EN

Brussels, 12.11.2007

SEC (2007) 1484

COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT

Accompanying document to the

COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE COUNCIL,

THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS

"Delivering lifelong learning for knowledge, creativity and innovation"

Draft 2008 joint progress report of the Council and the Commission on the implementation of the "Education & Training 2010 Work Programme"

{COM(2007) 703 final}

CONTENTS

1 INTRODUCTION (...)5

1.1 Context (...)5

1.2 Aims and objectives (...)5

1.3 Status and caveats (...)6

1.4 Report structure (...)6

1.5 Education and Training 2010 and the Lisbon Strategy (...)7

2 NATIONAL LIFELONG LEARNING STRATEGIES (...)9

2.1 Progress in adopting national lifelong learning strategy statements (...)10

2.2 Levels and systems covered in national lifelong learning strategies (...)10

2.3 Coherence (...)11

2.4 Flexible pathways and transition points (...)21

2.5 Effective partnerships: consultation, implementation and dissemination (...)22

2.6 Conclusions (...)25

3 TRANSVERSAL POLICY OBJECTIVES (...)28

3.1 National Qualification Systems and Frameworks (...)28

3.2 Validation of non-formal and informal leaning (...)33

3.3 Lifelong guidance (...)37

3.4 Transnational mobility (...)41

3.5 Summary (...)44

4 SCHOOLS (...)46

4.1 Modernising curricula and assessment arrangements (...)46

4.2 Quality assurance in schools (...)49

4.3 Teachers’ learning and training needs (...)51

4.4 School Leadership (...)53

4.5 School Governance (...)54

4.6 Stakeholder consultation and cooperation (...)55

4.7 Learning partnerships (...)56

4.8 Widening access and equity in participation, treatment and outcomes (...)56

4.9 Gender issues (...)62

4.10 Pre-primary education (...)63

4.11 Private investment (...)64

4.12 Progress towards EU benchmarks (...)65

4.13 Summary (...)69

5 Higher Education (...)72

5.1 Introduction (...)72

5.2 Governance and leadership (...)73

5.3 Private investment (...)75

5.4 Widening access and improving equity of participation, treatment and outcomes (...)76

5.5 Gender Issues (...)78

5.6 Learning outcomes based approaches (...)79

5.7 Quality assurance (...)80

5.8 Learning partnerships (...)81

5.9 Knowledge triangle (...)82

5.10 Participation targets and associated measures (...)85

5.11 Measures to increase the number of maths, science and technology graduates (...)87

5.12 Summary (...)88

6 VOcational Education and training AND ADULT Learning (...)90

6.1 Increasing quality and attractiveness (...)91

6.2 Quality assurance (...)92

6.3 Relevance of curricula and qualifications to labour market needs (...)94

6.4 Pathways to further and higher education (...)95

6.5 Learning outcomes based approaches (...)97

6.6 Learning and training needs of teachers and trainers (...)98

6.7 Learning partnerships (...)99

6.8 Social partner involvement in training (...)100

6.9 Widening access and improving equity of participation, treatment and outcomes (...)101

6.10 Opportunities for disadvantaged groups (...)103

6.11 Gender issues (...)104

6.12 Increasing participation in lifelong learning (...)106

6.13 Governance and leadership (...)106

6.14 Private investment (...)108

6.15 Summary (...)110

7 eu implementation of the education and training 2010 work programme since the 2006 joint interim report (...)114

7.1 Coordination, monitoring and dissemination of E&T 2010 (...)114

7.2 The state of play in relation to the priority areas of the work programme (...)117

7.3 Summary (...)136

1. INTRODUCTION

This Commission staff working document accompanies the Commission Communication proposing the 2008 Joint Report on progress under the Education and Training 2010 work programme contributing to the European Union's Lisbon agenda for jobs and growth.

1.1. Context

Every two years the Council and the Commission adopt a Joint Report on the implementation of the Education and Training 2010 work programme, including the field of higher education and the Copenhagen process in vocational education and training (VET). The next Joint Report will be adopted in February 2008. It will focus on the progress made by the 32 participating countries, particularly in putting in place coherent and comprehensive national lifelong learning strategies by the end of 2006. This ambition was set by the Council and the Commission in the 2004 Joint Report and endorsed by the 2005 European Council.

The Commission has drafted its contribution to the 2008 Joint Report primarily on the basis of a cross-country analysis of progress described in national reports received from the participating countries in the second quarter of 2007 which were prepared following Commission guidelines. This staff working document contains this analysis (chapters 2 to 6) and also reports on the implementation of the Education and Training 2010 work programme at the European level (chapter 7).

The 2008 Joint Report, to which this Staff Working Paper is annexed, should be read together with the 2007 Progress Report on Indicators and Benchmarks, [1] which is summarised in the statistical annex to the joint report.

1.2. Aims and objectives

The main aims of this document are therefore:

· To describe the progress made since 2004/5 in the implementation of the Education and Training 2010 work programme at the national and European levels and to illustrate this progress with examples of recent developments.

· To compare the state of progress of national lifelong learning strategies, including an assessment of their comprehensiveness and coherence.

· To comment on the influence of the Education and Training 2010 work programme on the national lifelong learning strategies and other key policy areas (including the adoption of benchmarks and key transversal and European level issues).

1.3. Status and caveats

This document is based mainly on the synthesis of the 2007 national reports. Reference is however made to the 2005 national reports and other Commission knowledge on country progress is cited in selected places. In practice, the 2007 reports tend to refer to developments in 2006 and the 2005 reports to developments up until 2004.

The reports have provided relatively little information that allows specific quantitative assessments of the progress made between 2005 and 2007.

The information provided in the 2007 national reports on specific measures within the national lifelong learning strategies is often not detailed and the examples cited in the report have been chosen to illustrate the progress being made, rather than as examples of good or best practice.

1.4. Report structure

The structure of the report closely reflects the structure of the 2007 national reports, which themselves reflect the guidelines provided by the Commission.

Chapter 2 describes the progress of NATIONAL LIFELONG LEARNING STRATEGIES in particular: the state of progress; the comprehensiveness: levels and systems covered by strategies; their coherence; flexible pathways and transition points; and partnership, implementation and dissemination arrangements. It concludes with an assessment of the state of play of the national strategies and outstanding challenges.

Chapter 3 describes the progress relative to TRANSVERSAL POLICY OBJECTIVES in particular: National Qualification Systems; non-formal and informal learning; lifelong guidance; and transnational mobility.

Chapter 4 assesses progress at the level of SCHOOLS, more specifically: modernising curricula and assessment arrangements; quality assurance; teachers’ learning and training needs; school leadership, school governance; stakeholder consultation and cooperation, learning partnerships; widening access and improving equity of participation; gender issues; pre-primary education; private investment and progress towards EU benchmarks.

Chapter 5 assesses progress at the level of HIGHER EDUCATION, in particular: governance and leadership; private investment; widening access and improving equity; gender issues; learning outcomes based approaches; quality assurance; learning partnerships; knowledge triangle; participation targets and associated measures; measures to increase excellence; and measures to increase the number of maths, science and technology graduates.

Chapter 6 assesses progress at the levels of VOCATIONAL EDUCATION AND TRAINING AND ADULT EDUCATION, more specifically: increasing quality and attractiveness of VET / adult learning; quality assurance; relevance of curricula and qualifications to labour market needs; pathways to further and higher education; learning outcomes based approaches; learning and training needs of teachers and trainers; learning partnerships; social partner involvement; widening access and improving equity; gender issues; opportunities for disadvantaged groups; and, increasing adult participation in lifelong learning; gender issues; increasing participation in lifelong learning; governance and leadership and private investment.

Chapter 7 provides an overview of the IMPLEMENTATION OF THE EDUCATION AND TRAINING 2010 WORK PROGRAMME AT EU LEVEL since the 2006 Joint Report in terms of coordination, monitoring and dissemination and the state of play in relation to the priority areas of the work programme.

1.5. Education and Training 2010 and the Lisbon Strategy

Over the last five years the Education and Training 2010 work programme has, as the open method of coordination in this field, made a vital contribution towards achieving the main objectives of the Lisbon Strategy.

The Education Council adopted for the first time in 2001 the future objectives in terms of quality, accessibility and openness of education and training systems, to be achieved in practice by 2010. These objectives were followed-up in 2002 by a detailed work programme. In 2002 it also adopted a resolution committing the Member States and the European Union to developing national lifelong learning strategies. The Copenhagen process was launched in 2002 by the Ministers responsible for vocational education and training in cooperation with the social partners and the European Commission, with a view to improving cooperation in the field of vocational education and training.

The Education and Training 2010 work programme incorporates these various policy orientations and the implementation of the Mobility Recommendation and Action Plan. It also takes into account the outcomes of the Bologna process in the field of higher education. It establishes cooperation between 32 countries and involves different stakeholders, including social partners and international organisations. It covers all learning contexts (formal, non-formal and informal) and levels (pre-primary, primary, secondary, higher, adult education and continuing training) of education and training within a lifelong learning perspective.

The conclusions from the spring 2006 European Council underline that education and training are critical factors in developing the EU's long-term potential for competitiveness as well as social cohesion and reiterate that “investments in education and training produce high returns which substantially outweigh the costs and reach far beyond 2010”. Further to this the conclusions from the spring 2007 European Council describe education and training as prerequisites for a well-functioning knowledge triangle (education - research - innovation) which play a key role in boosting growth and jobs and acknowledge that “good progress has been made in implementing the Education and Training 2010 work programme over the last 12 months”.

