republic, Greece, Portugal and Slovakia were repeatedly placed at the bottom of the league in this respect. Factors positively related to efficiency were output-based funding rules, independent evaluation of institutions and autonomy in staffing policy. Another crucial factor was found to be a good quality secondary education system.

Recent work on the efficiency and effectiveness of public spending on education, led by the Directorate-General for Economic and Financial Affairs[7] [8], confirms that the efficiency of tertiary education expenditure is strongly linked to the quality and equity of primary and secondary education. Nurturing earlier levels of education lays the foundations needed by students to advance to, and progress in, tertiary education.

Indeed, evidence relating to the efficiency and effectiveness of education spending illustrates how progress at one level of education can be conditional upon the measures taken at the preceding levels. This is true, for example, when it comes to broadening access to tertiary education to those from less favourable family backgrounds[9]. Limited access to tertiary education among such groups is unlikely to be fully remedied by action at the level of tertiary education alone (access programmes, financial support) because the individuals concerned tend to lack the pre-requisite skill-sets to access and succeed in tertiary education. As a result, there is a clear need to intervene within the compulsory strand of education. This confirms the earlier findings from the European Expert Network on Economics of Education (EENEE), which emphasised the strong complementarities between efficiency and equality of opportunity, and advocated early measures to improve the educational outcomes of disadvantaged students[10].

The focus of this chapter is on government expenditure and its various components. Simply investing more in education and training does not guarantee higher effectiveness (outcomes), while greater efficiency is unlikely to be achieved by simple cut-backs. What counts is quality enhancing reform. Another possibility to seek efficiency gains is to transfer some of the risks, incentives and responsibilities to the private sector, to schools and education institutions, or to individual learners. However, more evidence is needed before concluding on the effects of such measures[11].

2.2. Demographic change and education spending

Demographic trends have strong implications for the financing of education across all levels of education and training. The number of young people in the European Union has declined steadily since 1990 (see figure 2.3).

Figure 2.3. Population and population projection (in millions) by age group (EU 27)

Source: Eurostat, population statistics (2015-2020 from the Europop 2010 forecast, convergence scenario).

These overall trends conceal contrasting situations across the Member States. Countries in the west and north of Europe tend to have higher birth rates than countries in the south and east of Europe. Around 1990 Central and Eastern European countries experienced a decline in the birth rates, while starting with the year 2004 they have stabilised or are increasing again. In many central and eastern European Member States the population 0-10 years-old has continued to decrease each year up to 2005, although for these countries and EU27 as a whole since 2005 figures are slightly increasing. At the same time, Ireland and Spain have recorded significant growth rates between 2004 and 2008, partly a result of strong net migration.

Against the background of the declining youth population, the period 2000-2010 saw an overall decrease in intake to primary education and to lower secondary school. According to the Europop2010 population forecast, this decline is expected to be reversed. For EU27 the population in the age-group 5-14 years is expected to increase by around 4% until 2020.

These demographic changes have strong implications for the efficiency of education spending. When it comes to compulsory education (primary and lower secondary education), which is currently seeing a lower intake of pupils due to smaller cohorts, there might be possibilities for efficiency gains, e.g. by seeking synergies in terms of structural changes. It is also important to bear in mind that early investment in education (see also 2.1), including early childhood education and care give important long term returns. Future costs of upper secondary and tertiary education will increase in line with the expected upturn in enrolment due to higher participation rates, counteracting the demographic decline. Other reasons why population ageing may bring additional pressure to bear on education financing are, firstly, the growing need for periodic education and retraining as working lives gradually lengthen and, secondly, the increasing importance of education and training in achieving the productivity growth needed to ensure strong economic growth[12].

2.3. The crisis and education spending

The crisis brings a message for education and training that is no less important than the message that education holds for Europe since the crisis started. Budget constraints threaten to compromise the input or investments made in the field of education, and therefore efficiency is prioritised, as not to sacrifice the effectiveness of our education and training systems. In other words, ensuring a higher output per unit invested becomes increasingly important, and investments are preferably made where benefits are most promising[13]. At the same time, however, education and training are a key part of the solution to the challenge posed by the crisis. As seen in section 2.1, the returns to investment in education are extraordinary and have therefore an unparalleled potential for growth.

The first phase of the crisis: 2009-2010

Europe is suffering a period of economic crisis and thus it is too early to judge to what extent the crisis has affected spending on education; it will only become possible to determine the true impact given a wider time frame. Moreover, the crisis started out initially as a crisis of the financial sector, with a relatively limited impact on public finance. Consequently, in the short run, the average education expenditure did not show any sizeable change, as illustrated in figure 2.4. General government expenditure (GGE) on education – the total public expenditure from all levels of government – can be seen as the commitment that a country makes to the development of skills and competences.

Figure 2.4. General Government Expenditure on education and GDP real growth in EU27

Source: Eurostat. Government finance statistics (general government expenditure by function)

In fact, between 2004 and 2010, GGE on education measured both as a share of GDP and as a share of total GGE was stable – reaching 5.5% and 10.8% respectively. The average values in figure 2.2 are the result of different developments across Member States. As shown in the annex (tables 2.A and 2.B), the level of GGE on education varies sizeably between Member States. Whereas in Greece, Germany, Romania, Bulgaria, Slovakia and Italy GGE on education is around 4% of GDP or less for all the years analysed, the spending in other Member States (such as Denmark, Sweden or Cyprus) is around double that figure (between 7 and 8%).

In 2009, nearly all European countries were in recession (i.e. their GDP decreased) and nearly all maintained or increased their public spending in education except Portugal and Romania. Not surprisingly, public expenditure on education as a share of GDP increased in countries which suffered for consecutive years of recession. This shows that either public expenditure on education continued to increase or that it decreased at a slower pace than the GDP. For instance, in Ireland and Latvia, such a share stood at level above 5% and 6% respectively. In Greece, public expenditure on education remained close to 4% of GDP from 2008 onwards. Such a pattern is observed in nearly all the other countries that recorded two consecutive years of recession. This might also be explained by the time lag that exists in the orientation of public expenditure on education but also the will of policy-makers to go on investing in education systems as they are a key for recovery and future economic growth.

When considering national account data, the EU-27 continued to invest in education despite the economic crisis. One third of European countries followed this trend and did not register any decrease in real public expenditure in education from 2007 onwards. However, several countries registered a drop in real public expenditure in education for one or several consecutive years. This occurred over three consecutive years in Italy (2008 - 2010) and Hungary (2007 – 2009) and during two consecutive years (2009 and 2010) in Bulgaria, Greece, Latvia, Romania and Iceland. However, the level of public expenditure remained higher in 2010 than that of 2000 in all these countries except Italy.

Table 2.1. Total public expenditure on education as % of GDP, by level of education

|| All levels of education combined || Primary level of education (ISCED 1) || Secondary level of education (ISCED 2-4) || Tertiary level of education (ISCED 5-6) || pre-primary level of education (ISCED 0) and not allocated

2004 || 2009 || 2004 || 2009 || 2004 || 2009 || 2004 || 2009 || 2004 || 2009

EU 27 countries || 5.06 || 5.41 || 1.16 || 1.24 || 2.29 || 2.41 || 1.13 || 1.22 || 0.49 || 0.55

Belgium || 5.95 || 6.57 || 1.41 || 1.50 || 2.56 || 2.85 || 1.29 || 1.47 || 0.69 || 0.75

Bulgaria || 4.40 || 4.58 || 0.84 || 0.85 || 2.02 || 1.87 || 0.78 || 0.95 || 0.76 || 0.91

Czech Republic || 4.20 || 4.38 || 0.64 || 0.70 || 2.17 || 2.07 || 0.90 || 1.02 || 0.48 || 0.60

Denmark || 8.43 || 8.72 || 1.93 || 2.12 || 2.94 || 2.94 || 2.51 || 2.41 || 1.04 || 1.25

Germany || 4.62 || 5.06 || 0.66 || 0.69 || 2.33 || 2.48 || 1.17 || 1.34 || 0.47 || 0.55

Estonia || 4.92 || 6.09 || 1.27 || 1.53 || 2.45 || 2.70 || 0.86 || 1.34 || 0.35 || 0.51

Ireland || 4.65 || 6.50 || 1.56 || 2.32 || 2.00 || 2.58 || 1.09 || 1.54 || 0.00 || 0.05

Greece || 3.83 || : || 1.06 || : || 1.34 || : || 1.33 || : || 0.11 || :

Spain || 4.25 || 5.01 || 1.10 || 1.27 || 1.69 || 1.88 || 0.97 || 1.14 || 0.48 || 0.72

France || 5.80 || 5.89 || 1.17 || 1.18 || 2.76 || 2.69 || 1.21 || 1.34 || 0.67 || 0.68

Italy || 4.56 || 4.70 || 1.18 || 1.18 || 2.16 || 2.18 || 0.77 || 0.86 || 0.45 || 0.48

Cyprus || 6.77 || 7.98 || 1.86 || 2.21 || 3.08 || 3.30 || 1.49 || 2.06 || 0.34 || 0.41

Latvia || 5.08 || 5.64 || 0.83 || 1.59 || 2.91 || 2.29 || 0.68 || 0.79 || 0.66 || 0.98

Lithuania || 5.17 || 5.64 || 0.74 || 0.73 || 2.71 || 3.04 || 1.06 || 1.14 || 0.66 || 0.74

Luxembourg || 3.87 || : || 2.12 || 1.36 || 1.75 || 1.84 || : || : || : || 0.59

Hungary || 5.44 || 5.12 || 1.03 || 0.86 || 2.46 || 2.22 || 1.02 || 1.13 || 0.93 || 0.91

