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 and Training 2010 work programme” {SEC(2007) 1484}
Date: 2007-11-12
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: EU programme, continuing vocational training, economic development, education policy, report, vocational training

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 

Brussels, 12.11.2007 
COM(2007) 703 final 

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” 

{SEC(2007) 1484} 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
  
 
 
1. 

INTRODUCTION 

Education and training are crucial to economic and social change. The flexibility and security 
needed  to  achieve  more  and  better  jobs  depend  on  ensuring  that  all  citizens  acquire  key 
competences  and  update  their  skills  throughout  their  lives.1  Lifelong  learning  supports 
creativity and innovation and enables full economic and social participation. 

That  is  why  the  Council  set  itself  ambitious  objectives  in  the  Education  and  Training  2010 
work programme. In turn, these support the achievement of the Lisbon guidelines for jobs and 
growth.  These  objectives  can  only  be  achieved  by  sustained  long  term  effort.  Inevitably, 
progress  will  be  uneven.  It  is  to  identify  achievements  and  to  direct  effort  to  areas  that  are 
proving  more  difficult  that  the  Council  and  the  Commission  prepare  a  joint  report  every 
second year. 

This  contribution  to  the  3rd  Joint  Report2  points  to  significant  progress  and  challenges  in 
education and training reforms. The following areas will need particular effort: 

•  Raising  skill  levels.  People  with  low  skill  levels  are  at  risk  of  economic  and  social 
exclusion.  Continued  high  levels  of  early  school  leaving,  low  participation  in  lifelong 
learning by older workers and the low-skilled, and poor skill achievement among migrants 
cause  concern  in  most  countries.  Further,  future  labour  markets  in  a  knowledge-based 
economy will demand ever higher skill levels from a shrinking work force. Low skills will 
become an ever greater challenge; 

•  Lifelong  learning  strategies.  Most  countries  have  made  progress  in  defining  unified  and 
overarching  strategies.  Within  such  frameworks,  progress  is  evident  in  pre-primary 
education,  qualification  frameworks  and  the  validation  of  non-formal  and  informal 
learning.  However,  innovative  learning  partnerships  and  sustainable  funding  for  high 
quality, efficient and equitable education and training3 still elude many countries, the more 
so  as  the  growth  of  investment  appears  to  have  slowed.  Ensuring  that  reforms  are 
effectively implemented is an important challenge to all; 

•  The  knowledge  triangle  (education,  research  and  innovation).  The  knowledge  triangle 
plays a key role in boosting jobs and growth. So it is so important to accelerate reform, to 
promote excellence in higher education and university-business partnerships and to ensure 
that  all  sectors  of  education  and  training  play  their  full  role  in  promoting  creativity  and 
innovation. 

1Commission Communication "Towards Common Principles of Flexicurity: more and better jobs trough  
flexibility and security." COM (2007) 359. 
2The report is based primarily on an analysis of national reports and of performance against a set of indicators 
and benchmarks. See Annex 2 and SEC (2007) 1284 "Progress towards the Lisbon objectives in education and 
training. Indicators and benchmarks 2007." It also draws on the results of the open method of coordination in the 
area of education and training, notably the use of EU reference tools, and peer learning supporting Member State 
reforms and on similar exchanges undertaken as part of the Copenhagen and Bologna processes. For the 1st Joint 
Report see Council doc. 6905/04 EDUC 43; for the 2nd OJ C 79 of 1.4.2006, p.1. 
3 Commission Communication "Efficiency and Equity in European education and training system" COM (2006)  
481. 

EN 

2 

   EN 

 
                                                 
2. 

PROGRESS HAS BEEN MADE IN A NUMBER OF AREAS 

Europe  has  registered  progress  in  a  number  of  areas.  This  does  not  mean  that  progress  is 
uniform or that efforts can be relaxed. The pace of reform remains a major challenge. But in 
the following areas most countries have put reforms in place or are in the process of doing so. 

2.1. 

Lifelong learning strategies and qualifications systems 

Explicit lifelong learning strategies,4 which set out national policy priorities and how different 
sectors relate to each other, were developed by the majority of countries.5 

Most of these incorporate a comprehensive vision of lifelong learning, covering all types and 
levels  of  education  and  training.  Some,  however,  focus  on  formal  education  and  training 
systems or on developing specific stages of the lifelong learning continuum. 

There  are  signs  that  the  evidence  base  of  education  and  training  policies  is  being 
strengthened.6  This  is  necessary  for  the  overall  coherence  of  systems  and  for  an  optimal 
allocation of resources. The priority given to the promotion of flexible learning pathways and 
transition between different parts of the system in some countries also strengthens coherence. 

Qualifications frameworks and validation of non-formal and informal learning 

National  qualifications  frameworks,  which  are  linked  to  the  establishment  of  the  European 
Qualifications Framework for lifelong learning,7 are being developed in most countries.8 With 
them is coming a new focus on learning outcomes. 

Systems  for  the  validation  of  non-formal  and  informal  learning  are  also  coming  into  place, 
albeit  more  slowly.9  The  challenge  is  now  to  move  from  experiment  to  full  application  in 
national qualifications systems, including access to higher education. 

In Portugal, a nationwide network of Centres for the Recognition, Validation and Certification 
of Competences (RVCC) was established in 2000. Currently nearly 58,000 adults  are going 
through the validation process. The centres provide assessment and validation of competences 
for  specific  qualifications.  The  certification  process  includes  an  examination  by  an  external 
jury and complementary training, if necessary.  

2.2. 

Pre-primary education 

The  importance  of  pre-primary  education  is  increasingly  recognised  throughout  Europe.  Its 
capacity  to  contribute  to  both  efficiency  and  equity  is  reflected  in  the  development  of  new 
approaches  and  policies.  Revision  of  teaching  content10,  capacity  building  of  teachers11, 

4 The Council agreed that Member States should have coherent and comprehensive lifelong learning strategies in  
place by 2006 (Council resolution on lifelong learning of June 2002, 2004 Joint Report and 2005 Spring 
European Council). 
5 See Annex 1. 
6 BE nl, DE, EE, EL, HU, UK. BG, CY, ES, IE, TR present it as a condition for their strategies. See also  
SEC (2007) 1098 "Towards more knowledge-based policy and practice in education and training". 
7 COM (2006) 479.  
8 See Annex 1. 
9 See Annex 1. 
10 DE, DK. 

EN 

3 

   EN 

 
                                                 
extension of  compulsory schooling to parts of  the  pre-primary  level12, quality assessments13 
and  increasing  investment,  for  example  through  increased  numbers  of  staff  in  pre-primary 
schools,14 each find their place. 

Successful pilot projects and schemes have been run in a number of countries. The challenge 
is now to move beyond pilot actions to generalised implementation, supported by investment, 
in particular in qualified staff. 

Between 2000 and 2005 participation of 4-year-olds in education increased in EU 27 by about 
3 percentage points to over 85 %. In 2005 in France, Belgium, Italy and Spain nearly all 4-
year olds (over 99%) participated in education, while participation rates were below 50% in 
Ireland, Poland and Finland.15 

2.3. 

