EUROPEAN COMMISSION Brussels, 30.6.2022 SWD(2022) 176 final COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Accompanying the document Proposal for a Council Recommendation on Pathways to School Success













{COM(2022) 316 final}



Commission Staff Working Document – April 2022 Accompanying the Commission proposal for a Council Recommendation on Pathways to School Success

Acknowledgments: This Staff Working Document was compiled by the European Commission services, with contributions from: Carmel Cefai (University of Malta), Helen Cowie (University of Surrey), Paul Downes (University of Dublin), Kirstin Kerr (University of Manchester), Cosmin Ionut Nada (University of Porto), Erna Nairz-Wirth (Vienna University of Economics and Business), Teresa Sordé Martí (Autonomous University of Barcelona), Zsuzsa Blaskó and Sylke Schnepf (European Commission, Joint Research Center). EUROPEAN COMMISSION Directorate-General for Education, Youth, Sport and Culture Directorate B — Youth, Education and Erasmus+ Unit B.2 — Schools and Multilingualism E-mail: EAC-UNITE-B2@ec.europa.eu European Commission B-1049 Bruxelles Staff working document accompanying the Commission proposal for a

council recommendation on Pathways to school success Table of Contents About this document 1. Introduction

1.1 What is Pathways to School Success? 1.2 Key definitions and measurement 2. Understanding underachievement and early leaving from education and training 2.1 Individual factors 2.2 Institutional factors 2.3 Education system factors 2.4 Other factors 2.5 Impact of underachievement and early leaving from education and training in society 3. Main achievements and lessons learned from the past 3.1 Main achievements 3.2 Gaps and needs in policy development and implementation 4. The current context: remaining and new challenges 4.1 Main trends and their possible impact on education 4.2 Remaining challenges 4.2.1 Early leaving from education and training 4.2.2 Underachievement in basic skills 4.3 New challenges 4.3.1 Well-being and mental health at school Learners’ well-being Teachers’ well-being

4.3.2 The impact of school disruptions due to the COVID-19 crisis on educational outcomes and well-being of learners 5. Defining a new framework of action to school success 5.1 Key enablers 5.1.1 An integrated approach at all levels to reducing underachievement and ELET An integrated and comprehensive strategy Differentiation: targeting policies and measures according to the level of need Better use of funding 5.1.2 Enhanced data collection and monitoring systems 5.2 A Whole-school approach to school success: core dimensions 5.2.1 Learners Early detection Curriculum Embedding socio-emotional education in curricula Pedagogical approaches Assessment Mastering the language of schooling and valuing linguistic diversity Supporting newly arrived migrants and refugees Career guidance and support Targeted and individualised support for learners at risk and learners facing specific difficulties Social and emotional support

Extra-curricular and out-of-school activities 5.2.2 School leaders, teachers, trainers and other staff School leadership Initial Teacher Education (ITE) and Continuing Professional Development (CPD) of teachers Supporting new teachers Diversity in the teaching profession Well-being of teachers 5.2.3 Schools School governance School autonomy Quality assurance Multidisciplinary teams, local community outreach and interagency collaboration Professional learning communities and networking between schools Collaboration between schools and companies Creating a positive and supportive learning environment Promoting mental health and well-being in school School and classroom climate, bullying and violence Participation in school life 5.2.4 Parents and families Better communication and information

Involving parents in educational activities Offering opportunities for family learning Outreach to individuals, families and local communities Increasing participation in school decision-making and school life Promoting opportunities and motivation to read from an early age Promoting parental engagement in the early years for maths and science learning 5.2.5 Structural measures Early Childhood Education and Care Active desegregation policies Alternatives to early tracking Avoiding grade repetition, suspensions and expulsions Inclusion of learners with disabilities in mainstream education Addressing boys’ underperformance in education Attractive VET; flexibility and permeability of educational pathways Compensation measures: Effective second chance education Help for basic needs and targeted financial support 6. Opportunities for implementation 6.1 The role of the EU: synergies with other EU (and international) initiatives 6.1.1 Synergies with other Commission Initiatives 6.1.2 Synergies at international level

6.2 Use of EU opportunities, funds and investments and other platforms/tools in education Annexes Annex I – Synopsis of the results of the Open Public Consultation Annex II - Glossary Annex III – Sources and bibliography Annex I - Synopsis of the results of the Open Public Consultation Annex II – Glossary Annex III – Sources and bibliography



About this document This staff working document is intended to accompany and support the Commission proposal for a Council Recommendation Pathways to School Success, which will repeal and replace the 2011 Council Recommendation on policies to reduce early school leaving. The staff working document sets out in more detail and depth the concepts put forward in the Commission proposal by providing research evidence, findings from consultation activities, good practice examples and other information as a basis for both the text of the proposed Recommendation and its accompanying actions. This document is also intended as a practical guide/handbook to help policy makers and stakeholders to fully understand issues surrounding school success and to support positive change across systems and across Europe. Chapter 1 provides an introduction to the topic, outlining a vision for achieving inclusive school success (success for all, regardless of their personal characteristics, family, cultural or socio-economic background), describing the reasons, scope and wider policy context for the Recommendation.

Chapter 2 presents in more detail the concepts of early leaving from education and training and of underachievement and the circumstances contributing to their persistence in European education systems. Understanding these is key to understanding the need for a more holistic, multidimensional and systemic approach to school success. Chapter 3 gives an overview of the main achievements obtained at EU level through policy cooperation and Member States’ measures/reforms in the area of early leaving from education and training. Chapter 4 describes the main remaining challenges in the areas where specific policy efforts have been made at EU and national level and introduces new challenges which have emerged in recent years and affect school success for all, but particularly more disadvantaged learners. It is based on research and evidence from studies and evaluations of past efforts. Chapter 5 then outlines key measures to address these challenges and promote better educational outcomes. It describes key learnings and more detailed recommendations on what is needed with regard to learners, school leaders, teachers and trainers, parents and families, institutions and systems. Chapter 6 sets out a number of existing EU initiatives, frameworks and tools that can inspire and help affect change at school, at regional, national and EU-level and support the implementation of the Recommendation. Findings and suggestions in this document are underpinned by a strong research base, but also by input received from European ministry representatives, non-governmental organisations, social partners, teachers, students, youth representatives and other stakeholders and experts in the field, obtained through a number of consultation activities, including a 14 week open public consultation. They are also based on conclusions of extensive work carried out at European and national level. Annex I provides the link to the Open Public Consultation synopsis report. Annex II consists of a glossary of certain important concepts for the purpose of this document. Annex III lists all sources and input referred to throughout the document.

