Commission staff working document accompanying the communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions - Improving competences for the 21st century: an Agenda for European Cooperation on Schools {COM(2008) 425 final}
Date: 2008-07-03
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: continuing vocational training, education policy, educational system, teacher training, teaching quality, vocational training

EN 

EN 

   EN 

 
COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 

Brussels, 3.7.2008 
SEC(2008) 2177 

COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 

accompanying the 

COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN 
PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL 
COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS 

Improving competences for the 21st Century:  
An Agenda for European Cooperation on Schools 

{COM(2008) 425 final} 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
  
 
 
INTRODUCTION  

This  staff  working  document  complements  the  Communication  ‘Competences  for  the  21st 
Century: An Agenda for European Cooperation on Schools’ (COM(2008)425). It presents (a) 
a summary of the results of the public consultation, as well as (b) the theoretical and empirical 
evidence underlying the Communication.  

A. 

1. 

RESULTS OF THE PUBLIC CONSULTATION ON SCHOOLS 

Introduction 

In July 2007, the European Commission launched a public consultation entitled "Schools for 
the  21st  Century"1,  largely  based  on  evidence  collected  through  its  previous  work  under  the 
Open  Method  of  Coordination,  as  well  as  on  the most  up-to-date  research  in  this  field.  The 
consultation was open for five months until 15th December 2007. 

The public consultation was designed to involve stakeholders in present and future European 
debates concerning school education; however, it did not present a proposed policy on which 
views were sought. On the contrary, it sought to involve  participants in the development of 
future  cooperation  work  by  seeking  their  views  on  some  important  aspects  of  school 
education and on future challenges and possible solutions. Opinions were sought in particular 
on what the added value of European cooperation could be in addressing common challenges, 
while respecting the principle of subsidiarity and Member State competences. 

Because of the very nature of the subject – school education being very close to the daily life 
of  citizens  across  the  Union  –  a  public  consultation  on  schools  could  not  limit  itself  to  the 
formal stakeholder organisations in this field, at European or at national level. It needed also 
to be open to individuals – teachers, pupils, parents or simply citizens with an interest in this 
aspect  of  our  societies.  Decision-makers  at  national,  regional  or  local  level  were  of  course 
also addressed by the consultation. 

to 

teacher 

individual 

The final result was a significantly varied collection of responses, ranging from the insight of 
the 
the  reform  plans  of  national  policy-makers.  However, 
notwithstanding  the  fact  that  some  major  trends  emerged  from  the  public  consultation,  it 
should  be  underlined  that  these  results  cannot  be  extrapolated  to  European  societies  as  a 
whole  nor  do  they  have  the  scientific  validity  of  research  conducted  under  strict 
methodological conditions. There are three reasons for this, namely that the consultation did 
not  intend  to  function  as  an  opinion  poll  on  this  subject;  the  significant  differences  in 
participation figures across countries2; and the fact that the degree of representation of each 
response varies enormously.3 

1 
2 

3 

SEC(2007)1009. 
Although responses were received from all 27 Member States, two of them alone account for half the 
number of responses received, namely Italy (27% of the responses) and Slovenia (23%). 
While some responses only represent the individual who signs them (e.g. a single student, teacher or 
parent), others are themselves the result of large consultations conducted at the level of national or 
European-level organisations. 

EN 

2 

   EN 

                                                 
The European Commission has published separately a report containing a detailed analysis of 
the public consultation contributions taken as a whole. The individual responses submitted to 
the  consultation,  which  have  also  been  published  separately  whenever  their  authors  have 
given  their  consent,  constitute  a  stimulating  collection  of  views  on  our  school  education 
systems of much individual interest4. 

2. 

Main results of the public consultation 

482  valid  responses  were  received,  coming  from  all  Member  States  of  the  European  Union 
(plus Norway), though their geographical spread was very uneven. In relation to the type of 
respondents,  schools  and  teachers  accounted  for  36.9%  of  all  the  responses,  while  27.4% 
came from individual students. Other individuals (11.6%) and national organisations (11.4%) 
were  also  active  in  the  consultation.  Public  authorities  (Ministries  of  Education  of  the 
Member  States  and  local  and  regional  authorities)  accounted  for  7.3%  of  the  answers,  and 
European level associations for 5%.  

The following section summarises the main trends emerging from the consultation, question 
by question. 

2.1. 

Key competences for all 

How can schools be organised in such a way as to provide all students with the full range of 
key competences? 

The main basis for this question was the Recommendation of the European Parliament and the 
Council on key competences for lifelong learning5. The contents of this Recommendation are 
summarised on pages 12-13 below.  

There  was  an  overall  consensus  among  all  groups  of  respondents  that  school  curricula  and 
teaching methodologies need to enable students to develop their own learning competences in 
a  more  flexible  learning  environment.  In  general  there  was  strong  support  for  the 
reinforcement  of  transversal  competences  at  schools.  Many  responses  stressing  the  need  for 
schools  to  develop  independence  and  autonomy  among  pupils,  as  well  as  responsibility  for 
their own learning. The development of creativity and intercultural skills by schools was also 
strongly supported. 

On the practical ways to transmit the key competences, the responses put forward a variety of 
proposals, which mostly emphasise the importance of active teaching methodologies and of a 
cross-curricular approach to supplement subject-based learning, and which sets aside time and 
space for students and teachers in order better to address complex issues.  

2.2. 

Lifelong learning 

How can schools equip young people with the competences and motivation to make learning a 
lifelong activity? 

4 
5 

http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/education_culture/consult/index_en.html 
Recommendation 2006/962/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 on 
key competences for lifelong learning. OJ L L394 of 30.12.2006, p. 10. 

