EN    EN EN 
 
EN    EN  EUROPEAN COMMISSION 
Brussels, 31.1.2011 
SEC(2011) 98 final 
  
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING PAPER 
SUMMARY OF THE IMPACT ASSESSMENT 
  
Accompanying document to the 
  
Proposal for a  
 
COUNCIL RECOMMENDATION 
 
on policies to reduce early school leaving 
 
SEC(2011) 97 final 
SEC(2011) 96 final 
COM(2011) 19 final 
 
EN 2   EN EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 
This impact assessment will accompany the pr oposal for a Recommendation of the Council 
on policies against early leaving from education and training. 
1. PROBLEM DEFINITION  
In 2009 14.4% of all 18–24 year olds left educ ation and training with  only lower secondary 
education or less1. Although the situation has improved in  nearly all Member States, the 
progress achieved has been insufficient to reach th e initial target of re ducing ESL rates to less 
than 10% by 2010. With eight countries having reach ed this benchmark and some close to the 
target, a further reduction of ESL rates is realisti c. But to achieve this especially in times of 
economic and financial crisis needs st ronger and better coordinated efforts. 
The need to reduce ESL was gi ven still greater political ur gency under the Europe 2020 
strategy for the entire EU, adopted by the Eu ropean Council in June 2010. It takes its 
reduction to less than  10% by 2020 as one of five head line targets. The new strategy 
highlights three mutually reinforcing priori ties: 'smart growth' based on knowledge and 
innovation, 'sustainable growth' promoting a gree ner economy and 'inclusive growth' fostering 
high employment and social cohesion. High rates of ESL are a bottleneck for smart and 
inclusive growth2. 
ESL creates high individual, so cial and economic costs. The consequences of ESL affect 
people throughout their lives, and reduce their chance to participat e in the social, cultural and 
economic life of society. ESL in creases their indivi dual risk of unemployment, poverty and 
social exclusion. High rates of ESL in European societies have  long-term effects on labour 
markets, on the availability of skilled employ ees and thus on economic growth. Such effects 
are likely to increase in ma ny EU Member States due to th e economic and financial crisis. 
ESL is a complex phenomenon and the processes that lead to ESL are driven by different 
factors. The reasons why young pe ople leave education and trai ning prematur ely are highly 
individual. Nevertheless it is possible to indicate some recu rrent characteristics of ESL 
processes:  
• ESL is strongly linked to social disadvant age and low education backgrounds. Children 
from socially disadvantaged backgrounds te nd to lack sufficient support from their 
families, face discrimination within the e ducation system and have limited access to non-
formal and informal learning opportunities outside compulsory schooling. 
                                                 
1 Eurostat, LFS 2010. More information on 
http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/porta l/europe_2020_indicators/headline_indicatorshttp://ep
p.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/tgm/table.do?tab=table &init=1&plugin=1&language=en&pcode=t2020_40. 
Data are based on the Labour Force Survey. Early sc hool leavers refers to persons aged 18 to 24 
fulfilling the following two conditions: first, the highest level of education or training attained is ISCED 
0, 1, 2 or 3c short, second, resp ondents declared not having received any education or training in the 
four weeks preceding the survey. 
2 Commission Communication "Europe 2020 - A strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth" - 
COM(2010) 2020; Conclusions of the European Council 17 June 2010. 
 
