Communication from the Commission to the Council AND to the European Parliament Efficiency and equity in european education and training systems {SEC(2006) 1096}
Date: 2006-09-08
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: EU policy, continuing vocational training, economic and social cohesion, education policy, educational system, equal treatment, teaching quality

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 

Brussels, 8.9.2006 
COM(2006) 481 final 

COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE COUNCIL 
AND TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT  

Efficiency and equity in european education and training systems 

{SEC(2006) 1096} 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
  
 
 
COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE COUNCIL 
AND TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT  

Efficiency and equity in european education and training systems 

1. 

1. 

2. 

3. 

INTRODUCTION 

The  2006  Spring  European  Council1  outlined  the  twin  challenges  which  Europe’s 
education and training systems face when it concluded that they are critical factors to 
develop  the  EU’s  long-term  potential  for  competitiveness  as  well  as  for  social 
cohesion. It stated that reforms must be stepped up to ensure high quality education 
and training systems that are both efficient and equitable. These issues are central to 
the fulfilment of the EU’s objectives in the Lisbon Partnership for Growth and Jobs 
and the Open Method of Coordination for Social Inclusion and Social Protection. 

Across  Europe,  in  the  context  of  public  budget  constraints  and  the  challenges  of 
globalisation, demographic change and technological innovation, greater emphasis is 
being  placed  on  improving  efficiency  in  the  education  and  training  sector.  This  is 
desirable, of course, but it is frequently assumed that efficiency and equity objectives 
are  mutually  exclusive.  It  is  too  often  the  case  that  existing  education  and  training 
systems reproduce or even compound existing inequities. 

However,  the  evidence  shows  that  viewed  in  a  wider  perspective,  equity2  and 
efficiency3  are,  in  fact,  mutually  reinforcing  and  this  Communication  focuses  on 
policies where this is the case. It aims to inform policy-makers about trends in other 
Member  States  and  the  supporting  research  available  at  EU  level,  to  help  their 
decision making in the ongoing process of system reform. The Staff Working Paper4 
sets out the detailed underlying evidence. 

1.1 

Facing the economic and social challenges 

4. 

1 
2 

3 

4 

The EU is facing four interrelated socio-economic challenges: globalisation, and the 
emergence of newly industrialised and highly competitive countries; demography, in 
the  form  of  Europe’s  ageing  population  and  migration  flows;  rapid  change  in  the 
nature of the labour market; and the technology-driven ICT revolution. Each of these 
has an impact on the challenge of providing good education for all. People with low 

European Council 23-24 March 2006, Presidency Conclusions par. 23 
Equity  is  viewed  as  the  extent  to  which  individuals  can  take  advantage  of  education  and  training,  in 
terms of opportunities, access, treatment and outcomes. Equitable systems ensure that the outcomes of 
education  and  training  are  independent  of  socio-economic  background  and  other  factors  that  lead  to 
educational  disadvantage  and  that  treatment  reflects  individuals’  specific  learning  needs.  Inequity  in 
relation to gender, ethnic minority status, disability and regional disparities etc. is not the prime focus 
here, but is relevant as far as it contributes to overall socio-economic disadvantage 
Efficiency involves the relationship between inputs and outputs in a process. Systems are efficient if the 
inputs produce the maximum output. Relative efficiency within education systems is usually measured 
through test and examination results, while their efficiency in relation to wider society and the economy 
is measured through private and social rates of return. 
Staff Working Paper (SWP) (SEC (2006) 1096) 

EN 

2 

   EN 

 
                                                 
5. 

6. 

2. 