EN 

3 

   EN 

                                                 
It is widely accepted that one of the key tasks of our school systems is to prepare students for 
future participation in lifelong learning. While answers to the previous question focused very 
much on the acquisition of the necessary competences for that purpose, most of the answers to 
question 2 focused on fostering positive attitudes towards and motivation for learning. 

There was a clear emphasis on the need to motivate young people to learn and to involve them 
in  the  learning  process.  Student  motivation,  responsibility  and  autonomy,  together  with  a 
learner-oriented  approach,  were  seen  as  the  main  preconditions  for  the  development  of 
successful lifelong learning strategies. The ways proposed to achieve these goals were again 
diverse depending on the group of respondents. While students showed relatively high interest 
and support for student autonomy and learner oriented approaches, many schools and national 
level organisations stressed the need for teachers to be able to work autonomously in order to 
develop the pedagogic strategies that work best for them. 

2.3. 

The Economy 

How can school systems contribute to supporting long-term sustainable economic growth in 
Europe? 

Overall this was the question that showed the lowest degree of response, with most answers 
coming from national authorities and European level organisations. This fact, and the fact that 
many respondents took issue with what they perceived as an excessive economic focus of the 
consultation  document,  is  in  itself  interesting:  it  suggests  some  discontinuity  between  the 
world of the school and the world of the economy. 

The  respondents,  however,  also  emphasised  the  value  of  cooperation  between  business  and 
schools,  which  could  be  enhanced  through  the  development  of  exchanges.  Better  career 
guidance and the development of labour market competences by schools were also identified 
as areas for improvement. These competences, however, were not necessarily understood as 
narrow  technical  skills,  but  rather  as  broad  competences  –  social  competences,  learning  to 
learn, team work, etc – which should make students more employable in the future.  

2.4 

Equity 

How  can  school  systems  best  respond  to  the  need  to  promote  equity,  to  respond  to  cultural 
diversity and to reduce early school leaving? 

The high level of interest in this question this could be interpreted as a result in itself – there is 
a broad consensus that what happens in schools is important for equity in our societies.  

The strong support for measures for students with some form of disadvantage is indeed one of 
the  main  conclusions  of  the  consultation.  In  general  terms  there  was  wide  support  for  the 
concept  of  schools  that  accommodate  students  of  different  backgrounds,  and  responses  by 
authorities  and  associations  showed  a  significant 
the  development  of 
comprehensive policy frameworks in this respect, e.g. anti-discrimination or reinforcement of 
the mixity of students. The provision of out-of-school placements, mentors or second-chance 
schools were also often mentioned as ways to tackle early school leaving. 

interest 

in 

More and better early learning opportunities, on the other hand, were perceived as one of the 
most effective ways  to  improve the  equity of  the  overall  system  by  many  respondents  from 
European and national associations, as well as public authorities. 

EN 

4 

   EN 

2.5. 

Inclusion 

If  schools  are  to  respond  to  each  pupil's  individual  learning  needs,  what  can  be  done  as 
regards curricula, school organisation and the roles of teachers? 

More  flexibility  in  the  curriculum,  allowing  for  it  to  be  tailored  to  the  individual  pupil's 
specific  needs,  and  more  support from teachers or  ancillary staff –  who should increasingly 
act as 'coaches' or 'mentors' – were some of the key topics raised under this question. There 
was  also  considerable  interest  in  identifying  gifted  pupils  and  making  special  provision  for 
them,  though  strategies  were  not  precisely  defined.  Moving  away  from  a  purely  age-based 
curriculum  to  one  more  closely  linked  to  the  development  of  intellectual  abilities  was 
supported by some educational organisations. Assessment was raised as a further element that 
needs to be reconsidered in the light of the need to respond to individual learning needs. 

2.6. 

Citizenship 

How can school communities help to prepare young people to be responsible citizens, in line 
with fundamental values such as peace and tolerance of diversity? 

The presence of some form of citizenship education in the curriculum was supported by most 
respondents who answered on this point, but the ways put forward to implement it, either as a 
separate subject or as a cross-curricular theme, were diverse. 

There  was  a  strong  interest  in  fostering  commitment  to  democracy  through  the  school 
experience itself, e.g. by ensuring that children feel respected as individuals and involved in 
school decisions, for instance through school councils, or by mixing pupils in heterogeneous 
groups and carrying out team work or exchange of experiences between them.  

Tackling bullying, violence and intolerance at schools as well as finding better ways to open 
up  schools,  as  institutions,  to  their  local  communities,  were  also  perceived  as  relevant  for 
better developing citizenship. 

2.7. 

Teachers 

How can school staff be trained and supported to meet the challenges they face? 

A significant agreement at all levels emerged in relation to the need to rethink current models 
of initial teacher education in order to link theory and practice better. It is seen as essential 
that those who enter the profession are supported in developing a deeper understanding of the 
historical, social and cultural contexts within which they work. Teacher education also needs 
to present teaching as a problem-solving or research-in-action activity during which teaching 
methods and strategies, formal or informal, are examined in relation to the children's learning 
and their process. Classroom management strategies were raised as another issue which needs 
to be better addressed by initial teacher education. 

Another focus was the need to improve the in-service training of teachers in terms of quality, 
recognition of such training, and of resources, where many teachers feel that they do not have 
enough free time outside teaching in order to support their professional development.  

Improved recognition  of  teaching as  a  profession  was  also  important  for  many  respondents, 
including, for some countries, the issue of increasing teachers' pay. 

EN 

5 

   EN 

2.8. 

School communities 

How  can  school  communities  best  receive  the  leadership  and  motivation  they  need  to 
succeed?  How  can  they  be  empowered  to  develop  in  response  to  changing  needs  and 
demands? 

The creation of inclusive learning communities in which everyone – staff, students, parents – 
is involved and valued for their input is seen as key to the success of schools as organisations. 
In general, it is felt that school autonomy and the development of less hierarchical structures 
can reinforce this involvement.  

