Communication from the Commission - Modernising education and training: a vital contribution to prosperity and social cohesion in Europe - Draft 2006 joint progress report of the Council and the Commission on the implementation of the “Education & Training 2010 work programme” {SEC(2005) 1415}
Date: 2005-11-10
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: EU employment policy, EU programme, continuing education, education policy, educational system, information society, vocational training

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 

Brussels, 30.11.2005 
COM(2005) 549 final/2 

CORRIGENDUM: Annule et remplace la communication COM(2005) 549 final du 
10.11.2005. Les changements se trouvent sous point 2.1.3 dans l’encadré: il faut lire 180 
milliards d’euros au lieu de 150 milliards d’euros et la footnote 11 est deplacée à la fin de la 
première phrase de l’encadré. Ce corrigendum concerne toutes les langues. 

COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION 

Modernising education and training: a vital contribution to prosperity and social 
cohesion in Europe 

Draft 2006 joint progress report of the Council and the Commission on the implementation of 
the “Education & Training 2010 work programme” 

{SEC(2005) 1415} 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
Table of contents 

1. 

2. 

2.1. 

2.2. 

3. 

3.1. 

3.2. 

Introduction .................................................................................................................. 3 

Progress in implementing Education and Training 2010............................................. 4 

At national level: reforms are going in the right direction........................................... 4 

At European level: improving the governance of the Education and Training 2010 
work programme .......................................................................................................... 9 

Conclusion: Accelerating the pace of reforms to ensure a more effective contribution 
to the Lisbon strategy and the strengthening of the European social model.............. 10 

Reforms need to pay special attention to the issues of equity and governance ......... 10 

Strengthening the implementation of Education and Training 2010 ......................... 11 

Statistical annex……………………………………………………………………………....13

EN 

2 

   EN 

 
1. 

INTRODUCTION 

In  their  2004  Joint  Interim  Report1  the  Council  (Education)  and  the  European 
Commission called for urgent reforms of Europe’s education and training systems if 
the Union is to achieve its social and economic objectives. They undertook to review 
progress  every  two  years  on  implementing  the  Education  and  Training  2010  work 
programme,  which  includes  the  Copenhagen  process  on  vocational  education  and 
training (VET), and actions for higher education. The present report is the first in this 
new  cycle.  Education  and  Training  2010  is  also  a  key  contribution  to  the 
implementation of the  new  integrated guidelines for jobs and growth2, including the 
European Youth Pact. 

The  recent  mid-term  review  of  the  Lisbon  strategy  confirmed  the  central  place  of 
education and training within the European Union’s agenda for jobs and growth. The 
integrated  guidelines  call  on  Member  States  to  expand  and  improve  investment  in 
human  capital  and  adapt  education  and  training  systems  in  response  to  new 
competence requirements. In this context, the European Council has requested that the 
Education and Training 2010 work programme continue to be implemented in full. 

The  Council  has  repeatedly  emphasised  the  dual  role  –  social  and  economic  –  of 
education  and  training  systems.  Education  and  training  are  a  determining  factor  in 
each country’s potential for excellence, innovation and competitiveness. At the same 
time,  they  are  an  integral  part  of  the  social  dimension  of  Europe,  because  they 
transmit  values  of  solidarity,  equal  opportunities  and  social  participation,  while  also 
producing  positive  effects  on  health,  crime,  the  environment,  democratisation  and 
general  quality  of  life.  All  citizens  need  to  acquire  and  continually  update  their 
knowledge, skills and competences through lifelong learning, and the specific needs 
of  those  at  risk  of  social  exclusion  need  to  be  taken  into  account.  This  will  help  to 
raise labour force participation and economic growth, while ensuring social cohesion. 

Investing in education and training has a price, but high private, economic and social 
returns  in  the  medium  and  long-term  outweigh  the  costs.  Reforms  should  therefore 
continue to seek synergies between economic and social policy objectives, which are 
in fact mutually reinforcing. 

These  considerations  are  highly  relevant  to  the  Union’s  current  reflection  on  the 
future development of the European social model. Europe is facing enormous socio-
economic  and  demographic  challenges  associated  with  an  ageing  population,  high 
numbers  of  low-skilled  adults,  high  rates  of  youth  unemployment,  etc.  At  the  same 
time, there is a growing need to improve the level of competences and qualifications 
on the labour market. It is necessary to address these challenges in order to improve 
the  long-term  sustainability  of  Europe’s  social  systems.  Education  and  training  are 
part of the solution to these problems. 

1 

2 

Education and Training 2010: The success of the Lisbon Strategy hinges on urgent reforms, 3 
March 2004 (Council doc. 6905/04 EDUC 43). 
The  integrated  package  brings  together  the  Broad  Economic  Policy  Guidelines  (BEPG)  and 
the  Employment  Guidelines  (Council  Decision  of  12  July  2005  on  Guidelines  for  the 
employment  policies  of  the  Member  States  (2005/600/EC),  OJ  L  205  of  06.08.2005,  and 
Council Recommendation of 12 July 2005 on the broad guidelines for the economic policies 
of the Member States and the Community (2005-2008) (2005/601/EC)). 

EN 

3 

   EN

 
                                                 
2. 

PROGRESS IN IMPLEMENTING EDUCATION AND TRAINING 2010 

The following sections present, for the first time, an overview of the progress made 
towards  the  modernisation  of  education  and  training  systems  in  Europe,  which  was 
called for at Lisbon. The analysis is based primarily on the 2005 national reports of 
the Member States, EFTA-EEA countries, and the acceding and candidate countries3. 
It shows how reforms are contributing to the priority areas for action identified in the 
2004 Joint Interim Report4. 

2.1. 

At national level: reforms are going in the right direction 

The national reports indicate that the Education and Training 2010 work programme 
has become a clearer part of the national policy landscape. All the Member States now 
consider, to varying extents, that the Lisbon strategy is a factor in national education 
and  training  policy  development.  An  increasing  number  of  countries  now  have 
concrete arrangements for coordination between Ministries (especially education and 
employment)  with  responsibility  for  implementing  the  Education  and  Training  2010 
work programme, and for consultation of stakeholders such as social partners. Many 
countries have established or are establishing their own targets that relate – to varying 
degrees – to the reference levels of average European performance for education and 
training (benchmarks). This is also of particular importance to the implementation of 
the European Employment Strategy5. 

2.1.1 

Priorities and investments are aiming at greater efficiency and quality 

Since  2000,  as  far  as  total  investment  in  key  knowledge-economy  sectors  are 
concerned, the gap has not narrowed between Europe and competitor countries such 
as the United States. Some Asian countries such as China and India are catching up 
fast. 

Nonetheless,  public  spending  on  education  as  a  percentage  of  GDP  is  increasing  in 
nearly all EU countries (EU average: 4.9% in 2000, 5.2% in 2002). 

The upward trend noted between 2000 and 2002 is a promising sign that Governments 
consider public expenditure in education to be a priority. Nonetheless there are large 
variations  between  countries,  ranging  from  four  to  eight  percent  of  GDP.  Most 
Governments  seem  to  recognise  that  the  necessary  reforms  cannot  be  accomplished 
within current levels and patterns of investment. 