7. 

qualifications  are  at  an  increasing  risk  of  unemployment  and  social  exclusion.  In 
2004, 75 million EU citizens were low-skilled (32% of the workforce) but by 2010 
just 15% of the new jobs will be for those with only basic schooling.5  

Education and training policies can have a significant positive impact on economic 
and  social  outcomes,  including  sustainable  development  and  social  cohesion,  but 
inequities  in  education  and  training  also  have  huge  hidden  costs  which  are  rarely 
shown  in  public  accounting  systems.  In  the  US,  the  average  gross  cost  over  the 
lifetime  of  one  18-year-old  who  has  dropped  out  of  high  school  is  an  estimated 
450,000  US  dollars  (350,000  euros).  This  includes  income  tax  losses,  increased 
demand for health-care and public assistance, and the costs of higher rates of crime 
and  delinquency.6  In  the  UK  if  1%  more  of  the  working  population  had  A-levels 
rather than no qualifications, the benefit to the UK would be around £665 million per 
year through reduced crime and increased earning potential.7 

Policies  which  reduce  such  costs  can  deliver  both  equity  and  efficiency  benefits. 
Member States can maximise the real and long-term returns from their education and 
training  systems  by  considering  equity  alongside  efficiency  when  taking  decisions 
about system reform. 

PLANNING FOR EFFICIENCY AND EQUITY IN LIFELONG LEARNING STRATEGIES  

Investments  in  education  and  training  take  time  to  bear  fruit  so  when  deciding  on 
spending  priorities,  governments  should  allow  for  long-term  planning  at  local  and 
national  levels.  As  the  next  section  shows,  pre-primary  education  has  the  highest 
rates  of  return  of  the  whole  lifelong  learning  continuum,  especially  for  the  most 
disadvantaged, and the results of this investment build up over time. 

5 
6 
7 

SWP, p. 5 
SWP, pp. 13-14 
SWP, pp. 12-13 

EN 

3 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Figure 1: Returns to investment at different levels of lifelong learning 

Rate of 
return

 Children from low socio-
economic background 

Children from high socio-
economic background 

Pre-primary 
education 

Primary & 
secondary 
education 

Higher 
education 

Adult 
education 

Age

Source: Cunha et al (2006) adapted by EENEE8 

8. 

9. 

10. 

This need for long-term investment planning underlines the importance of National 
Lifelong Learning Strategies, which Member States have agreed to adopt by the end 
of  2006.  National  and  European  qualifications  frameworks  will  facilitate  the 
validation of learning in all contexts. This is important for promoting equity because 
many of the least advantaged build up key competences and skills9 in non-formal and 
informal education. Ensuring that all learning is validated and transferable in order to 
remove “dead ends” in learning pathways is both an efficiency and an equity gain.10 

A  culture  of  evaluation  is  needed  within  education  and  training  systems.  Effective 
long-term  policies  must  be  based  on  solid  evidence.  For  Member  States  to  fully 
understand and monitor what is happening in their systems, they need channels for 
producing  and  accessing  relevant  research,  a  statistical  infrastructure  capable  of 
collecting  the  necessary  data,  and  mechanisms  to  assess  progress  as  policies  are 
implemented.  

Educational  policies  alone  cannot  address  educational  disadvantage.  There  is  an 
interplay  of  personal,  social,  cultural  and  economic  factors  which  combine  to  limit 
educational opportunities. Cross-sectoral approaches are important to link education 
and  training  policies  with  those  related  to  employment,  the  economy,  social 
inclusion,  youth,  health,  justice,  housing  and  social  services.  Such  policies  should 
also be designed to correct regional imbalances in education and training.  

8 
9 

10 

European Expert Network on Economics of Education (EENEE): www.education-economics.org 
COM(2005)548, 2005/0221 (COD), “Proposal for a Recommendation of the European Parliament and 
of the Council on key competences for lifelong learning” 
SWP, pp. 15-16 

EN 

4 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Member  States  should  develop  a  culture  of  evaluation.  They  should  develop 
policies  for  the  whole  lifelong  learning  continuum  which  take  full  account  of 
efficiency and equity in combination and in the long term, and which complement 
policies in related fields.  

3. 

DELIVERING EFFICIENCY AND EQUITY IN EDUCATION AND TRAINING POLICIES  

3.1. 