Malta || 4.79 || 5.46 || 1.01 || 1.20 || 1.91 || 2.69 || 0.53 || 1.19 || 1.34 || 0.38

Netherlands || 5.46 || 5.94 || 1.44 || 1.48 || 2.15 || 2.42 || 1.45 || 1.63 || 0.42 || 0.41

Austria || 5.48 || 6.01 || 1.04 || 1.05 || 2.61 || 2.83 || 1.43 || 1.57 || 0.40 || 0.55

Poland || 5.41 || 5.10 || 1.70 || 1.58 || 2.01 || 1.92 || 1.15 || 1.07 || 0.55 || 0.52

Portugal || 5.10 || 5.79 || 1.61 || 1.56 || 2.12 || 2.60 || 0.80 || 1.07 || 0.57 || 0.55

Romania || 3.28 || 4.24 || 1.20 || 0.78 || 0.73 || 1.53 || 0.70 || 1.20 || 0.66 || 0.73

Slovenia || 5.74 || 5.70 || 2.63 || 2.49 || 1.34 || 1.26 || 1.30 || 1.38 || 0.48 || 0.57

Slovakia || 4.19 || 4.09 || 0.56 || 0.75 || 2.11 || 1.93 || 0.98 || 0.81 || 0.54 || 0.60

Finland || 6.42 || 6.81 || 1.37 || 1.35 || 2.63 || 2.89 || 2.07 || 2.16 || 0.35 || 0.40

Sweden || 7.09 || 7.26 || 1.91 || 1.75 || 2.66 || 2.75 || 2.02 || 2.04 || 0.50 || 0.73

United Kingdom || 5.16 || 5.67 || 1.35 || 1.76 || 2.47 || 2.78 || 1.00 || 0.81 || 0.34 || 0.31

Source: Eurostat. UOE data collection. Indicators on education finance. See http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/cache/ITY_SDDS/Annexes/educ_esms_an18.pdf for additional country notes

The allocation of resources between different levels of education seems to explain some of the cross-country variation. Indeed, the small growth of total public expenditure on education[14] between 2004 and 2009 was not shared evenly by the level of education (see table 2.1). At the EU level, about a third of this growth was assigned to secondary education, while a sixth at pre-primary and not allocated level; and primary and tertiary education levels consumed each about a quarter.

Most of the education spending consists of current expenditure; mainly salaries and other contributions to teachers (see table 2.C in the annex). In 2009, current expenditure was more than 90% of total expenditure in public education institutions across the EU, and not below 80% in any of the Member States. Because of the importance of personnel expenditure, the expenditure on public education institutions per pupil/student (table 2.D in the annex) is highly influenced by the level of the wages in the economy considered, with richer economies tending to spend more. However, a breakdown of this indicator by level of education shows a common pattern: throughout Europe, the spending on primary education per pupil tends to be lower than the spending on secondary education, which on turn is lower than the spending on tertiary education.

The second phase of the crisis: 2011-2012

From a recent Eurydice report that analyses the recent trends in national policies and budgets for education it can be seen that when looking only at 2011 central budgets for education compared to 2010, there was more than a 5% decrease in the education budget in six countries. However the reasons for these reductions are partially explained by the demographic evolution and only in some countries by anti-crisis measures[15].

One area that has been more affected is the financing of human resources. In fact, one third of the European countries or regions report that the economic and financial crisis has had a direct impact on their teaching workforce. Twelve European countries mention that demographic developments are among the main reasons for changes in the funding of human resources. In most cases, a decrease in the number of students, particularly at upper secondary level has led to the need to rationalise the available resources. However, in several countries, there were positive changes in budgets triggered by an increase in the number of students, especially at pre-primary and primary levels of education.

Six countries or regions report that changes in the financing of human resources reflect educational reforms and new policy priorities, which are sometimes also made against the background of austerity and attempts to reduce state deficits. In the last two years teachers' salaries were not directly affected by the economic downturn in more than half of countries and teachers received the same adjustment as the staff working in the public sector. In a group of ten countries, as an intermediate solution, no cuts were applied in the statutory teachers' salaries but they were not indexed in accordance with the inflation levels. Indeed their absolute values were maintained, but in practice the overall purchasing power declined.

Starting from the school year 2009/10 and especially after mid-2010, the effect of the economic downturn and the pressure on the public finances was much more pronounced and more countries were obliged to apply salary cuts for teachers and other public employees. This was reported by Ireland, Greece, Spain (reduction mainly in 2010/11), Portugal, Slovenia (mainly in the allowances) and some others. In Italy a salary freeze was applied.

In 2012, the majority of countries maintained their arrangements regarding the funding of support mechanisms for pupils and students and/or their families. From the countries with available data only Spain (central budget), Cyprus and Portugal reported a decrease in the funding of available schemes for support of people in education. Eight other countries reported partial reduction in the funding of one or more different available support mechanisms for pupils and students. Some of these reductions in the overall budget were due to the relative reduction of the number of potential beneficiaries (in the case of child allowances), or restructuring of the criteria for grant allocation for example. In some other cases, the reduction is due to the budget reallocation or restrictions.

3. Early leavers from education and training 3.1. The problem of early school leaving

With growing demands for high skills and qualifications, upper secondary education is now firmly entrenched as a minimum attainment level for all European citizens leaving the education and training system. Young people who leave education and training prematurely[16] lack crucial skills and run the risk of facing serious, persistent problems on the labour market.

Indeed, the problem of early school leaving (ESL) is best defined by its consequences. Across the EU, 54.8% of early school leavers are either unemployed or inactive (figure 3.1). Of these not-employed early school leavers, about 70% would like to work. Overall youth unemployment, comparatively, is 21.3% across the EU[17].

And the unemployment risk for early school leavers is likely to become worse. According to the latest skills forecast from Cedefop[18], the number of jobs available across the EU for individuals with lower secondary education at most – which has already decreased 20.4% between 2000 and 2010 – is likely to decrease a further 18.9% between 2010 and 2020.

Figure 3.1. Early leavers from education and training by employment status (2011)

Source: Eurostat (LFS). For Croatia, Estonia, Latvia, Iceland and Malta: DG EAC, estimation based on Eurostat data. For Croatia and Slovenia: Data lack reliability due to small sample size. *MK: The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia.

Individual early school leavers who do manage to enter the labour market are more likely to be in precarious and low-paid jobs and to draw on welfare and other social programmes throughout their lives. Moreover, they are less likely to be 'active citizens' or to engage in lifelong learning[19]. For society at large, ESL is an obstacle to economic growth and employment[20]. It hampers productivity and competitiveness, and fuels poverty and social exclusion. With its shrinking workforce, Europe has to make full use of its human resources. Tackling ESL is a stepping stone towards improving opportunities for young people as well as achieving smart, sustainable and inclusive growth.

In 2011, ESL across the EU amounted on average to 13.5%. This means that 5.6 million individuals aged 18 to 24 left education and training early, with lower secondary education at most. As can be seen in table 3.1, foreign-born students are at much higher risk of dropping out of school. School systems often fail to adequately include foreign-born students, sometimes dramatically so (Greece, Italy, Spain)[21]. The risk of early school leaving is closely linked to the lower socioeconomic status of students born abroad.

At the same time, in all Member States except Bulgaria education systems prove less capable of leading boys to upper secondary graduation than girls. On average, early school leaving is more than 30% higher amongst boys than amongst girls, with peaks for Slovenia, Lithuania, Latvia and Poland[22].

Table 3.1. Early leavers from education and training by sex and country of birth (%)

|| 2006 || 2011 || Target

Total || Total || Males || Females || Foreign-born (i) ||

EU 27 countries || 15.5 || 13.5 || 15.3 || 11.6 || 24.9 || < 10.0

Belgium || 12.6 || 12.3 || 14.9 || 9.7 || 23.3 || 9.5

Bulgaria || 17.3 || 12.8 || 12.0 || 13.7 || : || 11.0

Czech Republic || 5.1 || 4.9 || 5.4 || 4.4 || (10.3) || 5.5

Denmark || 9.1 || 9.6 || 12.1 || 7.0 || (13.0) || < 10.0

Germany || 13.7 || 11.5 || 12.4 || 10.6 || 21.9 || < 10.0

Estonia || 13.5 || 10.9 || (13.1) || (8.6) || : || 9.5

Ireland || 12.1 || 10.6 || 12.5 || 8.7 || 15.4 || 8.0

Greece || 15.5 || 13.1 || 16.1 || 10.1 || 44.9 || 9.7

Spain || 30.5 || 26.5 || 31.0 || 21.9 || 41.2 || 15.0

France || 12.4 || 12.0 || 13.9 || 10.2 || 21.9 || 9.5

Italy || 20.6 || 18.2 || 21.0 || 15.2 || 40.2 || 15.0-16.0

Cyprus || 14.9 || 11.2 || 15.1 || 8.1 || 21.7 || 10.0

Latvia || 14.8 || 11.8 || 15.9 || 7.7 || : || 13.4

Lithuania || 8.2 || 7.9 || 10.6 || (5.0) || : || < 9.0

Luxembourg || 14.0 || (6.2) || (7.6) || : || : || < 10.0

Hungary || 12.6 || 11.2 || 12.1 || 10.3 || : || 10.0

Malta [23] || 39.9 p || 33.5 p || 38.9 p || 27.6 p || : || 29.0

Netherlands || 12.6 || 9.1 || 10.8 || 7.2 || 8.7 || < 8.0

Austria || 9.8 || 8.3 || 8.8 || 7.8 || 19.8 || 9.5

Poland || 5.4 || 5.6 || 7.4 || 3.8 || : || 4.5

Portugal || 39.1 || 23.2 || 28.2 || 18.1 || 21.0 || 10.0

Romania || 17.9 || 17.5 || 18.5 || 16.6 || : || 11.3

Slovenia || 5.6 || (4.2) || (5.7) || (2.5) || (17.3) || 5.0

Slovakia || 6.6 || 5.0 || 5.4 || 4.6 || : || 6.0

Finland || 9.7 || 9.8 || 11.2 || 8.4 || 21.1 || 8.0

Sweden || 8,6 p || 6.7 p || 7.8 p || 5.3 p || 11.1 p || < 10.0

United Kingdom || 11.3 || 15.0 || 16.2 || 13.8 || 11.4 || :