EN 3   EN • Educational problems often start already in pr imary education with first experiences of 
school failure and growing alienation from sc hool. Education and training systems often do 
not provide sufficient targeted support for pupils  at risk to cope with difficulties and to 
remain in education and training.  
• Only few Member States implement a consis tent and comprehensive strategy to reduce 
ESL. The lack of evidence-based, consiste nt and comprehensive against ESL in most 
Member States has contributed significantly to the relatively slow improvement in ESL 
rates to date. 
Effective policies against ESL need to be ev idence-based, comprehensive and consistent, 
which requires shifting from implementing indi vidual measures to introducing comprehensive 
strategies against ESL. They should address al l levels of education, be cross-sectoral and 
involve stakeholders from the areas such as youth policy, social and employment policies and 
the health sector. In addition policies agains t ESL should focus on prevention, intervention 
and compensation. 
• Prevention  seeks to avoid the conditions from ar ising where processes leading to early 
school leaving can start. 
• Intervention  addresses difficulties at an early stage and seek to prevent them from leading 
to school drop-out. 
• Compensation  offers opportunities to re-enter e ducation and training for those who 
dropped out. 
2. ANALYSIS OF SUBSIDIARITY  
Education and Training Policy is an area where, as  a result of the subsidiarity principle, the 
EU has supporting competence as defined by the Treaty on the Functioning of the European 
Union (Lisbon Treaty). The Treaty (Articles 165) provides that "the  Union shall contribute to 
the development of quality education by encour aging cooperation between Member States 
and, if necessary, by supporting and supplementing their action". 
In addition Article 9 requires EU  to "take into account requirem ents linked to the promotion 
of a high level of employment, the guarantee of adequate social protection, the fight against 
social exclusion, and a high level of educati on, training and protecti on of human health". 
An initiative on ESL addresses the quality improvement of education and training and its 
outcomes, helps to reduce skill mismatches, a nd supports employability  and social cohesion. 
It focuses on facilitating and encouraging coop eration between Member States and aims to 
support their initiatives. The ini tiative respects the s ubsidiarity principl e by providing support 
and facilitating exchange among Member States , but respecting the responsibility of the 
Member States for the content of teaching and the organisation of thei r education systems. 
3. OBJECTIVES OF THE INITIATIVE  
The general objective of the initiative is to cont ribute to the development of quality education 
by encouraging cooperation between Member States and by supporting their action. The 
specific objective is to reduce ESL in Europe and to accelerate the speed of its reduction. A 
 
EN 4   EN reduction of the average ESL rate in the EU to  less than 10% would cut the number of early 
school leavers in Europe by approximately 2 million. It would help to provide more young 
people with qualifications, increas e their employability and reduc e their risk of poverty and 
social exclusion. 
The operational objectives aim to help Member St ates in developing effective and efficient 
policies against ESL. The initia tive shall support them in defining the main elements of a 
national policy framework, introducing an evid ence-based approach to address ESL and 
taking comprehensive and consistent measures against ESL in all policies targeting children 
and young people. It is intended to broaden Member States' cooperation and exchange of 
experiences and good practice. Cooperation s hould include also re presentatives and 
stakeholders from other relevant policy areas such as social and employment policies and 
youth policy. A holistic approach toward ESL s hould foster cross-sectoral cooperation on all 
levels, take the combination of factors leadin g to ESL in consideration and reinforce the 
commitment of all actors to pro-actively re duce ESL. A better target ed use of EU funding 
shall complement efforts of Me mber States to reduce ESL. 
4. POLICY OPTIONS  
Option A (baseline scenario): Currently the reduction of ESL forms part of the ET2020 
framework. The Open Method of Coordination facilitates cooperation and exchange of good 
practice among Member States. Existing fundi ng opportunities, mainly European Social 
Funds (ESF), the Lifelong Learning Programme  (LLP) or the Framework Programmes for 
Research and Innovation (RTD), allow for the launch of targeted  action, comparative studies, 
research and development of new approaches.  
Option B: A policy framework provides Member States  with a tool which helps them to 
develop national policies against early school leaving following a ho listic approach. It stresses 
the need to improve the evidence base for developing policies agains t early school leaving 
and argues for a better monitoring, for comp rehensive policies against ESL and a better 
cooperation between all policy areas affectin g directly or indirectly young people and 
especially those at risk of  dropping out. Proposed measures  on prevention, intervention and 
compensation of ESL are based on tested and ev aluated policy measures in Member States 
and can be adapted to the concrete situation within other Member States. Member States, who do not yet have a policy against ESL, can use it to develop a national policy framework. Other 
Member States may use the policy framework to assess and revise their existing policies. The 
framework can also serve as an agenda for fu ture cooperation between Member States, steer 
future policy development on EU level and gu ide the effective and efficient use of EU 
funding. 
It should be noted that option B is not a self-contained option; it needs an instrument for its 
implementation. Options B.1 and B.2 describe  different approaches to promote and 
implement the policy framework using different legal instruments. While the content of the 
policy framework remains unchanged, the use of different instruments to implement it will 
lead to different results and impacts. 
Option B1 (Commission Communication or Recommendation):  The Commission adopts a 
Communication or Recommendation which describe s the policy framework for effective and 
efficient policies against ESL. It can be used  by Member States for policy development and 
provides an overview of research results and European experiences. 
 