Pre-primary education: Focusing on learning at an early age  

11. 

12. 

13. 

14. 

There is a substantial body of evidence that participation in high-quality pre-primary 
education has long-lasting benefits in terms of achievement and socialisation during 
individuals’ schooling and careers because it facilitates later learning.11  

European and U.S. experience shows that early intervention programmes, especially 
those targeted at disadvantaged children, can produce large positive socio-economic 
returns,  and  that  these  persist  well  into  adulthood.12  Effects  include  better  school 
achievement, grade retention, employment rates, earnings, crime prevention, family 
relationships  and  health.  However,  in  order  to  offset  disadvantage  throughout  the 
education system, pre-primary programmes need to be followed up with subsequent 
interventions, such as support for language learning and social adjustment, otherwise 
their  beneficial  effects  tend  to  decay.  Lack  of  investment  in  early  learning  leads  to 
substantially higher levels of remedial spending at later life stages, which is less cost-
effective and can be linked with increased spending on crime, health, unemployment 
and other social policies.  

A  number  of  European  countries  have  introduced  spending  policies  targeted  at 
reinforcing early education and tackling disadvantage from the earliest age (e.g. BE, 
ES,  FR,  IT,  HU).  Such  policies  are  highly  effective  in  efficiency  and  equity  terms 
and justify high priority in the allocation of public and private expenditure. 

The  type  of  early  childhood  provision  and  the  pedagogy  to  be  used  should  be 
considered carefully. Programmes focusing on learning as well as personal and social 
competences  tend  to  produce  better  outcomes  and,  consequently,  greater  knock-on 
effects  throughout  life.13  The  supply  of  specially  trained  pre-primary  teachers  will 
need  to  be  improved  in  many  countries.  Parental  engagement  is  essential  to  the 
success of pre-primary education  and,  in  the case of the disadvantaged, this can be 
encouraged through dedicated parental education and outreach programmes.  

Pre-primary  education  has  the  highest  returns  in  terms  of  the  achievement  and 
social  adaptation  of  children.  Member  States  should  invest  more  in  pre-primary 
education  as  an  effective  means  to  establish  the  basis  for  further  learning, 
preventing school drop-out, increasing equity of outcomes and overall skill levels. 

11 
12 
13 

SWP, pp. 15-16, 18 
SWP, pp. 18-19 
SWP, pp. 18-19 

EN 

5 

   EN 

 
                                                 
3.2. 

15. 

16. 

17. 

Primary and secondary education: Improving the quality of basic education for 
all 

Compulsory education and training systems should provide the basic education and 
key  competences  required  by  all  to  prosper  in  a  knowledge-based  society.  This  is 
especially  important  for  some  disadvantaged  groups  and  where  Member  States  are 
providing  for  a  large  number  of  migrants and  ethnic  minorities.  Education  systems 
with  early  ‘tracking’14  of  students  exacerbate  differences  in  educational  attainment 
due  to  social  background,  and  thereby  lead  to  even  more  inequitable  outcomes  in 
student  and  school  performance.15  Tracking  has  been  considered  effective  in  some 
Member States, where whole schools are tailored to groups of students with similar 
needs  and  levels  of  achievement.  However,  the  evidence  brings  this  into  question. 
Those European countries (e.g. DE, LI, LU, NL, AT) that track pupils at an early age 
display  greater  variation  in  pupil  achievement  than  countries  with  more  integrated 
school systems.  