1. Introduction 1.1 What is Pathways to School Success? Educational outcomes, in terms of knowledge, skills and attitudes developed during schooling, are strong predictors of a balanced, healthy and successful adult life and a key condition for social fairness, democracy and prosperity. Measured in terms of ‘educational achievements’ and ‘educational attainments’ (see below), they lay are fundamental for laying the foundations for adult life. The acquisition of basic skills (literacy, mathematics and science) is essential for students’ academic and personal development, while the skills and competences gained in upper secondary education are increasingly seen as the minimum credentials for employment or the basis further learning and a fulfilling life. However, even today not all young European have equal opportunities to benefit from education. Socio-economic patterns and stratification exert a strong influence on the educational experiences of individuals; students from disadvantaged backgrounds are overrepresented among underachievers and are more likely to leave education and training without an upper secondary qualification. Promoting better educational outcomes for all, irrespective of personal characteristics, family, cultural and socio-economic background, etc., through the fostering of inclusive and supportive learning environments is key to building more equitable and flourishing societies and economies. This is fully in line with Principle 1 of the European Pillar of Social Rights and lays at the heart of the Commission Communication on achieving the European Education Area by 2025. Tackling underachievement in basic skills and early leaving from education and training (ELET) have been EU political and strategic priorities for years and are recognised as an integral part of the political agenda to ensure good quality and more inclusive education, where all children and young people have equal opportunities to benefit from education. In particular, since the adoption in 2011 of the Council Recommendation on policies to reduce early school leaving, extensive work has been conducted at European level and by Member States on this issue. In the attempt to promote a whole-school approach to counter early leaving from education and training, transformation has been encouraged within educational institutions and policies. The reduction in the number of early leavers from education and training in the EU has been considerable, which points towards the potential of EU-level cooperation and Member States’ capacity to affect real change in education systems through targeted policy reforms and measures. Nevertheless, despite sustained efforts and considerable improvements in regards to ELET in the last 15 years, ELET rates are still higher than what would be acceptable for European countries. Moreover, significant differences still exist across countries and inequalities persist among specific population groups (e.g. third-country migrants and persons with migrant background, Roma, young men, persons with disabilities, learners living in rural and outermost areas). Today, early leavers still represent 9.9% of young people in the EU and only 84.3% of young people have completed upper secondary education. At the same time, although efforts were made to also reduce underachievement in basic skills, the results of the OECD’s (Organization for Economic Development and Cooperation) Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) for 2018 actually revealed a deteriorating trend in the performance in basic skills in 2009-2018. Today still one in five 15-year-old Europeans cannot perform basic tasks in reading, maths or science. What is more, the results of the 2018 International Computer and Information Literacy Study (ICILS) also show that a fifth of young people in the EU do not possess basic digital skills. The socio-economic background of a learner and their family continues to be the strongest determinant of educational outcomes. Pupils with a disadvantaged background are much more likely to have poor education outcomes than their peers who have parents with higher salaries and/or a higher educational attainment. This points to a persistent risk of intergenerational transmission of disadvantage and reduced upwards social mobility. Looking towards the future, the Council Resolution on a strategic framework for European cooperation in education and training towards the European Education Area and beyond (2021-2030) features ELET and underachievement prominently and has set new EU-Level targets for 2030: the share of low-achieving 15-year-olds in reading, mathematics and science should be less than 15%, the share of low-achieving eighth -graders in computer and information literacy less than 15%, and the share of early leavers from education and training less than 9. Lessons learnt from the past and recent political commitments point towards the need for renewed and sustained action at EU and national level towards promoting school success for all learners and to achieve these EU-level targets. Past efforts also confirm that ELET and underachievement are multi-faceted and complex issues that cannot be solved separately or without a comprehensive and holistic approach to success. This means that other emerging challenges must also be addressed. Among these challenges, there is well-being. The results of PISA 2018 revealed shortcomings in the education systems which may have a strong influence on educational outcomes: pupils’ sense of belonging at school is declining and bullying/cyberbullying is widespread. Mental health in children and young people has become a major issue in Europe, with around 20% of children and adolescents experiencing mental health problems during their school years, in particular anxiety and depression. Research has also underlined that school bullying has devastating impacts on pupils’ health and academic achievements. All this, of course, has serious consequences for students’ development and their educational performance; it increases the risk of students leaving school prematurely and reduces their potential to live fulfilling lives. Again, the link between poverty and increased risk of mental health difficulties, disorders and suicide is well-recognised. The COVID-19 crisis has made it even more urgent to address these challenges. Socio-economically marginalised children who already had lower than average achievements before the pandemic, are those that were likely to have suffered most during the lockdowns. Moreover, children and young people with no or limited access to relevant and quality learning resources and school-based support structures, with difficult home/family situations, or with pre-existing mental health difficulties or special educational needs, have also been affected disproportionately. At the same time, an increase in mental health difficulties has been observed, particularly amongst those already at risk. A number of studies actually suggest that this crisis and the prolonged physical school closures have hindered the learning progression and increased the likelihood of at-risk for learners at risk of dropping out from school and eventually, drop out. As a result, there are fears that the share of underperforming students in Europe might have risen considerably during the pandemic, especially among those that come from more disadvantaged backgrounds. Similarly, the rate of early leavers from education and training is expected to increase in the coming years, even though this will only be reflected in statistics in a few years. Analysis of these long-term and more recent trends and challenges, coupled with new insights from research, findings from peer learning and cooperation between Member States, and a detailed assessment of the policies adopted at European and national level in particular to reduce early school leaving, have highlighted gaps and areas in which new and strengthened interventions are needed. In simple terms, it is not enough to ensure that young people remain in education if, they do not acquire the level of basic skills and key competences necessary to thrive in work and in life. It is also not enough to retain young people in school if the school environment is not safe and supportive enough, since this can even have detrimental effects on their mental health and well-being and ultimately on educational outcomes.

It is in this context that Pathways for School Success emerges as a key initiative of the European Education Area action plan I. The initiative calls for a renewed and strengthened commitment towards promoting more inclusive education and better educational outcomes for all children and young people, taking into account their diverse situations and stories, and developing more inclusive, caring and supportive learning environments. Building on the experience of the 2011 Council Recommendation on policies to reduce early school leaving, the new initiative combines novelty with continuity, proposing new solutions as well as consolidating and updating measures which have proved successful. What is new in Pathways to School Success? First of all, as implied by the 2011 Council Recommendation on policies to reduce early school leaving focused only on one of two targets agreed in the EU strategic framework for cooperation in education and training. Given the persistent challenges in performance in the OECD’s PISA surveys, it is time to address both the reduction of early leaving from education and training, and underachievement in basic skills, and in particular the strong impact of socio-economic background on education outcomes, in a renewed Council recommendation and the work following from that. Secondly, we need to draw lessons from the implementation of the 2011 Recommendation. One of the points to be addressed is that policies on reducing ELET, have often taken a rather individualistic and deficit view of students at risk. Quite often, while educational institutions and policymakers alike, whilst they verbally recognise the complexity of factors leading to ELET, they end up disregarding institutional and systemic flaws at the root of disengagement. As a result, measures designed to tackle ELET often focus too much on learners’ supposed deficits and how these could be corrected, and not enough on the changes that educational systems and institutions must make in order to provide an education that inspires, motivates and encourages young people to reach their full potential. More attention must be paid to what needs to be done at the institutional and systemic level to achieve school success for all. Thirdly, we see a shift from the traditional focus which is overwhelmingly on academic performance, to a more holistic view of education, acknowledging that children and adolescents need a balanced set of cognitive, social and emotional competences to achieve positive outcomes in school and in life more generally. Research and empirical evidence has shown that learning is a relational and emotional process impacting academic achievement. Research has also shown that better academic results and a positive school climate for all students can be achieved without any adaptation or adjustment "downwards". Hence the need to address ‘school success’ in a systemic way, including – along with academic attainment and achievement, well-being, bullying prevention and promotion of social and emotional education. As a consequence, Pathways to School Success is concerned not only with reacting to problems such as underachievement or ELET, but also with preventing them, by promoting positive change at system-level and combining universal, targeted and individualised measures to promote success for all learners. The initiative sees three intertwined conditions - engagement, achievement and well-being at school – which, when improved simultaneously, promote better educational outcomes for all children and young people and also create favourable conditions for those in disadvantaged situations, thus increasing their chances of succeeding in education and in life. Figure 1. The three core issues tackled by ‘pathways to school success’ Source: European Commission (2021), DG EAC internal elaboration This approach is supported by an inclusive, learner-centred and participatory vision of education, which considers that education should allow all children and young people to achieve their full potential, irrespective of gender, racial or ethnic origin, disability, sexual orientation or religion or belief, or migrant background or their personal, family or socio-economic situation. Countries should provide good quality education to all in mainstream settings with special attention paid to learners at risk of exclusion and underachievement, by actively seeking out to support learners and responding flexibly to their circumstances and needs, including through individualised approaches, targeted support and cooperation with the families and local communities” . There is evidence of the positive impact on learning outcomes of adopting an inclusive approach in supporting those students who have traditionally been excluded from the classroom. The proposals stresses that inclusiveness can be achieved through a whole-system, whole-school approach, which the Council endorsed in its 2015 Conclusions on reducing early school leaving and promoting success in school. A 'whole school approach' is an ecological way of viewing a school, which acknowledges the role, relationships and interactions between a whole range of players (schools, families, communities, authorities, etc.) that can have an impact on the individual. The school is seen as a multidimensional and interactive system that can learn and change; an open learning hub which provides support to its neighbourhood and receives support from the community. Figure 2. The school as a learning organisation Source: ET 2020 Working Group Schools In a whole school approach to school success all members of the school community (school leaders, middle management, teaching and non-teaching staff, learners, parents and families, and the local community) feel responsible and play an active role in tackling educational disadvantage and preventing underachievement and drop-out. The entire school community engages in a cohesive, collective and collaborative action, based on multi-disciplinarity and aimed at supporting each learner in the most appropriate way. It also implies a cross-sectoral approach and stronger cooperation with a wide range of stakeholders (social services, youth services, outreach care workers, psychologists, nurses, speech and language therapists, career guidance specialists, local authorities, NGOs, business, unions, volunteers, etc.) and the community at large, to deal with complex issues that schools do not (and cannot) have the relevant expertise for. 1.2 Key definitions and measurement For the purpose of the present document, we propose a set of operational definitions and measurement strategies, which are set out in the glossary (Annex II). Some of the most important are outlined below. Educational outcomes: attainment and achievement The literature uses educational attainment and educational achievement as proxies to measure educational outcomes. Educational attainment refers to the successful completion of specific education levels, for example primary, lower or upper secondary education. In this definition, it is assumed that completion of a specific education level goes together with the acquisition of specific education level related competences. The EU indicator on ELET clearly refers to a measure of educational attainment, since it measures the proportion of 18–24-year-olds with, at most, lower secondary educational attainment (i.e. UNESCO ISCED 0-2 levels) who are no longer in formal or non-formal education and training. While the focus on educational attainment is helpful for understanding how children and adults have progressed in their country’s specific education system, it is only partially helpful in understanding individuals’ actual knowledge and skills. Therefore, any focus on children’s learning progress or achievement, should also focus on their actual functional literacy,, i.e. their reading, writing and numeracy abilities. The most known cross-national educational achievement survey, the OECD’s Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) measures 15-year-olds’ ability to use their reading, mathematics and science knowledge and skills to meet real-life challenges. PISA’s measurement of basic skills has been used for the EU benchmark on underachievement under the ET 2020 strategic framework for European cooperation in education and training.. It is the basis of the EU-level target on underachievement in basic skills established by the Council Resolution on a strategic framework for European cooperation in education and training towards the European Education Area and beyond (2021-2030). In this context, underachievers are those 15-year-old pupils, still in education, who fail to reach OECD PISA proficiency Level 2, which is considered to be the minimum level necessary to participate successfully in society.