EN 5   EN Option B2 (Council Recommendation): The Council adopts a Recommendation which 
describes the policy framework. This Reco mmendation provides a basis for further 
cooperation among Member States. The Reco mmendation also support s a broadened and 
cross-sectoral process under the OMC. 
Option C (Funding programme): In order to launch targeted in itiatives EU funding could be 
made available for specific measures against ES L at EU level, especially for comparative 
research and for pilot projects which involve several Member States and provide European 
added value. This option has b een discarded as it risks overlapping w ith existing funding 
schemes such as European Social Fund and th e Lifelong Learning Prog ramme. It would not 
respond well to the specific and operational obj ectives of this initia tive: additional funding 
does not necessarily lead to the development of  better targeted, evidence-based, consistent, 
and comprehensive strategies to reduce ESL.  It rather risks continuing project based 
approaches to tackle ESL. Therefore it is considered that an additional funding scheme cannot be justified. 
5. A
SSESSMENT OF IMPACTS  
To reduce ESL rates will have significant ec onomic and social impacts. They can be 
summarised as follows: 
• Increase of skill levels a nd employability of young people,  improved well-being, health 
status, and living conditions of young people.  
• Reduced risk of poverty and social exclusion and limited dependency on social assistance; 
better social cohesion in  European societies. 
• Decrease of skill mismatches, provision of bett er qualified employees and thus support of 
economic growth.  
There are only limited environmental impacts a nd no impacts on administrative burdens, or 
on third countries. There is no other impact on human rights. 
The social and economic impacts are in line with  the general objectives of the initiative. The 
different policy options are like ly to contribute differently to  their achievement depending on 
the expected speed  and success  in reducing ESL in Europe. For option A and B1, the impact 
assessment revealed that the reduction of ESL ra tes would accrue too sl owly and be too small 
to counteract the difficult economic, fiscal a nd social circumstances in Member States 
resulting from the economic crisis. 
The analysis of the baseline scenario (optio n A) showed that the current OMC can support 
policy development based on the exchange of experiences and good pract ice, but it lacks 
strong additional input such as a policy framework or guidelin es for policies against ESL. 
Experiences showed that without such a framew ork or common agenda not all Member States 
were able to take full advantage of the lessons learnt within peer lear ning. New and successful 
approaches highlighted in the OMC in the past could not easily be integrated into existing 
national policies. A Commission Communication or Recommendation as foreseen in option 
B1 would provide such an a dditional input, nevertheless a Commission document might not 
receive sufficient policy attention in the Member States. It reflects the commitment and opinion solely of the Commission and does not o ffer Member States the opportunity to take 
 