Many countries are stimulating private investment from  individuals and households, 
particularly in areas where there are high private rates of return, for example through 
incentives such as vouchers or individual learning accounts (e.g. AT, BE, NL, UK6), 

3 

4 

5 
6 

2010 

The  2005  report  on  progress  towards  the  benchmarks  (Commission  Staff  Working  Paper: 
“Progress  towards  the  Lisbon  objectives  in  education  and  Training”  (SEC  (2005)  419))  was 
also  a  basis  for  the  analysis.  The  national  reports  will  be  available  on  the  Education  & 
Training 
2005 
(http://www.europa.eu.int/comm/education/policies/2010/et_2010_en.html). 
More  detail  is  presented  in  the  statistical  annex.  A  full  analysis  of  national  reports  and 
developments  at  EU  level  may  be  found  in  the  Staff  Working  Paper  accompanying  this 
Communication. 
Three out of the five benchmarks are also targets under the EU employment guidelines. 
See the statistical annex for a key to country abbreviations. 

November 

from 

web 

site 

EN 

4 

   EN

 
                                                 
tax incentives (e.g. FI, HU, LT, PT, SI) or tuition fees (e.g. AT, BE fr, PL, RO, UK). 
Efforts  to  encourage  employers  to  invest  more  have  been  less  extensive  and  their 
effectiveness  is  less  demonstrable.  There  is  little  evidence  of  an  overall  increase  in 
employer investment in continuing training. 

Enhancing efficiency through improving quality is a major theme for reform for most 
countries,  with  emphasis  also  being  placed  on  decentralisation  and  improving 
institutional  management.  While  most  countries  make  use  of 
international 
comparative  data  on  outcomes  to  assess  their  system  performance,  many  have  not 
developed  adequate  national  performance  indicators  or  arrangements  to  collect  the 
necessary data. It is thus difficult to measure the impact of actions taken. 

All countries emphasise the crucial importance of developing the skills needed for the 
knowledge-based economy and society, and for economic competitiveness. Achieving 
higher quality in provision and improving standards are also major priorities for most 
countries,  along  with  teacher  training,  expanding  higher  education  participation  and 
implementing the Bologna process reforms7, enhancing the attractiveness of VET, and 
ensuring access to ICT. 

In relation to social inclusion, all countries indicate that access and the employability 
of  target  groups  are  defining  components  of  their  policy.  Many  countries  (e.g.  CY, 
CZ, EL, ES, LV, MT, PT, RO), and in particular those where levels of spending on 
education  and  training  are  comparatively  low,  emphasise  that  financial  constraints 
limit their capacity to implement all necessary policies. 

Several countries underline that in their education and training policies economic and 
social  objectives  are  mutually  supportive.  Others  argue  that  if  the  economic  and 
employment agenda is successful, the social goals (equity and social cohesion) can be 
addressed more readily. These issues are particularly relevant to the discussion on the 
European social model. 

2.1.2.  Progress  in  defining  lifelong  learning  strategies,  but  implementation 

remains the challenge 

Progress has been made since 2003 towards the goal, agreed by the European Council, 
that lifelong learning strategies8 should be put in place in all Member States by 20069. 
This is a key dimension of the new Lisbon integrated guidelines. Many – but by no 
means  all  –  countries  have  now  developed  lifelong  learning  policy  statements,  for 
example  strategy  documents  or  national  action  plans.  Others  have  put  in  place 
framework legislation (e.g. EL, ES, FR, RO). 

7 

8 

9 

The  Bologna  process  is  an  inter-governmental  process,  aiming  to  create  a  European  Higher 
Education Area in order to enhance the employability and mobility of citizens and to increase 
the  international  competitiveness  of  European  higher  education.  For  more  information,  see 
http://europa.eu.int/comm/education/policies/educ/bologna/bologna_en.html. 
Lifelong learning is defined as “all learning activity undertaken throughout life, with the aim 
of  improving  knowledge,  skills  and  competences  within  a  personal,  civic,  social  and/or 
employment-related perspective.” (Commission Communication on “Making a European area 
of lifelong learning a reality”, COM(2001) 678 final). 
2004 Joint Interim Report, op cit.; conclusions of the European Council, 2004, 2005. 

EN 

5 

   EN

 
                                                 
It  is  still  the  case,  however,  as  demonstrated  in  2003,  that  strategies  remain 
imbalanced.  There  is  a  tendency  either  to  focus  on  employability  or  on  re-engaging 
those  who  have  become  alienated  from  the  systems.  Some  countries  like  Sweden, 
Denmark, Finland and Norway are well on their way to achieving a national approach 
which  is  coherent  and  comprehensive,  and  are  making  strong  progress  on 
implementation. 

Nonetheless,  it  is  encouraging  that  cornerstone  policies  for  lifelong  learning  are 
gaining ground in Europe. For example, a few countries (e.g. FI, FR, PT) have well-
established systems for validation of non-formal and informal learning, while several 
others have recently introduced measures, or are in the process of doing so (e.g. BE 
nl, DK, ES, NL, NO, SE, SI). Lifelong guidance is also being tackled by an increasing 
number  of  countries  (e.g.  BE,  DK,  FR,  IE,  IS,  LI),  as  is  the  development  of  single 
national qualifications frameworks (e.g. IE). This latter issue is also a key priority for 
some new Member States and candidate countries (e.g. CY, EE, HR, LV, PL, RO, SI, 
TK). 

About  10%  of  adults  in  the  EU,  aged  25-64,  take  part  in  lifelong  learning, 
representing some progress since 2000, with significant variations between countries. 

The need to increase participation rates in further learning remains a major challenge 
for  Europe,  particularly  in  the  southern  European  countries  and  the  new  Member 
States.  Low  rates  are  an  obstacle  to  increasing  labour  force  participation,  and  are 
therefore  costly  to  the  economy  and  society  as  a  whole.  They  undermine  the 
sustainability of the European social model. 

Across  Europe,  insufficient  priority  and  funding  is  being  dedicated  to  increasing 
access  to  adult  learning  opportunities,  especially  for  older  workers,  whose  numbers 
are set to increase by around 14 million by 2030, and for the low skilled. Most of the 
countries that record the highest levels of participation have given a high priority to 
adult learning strategies as part of an integrated and comprehensive lifelong learning 
strategy. 

Almost 16% of young people in the EU still leave school early, reflecting only slight 
progress towards the EU 2010 benchmark of 10%. 

Nearly 20% of 15 year-olds continue to have serious difficulty with reading literacy, 
reflecting no progress since 2000 against the EU benchmark of reducing the share by 
one fifth. 

77%  of  18-24  year  olds  complete  upper-secondary  education,  still  far  from  the  EU 
benchmark of 85%, despite good progress in some countries. 