While many authorities and associations favour increasing the monitoring and evaluation of 
schools, many teacher respondents from various countries refer to the perceived unhelpfulness 
of  current  inspectoral  systems.  Current  trends  towards  a  more  advisory  role  for  school 
inspectors are welcomed. 

EN 

6 

   EN 

B. 

THEORETICAL AND EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE 

The numbers in brackets (e.g. 1.1) refer to the corresponding paragraph in the Communication 
COM(2008)425. 

Preparing young people for the 21st century  

(1.1) 

The  changing  nature  of  the  skills  and  levels  of  qualification  required  by  the  economy  puts 
great pressure on schools. A 2008 Cedefop study summarising future skills needs in Europe 
judges  that  the  present  trends  will  persist,  namely  'continuing  shifts  away  from  primary 
industries  (especially  agriculture)  and  from  traditional  manufacturing  industries  towards 
services and knowledge-intensive jobs'6. Nevertheless, a further 13 million jobs are projected 
by  2015,  largely  in  the  business  and  miscellaneous  sectors,  but  also  in  distribution  and 
transport,  and  non-marketed  services  such  as  health  and  education7.  This  means  that 
workforces  need  to  adapt,  with  schools  providing  the  foundation  for  the  acquisition  of  new 
skills throughout life, particularly by adults and people at risk of unemployment.  

Technological and other changes tend to polarise the demand for skills, leading to many jobs 
at higher levels and at the lower end of the job spectrum. There is a projected increase in jobs 
demanding more formal qualifications.  

Chart 1.1 shows a prognosis of future skills needs. It shows demand shifting toward a higher 
skilled and more flexible labour force8. 

6 
7 
8 

Future skills needs in Europe, A medium term forecast (Synthesis report), CEDEFOP (2008), p. 86. 
Ibid. 
The definition of the categories in the chart are the following: non-routine analytic (solving problems 
for which there are no rule-based solutions); non-routine interactive (interacting with humans to acquire 
information, to explain it, or to persuade others of its implications for action); routine cognitive (mental 
tasks that are well described by deductive or inductive rules); routine manual (physical tasks than can 
be well described using deductive or inductive rules); non-routine manual (physical tasks that cannot be 
described by such rules). See F. Levy, R. J. Murnane, The new division of labour (2004). 

EN 

7 

   EN 

                                                 
Chart 1.1: How the demand for skills has changed: economy-wide measures of routine 
and non-routine task input (US) 

65

60

55

50

45

40

s
e

l
i
t
n
e
c
r
e
p
e
h
t
s
a
t
u
p
n

i

k
s
a
t
n
a
e
M

n
o
i
t
u
b
i
r
t
s
d
k
s
a
t

i

0
6
9
1
e
h
t

f
o

Routine Manual

Nonroutine Manual

Routine cognitive
Nonroutine analytic

Nonroutine interactive

1960

1970

1980

1990

2000

A. Schleicher, 'Europe's Skill Challenge' OECD Directorate for Education. Presentation held during the Lisbon 
Council, (15 October 2007).  
Available online: http://www.lisboncouncil.net/media/schleicher_skills_presentation151007.pdf 

Adapted from F. Levy, and R. J. Murnane, The new division of labour (Princeton University Press, 2004). 

(1.2 - 1.4) 

Many  studies  point  to  a  significant  impact  of  schooling  on  skills  development,  revealing 
correlations between the quality of schools and the quality of the labour force. Hanuschek and 
Kimko  conclude  that  labour-force  quality  differences  are  related  to  schooling  (but  not 
necessarily  to  the  resources  devoted  by  a  country  to  schooling);  and  that  the  quality  of  the 
labour force has a causal impact on growth9.  

The  years  spent  in  school  have  a  great  impact  in  shaping  people’s  participation  in,  and 
attitudes to, further learning. Participation in post-compulsory education and training tends to 
be  proportional  to  the  level  of  prior  education.  ‘Typically  people  with  higher  levels  of 
education  are  more  easily  reached  by  and  more  receptive  to  measures  to  encourage 
participation in education and training'10. Chart 1.2 below shows the participation of adults in 
education  and  training  according  to  their  educational  attainment.  It  shows  that  in  2007  the 
highest rate of participation was for people aged between 25 and 34, regardless of their level 
of  education;  after  age  34,  participation  rates  decreased;  and  the  participation  of  those 
between  ages  55  and  64  was  less  than  one  third  that  of  those  between  25  and  34.  Older 
persons  with  tertiary  education  also  took  part  in  lifelong  learning  half  as  frequently  as 

9 

10 

E. A. Hanushek, D. D. Kimko, 'Schooling, labour force quality, and the growth of nations', American 
Economic Review 90 (2000). 
SEC(2007)1284, Progress towards the Lisbon objectives in education and training, Indicators and 
Benchmarks, p.81. 

EN 

8 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
younger people with the same level of education. The chart also shows that individuals with 
higher  levels  of  attainment  –  in  any  age  group  –  participate  more  in  lifelong  learning  than 
others with lower levels of educational attainment. 

Chart 1.2: Participation in lifelong learning  
by age and educational attainment (EU-27), 2007 

%

25

20

15

10

5

0

25-64

25-34

35-44

45-54

55-64

Age

Lower secondary completion

Upper secondary completion

Tertiary completion

All

Data source: Eurostat (2008): EU Labour Force Survey. 

Recent  research  points  to  strong  correlations  between  education  and  well-being,  though 
empirical  data  remain  scarce11. Well-being in this context means not only educational well-
being but also economic well-being and the enjoyment of civil liberties, relative freedom from 
crime,  enjoyment  of  clean  environment  and  individual  states  of  mental  and  physical  health. 
An OECD study on well-being concluded that human and social capital are closely related to 
the way in which institutions and political and social arrangements impact on society. It also 
pointed  out  that  to  sustain  well-being,  adequate  investment  in  human  and  social  capital  is 
needed. Thus,  for instance,  investment in the development of knowledge and skills helps to 
secure economic as well as social and personal well-being12.  