Early  tracking  has  especially  negative  effects  on  the  achievement  levels  of 
disadvantaged children. This is partly because it tends to channel them towards less 
prestigious  forms  of  education  and  training.  Postponing  tracking  until  upper 
secondary level, combined with the possibility to transfer between school types, can 
reduce segregation and promote equity without diminishing efficiency.16 

Many Member States (e.g. BE-NL, CZ, IE, IT, LV, HU, PT, SK, UK)17 have sought 
to improve efficiency through decentralisation, by giving individual institutions more 
discretion  in  determining  course  content,  allocating  budgets  or  making  personnel 
decisions. The rationale is usually that knowledge of local circumstances and specific 
needs make decentralised decision-making more efficient. Accountability systems in 
the  form  of  central  exit  examinations  and  internal  evaluation  systems  exist  in  most 
European countries (e.g. DK, EE, EL, FR, IE, IT, CY, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, AT, 
PL,  PT,  SI,  FI,  UK,  LI,  NO,  RO).18  There  is  some  international  evidence  that  the 
combination  of  local  autonomy  for  institutions  and  central  accountability  systems 
can  improve  student  performance.  However,  accountability  systems  should  be 
designed  to  ensure  a  full  commitment  to  equity  and  to  avoid  the  potentially 
inequitable  local  consequences  of  decentralised  decisions,  e.g.  on  the  definition  of 
school  catchments.  Some  countries  have  built  equity  objectives  and  incentives  into 
their accountability systems, combined with follow up actions for institutions failing 
to meet the required equity standards.  

18. 

The most important factors for efficiency and equity are the quality, experience and 
motivation of teachers and the types of pedagogy they use. Working in collaboration 
with  parents  and  pupil  welfare  services,  teachers  can  play  a  key  role  in  securing 
participation of the most disadvantaged. This is particularly effective where schools 

14 

15 
16 
17 
18 

This  refers  to  the  segregation  of  children  into  separate  schools  based  on  ability  before  the  age  of  13. 
Whilst  this  need  not  necessarily  involve  a  division  into  academic/general  and  vocational  tracks,  in 
practice this tends to be the case. This definition does not include streaming, which involves tailoring 
the curriculum to different groups of children based on ability, but within the same school. 
SWP, pp. 19-20 
SWP, p. 22 
SWP, pp. 22-23 
SWP, pp. 23-24 

EN 

6 

   EN 

 
                                                 
have inclusion strategies which are continuously updated and based on pedagogical 
research.  Member  States  have  struggled  to  find  the  right  mix  of  measures  to 
encourage  experienced  and  motivated  teachers  into  the  most  challenging  schools.19 
Developing  recruitment  policies  that  ensure  high-quality  teaching  is  available  to 
disadvantaged pupils should be a priority. 

The  bulk  of  research  suggests  that  education  and  training  systems  which  track 
pupils  at  an  early  age  exacerbate  the  effect  of  socio-economic  background  on 
educational attainment and do not raise efficiency in the long run. Efficiency and 
equity  can  both  be  improved  by  focussing  on  improving  teacher  quality  and 
recruitment  procedures  in  disadvantaged  areas,  and  designing  autonomy  and 
accountability systems which avoid inequity. 

3.3. 

Higher education: Improving investment while widening participation 

19. 

20. 

21. 

Higher education is a key sector of the knowledge-based economy and society. It is 
at the heart of the ‘knowledge triangle’ of education, innovation and research. As the 
Commission’s  Communication  on  the  Modernisation  of  Universities20  makes  clear, 
the  EU  higher  education  sector  faces  numerous  challenges  and  needs  to  be 
modernised  if  it  is  to  become  more  competitive  and  promote  excellence.  One 
challenge is to create diversified systems which allow equitable participation for all, 
while  remaining  financially  viable  and  playing  their  roles  more  efficiently.  The 
Commission has already proposed that the EU should aim, within a decade, to devote 
at least 2% of GDP to all the activities of a modernised higher education21 sector in 
order to build a knowledge-based society.  