Higher Education: a clear place in the Lisbon agenda 

The modernisation of higher education is crucial to the knowledge triangle and to the Lisbon 
strategy.  The  issues  of  governance,  funding  and  attractiveness  have  received  increased 
attention at the European and national levels. These complement the Bologna reforms. 

Solid  progress  has  been  registered  in  increasing  university  autonomy.  This  includes  greater 
financial  autonomy  and  new  accountability  mechanisms.  New  forms  of  stakeholder 
involvement are being tested, mostly as regards management of higher education institutions, 
but also in relation to curriculum development16 or the definition of learning outcomes17. 

A  compendium  on  best  practice  on  the  modernisation  of  universities  is  being  developed  by 
the higher education cluster, for policy makers and the wider public. 

2.4. 

Education and training in the broader EU policy context 

The large majority of Member States attach great importance to education, training and skills 
development  in  their  Lisbon  National  Reform  Programmes  2005-2008.  This  reflects  their 
important contribution to implementing the integrated guidelines for growth and jobs. 

Broad  progress  has  been  achieved  in  linking  operational  programmes  under  the  structural 
funds  to  the  priorities  of  the  Education  and  Training  2010  work  programme.  This  has  been 
particularly evident in addressing the agreed indicator and benchmark areas. 

Good progress has also been made in developing European reference tools to support reforms. 
During 2006 and 2007, the European Parliament and Council adopted recommendations in the 
areas of key competences, quality of mobility, quality assurance in higher education, and are 
close to agreeing on the European Qualifications Framework. 

11 CZ. 
12 CY, DK, EL, PL. 
13 ES, LT, HR, NO. 
14 AT, BE nl, CY, DE, DK, EL, ES, HU, MT, NL, PL, SE, SK, UK, HR, IS, NO. 
15 See Annex 2. 
16 CY. 
17 BG, LU, SE, TR. 

EN 

4 

   EN 

 
                                                                                                                                                         
3. 

AREAS WHERE PROGRESS REMAINS INSUFFICIENT 

3.1. 

Implementation of lifelong learning 

Implementation is still the greatest challenge for lifelong learning strategies. It needs strong 
institutional  commitment,  coordination  and  partnership  with  all  relevant  stakeholders. 
Sustained  effort  can  translate  intentions  into  policies,  which,  in  turn,  deliver  results. 
Appropriate dissemination arrangements and improved investment are vital. A lot remains to 
be done. 

Positive trends in public spending on education between 2000 and 2003 seem to have come to 
a halt in 2004. 

Total public expenditure on education as a percentage of GDP increased in the EU between 
2000  (4.7%)  and  2003  (5.2%),  but  then  decreased  to  5.1%  in  2004.  Levels  of  expenditure 
continue to show huge variations between countries (between 3.3% of GDP in Romania and 
8.5% in Denmark). Private expenditure on educational institutions as a percentage of GDP has 
increased slightly since 2000 but progress slowed down in 2004.18 

While  EU  benchmark  areas  have  found  some  reflection  in  national  targets,  still  not  all 
countries have set such targets.19 

3.2. 

Basic skills for all 

Early school leavers, upper secondary attainment and key competences continue to be major 
problem  areas.  There  has  been  some  progress  since  2000,  but  not  enough  to  reach  the  EU 
benchmarks  by  2010.  In  some  countries  performance  has  actually  worsened  between  2000 
and 2006.Several countries still had very high levels of early school leavers, above 20%, in 
2006. 

Europe  has  far  too  many  young  people  leaving  education  without  the  skills  they  need  to 
participate in the knowledge society and to move smoothly into employment.20 They face the 
risk of social exclusion. Further, they are effectively shut out of lifelong learning early in their 
lives. 

Early school  leavers: every sixth young person (15.3%) aged 18 to 24 in EU-27  still leaves 
school with no more than lower secondary education and does not participate in any kind of 
education or training after this. Progress must be faster to attain the EU benchmark of 10% by 
2010.  

In  the  case  of  upper  secondary  attainment,  there  has  been  slow  but  steady  progress.  It  has 
picked up slightly in recent years, but is not sufficient to achieve the 2010 objective (at least 
85% of 22-year-olds to complete at least upper secondary education). 

Available indicators show no progress in reducing the share of low achievers in reading.21 

18 See Annex 2. 
19 See Annex 1. 
20 Commission Communication "Promoting young people's full participation in education, employment and  
society" COM (2007) 498. 
21 See Annex 2. 

EN 

5 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Migrants  and  ethnic  minority  groups  perform  less  well  in  the  benchmark  areas  in  most 
countries.22 They need particular attention. Their integration in pre-primary education would 
improve language learning and increase their prospects for successful schooling. 

Initiatives  on  early  school 
to  be 
complemented.  Extra-curricular  activities  (such  as  in  culture  or  sports),  local  partnerships, 
better involvement of parents, addressing parents' learning needs, and improving well-being at 
school for both learners and teachers would help. 

leaving  and  socio-economic  disadvantage  need 

Learning foreign languages is not a priority in any of the national reports. 

3.3. 

Teacher education and training 

Teachers and trainers are challenged by a growing heterogeneity of classes, a demand for new 
competences,  and  the  need  to  pay  close  attention  to  individual  learning  needs.  Increasing 
school autonomy brings further tasks. 

Large  cohorts  of  older  teachers  will  have  to  be  replaced  in  the  near  future.  The  profession 
must be made more attractive.  

No  other  in-school  aspect  influences  student  performance  more  than  the  quality  of  teacher 
education.23  However,  current  systems  of  teacher  education  and  training  often  fail  to  give 
teachers  the  training  they  need.  This  is  particularly  so  for  continuing  teacher  training  and 
professional  development.  In-service  training  for  teachers  is  compulsory  in  only  eleven 
Member States. 

3.4. 

Higher education: excellence, partnership and funding 

Countries are paying more attention to strengthening the role of universities in research and 
innovation  and  university-business  partnerships  are  becoming  more  common.  While  they 
remain strongest in the Nordic countries and the UK, many countries still have much to do in 
this respect.  

Measures  to  achieve  excellence  in  higher  education  institutions  should  focus  on  education, 
research  and  knowledge  transfer  alike.  Currently,  teaching  is  addressed  less  often.  The 
proposed  European  Institute  of  Technology24  will  inspire  change  in  education  and  research 
institutions by becoming a reference model for integrating education, research and innovation.  

In Germany, the federal and state governments have launched an initiative for excellence that 
provides  an  extra  €1.9  billion  between  2006-11  to  boost  top  level  research  at  universities 
selected  on  a  competitive  basis.  The  initiative  includes  three  action  lines:  graduate  schools; 
clusters 
link  university  research,  extra-university  research  and  enterprises;  and 
comprehensive strategies for top research universities. 

to 

Increasing  investment,  including  from  private  sources,  remains  a  challenge.  Several 
governments  have  instruments  to  stimulate  private  investments  such  as  tax  incentives,25 

22 SEC (2007) 1284, p. 50, 75. 
23 Commission Communication "Improving the Quality of Teacher Education", COM (2007) 392. 
24 COM (2006) 604 final/2. 
25 ES, SE, SI, SK, TR. 