Croatia || (4.7) || (4.1) || (4.8) || (3.4) || : || :

Montenegro || : || : || : || : || : || :

Iceland || 25.6 || 19.7 || 22.2 || 17.1 || : || :

MK* || 22.8 || 13.5 || 11.9 || 15.2 || (27.1) || :

Serbia || : || : || : || : || : || :

Turkey || 48.8 || 41.9 || 37.7 || 45.7 || 25.0 || :

Liechtenstein || : || : || : || : || : || :

Norway || 17.8 b || 16.6 || 19.9 || 13.1 || 16.7 || :

Source: Eurostat (LFS). Intermediate breaks in time series for Denmark, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom. Notes: "b" = break in time series; "p" = provisional; "()" = Data lack reliability due to small sample size; ":" = data either not available or not reliable due to very small sample size; *MK: The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia; see Annex 2.1; (i) The sub-group foreign-born refers to first generation immigrants, and hence does not capture second or third generation immigrants or populations who are not naturalized.

The average ESL rate for the EU27 has decreased by 12.9% between 2006 and 2011 (table 3.1), out of which 9.4% between 2008 and 2011 (figure 3.2). Figure 3.2 shows how, on average, the ESL rate has decreased more for native-born than for foreign-born individuals and more for women than for men; indicating that the gaps between these subgroups have increased. Closing the gender gap and the difference between native-born and foreign-born students is likely to have a strong impact on the overall EU performance on this headline target.

Figure 3.2. 2008-2011 change in ESL rate of subgroups (EU27)

Source: JRC-CRELL calculations based on Eurostat data.

3.2. Progress towards headline target and national targets

The Europe 2020 Strategy headline target aims to bring down the rate of ESL to below 10% or less by 2020[24]. The current situation varies significantly across Member States. A number of countries have reached the benchmark, primarily in Northern and Eastern Europe. Some countries were already below 10% at the beginning of the monitoring period and have further improved their performance since 2000. In various southern Member States the situation is still problematic.

Currently, 11 Member States are over the 10% benchmark. Malta (33.5%), Spain (26.5%) and Portugal (23.2%) have the highest rates of ESL, but have made a lot of progress in recent years. Other Member States that have reduced ESL include Cyprus (11.2%), Latvia (11.8%) and Bulgaria (12.8%). Only a small minority of countries have experienced an increasing rate from 2006 to 2011.

Figure 3.3 provides a more comprehensive picture of Member States on the basis of their current share of early school leavers and their average annual progress over the more recent period 2008-2011. The dashed horizontal line in figure 3.3 represents the Europe 2020 headline target (an ESL rate below 10%). The dashed vertical line represents the minimum annual progress for the EU27 as a whole that is required to go down from 14.9% in 2008 to 9.9% in 2020. As can be seen in the figure, the EU27, on average, fell short of the minimum progress required and is still 3.6 percentage points away from the "below 10%" target. Another observation is that none of the larger Member States have reached their national targets yet, as listed in the final column of table 3.1.

In the lower left corner countries are characterised by an ESL rate better than the EU27 headline target (although not necessarily better than their national targets), as well as by a recent decrease in the ESL rate that goes beyond the minimum required progress for the EU27 average to reach the headline target by 2020. The Netherlands owes its position to a very developed and successful policy approach and a consistent reduction in ESL rates.

Countries in the lower right corner are characterised by ESL rates in 2011 that were already below 10%, yet a slower annual decrease during the period 2008-2011 than required for the EU27 as a whole to reach the target by 2020. In fact, Lithuania and Poland have seen an average annual increase in the ESL rate between 2008 and 2011. Lithuania has already gone beyond its national target, whereas Poland has yet to reach its national target.

Figure 3.3 shows that most countries have higher ESL rates than the Europe 2020 headline target, with a couple of countries nevertheless featuring a decrease of ESL rates beyond the minimum required progress. It has to be kept in mind, however, that some of the countries in the upper left corner of figure 3.3 do show a very high ESL rate. Their current performance in reducing ESL is commendable, but will not necessarily help the EU27 reach its overall target by 2020. This illustrates the relevance of national targets, with some countries having to aim higher in order for the EU27 average of "below 10%" to be reached.

Figure 3.3. Grouping of countries according to ESL rate and progress[25]

Source: JRC-CRELL and DG EAC calculations based on Eurostat data.

Stronger efforts are needed in countries that feature both ESL rates above 10% in 2011 and a slower decrease of ESL rates than minimally required for the EU27 to reach the headline target by 2020. Romania has a high and increasing ESL rate and France and Belgium also show an average annual increase in their ESL rates. Germany and Hungary are not making sufficient progress either, lagging behind the minimum progress required for the EU27 to reach the headline target by 2020.

When comparing table 3.1 and figure 3.3, some stagnation can be observed in the more recent progress across the EU. While most countries were able to reduce their ESL rates during the last five years, some Member States (e.g. Germany, France and Hungary) show no significant improvement towards the ESL headline target in the last three years (2008-2011). Even more recently, the UK has also seen stagnation in progress (2010-2011). Figure 3.A in the annex shows the long-term development of ESL rates in all countries. Moreover, a separate Staff Working Document with country-specific summaries provides a closer look at the progress in each Member State[26].

3.3. An EU trajectory towards 2020

Since 2000, the decrease in ESL has, on average, been slow. There has been an annual reduction of less than 0.4 percentage points, adding up to a total of 4.1 percentage points in the last 11 years. In terms of the number of individuals, the progress appears more significant, amounting to 2.2 million fewer individuals leaving education and training early at the age of 18-24 in 2011 compared to 2000, which represents a decline of more than 27%. As illustrated in figure 3.4, extrapolating this trend would mean that the EU would be missing its target for 2020; a scenario that is all the more likely as the effort required increases while the target group shrinks.

Figure 3.4. Projection for the rate of early leavers from education and training (%)

||

Source: JRC-CRELL calculations based on Eurostat data.

Reaching the 10% target for the benchmark indicator by 2020 would therefore require at least as much effort as in the past, if not more. This is also because the size of younger cohorts will shrink by 2020 in most Member States and across the EU, changing the relative weight of each country as measured by its population share in the total EU population[27]. Some high performing countries will count less towards the EU average, while some low performing countries will count more – resulting in a less favourable situation for the EU as a whole.

When simply extrapolating the current trend, an additional 1.5 million individuals will have to remain in the education and training systems in order to reach the headline target by 2020, amounting to an average of about 170,000 individuals per year. However, when taking into account the latest projections of demographic changes, an even bigger effort is needed. As compared to 2011, an additional 2 million individuals will have to be kept in education and training, translating into an annual average of about 220,000 individuals. As can be seen in table 3.2, this is an extra 20,000 fewer early school leavers per year on top of the annual change that was achieved between 2000 and 2011.

Table 3.2. Change needed to reach the ESL headline target by 2020 (in millions)

Change between 2000-2011 || Change needed to reach the target by 2020

|| || Based solely on current trend || Accounting for changing cohort sizes

Cumulated 2000-2011 || per year || Cumulated 2011-2020 || per year || Cumulated 2011-2020 || per year

-2.20 || -0.20 || -1.50 || -0.17 || -2.00 || -0.22

Source: JRC-CRELL calculations based on Eurostat data and EUROPOP projections.

3.4. The road ahead for Member States

Member States' national targets, as set out in their National Reform Programmes, are by and large very cautious (see table 3.1) and would also suggest that Europe may fall short of the 10% target for 2020. On 30 May 2012, the European Commission presented a set of country-specific recommendations to Member States on reforms to increase stability, growth and employment across the EU. Six countries (Denmark, Hungary, Italy, Latvia, Malta and Spain) received recommendations to address ESL.

While the factors leading to ESL vary from country to country, the causes of ineffective policies can be boiled down to three typical issues[28]:

§ Lack of a comprehensive strategy: many countries adopt a patchwork of different measures to tackle various aspects of ESL, but these do not necessarily add up to a comprehensive strategy. Systemic change will be more feasible if Member States move from projects to policies, ideally connecting cross-sectoral initiatives in a more "holistic" approach.

§ Lack of evidence-based policy-making: with some notable exceptions, Member States lack detailed information on the background of early school leavers and an analysis of the causes and incidence of ESL as well as a systematic collection, analysis and dissemination of evidence about effective practices for tackling ESL. Particular blind spots are ESL from initial vocational education and training (VET), and breakdowns by socioeconomic status.

§ Insufficient prevention and early intervention: some Member States devote too little attention to prevention. A stronger focus on preventive and early intervention measures is needed both at system level and at the level of individual education and training institutions. Partial, compensatory measures (such as second-chance education), albeit important, are not enough to address the root causes of the problem.