Well-being and mental health promotion in schools Students’ well-being can be defined as a state of overall mental and physical health, strength, resilience and fitness that allows them to function well at school and in their personal lives. International research shows that the school environment is a fundamental determinant of good or poor mental health in children and adolescents. The World Health Organization defines good mental health as a state of well-being, the realisation of one’s own abilities and the ability to cope with the normal stresses of life. A sense of well-being includes having a positive sense of identity and an ability to manage thoughts and emotions, to build social relationships, and to acquire an education that allows active citizenship as an adult. The concepts of well-being, mental health and other interrelated concepts used in this document (such as social and emotional learning, bullying, school climate, etc.) are explained in the Glossary (Annex II). This document is based on a conceptual framework put forward in the 2021 report from the Network of Experts working on the Social dimension of Education and Training (NESET) on “A systemic, whole school approach to mental health and well-being in schools in the EU” . Concerning data, the actual measurement of well-being is a challenge . Comparability of cross-country data requires not only international surveys asking the same question in several countries, but also selecting the most ‘unbiased’ indicators, i.e. those that are more independent from country-specific cultural contexts . Much of the data on well-being reported in this document come from the OECD Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) for 2018 and in particular from Volume III: What school life means for students’ lives. The OECD has developed a specific framework to analyse student well-being and school climate which includes five dimensions: cognitive, psychological, physical, social and material. The main indicators refer to: students’ life satisfaction and meaning in life, students’ feelings, students’ self-efficacy, fear of failure, and growth mind set. Indicators for school climate refer to student behaviour (bullying, disciplinary climate, truancy and lateness), teaching practices, teachers’ enthusiasm and school community (student cooperation and competition, sense of belonging at school and parental involvement in school activities). Key takeaway ·Reducing underachievement in basic skills and early leaving from education and training have been and continue to be key targets of European cooperation in education and training. ·Extensive work has already taken place at European and national level to address early leaving from education and training. Lessons learnt from past activities and new findings from research point to the need for renewed and sustained action at EU and national level towards promoting school success for all. ·Some gaps and areas to be further addressed have been identified: develop a more systemic approach, addressing in a coherent way all dimensions that can have an impact on the quality of learners’ educational experience, including well-being at school; focus more on prevention and intervention; combine universal measures with more targeted interventions for groups more at risks; further promote cooperation and systematic dialogue with all relevant stakeholders at all levels. ·The new initiative ‘Pathways to School Success’ relies on a broad and inclusive notion of school success and proposes to address it in a systematic and holistic way.



2. Understanding underachievement and early leaving from education and training There is not one reason behind underperformance nor a single factor which can explain why a young person leaves education prematurely. Underachievement and early leaving from education and training are multi-faceted and complex issues, with multiple drivers which often interact with each other. The two phenomena are frequently intertwined: early leaving is the result of a process of progressive disengagement from education, often associated with mediocre educational results, whose roots may lie in early years. Research has widely explored the academic success of pupils and paid particular attention to factors that can contribute to poor academic performance and ELET. Many of these are linked to the effects of wider societal factors, such as socio-economic background, migrant status, parents’ educational level, etc. It is widely acknowledged that both issues are most often the result of a combination of individual, family-related, educational, social and economic factors, strictly interdependent and leading to situations of cumulative disadvantage. Their triggers are not purely educational, however certain features of the education systems (such as limited access to quality early childhood education and care, early tracking, segregation, grade repetition, etc.) can further aggravate their incidence, with a particularly negative impact on those belonging to more disadvantaged groups. People at risk, notably those of lower socio-economic status, often suffer from multiple disadvantages and are affected by a complex mix of the dimensions identified above. This section provides an insight into factors that contribute to the educational success of children and young people and help understand the need for a comprehensive and systemic approach to school success and inclusion. 2.1 Individual factors The academic literature offers a range of explanations on education al success which relate to the situation of the persons concerned, in particular to the role of socio-economic and migration background, gender, disability, family background, educational expectations, and peer groups. Socio-economic background seems to be a fundamental element influencing underachievement. Pupils with a low socio-economic background tend to be slower in developing academic and linguistic skills. They display learning-related behaviour problems more often, show lower motivation towards learning, leave education and training earlier, and leave with lower qualifications and insufficient competences for full participation in society. This is confirmed in a more recent study which used international survey data on student performance and characteristics (PISA, PIRLS and TIMSS), and statistical data collected by Eurostat. The study finds a significant impact of socio-economic disadvantage on educational outcomes in most European education systems. Socio-economic status also strongly affects pupils’ educational expectations. In many EU Member States, more than 80% of pupils from advantaged families expect to complete tertiary education, while fewer than 50% of disadvantaged pupils do. Reduced educational expectations and aspirations influence educational choices, can translate into a low level of actual achievements and increase the risk of intergenerational transmission of poverty. Motivation and engagement are increasingly seen as essential factors for pupils’ educational success. Research indicates that positive academic self-expectations among high-risk students (low socio-economic status immigrants) are associated with higher achievement in mathematics. Pupils from more socio-economically disadvantaged families may also experience a lack of positive and supportive home environment, with reduced access to educational resources at home (e.g. no quiet space for studying and doing homework) In addition, in today’s increasingly digital society, the lack of access to a computer, ICT resources and internet at home also makes integration with peers and active participation in school much harder. Low income may also be accompanied by higher level of parental stress, tensions and violence in the households which, in turn, negatively impacts educational achievement. Some research also shows that in households where both parents work, or in single parent households, children and young people may be asked to contribute to looking after other young (or elderly) family members, or need to contribute to the household finances by getting a job alongside to their studies. Therefore, access to high-quality education is of great importance for disadvantaged children to break the cycle of low achievement and poverty and support measures Migrant or refugee status or belonging to an ethnic minority are often associated with greater educational vulnerability. In fact, evidence shows that socio-economic status or family background are more strongly associated to students’ performance than migrant background. Language also plays an important role, as the knowledge of the host country language can help to reduce the educational gap between immigrant and native learners. Parents and families play a key role as regards children’s and young people’s learning and well-being related outcomes. If parents’ positive attitudes towards school and high educational expectations has an impact on pupils’ motivation, parental education remains one of the most important predictors of educational outcomes: children whose parents have lower education attainment are themselves more likely to underachieve and less likely to progress further in education . Abundant research confirms the importance of parental involvement in education as a key factor for educational success. In addition to the well-recognised positive effect on learner’s academic results, parental involvement has a widely documented impact on reducing school absenteeism, preventing school burnout, improved social skills, behaviour at school and positive relations with schoolmates. Parents and families also play a key role as regards children and young people’s well-being. Therefore, policies and targeted measures that support and guide parents with regard to their child’s nutrition, physical fitness, mental health and resiliency, engagement in risky behaviour, and safe use of technology, will have a positive effect on the general well-being of learners and their educational outcomes. However, the relationship between schools, parents and families may be challenging. A recent report has identified the following barriers: ·Barriers linked to parental and family situations. Parents’ own past negative memories and experiences may lead to mistrust and overall feeling of uneasiness when confronted to their children education. Insufficient knowledge of how the education system works, or a lack of language skills may be a heavy obstacle for migrant families (especially first-generation), or parents with a low level of education. ·Education systems and potential systemic bias. Despite the existence of institutional settings for parent-school cooperation, the actual inclusion of parents in decision-making processes may still be challenging, especially for families from more disadvantaged backgrounds, owing to inconsistencies in legislation, inadequate or insufficient communication between school and parents, poor parent-teacher relationship, inflexible scheduling at school and unpreparedness of recently graduated teachers.