EN 

6 

   EN 

 
                                                 
public-private  partnership  or  sponsoring  schemes,26  and  some  have  introduced  or  increased 
tuition or registration fees.27 

Public spending on tertiary education institutions in the EU, including education and research, 
was  1.1%  of  GDP  for  EU-27  in  2004.  This  varied  between  0.6%  in  Malta  and  2.5%  in 
Denmark. However, total spending remains far below the level in the United States. This is 
mainly  because  the  level  of  private  funding  in  the  United  States  is  more  than  seven  times 
higher. Expenditure per tertiary student in the USA was more than twice the EU average.28  

While progress has been made in increasing the autonomy and accountability of universities, 
little evidence is available on the support provided to university staff and managers to handle 
this challenge. 

3.5. 

Adult participation in lifelong learning  

Adult  participation  in  lifelong  learning  is  no  longer  on  track  to  achieve  the  EU  benchmark. 
Greater efforts are still required to raise skill levels in the population and to achieve flexibility 
and security across the labour market.  

Progress  towards  the  EU  benchmark  (12.5%)  was  broadly  on  track  until  2005.29  In  2006, 
however,  an  average  of  9.6%  of  Europeans  aged  25-64  were  participating  in  education  and 
training activities, which is slightly less than in 2005. The overall figure hides an important 
imbalance:  adults  with  a  high  level  of  education  are  more  than  six  times  as  likely  to 
participate in lifelong learning as the low skilled. 

Low  participation  in  lifelong  learning  of  older  workers  and  the  low-skilled  is  a  particular 
problem where participation rates are already low for the overall population.30 Further, there 
is  a  particular  concentration  of  low  skills  among  migrants.  Demographic  and  labour  market 
trends  will  lead  to  increased  demand  for  high  skills  and  fewer  opportunities  for  the  low-
skilled. More attention will have to be given to training these groups.  

3.6. 

Attractiveness and relevance of vocational education and training (VET) 

Further  work  must  be  done  to  improve the quality and  attractiveness  of  VET.  This  is  a  key 
priority of the Copenhagen process.31  

Some  countries  have  established  advanced  and  comprehensive  quality  assurance  systems,32 
while others are still in a development phase.33 

The  greater  use  of  approaches  based  on  learning  outcomes  in  training  programmes  and 
qualifications is increasing the relevance of VET to the labour market. Renewed emphasis on 

26 AT, FR, HU, IE, LU, LV, UK. 
27 AT, DE, IE, NL, SI, UK, HR. 
28 SEC (2007) 1284, p. 67. 
29 Progress was broadly on track, however, only as a result of breaks in series in several countries, which 
overstated progress. See Annex 2. 
30 SEC (2007) 1284, p. 81. 
31 Conclusions of the Council on the future priorities for enhanced European cooperation on Vocational  
Education and Training. Council document 14474/06 of 30 October 2006.  
32 AT, DE, DK, FI, IE, SE, NO. 
33 BG, CZ, ES, LU, MT, SI. 

EN 

7 

   EN 

 
                                                 
apprenticeship  and  work-based  learning  is  a  further  plus.  However,  little  progress  can  be 
reported on forecasting skills and qualification needs. 

VET sometimes suffers from being poorly integrated with the rest of the education system. It 
can contribute to retaining potential drop-outs in education and training where earlier levels of 
school provide the key competences needed to enter VET. Further progress must be made in 
reducing obstacles to progression between VET and further or higher education.  

3.7. 

Transnational mobility 

There  is  good  progress  on  the  implementation  and  use  of  Europass.34  Nevertheless, 
transnational  mobility  of  learners  is  still  mainly  enabled  by  EU  programmes.  Most  national 
measures concern higher education. Mobility in the field of VET is particularly difficult.  

Mobility  is  compulsory  in  the  University  of  Luxembourg.  All  students  in  a  Bachelors 
programme must spend part of their studies abroad. 

4. 

THE WAY FORWARD 

4.1. 

Implementing lifelong learning to achieve efficiency and equity 

Important  gaps  in  the  coherence  and  comprehensiveness  of  lifelong  learning  strategies 
remain.  Implementation  is  now  the  challenge.  In  many  cases,  this  has  just  started.  The 
credibility  of  the  strategies  depends  on  linking  them  to  policy  measures.  It  depends  on  the 
capacity of the authorities to target resources. It depends on their capacity to mobilise national 
institutions and stakeholders at all levels, through learning partnerships.  

Improving the knowledge base 

Knowledge  of  the  economic  and  social  impact  of  education  and  training  policies  must  be 
strengthened.35  Concern  for  both  efficiency  and  equity  should  underpin  the  development  of 
the European and national research-base on the policy and practice of education and training. 

Peer  learning  and  exchanges  of  experiences  between  policy-makers  and  stakeholders  is  an 
important source of know-how and should be supported. Monitoring of the development and 
implementation  of  lifelong  learning  strategies  should  continue,  leading  to  an  assessment  of 
progress in the 2010 Joint Report. 

Sustainable funding 

The  level,  efficiency  and  sustainability  of  funding  remain  critical.  Many  countries  are 
experimenting with new instruments and with incentives for private investment. This includes 
targeting individuals, households and employers. These efforts must be strengthened.  

34 Decision No 2241/2004/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 December 2004, OJ L 390 of  
31.12.2004, p.6. 
35 See SEC (2007) 1098. 

EN 

8 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Raising skills levels 

Increased  investment  in  early  education  produces  the  highest  returns  to  both  efficiency  and 
equity.36
 The early acquisition of key competences is an effective means to establish the basis 
for further learning, increasing equity of outcomes and overall skills levels. Transition to the 
labour market will be made easier, skills shortages avoided.  

However, the image, status and attractiveness of VET needs to be strengthened. To facilitate 
entry  into  initial  VET,  mobility  and  return  to  the  educational  system,  flexible  and  modular 
structures should be developed. Integrated lifelong guidance systems should be available to all 
citizens. 

Addressing socio-economic disadvantage 

Education  and  training  can  contribute  to  overcoming  socio-economic  disadvantage.  But  it 
may also perpetuate it. Inequity in education and training brings huge costs. These are often 
hidden, but are no less real. Ensuring equity of access, participation, treatment and outcomes 
must therefore remain a priority.  

Using the potential of migrants 

Migration  increases  classroom  diversity,  brings  particular  needs  and  raises  problems  of 
provision. Migrant performance levels, participation and attainment rates are typically lower 
than  average.  Although  factors  such  as  socio-economic  background  and  language  go  some 
way  to  explain  this,  there  is  evidence  that  education  and  training  policies  and  systems 
themselves contribute to the problem.37 This situation requires particular attention. 

High quality teaching 

Teachers need better professional preparation and continuing development. This will improve 
education and training outcomes. Involving teachers and trainers in innovation and reform is 
also  very  important.  The  Commission  has  set  out  the  challenges.38  It  is  also  carrying  out  a 
public consultation on schools.39 The work programme offers a suitable context for addressing 
the challenges. 

4.2. 

Innovation and creativity: education as a key element of the knowledge triangle 

Education  is  fundamental  to  the  knowledge  triangle,  and  so  to  boosting  jobs  and  growth. 
Universities  are  at  the  heart  of  the  triangle.  Centres  of  excellence  which  focus  on  teaching, 
research  and  knowledge  transfer  are  vital.  Much  more  needs  to  be  done  to  enable  higher 
education and business to work in partnership. 