1.5.1. Education and training and the 2006 Lisbon integrated reporting

The European Council and the Commission have both emphasised the Education and Training 2010 work programme as a major contribution to the overall Lisbon strategy, and more generally as the means by which Member States will achieve the broad common objectives they have fixed for their education and training systems. Education and training has therefore maintained its separate two-yearly reporting mechanism which is complementary to, and feeds into the Lisbon integrated reporting cycle, including the implementation of the Youth Pact, in close cooperation with the employment, social inclusion, youth and research sectors.

The overall Lisbon reporting cycle is based on an integrated guidelines package for jobs and growth, national and EU Lisbon Action Programmes, and a single progress report to the European Council. The integrated guidelines for jobs and growth includes two guidelines for education and training (number 23 and 24), which reflect the priorities of the Education and Training 2010 work programme, focussing on the need to expand and improve investment in human capital, and to adapt education and training systems to new competency requirements.

The position of education and training within the Lisbon Strategy has been further enhanced by Member States since 2006. The vast majority of Member States give great importance to education and training, lifelong learning and skills development in their Lisbon National Reform Programmes 2005-2008. Member State's 2006 implementation reports displayed a good level of overall implementation. However, many measures are still in their initial phase and only 4 Member States reported on the steps undertaken to put lifelong learning strategies in place by 2006.

In spring 2007, the Council issued recommendations based on articles 99 and 128 of the Treaty, and on the integrated Lisbon guidelines 2005-2008. The Council issued recommendations for more than half of the Member States relating to education and training, lifelong learning and skills development. In half of these cases, the recommendations address the need for further reforms of national education and training systems (e.g. reducing the number of early school leavers, reforming VET systems, developing lifelong learning strategies, implementing spending targets). In the other cases, the recommendations address skills issues linked specifically to labour market needs and labour supply: e.g. training of older workers, skills levels of disadvantaged groups such as migrants.

1.5.2. Education and training and the 2006 Social Inclusion and Social Protection process

The 2006-2008 National Action Plans (NAPs) on strategies for social protection and social inclusion underline the key role of education and training for employability and social inclusion. Almost all NAPs envisage preventative and compensatory measures against early school leaving. Many Member States concentrate resources on a variety of activities including: disadvantaged regions or schools; pre-primary education; and strategies to tackle the educational disadvantages of people with migration backgrounds. All NAPs recognise vocational training as a tool for vulnerable groups to access the labour market. The NAPs recognise the importance of adult participation in lifelong learning and focus on the acquisition of basic skills. On disabilities and special needs, the debate on special schools versus special needs education in mainstream schools remains open.

2. NATIONAL LIFELONG LEARNING STRATEGIES

Member States' commitment to develop and implement coherent and comprehensive lifelong learning strategies is based on the conclusions of the Feira European Council in June 2000 [2] and the Council resolution on lifelong learning of June 2002. The 2004 Joint Report added that coherent and comprehensive lifelong learning strategies should be in place by the end of 2006, and the goal to develop such strategies was also reiterated by the 2005 Spring European Council.

This chapter examines progress towards developing and implementing national lifelong learning strategies and highlights the features of a coherent and comprehensive lifelong learning strategy identified in Text Box 2.1, which are based on the Commission Communication on "Making a European area of lifelong learning a reality". [3] The chapter concludes by identifying the state of play of these strategies, and outstanding challenges.

Text Box 2.1 Key features of a coherent and comprehensive lifelong learning strategy

Lifelong learning should be viewed as an overarching concept covering all contexts (formal, non-formal, informal) and levels (pre-school, primary, secondary, tertiary, adult, continuing) of education and training.A lifelong learning strategy should be an overall framework for education and training policies containing a strategic overview and a coherent set of priorities and the necessary allocation of resources for targeted policy measures. It should be evidence-based. A lifelong learning strategy should include flexible learning pathways and effective transition points between all systems and levels of education and training in order to avoid dead-ends. Lifelong learning strategies should build on partnerships with all relevant stakeholders (including policy makers at national, regional and local levels, social partners, learners and representatives of civil society) and must include the necessary implementation and dissemination arrangements. |

Source: Guidance note [4]

2.1. Progress in adopting national lifelong learning strategy statements

To date, a total of 17 countries have adopted overarching lifelong learning strategy statements of some type covering different education and training sectors (AT, BE fr and nl, CZ, DE, DK, EE, EL, ES, FI, HR, HU, LT, LV, NO, SE, SK, UK [5]). The majority have developed or reviewed documents during the past two years, i.e. since the adoption of the last Joint Report.

The nature of the adopted documents varies. The majority of the countries mentioned above have prepared specific documents setting out their lifelong learning strategies. The approach followed in Belgium (BE fr and nl) and Finland differs insofar as in these cases lifelong learning policies are defined in the respective governments' programmes. Spain set out its strategy in the Lisbon national reform programme and has, as well as Greece, also framework legislation in place. In Croatia, principles of lifelong learning are laid down in the 2005 - 2010 Education Sector Development Plan. Lithuania's approach is defined in the State Education Strategy 2003-2012.

The strategy documents also vary in the sense that some focus on providing a conceptual framework (DE, SE), while others are more operational in terms of identifying main challenges and developing related policy measures (AT, DK, HU, LT, NO).

Eight countries were still preparing overarching strategy statements (BG, CY, IE, MT, PL, RO, SI, TR).

Seven countries (FR, IT, LI, LU, NL, PT, IS) pursue lifelong learning policies but do not have overarching lifelong learning strategy documents encompassing all the different policy areas in question. The reports submitted by these countries identify lifelong learning as a general principle underpinning education and training policy and provide examples of relevant legislation and measures.

2.2. Levels and systems covered in national lifelong learning strategies

In most cases all levels (pre-school, primary, secondary, tertiary, adult, continuing) and all contexts (formal, non-formal and informal) of education and training are covered in the national lifelong learning strategies, based on the information available in the national reports.

However, there is some evidence of possible issues in relation to the coverage of these strategies. Latvia, Estonia, Greece and Poland for example approached it before, example, focus strongly on the adult education sector and in the case of Greece this is together with an emphasis on initial and continuing vocational education and training.

Many of the strategies appear to focus predominantly on formal education and training systems and do not highlight the importance and status of non-formal and informal learning. The Lithuanian national report however identifies the development of non-formal and non-vocational adult education as a priority in the further development of its national lifelong learning strategy. Also the Polish report identifies the dominant position of the formal education sector as a barrier for the development of a comprehensive strategy; BE nl and RO stress the need to introduce qualifications frameworks to integrate non-formal learning.

Examples of other priority issues include: an emphasis on early/pre-school education (AT, BE nl, BG, CY, ES, NO, PT) and youth provision (IE); a focus on further (LV) and adult education (EE, EL, LU); a focus on the needs of the labour market (BE fr and nl, EL, SK);and a focus on enhancing vocational education and training (EL), including the introduction of second chance schools (EL, LV).

Several of the national reports point to the need to address issues linked to systems development as part of the challenges they face in implementing their strategies. The types of issues highlighted include: the need to ensure that the legislative basis exists to provide state responsibility for lifelong learning (LV); cohesion between pathways (HU), the introduction of competence based approaches to learning (PL); improving the quality of the education and training system (CY); and the need to improve access to education and training and to have a system that can accommodate all learners, irrespective of ability or disadvantage (CY, DK, IE).

2.3. Coherence

2.3.1. The use of evidence to inform LLL strategy challenges and priorities

The national reports present the evidence used to inform the challenges and priorities identified in their national strategies in different ways: some make explicit reference to research, data and policy and strategy documents (AT, BE fr and nl, BG, CY, CZ, DK, EL, HU, IS, IT, LT, LU, MT, NL, PT, RO, SI, SK, TR, UK); some present statistical evidence to underpin the challenges (BG, EE, FI, HR, NL); for others the evidence is not cited (ES, FR, IE, LV, PL, SE) though the articulation of the challenges and priorities appears to be evidence based.

Several of the 2007 national reports identify the need to build or consolidate an evaluation culture to support the evidence base of national lifelong learning strategies (BG, CY, ES, IE, TR).

In some countries, such as the United Kingdom, there is strong culture of evidence based policy making (Text Box 2.4). In others, such as Germany, the development of a culture of evaluation and evidence based policy making is a more recent priority in the area of education and training and highlighted in the national report (Text Box 2.5). In Ireland, the developing evaluation culture is being driven by value for money and expenditure reviews.

The Hungarian and Greek national reports both refer to the use of the National Development Plans (NDP) and Operational Programmes (OP) developed in the context of the structural funds programming process as a basis for assessing and measuring performance. The lessons learned from NDP I in Hungary are being used to inform the development of an evaluation culture. Similarly in Greece and Poland the OP for Education and Vocational Training has been used to promote evidence based actions through the systemic evaluation and further development of the relevant measures.

Various types of institutions are being established to take responsibility for the development of the evidence base for lifelong learning strategies. The National Agency for Vocational Education and Training in Bulgaria has been given the responsibility to “establish a culture of quality evaluation and self evaluation” and a new centre for Educational Research and Evaluation will be set up in Cyprus.

In Lithuania an education management system is being developed as a means for collecting and processing information to inform evaluation. This system is complemented by research on various aspects of education. [6]

Several of the national reports emphasise the benefits of participating in international studies (e.g. PISA and TALIS) to benchmark their position against other countries, identify areas where further actions and measures are required, share experiences and learn from good practices (BG, DE, ES, IT, LT, LU, PL, SE).