There  has  been  a  steady  growth  in  student  numbers  and  a  widening  of  the 
expectations  placed  upon  European  universities,  but  funding  levels  have  not  risen 
accordingly. At the same time, the expansion of student numbers has not increased 
equity  as  it  has  mostly  favoured  individuals  from  higher  socio-economic  groups  or 
those whose parents attended higher education.22 

A common assumption has been that a “free” system of higher education (one funded 
entirely  by  the  state)  is,  of  itself,  equitable.  In  fact,  this  assumption  has  not  been 
borne  out  by  reality,  since  the  main  determining  factor  in  participation  is  socio-
economic background. The bulk of evidence shows that there are usually significant 
private  returns  to  those  who  participate  in  higher  education,  and  that  these  are  not 
entirely  offset  by  progressive  tax  systems.  This  can  have  a  reverse  redistribution 
effect.  This  regressive  effect  is  particularly  acute  where  school  systems  exacerbate 
the  effects  of  socio-economic  background  on  educational  attainment.  In  order  to 
bring  about  a  more  equitable  balance  between  the  costs  funded  by  individuals  and 
society and the benefits accrued by each,23 and to contribute to providing universities 
with  the  extra  funding  they  need,  many  countries  are  turning  to  the  main  direct 
beneficiaries  of  higher  education,  the  students,  to  invest  in  their  own  futures  by 

19 
20 
21 
22 
23 

SWP, p. 25 
COM (2006) 208 final 
COM (2006) 208 final. See also, COM (2006) 30 & COM (2005) 152 
SWP, pp. 25-26  
The average private rate of return from higher education is close to 9% across ten OECD countries. 

EN 

7 

   EN 

 
                                                 
22. 

23. 

paying tuition fees (e.g. BE, ES, IE, NL, AT, PT, UK, LI).24 Evidence also suggests 
that  the  market  effects  of  tuition  fees  may  improve  the  quality  of  teaching  and 
management in universities, and reinforce student motivation.25  

Clearly, the development of tuition fees without accompanying financial support for 
poorer  students  risks  aggravating  inequity  in  access  to  higher  education.  The  most 
disadvantaged  are  frequently  the  most  risk  and  debt-averse,  and  are  more  likely  to 
baulk  at  spending  time  studying,  rather  than  earning,  when  private  returns  after 
graduation are not assured. This is particularly relevant where the level of tuition fees 
is  based  on  estimated  future  rates  of  return,  with  an  implicit  assumption  that  the 
economy  will  continue  to  reward  graduates  at  the  same  level  as  now.  By 
guaranteeing  bank  loans  and  offering  income-contingent  loans,  scholarships  and 
means-tested  grants,  governments  can  encourage  access  by  less  wealthy  students. 
Such schemes have already been introduced in a number of European countries (e.g. 
BE, ES, FR, IE, IT, LV, LT, NL, AT, PT, UK, LI). These are too recent to have been 
fully  studied,  but  evidence  from  Australia  and  the  U.S.  shows  that  tuition  fees 
complemented by targeted financial support increase student numbers without having 
a negative effect on equity.26  

As  a  result  of  inequities  earlier  in  the  education  cycle,  pupils  from  disadvantaged 
backgrounds often do not achieve the level of qualifications needed to access higher 
education. Even those that do are often reluctant to consider going on to university.27 
Policies  to  reinforce  efficiency  and  equity  of  school  systems  are  vital,  along  with 
action  to  change  cultural  perceptions  of  higher  education.  To  this  end,  information 
about  the  opportunities  and  advantages  afforded  by  higher  education  should  be 
targeted at school pupils, through school visits, mentoring programmes and lifelong 
guidance,  and,  crucially,  at  families  when  children  are  relatively  young.28 
Universities  should  be  encouraged  to  develop  comprehensive  outreach  and  access 
policies,  which  could  include  the  introduction  of  bridging  programmes  and 
earmarked places.  

Free  access  to  higher  education  does  not  necessarily  guarantee  equity..  To 
strengthen  both  efficiency  and  equity  Member  States  should  create  appropriate 
conditions  and  incentives  to  generate  higher  investment  from  public  and  private 
sources,  including,  where  appropriate,  through  tuition  fees  combined  with 
accompanying financial measures forthe disadvantaged. Specific actions at school 
level  are  also  needed.  Higher  education  institutions  should  offer  a  more 
differentiated range of provision and incentives to meet increasingly diverse social 
and economic needs. 