Research and innovation need a broad skills base in the population. Excellence, creativity and 
learning-to-learn skills must be developed in all systems and levels of education and training. 
Both  schools  and  VET  have  a  major  contribution  to  make  to  facilitating  innovation.  High-
quality VET, for example, can contribute to innovation at the workplace.  

36 COM (2006) 481, p. 5. 
37 SEC (2007) 1284, p. 51. 
38 Commission Communication "Improving the Quality of Teacher Education", COM (2007) 392. 
39 SEC (2007) 1009 "Schools for the 21st century". 

EN 

9 

   EN 

 
                                                 
4.3. 

Improved governance: making best use of the results of Education & Training 
2010 

The  work  programme  is  showing  results  at  the  European  and  the  national  level.  The 
development  of  European  reference  tools  and  the  work  of  the  clusters  and  peer  learning 
activities  inform  and  support  countries'  reforms.  Education  and  training  challenges  and  the 
development  of  human  resources  figure  prominently  in  the  Lisbon  National  Reform 
Programmes of most Member States. 

The effectiveness of the open method of coordination in education and training, its impact and 
political  ownership  can  still  be  strengthened.  Particular  attention  at  both  the  national  and 
European levels should be given to: 

•  joined-up  education  and  training  policy  in  a  lifelong  learning  perspective  with  strategic 

priorities set across the whole system; 

•  improving the interfaces with relevant policy areas, such as innovation policy, employment 

and social policy, enterprise, research and structural funding; 

•  integration  of  policy  developments  in  the  areas  of  higher  education,  VET  and  adult 

learning within the overall work programme. 

•  strong  links  between  the  implementation  and  development  of  the  Lisbon  integrated 

guidelines and of the Education and Training 2010 work programme;  

•  mutual  monitoring  of  developments  in  each  country,  moving  from  peer-learning  to  peer-

review;  

•  ensuring that the results of peer-learning activities reach policy makers and ministers; 

•  stronger participation of civil society; 

•  further development of indicators and benchmarks in line with the Council conclusions of 

May 2007. 

•  making  the  most  of  Community  funds  and  programmes,  in  particular  the  new  Lifelong 

Learning Programme 2007-2013 and the EU cohesion policy instruments. 

To ensure that the agreed priorities of the Education and Training 2010 work programme are 
fully  reflected  in  national  policy  making,  the  specific  actions  identified  in  the  2006  Joint 
Report should be pursued. 

Mechanisms  for  the  implementation  of  the  Education  and  Training  2010  work  programme, 
and  lifelong  learning  strategies,  should  be  put  in  place.  Close  coordination  is  needed  with 
those  responsible  for  broader  socio-economic  policy,  in  particular  Lisbon  reforms  and 
national strategies on social inclusion.  

National  targets  and  indicators  should  be  further  developed.  They  should  take  into  account 
European  objectives  and  benchmarks. Policy and practice should be informed by the use of 
knowledge and evaluation. The common principles, guidelines and recommendations agreed 
at the European level offer reference points for the design of national reforms. 

EN 

10 

   EN 

 
4.4. 

Preparing for post-2010 

The  Education  and  Training  2010  work  programme  provides  practical  support  for  Member 
States’  education  and  training  reforms.  Significant  progress  has  been  achieved  since  the 
programme was launched in 2002. Yet education and training reforms need time to bear fruit. 
Major challenges persist, new challenges have emerged. This work, including cooperation in 
the framework of the Bologna and Copenhagen processes, needs to be continued and indeed 
reinforced  well  beyond  2010.  Reflections  on  the  main  priorities  of  the  work  programme 
beyond 2010 should therefore start now. Given the crucial role of education and training to 
the  Strategy  for  Jobs  and  Growth,  they  must  be  closely  associated  with  the  future 
development of the Lisbon process. 

EN 

11 

   EN 

 
ANNEX 1 

Countries' situation in relation to adoption of explicit lifelong learning strategy, 
qualifications framework, validation of non-formal/informal learning and national targets in 
benchmark areas 
Y = Country has strategy, framework, validation system or national targets in place 
D = Country is developing strategy, framework, or validation system 
N = Country does not have framework, validation system or national targets 
P = Country has LLL policies in place but no explicit strategy  

Countries 
AT 
Be fr 
Be nl 
BG 
CY 
CZ 
DE 
DK 
EE 
EL 
ES 
FI 
FR 
HR 
HU 
IE 
IS 
IT 
LI 
LT 
LU 
LV 
MT 
NL 
NO 
PL 
PT 
RO 
SE 
SI 
SK  
TR 
UK 

Explicit National 
Lifelong Learning 
Strategies 
Y 
Y 
Y 
D 
D 
Y 
Y 
Y 
Y 
Y 
Y 
Y 
P 
Y 
Y 
D 
P 
P 
P 
Y 
P 
Y 
D 
P 
Y 
D 
P 
D 
Y 
D 
Y 
D 
Y 

National 
Qualification 
Frameworks 
D 
D 
D 
D 
N 
D 
D 
D 
D 
N 
D 
D 
Y 
D 
D 
Y 
N 
D 
N 
D 
D 
D 
Y 
D 
N 
N 
D 
N 
N 
D 
D 
D 
Y 

System for 
validation of non-
formal and 
informal learning 
D 
D 
Y 
N 
N 
D 
N 
Y 
N 
N 
D 
Y 
Y 
N 
N 
Y 
D 
D 
N 
D 
D 
N 
N 
Y 
Y 
D 
Y 
D 
D 
Y 
D 
N 
D 

National targets 
set in all or some 
EU benchmark 
areas 
N 
Y 
Y 
N 
N 
N 
N 
Y 
Y 
Y 
Y 
Y 
Y 
Y 
Y 
Y 
N 
N 
N 
Y 
N 
Y 
Y 
Y 
N 
Y 
Y 
Y 
N 
Y 
Y 
N 
Y 

EN 

12 

   EN 

 
ANNEX 2 

(STATISTICAL ANNEX) 

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

Based on Commission Staff Working Document 

Progress towards the Lisbon Objectives in Education and Training – Indicators and Benchmarks 
SEC (2007) 1284 

Country Codes 

EU 

BE 

BG 

CZ 

DK 

DE 

EE 

EL 

ES 

FR 

IE 

IT 

CY 

LV 

LT 

LU 

HU 

MT 

NL 

AT 

PL 

European Union 

Belgium 

Bulgaria 

Czech Republic 

Denmark 

Germany 

Estonia 

Greece 

Spain 

France 

Ireland 

Italy 

Cyprus 

Latvia 

Lithuania 

Luxembourg 

Hungary 

Malta 

Netherlands 

Austria 

Poland 

PT 

RO 

SI 

SK 

FI 

SE 

UK 

EEA 

IS 

LI 

NO 

HR 

TR 

JP  

US/USA 

Portugal 

Romania 

Slovenia 

Slovakia 

Finland 

Sweden 

United Kingdom 

European Economic Area 

Iceland 

Liechtenstein 

Norway 

Candidate Countries 

Croatia 

Turkey 

Others  

Japan 

United States of America 

EN 

13 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
OVERVIEW ON PROGRESS IN THE FIVE BENCHMARK AREAS 

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 survey methodology 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. 
* As regards upper secondary completion there has been only little progress. 
* Results for low achievers in reading have not improved (but this is based only on two reference 
years). 