Text Box 2.2 UK – Key components of evidence based policy making

Administrative data: the School Census, which collects personal and achievement data annually on every pupil aged 5-16, and the Individualised Learner Record in further education, are powerful tools for understanding progression, identifying weaknesses in provision and systems. Such evidence has been used to inform curriculum change to ensure that every individual is achieving at his or her full potential. Commissioned research: Government Departments and the Devolved Administrations commission research directly to inform practice across the whole range of lifelong learning. Recent decisions to expand pre-school education, for example, results directly from studies which reveal the impact of early years development on social inclusion and educational performance.Directly funded but independent research centres: six centres funded by the Government in England to investigate specific policy related areas of education and training, including wider benefits of learning, economics, basic education and systematic literature reviews. Collaboration with Research Councils: Government works closely with the independent national Research Councils to encourage academic research in key policy areas. Dissemination: Governments across the UK actively disseminate research findings to the media, the public and the research and policy community. In England, a conference for academic researchers and the policy community is held annually to disseminate findings and inform policy.Adapted from the UK national report (2007) pp 4-5. |

Text Box 2.3 Germany – strengthening the evidence base for lifelong learning

Activities to strengthen the lifelong learning evidence base have a central role in the German national report and operate at different levels with the aim of developing a powerful empirical system for education research. In 2007 a federal framework programme for to strengthen education research is being introduced which follows the introduction of new evaluation systems for pre-school and school level education. These activities are complemented by the development of education statistics, the introduction of a regular programme of evaluation in schools and comparative international research. |

2.3.2. The allocation of resources linked to lifelong learning

Apart from some exceptions, the 2007 national reports do not provide detailed or comparable information on the allocation of resources to the main policy measures identified in the national lifelong learning strategies [7].

However, between 2000 and 2003 public expenditure on education as a proportion of GDP has rose in EU Member States: the EU average increased from 4.68 per cent in 2000 to 5.17 per cent in 2003. In 2004 the upward trend stopped and there was a slight decline compared to the year before (5.09%). Expenditure on education as a proportion of GDP however still increased in eight countries, notably in Bulgaria and Greece. The available data show strong differences in spending levels between countries. Denmark and Sweden spend over 7% of GDP on education; while some Member States spend less than 4% of GDP (spending is however increasing in these countries).

Expenditure on educational institutions from private sources as a percentage of GDP has increased slightly since 2000 but progress slowed down in 2004. It now stands at slightly more than 0.6% of GDP. Only CY, DE, LV, SI and UK have levels of private spending close to or above 1% of GDP.

The EU Structural Funds play an important role in co-funding education and training. The Structural Funds in general (AT, BE fr, BG, EE, FR, IT, LV, LU, MT, SI, SK, UK) and specific Operational Programmes (BG, CZ, EL, HU, PL) are mentioned in a number of national reports. Greece emphasises that there is a strong link between the funding allocations within the Operational Programmes and the challenges faced in the implementation of its lifelong learning legislation. Italy underlines the contribution of the structural funds programming process to the definition of national policy priorities and objectives. Phare and other accession country funding sources are mentioned, in for example the Bulgarian and Croatian reports.

2.3.3. The targeting of policy measures on making progress on EU benchmarks

The 2007 national reports make reference to measures linked to the achievement of E&T 2010 benchmarks, which are:

· Reading literacy – at least 20% fewer low achieving 15 year olds than in 2000

· Early school leaving: no more than 10%.

· Upper secondary completion: at least 85% of 22 year olds

· Maths, science and technology (MST): at least 15% more graduates than in 2000 and better gender balance

· Lifelong learning participation: at least 12.5% of 25-64 year olds

In Hungary, Spain and Greece working groups have been put in place to monitor the implementation of the EU benchmarks. The Hungarian report indicates that this move towards monitoring is a major step as there is no tradition of using indicators in policy development and governance. The Spanish working groups are coordinated with representatives from the autonomous regions. In Estonia the benchmarks are providing a framework for strategic and financial planning.

20 countries report on national targets linked to one or more of the EU 2010 benchmarks in their Education and Training 2010 national reports or Lisbon National Reform Programmes 2005-2008 (BE, DK, EE, EL, ES, FI, FR, HR, HU, IE, LT, LV, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SI, SK, UK). 11 countries do not report on having set specific national targets linked to the EU 2010 benchmarks (AT, BG, CY, CZ, DE, IT, LU, NO, SE, IS, TR see table below).

The UK report identifies national targets to improve the basic skills levels and general qualifications levels of the adult population which are based on learning outcomes.

Table 2.1 National targets related to the EU benchmarks for 2010:

| Low achieversReading literacy | Early-School leavers (18-24) | Secondary attainment(20-24) | MST | Adult participation in LLL (25-64) | Other |

AT | | No | No | | No | |

BE | | 10% | 85% | | 12.5% | Full participation in third year of pre-primary (BE nl); spending at least EU average |

BG | | No | No | | No | |

CY | | No | No | | No | |

CZ | | No | No | | No | |

DE | | No | No | | No | 40% of an age group to start tertiary education |

DK | | | 85% (of overall population) by 2010 and 95% by 2015 | | | 50% of a cohort to complete tertiary education (by 2015) |

EE | Be in first third of countries | 10% by 2014 | 85% | 15% more | 10% by 2008, 11.5% by 2013 | |

EL | 20% fewer | 10% | 85% | 15% more | 12.5% | |

ES | 15% fewer | 15% | 80% | 15% more | 12.5% | Spending: reach EU average; pre-primary: full participation of 3-6 olds; HE: increase completion rate ISCED 5b up to 25%. |

FI | | No | 90% of 25-29 olds by 2015 | | 60% | 50% of 30-34 olds to have a higher education degree (by 2015)in 2008 97% of young people finishing comprehensive school to start upper secondary or other schooling (97.5% in 2009 |

FR | | No | 85% | | No | 50% to complete tertiary education (by 2010) |

HU | 10% | 19% | 86% | 15% more | 8% by 2013 | |

IE | | No | 90% by 2013 | | No | |

IT | | No | No | | No | Benchmarks adopted in structural funds operational programmes, in particular for the south of Italy |

LT | 20% fewer by 2012 | 9% by 2012 | 90% by 2012 | | 11% by 2013 | Participation in pre-primary: 60% of age 1-6 and 90% of age 5-6; spending: 6% of GDP (all by 2012). |

LU | | No | No | | No | |

LV | | No | 85% | | 15% | |

MT | | 35% | 65% | | 7% | |

NL | 9% | 8% | 85% | | 20% | 80% of 25-65 olds to have a basic professional qualification (by 2010). |

PL | 15.2% by 2013 | 5% by 2008 | 90% by 2008 | 22% by 2013(females 13%, males 31%) | 6,5% by 2008 | Participation in tertiary education (age 19-24): 40% by 2008; participation of 3-5 years old in pre-primary in rural areas: 30% by 2013; Low achievers mathematics literacy 17.8% by 2013 |

PT | | 21.3% (-50%) | 65% | | 12.5% | |

RO | | Yearly decrease | 75% | 15%, 50% gender imbalance reduction | 7% | Pre-primary: 80%; tertiary attainment: 12% of population; 80% of adults with upper-secondary education |

SE | | No | No | | No | |

SI | | No | 85% for 25-64 olds | | 15% | |

SK | | No | No | | 15% by 2015 | |

UK | See "other" | See "other" | 90% by 2015; see also "other" | See "other" | See "other" | Reduce the proportion of young people not in education, employment or training by 2 percentage points by 2010. (England); 93% of 16-18 year olds in education, employment or training by 2010 (Wales); 50% of 18-30 years old in HE by 2010 (England); improve basic skills of 2.25 Mio. adults 2010-2010; National targets defined in terms of learning outcomes relevant to all five columns. |

HR | | | 75% by 2010 | | | |

IS | | No | | No | No | |

LI | Not applicable because no data available |

NO | | No | | No | No | |

TR | | No | | No | No | |

Apart from the issue of monitoring performance in relation to the benchmarks, two of the national reports, Cyprus and Croatia, stand out as having identified a wide range of concrete measures linked to improving actual performance in the benchmark areas (Text Boxes 2.2 and 2.3). In addition, there are a number of cases where countries provide information about individual measures in those chapters of their national reports dealing with individual education sectors, notably schools, but do not provide information about the role of the benchmarks related to the strategy itself (BE nl, BG, FR, LI, NO, SI).