The  ‘capability’  approach  developed  by  Amartya  Sen  helps  illuminate  the  concept  of  well-
being  and  its  relation  to  education.  Education  is  viewed  as  an  unqualified  good  for  human 
capability  expansion  and  human  freedom.  The  relevance  of  the  capability  approach  for 
education,  well-being  and  equity  is  that  it  examines  issues  such  as  the  fair  distribution  of 
valued capabilities in and through education, or the availability of opportunities for pupils to 
convert their resources into capabilities13. 

A  current  OECD  project  shows  that  learning  experiences  can  foster  civic  and  social 
engagement:  by  shaping  what  people  know,  by  developing  competences  that  help  people 

11 

12 
13 

See European Journal of Education 43 (March 2008) for current research on the relationship between 
education and well-being. 
The well-being of nations, OECD (2001), pp. 10-13. 
A. Sen, Development as freedom (1999); M. Walker, E. Unterhalter (eds.), Amartya Sen's capability 
approach and social justice in education (2007), p. 5.  

EN 

9 

   EN 

 
                                                 
apply,  contribute  and  develop  their  knowledge,  by  cultivating  values,  attitudes,  beliefs  and 
motivations that encourage civic and social engagement, and by increasing social status. More 
schooling  is  not  enough.  The  quality  of  the  learning  experience  and  approaches  to  learning 
both  inside  and  outside  school  are  key.  Curriculum,  school  ethos,  and  pedagogy  are  crucial 
variables;  learning  environments  that  stress  responsibility,  open  dialogue,  respect  and  the 
application  of  theory  and  ideas  in  practical  group-oriented  work  seem  to  work  better  than 
civic education on its own14. 

A review of the evidence concluded that more years of schooling are substantially associated 
with higher levels of well-being and better health behaviours15. 

A  recent  study  from  the  UNICEF  Innocenti  Centre  identified  several  factors  that  have  an 
impact  on  children's  well-being:  material  well-being,  health  and  safety,  educational  well-
being, peer and family relationships16.  

The  links  between  school  attainment  and  employment  are  well  documented.  The  estimated 
long term effect on economic output of one additional year of education in the OECD area is 
generally  between  3%  and  6%17.  Among  OECD  countries,  completion  of  upper  secondary 
level  of  education  is  typically  considered  to  be  the  minimum  level  of  education  needed  to 
obtain  a  satisfactory,  competitive  position  in  the  labour  market.  As  Chart  1.3  shows,  on 
average,  the  rate  of  employment  among  individuals  with  upper  secondary  education  is  18 
percentage  points  higher  than  among  individuals  who  have  not  completed  upper  secondary 
education.  

14 

15 
16 
17 

L. Feinstein, R. Sabates, T. M. Anderson, A. Sorhaindo, C. Hammond , 'What are the effects of 
education on health?', in R. Desjardins and T. Schuller (eds.), Measuring the effects of education on 
health and civic/ social engagement, OECD (2006). 
Understanding the social outcomes of learning, OECD (2007), p.105. 
An overview of child well-being in rich countries, UNICEF, Innocenti Centre (2007). 
Education at a glance, OECD, (2006), p. 154. 

EN 

10 

   EN 

                                                 
Chart 1.3: Employment rates, by educational attainment (2007)  
Percentage of the 25-to-64-year-old population that is employed  

Below upper secondary 

Upper secondary and post-secondary non-tertiary

%

100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

S

Malta

United Kingdom
weden
Netherlands
Portugal
Denmark

Estonia

Cyprus

Latvia

Ireland

Austria

Finland

France

Bulgaria

Slovenia

Germany

Spain

Czech Republic
Lithuania

Belgium
Italy
Slovakia
Luxembourg

Hungary

Romania

Greece

U-27 Average
Poland

E

Data Source: Eurostat (2008): EU Labour Force Survey. 

The principal impact of education on growth is estimated to be to raise the productivity of the 
whole workforce, rather than to increase the number of individuals able to bring about radical 
innovations. Low skills seem to inhibit rates of technical innovation and rates of adoption of 
more  productive  work  organisation.  Average  skills  levels  explain  over  55%  of  growth 
differences in GDP per capita between 1960 and 1995 in OECD countries18.  

Research has sought to estimate the relationship between human capital and economic growth 
using  internationally  comparable  literacy  scores  (1994  International  Adult  Literacy  Survey 
(IALS) data) from 14 OECD countries. The outcomes of this research indicate that a country 
able to attain literacy scores 1% higher than the international average will achieve levels of 
labour productivity and GDP per capita that are 2.5 and 1.5% higher, respectively19.  

(1.5) 

The  data  for  the  three  EU  benchmarks  most  strongly  related  to  school  education  do  not 
demonstrate  sufficient  progress  to  achieve  the  Union’s  objectives  by  2010.  There  has  been 
constant improvement in reducing the proportion of early school leavers, but faster progress is 
needed  in  order  to  achieve  the  benchmark.  There  has  been  slow  but  steady  progress  in 
increasing  the  proportion  of  young  people  who  complete  upper  secondary  education.  The 

18 
19 

A. Schleicher, J. J. Rousseau lecture, Lisbon Council meeting, October 2007. 
S. Coulombe, J.F. Tremblay, S. Marchand, ‘Literacy scores, Human capital and growth across fourteen 
OECD  Countries’,  Statistics  Canada:  Human  Resources  and  Skills  Development  (2004),  p.  31.  and 
appendix F, pp. 66-74, cited in Education at a glance, OECD, (2006), p. 155. 

EN 

11 

   EN 

 
                                                 
share of low achievers in reading has increased in the EU, though some Member States have 
achieved improvements. 