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  bench-
mark.  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 participation in lifelong learning, 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. Data from the 2006 PISA survey will become available in December 2007. 

EN 

14 

   EN 

 
 
OVERVIEW ON PROGRESS IN THE FIVE BENCHMARK AREAS 

Overview on the 3 school level benchmarks 

Low achievers in 
reading 
(15 years old, %) 

2003 
19.8 
++ 
nd 
- 
++ 
++ 
nd 
0 
- 
- 
- 
- 
nd 
++ 
nd 
(++) 
++ 
nd 
(-) 
- 
++ 
++ 
nd 
nd 

Situation (latest year 
available) and 
progress achieved 
since 2000 
Reference year 
EU average 
Belgium  
Bulgaria  
Czech Republic 
Denmark 
Germany  
Estonia  
Ireland  
Greece  
Spain  
France  
Italy  
Cyprus  
Latvia  
Lithuania  
Luxembourg  
Hungary  
Malta  
Netherlands  
Austria  
Poland  
Portugal  
Romania  
Slovenia  
Slovakia  
Finland  
Sweden  
United Kingdom 
Croatia  
Turkey  
Iceland  
Norway  
Compared to 2000 
++ improving more than EU average 
+ improving, but less than EU average 
0 less than 1% change 
- getting worse 
() results not comparable or unreliable 
nd No data 

++ 
- 
nd 
nd 

- 
- 

Early school leavers

(18-24, %) 

2006 
15.3 
0 
+ 
0 
+ 
+ 
+ 
++ 
+ 
- 
+ 
++ 
++ 
+ 
++ 
- 
+ 
++ 
++ 
+ 
+ 
+ 
++ 
(++) 
- 
+ 
- 
++ 
++ 
++ 
+ 
++ 

Upper secondary 
attainment 
(20-24, %) 
2006 
77.8 
0 
++ 
0 
++ 
- 
++ 
++ 
++ 
- 
0 
++ 
++ 
++ 
++ 
- 
0 
++ 
++ 
0 
++ 
++ 
+ 
++ 
- 
- 
+ 
+ 
++ 
++ 
++ 
- 

Performance today (latest data) 

Dark/green  Above EU average 

Light/pink 

Below EU average 

white 

No data 

EN 

15 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
KEY COMPETENCES 

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

%  with 
reading skills 

low 

EU-27 
Belgium  
Bulgaria  
Czech Republic 
Denmark  
Germany  
Estonia  
Ireland  
Greece  
Spain  
France  
Italy  
Cyprus  
Latvia  
Lithuania  
Luxembourg  
Hungary  
Malta  
Netherlands  
Austria  
Poland  
Portugal  
Romania  
Slovenia  
Slovakia  
Finland  
Sweden  
United Kingdom 
Croatia  
Turkey  
Iceland  
Liechtenstein  
Norway  
Japan  
United States  
Source: OECD (PISA) 

All 

Girls 

Boys 

2000 

19.4 
19.0 
40.3 
17.5 
17.9 
22.6 
: 
11.0 
24.4 
16.3 
15.2 
18.9 
: 
30.1 
: 
(35.1) 
22.7 
: 
(9.5) 
19.3 
23.2 
26.3 
41.3 
: 
: 
7.0 
12.6 
12.8 
: 
: 
14.5 
22.1 
17.5 
10.1 
17.9 

2003 

2003 

19.8 
17.9 
: 
19.4 
16.5 
22.3 
: 
11.0 
25.2 
21.1 
17.5 
23.9 
: 
18.0 
: 
22.7 
20.5 
: 
11.5 
20.7 
16.8 
22.0 
: 
: 
24.9 
5.7 
13.3 
: 
: 
36.8 
18.5 
10.4 
18.2 
19.0 
19.4 

14.0 
13.0 
: 
14.9 
12.7 
16.3 
: 
7.7 
25.2 
21.1 
17.5 
23.9 
: 
18.0 
: 
22.7 
20.5 
: 
11.5 
13.1 
10.2 
15.1 
: 
: 
18.5 
2.4 
8.7 
: 
: 
27.8 
9.5 
8.0 
11.3 
15.1 
14.4 

2003 
25.6 
22.4 
: 
23.5 
20.5 
28.0 
: 
14.3 
32.6 
27.9 
23.5 
31.0 
: 
25.0 
: 
28.6 
25.6 
: 
14.3 
28.2 
23.4 
29.4 
: 
: 
31.0 
9.0 
17.7 
: 
: 
44.1 
26.9 
12.6 
24.8 
23.2 
24.3 

16 

EN 

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  at  EU  level  since  2000  (2003:  19.8%). 
However,  there  are  currently  only  two  data  points 
and the latest data refer to 2003 (data from the 2006 
PISA  survey  round  will  become  available  in 
December 2007). 

Additional notes:  

EU figure: weighted average based on number of pupils enrolled and data 
for 16 countries (NL and LU not representative in 2000, hence their results 
have  been  put  in  brackets,  UK  not  representative  in  2003;  SK  did  not 
participate in 2000). 

   EN 

 
 
EARLY SCHOOL LEAVERS 

Share of the population aged 18-24 with only lower-secondary education  
and not in education or training, 2000-2006 

In  2006  early  school  leavers  in  the  EU  27  represented 
about 15% of young people aged 18-24. There has been 
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%. 

Additional notes:  

BG, PL, SI: 2001 instead of 2000 results,  
CZ, IE, LV, SK, HR 2002 instead of 2000 results 
EE: 2005 instead of 2006 results for females 

Early 
leavers, % 

school 

All 

Females 

Males 

2000 

2006 

2006 

EU-27 
Belgium  
Bulgaria  
Czech Republic 
Denmark  
Germany  
Estonia  
Ireland  
Greece  
Spain  
France  
Italy  
Cyprus  
Latvia  
Lithuania  
Luxembourg  
Hungary  
Malta  
Netherlands  
Austria  
Poland  
Portugal  
Romania  
Slovenia  
Slovakia  
Finland  
Sweden  
United Kingdom 
Croatia  
Turkey  
Iceland  
Liechtenstein  
Norway  
Source: Eurostat (LFS spring data) 
(u) Unreliable or uncertain data 
(p) provisional value 

17.6 
12.5 
20.3 
5.5 
11.6 
14.9 
14.2 
14.7 
18.2 
29.1 
13.3 
25.3 
18.5 
19.5 
16.7 
16.8 
13.8 
54.2 
15.5 
10.2 
7.9 
42.6 
22.3 
7.5 
5.6 
8.9 
7.7 
18.4 
8.3 
58.8 
29.8 
: 
13.3 