Text Box 2.4 Cyprus - Recent measures towards achieving E&T 2010 benchmarks

Increase numbers of maths, science and technology graduates Establishment of a new technological university and the introduction of a new engineering school at the University of Cyprus. The introduction of a new open university and private universities.Increase participation of adults in lifelong learningUpgrade the skills and competences of people in work in order to increase their employability and meet the needs of the economyProvide opportunities for basic skills and entrepreneurship training for economically inactive adults.Extend the scope of programmes offered by Adult Education Centres to enhance active citizenship, civic education, build occupational skills (language and computer literacy) Reduce early school leavers Special education programmes for pupils with learning difficulties Offer support from school psychologists Operate second chance schools Introduce compulsory pre-primary education (but without specifying age) Provide financial support for students in tertiary educationRedesign the apprenticeship system in order to offer young people an alternative form of training to contribute to their personal development and meet the needs of the labour market |

Text Box 2.5 Croatia - Recent measures towards achieving E&T 2010 benchmarks

Increase the rates of reading literacyA sample of students participated in the OECD’s Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) for the first time in 2006. The results are anticipated in December 2007, hence will provide a measure of reading literacy against which future performance will be assessed Increase the completion rate in secondary education / increase the population with upper secondary education Promote flexible secondary education using “bridging programmes” to allow students to switch between general and vocational educationPrepare for the introduction of compulsory secondary education Free transport to schoolExtension of state support for adults who want to complete their secondary education.Increase adult participation in lifelong learning Promote lifelong learning and develop a system in which credits can be accumulated across a person’s entire life Develop a system of professional information and counselling services in order to provide education and training for people who did not complete primary and secondary education Training for people with low levels of literacy, numeracy and vocational skills to improve their employabilityReduce early school leaversIncrease enrolment rates in pre-primary education. Introduce Roma teaching assistants |

2.3.4 The targeting of policy measures on disadvantaged groups

The 2006 Commission Communication on efficiency and equity of education and training systems [8] and the subsequent Council conclusions [9] underlined the economic benefits of improving access for all to quality education. They highlighted in particular that efficiency and equity are mutually reinforcing policy goals in education and training. Equity considerations deserve particular attention as the available evidence shows that education and training can be key vehicles to reduce inequalities and social exclusion, but that they may also contribute to their perpetuation. The evidence shows that the impact of socio-economic conditions on educational outcomes can actually be positively influenced by educational policies and approaches. The Communication and conclusions also showed that equity issues concern all levels of education and training and that they thus need to be tackled in a lifelong leaning perspective.

The issue of educational disadvantage actually raises significant concerns in most countries. Consequently, all 2007 national reports acknowledge the importance of this dimension and cite measures targeted at disadvantaged groups which address the key challenges of inclusion and integration.

Reports that discuss targeting the needs of disadvantaged groups in general terms stress: the importance of education and training as a means of facilitating socio-economic insertion (AT, BE fr and nl, IE, NL, UK); the gradual development of educational equity (FI); and, the development of strategies to facilitate the integration of excluded groups (EE).

In the UK social inclusion is a key element underpinning the Public Sector Agreement (PSA) targets for education in England. Nine of the 14 targets directly address aspects of social inclusion while the remaining five targets aim to ensure that students have the skills to participate fully in the economy. The promotion of social inclusion through education underpins the new Education Act in Spain. In Ireland, the DEIS action plan for educational inclusion supports schools in disadvantaged areas and their communities, in order to achieve greater equality in terms of educational participation, and outcomes in line with national norms

The integration of people with disabilities and special educational needs is a key feature of the measures to support disadvantaged groups in almost all of the 2007 national reports. The measures identified are frequently orientated towards the integration of children with disabilities and/or special educational needs into mainstream education, for example by providing improved physical access (EE, HR), guidance (IS), special needs learning assistants (MT) and equipment to allow them to integrate (FR, LT, LU).

Also the challenges of demographic change, including both ageing and migration issues, feature strongly in the measures concerning disadvantaged groups. The need to engage with and encourage older people to participate in education and training is recognised in a number of the national reports (LV, RO, SI, TR). Measures identified concerning migration include linguistic support; either in general terms (CY, CZ, DE, EE, ES, FR, HR, HU, IE, PL, TR) or targeted support orientated towards:

· Adults, typically to facilitate labour market integration (DK, PT, IS). In Denmark a course in “labour market Danish” will be developed shortly. Other DK activities are targeted at the integration of young people and other unemployed adults who have not completed compulsory education and training to participate in “new chance for all” measures.

· The children of immigrants to help them integrate into mainstream education (AT, LT, LU, SI, IS). The Czech Republic's lifelong learning strategy makes reference to extending pre-school education as a means of facilitating integration for children from socially and ethnically disadvantaged backgrounds. The emphasis in this support is on encouraging socialising, language teaching, and providing opportunities for participating in activities which children do not have the opportunity to do at home

In some cases linguistic support also helps minority communities, such as Roma communities, participate in education and training (HR, HU, ES, PL, SI). In Spain for example, linguistic support measures have been combined with measures to engage with Roma women to get them involved in school communities and work to help them play a role in educating their children. In Hungary, the need to improve quality for all is emphasised especially in relation to areas with a large Roma community.

The Portuguese "Plan for the integration of migrants" includes measures such as the involvement of mediators in schools, reinforcement of the services provided by national centres for the support of migrants, and programmes supporting employment and entrepreneurship.

Other measures to support disadvantaged groups, identified in the national reports include:

· Support for unemployed people in general (LV, TR) as well as particular support to help develop their labour market skills (DK)

· Support for people with low level basic skills – literacy support and mechanisms for screening literacy support needs are identified (AT, BE fr and nl, CY, DK, EL)

· Support for people with low level skills (RO) or education (SE), as well as soft skills and basic / key competences (EL, LV)

· The delivery of programmes in rehabilitation centres, e.g. prisons (EE, LV)

· Support targeting specific geographical areas, e.g., educational priority zones (CY) or removing barriers to participation in education and training for people living in isolated rural areas (PL, RO, TR);

· Transport support to allow people to access education (LV).

Some countries also refer to difficulties in implementing such measures. For example, a legislative framework for lifelong learning needs to be put in place in Latvia to ensure state responsibility and resources for lifelong learning targeting excluded groups. A number of national reports also indicated that measures to engage with minority and other disadvantaged groups have been less successful than anticipated (BE fr, BG, LT, SK).

2.3.5 The targeting of policy measures on changing attitudes to learning

Several 2007 national reports indicate measures to help change attitudes towards learning, and thus increase the demand for learning and participation in lifelong learning (CZ, DE, EE, HU, MT, PT, SK). The measures include: engaging with parents and carers to ensure that children access, participate in and benefit from learning opportunities; opening up access to learning opportunities by making education and training provision more attractive and relevant; and, media campaigns to attract people into education and training.

Measures are being introduced to encourage parents to ensure that children engage with learning at the pre-school level and make the pre-school experience a positive experience (SI). Pre-school support for six year olds begins in Estonia in 2008 with the aim of developing positive attitudes towards learning and preparing children for school. A national strategy for pre-school education is being introduced in Romania (see also section 4.10). More broadly, in the UK (England) a parental engagement strategy “Every Parent Matters” has been prepared which seeks to involve parents in their children’s education.

In terms of opening and improving access to education and training opportunities a range of measures are being introduced at different levels. At the school level, reforms concern: making teaching and learning (BG, ES, FI) and the learning environment more attractive (CY, FI); tailoring activities to pupils’ interests and responding to pupils’ needs (CY, HR); the introduction of measures to address disorderly conduct (LU); and, providing support to students who are not realising their educational goals (SE).

Curricula reform measures are a key part of making learning more attractive. Measures introduced emphasise: learning to learn (CZ, FI); helping students make independent choices and establish linkages between subjects learned and real life (EE); modularisation of training curricula combining procedural and factual knowledge (EL); and, adopting a student centred approach (TR). Curricula reform is typically accompanied by updating teaching aids and text books and teacher training to support the new curricula. The introduction and use of information and communication technology (ICT) in the learning environment was emphasised in both the Croatian and Turkish national reports.

Important complementary measures to influence attitudes to learning are mentioned in some national reports, including: guidance and counselling support (AT, EE, IE, LU, LV, UK); measures to remove barriers to access such as improving the validation of non-formal and informal learning (DE, EE, RO, SK); the development of e-learning strategies (EE, IT); and, childcare support to encourage people on welfare programmes to access education while retaining their benefits (IE).

Media campaigns and public debate were identified as a means of changing public attitudes towards lifelong learning (AT, BG, PT, RO, UK). Media campaigns are also cited as a means of increasing awareness of education and training opportunities. Adult learners / adult education weeks have taken place in a number of countries for five years or more (EE, FI, SE, UK) to ‘spread the message’ of the value of lifelong learning (LT).

2.4. Flexible pathways and transition points

Establishing flexible learning pathways should enable individuals to progress within and across different learning contexts (formal, non-formal or informal) and different education and training types (general education, initial and continuing vocational education and training (VET), higher education (HE). Flexible learning pathways enable learners to rejoin education and training at any stage of their life and to fully use all the learning outcomes acquired in view of a more individualised learning approach.

Many countries have recognised flexible learning pathways as a priority in their lifelong learning strategies (AT, BE fr, CZ, DE, DK, EE, EL, ES, IE, IS, NO, PL, SE, SI, SK, UK). However, the types of actions developed as well as their scope vary. In addition, countries focus on very different transition points. While some target young people still in initial education and their possibilities of progression, others are focusing on adults.

Generally, two types of measures are recognised in the national lifelong learning strategies, those focusing on transition points within formal systems and those focusing on transition points towards formal systems.

2.4.1 Measures which allow transfer between different types of education and training

A number of countries described measures which are developing mechanisms that facilitate the transfer between different types of education and training. For example Spain prioritises the facilitation of “paths between the different stages of formal education particularly between academic and professional studies at post-compulsory stages”. Some countries have established progression routes from VET to HE (AT, CY, CZ, FR, IE, NL, NO, SE, UK) and others are implementing measures to improve them (e.g. EL, IT, IS). Most of these measures focus on pathways from upper-secondary VET to HE while fewer measures have been developed to pass from post-secondary VET to general HE. While an open system of lifelong learning is still an ambition in most countries, progress is being made in this direction, in particular in the context of the development of national qualification frameworks (see section 3.1 for details).

2.4.2 Measures to enable validation of learning outcomes from non-formal and informal learning

The transfer from non-formal and informal learning to the formal context is less well established than pathways between education types. Validation of non-formal and informal learning is still a relatively new concept for many countries, where the acquisition of learning outcomes and ultimately of qualifications is still closely linked to the formal learning process. This situation is gradually changing, however. The increased emphasis on learning outcomes (and competences) as a focal point for education and training reforms (partly linked to the development of the European Qualifications Framework and its implementation at national level (see also section 3.1) as well as initiatives taken within the Bologna process) has motivated a number of countries to increase activity in this field.