·Structural and socio-cultural determinants: Time constraints linked to professional engagements of working parents, declining family support in childcare (mainly offered by grandparents), and growing reliance on childcare services may negatively impact participation to both home-based and school-based activities, particularly for single-parent families. Parents of children with physical and learning disabilities also face very specific educational challenges, often linked to the exclusion of their children from mainstream education and the difficulty to mobilise adequate support around the child. It is important to stress that parents and families are not all equally well equipped to adequately support their children through their academic journey, especially when it comes to more home-based, learner-centred approaches. Lower-educated parents, families with low socio-economic status, migrant families, and single-parent families may be less able to provide support for their children, such as helping with homework or offering advice on school matters. While middle and upper-class families engage actively with their children’s learning, families with a more disadvantaged background may lack knowledge and tools from the start; they may face lack of support from educators, not consider themselves valuable partners in the process, or lack sufficient confidence to engage. As a result, they are often perceived by schools as not interested in their children’s educational experience and labelled “hard to reach”. This is confirmed by recent studies on the impact of the COVID-19 crisis, showing that parental participation in home-schooling, learning time and the types of activities carried out during the lockdown periods in Europe in 2020 and during early 2021 was highly dependent on the socio-economic situations of parents and families. Other aspects of a family background can also play a role. The geographical location of a student’s family home can have an impact on the likelihood of leaving school of training earlier. This may relate to the quality of education in more rural and outermost areas, or to difficulties in reaching schools. Within urban areas, there can also be discrepancies between areas. Research demonstrates that within urban areas, early leaving from education and training rates tend to be higher in disadvantaged areas. Gender plays a considerable part in underachievement. Though the difference is relatively small in mathematics and science, it remains sizeable in reading, where girls strongly outperform boys in many countries. Boys are also more likely to be early leavers from education and training compared to girls. The causes of boys’ underperformance at school are multidimensional and often mutually reinforcing. Research shows that a range of factors are at play, ranging from: a) individual attitudes and behaviours, such as reading habits, attitudes towards school, externalization of issues, disruptive behaviours; b) family factors, including parents’ socio-economic resources or the perpetuation of gender stereotypes at home; c) school environment and wider education system factors, such as bullying, peer culture and toxic masculinity, teacher interaction and engagement in class or stereotyping in textbooks; and d) societal factors, related to how the wider society reflects back its gender stereotypes into education systems. Finally, access to inclusive, quality, accessible and mainstream education remains problematic for many children with disabilities. Evidence shows significant gaps between the educational outcomes of learners with disabilities and those without disabilities. In 2018, 19.9% young people with disabilities left education and training prematurely, as compared to 10.6% for pupils without disabilities (2018 data). A key concept in relation to inclusive education is the intersectionality, in order to identify the interaction of multiple factors that lead to discriminatory processes in schools towards different student groups. Intersectionality asserts that all aspects of one’s identity need to be examined as simultaneously interacting with each other and affecting one’s perception within a society. These identities intersect to create a whole that is different from the component identities. Intersectionality asserts that to comprehend truly an individual’s identity and experience, one first needs to recognize that each identity marker is connected with all other markers within that individual 2.2 Institutional factors Institutional factors, such as the school structures, school environment and the role of teachers can also have a great impact when it comes to students’ achievement and engagement at school. A study, which analyses PISA data from 2000-2009 in 42 countries, shows that increased school autonomy positively affects students and contributes to their greater academic achievements. These effects seem to be the most pronounced when the increased autonomy affects decision-making related to academic content. Schools’ advanced knowledge on specific local contexts can help them develop more effective actions towards school success than those that could be developed centrally. Increased autonomy also allows the schools to decide how to target the problems they face in a more efficient way as they may know much better than the central authorities what measures could be most effective for their students and as they do not have to wait for approval from the central authorities, they can implement them in a timely manner. The literature has long highlighted that the quality of school life plays a crucial role in improving students’ motivation and efforts, their emotional, behavioural and cognitive engagement, performance and achievement. Students’ perceptions on the quality of school life “may influence powerfully their motivation to learn, improve their behaviour and self-regulation, develop identity and positive attitudes towards success, enhance empathy and respect for diversity, contribute to better engagement in learning, improve academic performance and achievement, and prevent dropout”. School and classroom practices, teachers’ and staff’s attitudes and teaching and learning styles affect children and young people's motivation and commitment towards education: an unfavourable school or classroom climate, a lack of learner centeredness, curricula and assessment that are perceived as irrelevant, inadequate awareness of educational disadvantage, violence and bullying, poor teachers-pupils relationships are some of the factors that can contribute to disengagement from education. PISA 2018 shows that school’s positive learning environment is directly connected to educational success. Cohesion and cooperation among pupils, positive relationships with peers as well as with teaching and non-teaching staff have been shown to be particularly influential in impacting pupils’ educational success. While a poor school climate can be linked to disruptive behaviour such as bullying, truancy and lateness, it can also be determined by institutional aspects such as the overall preparedness of teachers, pupils-teacher ratio, school governance and ethos, etc. This is confirmed by a recent study which, building on PISA framework on well-being, offers a structured model for measuring the quality of school life, focusing on students’ sense of opportunity and achievement, the quality of their interpersonal relationships with their teachers, their exposure to a safe and cooperative learning, and their overall sense of belonging to the school and school community. The study shows that the quality of school life has a positive impact on academic results of EU students even after controlling for student gender and socio-economic background. A key element which can affect school climate and lead to poor education outcomes is bullying. Bullying is correlated with lower scores on all PISA subjects. Peer culture can also have a strong influence: a school-oriented, study-oriented culture as opposed to a “non-effort” culture will favour better performances; a recent study shows that boys feel more pressure than girls to conform to dominant peer cultures, and that girls more easily conform to a school-oriented study-oriented culture. The importance of well-being at school and quality of school life is further explained in chapter 4.3.1. Teachers are also key actors for pupils’ educational success. They provide them with advice as well as emotional support for attaining positive academic outcomes. In this context, migrant students or students from disadvantaged backgrounds may suffer in particular as their personal background and experiences are less likely to align with those of a teacher. Students who do not feel listened to nor understood by teachers face higher chances of disengaging and leaving school prematurely. On the contrary, positive relation with a teacher can help academically at-risk students overcome feelings of alienation or disconnection. Analysis on PISA data indicates that teachers providing support for academically at-risk students (in particular low socio-economic background migrants), such as help with their homework, were associated with higher achievement levels. Teaching and learning practices, teachers’ attitudes, motivation and enthusiasm, and teachers’ support can thus strongly influence students’ educational success. Learning approaches and practices where students have less opportunity to engage with their peers or teachers can lead to feelings of isolation and affect motivation. 2.3 Education system factors Specific aspects of the education systems can also explain the educational success of pupils, or lack thereof. Educational success can be heavily impacted by the availability of and access to high-quality early childhood education and care (ECEC), school-starting age and the number of contact hours in primary school. Participation in high quality ECEC is associated with later educational success and prevention of early leaving from education and training. However, the 2019 Education and Training Monitor notes that the 92.8% participation rate in ECEC for the general population (age 3) decreases to 77.8% in the group of children at risk of poverty or social exclusion; and the gap is even greater for children aged from birth to two. Participation is also weaker amongst children with disabilities, migrant children or children with a migrant background or Roma children . According to PISA 2018, countries with high levels of grade repetition generally show lower mean performance in PISA. Grade repetition is likely to have a negative impact on pupils’ performance (and behaviour) and is associated with drop-out rates. Socio-economically disadvantaged pupils are more likely to repeat a year then their affluent peers, leading to increased chances of becoming early leavers from education and training. Early selection and tracking are also considered by many to have a negative impact, with a disproportionate effect on pupils from more disadvantaged backgrounds. The earliest age at which students are assigned to tracks in the EU is 10, but more than half of the education systems start the process at or after 15. All education systems introduce some form of tracking by the age of 16 at the latest. Figure 3. De facto starting ages of tracking and total years of schooling covered in a differentiated setting, 2018/19