15.3 
12.6 
18.0 
5.5 
10.9 
13.8 
13.2 
12.3 
15.9 
29.9 
13.1 
20.8 
16.0 
19.0 (p) 
10.3 
17.4 
12.4 
41.7 
12.9 
9.6 
5.6 
39.2 (p) 
19.0 
5.2 (u) 
6.4 
8.3 (p) 
12.0 
13.0 
5.3 (u) 
50.0 
26.3 (p) 
: 
5.9 

13.2 
10.2 
17.9 
5.4 
9.1 
13.6 
10.7 (u) 
9.0 
11.0 
23.8 
11.2 
17.3 
9.2 
16.1 (p) 
7.0 (u) 
14.0 
10.7 
38.8 
10.7 
9.8 
3.8 
31.8(p) 
18.9 
3.3(u) 
5.5 
6.4(p) 
10.7 
11.4 
5.3(u) 
42.7 
22.0(p) 
: 
4.3 

2006 
17.5 
14.9 
18.2 
5.7 
12.8 
13.9 
19.6 (u) 
15.6 
20.7 
35.8 
15.1 
24.3 
23.5 
21.6 (p) 
13.3 (u) 
20.9 
14.0 
44.6 
15.1 
9.3 
7.2 
46.4(p) 
19.1 
6.9(u) 
7.3 
10.4(p) 
13.3 
14.6 
5.3 (u) 
56.6 
30.5(p) 
: 
7.4 

EN 

17 

   EN 

 
 
COMPLETION OF UPPER SECONDARY EDUCATION BY YOUNG PEOPLE 

Percentage of the population aged 20-24 having completed 
at least upper-secondary education, 2000-2006 

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 four of them, the Czech Republic, Poland, Slovenia 
and  Slovakia,  and  in  addition  Norway  and  Croatia, 
already have shares of 90% and above. 

Additional notes: 

CY: Pupils usually living in the country but studying abroad are not yet covered 
by the survey. Hence results for CY are understated. 
Since  the  5  December  2005  release,  Eurostat  has  been  applying  a  refined 
definition  of  the  “upper  secondary”  educational  attainment  level  in  order  to 
improve  the  comparability  of  results  in  the  EU.  For  the  1998  data  onwards 
ISCED  level  3c  programmes  shorter  than  two  years  no  longer  fall  under  the 
“upper secondary” level but come under “lower secondary”. This change implies 
revision of the results in DK (from 2001), ES, CY and IS. However, the definition 
cannot yet be implemented in EL, IE and AT, where all ISCED 3c levels are still 
included.

Upper 
secondary att. 

All 

Females 

Males 

2000 

2006 

2006 

EU-27 
Belgium  
Bulgaria  
Czech Republic 
Denmark  
Germany  
Estonia  
Ireland  
Greece  
Spain  
France  
Italy  
Cyprus  
Latvia  
Lithuania  
Luxembourg  
Hungary  
Malta  
Netherlands  
Austria  
Poland  
Portugal  
Romania  
Slovenia  
Slovakia  
Finland  
Sweden  
United Kingdom 
Croatia  
Turkey  
Iceland  
Liechtenstein  
Norway  
Source: Eurostat (LFS) 
(p) provisional value 
HR: 2002 instead of 2002, 2005 instead of 2006 

77.8 
82.4 
80.5 (p) 
91.8 
77.4 
71.6 
82.0 
85.4 
81.0 (p) 
61.6 
82.1 
75.5 (p) 
83.7 (p) 
81.0 
88.2 
69.3 
82.9 
50.4 (p) 
74.7 
85.8 
91.7 
49.6 
77.2 (p) 
89.4 
91.5 
84.7 (p) 
86.5 
78.8 
93.8 
44.7 
50.8(p) 
: 
93.3 (p) 

76.6 
81.7  
75.2 
91.2 
72.0 
74.7 
79.0 
82.6 
79.2 
66.0 
81.6 
69.4 
79.0 
76.5 
78.9 
77.5 
83.5 
40.9 
71.9 
85.1 
88.8 
43.2 
76.1 
88.0 
94.8 
87.7 
85.2 
76.6 
90.6 
38.6 
46.1 
: 
95.0 

80.7 
85.6 
81.1(p) 
92.4 
81.5 
73.5 
89.8 
89.1 
86.6(p) 
69.0 
84.3 
79.4(p) 
90.7(p) 
86.2 
91.2 
74.5 
84.7 
52.8(p) 
79.6 
86.7 
93.8 
58.6 
77.8(p) 
91.4 
91.7 
87.0(p) 
88.6 
80.3 
94.9 
51.7 
57.7(p) 
: 
95.4 (p) 

2006 
74.8 
79.1 
80.0 (p) 
91.1 
73.4 
69.8 
74.1 
81.8 
75.5 (p) 
54.6 
80.0 
71.7 (p) 
76.1(p) 
75.9 
85.3 
64.0 
81.2 
48.1 (p) 
69.9 
84.9 
89.6 
40.8 
76.6 (p) 
87.7 
91.2 
82.3 (p) 
84.5 
77.3 
92.8 
38.9 
44.5 (p) 
: 
91.2 (p) 

EN 

18 

   EN 

 
 
 
GRADUATES IN MATHEMATICS, SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY (MST) 

Growth of tertiary graduates from mathematics, science and technology fields in %, 
Average annual growth rate 2000-2005 

EU-27 
Belgium  
Bulgaria  
Czech Rep. 
Denmark  
Germany  
Estonia  
Ireland  
Greece  
Spain  
France  
Italy  
Cyprus  
Latvia  
Lithuania  
Luxembourg  
Hungary  
Malta  
Netherlands  
Austria  
Poland  
Portugal  
Romania  
Slovenia  
Slovakia  
Finland  
Sweden  
United King. 
Croatia  
Turkey  
Iceland  
Liechtenst. 
Norway  
Japan  
USA 
Source: Eurostat (UOE) and calculations based on Eurostat data 

Share of 
female 
graduates, % 
2000 
30.8 
25.0 
45.6 
27.0 
28.5 
21.6 
35.4 
37.9 
: 
31.5 
30.8 
36.6 
31.0 
31.4 
35.9 
: 
22.6 
26.3 
17.6 
19.9 
35.9 
41.9 
35.1 
22.8 
30.1 
27.3 
32.1 
32.1 
: 
31.1 
37.9 
: 
26.8 
12.9 
31.8 

Graduates 
per 1000 
aged 20-29 
2005 
13.1 
10.9 
8.6 
8.2 
14.7 
9.7 
12.1 
24.5 
10.1 
11.8 
22.5 
13.3 
3.6 
9.8 
18.9 
: 
5.1 
3.4 
8.6 
9.8 
11.1 
12.0 
10.3 
9.8 
10.2 
17.7 
14.4 
18.4 
5.7 
5.7 
10.1 
12.7 
9.0 
13.7 
10.6 

Average 
Growth  
per year 
2000-05 
4.7 
1.8 
3.8 
7.1 
2.1 
3.1 
: 
3.0 
: 
3.8 
3.0 
11.3 
4.7 
6.2 
6.6 
: 
1.8 
2.1 
6.3 
6.1 
12.1 
13.1 
6.7 
2.0 
14.7 
3.1 
5.1 
-0.1 
1.5 
6.0 
4.1 
: 
1.0 
-1.1 
3.1 

2005 
31.2 
27.3 
41.1 
27.4 
33.9 
24.4 
43.5 
30.5 
40.9 
29.6 
28.4 
37.1 
38.1 
32.8 
35.2 
: 
30.0 
30.1 
20.3 
23.3 
36.6 
39.9 
40.0 
26.2 
35.3 
29.7 
33.8 
30.8 
32.7 
28.5 
37.2 
28.6 
26.0 
14.7 
31.1 

The  number  of  mathematics,  science  and  technology 
(MST)  graduates  in  EU  27  has  increased  since  2000  by 
over  170,000  or  by  more  about  25%.  The  EU  has  thus 
already achieved the benchmark of increasing the number 
of  MST  graduates  by  15%  by  2010.  More  limited 
progress has been achieved as regards the second goal of 
reducing the gender imbalance. The share of female MST 
graduates has increased from 30.8% in 2000 to 31.2% in 
2005.  While  Slovakia,  Portugal  and  Poland  showed  the 
strongest annual growth in the number of MST graduates 
(> 12%), Bulgaria, Estonia, Greece and Romania perform 
best as regards gender balance. 