A number of different measures are being introduced to enable the validation and recognition of learning outcomes from non-formal and informal learning or as a means of accessing further training. For example the Polish report emphasises “the coherence between stages and areas of education (formal, non-formal and informal)”. Poland has a relatively low level of adult participation in education and training. Therefore validation of non-formal and informal learning is put forward as a possible solution to motivate individuals, through enabling them to have their learning outcomes “valued”, while at the same time enhancing their employability.

Seven countries have already reached an advanced level of implementation (BE nl, DK, FI, FR, NL, NO, PT, SI) and a large number of additional countries is engaged in exploring the possibilities of validating non-formal and informal learning. Several countries reported validation of non-formal and informal learning as one of their main objectives (CZ, IE, NO, PL, SI, SK, IS) and many other countries are also developing initiatives in this area (AT, BE fr, DE, EE, EL, ES, HU, IT, LT, LU, RO, SE, SK, UK). (See also section 3.2.).

2.5. Effective partnerships: consultation, implementation and dissemination

2.5.1 Partnerships and the preparation and implementation of lifelong learning strategies

In most countries the Ministries of Education were responsible for co-ordinating the development of the national lifelong learning strategies. The strategy development process was in most cases underpinned by consultation among key stakeholders. This allowed key stakeholders including social partners and non-governmental organisations and, where appropriate, regional administrations and municipalities to contribute.

The role of partnerships has been explicitly embedded in several of the strategies. In BE nl, CY, CZ, EL, ES, IS, RO specific structures were established to co-ordinate the strategy development and consultative process. Partnership working is one of seven strategic orientations in the Czech Republic (Text Box 2.6); other examples of strong partnership arrangements include AT, DK, NL and SE. In Germany, the strategy document was agreed between the federal and Länder level of government and social partners are involved in the development of many of the key measures.

The Romanian report identified that one of the obstacles to the strategy development process was “the lack of a systemic and coherent debate” while the Cypriot report acknowledged that involving and co-ordinating the diverse interests of all relevant stakeholders was also a challenge.

Text Box 2.6 Czech Republic – structures established to prepare the national lifelong learning strategy

In November 2006 the Ministry of Education, Youth and Sport (MEYS) set up an internal control group comprising Ministry staff and also an external expert control group which included members from the political sphere, social partners and members from the non-government sector. Both groups played an active role in the strategy drafting process. |

Where structures have been put in place to co-ordinate the strategy development process these structures have often been given implementation responsibilities. However, it is not always clear from the national reports whether there is a role for stakeholders in implementation and delivery as such involvement is not frequently mentioned. This appears to be weakness in many countries, which could negatively affect the implementation of the strategies. The Greek national report described a key role for stakeholders in implementing the strategy as well as the achievements associated with this co-operation (Text Box 2.7).

Text Box 2.7 Roles for stakeholders in implementing lifelong learning in Greece

New partnerships at the national and regional levels have been established as a result of the Greek lifelong learning strategy and have brought together representatives from the public and private sectors. All of the major social partners and key actors participate in the National System for Linking Vocational Education and Training with Employment (ESSEEKA), and the LLL Committee. LLL Committee representatives include representatives from the Ministry of National Education and Religious Affairs, Ministry of Employment, Ministry of the Interior, Public Administration and Decentralization, the Organisation for Vocational Education and Training (OEEK), the National Centre for Accreditation (EKEPIS), the Staff Committee for the Connection of Vocational Education and Training with the Employment, Social Partners and representatives from the University Rectors’ Committee and the Higher Technical Educational Institutes Presidents’ Committee.The introduction of ESSEEKA has embedded the involvement of major stakeholders, social partners etc. concerning the national lifelong learning strategy (both in the strategy development and policy implementation processes). The national report states that social partners, such as the Federation of Greek Industries (SEV), the Labour Institute of the General Confederation of Greek Workers (INE-GSEE), the Centre for the Development of Greek Commerce (KAELE), the Vocational Training Centre of General Confederation of Professionals, Craftsmen and Tradesmen (KEK/GSEBEE), the Centre of Vocational Training Institute of Industrial, Professional and Vocational Training (IVEPE) have contributed to the following achievements: The improvement of vocational training and the promotion of employment over the past two yearsThe promotion of relevant research / publicationsInitiatives to invest in human resources to boost positive labour market intervention measures within the context of the National Employment Strategy and the lifelong learning strategy. |

2.5.2 Effective dissemination methods

A range of different media is being used to disseminate information concerning the national lifelong learning strategies and their implementation. Reports and other policy documents are published and made available on various websites (e.g. AT, BE nl, EE, HR, HU, MT, NL, PT, UK). The effectiveness of making information available in such media is however also dependent on awareness among the public in general. Awareness raising / publicity campaigns (DK, EL, NL, LU, PT), publications (CY, ES, LT, UK), conferences and workshops mostly targeting practitioners and stakeholders (CY) are methods used for disseminating information about the national lifelong learning strategies, which have in many cases been supported by EU co-funding made available through a specific call for proposals.

One example where dissemination is at the heart of the national strategy is in the Czech Republic. The national report highlights information and awareness raising activities with the general public, education and training professionals, politicians, staff in other ministries and social partners and representatives from civil society (Text Box 2.8).

Text Box 2.8 Czech Republic awareness raising and dissemination plans

The target audiences for awareness raising activities include the general public, education and training professionals, politicians, government and civic society. The ministry's website is key in disseminating information (www.msmt.cz) along with the web pages of the Education and Training 2010 Work Programme (www.et2010.cz). Projects linked to the strategy will be required to disseminate their findings. During 2007 three seminars cover three different aspects of the strategy: advisory services for lifelong learning; education of pedagogical staff, and entrepreneurship development. Awareness of the Strategy amongst key specialists in the field will be stimulated by articles written by specialists and the organisation of seminars. |

2.6. Conclusions

2.6.1 The state of play

Based on the information available primarily in the national reports, the progress achieved by participating countries in putting into place coherent and comprehensive lifelong learning strategies can be categorised as follows:

Countries with broadly coherent and comprehensive lifelong learning strategies. Eight countries have put in place explicit lifelong learning strategies which come close to the definition of coherence and comprehensiveness used in this report and in the underlying guidelines (Austria, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, Hungary, Norway, Sweden, the United Kingdom). In the case of AT, CZ and HU the development of such strategies is a recent phenomenon and their implementation will now require particular attention.

Countries with lifelong learning strategies which are not yet fully comprehensive and coherent. Nine countries (Belgium fr and nl, Croatia, Estonia, Germany, Greece, Latvia, Lithuania, Slovakia, Spain) have developed explicit lifelong learning strategies, which could, however, demonstrate greater coherence and comprehensiveness. Some of these strategies are overly-weighted towards the formal systems (BE fr and nl) or adult learning as a particular stage of the lifelong learning continuum (EE, EL, LV). In others there remain challenges concerning the coordination of separate education and training levels and sectors (BE fr and nl, DE, EE) or of establishing flexible learning pathways between them (HR, LT, LV, SK). Some countries face challenges in following up their analysis or framework legislation by the adoption of concrete measures ensuring the effective implementation and dissemination of the strategies (DE, EL, ES, SK) or in developing stakeholder involvement and partnership (BE fr, HR).

Countries developing lifelong learning strategies. Eight countries (Bulgaria, Cyprus, Ireland, Malta, Poland, Romania, Slovenia, Turkey) are still developing their lifelong learning strategies. Some of these countries report to be close to adopting their strategies (BG, CY, IE, MT, SI, TR). In addition, some have already progressed well by implementing key measures related to coherent and comprehensive strategies, such as, for example, the development and implementation of a national qualifications framework or other key measures facilitating flexible learning pathways (IE, MT, SI).

Countries without an overarching strategy statement, but pursuing lifelong learning policies (France, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Portugal, Iceland, Liechtenstein). In this group, three countries, France, the Netherlands and Iceland, stand out as pursuing lifelong learning policies and key measures in all areas discussed in this report, but without an explicit overarching policy statement providing an overview of the main challenges and related measures in the different sectors. Luxembourg has a comprehensive set of policies in terms of addressing the different education and training levels and sectors, but would benefit from strengthening measures promoting flexible learning pathways across the different sectors. Italy and Portugal have developed initiatives in key areas, but implementation of these measures remains an important challenge.

2.6.2 Outstanding challenges

The key challenge for the next two years is implementation. This concerns countries which have had their strategy in place for some time as well as those where the strategy has only been developed recently. Implementation issues concern also those countries where the strategy development process is still at an early stage, as the expectation is that a strategy will be put in place in the near future.

Some countries point to key challenges for the implementation phase. Issues related to budget allocations are mentioned in several reports (e.g. EL, PL, SI, SK). Ireland identifies the need to prioritise funding for groups at risk to improve their access and participation in lifelong learning. Other countries see a need for additional public and private funding to deliver the ambitions of their strategies, including the use of the structural funds (CZ, LV).

Two countries yet to present their strategies (RO and CY) pointed at the challenges involved in generating a national debate and co-ordinating and responding to the different perspectives of different interest groups. Further, a tendency to reduce the idea of lifelong learning to formal adult education and training can still be found among public institutions and social partners in Poland. Similarly, Slovakia identifies the resistance of formal education providers against the validation of non-formal and informal learning as an obstacle for progress.