The persistently high numbers of young people leaving school without a basic level of 
qualifications and competences are a worrying signal that initial education systems are 
not always providing the necessary foundations for lifelong learning. This concern is 
also  reflected  in  the  new  Lisbon  integrated  guidelines  and  in  the  European  Youth 
Pact.  Several  countries  are  responding  to  this  by  reforming  curricula  and  study 
programmes,  aiming  to  ensure  that  key,  transversal competences  are  acquired by all 
(e.g.  AT,  DE,  FR,  IT,  NO,  UK),  and  that  young  people  –  especially  those  from 
disadvantaged backgrounds – do not ‘slip through the net’ (see also section 2.1.4.). 

EN 

6 

   EN

 
2.1.3.  Higher Education reforms increasingly support the Lisbon agenda 

The  Bologna  process  is  continuing  to  drive  reforms  in  higher  education  structures, 
particularly  in  relation  to  introducing  the  three-cycle  structure  of  degrees  and 
enhancing  quality  assurance.  The  Bologna  process,  rather  than  the  Lisbon  strategy, 
tends  to  be  at  the  foreground  of  national  policy  development  in  this  sector. 
Nonetheless,  there  are  signs  that  countries  are  beginning  to  tackle  the  challenges  of 
governance,  funding  and  attractiveness,  which  should  help  to  ensure  universities’ 
contribution to competitiveness, jobs and growth10. 

In  relation  to  governance,  many  countries  have,  for  example,  introduced  various 
forms  of  contractualisation  to  regulate  the  relationships  between  higher  education 
institutions and the State, as a basis for internal resource allocation (e.g. AT, CZ, DE, 
DK, FR, IS, LI, SK). Several central and eastern European countries are trying to cope 
with  the  problem  of  fragmentation  of  their  higher  education  systems  by  introducing 
new institutional governance regimes, often including external stakeholders. 

The  total  (public  and  private)  investment  in  higher  education  in  the  EU  in  2001  is 
1.28%  of  GDP,  compared  to  2.5%  in  Canada  and  3.25%  in  the  US11.  The  three 
highest-spending  EU  countries  are  Denmark  (2.8%),  Sweden  (2.3%)  and  Finland 
(2.1%). To close the spending gap with the USA, the EU would have to commit an 
additional 180 billion per year, securing in particular substantial increased investment 
from the private sector. 

For many countries funding remains a key challenge and an obstacle to implementing 
the modernisation agenda. 

Facilitating  incoming  mobility  seems  to  be  a  widespread  means  of  enhancing  the 
attractiveness  of  higher  education  in  Europe.  Only  few  countries  go  further  by 
undertaking active marketing or targeted international recruitment activities (e.g. DE, 
FI, FR, IE, NL, UK). Several new Member States are aiming to tackle this issue by 
establishing partnerships with universities abroad for the provision of joint degrees. 

Strengthening  collaboration  between  higher  education  and  industry  is  recognised  by 
most countries as a  basic  requirement  for innovation and increased competitiveness, 
but too few have a comprehensive approach on this issue. Part of the problem is that 
national innovation strategies too often do not incorporate higher education reforms. 

Many countries are encouraging universities to play their part in making a reality of 
lifelong learning by widening access for non-traditional learners, such as those from 
low socio-economic backgrounds, including through the establishment of systems for 
the  validation  of  non-formal  and  informal  learning.  This  is  part  of  a  general  effort 
across  Europe  to  raise  participation  levels  in  higher  education.  A  great  many 
universities  offer  continuing  professional  development,  and  open  universities  using 
distance  and  blended  learning  and  ICT-based  learning  approaches  are  also 
increasingly popular. 

10 

11 

See Commission Communication “Mobilising the brainpower of Europe: enabling universities 
to make their full contribution to the Lisbon Strategy”. COM (2005) 152 final. 
See  “Key  Figures  2005  on  Science,  Technology  and  Innovation:  Towards  a  European 
Knowledge Area”, European Commission. 

EN 

7 

   EN

 
                                                 
2.1.4.  The status of vocational education and training is gradually improving but 

much remains to be done 

National  priorities  for  the  reform  of  vocational  education  and  training  (VET)  seem 
broadly to reflect those of the Copenhagen process. The implementation of common 
principles and references agreed at European level (e.g. for validation of non-formal 
learning, quality assurance, guidance) has begun, but countries emphasise that it is too 
early to present concrete results. 

In  some  countries  VET  has  a  positive  image  (e.g.  AT,  CZ,  DE,  FI),  owing  to  such 
factors  as  having  a  ‘dual  system’  (i.e.  alternance  training),  double  qualifications 
(combining general and vocational education) and recent measures in favour of access 
to higher education. It is still too often the case, however, that vocational pathways are 
less attractive than academic ones. The improvement of the quality and attractiveness 
of VET continues to be a key challenge for the future. 

In  order  to  increase  the  attractiveness  of  VET  most  countries  focus  on  upper 
secondary education, including the development of curricula, flexible progression and 
transfer routes, links to the labour market, and guidance. Some are giving priority, in 
the  context  of  developing  lifelong  learning  strategies,  to  increasing  progression  into 
general and higher education (e.g. AT, CZ, DE, ES, SK). 

Enhancing the relevance of VET to the labour market, and improving relations with 
employers and the social partners, is an important factor for most countries trying to 
tackle the issues of quality and attractiveness. Improvements in the structure of VET, 
access to apprenticeships and the reform of VET standards are crucial in this context. 
Forecasting  skills  and  qualifications  needs  remains  a  key  challenge,  requiring  more 
stakeholder involvement and the improvement of data collection. 

A large majority of countries express concerns about the needs of low-skilled people, 
currently  numbering  almost  80  million  in  the  Union,  highlighting  the  importance  of 
labour  force  participation  and  the  role  of  VET  systems  as  key  means  of  ensuring 
social inclusion. 

Most countries concentrate on target populations in this context, and in particular on 
the youth population, where VET programmes have a positive effect on reducing rates 
of  early  school  leaving.  Adults  and  older  workers,  on  the  other  hand,  are  still  given 
insufficient priority. 

The  professional  development  of  vocational  teachers  and  trainers  remains  a  real 
challenge for most countries. 

2.1.5.  A growing yet insufficient European dimension in the national systems 

All  countries  consider  it  important  to  increase  participation  in  mobility  in  education 
and training from primary to higher levels, including mobility of teachers and trainers 
as  part  of  their  professional  development.  However,  despite  some  promising 
initiatives,  for  example  as  concerns  quality  of  mobility  (e.g.  AT,  BG,  CZ,  EL,  IE, 
LV),  there  are  not  enough  national  strategies.  The  main  support  continues  to  come 
from  EU  programmes.  Countries  generally  tend  to  promote  mobility  for  incoming 

EN 

8 

   EN

 
students  more  than  for  outgoing  ones.  Europass,  a  key  instrument  for  supporting 
mobility, is being implemented across Europe12. 

Increasing  importance  is  also  being  given  to  building  a  European  or  international 
dimension into national education and training systems, as a means of promoting an 
understanding among young people about the European Union. A few countries (e.g. 
DE,  EE,  FI,  LU,  NL)  include  a  European  dimension  as  an  explicit  part  of  the 
curriculum, and some are introducing legislative reforms accordingly. Many underline 
the  importance  of  language  learning.  Policies  and  actions  tend  to  be  scattered, 
however, and there is so far little sign that all pupils leave secondary education with 
the  knowledge  and  competences  they  will  need  as  European  citizens,  an  objective 
underlined in the 2004 Joint Interim Report. 