Additional notes:  

For countries with breaks in series growth rates were calculated for years without 
breaks.  PL:  Growth  based  on  2001-2005,  RO:  growth  based  on  2000-2002  and 
2003-2005. HR: growth 2003-2005, SE: growth 2000-2003, HU: growth 2000-2003 
BE:  Data  for  the  Flemish  community  exclude  second  qualifications  in  non-
university tertiary education; the data also exclude independent private institutions 
(although the number is small) and the German-speaking community. 
EE: 2000 data exclude Master’s degrees (ISCED level 5A). 
IT: 2005 result estimated by the Commission. 
CY:  Data  exclude  tertiary  students  graduating  abroad.  Over  half  of  the  total 
number of Cypriot  tertiary students study abroad. The fields of study available in 
Cyprus are limited.  
LU:  Luxembourg  has  no  complete  university  system,  most  MST  students  study 
and graduate abroad.  
AT: 2000: ISCED level 5B refers to the previous year. HU: 2004: Changes in data 
collection on graduates by fields led to breaks in the time series.  
PL: Data for 2000 exclude advanced research programmes (ISCED level 6).  
RO:  2000-2002  data  exclude  second  qualifications  and  advanced  research 
programmes (ISCED level 6). There is therefore a break in the series in 2003  
SE: 2004: Changes in data collection on graduates by fields led to breaks in the 
time series.  
UK: National data used for 2000.  
LI: 2003-2004 data exclude tertiary students graduating abroad. 

EN 

19 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
PARTICIPATION IN LIFELONG LEARNING 

Percentage of population aged 25-64 participating in education and training 
in the four weeks prior to the survey, 2000-2006 

The  percentage  of  the  working  age  population  who 
participated  in  education  and  training  (in  the  4  weeks 
prior  to  the  survey)  amounted  to  9.6  %  in  2006.  Since 
breaks in time series overstate progress, the real increase 
was  limited.  Additional  efforts  are  needed  to  reach  the 
benchmark  of  a  12.5%  participation  rate  in  20101.The 
Nordic countries, the UK, Slovenia and the Netherlands 
currently show the highest participation rates. 

1Data  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). 

Additional notes: 

Due to introduction of harmonised concepts and definitions in the survey, breaks 
in time series were noted in several countries for different years (between 2000 
and 2006) 
BG, PL, SI: 2001 instead of 2000  
CZ, IE, LV, SK, HR: 2002 instead of 2000 
SE, HR, IS: 2005 instead of 2006

LLL 
participation, % 

All 

Females 

Males 

Source: Eurostat 

2000 

2006 

2006 

2006 

EU-27 

Belgium  

Bulgaria  

Czech Republic 

Denmark  

Germany  

Estonia  

Ireland  

Greece  

Spain  

France  

Italy  

Cyprus  

Latvia  

Lithuania  

Luxembourg  

Hungary  

Malta  

7.1 

6.2 

1.4 

5.6 

19.4 

5.2 

6.5 

5.5 

1.0 

4.1 

2.8 

4.8 

3.1 

7.3 

2.8 

4.8 

2.9 

4.5 

Netherlands  

15.5 

Austria  

Poland  

Portugal  

Romania  

Slovenia  

Slovakia  

Finland  

Sweden  

United Kingd. 

Croatia  

Turkey  

Iceland  

Norway  

8.3 

4.3 

3.4 

0.9 

7.3 

8.5 

17.5 

21.6 

20.5 

1.9 

1.0 

23.5 

13.3 

9.6 

10.4 

8.8 

7.5(p) 

7.6 (p) 

7.4 (p) 

1.3 

5.6 

29.2 

7.5 

6.5 

7.5 

1.9 

1.3 

5.9 

33.8 

7.3 

8.6 

8.9 

1.8 

10.4 

11.5 

7.5 

6.1 

7.1 

7.8 

6.5 

7.8 

1.3 

5.4 

24.6 

7.8 

4.2 (u) 

6.1 

2.0 

9.3 

7.2 

5.7 

6.5 

6.9(p) 

4.9(p) 

9.3 (p) 

6.6 (p) 

4.1 (p) 

2.9 (u) 

8.2 

3.8 

5.5 

15.6 

13.1 

4.7 

8.7 

4.4 

5.6 

15.9 

14.0 

5.1 

7.6 

3.1 

5.5 

15.3 

12.2 

4.3 

3.8(p) 

4.0 (p) 

3.7 (p) 

1.3 

15.0 

4.3 

23.1 

32.1 

26.6 

2.1 

2.0 

25.7 

18.7 

1.3 

16.3 

4.6 

27.0 

36.5 

31.2 (p) 

2.1 

2.4 

29.8 

20.2 

1.3 

13.8 

4.0 

19.3 

27.9 

31.2 

2.0 

1.6 

21.6 

17.2 

Source:  Eurostat  (LFS),  P=  provisional,  U=  unreliable  or  uncertain 
data 

EN 

20 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
PARTICIPATION IN PRE-PRIMARY EDUCATION 

Participation rates of 4-year-olds in education, 2000-2005 

Between  2000  and  2005  participation  of  4  year  olds  in 
education  (mostly  in  pre-primary,  in  some  countries  already 
in primary) increased in EU 27 by about 3 percentage points 
to  reach  over  85  %.  In  2005  in  France,  Belgium,  Italy  and 
Spain  nearly  all  4-year  olds  (over  99%)  participated  in 
education,  while  participation  rates  were  below  50%  in 
Ireland, Poland and Finland. 

Additional notes: 

Data include participation in both pre-primary and primary education.  
BE: Data exclude independent private institutions, but these are attended by only a very 
limited number of children. Data from the German-speaking community are missing. 
IE: There is no official provision of ISCED level 0 education. Many children attend some 
form of ISCED level 0 education, but for the most part data are missing. 
NL: In 2002 the reference date for collecting these data was changed from 31 December 
to 1 October. 