Another challenge that is of prime importance is to ensure that VET is a realistic, high-quality opportunity for young learners, offering a more hands-on solution so that less academically oriented learners have an attractive alternative to general education and training. However, this approach can only work if the status and relevance of VET is increased, and if dropout from VET is brought down.

Following the Council Recommendation on policies to reduce early school leaving, adopted in June 2011, the European Commission set up a Thematic Working Group of Member State experts to exchange experience and good practice and to develop policy guidelines for implementing evidence-based and comprehensive strategies to reduce early school leaving.

Moreover, European funding – both European Structural Funds and European education and research programmes – will be targeted to better support the development of comprehensive policies against early school leaving.

4. Encouraging participation in Higher Education

Higher education, with its links to research and innovation, plays a crucial role in individual and societal advancement, and in providing the highly skilled human capital that Europe needs to create jobs, economic growth and prosperity. The European Commission’s agenda for the modernisation of Europe’s higher education systems[29] lies at the heart of the Europe 2020 Strategy for investment in human resources and creating sustainable growth towards and beyond 2020.

4.1. The issue of attaining increased levels of higher education completion

In 2011 nearly half of the EU Member States have reached the EU target of 40% tertiary level education attainment or equivalent for the age group 30 to 34 years old (see figure 4.1), whereas 10 Member States have accomplished their national target. All EU Member States except the United Kingdom have set national targets for the EU headline indicator.

Figure 4.1. Tertiary attainment level or equivalent, ages 30-34 (%), 2011

Source: Eurostat (LFS). Note: The lighter blue parts for Austria and Germany denotes inclusion of postsecondary attainment (ISCED 4 for DE and ISCED 4/4a for AT, both national data); this is the equivalent identified in the headline indicator definition.

The increasing level of tertiary attainment in the European Union reflects to some extent investment by European governments in higher education with a view to meeting demand for a higher skilled labour force. In some Member States, increased attainment rates also reflect the shift to shorter degree programmes following implementation of Bologna process reforms[30].

Since 2000, the tertiary attainment level in the EU has increased by more than 12 percentage points – from 22.4% to 34.6% in 2011 (see table 4.1) – corresponding to an annual average progress of more than 1 percentage point. Disaggregating data by gender shows an impressive progress for women, who have outperformed men in overall attainment rates since 2000. In terms of absolute numbers, the progress has been significant, amounting to about 3.7 million graduates or nearly a 50% increase compared to 2000 numbers.

Table 4.1. Tertiary attainment level or equivalent, ages 30-34 (%), 2011

|| 2000 || 2010 || 2011

Benchmark indicator, (%) || 22.4 || 33.5 || 34.6[31]

Benchmark indicator - men, (%) || 22.2 || 30.0 || 30.8

Benchmark indicator - women, (%) || 22.7 || 37.2 || 38.5

Total population of 30-34 year-olds (millions) || 37.2 || 34.7 || 34.7[32]

Number of 30-34 years-olds with completed tertiary education (millions) || 8.3 || 11.6 || 12.0

Source: Eurostat (LFS).

The gender difference is further documented in table 4.2 which shows that women outnumber men significantly in terms of tertiary attainment in all but one Member State[33]. In fact, there is more than 10 percentage points difference between the attainment levels of women and men in half of the EU Member States.

Table 4.2. Tertiary educational attainment, ages 30-34 by sex and migrant status (%)

|| 2006 || 2011 || Target

Total || Total || Males || Females || Born abroad ||

EU 27 countries || 28.9 || 34.6 || 30.8 || 38.5 || 30.9 || 40

Belgium || 41.4 || 42.6 || 37.1 || 48.1 || 34.8 || 47

Bulgaria || 25.3 || 27.3 || 21.3 || 34 || : || 36

Czech Republic || 13.1 || 23.8 || 21.6 || 26.1 || 33.8 || 32

Denmark || 43 || 41.2 || 34.7 || 48 || 31.5 || 40

Germany || 25.8 || 30.7 || 29.9 || 31.6 || 25.4 || 42

Estonia || 32.5 || 40.3 || 30.5 || 50.2 || : || 40

Ireland || 41.3 || 49.4 || 42.8 || 55.8 || 53.2 || 60

Greece || 26.7 || 28.9 || 26.2 || 31.7 || 9.5 || 32

Spain || 38.1 || 40.6 || 36.3 || 45 || 24.4 || 44

France || 39.7 || 43.4 || 39.1 || 47.6 || 33.7 || 50

Italy || 17.7 || 20.3 || 15.9 || 24.7 || 12.3 || 26

Cyprus || 46.1 || 45.8 || 39.7 || 52 || 35.3 || 46

Latvia || 19.2 || 35.7 || 24.8 || 46.9 || : || 34

Lithuania || 39.4 || 45.4 || 37.6 || 53.3 || : || 40

Luxembourg || 35.5 || 48.2 || 49.1 || 47.4 || 52.9 || 40

Hungary || 19 || 28.1 || 23.2 || 33.4 || 32.5 || 30.3

Malta || 21.6 || 21.1 || 20.1 || 22.1 || : || 33

Netherlands || 35.8 || 41.1 || 37.3 || 44.8 || 30.1 || 40

Austria || 21.2 || 23.8 || 23.1 || 24.5 || 24.2 || 38

Poland || 24.7 || 36.9 || 30.3 || 43.5 || : || 45

Portugal || 18.4 || 26.1 || 21.7 || 30.5 || 24.2 || 40

Romania || 12.4 || 20.4 || 19.7 || 21 || : || 26.7

Slovenia || 28.1 || 37.9 || 29.4(i) || 47.3(i) || (16.9) || 40

Slovakia || 14.4 || 23.4 || 19.6 || 27.4 || : || 40

Finland || 46.2 || 46.0 || 37.1 || 55 || 28.2 || 42

Sweden || 39.5 || 47.5 || 40.6 || 54.6 || 45.0 || 40

United Kingdom || 36.5 || 45.8 || 43 || 48.6 || 55.1 || :

Switzerland || 35 || 44.0 || 19.4 || 41.2 || 41.5 || :

Croatia || 16.7 || 24.5 || 36.1(p) || 30 || : || :

Iceland || 36.4 || 44.6 || 46.8 || 53.1(p) || 34.0 || :

Montenegro || : || 20.4 || : || : || : || :

Norway || 41.9b || 48.8 || 41.5 || 56.4 || 39.0 || :

Turkey || 11.9 || 16.3 || 18.3(u) || 14.3(u) || 36.0 || :

Source: Eurostat (LFS). Notes: Inclusion of postsecondary education for Germany (ISCED 4) and Austria (ISCED 4a and 4) give levels of respectively 42% and 37%/38% (national data sources).

There are great differences in the choice of study field between women and men. A significantly higher proportion of men is graduating in mathematics, science or engineering subjects, whereas women dominate education, humanities, art and service-oriented educational fields (see table 4.A in annex).

It is a key challenge for Member States and for higher education institutions to attract a broader cross-section of society into higher education[34] including disadvantaged and vulnerable groups, and deploy the resources to meet this challenge. Reducing higher education drop-out rates is also crucial in several Member States. The success of these aspirations and achievements partly depends on policies to improve earlier educational outcomes and to reduce school drop-out at lower educational levels in line with the Europe 2020 target and the recent Council Recommendation on early school leaving (see also chapter 3).

The difference in tertiary attainment between the native-born and foreign-born population is 3.7 percentage points at the EU level (see table 4.2). The foreign-born population has significantly lower attainment levels in Southern European countries such as Greece, Spain, Cyprus, Italy and also in France, in the Nordic countries (but to a lesser degree in Sweden) and in the Netherlands and Belgium[35]. However, the attainment level is higher for the foreign-born population compared to the native-born in a number of countries such as the Czech Republic, the United Kingdom, Ireland, Luxembourg, Hungary and Austria; there is also a major discrepancy in Turkey.

A number of Member States have set high national targets for tertiary attainment levels in 2020. In terms of level these include Ireland (60%), France (50%), Belgium (47%), Cyprus (46%) and Poland (45%). It should, however, be noted that the countries with the most ambitious national targets are those with the furthest distance to travel in terms of attainment: Slovakia (23% to 40%), Portugal (26% to 40% target) and Malta (21% to 33%).

Figure 4.2. Recent change in tertiary attainment rate of subgroups (EU27)

Source: JRC-CRELL calculations based on Eurostat data.

Figure 4.2 further documents that the gender difference has been increasing since 2008 at EU level reflecting developments in most Member States, although both men and women attain higher levels in 2011 than in 2008 (positive change). On the other hand, the attainment level for foreign-born persons increased more than for the native-born indicating that migrant populations in the EU are catching up with the attainment level of natives.

4.2. The current status and trajectories towards 2020

In 2011, approximately 12 million individuals aged 30 to 34 had attained a tertiary education qualification or equivalent. Back in 2001, there were about 8 million individuals already enrolled in tertiary education by the age of 20-24. These individuals aged between 20 and 24 in 2001 are those entering into the calculation of the benchmark in 2011. This shows that there must be some additional factors explaining the gap (amounting to 4 million), such as migration, or a significant share of individuals completing their education after the age of 24. With this in mind, the latest data from 2011 looks encouraging because there are now more than 9.5 million individuals already enrolled in a first or second stage of tertiary education between the ages of 20-24, which would be counted in the benchmark indicator for 2020 – a progress of nearly 1.5 million individuals in 9 years.