Source: Eurydice Many studies have found that the earlier tracking is introduced, the wider the gap between low and high performers gets, and the bigger the impact of socio-economic background on performance. This is because early tracking magnifies early achievement, which is more influenced by socio-economic background than achievement in later years. Thus, there seems to be an adverse relationship between equity and the age at which students are channelled down different pathways. This is also related to the selection process on which the assigning of students to educational pathways is based. Figure 4. Evaluation of academic attainment in assigning students to higher level tracks, 2018/19 Source: Eurydice Almost all education systems rely on some form of performance-based selection when assigning students to different tracks. Although, in principle, performance based selection should not increase the impact of socio-economic background (because the more advantaged groups cannot gain access to the more academic tracks if they do not reach the required performance level), in systems where socio-economic inequality already exists in the lower levels of schooling, academic selectivity is likely to reinforce socio-economic differences. The evidence is mixed regarding the link between expenditure in education and educational outcomes. Analyses have pointed out that countries with a comparable level of expenditure on education perform differently. Across the PISA rounds, no correlation appeared between cumulative expenditure per pupil and pupil performance among EU countries . However, research shows that higher expenditure is associated with reduced education inequalities, even though the relationship is not linear. A recent study found that public funding is important for equity, especially in primary education; a higher public expenditure per pupil/student can reduce the student achievement differences between schools which, in turn, reduces the achievement gap between low- and high-achieving pupils/students in primary schools. In many countries, higher funding is provided for schools with more disadvantaged pupils. However, evidence suggests that while additional support for disadvantaged schools is important, it is not sufficient on its own to address educational inequalities. This is especially true in comparison with the impact of major system-level factors such as early tracking, grade repetition and selective admission to schools . At the systemic level, teacher shortages, insufficient or inadequate professional development opportunities for teaching and non-teaching staff, the overall status of the teacher profession and the working conditions of teachers may have impact on the quality of teaching and ultimately on pupils’ outcomes. According to data from the OECD’s Teaching and Learning International Survey (TALIS) of 2018, only one in five lower secondary teachers feel that their profession is valued by society. Moreover, according to the same survey, 37.8% of principals report shortage of teachers competent enough to teach pupils with special educational needs, and shortages of teachers capable of teaching in multilingual and multicultural settings (23,5%) or teaching students from socio-economically disadvantaged homes (24.2%). Moreover, due to the demographic structure of the European teaching force, waves of retirements in many countries will require massive recruitments of young teachers in the coming years. Academic research finds that the ‘socio-economic composition of schools’ can influence individual educational performance. Disadvantaged schools – those enrolling high proportions of students from low socio-economic backgrounds – generally have below average educational performance. They also often lack resources and face greater problems with discipline, which makes learning difficult. The concentration of students from low socio-economic backgrounds in disadvantaged schools may occur as a result of residential segregation, or it may also be the unintended result of school policies, such as school choice, admissions and tracking. Finally, PISA 2018 shows that the difference in reading performance between pupils attending schools in cities and those enrolled in schools in rural and outermost areas is statistically significant and rather large in many Member States. In Hungary, Bulgaria, Romania, Slovakia and Portugal it even exceeds 100 PISA score points, corresponding to approximately 3-4 years of schooling. Schools in rural and outermost areas often struggle to provide quality education due to their geographical isolation and small size, which increases the risks of suffering from insufficient infrastructure, a limited educational offer and a lack of experienced teachers. Learners living in rural and outermost areas are also more likely to leave school earlier than their peers living in a city or more urban areas. Within cities, there can also be discrepancies between areas, with ELET rates higher in more disadvantaged neighbourhoods. 2.4 Other factors National contextual factors, such as economic situation and labour market trends can also have an important impact, particularly when it comes to students in VET. The overall economic context may have an influence on students’ behaviour, as an economically disadvantaged family situation may mean that they have to abandon their studies and find employment to sustain and support themselves and their families. On the other hand, some studies underline the influence of the 2007 economic crisis on ELET in southern European States such as Spain or Portugal , where the labour market situation acted as a pull factor for reducing ELET rates during the crisis.

A 2016 Cedefop study shows that an insufficient supply of apprenticeship placements is the most frequent factor among the education and training organisation factors stated among early leavers from VET. If young people are not able to find an apprenticeship, they are more likely to choose another VET pathway which may not be in line with their aspirations. This may later lead them to drop out. In some countries, not finding an apprenticeship placement which is statutory for completing VET pathways may even mean that they will not start training at all, or they will not be able toto complete the training, qualify and get their diploma. In addition, the attractiveness of the labour market, especially for seasonal jobs and in the tourism sector, may lead young people to leaving education and training early, as they are more interested in directly starting a new job without finishing their studies. In contrast, the lack of positive prospects for finding a job after their studies may discourage young people to start VET in the first place, or continuing or finishing their studies (‘discouraged student effect’). In opposition to this, the ‘encouraged student effect’ has a positive impact on students remaining in education and training. This effect is related to labour market regulations that require jobs to have specific certifications and wages for qualified workers differ significantly from those not qualified. This means that, to be able to obtain a job, young people need to graduate from VET, so that they have an incentive to successfully end their VET training. Other factors leading to drop related to the labour market are working conditions, of which students become aware while being in their work-based learning. For example, the timing, shifts, physical and emotional requirements of these jobs may deter students from remaining in the training, as they do not correspond to their own desires and needs. Finally, an additional societal factor identified in the literature is the value placed on education. In countries where the national appreciation for education and formal qualifications is higher, the levels of ELET tend to be lower. The reverse also holds true; when society demonstrates distrust or displeasure with the education system in a country, there is a higher likelihood of higher ELET rates . In Greece for example, it has been noted that that the negative attitude to education in some communities or regions contributes to ELET . The analysis above was largely echoed during the consultation activities supporting the preparation of the Commission proposal on Pathways to School Success. The following figure shows the five obstacles to school success considered to be the most pressing by all respondents. Figure 5. Top 5 obstacles to school success per respondent category Source: Open Public Consultation synopsis report 2.5 Impact of underachievement and early leaving from education and training in society Children’s and young people’s success in learning will significantly affect their future . It is acknowledged that education plays a critical role in individual and societal prosperity and well-being, fosters economic growth and social cohesion, and is essential for personal development and welfare. In short, its benefits have multiple dimensions. Investment in education provides substantial long-term gains for individuals, public finances and the economy as a whole, as well as a number of important non-economic benefits. Looking at all the different policies in the past half-century, investment in education, along with health policy, is associated with the highest rate of return. Conversely, poor education outcomes can have serious consequences on the individual, on societies and on economies. Low-achievers are less likely to continue education, i.e. both higher education and lifelong learning, and more likely to leave school prematurely. Given the rapidly evolving skills requirements, the lack of upper secondary qualifications or non-participation in further learning can seriously put people at a disadvantage in terms of employability: it can create barriers to accessing the labour market and contribute to a more limited choice of work. Moreover, research consistently shows that individuals with lower educational attainment will have considerably reduced earnings in the future, meaning that the individual will most likely end up in low-paid and low-skilled jobs, with huge consequences for their overall quality of life as well as that of their families, and higher risk of falling into poverty. Research demonstrates that previous policies prolonging compulsory schooling age have improved children’s future earning potential considerably . In addition, even among children with equal educational attainment, i.e. schooling level, it is those with poorer achievements who will face lower incomes in their adult lives. This indicates the importance of reaching higher learning outcomes in school besides simply completing compulsory schooling for progressing more successfully through adulthood. As a consequence of the above-mentioned relationship between education and labour market access, underachievement and early leaving from education and training may thus hinder upwards social mobility and favour the intergenerational transmission of poverty (in 2019 50.8 % of children whose parents’ level of education was low were at risk of poverty compared with 7.5 % of children whose parents’ level of education was high) and of educational poverty (among the socio-economic factors which can influence ELET, low parental education has the strongest impact). In addition, people with low levels of education tend to contribute less in terms of tax revenues and rely more often on social assistance as compared to higher qualified people; they also tend to make less efficient consumer and financial choices. The expected benefits of education go beyond earnings and employment, however, by affecting, for instance, health and longevity, happiness and pro-environmental behaviour. Less educated people tend to take less informed decisions affecting marriage, parenthood and retirement. Low levels of education are also linked to higher risks of committing crimes , to lower health, more risky behaviour, less use of preventive services and overall lower well-being . Empirical research also documents that better educational outcomes enhance social cohesion and mutual trust within society, as well as democratic and civic engagement. The gender dimension is worth mentioning: boys’ lower performance in education translates into lower participation rates in higher education (the gap in 2019 was 10% in favour of girls, and this continues to grow) and lifelong learning (where the gap has been widening in the last three years). A number of more ‘indirect’ implications were also explored and some evidence was found showing that men with incomplete studies are at higher risk of ill-health and suicide. Men with lower levels of education may also have more difficulties forming stable intimate relationships, leading to demographic implications. In addition, research shows that there may be a link between reading difficulties and antisocial behaviour, and that having a low level of education is one of the risk factors for joining extremist movements and criminal activities. Research indicates that essential learning gaps can develop as early as during primary or even pre-school aged children and that it is most effective and efficient to combat inequalities in learning outcomes as early as possible, indicating the need to invest more funding into pre and primary schooling . The cost of early leaving from education and training has been investigated by several studies. Even though the measurement and size of the losses or gains found in these studies vary because of differences in the database and the methodology used, all studies agree that potential costs sum up to several hundred thousand EUR per early leaver:

·The European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions study, using the 2005 to 2011 European Survey on Income and Living Conditions estimated that the resource costs of being a dropout to $7,000 per year in EU26. ·A study on nine European countries found that an additional year of schooling increases the lifetime earnings by 5% to 20% depending on the modelling specification. ·A study covering Austria, Czech Republic, Denmark, England, France, Italy and the Netherlands, found that one additional year of schooling decreases the probability of being in poor health by 7 percentage points on average. A recent report has provided an analysis of the economic benefits of educational improvement for each EU country. The analysis focuses on the relationship between educational achievement, as measured by scores in PISA, and the long-run growth of nations. Building on prior research that shows the strong historical relationship of growth and educational achievement, it projects the aggregate economic results of improvements in achievement. Four scenarios are identified: ·The first scenario considers an increase in student achievement of 25 PISA points. This reform, shown possible by several EU countries (Portugal, Poland, and Germany), would add €71 trillion to EU GDP over the status quo. This amounts to an aggregate EU gain of almost 3½ times current levels of GDP and an average GDP that is seven percent higher for the remainder of the century. ·The second scenario brings all low-performing students up to basic skill requirements (PISA level 2). Achieving this goal would boost average GDP over the 21st Century by nearly four percent. The more limited goal to reduce low achievement to 15 percent by country would have only about one-seventh the impact. ·The third scenario matches the goal of ET 2020 calling for reductions in early leaving from education and training. Enhancing the skills of all potential early leavers from education and training is projected to raise average GDP by 0.7 percent. Just reaching the specific ET 2020 goal of no more than 10 percent early leavers in each EU country has significantly less impact (0.1 percent). ·The fourth scenario focuses on top performers, ensuring that at least 15 percent of students in each country achieve PISA level 5. While having minimal effect on currently high-achieving countries, average GDP across EU countries would be 0.5 percent higher over the remainder of the century. The analysis above points towards the need to intervene as early as possible, and to combat inequalities at the beginning or even before children’s school career, especially considering the impact of educational achievement on social and economic progress. Children’s underachievement has long lasting and serious consequences on their adult lives and on society at large. Consequently, it is vital to improve learning outcomes, not leaving any student behind.