Participation  
in % of 4 y olds 

EU-27 

Belgium  

Bulgaria  

Czech Republic 

Denmark  

Germany  

Estonia  

Ireland  

Greece  

Spain  

France  

Italy  

Cyprus  

Latvia  

Lithuania  

Luxembourg  

Hungary  

Malta  

Netherlands  

Austria  

Poland  

Portugal  

Romania  

Slovenia  

Slovakia  

Finland  

Sweden  

United Kingdom 

Croatia  

Turkey  

Iceland  

Liechtenstein 

Norway  

Japan 

USA 

Source: Eurostat (UOE) 

2000 

2004 

2005 

82.8 

99.2 

67.0 

81.0 

90.6 

81.4 

78.2 

51.1 

53.9 

99.0 

100 

100 

55.7 

60.6 

51.0 

94.9 

89.5 

100 

99.5 

79.5 

33.3 

72.3 

60.3 

67.7 

: 

41.9 

72.8 

100 

: 

: 

90.9 

: 

78.1 

94.9 

61.7 

84.6 

99.9 

72.6 

91.2 

93.4 

84.3 

83.9 

46.6 

57.2 

100 

100 

100 

61.2 

69.1 

54.5 

83.5 

92.3 

97.5 

74.0 

82.1 

35.7 

79.9 

75.2 

77.8 

71.7 

46.1 

87.7 

92.9 

42.4 

3.4 

95.1 

52.2 

86.9 

95.2 

64.1 

85.7 

100 

73.2 

91.4 

93.5 

84.6 

84.2 

45.4 

57.8 

99.3 

100 

100 

61.4 

72.2 

56.8 

96.3 

90.7 

94.4 

73.4 

82.5 

38.1 

84.0 

76.2 

75.9 

74.0 

46.7 

88.9 

91.8 

44.7 

5.0 

95.3 

50.6 

88.9 

94.7 

65.3 

EN 

21 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT OF THE ADULT POPULATION 

Adult population (25- to 64-year-olds) with tertiary attainment 

In 2006 23% of the working age population of the EU had attained 
tertiary  education,  an  increase  of  more  than  3  percentage  point 
compared to 2000. Finland, Denmark and Estonia were the countries with 
the  highest  share  of  population  with  tertiary  attainment,  while  some 
Member  States  still  had  shares  of  less  than  15%.  However,  in  some  of 
these countries tertiary enrolment has expanded considerably in the recent 
past.  

Additional notes 

Tertiary includes ISCED levels 5 and 6.  
LT: 2001 results instead of 2000 
HR: 2002 results instead of 2000 

%  of  adults 
attainment 

(25-64)  with 

tertiary 

2000 

2006 

EU-27 
Belgium 
Bulgaria 
Czech Rep 
Denmark 
Germany 
Estonia 
Ireland 
Greece 
Spain 
France 
Italy 
Cyprus 
Latvia 
Lithuania 
Luxembourg 
Hungary 
Malta 
Netherlands 
Austria 
Poland 
Portugal 
Romania 
Slovenia 
Slovakia 
Finland 
Sweden 
UK 
Croatia 
Iceland 
Norway 
Source: Eurostat (LFS) 

19.4 
27.1 
18.4 
11.5 
25.8 
23.8 
28.9 
21.6 
16.9 
22.5 
21.6 
9.6 
25.1 
18.0 
22.4 
18.3 
14.0 
5.4 
24.1 
14.2 
11.4 
9.0 
9.2 
15.7 
10.2 
32.6 
29.7 
28.1 
15.4 
23.7 
31.6 

22.9 
31.8 
21.9 
13.5 
34.7 
23.9 
33.3 
30.8 
21.5 
29.9 
25.5p 
12.9 
30.5 
21.1 
26.8 
24.0 
17.7 
12.0 
39.5 
17.6 
17.9 
13.5 
11.7 
21.4 
14.5 
35.1 
30.5 
30.7 
16.3 
29.5 
33.6 

EN 

22 

   EN 

 
 
 
INVESTMENT IN HUMAN RESOURCES 

Total public expenditure on education as a percentage of GDP, 2000-2004 

Between  2000  and  2003,  public  spending  on  education  as  a 
percentage  of  GDP  increased  considerably  in  EU  Member 
States. However, in 2004, the upward trend stopped and there 
was  a  slight  decline  compared  to  the  year  before.  However, 
as a result of GDP growth in absolute terms public education 
spending  still  increased.  The  available  data  show  strong 
differences in spending levels between countries. 

Additional notes:  

Data covers formal education including formal adult education 
'Private' refers to expenditure on educational institutions from private sources  
DK: Expenditure on post-secondary non-tertiary levels of education not available. 
EL, LU, PT: Imputed retirement expenditure not available. 
CY: Including financial aid to students studying abroad. 
PL, SK, NO: Including child care expenditure at pre-primary level. 
FR: Without French Overseas Departments. 
HR: Expenditure on educational institutions from public sources. 
LU: Expenditure at tertiary level 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. 
US: Expenditure on educational institutions from public sources 

Education  spen-
ding, % of GDP 

EU-27 

Belgium  

Bulgaria  

Czech Republic 

Denmark 

Germany  

Estonia  

Ireland  

Greece  

Spain  

France  

Italy  

Cyprus  

Latvia  

Lithuania  

Luxembourg  

Hungary  

Malta  

Netherlands  

Austria  

Poland  

Portugal  

Romania  

Slovenia  

Slovakia  

Finland  

Sweden  

United Kingdom 

Croatia  
Turkey  

Iceland  

Norway  

Japan  

United States  

Public 

2000 

2003 

2004 

4.68 

5.17 

5.09 

: 

4.19 

4.04 

8.28 

4.45 

5.57 

4.29 

3.71 

4.28 

5.83 

4.47 

5.44 

5.64 

5.63 

: 

4.50 

4.52 

4.86 

5.66 

4.87 

5.42 

2.88 

: 

4.15 

6.08 

7.31 

4.64 

: 
3.48 

5.93 

6.81 

3.82 

4.94 

6.06 

4.24 

4.51 

8.33 

4.71 

5.43 

4.41 

3.94 

4.28 

5.88 

4.74 

7.30 

5.32 

5.18 

3.80 

5.85 

4.78 

5.12 

5.50 

5.62 

5.61 

3.44 

6.02 

4.34 

6.41 

7.47 

5.38 

4.53 
3.74 

7.81 

7.62 

3.70 

5.43 

5.99 

4.57 

4.42 

8.47 

4.60 

5.09 

4.75 

4.22 

4.25 

5.81 

4.59 

6.71 

5.08 

5.20 

3.93 

5.43 

4.99 

5.18 

5.45 

5.41 

5.31 

3.29 

5.96 

4.21 

6.43 

7.35 

5.29 

4.50 
: 

7.59 

7.58 

3.65 

5.12 

Private 
2004 

0.64 

0.34 

0.65 

0.61 

0.32 

0.91 

: 

0.32 

0.20 

0.61 

0.54 

0.46 

1.17 

0.82 

0.48 

: 

0.52 

0.46 

0.50 

0.39 

0.59 

0.13 

: 

0.86 

0.76 

0.13 

0.20 

0.95 

: 
: 

0.75 

0.05 

1.23 

2.37 

Source: Eurostat (UOE). EU level results represent  
Commission  estimates.  2000  result  estimate  by  DG 
Education and Culture. 

EN 

23 

   EN