2.2. 

At  European  level:  improving  the  governance  of  the  Education  and 
Training 2010 work programme 

Over the course of 2004-5 the Council (Education) has adopted a number of common 
tools, principles and frameworks, for example related to mobility, quality assurance, 
non-formal  learning  and  guidance.  As  noted  in  the  2004  Joint  Interim  Report,  such 
agreements  can  usefully  support  national  policies  and  reforms,  and  contribute  to 
developing mutual trust. In the field of VET, the Maastricht Communiqué (December 
2004)13 has fixed new priorities at national and EU level. The Commission has also 
adopted a number of Communications, for example on higher education in the Lisbon 
strategy and on the development of a European language competence indicator14, and 
draft recommendations of the Council and the European Parliament, for example on 
key competences for lifelong learning. 

As part of an overall streamlining of the process, and in order to enhance coherence 
and strengthen governance, an Education and Training 2010 Coordination Group has 
been  set  up,  gathering  ministerial  representatives  of  both  education  and  training,  as 
well as the European Social Partners. A regular report on indicators and benchmarks 
also supports the monitoring of progress. 

Working  methods  have  also  been  updated  to  better  support  implementation  at  the 
national level. The working groups15 which implemented the first phase of the work 
programme  are  being  replaced  by  ‘clusters’  of  countries,  focussing  on  key  issues 
according to their national priorities and interests. The clusters are organising concrete 
‘peer learning’ activities during 2005-6, whereby countries offer mutual support in the 
implementation  of  reforms  through  the  identification  of  success  factors  and  the 
sharing of good practice. 

The European area of education and training continues to be strengthened, notably by 
the  development  of  a  European  Qualifications  Framework  (EQF).  A  consultation 
process has been launched on a blueprint for the EQF, and the Commission will come 
forward with a proposal for a draft recommendation of the Council and the European 
Parliament  in  2006.  The  Commission  will  also  present  in  early  2006  a  draft 

12 
13 
14 
15 

http://www.europa.eu.int/comm/education/programmes/europass/index_en.html 
http://www.europa.eu.int/comm/education/policies/2010/vocational_en.html 
COM(2005) 556 final 
The outcomes of the working groups in 2004 may be found on the Education & Training 2010 
web site: http://www.europa.eu.int/comm/education/policies/2010/objectives_en.html 

EN 

9 

   EN

 
                                                 
recommendation of the Council and the European Parliament on the quality of teacher 
education, as well as a Communication on adult learning at the end of 2006. 

3. 

CONCLUSION: ACCELERATING THE PACE OF REFORMS TO ENSURE A MORE 
EFFECTIVE  CONTRIBUTION  TO  THE  LISBON  STRATEGY  AND  THE 
STRENGTHENING OF THE EUROPEAN SOCIAL MODEL 

National  reforms  are  going  in  the  right  direction.  There  are  signs  that  a  sustained 
public effort is being made throughout the Union and in some areas is beginning to 
reap rewards. Such developments are encouraging, especially taking into account the 
fact that educational reforms are slow to take effect, and that differences in national 
situations and starting points in the enlarged Union are significant. 

The  long-term  sustainability  of  the  European  social  model  will  depend  to  a 
considerable degree on the effectiveness of these in-depth and wide-ranging reforms, 
in  securing  the  active  participation  in  economic  and  social  life  of  all  citizens,  at  all 
levels of ability and social background. 

It is thus particularly worrying that, notwithstanding the early achievement of the EU 
benchmark  on  increasing  the  number  of  maths,  science  and  technology  graduates, 
there  is  too  little  progress  against  those  benchmarks  related  most  closely  to  social 
inclusion.  Unless  significantly  more  efforts  are  made  in  the  areas  of  early  school 
leaving,  completion  of  upper-secondary  education,  and  key  competences,  a  larger 
proportion  of  the  next  generation  will  face  social  exclusion,  at  great  cost  to 
themselves,  the  economy  and  society.  The  European  Council  highlighted  the 
particular importance of these areas of Education and Training 2010 for young people, 
when adopting the European Youth Pact in March 2005. 

The  priority  levers  for  action  set  in  the  2004  Joint  Interim  Report,  as  well  as  the 
message  that  the  pace  of  reforms  must  be  accelerated,  remain  fully  valid.  Progress 
will continue to be followed up closely in the next Joint Report in 2008. 

3.1. 

Reforms  need  to  pay  special  attention  to  the  issues  of  equity  and 
governance 

The  national  reports  demonstrate  that  Governments  are  aware  of  the  challenges 
involved  in  modernising  education  and  training.  They  refer  in  particular  to  the 
difficulty of securing the necessary public and private investments, and of reforming 
the  structures  and  management  of  the  systems.  In  this  context,  particular  attention 
must  be  paid  to  the  key  areas  of  equity  and  governance,  including  through  the 
development of appropriate incentives, if the reforms underway are to be successful. 
The  Commission  will  support  national  efforts  by  giving  priority  to  these  areas  in 
future peer learning activities at EU level. 

3.1.1. 

Implement  reforms  which  ensure  that  the  systems  are  both  efficient  and 
equitable 

The  greater  emphasis  being  placed  on  efficiency  in  public  investment  in  education 
and  training  is  a  positive  trend.  Nonetheless,  due  attention  needs  to  be  paid  to  the 
whole lifelong learning continuum, and the efficiency, quality and equity objectives of 

EN 

10 

   EN

 
the systems must be given equal consideration. This is a sine qua non of achieving the 
Lisbon goals while strengthening the European social model. 

Ensuring  that  systems  are  equitable  implies  that  the  outcomes  and  benefits  of 
education  and  training  should  be  independent  of  socio-economic  background  and 
other  factors  that  may  lead  to  educational  disadvantage.  As  such,  access  should  be 
open  to  all,  and  treatment  should  be  differentiated  according  to  people’s  specific 
learning needs. 

Research shows that there is no trade-off between efficiency and equity, because they 
are  inter-dependent  and  mutually  reinforcing.  Increasing  access  to  education  and 
training for all, including disadvantaged groups and older workers, will contribute to 
increasing the active population, which simultaneously promotes growth and reduces 
inequalities.  The  Commission  will  discuss  the  issue  of  equity  and  efficiency  in  a 
Communication which it plans to adopt in 2006, and special attention should be paid 
to this area in the 2008 Joint Report. 

Investments  should  be  targeted  on  areas  where  the  social  and  economic  returns  are 
highest, thereby effectively combining efficiency and equity. In this respect, Member 
States’ efforts towards achieving the EU benchmarks related to early school leaving, 
completion  of  upper-secondary  education,  and  key  competences,  need  to  be  stepped 
up  in  the  coming  years.  In  particular,  investment  in  pre-school  education  is  of 
paramount  importance  for  preventing  school  failure  and  social  exclusion,  and  for 
laying the foundations for further learning.  