3. Main achievements and lessons learned from the past 3.1 Main achievements Reducing early leaving from education and training has been a key target of the European cooperation in education and training and extensive work has taken place at the European level and in Member States. This section briefly summarises the actions conducted so far, main achievements and lessons learnt from twenty years of policy cooperation at European level. At a European level, the need to reduce early leaving from education and training was first highlighted in the Europe 2020 strategy . One of its five headline targets was to reduce the early school leaving rate (later renamed early leaving from education and training) to less than 10% by 2020. As a follow up, the Commission adopted, on 31 January 2011, a set of policy documents on early school leaving , leading to the approval by the Council of a Recommendation on policies to reduce early school leaving. The Recommendation aims to provide policy impetus and instruments to encourage efforts at a national level across the EU in moving towards the 10% headline target. It invites Member States to implement evidence-based and comprehensive strategies, involving all relevant policy sectors and addressing all levels of education and training (including VET). The Annex to the Recommendation sets out a framework for comprehensive policies, based on strong monitoring and data collection, which includes a set of measures under three key pillars which should all be addressed in national strategies: prevention, intervention and compensation. To support the implementation of the 2011 Council Recommendation, the Commission also put in place a number of policy tools, including: ·Support for peer learning and policy cooperation between Member States. After a first Thematic Working Group on early school leaving (2011-2013) , the focus on early leaving from education and training was integrated into the mandate of the ET 2020 Working Group on Schools (2014-2015) , which worked on ‘whole school approaches to reduce early school leaving’, publishing key messages . Subsequent mandates of the Working Group on Schools (2016-2018, 2018-2020) have not placed an explicit focus on early leaving from education and training while continuing to look at it from different angles. ·A strong emphasis on early leaving from education and training within EU programmes, in particular Erasmus+ and the 2014-2020 European Structural and Investment Funds (ESIF, whose Regulation included the introduction of ex ante conditionalities requiring countries to demonstrate the existence of comprehensive strategy and tracking mechanisms as a precondition for the use of ESF for activities to tackle ELET) ; ·Regular monitoring and reporting by the Commission on progress towards achieving the target, in particular through the European Semester and the ET2020 reporting mechanisms; ·Investment in research and development ;

·Development of dedicated online tools: the ‘European Toolkit for Schools: promoting inclusive education and tackling early school leaving’ and Cedefop’s ‘VET toolkit for tackling early leaving’; both platforms provide a wealth of resources and instruments to support policy makers and practitioners. Other important initiatives from the EU include the 2015 Council conclusions on early school leaving ; the 2018 Council Recommendation on common values, inclusive education and the European dimension of teaching , which aims at strengthening inclusive education, to promote quality education for all pupils and the European dimension of teaching, so children also learn about Europe's common heritage and diversity and get an understanding of the functioning of the EU; the 2019 Council Recommendations on High Quality Early Childhood Education and Care Systems to lay the foundations for later success in life; and the Council Recommendation on vocational education and training (VET) for sustainable competitiveness, social fairness and resilience, which emphases that VET has a key role in preventing and counteracting early leaving from education and training and promoting equality of opportunities by providing programmes that are inclusive and accessible for vulnerable groups. Other relevant ongoing initiatives and their synergies with Pathways to School Success are described in chapter 5. In July 2019, the Commission published an independent assessment of the implementation of the Council Recommendation on policies to reduce early school leaving . The study covered 37 EU and non EU countries. It addressed: -situation and trends at European and national level and the national arrangements for monitoring and evaluating early leaving from education and training; -overview and examples of the measures implemented at national level to reduce early leaving from education and training, in terms of prevention, intervention and compensation measures, as well as presenting evidence of effectiveness; -an analysis of the role and influence of the 2011 Council Recommendation and associated EU policy tools in terms of their relevance, effectiveness, efficiency and sustainability; -need for future EU level support, and the nature of the support envisaged. The assessment draws an overall positive picture regarding the impact and influence of the 2011 Council Recommendation and associated EU policy. It provides a strong indication that the 2011 Recommendation is regarded as relevant and effective across Europe, especially within the EU27, but also to a varying degree among Candidate and EFTA countries. The Recommendation has interacted in complex ways with national and EU policies and programmes, including those in the fields of youth, labour markets, and lifelong learning; nonetheless, its ‘footprint’ can be traced in educational strategies and policies initiated across Europe during the period from 2011-2018. The Recommendation and associated tools clearly shone a light on the need to tackle early leaving from education and training across Europe, keeping this issue high in the policy agenda at EU and national level and providing a policy framework for doing so, which countries and key stakeholders have globally responded to, albeit to different degrees and in differing manners. Although disentangling the formal and informal patterns of influence into national policy remains a complex endeavour, the assessment has identified a range of national strategies and policies, as well as EU-funded projects and research, which either directly or broadly mirror the policy framework in the Recommendation. The most direct evidence of influence of the 2011 Council Recommendation was for the eight Member States, which adopted a comprehensive strategy for tackling early school leaving after 2011, reflecting the three pillars from the EU policy framework: Austria, Belgium (Flanders), Bulgaria, France, Greece, Hungary, Malta, and Romania. The Netherlands also has a strategy but this pre-dates the 2011 watershed. A further set of countries (CY, ES, FI, IE, IT, LV, LT, LU, PT, SE, SK, as well as NO, RS and TR) took the decision not to adopt a separate ESL strategy, but have nonetheless transposed elements of the EU policy framework within a wider set of policy measures. This approach has typically evolved over a number of years, with the 2011 Recommendation providing one of a number of reference points for policy formulation, alongside national statistical reviews and research, and other EU or international sources such as OECD reports and study visits. A more limited influence of the Council Recommendation was found in the remaining countries, principally due either to having historically relatively low ESL rates (such as in Czech Republic and Slovenia), or long-standing early school leaving frameworks or policy measures in place before 2011 (such as in Denmark, Finland, Poland, and the UK). Nonetheless, the diffusion of the EU policy framework, and changing circumstances at a country level have seen elements of the 2011 Recommendation adopted more widely in recent years even in these countries. The accompanying set of EU policy tools have procured complementary effects and supported the sustainability of policy attention and efforts, through the provision of peer learning opportunities and structured dialogue, funding actions and research, disseminating research and good practice examples. In particular: ·The EU monitoring and reporting mechanisms were widely considered to be an effective tool, in particular for raising the profile and visibility of early leaving from education and training at national level. The monitoring of the headline target and the European Semester reports and country-specific recommendations have also often carried weight with national policymakers and provided challenge where efforts had stalled, as well as validating progress. ·Targeted funding mechanisms also appear to have played a valuable role in supporting national level implementation. There was considerable evidence that the ESIF ex-ante conditionalities played an important part in levering action at a national level, although challenges were raised in some cases around sustained engagement. EU-funded programmes have also been widely utilised to address national priorities around ELET. However, the separation of EU programmes from national policy-making and budgets was highlighted as a challenge in some countries, as well as the risk of substitution effects, and limitations posed by having too many disparate projects. ·As to the effectiveness of the policy cooperation at EU level, the ET 2020 Working Groups were recognised to be a valuable forum for dialogue between national stakeholders and the European Commission, though their value was principally thought to reside in providing access to good practice examples. The greatest benefits were often reported from smaller scale and more direct exchanges between country representatives, e.g. peer learning activities. The written outputs and European Toolkit for Schools were generally well regarded and used. The evidence for the efficiency of the 2011 Recommendation and policy tools is complex to ascertain with any strong degree of certainty. As budgets for early leaving from education and training were usually neither ring-fenced nor extensively monitored, the causal chains between financial inputs, activities, outputs nor results are difficult to define. As regards the concrete policies and measures developed at national level, the assessment portrays a picture and assess the coverage of prevention, intervention and compensation measures. The following heat maps provides a visual representation of measures covered at a country level across Europe. In terms of prevention policies, although country coverage was overall quite comprehensive, most countries have some gaps, and around a quarter have more marked gaps. In particular, the implementation of systemic or infrastructural policies such as anti-segregation policies appears to be less prevalent than measures implemented within schools or other institutions. There is evidence of relatively good coverage of ‘targeted prevention’ measures, oriented towards specific groups at risk, such as Roma, migrant children or children with migrant background, families experiencing socio-economic disadvantage.