EN 6   EN ownership of the proposed policy fr amework. A Commissi on Communication or 
Recommendation might therefore not sufficien tly promote evidence-based, comprehensive 
and consistent policies and not strengthen the e ffectiveness and efficiency of measures against 
ESL. 
Looking at cross-sectoral cooperation, it wa s noted that the current implementation 
arrangements for the ET2020 strategic framework currently remain limited to education and 
training. Also a Commission Co mmunication or Recommendation would also not directly 
influence on the scope of the existing OMC nor extend cross-sectoral cooperation at European 
level, because it commits the Commission, but not the Member States. Limiting the exchange of experience and good practice to  education and training policies risks to narrow subsequent 
policy developments. 
The continuation of the current OMC and its working methods does not correspond to the 
increased attention on the ESL benchmark with in the Europe 2020 strategy. There is a risk 
that both option A and option B1 will not enhanc e sufficiently the effect iveness and efficiency 
of measures against ESL. 
The impact assessment came to the conclusi on that a Council Recommendation as proposed 
in option B2 would enhance the developmen t of evidence-based, comprehensive and 
consistent policies against ESL in Member States . It should lead to a faster reduction of ESL 
rates and a faster achievement of the desired economic and social impacts. 
The Recommendation would contain a policy fr amework for reducing ESL based on existing 
experiences in Member States and on comparat ive research. It would assemble concrete 
measures against ESL in a strategic framework and address shortcomings in current policies 
against ESL. By setting out this policy framework with the form al backing of the Council, the 
Recommendation would support Memb er States in their policy development and should help 
to speed up the implementation of evidence-bas ed and well targeted measures against ESL. 
The process of discussing, adopting and implementing the Recommendation within the Council would offer Member States an instrument to review their policy  approaches and take 
position concerning the future policy needs in this area. 
A broadened and cross-sectoral process of c ooperation under the OMC could be launched on 
the back of a Council Recommenda tion addressed to Member States as a whole, not just to in 
respect of education. This would foster polic y development at EU level and would give 
feedback to Member States to help make policy design against ESL more effective. The 
Recommendation would set out a cl ear agenda and define a new focus for future cooperation. 
Option B2 offers the strongest commitment of Member States in the development of the 
policy framework. Discussions within the Educ ation Committee and the Council will provide 
relevant input in creating a policy framework wh ich is applicable for Member States and has 
the potential to be used in education polit ics. The resulting Council Recommendation should 
therefore be underpinned by a greater engage ment, understanding and political commitment 
than any of the other scenarios, which commit only the Commission. 
6. C
OMPARISON OF OPTIONS  
Option B2, a Council Recommendation, answers best  to the objectives of the initiative.  
 
EN 7   EN • It supports Member States in developing cons istent and coherent po licies against ESL.  
• It provides additional thematic input, gives new impetus to the OMC and involves Member 
States strongly in the devel opment of the policy framework.  
• It can also be assumed that it secures the highest level of commitment of Member States, 
has the potential to influence policy development widely in Me mber States and helps most 
to reduce ESL rates in Europe. 
Compared to the other options it represents the strongest le gal instrument possible. This 
seems is justified with regard to the importance of the target and the urgency to reduce ESL. 
Option A, the baseline scenario, provides little additional input and it cannot be expected that 
it will lead to an accel erated reduction in ESL. The most distinctive difference between option 
B and C is the greater level of Member State involvement in option C which should make it 
more likely that they will apply it. 
With regard to a cost-effectiveness analysis , it should be noted that  applying evidence-based, 
comprehensive and consistent pol icies does not necessarily create  more costs. It depends on 
the concrete policy approach within a Member State and the current means of data collection 
and analysis. Improving the ava ilability of relevant data and information on early school 
leaving is not necessarily creating huge additi onal costs. In additio n it allows for better 
targeted policies and measures. To the exte nt that option B2 implies greater political 
commitment, it should lead to more policy act ion within Member States. Applying evidence-
based, comprehensive and consiste nt policies is likely to achie ve better results  and reduce the 
costs of ESL faster and more efficiently. This  might outweigh additional costs. Therefore and 
especially in times of budget cuts, option B2 mi ght be the preferred opti on in order to invest 
the limited resources in the most efficient way.  
7. MONITORING AND EVALUATION  
The reduction of ESL will be a central subject of the reporting process in Europe 2020. The 
European targets in Europe 2020 are backed up by national target s; policies to reach these 
targets are subject to National Reform Programmes (NRP). The reports from Member States 
on the implementation of their NRPs should pr ovide detailed information on the progress 
towards reducing ESL and describe key measures  foreseen by the Member States. Together 
with reporting in the framework of the strate gic framework for cooperation in education and 
training (ET 2020) and the a nnual ET 2020 Progress Reports by the Commission, as well as 
other sources such as Eurostat, sufficient data and information should be available to monitor 
developments in Member States and on European level. 
With regard to the proposed Recommendation, the legal text will foresee an implementation 
report by the Commission; the timing of the report shall be in line with the reporting on Europe 2020. This report will analyse the developments in Member States, but will in addition analyse the effectiveness and efficiency  of the policy framework and will lead to 
revision of that framework if needed. 
In terms of ongoing monitoring, identificat ion and exchange of good practice on ESL 
reduction, it is intended that the adoption of  the Recommendation will be followed by 
 
EN 8   EN establishment of a new Member State e xpert group, coordina ted by the Commission, 
involving specialists in e ducation, social, health a nd employment policies.