The Spanish national report identified issues linked to the complexity of co-operation and communication between the national, regional and local government. Agreeing common approaches between different government levels is a main focus of the German and Spanish strategies. Challenges related to government re-organisation are mentioned by Hungary: a change of government in 2004 resulted in a change in ministerial responsibilities for VET from the remit of the Ministry for Education to the Ministry for Employment, which has affected the implementation of the existing strategy and created a need for better coordination within the governments as a whole.

The absence of infrastructure to implement curricula reform or coordinating qualifications systems and policies (PL) and an implementation gap between the establishment of a legislative basis and regional / local delivery on the ground (e.g. EL, RO) were also identified as factors affecting the progress of implementing existing priorities.

But strategy development will also continue to be a matter for discussion. Apart from the countries that still have to finalise their strategies, in some countries that have had national strategies in place for some time, there are future plans concerning evaluation and the assessment of results in order to update the strategy to reflect new challenges and priorities (BE fr and nl, HR, LV).

The Education & Training 2010 work programme will thus need to support increasingly the development and implementation of lifelong learning strategies in dialogue with individual Member States. This could take the form of enhanced monitoring, assessment and discussion of the challenges which are specific to each country, for example, through peer-learning and peer-review activities and pilot projects.

3. TRANSVERSAL POLICY OBJECTIVES

There are four major transversal policy objectives covered in this chapter which are essential to the implementation of lifelong learning: elaboration of national qualifications frameworks or systems; measures to assess and validate non-formal and informal learning; establishment of lifelong guidance systems; and, initiatives to strengthen transnational mobility. Combined, these measures promote flexible learning pathways, enabling individuals to transfer their learning outcomes from one learning context to another and from one country to another.

The chapter synthesises, for each of the four themes: the status quo across the countries: the developments since 2005; and, outstanding challenges.

3.1. National Qualifications Systems and Frameworks

A qualifications system is a general term which describes all the structures and processes in a country that lead to the award of a qualification. A qualifications framework is a more specific structure, which seeks to classify qualifications according to a set of criteria for levels of learning achieved. Frameworks make more explicit the different levels of qualifications contained in a qualifications system [10]. They are often established to integrate the different parts of a country's qualifications system, which in some countries have little communication or connection between the different sub-systems e.g. between VET and higher education. This section discusses the progress countries made in development of national qualifications frameworks and efforts made to eliminate obstacles between the various parts of their education and training systems.

3.1.1 National Qualifications Systems and Frameworks

National qualifications systems (NQSs) can be, as noted above, very complicated with different types of qualifications and various awarding bodies. During the last few years increased attention has been given to the development of better structured and more transparent qualifications arrangements. An important purpose has been to facilitate access to qualifications, to make transfer of learning outcomes easier and to make progress more straight forward. This requires better cooperation between the actors involved, agreement on explicit levels of qualifications and introduction of clear pathways between the different sub-systems. The issue thus involves a combined simplification and modernisation of qualifications systems, addressing individual learners, employers and education and training institutions.

This combined simplification and modernisation of qualifications systems takes many different forms and focuses on different aspects. The following objectives are common:

· Creating more open and flexible sub-systems (IE, HU, IS, PT, UK). The details of such arrangements are discussed in sections 3.2, 5.6 and 6.5.

· Enhancing the coherence of national systems (CZ, DK, EE, EL, LT, SK, UK). This can take place by simplifying and/or systemising the education and training offer and possibly even developing a unified system.

· Developing and implementing national qualifications frameworks (NQF, see 3.1.2).

While open flexible and coherent systems can be developed without the introduction of an overarching NQF, the majority of countries have decided for this option. The main objectives of developing qualifications frameworks are: to establish standards (in terms of learning outcomes) for qualifications, to enable comparisons of qualifications, to improve learning access, transfer and progress and to improve the quality of education and training provision.

Two main factors seem to have triggered the rapid development of NQFs throughout Europe. Firstly, the development of a European Qualifications Framework (EQF) as a meta-framework supporting transfer and comparisons of qualifications in Europe [11] has acted as a catalyst for the development of national qualifications frameworks. Following the EQF proposal, which is currently being adopted, many countries have expressed the political willingness to create a national qualifications frameworks defined through learning outcomes and linked to the EQF. Secondly, several countries have started development of NQFs prior to the launching of the EQF. In these cases the frameworks respond to a national agenda asking for more efficient, open and transparent qualification systems. It is likely that this convergence of national and European objectives explains the rapid development of NQFs since 2005.

3.1.2 Current state of play and progress made since 2005

Four countries (FR, IE, MT, UK) have already developed and implemented, at least partially, their own NQFs. Most of these countries (FR, IE, UK) have NQFs which preceded the EQF development. Furthermore, the UK does not have one overall qualification framework but four distinct ones [12]. The Maltese NQF can be seen as directly triggered by the development of the EQF and is currently in its last development stage (its implementation is planned for 2007-2008).

The great majority of countries have recently started preparatory works to establish a NQF. Some of these have reached an advanced stage of development while others are still at the beginning of the development process. Those countries which are among the more advanced ones (BE nl, BG, CZ, DK, LT, SI) have already put in place the main elements on which to build NQFs, such as the qualification levels, descriptors and qualifications repertories. The Czech Republic, for example, has created a legislative framework for a NQF in 2006 and its implementation is to start in summer 2007. A strategy to approve and implement the BE nl qualifications framework was developed in spring 2007 (Text Box 3.1). Bulgaria and Slovenia have developed qualification repertories which serve as basis to design an overarching NQF.

Text Box 3.1 Belgium Flemish community qualifications framework

In spring 2007, the Flemish community developed a strategy to approve and implement the Flemish Qualifications Framework. All relevant stakeholders were involved in the process. The strategy follows on from the 2006 Green Paper on the Flemish Qualifications Framework. A white paper leading to a decree establishing the Flemish qualification framework is expected by July 2008. |

A second group of countries have committed themselves to developing an overarching NQF but are currently at the beginning of the process (AT, BE fr, DE, EE, ES, FI, HR, HU, IT, LU, LV, NL, PL, PT, SK, TR). Among these countries, five have recently created a working group or a committee examining the possible modalities for establishing a NQF (AT, BE fr, DE, HR, IT). These working groups usually have the role of formulating a proposal for a NQF design and examining the link with EQF. Three countries are progressively implementing or testing learning outcomes based approaches (DE, HU, IT) and two (ES, TR) are planning to build a qualification framework for VET and combine it with the HE qualification framework, currently in development in both countries.

Another six countries have not yet formally committed themselves to developing a NQF and are currently examining the possibilities of it (EL, IS, NO, PL, RO, SE). Three of these countries have developed or are developing qualification frameworks for VET (RO, IS [13], NO) and are examining the possibilities of making these coherent with the higher education framework and the EQF. Sweden is for the moment considering two possibilities: a NQF or linking qualifications directly to EQF.

There are three countries which do not plan to introduce a NQF (CY, EL, LI). Greece has classified its formal education system, including higher education, according to the eight levels of the EQF. However, this was done only for the level of knowledge and not for the other two dimensions used in the EQF (skills and competence).

In addition to the developments at the national level, several countries also mentioned the participation in pilot projects as a way of exploring the possibilities for setting up a NQF or the implementation of the EQF (BE nl, CZ, EE, FR, HR, HU, NL, NO, RO, SE). These pilot projects are often co-financed through the European Social Fund or the Leonardo da Vinci Programme.

Text Box 3.2 Estonia - pilot projects for qualifications frameworks

Three large ESF funded projects are being used to renew the legal basis and update the national qualifications framework in Estonia. The projects are seeking to develop the professional qualification system, increase the competitiveness of graduates by improving the quality of studies and prepare competence-based content modules for vocational programmes. |

Several countries have already developed partial qualifications frameworks for certain types of education and training. For example, from 2001 to 2006, Estonia progressively developed a competence framework for VET while Latvia and Romania also have VET frameworks. Other countries (ES, IS [14], NO, TR) are considering developing VET qualifications frameworks and this includes also countries which are not, for the moment, planning an overarching NQF. Other countries have already implemented or are implementing frameworks for higher education qualifications based on the Qualification Framework of the European Higher Education Area (EHEA) developed in the context of the Bologna process (e.g. BE nl, BG, CY, DK, DE, ES, HR, HU, IS, NO, PT, SE, TR). The parallel development of qualifications frameworks for separate parts of the education and training system of course raises the question of overall coordination at national level and the link to a meta-framework like the EQF at the European level.

Five countries mentioned the development of a repertory of qualifications as a preparatory measure for the development of a NQF. Since 2005, the Czech Republic has set up a publicly accessible register of all complete and partial qualifications which have been recognised by the Czech competence authorities. Belgium nl is initiating the development of a qualifications databank. Estonia, France and Hungary have already built registers of vocational qualifications.

3.1.3 Alignment of NQFs and the European Qualifications Framework (EQF)

The EQF proposal is composed of eight qualification levels, which apply to all qualifications (general education, VET, HE, adult education). These levels are described through level descriptors in terms of learning outcomes (knowledge, skills and competence). The eight EQF levels serve as a reference to situate qualifications within a trans-national framework for reasons of comparisons and transfer.