Figure 4.3. Grouping of countries according to tertiary attainment rate and progress[36]

Source: JRC-CRELL and DG EAC calculations based on Eurostat data.

Figure 4.3 provides a more comprehensive picture of the situation of Member States in terms of where they are now (vertical axis) and the change they have experienced during the last four years (2008-2011). The dashed horizontal line indicates the 40% target for 2020 whereas the dashed vertical line marks the minimum annual progress required over the period 2008 to 2011 to reach the 2020 level. Countries marked with green are those which have in 2011 reached their national target.

In this way the four quadrants of the scatterplot illustrate the four scenarios in which countries presently find themselves; e.g. countries like BE, DK, CY, FR, FI and NL have all reached the 40% target but have low positive to negative changes, i.e. their situation is stagnating. This is unlike the situation for countries as EE, ES, IE, LT, LU, SE and the UK, which are also above the target but are still developing fast towards even higher attainment levels.

The countries in the lower part of the scatterplot are divided into those with below target attainment levels and stagnating to very little progress (BG, MT, IT) compared to those below target but with higher changes such as SI, PL, LV, HU, PT, RO and particularly SK and CZ. The overall EU level is still more than 5 percentage points below target but nevertheless located in the group with higher annual changes.

From a historical perspective, the 40% target set for 2020 looks within reach as, by 2020, the EU will only need less than half of the progress observed in the previous decade (this is indicated by the solid line in figure 4.4A). Therefore, if the dynamic registered in the past is to continue and assuming no severe adverse shocks, Europe should easily outperform the target (this is indicated by the dashed line in figure 4.4A).

It can also be noted that the tertiary attainment level of women would, with present trends, reach more than 50% in 2020 (i.e. more than half of the female population aged 30 to 34 years old in 2020 would have acquired a tertiary level qualification – see figure 4.4B). On the other hand, the male population would, with current trends, only reach a level around 38%; below the target level of 40%. This projected widening of the gender gap in tertiary attainment levels could cause some concern in relation to the tendency for men and women in choosing different study fields and thereby labour market opportunities.

Figures 4.4A (left) and 4.4B (right). Tertiary attainment level trajectories

Source: JRC-CRELL calculations based on Eurostat data.

During the period 2000 to 2011, the EU experienced a cumulated growth of 3.7 million individuals who had completed tertiary education by the age of 30-34. Reaching the 40% target by 2020 will nevertheless require an increase in the total number of individuals 30-34 years old with completed tertiary education under either of the following two assumptions: (i) the cohort size of the 30-34 years old will remain at 2011 levels or (ii) it changes according to the latest EUROPOP projection. This is presented in Table 4.3.

In particular an additional 0.21 million individuals with completed tertiary education are needed per year to ensure that the EU target is reached in 2020 – meaning a total of 1.9 million over the 2011-2020 period. If we consider that the cohort size is shrinking, then only 0.16 million per year, or a total of 1.5 million individuals with completed tertiary education is needed over the same period.

Table 4.3. Change needed to reach the 2020 target (in millions)

Change between 2000-2011 || Change needed to reach the target by 2020

|| || Based solely on current trend || Accounting for changing cohort sizes

Cumulated 2000-2011 || per year || Cumulated 2011-2020 || per year || Cumulated 2011-2020 || per year

+3.70 || +0.34 || +1.90 || +0.21 || +1.50 || +0.16

Source: JRC-CRELL calculations based on Eurostat data and EUROPOP projections.

4.3. The road ahead for Member States

The Member States' national targets, as set out in their National Reform Programmes[37], are for some very ambitious and for others more modest (see figure 4.1). A third of the Member States share the EU target of reaching a 40% tertiary attainment or equivalent level by 2020.

In May 2012, during the second European Semester, the Commission presented country specific recommendations for tertiary level education for 9 Member States (Austria, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Italy, Latvia, Slovenia and Slovakia).

Four types of main recommendations were identified for these countries:

§ To ensure effective access to higher education for disadvantaged groups;

§ To adopt the necessary legislation to establish a transparent and clearly defined system for quality evaluation of higher education. Ensure the funding is sustainable and linked to a quality assessment;

§ To take measures to reduce drop-out rates from higher education; and

§ To improve the matching of skills with labour market demands.

These recommendations are followed up in the national reform programmes which outline the actions countries take or plan to take for tackling the type of issues as identified above. The Commission also follows up on the recommendations through different mechanisms from encouraging and organising peer reviews of education systems to focussing funding on education issues in for example the new 2014-2020 budget cycle for structural funds.

These country specific recommendations also mirror the general recommendations for both the EU modernisation agenda for higher education and in the most recent Bologna process communiqué for the European Higher Education area. Key priorities are to attract a broader cross section of society into higher education, to improve the quality and relevance of higher education, to improve governance and funding, to support reform through policy evidence, analysis and transparency and to link to the labour market through employability[38]. A key goal of the modernisation agenda and for these key areas is to increase overall skill levels and satisfy changing labour market demands.

5. The case for high-quality Early Childhood Education and Care

Early childhood education and care (ECEC) is a crucial first step in a long process of lifelong learning. A successful early start decreases socioeconomic and other background related disadvantages, and secures equal chances for a successful school career and a fulfilling future[39]. As such, it is a primary element in preventing early school leaving (an EU2020 headline target) and low educational performance.

In recognition of its importance, the Council decided to include a benchmark on ECEC in the framework for European cooperation in education and training, stating that participation in pre-school education – of children between 4-years-old and the starting age of compulsory education – should be at least 95% by 2020[40].

Table 5.1. Participation in ECEC, child/staff ratio and total expenditure per pupil

|| Age range [41] || Participation in ECEC (%) || Child/staff ratio [42] || Expenditure per pupil [43]

|| 2006 || 2010 || 2006 || 2010 || 2006 || 2009

EU 27 countries || - || 89.3 || 92.3 || 14.1 || 13.4 || - || -

Belgium || 4-5 || 99.9 || 99.1 || 16.0 || 15.9 || 15.5 || 16.0

Bulgaria || 4-6 || 80.5 || 79.2 || 11.5 || 12.0 || 30.1 || 34.7

Czech Republic || 4-5 || 92.6 || 88.7 || 12.5 || 13.9 || 16.1 || 18.4

Denmark || 4-6 || 92.0 || 91.1 || : || : || 17.6 || 24.4

Germany || 4-5 || 93.0 || 96.2 || 14.3 || 12.6 || 17.5 || 21.8

Estonia || 4-6 || 94.9 || 89.8 b || 8.3 || 6.0 || 10.5 || 13.2

Ireland || 4-5 || : || 85.4 || 14.1 || 19.8 || : || :

Greece || 4-5 || 70.9 || 73.5 || 12.4 || : || : || :

Spain || 4-5 || 98.5 || 99.4 || 14.0 || 13.0 || 18.5 || 24.0

France || 4-5 || 100.0 || 100.0 || 19.3 || 21.5 || 16.4 || 18.6

Italy || 4-5 || 100.0 || 97.1 || 11.6 || 11.8 || 19.4 || 19.4

Cyprus || 4-5 || 84.7 || 87.7 || 18.1 || 17.0 || 17.2 || 20.4

Latvia || 4-6 || 87.2 || 87.4 || 13.5 || 12.1 || 25.7 || 42.3

Lithuania || 4-6 || 75.8 || 78.3 || 8.9 || 7.8 || 22.9 || 31.4

Luxembourg || 4-5 || 95.0 || 94.6 || : || 12.0 || : || 19.9

Hungary || 4-5 || 94.5 || 94.3 || 10.7 || 11.0 || : || :

Malta * || 4 || 95.5 || 89.0 || 12.7 || 15.2 || 22.6 || 24.5

Netherlands || 4 || 74,2 || 99.6 || : || : || 16.6 || 18.0

Austria || 4-5 || 88.1 || 92.1 || 16.8 || 14.7 || 22.6 || 26.2

Poland || 4-6 || 64.0 || 76.3 || 18.0 || 18.7 || 28.0 || 26.8

Portugal || 4-5 || 86.8 || 89.3 || 15.0 || 15.7 || 15.1 || 15.3

Romania || 4-5 || 81.2 || 82.1 || 18.2 || 17.5 || 12.9 || 13.5

Slovenia || 4-6 || 88.6 || 92.0 || 9.4 || 9.4 || 30.7 || 30.6

Slovak Republic || 4-5 || 79.4 || 77.5 || 13.5 || 12.5 || 18.3 || 20.1

Finland || 4-6 || 68.1 || 73.1 || 12.0 || 11.0 || 14.0 || 15.6

Sweden || 4-6 || 91.3 || 95.1 || 11.4 || 6.3 || 15.6 || 17.6

United Kingdom || 4 || 91.1 || 96.7 || 19.8 || 15.9 || 25.5 || 22.8

Croatia || 4-5 || 61.9 || 70.1 || 12.8 || 12.1 || 27.7 || 30.3

Montenegro || : || : || : || : || : || : || :

Iceland || 4-6 || 95.7 || 95.8 || 7.2 || 6.9 || 23.2 || 26.3

MK ** || 4-6 || 24.6 || 29.6 || 10.8 || 7.4 || : || :

Serbia || : || : || : || : || : || : || :

Turkey || 4-5 || 23.2 || 38.7 || 26.3 || 23.0 || : || :

Liechtenstein || 4-5 || 84.2 || 85.2 || 13.1 || 10.5 || : || :

Norway || 4-5 || 92.4 || 97.1 || : || : || 10.7 || 12.3

Source: Eurostat (UOE). Note: Intermediary break in series for Ireland and the Netherlands; ":" = data either not available or not reliable due to very small sample size; "b" = break in series; *Malta is currently revising the figures due to new population estimates. **MK: The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia; see Annex 2.1.