Figure 6. Coverage of ESL prevention measures at a national level across Europe

Source: Assessment of the implementation of the 2011 Council Recommendation There is relatively good national coverage of intervention policies, although with more variation than for prevention policies. Coverage is highest for intervention measures focused on in-school support, including targeted support for learners experiencing personal, social or academic difficulties, as well as CPD for teachers and school leaders to help them to manage diversity and to support learners. Over half of the countries also implement measures to promote inclusive school environments, anti-bullying and wellbeing, as well as policies to engage child participation in decision-making. However, there are some clear gaps in certain countries for these two groups of measures. Implementation of infrastructural measures shows the weakest overall coverage. Figure 7. Intervention measures 1: school and system oriented Source: Assessment of the implementation of the 2011 Council Recommendation Figure 8. Intervention measures 2: learner-oriented Source: Assessment of the implementation of the 2011 Council Recommendation Compensation measures are comparatively well-established across Europe. Most countries offer ‘second chance’ education schemes of some type, often combined with careers guidance, financial, childcare and/or psychological support. The weakest overall focus in this area is on systems to support the recognition and validation of prior learning. Figure 9: Compensation measures Source: Assessment of the implementation of the 2011 Council Recommendation The assessment concludes that the implementation of the Council Recommendation has contributed to a decrease of the rate of early leavers from education and training at EU level and encouraged transformation within educational institutions and policies, while highlighting a number of gaps and areas in which further work is needed. 3.2 Gaps and needs in policy development and implementation

Policy cooperation at EU level has mainly focused on combating ELET. However, despite the successful experience of the 2011 Council Recommendation, statistics confirm that ELET remains a policy challenge in a number of countries and regions. In the meantime, the overall performance in basic skills has further deteriorated, while policy work at EU level to address this challenge has been much less effective and systematic. For both challenges, significant differences exist across and within countries and certain groups seem more affected than others (e.g. young men, migrants, learners living in rural areas and outermost regions). The independent assessment of the 2011 Council Recommendation has clearly indicated that more needs to be done to tackle the multi-faceted and evolving range of challenges contributing to early leaving from education and training, with underperformance in basic skills being closely related to it. It has identified a number of gaps and weaknesses, calling for a renewed action at EU level and hinting at the importance of addressing all aspects that can have an impact on the educational experience of children and young people in a systematic way. In particular, the following areas for further work, at EU and national level, have been identified: · Further strengthen an integrated approach: despite the 2011 Recommendation calling for comprehensive policies, many countries still adopt fragmented, project-based and short-term policies, addressing only one issue, or not taking into account all school dimensions, thus resulting in a limited impact. More systemic and comprehensive policies are often missing, and consistency between actions is often challenging. ·Ensure that strategies or measures include a stronger focus on prevention and intervention, as well as compensation: Tackling problems proactively before – or as soon as - warning signs appear prevents them from escalating and can avoid complete disengagement from the education system, a stage after which it is much harder to incentivise learners to return to school. Not only are prevention policies more effective, but all learners can also benefit from them (not only those more at risk of disengagement or educational failure). In addition, many countries need to put greater focus on implementing anti-segregation policies in schools and educational districts, as well as developing more flexible and individualised pathways and measures for well-being. ·Enhance data collection and monitoring systems: Many countries have statistics on ELET, but lack systems to identify those who should be reached out to with additional information and offers for a solution to their situation. In addition, monitoring and evaluation of policies and interventions are not sufficiently developed and there is limited evidence about their effectiveness and efficiency, which reduces the learning process both within the country and across countries;

·In addition to more universal measures, which all learners can benefit from, develop policies to address the specific needs of particular groups, such as learners with disabilities, those with special educational needs, High Learning Potential or Gifted children, people from ethnic minorities, with a migrant background and newly arrived migrants, including refugees those living in rural or deprived areas and outermost regions, among others. There also needs to be a stronger focus on those with complex needs (e.g. children with mental health issues, children in care, children with a parent in prison or children who are victims or witnesses of domestic abuse). ·In order to tackle the multi-faceted dimensions of the problem, facilitate and promote more strategic and cross-sectoral cooperation between policymakers across different policy fields (e.g. education, health, employment, housing, justice, inclusion of migrants, non-discrimination) and levels of government (European, national, regional and local), as well systematic dialogue with stakeholders. ·Address the well-being dimension in schools. National, regional and local strategies and measures aimed at tackling educational failure should be further integrated with those on well-being, in particular those targeting bullying as well as mental health, including trauma and adverse childhood experiences. ·To be effective, policy-making must include the voices of other key stakeholders such as marginalised parents, learners, migrant communities and non-governmental organisations. ·Further develop a systemic approach to promoting educational success at school level (‘whole school approach’), based on cross-sectoral partnership in and around schools and multi-disciplinarity. A whole community, area-based approach merits further consideration at policy, practitioner and research level, including promising examples of community lifelong learning centres combined with multidisciplinary teams as one stop shops. ·More – and more effective – systems need to be established to facilitate the successful integration of newly-arrived migrants, including refugees. There is an insufficient policy focus on the validation/recognition of prior learning, which has a particular impact for migrants. ·There is considerable scope to better strategically exploit the potential of the arts and culture, as well as other extra-curricular activities, such as sports and access to nature. ·Understanding and addressing underachievement and early leaving from education and training – and social inclusion more widely – should be at the heart of the preparation of school leaders, teachers, trainers and other educational staff, including through increased recognition of the importance of practical placements of student teachers in areas of high poverty, as well as teachers’ and trainers’ relational and cultural skills (e.g. conflict resolution skills, integrating diverse, culturally meaningful materials in teachers, etc.). More focus should also be placed on the dimensions of teaching which can influence ELET in continuing professional development, including raising awareness of the phenomenon and spotting warning signs. ·More research on early leaving from education and training is needed, with research networks on the topics building on university connections. The assessment also provides recommendations for EU level tools: ·To keep the policy spotlight on tackling early leaving from education and training, there is a need to renew and relaunch the 2011 Recommendation and associated policy tools, taking into account the policy learning from implementation and the contextual changes (e.g. migration related developments). ·The headline target provides a valuable and visible cross-country comparative point, and should be retained post-ET 2020. As well as reviewing the level at which to set the future target, further consideration should be given to the use that can be made of disaggregated data (e.g. on migration background or gender). ·Translational tools (e.g. a grid of structural indicators) have the potential to synthesise key policy recommendations and minimise policy amnesia, ensuring that Member States are required to report on why different types of measures are not being implemented. ·Continue the inclusion of specific country specific recommendations on the remaining challenges in the European Semester; further scaffolding should however be provided not only to say what should be done, but how to achieve it, with clear signposting to different mechanisms such as EU funding sources, peer counselling or targeted peer learning. ·Consider tougher standards to ensure that project activities funded by the European Social Fund, or other EU funds (e.g. Erasmus+) are strategic and effectively targeted to address national priorities and needs, to avoid the piecemeal approach that was found in many countries. ·Ensure that the longstanding focus on educational inclusion is retained within the mandate of the ET 2020 Working Group on Schools, including an explicit focus on early leaving from education and training. ·Expand opportunities for peer counselling and peer review, to enable more focused country exchanges and visits, perhaps linked to country-specific recommendations. ·Undertake further communications activities to raise the profile of the European Toolkit for Schools, capitalising on the potential of the Toolkit to disseminate case studies and research in a format that is accessible to educationalists across Europe. ·Develop a new EU-level ESL Monitoring and Evaluation Framework, including standardised and evidence-based research instruments for evaluating policies and programmes in the field of early leaving from education and training, disseminated via the European Toolkit for Schools. ·Consider setting-up an EU Monitoring and Evaluation Observatory for early leaving from education and training, bringing together higher education institutions from across Europe to take the lead in high quality multi-disciplinary academic research in this field.