3.4. 

Vocational education and training: Improving quality and relevance  

24. 

As our population ages, the persistently high level of youth unemployment in the EU 
is an increasingly serious problem. By 2050 there will be 65% more Europeans aged 

24 
25 
26 
27 
28 

SWP, pp. 27-29 
SWP, p. 28 
SWP, p. 29 
SWP, p. 28 
SWP, p. 29 

EN 

8 

   EN 

 
                                                 
65 or more, and 20% fewer of working age (15-64 years).29 There is also increased 
demand for those with higher skills. Labour market entrants with the lowest levels of 
educational  achievement  face  the  highest  risks  of  unemployment.  While  early 
intervention  to  increase  participation  and  raise  achievement  is  the  most  efficient 
method to improve employment prospects, the transition from the world of education 
to  that  of  work  is  crucial.  Evidence  suggests  that  in  countries  with  well-developed 
systems  of  vocational  education  and  training  (VET),  participants  can  expect 
reasonable  earnings  returns.30  Removing  dead  ends  in  vocational  systems  so  that 
students  can  access  tertiary  education  is  key  to  increasing  their  attractiveness. 
Member  States  should  develop  flexible  and  clear  pathways  through  vocational 
education to further learning and employment. This should help achieve a balance of 
those  with  higher  education  and  vocational  qualifications  which  better  reflects  the 
needs of the labour market.  

Given the challenges of an ageing population, better opportunities for adult learning 
are important for both equity and efficiency, not least to re-engage the low skilled in 
learning  and  help  them  become  better  adapted  to  the  changing  labour  market. 
Employers  tend  to  provide  work-based  training  to  the  higher  skilled,  which  brings 
substantial  earnings  returns  to  the  individual  and  the  employer.31  However, 
enterprises have proven reluctant to provide training for the disadvantaged, the less 
well educated and those lacking basic skills.  

Only 10.8% of European adults participate in formal, non-formal or informal lifelong 
learning,  a  long  way  short  of  the  EU  benchmark  of  12.5%  participation  by  2010. 
Data on the previous educational attainment of those in non-formal learning (figure 
2)  show  that  people  at  the  bottom  of  the  qualifications  ladder  are  least  likely  to 
participate in further learning and so to improve their employment prospects. 

25. 

26. 

29 
30 
31 

SWP, p. 30 
SWP, p. 30 
SWP, p. 31 

EN 

9 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Figure 2: Participation of 25-64-year-olds in non-formal learning by educational attainment 
(%), 2003 

%

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

B
E

C
Z

D
K

D
E

E
E

E
L

E
S

F
R

I
E

I

T C
Y

L
V

L
T

L
U

H
U

M
T

N
L

A
T

P
L

P
T

S
I

S
K

F
I

S
E

U
K

N
O

B
G

R
O

E
U
2
5

Low educational level

M edium educational level

High educational level

■ EU 25: 6.5 % ■ EU 25: 16.4 % ■ EU 25: 30.9 %  
Source: EUROSTAT: LFS, AHM, 2003 
Target population: 25-64 years. Reference period: 12 months 

27. 

28. 

29. 

32 
33 

34 
35 

The social and cultural benefits of training are important as they provide a sense of 
social  engagement  and  can  help  adults  re-enter  the  learning  cycle.  In  equity  terms, 
the  unemployed  and  those  who  have  not  succeeded  in  the  compulsory  education 
system require access to publicly-funded adult training schemes, but the track record 
of such schemes in improving the employment prospects of disadvantaged adults has 
been generally poor.32 Two approaches can help improve this situation.  