In 2010, the average participation in ECEC was 92.3%, and the 95%-benchmark appears to be in reach. The value for the EU average increased by 3 percentage points between 2006 and 2010, however, some of this change is a statistical effect due to the on-going harmonisation of the measurement of ECEC. In several countries rates are already above 95%, giving an indication of almost universal attendance of education from age 4. Difference between boys and girls in ECEC attendance is negligible. Moreover, in most countries with low participation rates, growth in recent years has been notable.

Denmark, Greece, Latvia and Poland have lowered the age for compulsory education, extending it to pre-primary. As such, the 12.3% increase in Poland might be partly due to the introduction of new legislation, granting 5-year-olds a statutory right to complete one preparatory school year[44]. In addition, Poland introduced targeted measures in rural areas[45].

The availability of alternative types of provision, such as the family day care attended by a number of children in Finland, could contribute to a lower level of participation in ECEC. Other underlying reasons might include funding decisions at the local or national level, or operational constraints in increasing the supply of early childhood education in specific areas of the country, or for specific groups of children[46].

5.1. The quality of ECEC provision

In order for ECEC to be a strong start for individuals and a potential equaliser for European societies, provision must be of sufficient quality. However, it is not easy to measure the quality of ECEC. Amongst the quality indicators used in national and international assessments are governance structures necessary for regular programme monitoring and assessment, system accountability and quality assurance[47].

Table 5.1 shows two proxies for quality in ECEC, namely the child/staff ratio and total expenditure, both relating to pre-primary education. When comparing the data for 2006 and 2010, we can see that both dimensions of ECEC quality are slowly improving in most Member States.

Most Member States show a child/staff ratio around or below the 15 to 1 recommendation from UNICEF[48], with Estonia (6.0 to 1) and France (21.5 to 1) at opposite extremes. Secondly, expenditure per child varies considerably across the EU. Of all the Member States, Latvia, Bulgaria, Lithuania and Slovenia spend most per pupil in pre-primary education (in relation to their GDP per capita).

Eurydice is preparing a report on ECEC that will provide comparable indicators on the various aspects of quality. For example, it has gathered data on minimum qualification requirements for ECEC staff, which shows that in many education systems tertiary degrees are not required for staff working with children under 3 years old, even though research shows that higher level staff qualifications are generally associated with higher ECEC quality[49].

Continued efforts are needed to improve and maintain the quality of ECEC provision. Minimum requirements might be useful in this respect. These might include structural requirements, such as health and safety standards, infrastructure, child/staff ratios, staff qualifications, staff salaries, curriculum standards, and requirements concerning the social environment, governance issues, and child outcomes (cognitive, social, emotional and physical).

5.2. Targeted support for disadvantaged groups

All European countries implement measures intended to prevent educational difficulties for children at risk. For example, in all education and training systems where fees are required for ECEC, parental contributions are adjusted in order to facilitate access for disadvantaged groups[50]. The most successful systems are those that have more comprehensive services helping these children, but also their families – proving e.g. job-related training and parent education[51]. However, the measures (e.g. language training programmes, appointment of extra staff, additional financing) usually apply only to older children (from age 4)[52].

When it comes to ethnic minorities, pre-school attendance of Roma children has been studied in a recent report published jointly by the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA) and the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP)[53]. There is a considerable gap between Roma and non-Roma children attending pre-school and kindergarten in nine of the 11 Member States surveyed. However, significant differences exist between EU Member States: in Hungary and Spain, for instance, at least 70% of Roma children surveyed are reported to attend ECEC, whereas in Greece, less than 10 % of Roma children are reported to be in ECEC.

The Commission's first assessment of the National Roma Integration Strategies emphasises the importance of quality ECEC provisions for Roma, and lists 14 Member States that have addressed the corresponding measures required by the EU Framework[54].

6. Acquiring the skills needed for the future

Improving the key competences of individuals is a major objective of all education and training systems. These range from basic skills such as reading and mathematics to transversal skills such as ICT and entrepreneurship. For the European economy skills are a precondition for competitiveness and innovation, and in an ever-changing society, young people need to continually update their skills profile through lifelong learning.

6.1. Basic skills: reading, maths and science

Basic skills – such as the ability to understand a written text or to carry out simple calculations – form the basis for learning and to acquire more specialised skills. Against the ever higher demands of the knowledge society, there has been limited progress in improving basic skills. The share of fifteen-year-olds that fail to acquire basic skills amounts to about one fifth.

Table 6.1. Percentage of low achievers in reading, maths and science, by sex

|| Reading || Maths || Science

2006 || 2009 || 2006 || 2009 || 2006 || 2009

Total || Total || Boys || Girls || Total || Total || Boys || Girls || Total || Total || Boys || Girls

EU 25 countries || 23.1 || 19.6 || 25.9 || 13.3 || 24.0 || 22.2 || 21.0 || 23.5 || 20.3 || 17.7 || 18.6 || 16.8

Belgium || 19.4 || 17.7 || 21.5 || 13.8 || 17.3 || 19.1 || 16.8 || 21.4 || 17.0 || 18.0 || 17.9 || 18.2

Bulgaria || 51.1 || 41.0 || 52.0 || 29.1 || 53.3 || 47.1 || 48.2 || 45.9 || 42.6 || 38.8 || 43.3 || 34.0

Czech Republic || 24.8 || 23.1 || 30.8 || 14.3 || 19.2 || 22.3 || 21.7 || 23.1 || 15.5 || 17.3 || 17.9 || 16.5

Denmark || 16.0 || 15.2 || 19.0 || 11.5 || 13.6 || 17.1 || 14.7 || 19.4 || 18.4 || 16.6 || 15.2 || 17.9

Germany || 20.0 || 18.5 || 24.0 || 12.6 || 19.9 || 18.6 || 17.2 || 20.2 || 15.4 || 14.8 || 15.0 || 14.5

Estonia || 13.6 || 13.3 || 18.9 || 7.3 || 12.1 || 12.7 || 11.9 || 13.5 || 7.7 || 8.3 || 8.6 || 8.1

Ireland || 12.1 || 17.2 || 23.1 || 11.3 || 16.4 || 20.8 || 20.6 || 21.0 || 15.5 || 15.2 || 16.0 || 14.3

Greece || 27.7 || 21.3 || 29.7 || 13.2 || 32.3 || 30.3 || 28.4 || 32.1 || 24.0 || 25.3 || 28.2 || 22.4

Spain || 25.7 || 19.6 || 24.4 || 14.6 || 24.7 || 23.7 || 21.4 || 26.1 || 19.6 || 18.2 || 18.3 || 18.2

France || 21.7 || 19.8 || 25.7 || 14.2 || 22.3 || 22.5 || 21.6 || 23.4 || 21.2 || 19.3 || 20.5 || 18.0

Italy || 26.4 || 21.0 || 28.9 || 12.7 || 32.8 || 24.9 || 23.5 || 26.4 || 25.3 || 20.6 || 22.3 || 18.9

Cyprus || : || : || : || : || : || : || : || : || : || : || : || :

Latvia || 21.2 || 17.6 || 26.6 || 8.7 || 20.7 || 22.6 || 23.2 || 22.0 || 17.4 || 14.7 || 16.8 || 12.6

Lithuania || 25.7 || 24.3 || 35.5 || 13.0 || 23.0 || 26.2 || 28.1 || 24.4 || 20.3 || 17.0 || 20.0 || 14.0

Luxembourg || 22.9 || 26.0 || 32.9 || 19.1 || 22.8 || 23.9 || 22.2 || 25.7 || 22.1 || 23.7 || 24.0 || 23.4

Hungary || 19.4 || 17.7 || 23.6 || 11.4 || 21.2 || 22.3 || 21.7 || 22.9 || 15.0 || 14.1 || 15.3 || 12.9

Malta || : || 36.3 || 48.4 || 24.4 || : || 33.7 || 37.4 || 30.1 || : || 32.5 || 38.7 || 26.3

Netherlands || 15.1 || 14.3 || 17.9 || 10.7 || 11.5 || 13.4 || 11.2 || 15.6 || 13.0 || 13.2 || 12.3 || 14.0

Austria || 21.5 || 27.5 || 35.2 || 20.3 || 20.0 || 23.2 || 21.3 || 25.1 || 16.3 || 21.0 || 21.6 || 20.3

Poland || 16.2 || 15.0 || 22.6 || 7.5 || 19.8 || 20.5 || 21.2 || 19.9 || 17.0 || 13.1 || 15.5 || 10.8

Portugal || 24.9 || 17.6 || 24.7 || 10.8 || 30.7 || 23.7 || 22.6 || 24.7 || 24.5 || 16.5 || 18.4 || 14.7

Romania || 53.5 || 40.4 || 50.7 || 30.4 || 52.7 || 47.0 || 46.9 || 47.2 || 46.9 || 41.4 || 44.7 || 38.2

Slovenia || 16.5 || 21.2 || 31.3 || 10.7 || 17.7 || 20.3 || 20.9 || 19.7 || 13.9 || 14.8 || 17.8 || 11.6

Slovakia || 27.8 || 22.3 || 32.0 || 12.5 || 20.9 || 21.0 || 21.4 || 20.7 || 20.2 || 19.3 || 20.4 || 18.2

Finland || 4.8 || 8.1 || 13.0 || 3.2 || 6.0 || 7.8 || 8.1 || 7.5 || 4.1 || 6.0 || 7.5 || 4.5