3.1.2.  Mobilise actors and resources by means of diverse learning partnerships 

Reforms are facilitated by a favourable economic and social context, and where there 
are  high  levels  of  public  and  private  investment  in  knowledge,  skills  and 
competences,  but  also  where  modes  of  governance  of  the  systems  are  coherent  and 
inter-ministerial  synergy  between  ‘knowledge  policies’ 
coordinated.  Effective 
(education, training, employment/social affairs, research, etc.), strong social dialogue, 
and  the  awareness  and  active  involvement  of  other  key  actors  such  as  parents  and 
teachers/trainers,  the  voluntary  sector  and  local  actors,  all  promote  consensus  as 
regards  policy  goals  and  the  necessary  reforms.  Such  forms  of  governance  are  not 
widespread, however. 

Priority  should  be  given  to  improving  governance  through  learning  partnerships, 
especially at regional and local levels, as a means of sharing responsibilities and costs 
between 
the  relevant  actors  (institutions,  public  authorities,  social  partners, 
enterprises, community organisations, etc.). Such partnerships should involve teachers 
and trainers as main agents of change in the systems. They should also foster greater 
involvement of employers in ensuring the relevance of lifelong learning provision. 

3.2. 

Strengthening the implementation of Education and Training 2010 

3.2.1.  At national level 

Even  though  progress  has  been  made,  the  priorities  of  the  Education  and  Training 
2010  work  programme  need  to  be  taken  more  fully  into  account  in  national  policy 
making. Member States should in particular ensure that: 

EN 

11 

   EN

 
–  education  and  training  have  a  central  position  in  the  national  Lisbon  reform 
programmes, in the national strategic reference framework for the structural funds, 
and in the national strategies on social protection and social inclusion; 

–  mechanisms  for  coordinating  the  implementation  of  the  work  programme  at 
national  level  are  in  place  in  all  countries  by  2008,  involving  the  different 
Ministries concerned and the main stakeholders, especially the social partners; 

–  national  policies  contribute  actively  towards  the  Education  and  Training  2010 
benchmarks and objectives. Governments should go further in establishing national 
targets and indicators, using these European references; 

–  the  evaluation  of  policies  is  improved,  to enable  progress  to  be  better  monitored, 
and  to  create  a  culture  of  evaluation,  making  full  use  of  research  results.  The 
development  of  high  quality  statistical  instruments  and  infrastructure  is  therefore 
indispensable; 

–  the  various  European  agreements  (e.g.  Council  resolutions  or  conclusions  on 
common references and principles) adopted in the context of the work programme 
are, by 2008, used as key reference points when designing national reforms. 

3.2.2.  At European level 

The  Commission  will  ensure  that  the  outcomes  of  the  Education  and  Training  2010 
work  programme  are  fed  into  the  implementation  process  of  the  Lisbon  integrated 
guidelines and the EU guidelines for cohesion, and into the current debate and follow-
up  action  related  to  the  future  of  the  European  social  model.  In  this  context,  the 
structural funds should give priority to investment in human capital. 

In order to strengthen the implementation of the work programme, particular attention 
will be given to: 

–  the  development  of  a  well-focussed  and  relevant  programme  of  peer  learning 
activities in the framework of the new Integrated Programme for Lifelong Learning 
and  in  the  light  of  experiences  throughout  2005.  Peer  learning  activities  will 
concentrate on those areas where reforms are most needed (EU benchmark areas; 
lifelong  learning  strategies;  efficiency  and  equity;  governance  and  learning 
partnerships; higher education; VET); 

–  more systematic monitoring of the implementation of lifelong learning strategies in 
all  Member  States.  This  issue  will  be  a  main  priority  of  the  2008  Joint  Report, 
especially  in  relation  to  the  role  of  lifelong  learning  in  the  strengthening  of  the 
European social model; 

–  reaching agreement on a European Qualifications Framework (EQF), as well as the 
recommendations of the Council and the European Parliament on key competences 
for lifelong learning, and quality of teacher education. 

–  better information and exchanges of experiences regarding the use of the structural 
funds  and  the  European  Investment  Bank,  to  support  education  and  training 
development, with a view to better exploiting these resources in the future. 

EN 

12 

   EN

 
STATISTICAL ANNEX 

PROGRESS AGAINST THE FIVE REFERENCE LEVELS OF AVERAGE EUROPEAN 
PERFORMANCE (BENCHMARKS) IN EDUCATION AND TRAINING 

Country Codes 

EU 
BE 
CZ 
DK 
DE 
EE 
EL 
ES 
FR 
IE 
IT 
CY 
LV 
LT 
LU 
HU 
MT 
NL 
AT 
PL 
PT 
SI 

European Union 
Belgium 
Czech Republic 
Denmark 
Germany 
Estonia 
Greece 
Spain 
France 
Ireland 
Italy 
Cyprus 
Latvia 
Lithuania 
Luxembourg 
Hungary 
Malta 
Netherlands 
Austria 
Poland 
Portugal 
Slovenia 

SK 
FI 
SE 
UK 

EEA 
IS 
LI 
NO 

BG 
RO 

HR 
TR 

Slovakia 
Finland 
Sweden 
United Kingdom 

European Economic Area 
Iceland 
Liechtenstein 
Norway 

Acceding Countries 
Bulgaria 
Romania 

Candidate Countries 
Croatia 
Turkey 

Others 
JP 
US/USA 

Japan 
United States of America 

EN 

13 

   EN

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
OVERVIEW ON PROGRESS IN THE FIVE BENCHMARK AREAS 

Progress against the 5 benchmarks (EU average)

MST graduates

Progress required

Lifelong learning participation

Early school leavers

Upper-secondary completion

Low achievers in reading

0
0
1
=
s
k
r
a
m
h
c
n
e
b
0
1
0
2

100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

-10

-20

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005
Year

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

Methodological remarks: The starting point in the year 2000 is set in the graph as zero 
and the 2010 benchmark as 100. The results achieved in each year are thus measured 
against  the  2010  benchmark.  A  diagonal  line  shows  the  progress  required,  i.e.  each 
year  an  additional  10%  of  progress  would  have  to  be  achieved  to  reach  the 
benchmark. If a line stays below this diagonal line, progress is not sufficient. 

As regards lifelong learning participation, there have been many breaks in time series: 
some  countries  have  revised  their  data  collection  methods  between  2002  and  2003. 
The application of the new methods led to higher results from 2003, and thus progress 
is  overstated  between  2002  and  2003.  The  line  2002-2003  on  lifelong  learning 
participation is therefore dotted. For low achievers in reading (data from PISA survey) 
there are only results for 16 EU countries and for two years. 

Key results: 

*  As  regards  the  number  of  maths,  science  and  technology  (MST)  graduates  the 
benchmark  will  be  over-achieved;  the  progress  required  has  already  been  made  in 
2000-2003. 

* There is some progress in lifelong learning participation. However, much of it is a 
result  of  changes  in  surveys  in  several  Member  States,  which  led  to  higher  nominal 
participation rates and thus overstate overall progress. 

* There is constant improvement as regards early school leavers, but faster progress is 
needed in order to achieve the benchmark. 