The learning outcomes approach, i.e. looking at the level of qualifications independent of the process of acquisition, is one of the fundamental principles of EQF. It however also represents a challenge for countries where learning outcomes have so far not been used for describing qualifications. Several countries are already using learning outcomes approaches for all their qualifications, independent on whether they have or not a NQF (CZ, FI, IE, SE, SI, UK). However, in some of these countries the passage from inputs to outcomes is recent and not yet fully implemented (CZ, SI). Many other countries are progressively developing learning outcomes approaches, though sometimes only for parts of their qualifications systems, for example for VET. While the above mentioned countries have been developing learning outcomes-based approaches prior to EQF elaboration, in other countries, the EQF has triggered such changes (e.g. EL, HU, SK). In higher education, the wider use of learning outcomes was often linked to the use of the EHEA qualification framework developed in the context of the Bologna process. (For more details on the development of learning outcomes approaches in Schools, HE, VET and adult learning see sections 4.1.2, 5.6 and 6.5 respectively.)

Although the eight EQF levels should only serve as a European reference and countries can have a different numbers of levels in their NQFs, [15] many of the countries which are currently developing NQFs are elaborating eight level structures, in line with the number of EQF levels. Ten countries mentioned the elaboration of an eight level system as an objective (BE nl, CZ, EE, EL, HR, LT, MT, NL, SI, TR).

3.1.4 Remaining challenges

Though most countries do not explicitly mention them and a great momentum can be seen at the national level, three main challenges to the development of NQFs can nevertheless be identified in the national reports.

First, some countries do not have a tradition of describing qualifications in terms of learning outcomes, but have formerly described them in terms of the components and characteristics of education and training programmes. Therefore several countries which intend to develop an NQF compatible with the principles of the EQF need to redefine their qualification levels in terms of learning outcomes.

Second, some countries (EL, HU) note potential difficulties in referencing their national qualifications to the different dimensions of the EQF levels. As the latter are defined in terms of knowledge, skills and competence, it may happen that links can be established between national and EQF levels in terms of, for example, the knowledge dimension, while the same level may not match for the skills or competence dimension.

Finally, the existence of several partial qualification frameworks (e.g. for VET and HE) may be a challenge for the definition of an overarching framework in a country. As noted above, several countries have already implemented or are implementing partial qualification frameworks (e.g. for HE and/or VET) and their bridging will require some coordination and perhaps adjustment.

3.2. Validation of non-formal and informal leaning

Learning outside formal education and training institutions, here described as non-formal and informal learning, constitutes a major part of the learning activities which take place after an individual leaves initial education and training. In order to be able to capitalise on and use their learning outcomes efficiently, individuals should be able to have all their knowledge, skills and competences identified, assessed and/or recognised, independent of the learning process. Validation of non-formal and informal learning thus is a key aspect in any strategy aimed at lifelong learning [16]. The development of validation of non-formal and informal learning is closely linked to a conception of qualifications based on learning outcomes rather than education and training programmes, and is therefore a relatively new process in many participating countries, as noted above.

3.2.1 Different approaches to validation of non-formal and informal learning and the progress made since 2005.

Following early experimentation during the 1990s, validation of non-formal and informal learning has gradually moved into mainstream lifelong learning policies in the majority of EU countries. Countries are, however, moving at different speeds. For example, the French system of “validation des acquis de l'expérience (VAE)” is currently applied to all qualifications, notably those which are awarded by 14 ministries. 20,000 candidates received a full qualification through VAE in 2005. For instance, 3000 candidates out of 7500 who applied and were admitted go through the procedure, received a full qualification awarded by the ministry of employment. The French approach is significant since it presents a fully integrated system, making the award of a qualification independent of a particular education and training pathway or institution. Countries like (BE nl, DK, FI, FR, IE, NL, NO, PT, SI) have also reached an advanced level of implementation.

Another group of countries is close to integrating validation of non formal and informal learning into their qualifications systems (AT, BE fr, CZ, ES, IS, IT, LT, LU, PL, RO, SE, SK, UK). However the problems faced by these countries in view of adopting systems vary. In some of these countries validation of non-formal and informal learning is a fairly new development and wide ranging developmental work is necessary to set up methods and institutions (EL, LT, PL, SK). In others, validation procedures have been functioning for a longer period now, but only at local level or within particular initiatives. These countries are currently trying to put in place coherent validation approaches (AT, ES, IT, SE, UK), but sometimes this is difficult due to regional differences (IT). In addition, though several countries note the possibility of procedures for validation of non-formal and informal learning being given a legislative basis (BG, EE, ES) such legislation does not yet ensure that validation procedures will be implemented and used.

There are two major types of validation of non-formal and informal learning, each with a different purpose: validation of non-formal and informal learning as a means to access further education and training; and, validation for acquiring a qualification. The first concerns mainly access to higher education institutions, but also other education and training providers, and consists of identifying and recognising the learning outcomes already acquired in order to avoid repetition of learning. The second concerns mostly vocational qualifications and consists of assessing the learning outcomes acquired against a qualification standard in view of recognising full (or sometimes partial) qualifications independent of the learning context. (For further details on flexible pathways in Higher education, VET and adult learning see sections 5.4 and 6.4 respectively).

The following kinds of validation of non-formal and informal learning methods are mentioned in national reports:

Competence portfolios

Several countries reported the introduction of competence portfolios as a means of presenting an individual’s knowledge, skills and competence (AT, BE nl, DK, FR, IT, PT, SI). Portfolios are established either on the basis of evidence and documentation or on the basis of examination. Portfolios are a part of a validation process as they provide evidence and they document acquired learning outcomes. However they do not lead directly to validation of a full or a partial qualification, but the evidence they provide is a basis of a validation process.

Examinations

Several countries mentioned external examinations which result in an award of full or partial qualifications as another method to assess and validate individual’s learning outcomes (AT, EE, ES, EL, FR, HU, LT, NO, PL, SI, SE, SK). Examinations can have a different nature, they can be written, oral or computer based examinations (HU – the European Computer Driving Licence example), practice tests (EE), professional simulations or a combination of several methods (FR). The development of validation examinations varies significantly from country to country. While some of these countries have a comprehensive system for validation of non-formal and informal learning based on such external examinations (FR), others are only testing it for some qualifications (EL) and some, such as Slovakia, are only in the planning phase (Text Box 3.3).

Text Box 3.3 Slovakia – development of the validation process

The Slovakian lifelong learning and lifelong guidance strategy envisages attaining qualifications through validation of non-formal and informal learning. Individuals participating in non-formal educational activities can accumulate credits and with guidance support, shape partial or full qualifications according to personal needs and / or the needs of the local or regional labour market.The validation process combines the validation of prior experience and the assessment and validation of learning outcomes. |

Examinations and portfolios can be closely linked, where portfolios can be the basis to admit citizens to examinations (FR). Portfolios can also complement examinations (e.g. through documenting professional experience) and examinations can result in portfolios.

It should be underlined that, while in few countries it is possible for individuals to obtain full qualifications through validation of non-formal and informal learning procedures, in others; full qualifications remain linked to the formal learning process. In other words, in these countries a qualification can only be acquired through a defined formal education programme. Therefore, it is often legally impossible to deliver qualifications through the validation of non-formal and informal learning and another type of certificate or diploma has been put in place specifically for the validation procedures (e.g. BE fr, EL). For example, in the Belgian French speaking community, such certificates do not lead to the same full entitlements as a qualification acquired through formal education, as they are not awarded by the same authority (i.e. the validation bodies are not the same as the bodies awarding formal qualification).

Validating non-formal and informal learning for access to higher education

Many national reports note that higher education institutions have an important autonomy in validating non-formal and informal learning, in terms of methods but also whether they actually put in place validation procedures or not [17]. While in some countries higher education institutions may practice validation of non-formal and informal learning at their own discretion (CY, TR), in other countries, they have to enable individuals to claim validation and hence have to have procedures in place (e.g. BE nl, FI, LU, NL, NO, SE). The latter are mostly countries with a strong tradition of independent education and training institutions. However, lack of coordination of validation procedures may be problematic because of little quality assurance criteria and issues of fairness and equality.

Like the Finnish example (Text Box 3.4), other countries have recently recognised the validation of non-formal and informal learning as a right for individuals (FR, HU, IS, SE) though not all of them have so far put the necessary structures in place.

Text Box 3.4 Finland - validation of non-formal and informal learning for individuals

Universities may consider as eligible candidates who do not have the required qualifications but have achieved corresponding competences through non-formal and informal learning. Prior learning has to be “visible”, to receive an assessment of these competences, and to obtain a decision as to how it is recognised. It is the student’s duty to substantiate the learning but institutions should develop systems for the validation. |

The new measures introduced since 2005 mentioned in the national reports include:

· Establishment of certification or assessment body(ies) (BE nl, RO)

· Training of assessors (CZ)

· The possibility for higher education institutions and/ or VET institutions to validate prior learning with a view to awarding credits valid for formal training in those HE institutions (EE, HU)

· Administrative simplification of validation procedures (BE nl) and improved access to the validation of non formal and informal learning (for example in Estonia, the restrictions related to the volume of studies undertaken prior to a validation have been removed)

· Information campaigns and incentives for individuals to apply for validation of non-formal and informal learning (ES, FR, PT)

· Methodological development (BG, ES, LU)

· Introduction of a quality code/ assurance for validation of non-formal and informal learning (DK, ES, NL)

· Increased validation of on-the-job training (DK, PL).

3.2.2 Remaining challenges

Validation of non-formal and informal learning is increasingly being accepted as a key instrument for realising lifelong learning. Few national reports mentioned challenges in view of the introduction of validation of non-formal and informal learning and its implementation. Some countries which are just introducing validation of non-formal and informal learning procedures noted the need for further guidelines and methodologies on how to identify learning outcomes from non-formal and informal learning and how to organise a validation process. This need is now being addressed by the cluster on Recognition of learning outcomes (see also section 7.2.2 (iix).