Sweden || 15.3 || 17.4 || 24.2 || 10.5 || 18.3 || 21.1 || 21.4 || 20.8 || 16.4 || 19.1 || 20.3 || 17.9

United Kingdom || 19.0 || 18.4 || 23.1 || 14.0 || 19.8 || 20.2 || 17.5 || 22.8 || 16.7 || 15.0 || 14.6 || 15.5

Croatia || 21.5 || 22.5 || 31.2 || 12.6 || 28.6 || 33.2 || 31.8 || 34.6 || 17.0 || 18.5 || 20.5 || 16.3

Montenegro || : || : || : || : || : || : || : || : || : || : || : || :

Iceland || 20.5 || 16.8 || 23.8 || 9.9 || 16.8 || 17.0 || 17.9 || 16.1 || 20.6 || 17.9 || 19.3 || 16.6

MK* || : || : || : || : || : || : || : || : || : || : || : || :

Serbia || : || : || : || : || : || : || : || : || : || : || : || :

Turkey || 32.2 || 24.5 || 33.4 || 15.0 || 52.1 || 42.1 || 40.4 || 44.1 || 46.6 || 30.0 || 33.3 || 26.5

Liechtenstein || 14.3 || 15.6 || 21.2 || 9.4 || 13.2 || 9.5 || 7.7 || 11.5 || 12.9 || 11.3 || 9.2 || 13.7

Norway || 22.4 || 14.9 || 21.4 || 8.4 || 22.2 || 18.2 || 18.0 || 18.3 || 21.1 || 15.8 || 16.9 || 14.5

Source: OECD (PISA 2006 & PISA 2009) and ACER (2011). Notes: ":" = data not available *MK: The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia; see Annex 2.1.

To bring down the share of students with such a low performance, in May 2009 the Council set a new benchmark for low performance in basic skills. The aim is to reduce the proportion of low achievers in the areas of reading, maths and science to less than 15% by 2020[55]. This benchmark helps to assess the progress of Member States in improving educational outcomes, and is a pointer for structural problems within their education systems.

Longer-term objectives might require more ambition. According to the final report from the EU high level group of experts on literacy[56], we should prepare all children to be able to read and use information in multiple formats and from multiple sources, thereby providing a basis for developing 21st-century competences in an information society. A basic level of reading, but also maths and science skills, is a precondition for personal fulfilment and development.

Still, the percentage of low achievers varies widely across the Member States (table 6.1). Finland, Estonia and the Netherlands are consistently good performers, whereas Romania, Bulgaria and Malta[57] are far behind the EU average. While there was quick progress in science, improvement has been the slowest in mathematics. This means the 2009 EU average share of low achievers has to decrease by a third to reach the 2020 benchmark. Comparatively, the 2009 EU average of low achievers in science has to decrease a further 15.3%.

Taking into account all three basic skills, candidate country Turkey has shown the strongest improvement between 2006 and 2009, followed by Romania, Portugal, Bulgaria and Italy. At the other extreme, a number of countries have deteriorated in their performance, most notably Ireland, Slovenia and Sweden. As such, the performance gap between EU countries narrowed by 2009, with low performing countries catching up and some well-performing countries falling back.

A large gender gap in reading performance remains and has even widened since 2006. The share of low achieving boys (25.9%) is about twice the share of low achieving girls (13.3%). In Latvia and Lithuania the share of low performing boys is three times the share for girls, while in the leading performer, Finland, the rate for girls is exceptionally low at 3.2% but four times higher for boys. Across the EU as a whole, girls already meet the 15% benchmark for reading skills; the challenge is improving performance among boys to a similar rate.

Figure 6.1. Percentage of low achievers in reading, by country of birth

Source: OECD (PISA 2009). Countries ordered by the performance of native-born students. "% 2nd" and "% 1st" refer to the overall percentage of second-generation and first-generation migrant students respectively.

Gender gaps for maths and science are considerably smaller than for reading. Across the EU, boys slightly outperform girls in maths, and girls slightly outperform boys in science. However, both PISA (2003)[58] and TIMSS (2007)[59] data show that girls had lower self-confidence in their abilities in mathematics as well as more feelings of stress and anxiety in maths classes than boys.

In almost all Member States, the reading levels of foreign-born students lag far behind those for native-born students, even when taking socio-economic status into account[60]. Second generation students – being born in the host country – generally perform better than first generation students (see figure 6.1). Different migrant patterns and immigration policies are, of course, of influence at the country level.

At the individual level, both the age at arrival in the host country (for first generation migrant students) and the language spoken at home have strong effects on the reading performance of students with a migrant background. At the systemic level, more inclusive systems alongside a range of support measures going beyond linguistic support can help foreign-born students and their parents narrow the gap in achievement[61].

6.2. Language skills

The Barcelona European Council of 2002 set the objective for "teaching at least two foreign languages from a very early age"[62]. More recently, the ability “to enable citizens to communicate in two languages in addition to their mother tongue, promote language teaching, where relevant, in VET and for adult learners” has been established as a priority area in the strategic framework for European cooperation in education and training, ET 2020[63]. At present, it is obligatory to learn at least one foreign language in compulsory education in the majority of Member States (except Ireland and Scotland); a second foreign language is optional in nearly all of them[64].

Figure 6.2. Percentage of pupils learning at least two foreign languages in EU, 2000-2010

Source: Eurostat (UOE).

The following analysis takes stock of the current state of play and supports the initiative to establish a new European benchmark on language competences, highlighted in the Communication on Rethinking Education and outlined in detail in the Staff Working Document on boosting and targeting language competences.

At the level of primary education (ISCED 1), the teaching of languages has become more common since 2000. Across the EU, the average number of foreign languages learned by primary pupils has increased from 0.5 in 2000 to 0.8 in 2010[65].

In 2010, more than half of pupils across the EU enrolled in lower secondary education (ISCED 2) and general upper secondary education (ISCED 3 general) were learning at least two foreign languages; 60.8% and 59.6% respectively. Figure 6.2 shows a trend between 2000 and 2010: whereas the percentage of general upper secondary pupils in the EU learning at least two foreign languages has stagnated and even decreased, the share of lower secondary pupils learning at least two foreign languages has been steadily increasing.

Figure 6.3. Average number of languages learned per pupil in general upper secondary education (2010)

Source: Eurostat (UOE).

At the level of lower secondary education, in 2010 pupils learned on average at least two foreign languages in Luxembourg (2.5), Finland (2.2), Netherlands (2.1), Italy (2.0), and Cyprus (2.0). At the other end of the scale, pupils in Ireland, Hungary and the United Kingdom studied the lowest number of languages (1.0 in each of the 3 countries)[66].

Figure 6.3 illustrates the situation for general upper secondary education. Here, at least two foreign languages are learnt by pupils in Luxembourg (3.0), Finland (2.7), Belgium (2.2), Sweden (2.2), Czech Republic (2.1), France, Romania, Slovenia and Slovakia (all 2.0). The lowest number of foreign languages at this level is learnt in the United Kingdom and Portugal (both 0.5).

In pre-vocational and vocational upper secondary education, the overall percentage of foreign languages learned per pupil is considerably lower than in general upper secondary education. Nevertheless, the share of pupils learning at least two languages has doubled over the last decade. Pupils enrolled in vocational education learn on average two foreign languages in Luxembourg (2.0), followed by Romania (1.8), Poland (1.6), Belgium/Flemish community (1.6), Slovakia (1.5), Bulgaria (1.4), and Italy (1.4).[67]

English is by far the most widely taught foreign language in the EU at ISCED level 2. The proportion of pupils who learn English as a foreign language at this level increased from 74.3% in 2000 to 93.7% in 2010. However, during the decade 2000-2010, more and more pupils have also been learning French, German and Spanish. Especially the teaching of Spanish as a foreign language has seen a steady increase during the period.[68]

Outcomes of foreign language learning

The Barcelona Council set not only the objective to teach the mother tongue plus two foreign languages, but also called for the establishment of a linguistic competence indicator. This decision arose from the need of having a more complete picture of the language competences in Europe, and of the progress made towards the objective of teaching at least two foreign languages from a very early age.

Figure 6.4. First foreign language: Percentage of tested pupils achieving each level (2011)

Source: First European Survey on Language Competences: Final Report. Average of listening, reading and writing.

In order to collect accurate and up-to-date data on the outcomes of foreign language teaching systems, in 2008 the Commission launched a European Survey on Language Competences (ESLC)[69]. The ESLC, the first survey of its kind, was designed according to international education survey standards used by PISA, PIRLS and TIMSS.

In the spring of 2011, fourteen European countries took part in the survey: Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Estonia, France, Greece, Malta, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden and the UK (England). Belgium’s three linguistic communities participated separately, adding up to a total of 16 education and training systems.

The survey provides comparable data on foreign language competences of almost 54,000 pupils at the end of lower secondary education[70]. In each of the 16 educational systems pupils were tested in two foreign languages, chosen from the five most widely taught EU official languages: English, French, German, Italian and Spanish. The choice of test languages was made by the participating countries or linguistic communities. The language tests covered three language competences: listening, reading and writing. The results of the survey are reported according to the levels of the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR).

In addition to the assessment of language competences, contextual information was collected through questionnaires filled in by the tested pupils, and their foreign language teachers and principals. Furthermore, system-wide information was collected through National Research Coordinators.