EN 

14 

   EN

 
 
 
 
 
* As regards upper secondary completion there has been almost no progress. 

* Results for low achievers in reading have also not improved (but this is based only 
on two reference years). 

EN 

15 

   EN

 
KEY COMPETENCES 

Percentage of pupils with reading literacy proficiency level one and lower (on the PISA reading 
literacy scale), 2000-2003 

European Union * 

Japan 

USA 

2000 

2003 

Source: DG Education and Culture. Data source: OECD, PISA 2003 database. 

* In 2000, in the 16 EU countries for which comparable data is now available both for 2000 and 2003, the percentage of 15-year olds 
at level one or below was 19.4. The benchmark of reducing the share by 20% thus implies a target figure of 15.5%. 

2000 

2003 

EU 

BE 

CZ 

DK  DE 

EE 

EL 

ES 

FR 

IE 

IT 

CY 

LV 

LT 

LU 

HU  MT 

2000  19.4 

  19.0  17.5  17.9  22.6 

2003  19.8 

  17.8  19.4  16.5  22.3 

Breakdown of 2003 results 

Boys 

25.6 

  22.4  23.5  20.5  28.0 

Girls 

14.0 

  12.9  14.9  12.7  16.3 

:

:

:

:

24.4

16.3

15.2

11.0

18.9

25.2

21.1

17.5

11.0

23.9

32.6

27.9

23.5

14.3

31.0

18.5

14.5

12.1

7.7

17.2

:

:

:

:

30.1

: 

(35.1)  22.7 

18.0

:  22.7  20.5 

25.0

:  28.6  25.6 

11.6

:  17.2  14.9 

:

:

:

:

NL 

AT 

PL 

PT 

SI 

SK 

FI 

SE  UK 

IS 

LI 

NO  BG  RO  HR 

TR 

JP 

US 

2000 

(9.5)  14.6  23.2  26.3 

: 

: 

7.0

12.6

12.8

14.5

22.1

17.5

40.3

41.3

: 

:  10.1  17.9

2003  11.5  20.7  16.8  22.0 

:  24.9 

5.7

13.3

:

18.5

10.4

18.2

Breakdown of 2003 results 

Boys 

14.3  28.2  23.4  29.4 

:  31.0 

9.0

17.7

Girls 

8.6  13.1  10.2  15.1 

:  18.5 

2.4

8.7

:

:

26.9

12.6

24.8

9.5

8.0

11.3

Source: DG Education and Culture. Data source: OECD PISA database 

:

:

:

:

:

:

:  36.8  19.0  19.4

:  44.1  23.2  24.3

:  27.8  15.1  14.4

EN 

16 

   EN

 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Additional notes:  

- EU figure: weighted average based on number of pupils enrolled and data for 16 countries (NL, LU data not representative in 2000, 
same for UK in 2003, SK not participating in 2000). 

In  2000  the  share  of  low  performing  15-year  olds  in  reading  was  19.4%  (data 
available  for  16  Member  States  only).  According  to  the  benchmark  this  proportion 
should  decrease  by  one  fifth  by  2010  (and  thus  reach  15.5%).  While  the  share  has 
decreased  in  some  Member  States  (notably  Latvia  and  Poland)  no  progress  on  this 
objective has been achieved since 2000 at EU level (2003: 19.8%). 

EN 

17 

   EN

 
EARLY SCHOOL LEAVERS 

Share of the population aged 18-24 with only lower-secondary education and not in education or 
training, 2000-2004 

European Union 
(EU25) 

Japan 

USA 

  2000 

2003 

2004 

Source: DG Education and Culture. Data source: Eurostat (Labour Force Survey) 

* 2003: change in series 

  2000 

2003 

2004 

EU25 

BE 

CZ 

DK 

DE 

EE 

EL 

ES 

FR 

IE 

IT 

CY 

LV 

LT 

LU 

HU 

2000 

17.3 

  12.5 

:  11.6  14.9

14.2

18.2

28.8

13.3

:

25.3

15.1

:  16.7  16.8  13.8

2003 

16.1 

  12.8 

6.0  10.0  12.8

11.8

15.5

30.8

13.7

12.3

23.5

15.1

18.1  11.8  17.0  11.8

2004 

15.7 

  11.9 

6.1 

8.1  12.1

13.7

14.9

31.1

14.2

12.9

22.3

18.4

15.6 

9.5 

:  12.6

Breakdown of 2004 results by gender 

Males 

18.1  

   15.6  

5.8  10.4  12.2

20.5

18.3

37.8

16.1

16.1

26.2

23.3

20.5  11.6  

:  13.7

Females 

13.3  

8.3 ( 

6.5 

5.8  11.9

: 

11.6

24.1

12.3

9.7

18.4

14.3

10.7 

7.4  

:  11.4

EN 

18 

   EN

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
MT 

NL 

AT 

PL 

PT 

SI 

SK 

FI 

SE 

UK 

IS 

LI 

NO  BG  RO 

HR 

TR 

2000 

54.2  15.5  10.2 

:  42.6 

:

:

8.9

7.7

18.4

28.6

2003 

48.2  14.5 

9.2 

6.3  40.4 

4.3

4.9

8.3

9.0

16.8

22.3

2004 

45.0  14.5 

8.7 

5.7  39.4 

4.2

7.1

8.7

8.6

16.8

26.3

Breakdown of 2004 results by gender 

Males 

46.6   16.4 

9.5 

7.7   47.9 

5.8 

7.8

10.6

9.3 17.1 

26.4

Females 

43.1   12.6 

7.9 

3.7   30.6  

2.6 

6.4

6.9

7.9

16.5  26.1

Source: DG Education and Culture. Data source: Eurostat (Labour Force Survey) 

Additional notes: 

:

:

:

:

:

13.3

:  22.3 

: 

6.6

22.4  23.2 

8.4 

4.5

21.4  23.6 

6.2 

5.2

22.1  24.9  

7.1  

3.7

20.7  22.4  

5.2  

:

:

:

:

:

- Breaks in time-series in 2003: CZ, DK, DE, EL, FR, IE, in 2004: BE, LT, MT, PL, PT, RO; 2004 data provisional for: UK. 
- CY: reference population excludes students abroad. 
- DK, LU, IS, NO, EE, LV, LT, CY, MT, SI: high degree of variation of results over time partly influenced by a low sample size. 
- EU25: where data are missing or provisional, aggregates provided use the result of the closest available year. 

In 2004 early school leavers in EU 25 represented nearly 16% of young people aged 
18-24. There was continuous improvement in recent years in reducing the share, but 
progress will need to be faster to reach the EU benchmark of 10% in 2010. However, 
several  Member  States,  notably  the  Nordic  countries  and  many  of  the  new  Member 
States, already have shares of less than 10%. 

EN 

19 

   EN

 
 
 
COMPLETION OF UPPER SECONDARY EDUCATION 

Percentage of the population aged 20-24 having completed at least upper-secondary education, 
2000-04 

European Union 
(EU25) 

Japan 

USA 

  2000 

2003 

2004 

Source: DG Education and Culture; Data Source: Eurostat (Labour Force Survey). 