In addition, the lack of interest of some formal education and training institutions in undertaking the validation of non-formal and informal learning and in participating in its development is noted as an obstacle (HU). Therefore the challenge for some countries is to overcome this opposition among the stakeholders in formal education to the validation of non-formal and informal learning.

A key issue here is quality assurance as stakeholders in formal education in some cases worry that the validation of non-formal and informal learning could result in lower standards. Recent developments of quality assurance procedures (BE fr, NL) may help to avoid this problem. The adoption of the European principles on validation in 2004 seems to have been positively received by countries and some have used them as a partial basis for their validation systems (IE, IS, NL, NO).

On the other hand, a few countries with a developed validation system (e.g. NO) mention the lack of interest by potential beneficiaries in having their learning outcomes validated. A similar situation is underlined in the United Kingdom where attempts in the 1980s to develop a validation system for non-formal and informal learning “failed to establish widespread credibility with learners, educational institutions or employers”. Though no reasons are mentioned for such a lack of demand, it could be questioned whether appropriate financing and dissemination have been provided for such initiatives. However, as credit frameworks have become more established in the UK significant progress has been made. It should be noted that, in order to build a large scale validation system for non formal and informal learning, countries need to invest adequate resources in making it widely available and in promoting it in order to ensure that the offer meets the demand.

In spite of the above challenges the validation of non-formal and informal learning is gradually becoming an integrated part of lifelong learning throughout Europe and, while still facing methodological and institutional challenges, the majority of countries have accepted this approach as a key to opening up qualifications to a broader basis of learning outcomes.

3.3. Lifelong guidance

In order to raise participation in lifelong learning, to motivate learners and to avoid failures leading to drop outs from education, countries need efficient and widely accessible guidance systems. The new paradigm of ‘lifelong guidance’ contributes to the achievement of the EU goals of economic development, labour market efficiency and occupational and geographical mobility by enhancing the efficiency of investment in education and vocational training, lifelong learning and human capital and workforce development. Traditionally reserved for schools, youth and the unemployed, guidance should become available at any age for any socio-economic group without major obstacles to access. At the same time, the quality of counsellors’ preparation, supported by availability of up-to date information, needs to be prioritised in order to orientate learners efficiently and to deliver good service. In 2004, the Council adopted a Resolution on Guidance throughout life which recalled as priorities: high-quality guidance oriented to citizens’ lifelong and life-wide learning and improvement of guidance structures. The resolution equally invited countries to examine their guidance provision and to ensure effective cross-sectoral cooperation and coordination of guidance policies.

In order to support countries in moving European cooperation on lifelong guidance forward in both the education and the employment sectors, the European Lifelong Guidance Policy Network was established in 2007 with 26 member countries. Its purpose is to promote cooperation at country level on lifelong guidance and to put forward appropriate structures and support mechanisms in implementing the priorities identified in the Resolution on Lifelong Guidance (2004).

3.3.1 Policies and systems and progress made since 2005

The coordination and coherence of guidance approaches within countries is currently among the most important challenges countries are facing. According to the national reports, many countries have developed, or are in process of establishing, a comprehensive guidance system, where counselling is available throughout life (AT, BE nl and fr, CY, DK, EE, ES, FI, FR, IS, IT, MT, PT, SE, SI, UK). Several countries noted the development of initiatives to build an integrated guidance system for adults (AT, BE fr and nl, EE, ES, HU, UK – England) while some others are trying to improve coordination among the different existing systems (NO, HR, LU). These measures are a reaction to the existing fragmentation of guidance supply in most countries where education guidance and labour market guidance function independently of each other (Text Box 3.5 outlines the situation in England where a new adult careers service will be introduced). Italy, for example, is developing regional guidance initiatives where schools and employment services work in close cooperation to offer better adapted counselling. However, while progressively moving towards lifelong guidance, many countries still focus their guidance activities on the traditional target groups: schools (most often lower and upper secondary) and services to unemployed people.

Text Box 3.5 UK England - Development of integrated guidance in England

Both a recent report and a cross governmental review of information, advice and guidance for adults recommended rationalising information points (which are considered fragmented) and developing a new universal adult careers service to enable people to make informed choices about improving their learning and skills. The intention is that a new careers service for adults will empower individuals to adopt a positive, proactive approach to career management, with learners able to choose from a menu of services, accessed face-to-face, on-line or over the phone and encourage people to dip in and out of information, advice and guidance services throughout their careers. The service will be underpinned by high quality labour market information and a customer tracking and follow-up system. The English strategy will maintain separate services for young people, but will aim to ensure that the transition between the young people and adult services are managed effectively and that common issues such as quality standards, labour market and occupational information, contracting and workforce development are looked at collaboratively. |

The information provided in the latest report on progress in implementing the Council resolution on guidance gives a slightly different picture [18]. According to that report, countries considering coordination of guidance policies are: AT, BG, CY, CZ, FR, IT, MT, PL, SK. Other countries have formalised the willingness to ensure coordination of guidance provision through: legislative changes; establishment of bodies/ commissions; policy statements (CZ, DK, ES, FR, HU, MT, LT, LU, LV, PL, PT, RO). According to this report, countries where examples of integrated approaches are progressively being implemented are: DK, ES, IE, UK.

In addition, several recent developments have been put in place in HE (BG, FI, HU, RO). Finland, for example, introduced an obligation for universities and polytechnics to prepare personal student study plans and to monitor students’ progress against these. Some of the developments in HE are closely linked to the Bologna process (RO).

Nine countries noted improvements in guidance for disadvantaged groups (AT, CY, DK, ES, FI, IE, IS, IT, RO, UK). This covers varied target groups and measures:

· Counselling for students with special needs (CY, ES, IT)

· Focus on improving access of disadvantaged groups (AT, DK, ES, FI, UK)

· Focus on early school leavers (DK, ES, FI, IE)

· Individuals disadvantaged in the labour market (UK)

· Improved access of people living in rural areas (IS)

· “outreach guidance” for individuals who face important obstacles to lifelong learning participation (DK, IE, RO (Roma population)).

There is a clear interest in improving the evidence-base of guidance policies. Twenty countries have recently evaluated or commissioned studies of their guidance systems (AT, BG, CY, DE, EE, EL, FR, FI, HU, IE, IT, LT, LU, NL, MT, PL, RO, SE, SI, UK - England, Scotland). Most of these evaluations, even in countries with a relatively comprehensive service, revealed gaps in guidance provision, particularly guidance for adults in employment (AT, IE, UK). This shows that, despite the fact that countries are developing coherent guidance policies, implementation of these, mainly at local level, remains a challenge.

Though the interest in adult guidance seem to be increasing, with nine countries implementing measures which focus on employed adults (CY, DK, ES, FI, HU, IE, IS, PT, SI, UK), it remains insufficient and many countries still focus mostly on guidance for youth and groups at risk (unemployed and marginalised).

An important number of new initiatives are occurring in the area of staff improvement and quality assurance. Many countries have recently introduced new curricula or training for guidance staff and/or new “guidance” components in teachers’ curricula (AT, BG, CY, DK, EL, FI, IE, LT, MT, PL, RO, SK). The quality of guidance services is mentioned as a main concern by several countries (BE fr, DE, DK, EE, EL, LI, FI, SE, SI, UK).

Countries are also working on the improvement of their information-base for both counsellors and potential learners, through development of online portals with information on education and training provision (BE fr, BG, CY, EL, ES, FR, LT, NL, PT, RO, SE). Other countries are setting up national guidance fora/ platforms or working groups to formulate guidance policy objectives and to exchange information (AT, CY, CZ, DE, DK, EE, EL, FI, FR, IE, IT, LT, LV, MT, NO, PL, SI). The national fora typically bring together different ministries and various stakeholders to develop common guidance policies.

The most recent developments include the following initiatives:

· Development of specific curricula for counsellors or teachers (DK, MT, LV, RO)

· Establishment of new guidance centres (BG – secondary, CY, HU - focus on HE, RO)

· Publication of a nationwide report/ study on guidance and/or counsellors needs (BG, EE, IE, SI)

· Initiatives to motivate young people at risk of dropping out from initial education by orientating them towards flexible basic education programmes (FI)

· Setting up of a research centre for lifelong guidance expertise (FI ) (Text Box 3.6)

· Information portal (BE fr, BG, FR, NL, PT, SE)

· Policy document on guidance (AT – strategy for LL Guidance, FI – development plan for adult guidance, LT - Vocational Guidance Council, NO - white paper, HU, LT, LV, MT, PL, UK - Northern Ireland - strategic policy frameworks).

· Strengthened orientation and guidance presence in schools (FR), through compulsory elements of guidance in curricula (AT, FI, IT)

· New legislation on guidance (e.g. DK, ES, FI, PL).

Text box 3.6 Finland National Centre of Lifelong Guidance Expertise

The National Centre for Lifelong Guidance Expertise operates at the University of Jyväskylä. It has been set up as a multidisciplinary research unit with a view to strengthening the evidence base to inform national practise and lifelong guidance policy development over the 2006-2011 period. Key elements of the Centre’s work are to develop the training of guidance professionals, service delivery models and quality assurance mechanisms via national and international cooperation projects and networks. |

3.3.2 Remaining challenges

Very few countries gave details on challenges for setting up lifelong guidance systems. Nevertheless the main areas were gaps are noted concern the insufficient numbers of counsellors (PL, RO) and insufficient funding of guidance centres (BG) which both influence the availability but also the quality of guidance services. Other obstacle mentioned concerned weak coordination of various guidance services, under the responsibility of diff