Chart 1.4: Progress towards meeting the 5 benchmarks (EU average) 

140
130
120
110
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
-10
-20
-30
-40
-50
-60
-70
-80

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

MST graduates

181

progress required

   Lifelong learning participation

Early school leavers

Upper secondary completion

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

(below 0 = performance 
getting worse)

Low achievers in reading

Year

Data source: OECD (PISA), Eurostat (UOE and EU Labour Force Survey). 

Source:  Progress  towards  the  Lisbon  objectives  in  education  and  training.  Indicators  and  benchmarks  (2007, 
updated 2008). 

2. FOCUS ON COMPETENCES 

Implementing key competences  

(2.2) 

A 2006 Recommendation of the European Parliament and the Council introduced a European 
framework  of  Key  Competences  for  Lifelong  Learning20.  The  Recommendation  aims  to 
provide  policy  makers,  teachers  and  learners  themselves  with  a  reference  tool.  It  calls  on 
Member States to ensure that all young people are given the possibility to develop the eight 
key competences by the end of initial education and training and that specific attention is paid 
to  the  needs  of  disadvantaged  learners.  It  recommends  that  adults  have  the  opportunity  to 
learn, maintain and update their key competences throughout their lives.  

The  key  competences  are:  communication  in  the  mother  tongue,  communication  in  foreign 
languages,  mathematical  competence  and  basic  competences  in  science  and  technology, 

20 

Recommendation 2006/962/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 on 
key competences for lifelong learning. OJ L L394 of 30.12.2006, p. 10. 

EN 

12 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
digital  competence,  learning  to  learn,  social  and  civic  competences,  sense  of  initiative  and 
entrepreneurship  and,  cultural  awareness  and  expression.  They  are  all  considered  equally 
important,  because  each  of  them  can  contribute  to  a  successful  life  in  a  knowledge  society. 
Many  of  the  competences  overlap  and  interlock:  aspects  essential  to  one  domain  support 
competence  in  another.  Competence  in  the  fundamental  basic  skills  of  language,  literacy, 
numeracy  and  in  information  and  communication  technologies  (ICT)  is  an  essential 
foundation for learning, and learning-to-learn supports all other learning activities. There are a 
number  of  themes  that  are  applied  throughout  the  Reference  Framework:  critical  thinking, 
creativity,  initiative,  problem  solving,  risk  assessment,  decision  taking,  and  constructive 
management of feelings play a role in all eight key competences. 

A 2002 Eurydice survey on key competences noted that curricula were increasingly focusing 
on  the  successful  application  of  knowledge  and  skills  than  on  the  simple  transmission  of 
knowledge21. As a result, most education authorities had redefined their educational aims in 
terms of competences. Developing the capacity to apply knowledge and skills increases their 
"transfer  value",  and  learning  consequently  becomes  more  attractive  and  beneficial  for  the 
individual  and  society.  Some  education  systems  have  recently  focused  their  attention  on 
competences applicable to a maximum number of real-life situations. 

Recent  working  papers  (2004,  2007)  of  the  peer-learning  Cluster  ‘Key  Competences-
Curriculum Reform’ confirm this trend22. The Cluster has undertaken two mapping exercises 
on  how  national  policy  agendas  for  lifelong  learning  and  school  curricula  recognise  key 
competences. Either implicitly or explicitly key competences are included in most important 
documents  guiding  school  education.  Much  emphasis  has  been  put  on  the  consistency  and 
comprehensiveness of provision – both from a systemic and from a learner perspective. 

A  2006  Eurydice  survey  mapped  how  entrepreneurship  education  has  been  integrated  into 
secondary  curricula.  It  found  that  some  member  states  explicitly  recognise  entrepreneurship 
education,  others  teach  it  as  part  of  general  subjects,  while  a  third  group  of  countries  is 
developing other initiatives in the field23. Some Europe-wide initiatives foster entrepreneurial 
competences within school settings. In the framework of the 'Junior achievement' programme 
–  running  in  partnership  between  local  businesses  and  schools  –  younger  students  learn  in 
interactive ways about how communities and businesses work, while older students can set up 
and run their own companies for a year24.  

The  2007  Commission  Communication  on  financial  education  pointed  out  how  financial 
literacy  should  be  enhanced  on  a  continuous  basis  at  all  stages  of  life  by  being  integrated 
across subjects, such as mathematics, history and entrepreneurship25.  

A  recent  study  on  the  future  of  the  knowledge  economy  notes  that  the  challenge  now  is  to 
create  environments  for  learning  that  incorporate  both  economic  and  civic  goals.  While  the 
skills  of  the  workforce  remain  important,  they  alone  are  not  a  sufficient  source  of  decisive 

21 
22 

23 
24 
25 

Key competencies: A developing concept in general compulsory education, Eurydice Survey 5 (2002). 
Working Group B, Progress report 2004, http://ec.europa.eu/education/policies/2010/doc/lang2004.pdf; 
Cluster ‘Key Competences, Curriculum reform’, Synthesis report on peer learning in 2007. 
http://ec.europa.eu/education/policies/2010/doc/peer07_en.pdf  
Entrepreneurship education in Europe, Eurydice (2006). 
See: www.ja-ye.org and similar projects e.g.: http://www.ecole-et-entreprise.fr/index.htm. 
COM(2007)808. 

EN 

13 

   EN 

                                                 
competitive advantage. This depends on how the capabilities of the workforce are combined 
in innovative and productive ways26. 