  2000 

2003 

2004 

EU25 

BE 

CZ 

DK 

DE 

EE 

EL 

ES 

FR 

IE 

IT 

CY 

LV 

LT 

LU 

HU 

2000 

76.4 

  80.9  91.1  69.8  74.7

83.6

79.3

66.2

81.6

82.4

68.8

83.0

76.8  77.9  77.5  83.6

2003 

76.5 

  81.3  92.0  74.4  72.5

81.4

81.7

62.7

80.9

85.3

69.9

82.2

74.0  82.1  69.8  85.0

2004 

76.7 

  82.1  90.9  76.1  72.8

82.3

81.9

61.8

79.8

85.3

72.9

80.1

76.9  86.1 

:  83.4

Breakdown of 2004 results by gender 

Males 

73.8  

   77.4  90.5  73.3  71.5

72.5

78.2

54.7

78.2

82.1

67.6

75.4

70.7  82.2 

:  81.9

Females 

79.6 

  86.8  91.2  78.6  74.2

92.3

85.6

69.2

81.3

88.6

78.2

84.4

83.4  90.1 

:  84.9

EN 

20 

   EN

 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
MT 

NL 

AT 

PL 

PT 

SI 

SK 

FI 

SE 

UK 

IS 

LI 

NO  BG  RO 

HR 

TR 

2000 

40.9  71.7  84.7  87.8  42.8  87.0

94.5

87.8

85.2

76.4

49.4

2003 

43.0  74.5  83.7  88.8  47.7  90.7

94.1

85.2

85.6

78.1

52.6

2004 

47.9  73.9  86.3  89.5  49.0  89.7

91.3

84.6

86.3

76.4

53.9

Breakdown of 2004 results by gender 

Males 

47.1  70.9  86.2  87.4  39.4  86.0

91.1

81.2

85.1

76.2  55.2

Females 

48.7  77.1  86.3  91.6  58.8  93.7

91.5

87.9

87.6

76.6

52.4

Source: DG Education and Culture. Data source: Eurostat (Labour Force Survey). 

:

:

:

:

:

95.1

74.9  75.8 

: 

93.3

75.6  73.8  90.7 

95.3

76.0  74.8  92.5 

94.2

74.8  73.8  91.5 

96.5

77.2  75.8  93.7 

:

:

:

:

:

Additional notes: 

- Breaks in time series: 2001: SE; 2002: LT, LV; 2003: DK, HU, AT. 
- LU 2003: Data is provisional.  
- CY: Students usually living in the country but studying abroad are not included. 
- EU25: Aggregate results include provisional UK data (all GSCE levels excluded until new ISCED 3C definition implemented in 2005). 

The  share  of  young  people  (aged  20-24)  who  have  completed  upper-secondary 
education  has  only  slightly  improved  since  2000.  There  was  thus  little  progress  in 
achieving the benchmark of raising this share to at least 85% by 2010. However, some 
countries  with  a  relatively  low  share,  notably  Portugal  and  Malta,  have  made 
considerable progress in the recent past. It should also be noted that many of the new 
Member  States  already  perform  above  the  benchmark  set  for  2010  and  that  two  of 
them, the Czech Republic and Slovakia, and in addition Norway and Croatia, already 
have shares of over 90%. 

EN 

21 

   EN

 
 
 
GRADUATES IN MATHEMATICS, SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY 

Total number of tertiary (ISCED 5A, 5B and 6) graduates from mathematics, science and 
technology fields (MST), 2000-2003 

European Union 
(EU25) 

Japan 

USA 

  2000 

2001 

2002 

  2003 

Source: DG Education and Culture. Data source: Eurostat (UOE) 

Additional notes:  

- EU total does not include Greece. EU total 2000 includes national UK data. 

Tertiary MST graduates per 1000 population (20-29) females / males, 2003 

females 

males 

Number of MST graduates (1000) 

EU 25 

BE 

CZ 

DK  DE 

EE 

EL 

ES 

FR 

IE 

IT 

CY 

LV 

LT 

LU 

HU  MT 

2000  650.2 

  12.9 

9.4 

8.5  80.0 

1.3

2003  754.7 

  14.4  10.7 

8.4  80.3 

1.7

:

:

65.1 154.8

14.5

46.6

0.34

2.4

6.6  0.10 

7.2  0.19

84.1 171.4

15.7

66.8

0.40

2.8

7.7 

: 

7.6  0.20

Percentage of females  

2000  30.4 

  25.0  27.0  28.5  21.6  35.4

2003  31.1 

  25.1  29.3  30.3  23.5  42.5

:

:

31.5

30.8

37.9

36.6

31.0

31.4

35.9 

:  22.6  26.3

30.4

30.3

34.7

35.7

42.0

37.8

35.7 

:  26.6  26.4

EN 

22 

   EN

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Number of MST graduates (1000) - continued 

NL 

AT 

PL 

PT 

SI 

SK 

FI 

SE  UK 

IS 

LI 

NO  BG  RO  HR 

TR 

JP 

US 

2000  12.5 

7.5  39.2  10.1 

2.6 

4.7  10.1

13.0 140.6

0.35

:

4.8

8.1

17.1

:  57.1  236.7  369.4

2003  14.6 

8.3  55.2  13.0 

2.6 

7.7 

:

15.1 155.2

0.41

0.03

5.4

9.6

32.5

3.4  69.6  229.7  430.7

Percentage of females 

2000  17.6  19.9  35.9  41.9  22.8  30.1  27.3

32.1

32.3

37.9

:

26.8

45.6

35.1

:  31.1  12.9  31.8

2003  18.4  21.1  33.2  41.5  25.5  34.4 

:

34.2

34.4

35.9

36.0

27.1

42.1

39.4

30.6  31.4  14.4  31.9

Source: DG Education and Culture. Data source: Eurostat (UOE), EU figure for 2000 and 2003: DG Education and Culture estimate 

Additional notes: 

- BE: Data for the Flemish community exclude second qualifications in non-university tertiary education. 
- LU: In the reference period Luxembourg did not have a complete university system, most students study abroad. 
- EE: Data exclude Master degrees (ISCED 5A). 
- CY: Data exclude tertiary students graduating abroad (idem for LI). The number of students studying abroad accounts for over half of 
the total number of Cypriot tertiary students. The fields of study in Cyprus are limited (idem for LI). 
- HU: Duration of certain programmes extended in 2001, thus low number of graduates compared to 2000. 
- PL: Data for 2000 exclude advanced research programmes (ISCED level 6). 
- UK: National data have been used for 2000 to avoid a break in series, the 2000 result is thus 15 000 greater than the Eurostat data. 
- RO: Data exclude second qualifications and ISCED 6 2000-2002. 

The number of graduates from mathematics, science and technology (MST) in EU 25 
has  increased  since  2000  by  over  100,000  or  by  16%.  The  EU  has  thus  already 
achieved the benchmark of increasing the number of MST graduates by 15% by 2010. 
Progress  has  also  been  achieved  as  regards  the  second  goal  of  reducing  the  gender 
imbalance  in  MST  graduates.  The  share  of  female  graduates  has  increased  from 
30.4% in 2000 to 31.1% in 2003. While Slovakia, Poland, Spain and Italy showed the 
strongest  growth  in  the  number  of  MST  graduates  in  recent  years  (annual  growth 
above 10%), the Baltic States perform best as regards gender balance. 