Firstly,  successful  vocational  and  adult  training  schemes  are  often  based  on 
partnerships between business, the public sector, social partners and local third sector 
organisations.33 They focus on specific target groups and their needs. Partnerships at 
upper-secondary  level  can  also  engage  young  people  at  risk  of  dropping  out,  by 
offering  an  alternative  learning  environment.34  There  is  clearly  a  cost  involved  in 
such initiatives, but the costs of inaction and the consequent high numbers of drop-
outs are considerably greater.35  

Secondly,  training  must  be  strongly  linked  to  employers’  skills  needs.  It  should  be 
made  relevant  to  the  labour  market  by  engaging  business,  not  only  through 
partnerships,  but  also  by  increasing  the  “on-the-job”  component.  To  match  labour 
supply and demand better and to facilitate education and career choices, governments 

SWP, pp. 33-34 
The  Council 
and  Commission  have 
http://ec.europa.eu/comm/employment_social/social_dialogue/ 
SWP, pp. 34-37 
SWP, pp. 12-14 

recognised 

the 

importance  of 

social  dialogue: 

EN 

10 

   EN 

 
 
 
                                                 
should  further  develop  information  on  skills  needs  for  the  labour  market. 
Government support for industry and sector-wide training schemes has the potential 
to encourage private investment because costs for firms and workers are kept down 
through  shared  overhead  costs.36  Also,  the  risk  of  poaching  -  one  common 
disincentive  for  employer  investment  in  training  -  is  reduced.  Employers  should 
invest  in  education  and  training  to  remain  competitive  and  to  fulfil  their  corporate 
social  responsibility  to  become  ‘learning  organisations’.37  Training  schemes  related 
to  the  labour  market  have  proved  especially  effective  in  increasing  employment 
opportunities for the disadvantaged when they focus on the skill needs of the regional 
and local economy.38  

Member States should develop clear and diverse pathways through VET to further 
learning and employment. They should also improve public training programmes 
for the unemployed and for disadvantaged learners. The quality and relevance of 
such programmes can be enhanced by encouraging stakeholder partnerships at a 
regional and local level and facilitating private sector involvement. 

4. 

30. 

31. 

32. 

EUROPEAN UNION ACTION 

Member  States  clearly  have  the  main  role  in  tackling  the  challenges  set  out  in  this 
Communication.  In  addition  to  the  recommendations  addressed  to  them,  action  is 
also  necessary  at  EU  level.  Global  economic  competition  and  social  trends  have 
similar  impacts  depending  on  each  country’s  situation.  The  added  value  of  a 
European  approach  is  that  diverse  education  and  training  systems  can  benefit  from 
mutual learning and exchanges of best practice. 

The  new  Lifelong  Learning  Programme  will  support  the  mobility  of  millions  of 
individuals, giving them new skills and helping them adapt to the European labour 
market,  and  through  transnational  cooperation  it  will  strengthen  the  quality  and 
interconnectedness  of  our  education  and  training  institutions.  This  programme  will 
work  in  synergy  with  the  new  Structural  Funds  arrangements,  which  will  support 
system reforms and projects to develop education and training provision.  

Within  the  framework  of  the  revised  Lisbon  Strategy  and  the  “Education  and 
Training  2010”  Work  Programme,  the  EU  helps  Member  States  design  and 
implement  their  education  and  training  policies  by  facilitating  the  exchange  of 
information,  data  and  best  practice  through  mutual  learning  and  peer  review. 
Efficiency and equity will be a priority theme in this work and the EU will provide 
particular support to develop a culture of evaluation and to exchange best practice on 
pre-primary education. The Commission also intends to take forward work on adult 
learning, the development of a European Qualifications Framework and a European 
framework  of  statistics  and  indicators.  This  will  be  underpinned  by  research  into 
efficiency and equity funded through the seventh EU framework for R&D. 

36 
37 

38 

SWP, pp. 34-35, 37-38 
COM(2006)136,  “Implementing  the  Partnership  for  Growth  and  Jobs:  Making  Europe  a  pole  of 
excellence on Corporate Social Responsibility” 
SWP, p. 38 

EN 

11 

   EN