(2.3) 

The European Framework of Key Competences stresses the importance of learning-to-learn as 
key  to  acquiring  other  competences  and  developing  capabilities.  Learning  competences  are 
not  mastered  in  a  single  straightforward  way  but  are  shaped  by  a  broad  range  of 
developmental influences to which learners are exposed in and out of school. Learning skills 
are increasingly not only embedded implicitly in the curriculum but are also being taught in 
an explicit way. Current projects focus on the development of self-reporting instruments for 
formative and diagnostic use by learners and their teachers27, or on the development of pupils' 
learning  practices  rather  than  on  their  expressed  beliefs  (learning  how  to  learn)28.  The 
European  Commission  is  currently  developing  an  indicator  of  the  learning  to  learn 
competence. 

The importance of learning capacity in terms of performance is shown in an OECD analysis 
of  the  relative  performance  of  students  who  control  their  learning.  Students'  approaches  to 
learning  measured  in  PISA  explain  one  fifth  of  the  difference  in  students’  literacy 
performance.  But  if  students’  tendency  to  control  their  learning  is  taken  as  an  outcome  of 
learning, since learning autonomy is a key precondition of lifelong learning, an even stronger 
relationship becomes visible29. 

(2.5) 

Two European projects on the impact of new approaches to teaching and learning in schools 
identified  several  barriers  to  change  in  learning  and  teaching:  professional  capacity, 
curriculum restraint, and lack of appropriate teaching material30.  

The report of the Cluster ‘Key Competences-Curriculum Reform’ claims that the successful 
implementation  of  curricula  based  on  key  competences  is  not  in  contradiction  with  the 
organisation  of  teaching  and  learning  according  to  school  subjects  that  can  allow  for  a 
development  of  in-depth  knowledge  of  a  certain  discipline  and  target  the  acquisition  of 
specific skills. However, the challenges are several. All teachers, irrespective of their subject 

26 

27 

28 

29 

30 

P. Brown, H. Lauder, D. Ashton, 'Education, globalisation and the future of the knowledge economy', 
in: D. Epstein, R. Boden, R. Deem, F. Rizvi, S. Fight (eds.), World year book of education 2008. 
Geographies of knowledge, geometries of power. Higher education in the 21st century (2008), pp.18-20. 
On the transformation of the relationship between education, jobs and rewards see for example: M. 
Lawn, 'Borderless education: imagining a European education space in the time of brands and 
networks', in: A Novoao , M. Lawn (eds.), Fabricating Europe: the formation of an education space 
(2002) and M. Room, The European challenge: innovation, policy learning and social cohesion in the 
knowledge economy (2005). 
For example R. Deakin-Crick, 'Developing an effective lifelong learning inventory : the ELLI project’, 
Assessment in Education 11/3( 2004), pp. 247-272 . 
For  example  M.  James  et  al,  Improving  learning  how  to  learn  –  classrooms,  schools  and  networks 
(2007). 
Messages from PISA 2000, OECD (2004); see also PISA 2003 results published in Learning for 
tomorrow's world, OECD (2004), particularly chapter 3. 
S. Power, Education. Policy Synthesis of EU Research Results, Series N°4 (2007), p. 29. 'Teacher 
training, reflective theories and teleguidance: prospectives and possibilities in teacher training in 
Europe' and 'Computer –supported collaborative learning in primary and secondary education'. 

EN 

14 

   EN 

                                                 
specialisation, should be aware of, and feel responsible for, developing the key competences 
of  their  students  in  the  whole  school  context.  The  development  of  competences  is  based  on 
active and experiential learning, supporting learners' individual development and personalised 
learning.  

Teaching  and  learning  with  subject-centred  and  cross-curricular  elements  need  to  be  well 
coordinated; teachers can collaborate effectively if each member of a school community has a 
clear understanding of how to support the development of key competences. Pupil assessment 
should follow the same logic. School leadership should build on a common vision of school 
development and a shared or distributed approach that encourages teachers to work in teams 
rather than only alone31.  

Some  Member  States  have  used  cross-curricular  themes  as  ways  of  developing  key 
competences. A 2005 project brought together ten case studies from five European countries 
in order to identify the problems schools face while dealing with cross-curricular work, and 
the  solutions  they  find  in  doing  so.  Table  2.1  shows  cross-curricular  themes  and  their 
frequency of occurrence32 . 

31 

32 

Cluster ‘Key Competences, Curriculum reform’, Synthesis report on peer learning in 2007. 
http://ec.europa.eu/education/policies/2010/doc/peer07_en.pdf , p.9.  
Cross-curricular  themes  in  secondary  education,  Report  of  a  CIDREE  collaborative  project  (2005) 
Cross-curricular themes are interdisciplinary themes, which integrate language skills (reading, speaking, 
listening, viewing, and thinking) with a variety of content areas, such as science, art, music and so on. 
They  are  not  identical  with  cross-curricular  or  transversal  competences  as  identified  in  the 
Recommendation on key competences mentioned before. 

EN 

15 

   EN 

                                                 
Table 2.1: Summary of occurrence and respective status of cross-curricular themes in 27 
European countries/communities included in the survey (Maes et al., 2001). 

Cross-curricular theme 

1. Health / physical / sport education / life skills 
2. Environmental / ecological education 
3. Citizenship / human rights / co-operation / 
political / peace education 
4. Social / communicative skills / reading / 
speech 
5. Media education / ICT 
6. Learning to learn / ability to think critically 
7. Artistic / cultural education 
8. Philosophical education / ethics 
9. Intercultural education 
10. Problem solving 
11. International education 
12. Road safety / traffic education 
13. Preparation for the world of work / 
entrepreneurship education 
14. Technological education 
15. Economic / consumer education 
16. Career guidance 

Number of 
countries (N=27) 
where this theme 
is included in the 
curriculum 
25 
21 
19 

17 

15 
13 
12 
9 
10 
8 
7 
6 
6 

5 
4 
2 

Statutory 

Not statutory 

16 
14 
14 

13 

11 
10 
8 
6 
8 
6 
3 
4 
4 

3 
2 
1 

9 
7 
5 

4 

4 
3 
4 
3 
2 
2 
4 
2 
2 

2 
2 
1 

Source: Cross-curricular themes in secondary education; Report of a CIDREE collaborative project (2005),  
p. 4. 