EN 

23 

   EN

 
 
 
PARTICIPATION IN LIFELONG LEARNING 

Percentage of population aged 25-64 participating in education and training in the four weeks 
prior to the survey, 2000-2004 

European Union 
(EU25) 

Japan 

USA 

  2000 

2003 

2004 

Source: DG Education and Culture. Data source: Eurostat (Labour Force Survey) 

* 2003: change in series 

  2000 

2003 

2004 

EU25 

BE 

CZ 

DK 

DE 

EE 

EL 

ES 

FR 

IE 

IT 

CY 

LV 

LT 

LU 

HU 

2000 

2003 

2004 

7.9 

9.3 

9.9 

6.8 

:  20.8 

5.2

6.0

1.1

5.0

2.8

:

5.5

3.7

: 

2.8 

4.8 

3.1

8.5 

5.4  25.7 

6.0

6.2

3.9

5.8

7.4

9.7

4.7

7.9

8.1 

4.5 

6.3 

6.0

9.5 

6.3  27.6 

7.4

6.7

3.9

5.1

7.8

7.2

6.8

9.3

9.1 

6.5 

9.4 

4.6

Breakdown of 2004 data by gender 

Males 

9.0  

Females 

10.7  

9.7  

9.3  

6.0  23.4 

7.8

5.8

6.5  31.9 

7.0

7.6

2.0 

2.1 

4.7

7.6

6.1

6.5 

9.0

6.1 

5.0  

9.3  

3.9

5.6

7.9

8.4

7.2 

9.6

11.8 

7.9  

9.5  

5.3

EN 

24 

   EN

 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
MT 

NL 

AT 

PL 

PT 

SI 

SK 

FI 

SE 

UK 

IS 

LI 

NO  BG  RO 

HR 

TR 

2000 

4.5  15.6 

8.3 

: 

3.4 

:

:

19.6

21.6

21.0

23.5

2003 

4.2  16.5  12.5 

5.0 

3.7  15.1

4.8

25.3

34.2

21.2

31.7

2004 

5.0  16.8  12.0 

5.5 

4.8  17.9

4.6

24.6

35.8

21.2

Breakdown of 2004 data by gender 

Males 

5.5   16.4  11.5 

4.7  

4.4   16.1

3.9

20.9

31.5

17.4 

Females 

4.4   17.2  12.5 

6.3  

5.1   19.8

5.2

28.2

40.3

25.3 

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

13.3

: 

0.9 

: 

19.4

1.4 

1.3 

2.1 

18.9

1.3 

1.6 

2.0 

18.0

1.1 

1.6  

1.8  

19.7

1.4 

1.6  

2.3 

:

:

:

:

:

Source: DG Education and Culture. Data source: Eurostat Labour Force Survey, EU 25 figure for 2000: estimate 

Additional notes: 

- Due to implementation of harmonised concepts and definitions in the survey, breaks in time series: CZ, DE, DK, EL, FR, IE, CY, LU, 
HU, AT, SI, SK, FI, SE, IS, NO (2003) and BE, IT, LT, MT, PL, PT, RO (2004). 
- 2004: provisional data for EU25, EL, LU and UK. 

The  percentage  of  the  working  age  population  who  participated  in  education  and 
training in the 4 weeks prior to the survey amounted to 9.9 % in 2004. Since the data 
overstate progress as a result of breaks in time series, this represents only a slight real 
progress  compared  to  2000,  despite  the  nominal  two  percentage  point  increase. 
Additional efforts are needed to reach the benchmark of a 12.5% participation rate in 
201016. The Nordic countries, the UK, Slovenia and the Netherlands currently show 
the highest lifelong learning participation rates. 

16 

Data used for assessing the benchmark refer to a 4-week period of participation (LFS 2004). If 
a longer period were used, rates would be higher. Eurostat data from the LFS ad hoc module 
on lifelong learning carried out in 2003 (referring to a 12-month period) show a participation 
rate  of  42%  (4.4%  in  formal  education;  16.5%  in  non-formal  learning  and  nearly  one 
European out of three declared having taken some form of informal learning). 

EN 

25 

   EN

 
 
 
                                                 
INVESTMENT IN HUMAN RESOURCES 

Public expenditure on education as a percentage of GDP, 2000-2002 

  2000 

2001 

2002 

EU25 

BE 

CZ 

DK  DE 

EE 

EL 

ES 

FR 

IE 

IT 

CY 

LV 

LT 

LU 

HU  MT 

2000  4.94 

:  4.04  8.39  4.53  5.59

3.79

4.42

5.83

4.36

4.57

5.60

5.43

5.67 

:  4.54  4.55

2001  5.10 

   6.11  4.16  8.50  4.57  5.48

3.90

4.41

5.76

4.35

4.98

6.28

5.70

5.92  3.84  5.15  4.47

2002  5.22 

  6.26  4.41  8.51  4.78  5.69

3.96

4.44

5.81

4.32

4.75

6.83

5.82

5.89  3.99  5.51  4.54

NL 

AT 

PL 

PT 

SI 

SK 

FI 

SE  UK 

IS 

LI 

NO  BG  RO  HR 

TR 

JP 

US 

2000  4.87  5.66  5.01  5.74 

:  4.15  6.12

7.39

4.58

6.00

2001  4.99  5.70  5.56  5.91  6.13  4.03  6.24

7.31

4.69

6.47

:

:

6.82

4.41

2.89

:  3.49  3.59  4.93

7.00

3.53

3.28

:  3.65  3.57  5.08

2002  5.08  5.67  5.60  5.83  6.02  4.35  6.39

7.66

5.25

7.12

2.95

7.63

3.57

3.53

4.32  3.56  3.60  5.35

Source: DG Education and Culture. Data source: Eurostat (UOE data collection) 

Additional notes 

- DK: Expenditure at post secondary non-tertiary levels of education is not available. 
- FR: Without French Overseas Departments, GR, LU, PT: Imputed retirement expenditure is not available. 
- CY: Including financial aid to students studying abroad. 
- LU: expenditure at tertiary level of education not included. PT: expenditure at local level of government not included. 
- UK, JP, US: adjustment of GDP to the financial year, which differs from the calendar year. 
- TR, IS: expenditure at pre-primary level not included, TR: expenditure at regional and local levels of government not included. 
- HR, US: Expenditure on educational institutions from public sources. 

Between 1995 and 2000 public expenditure on education as a percentage of GDP fell 
slightly in the EU17. Since 2000, however, there has been an upward trend at EU level 
and in most Member States. The available data show, however, strong differences in 
spending levels between countries. Denmark and Sweden spend over 7.5% of GDP on 
education, while some Member States spend less than 4% of GDP (however spending 
is increasing in these countries). 

17 

However, in real terms, public expenditure on education and training increased on average by 
1.9% per year from 1995 to 2000 and even by 3.8% since 2000. 

EN 

26 

   EN