This picture can be complemented by the Cedefop study conducted in 2016 on the role of VET in tackling early leaving , whose findings raise the need for countries to: ·Develop more extensive national systems to be able to monitor early leaving from VET. The study identified only a few countries that have monitoring systems on ELET that are systematically deployed across the whole country and used to offer support to young people. These monitoring systems should allow identifying (nearly) every young person who exits prematurely from any type of education and training and follow-up to offer them an alternative programme or support. Comprehensive data collection and monitoring systems on early leaving may improve understanding of the phenomenon in each country to target measures better to prevent and address it. ·Strengthen VET policy commitment to combat early leaving from education and training. Cedefop’s research shows that rates of early leaving in VET vary from country to country, but also among different VET systems within the same country. On the one hand, in cases where vocational education and training is particularly exposed to early leaving, it requires important prevention efforts to increase the quality, accessibility and attractiveness of VET. On the other hand, in other cases, VET can also bring some answers: VET programmes (particularly those more practical and oriented to work-based learning) can be effective in motivating discouraged and disengaged young people. Evidence shows (Cedefop, 2016) that the majority of those who drop out from school, when decide to go back, opt for a VET programme and qualify in upper secondary education. School education can therefore benefit from incorporating more vocational pedagogies to make learning more meaningful for some. ·Target activities and combine measures for success. Effective strategies should address the specific cause of the problem and be adapted to the profile of the young person. It is crucial to collect information on their characteristics and needs to be able to offer tailored support. · Evaluate progress and impact to inform policy-making and funding. Most Member States have a multitude of activities, financed from local, regional, national or European sources that aim to combat ELET. However, evidence about which ones are making the difference and to whom, is often lacking. Understanding which measures are successful and for which target group is a precondition for improving effectiveness and efficiency of national strategies to combat early leaving. While these assessments clearly indicate that more work is needed on these already well-known challenges, newer challenges are explained bellow. 4.The current context: remaining and new challenges 4.1 Main trends and their possible impact on education Since the 2011 Council Recommendation on policies to reduce early school leaving was adopted, European countries have been confronted with new situations, challenges and opportunities, and with a set of conditions affecting policy innovation in the field of education which are not always favourable. While the rate of early leavers from education and training at EU level has decreased significantly, considerable differences still exist across and within countries and inequalities persist among specific population groups (see 4.2.1). Faced with the deteriorating trend in the basic skills performance as identified by the results of PISA 2018, concerns have emerged prominently in policy and academic discourses at national and European level (see 4.2.2). Educational research has provided new insights and policy cooperation between European countries, although it has allowed Member States to share promising practices, it has also highlighted gaps and areas in which further work is needed (see 4.2.3 and 4.3). In addition, important developments and shifts in European and world societies and economies have also exerted a deep influence on education systems over the past ten years Europe’s digital transformation is accelerating rapidly and digital technologies have become part of our everyday life and of students’ learning experience. However, not all children and young people benefit equally from the digital transformation: a fifth of young people in the EU do not possess basic digital skills and the impact of socio-economic status on digital literacy is significant. The results of the International Computer and Information Literacy Study (ICILS)27 2018 show that a fifth of young people in the EU do not possess basic digital skills and also reveal the impact of socio-economic status on digital literacy: on average, students from higher socioeconomic status backgrounds have significantly higher computer information literacy scores and students with a parent who had completed a Bachelor’s degree or higher also score higher than those whose parents do not hold a degree. Additionally, increased time online has caused concern over the impact of digital media on children’s well-being. The increased mobility between EU countries and the rising number of third country migrants coming to the EU in recent years have contributed to greater linguistic and cultural diversity in European classrooms. According to data from PISA 2015, an average of around one in ten (9%) of 15-year-old learners speak a different language at home than the language of schooling across EU Member States . The massive influx of displaced Ukrainian children in spring 2022 due to the war in Ukraine is contributing to an even further extent to enhancing the linguistic and cultural diversity in the European classrooms. Addressing the diversity of educational needs is at the core of making education systems more equitable and inclusive, and will be instrumental for the successful integration of newcomers. Most recently, Europe faced significant challenges due to the COVID-19 pandemic, which aggravated inequalities in education, and revealed gaps and challenges in current education provision and education systems. Learning loss estimated as a consequence of the pandemic may enhance the share of underachieving children, may cause an increase in early leaving of school and training, and negatively affected children’s well-being (the impact of the pandemic will be presented more in-depth in 4.3.2). These trends have exacerbated or altered existing challenges or added new ones, contributing to making the concerns around ELET and underachievement in basic skills even more pressing. The following sections present more in detail main challenges which justify a new ‘Pathways to School Success.’ 4.2 Remaining challenges 4.2.1 Early leaving from education and training Across the EU on average, the share of early leavers from education and training was 9.9% in 2020. The share has steadily decreased since 2002, when it was 16.9%. A decrease of 3.9 percentage points has been observed since 2010: a decrease of 2.7 percentage points over the period 2010 to 2014 was followed by a smaller reduction of 1.1 percentage point since 2015, Figure 10: Early leavers from education and training in the EU. 2002-2020 [%]

Source: Eurostat. Online data code [ edat_lfse_14 ] The EU average masks important differences between and within countries. In some countries, more than 15% of the young population are early leavers from education and training; in 18 Member States, the share of early leavers from education and training is currently less than 9% and Denmark is close to reaching the 9% target. Croatia has the smallest proportion of early leavers (2.2%). Several countries with a high share of early leavers from education and training have seen very marked reductions over time (Portugal and Greece as well as Latvia, Spain and Ireland), while opposite trends have been recorded in other countries. Young men (11.8%) are more likely to be early leavers from education and training compared to young women (8%). National data also shows that boys are more likely to be absent from school compared to girls. These findings confirm trends identified by the OECD in 2015. According to 2008 and 2012 PISA data, compared to girls, boys across OECD countries were more likely to leave school or training early, were more likely to arrive late or miss school, and were more likely to repeat a grade. On average in Europe, native-born people have lower ELET rates than foreign-born people. In 2020, among the 17 Member States for which data are available, the highest shares of foreign-born early leavers from education and training were in Italy (32.1%), Spain (29.0%), Malta (28.5%), Greece (27.0%), Cyprus (26.8%) and Germany (25.5%). The proportion of early leavers from education and training among the foreign-born young people was below 9% in two countries: Luxembourg (8.7%) and Slovenia (7.4%). In all countries for which data for foreign-born pupils disaggregated by sex is available, young men who are foreign-born are more likely to be early leavers than young women, and gender gaps are often wider than among the young population born in the reporting country. As regards the urban/rural divide, the pattern is more nuanced. At EU level, the ELET rate is lower in cities (8.7%) than in rural areas (10.5%) or towns and suburbs (11.2%). The picture is, however, quite uneven across Member States. Regardless of the degree of urbanisation, the EU average share of early leavers from education and training among young men is higher than among young women. In 2020, the EU average gender gap was widest in towns and suburbs (4.8 percentage points), followed by cities (3.7) and rural areas (2.5). Wide disparities also exist across regions at the NUTS 2 level. Some of the lowest 2020 shares of early leavers from education and training were concentrated in Eastern Europe and in capital regions, while the highest shares were often concentrated in island and/or outermost regions of the EU, highlighting a particularly difficult situation. The share of early leavers from education and training was also relatively high in most regions of southern Europe and across most regions of Bulgaria and Romania. Some regions in Belgium or France also record relatively high shares. Figure 11: Early leavers from education and training by NUTS 2 regions. 2020 [ % ] Source: Eurostat. Online data code [ edat_lfse_16 ] The EU-level target is complemented by an indicator measuring the share of people aged between 20 and 24 years with at least an upper secondary qualification (ISCED 3 level). Across the EU on average, 84.3% of 20- to 24-year-olds had at least an upper secondary qualification in 2020. Young women (87.1%) have a clear advantage over young men (81.5%). The young population is increasingly likely to have completed upper secondary education, with only few countries seeing a decrease or limited change in the proportion.



Figure 12: Population aged 20 to 24 who have attained at least upper secondary education. 2010-2020 [ % ] Source: Eurostat. Online data code [ edat_lfse_03 ] 4.2.2 Underachievement in basic skills While basic skills have gained increased attention in the policy debate at the EU level, the performance in basic skills shows a deteriorating trend over the 2009-2018 period. The EU-level target for 2030 is to ensure that the total average underachievement in these three domains across the EU is below 15%. On average across the EU, this target has not been reached in any of the three areas tested by PISA 2018 and the majority of EU Member States perform below it. Despite progress in some countries, since 2009 the EU share of underachievement has increased in both science and reading, while remaining stable in mathematics. More than one in five pupils in the EU has insufficient proficiency in reading, mathematics or science: in 2018 the underachievement rate stands stood at 22.5% in reading, 22.9% in mathematics and 22.3% in science. However, some countries have been able to improve their performance over time. Major differences in performance exist between the Member States. The underachievement rate in the three domains simultaneously ranges from 4.2% in Estonia to 31.9% in Bulgaria. It is below 10% in eight countries (Estonia, Poland, Finland, Ireland, Slovenia, Denmark, United Kingdom and Latvia) while it exceeds 20% in four countries (Malta, Cyprus, Romania and Bulgaria).

The PISA 2018 results, like previous PISA cycles, clearly indicate that performance is highly correlated across all three tested domains (reading, mathematics and science). Member States that show certain levels of basic skills in one area tend to perfo