The study identified a number of problems related to the implementation of cross-curricular 
themes at the level of teachers, pupils and the school itself. It emphasised the importance of 
motivation  and  involvement  by  teachers  and  pupils,  and  the  importance  of  assessment. 
Problems at the school level include subject curriculum overload, timetable inflexibility, lack 
of  infrastructure,  space  and  especially  time,  the  pressure  of  final  exams  and  university 
entrance  requirements,  and  teacher  training  which  prepares  new  teachers  insufficiently  for 
working with cross-curricular themes33. 

Literacy and numeracy 

(2.6-2.7) 

The European Framework of Key Competences defines reading literacy as an essential part of 
the ability to express and interpret thoughts, feelings and facts in both oral and written form 
and  to  interact  linguistically  in  an  appropriate  way  in  the  full  range  of  societal  and  cultural 
contexts:  education  and  training,  work,  home  and  leisure.  Similarly,  a  sound  knowledge  of 
numbers,  measures  and  mathematical  structures  together  with  ability  in  basic  mathematical 
operations and presentations, and understanding of mathematical terms and concepts are key 

33 

Ibid., pp.67-69. 

EN 

16 

   EN 

 
                                                 
to the ability to solve everyday problems and to the willingness to use mathematical modes of 
thought to look for reasons and to assess their validity34.  

According to the PISA 2006 survey, the average reading score in participating EU Member 
States fell from 491 points in 2000 to 490 points in 2003 and to 487 points in 2006 (see Table 
2.2).  Performance  deteriorated  in  a  large  number  of  Member  States.  The  only  EU  country 
where  average  performance  improved  significantly  was  Poland.  In  relation  to  the  EU 
benchmark of a 20% reduction in the proportion of low achievers in reading, the percentage 
of  low  achievers  increased  from  19.8%  in  2003  to  21.2%  in  2006  (16  EU  countries).  If  the 
comparison  is  based  on  two  additional  countries  (BG,  RO)  for  which  2000  results  are 
available,  the  result  is:  21.3%  in  2000  and  24.1  in  2006:  a  significant  increase  in  the 
proportion of low achievers in the EU. 

Table 2.2: Differences in reading performance between PISA 2006 and PISA 2000 

34 

For full definitions, see http://ec.europa.eu/education/policies/2010/objectives_en.html#basic 

EN 

17 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Note:  Differences  that  are  statistically  significant  at  the  95%  confidence  level  are  indicated  in  bold and  at  the 
90% confidence level are indicated in bold italic. 

*EU averages for PISA 2006 scores refer to EU-25, the average score difference to PISA 2000 refers to EU-18 
and is the arithmetic average of country results for which data are available.  
Source: PISA 2006: Vol. 2 Data/Données, p. 233 (Table 6.3a). 

As for gender gaps in performance in reading, according to PISA 2006 almost twice as many 
boys  as  girls  had  low  reading  skills:  17.6%  of  15  year  old  girls  and  30.4  %  of  15  year  old 
boys.  

The  Cluster  ‘Key  Competences-Curriculum  Reform’  surveyed  good  practice  on  promoting 
literacy  from  a  number  of  Member  States35.  Several  good  examples  from  countries  that 
perform well in PISA surveys (e.g. Finland and Sweden) show how special support to raise 
motivation, extra time spent on reading and special teaching methods can improve students' 
literacy  performance36.  A  broad  range  of  research  on  the  subject  of  literacy  examines  the 
beneficial effects of early intervention, the significant impact of home literacy activities and 
the importance of developing good reading habits37.  

(2.8) 

As  far  as  numeracy  skills  are  concerned,  the  Cluster  ‘Maths,  Science  and  Technology’  has 
concluded  that  'proficiency  in  mathematics  is  today  not  mainly  an  affair  about  counting 
correctly;  it  is  a  multifarious  general  competence  including  problem  solving  and  modelling, 
concept understanding, reasoning and communication, procedural efficiency, and appreciation 
of  the  role  of  mathematics  in  history,  science,  culture,  work  and  society.  A  broad 
mathematical knowledge is in this aspect a part of a great cultural heritage, essential for both 
personal and societal self-esteem, creativity and growth'38.  

Table  2.3  shows  that  for  most  countries  performance  in  mathematics  remained  broadly 
unchanged  between  PISA  2003  and  PISA  2006.  However  for  some  countries  there  were 
notable changes. Among EU Member States there was significant deterioration in the case of 
Belgium, France, the Netherlands and Sweden and a major improvement in Greece. 

35 
36 

37 

38 

see Progress Report, Nov. 2004. http://ec.europa.eu/education/policies/2010/doc/basic2004.pdf 
See  for  example:  P.  Linnakylä,  'From  struggling  to  striving  adolescent  readers';  in:  P.  Linnakylä,  I. 
Arffman  (eds.),  Finnish  reading  literacy.  When  quality  and  equity  meet  (2007),  pp.  199-213.;  S. 
Sulkunen,  'Authentic  texts  and  Finnish  youngsters:  a  focus  on  gender',  in:  ibid.,  pp.  175-198.;  P. 
Linnakylä 'Reading literacy in Finland: developing equal and empowered readers', A Finnish position 
paper for EU project ADORE/Socrates (28.2.2007), pp. 1-17. 
The  Journal  of  Research  in  Reading  on:  http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1467-
9817.2005.00281.x?journalCode=jrir 
B.  Johansson,  Report  of  MST  cluster  on  peer  learning  activity  organised  by  the  National  Centre  for 
Mathematics Education, Gothenburg University, Sweden, (2007), p. 12.  