The results of the language assessment show that the tested pupils are quite far from achieving the objective of having benefited from being taught two foreign languages. One of the key findings from the survey is an overall low level of competences in both first and second foreign languages tested: a level of independent user is achieved by only 42% of tested pupils in the 1st foreign language (figure 6.4) and by only 25% in the 2nd foreign language (figure 6.5). Moreover, a large number of tested pupils did not even achieve the level of a basic user: 14% for the 1st and 20% for the 2nd foreign language.

Figure 6.5. Second foreign language: Percentage of tested pupils achieving each level (2011)

Source: First European Survey on Language Competences: Final Report. Average of listening, reading and writing.

Another finding provided by the ESLC is a strong variation of ability across countries in Europe. For the first foreign language, the proportion of pupils reaching the level of independent user varies from 82% in Malta and Sweden (English) to only 14% in France (English) and 9% in England (French). For the second foreign language, the level of independent user is reached by 4% in Sweden (Spanish) and 6% in Poland (German) compared to 48% in the Netherlands (German). In the Flemish and German Communities of Belgium, the only two education systems in which English was tested as the second foreign language, scores are even higher, with 80% and 58% of pupils reaching the level of independent user.

The ESLC confirms that English is the most widely adopted first foreign language learned by European pupils. As figure 6.6 shows, English is also the language in which pupils reach the highest level. Moreover, English is perceived as the most useful and, for the majority of tested pupils, the easiest to learn.

Figure 6.6. Global scores for all tested pupils by language (2011)

Source: First European Survey on Language Competences: Final Report.

Regarding the factors directly linked to formal language learning in schools, the ESLC results demonstrate positive effects on achievement when the foreign language is actively used by both teachers and pupils during language lessons; when foreign language teaching begins at an earlier stage and in more languages; and when pupils use the foreign language for meaningful communication in the classroom and outside. Furthermore, pupil achievement is positively influenced by being able to speak foreign languages with parents, by usage at home to engage with traditional and new media, by believing it to be useful and, finally, by feeling capable of successfully learning it.

As a next step, the Council has invited the Commission to submit, by the end of 2012, a proposal for a possible benchmark in the area of languages based on the results from the first European Survey on Language Competences.

6.3. ICT skills

Exploiting the potential of ICT is a key issue addressed in the Communication on Rethinking Education (in particular, chapter 2.2), and the enhancement of digital competence was one of the main pillars of the Digital Agenda for Europe[71], one of the Europe 2020 flagship initiatives. In the Digital Agenda for Europe, lack of ICT skills is identified as one of the key obstacles to harnessing the potential of ICT.

The priorities for the second cycle of ET 2020, set out in the annex to the 2012 Joint Report of the Council and the Commission[72], also includes working "[…] together to promote the acquisition of the key competences identified in the 2006 Recommendation on key competences for lifelong learning, including on the learning of digital competences […]".

Awaiting direct assessments of ICT skills[73] we currently have to base our cross-country comparisons on self-declared ICT skills. Eurostat provides biannual data on self-declared computer skills[74] of 16-74 year-olds in Europe through their Community survey on ICT usage in households and by individuals.

Figure 6.7. Percentage of individuals with low, medium and high computer skills, 2011

Source: Eurostat, Information Society Statistics. Note: Individuals aged 16 to 74 years. For details about different types of computer activities, see http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/cache/ITY_PUBLIC/4-26032012-AP/EN/4-26032012-AP-EN.PDF.

There are large differences across countries. In Romania and Bulgaria only around 4 out of 10 have some computer skills, and only around 1 out of 10 has high computer skills. This contrasts with the situation in Austria, Luxembourg and the Nordic countries where around 4 out of 10 have higher computer skills. On average in EU 27, 66% have some computer skills, 14% low skills, 25% medium skills and 27% high skills. This is an increase in computer skills since 2006 when 57% had some computer skills, 13% low skills, 23% medium skills and 21% high skills.

There is a clear generational and educational divide in computer skills. 45% in the age group 16-24 has high computer skills compared with 31% and 10% in the age groups 25-54 and 55-74 respectively. Computer skills are positively correlated with educational attainment in all the age groups, with the difference in skills between lowest and highest education attainment level most pronounced in the 25-54 age group. These gaps show that action to increase ICT skill levels is needed, and education and training systems can contribute to this by embedding ICT and OER (open educational resources).

Teachers and school heads express a positive attitude about the wider learning potential of ICT and its essential role in teaching and learning for pupils in the 21st century and infrastructure barriers to the use of ICT in education have been reduced over the last 5 years. Still, data from 2011[75] reveal that although online resources and networks are now widely available in Europe and the majority of teachers are now familiar with ICT at school, they still use it first and foremost to prepare their teaching, while digital resources of all types are still far too rarely used during lessons. Moreover, teacher participation in training on how to use ICT for teaching and learning is rarely compulsory. This and other findings suggest that there should be a strong focus on measures, particularly training, to support and develop teachers’ ICT competence and ICT use in the classroom. Moreover, central regulations in most European countries lay down requirements for strengthening teachers' ICT skills for teaching throughout their basic education and further training[76].

6.4. Entrepreneurial skills

According to the Key Competence Framework put forth in 2006[77], the entrepreneurship key competence refers to an individual’s ability to turn ideas into action. It includes creativity, innovation and risk taking, as well as the ability to plan and manage projects in order to achieve objectives. The overall goal of entrepreneurship education is to give students the attitudes, knowledge and skills to act in an entrepreneurial way, for either a commercial or non-commercial objective.

The fourth long term objective of ET 2020 is to enhance creativity and innovation, including entrepreneurship, at all levels of education and training. The importance of entrepreneurship education is also visible in the Europe 2020 Strategy where the need to embed creativity, innovation and entrepreneurship into the education systems is highlighted in three flagships: Youth on the Move, An Agenda for New Skills and Jobs, and Innovation Union.

Results from a 2011 survey on entrepreneurship education show that 23 EU Member States have current strategies or on-going initiatives addressing the implementation of entrepreneurship education into general education at primary and/or secondary level[78]. Specific strategies/action plans focused exclusively on the integration of entrepreneurship education are found in Sweden, Denmark, the Netherlands, the UK (Wales), Estonia and Lithuania. The survey also looks at whether entrepreneurship education is explicitly recognised in central level educational steering documents[79]. Such recognition is found in two thirds of the EU27 countries at primary level and at upper secondary level all Member States integrate entrepreneurship into the curriculum in some form.

At secondary level most countries have defined learning outcomes for entrepreneurship education, in many countries covering all three dimensions: attitudes, knowledge and skills. No country has learning outcomes linked only to entrepreneurial skills.

There is currently a lack of international data providing comparable measurements of entrepreneurship as a key competence. Most available data apply to a narrower understanding of entrepreneurship, i.e. linked to business start-ups, and do not allow conclusions on the role of entrepreneurship education for such start-ups[80].

Figure 6.8. Percentage of individuals aged 18 to 64 who believe to have the required skills and knowledge to start a business, 2011

Source: Global Entrepreneurship Monitor 2011 Note: Italian result is from 2010.

The Global Entrepreneurship Monitor provides annual data on adults' attitudes/perceptions of entrepreneurship. Results show that in only 4 of the 20 EU Member States covered by the monitor in 2011, did more than half of the adult population believe to have the required skills and knowledge to start a business. All the Nordic countries are found at the lower end of the spectrum, with less than 41% expressing perceived capabilities to start a business. Earlier results have suggested that early-stage entrepreneurial activity is associated, at least to some degree, with past training in starting a business[81].

6.5. Civic skills

The Key Competences Framework from 2006 includes social and civic competences[82]. Civic competence, and particularly knowledge of social and political concepts and structures (democracy, justice, equality, citizenship and civil rights), equips individuals to engage in active and democratic participation. Thus civic competences contribute to the third strategic objective of ET 2020 of promoting equity, social cohesion and active citizenship.

In 2009, 22 EU countries and a total of 38 education systems worldwide participated in the International Civic and Citizenship Education Study (ICCS), administrated by the International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement (IEA)[83].

The analysis of four different dimensions of civic competences (derived from grouping items of the ICCS) shows that there is little correlation between cognition/civic knowledge on the one hand and attitudes and values on the other. Denmark and Finland perform best as regards civic knowledge of pupils, whereas Italy scores highest on citizenship values and participatory attitudes (see table 6.2). Ireland, Sweden and Spain perform best in the sub-dimension of social justice.

Furthermore, research shows that there is a diversity in the provision of civic education in Europe (civics as a subject of its own or integrated into other subject areas) and that participatory structures in the provision of education are as important as the content when it comes to acquiring civic competences.

Table 6.2. Civic competences of 8th grade pupils, 2009

|| || Dimensions of civic competences || Citizenship education

|| Civic knowledge || Citizenship values || Social justice || Participatory attitudes || Knowledge about democratic institutions || Average minimum taught time devoted to citizenship education as a separate subject during a notional year

|| Primary || Lower secondary || Upper secondary

EU average || 511 || 583 || 662 || 495 || 546 || || ||

Belgium || 514 || 542 || 647 || 435 || 546 || || ||

Bulgaria || 466 || 629 || 652 || 506 || 504 || || || 11.6

Czech Republic || 510 || 544 || 624 || 436 || 540 || || ||

Denmark || 576 || 532 || 681 || 491 || 624 || || ||

Germany || : || : || : || : || : || || ||

Estonia || 525 || 565 || 653 || 487 || 560 || 4.4 || 17.5 || 17.5

Ireland || 534 || 610 || 703 || 525 || 578 || || 23.0 ||

Greece || 476 || 633 || 689 || 541 || 505 || 8.8 || 15.0 || 15.0