EN 

18 

   EN 

                                                 
Table 2.3: Differences in mathematics performance between PISA 2006 and PISA 2003 

Note:  Differences  that  are  statistically  significant  at  the  95%  confidence  level  are  indicated  in  bold and  at  the 
90% confidence level are indicated in bold italic. 

*EU averages for PISA 2006 scores refer to EU-25, the average score difference to PISA 2003 refers to EU-19 
and is the arithmetic average of country results for which data are available.  

Source: PISA 2006: Vol. 2 Data/Données, p. 235 (Table 6.3b). 

The gender difference in mathematics was less than a third as large as for reading, and in all 
Member States boys outperformed girls or there were no significant differences.  

PISA  results  also  show  strong  correlations  between  students'  attitudes  towards  mathematics 
and  mathematics  performance.  In  Table  2.4  below,  ‘attitudes’  refers  to  students'  interest  in 
and enjoyment of mathematics, their instrumental motivation (meaning external rewards such 
as good jobs etc.), their self concept (their belief about their own mathematical competence) 
self efficacy and anxiety. The highest negative impact on performance is caused by anxiety, 

EN 

19 

   EN 

 
while the highest positive impact is by self-concept in mathematics, followed by interest and 
instrumental motivation.  

Table 2.4: Relationship of students' attitudes towards mathematics  
and mathematics performance (2003) 

Note: * indicates that the effect is statistically significantly greater (>) than that of the OECD average; effect is 
statistically significantly less (<) than that of the OECD average. 

Data Source: PISA 2003. 

Source: OECD (2007): Education at a glance 2007, p. 100 (Table A5.2a). 

The report Science education now: a renewed pedagogy for the future of Europe prepared by 
an expert group for the European Commission on science education and mathematics, chaired 
by  Michel  Rocard,  explored  the  prospects  of  new  pedagogies  for  more  effective  science 
education and called for school science teaching pedagogy to shift from mainly deductive to 
inquiry-based  methods39.  The  Nuffield  Foundation  emphasises  that  it  is  crucial  that  science 
education  offer  value  for  all  and  not  only  for  future  scientists.  'For  this  reason  the  goal  of 

39 

Science education now: a renewed pedagogy for the future of Europe, European Commission (2007). 

EN 

20 

   EN 

 
                                                 
science  education  must  be  first  and  foremost,  to  offer  an  education  that  develops  students' 
understanding both of the canon of scientific knowledge and how science functions'40.  

Nevertheless not all studies in the field identify a strong correlation between positive attitudes 
and  good  performance.  An  analysis  of  the  data  from  TIMSS  1999,  which  measured  both 
student  attainment  and  student  attitude  towards  science,  shows  that  the  higher  the  average 
student achievement, the less positive is their attitude towards science41. 

Personalised approaches to learning 

(2.9 - 2.11) 

An  approach  based  upon  individuals’  competences  implies  more  personalised  teaching  and 
learning. An OECD collection of studies on personalising learning pointed out that ‘one size 
fits all’ approaches to school knowledge and organisation are ill adapted both to individuals’ 
needs and to the knowledge society at large'42.  

Personalised  learning  is  not  identical  with  individualised  learning;  it  'can  be  seen  as  an 
approach  in  educational  policy  and  practice  whereby  every  student  matters,  it  equalises 
learning opportunities in terms of learning skills and motivation to learn'43. Evidence from a 
Eurydice survey shows that a personalised approach does not exclude group processes; on the 
contrary, personalised approaches are often carried out within group processes44. 

Järvelä  has  identified  and  explored  the  main  arguments  for  personalising  learning  and  for 
fostering  learning  capacity.  Personalising  learning  can  increase  collaborative  efforts  and 
networked  forms  of  learning.  It  can  increase  students'  interest  and  engagement  in  learning 
activities  and  their  curiosity  and  creativity  can  be  inspired  by  it.  It  can  contribute  to  better 
learning  results  if  students  learn  with  the  aim  of  developing  better  learning  strategies, 
technological capacity for individual and social learning activities and learning communities 
with  collaborative  learning  models.  Personalised  learning  can  take  into  account  different 
values,  and  cultural  features  can  be  respected  if  the  individual  person  and  his/her  needs  are 
deemed important. Lastly it can potentially improve the use of technology in education45. 

Emerging  evidence  shows  that  'systems  capable  of  achieving  universally  high  standards  are 
those that can personalise the programme of learning and progression offered to the needs and 
motivations of each learner'46. According to the OECD project ‘No more failures. Ten steps to 

40 
41 

42 
43 

44 

45 
46 

Science education in Europe: Critical reflections. A report to the Nuffield Foundation (Jan. 2008), p.7.  
Y. Ogura, Graph of student attitude v student attainment. Based on data from: M. Martin et al, TIMSS 
1999 International Science Report: findings from IEA's repeat of the third international mathematics 
and science study of the eighth grade (2000). 
Schooling for tomorrow: personalising education, OECD (2007).  
S.  Järvelä,  'Personalised  learning?  New  insights  into  fostering  learning  capacity',  in:  Schooling  for 
tomorrow: personalising education, OECD (2007), pp. 31-46.  
Based on PIRLS 2001 data a breakdown of pupils by the organisational approach most often used to 
teach  reading  showed  that  teachers  use  whole-class  teaching,  ability  grouping  and  individualised 
instruction in the classroom. Nevertheless whole-class teaching seems to be dominant. In Key data on 
education in Europe, Eurydice (2005), p. 287. 
Ibid., pp.42-43. 
D.  Istance,  'Directions  for  schooling  and  educational  innovation  from  recent  OECD  analyses', 
Presentation  given  at  the  Slovenian  Presidency  conference  on  'Promoting  innovation  and  creativity: 
schools' response to the challenges of future societies' (April 2008). Also about the use of whole-class 

EN 

21 

   EN 

                                                 
equity  in  education’,  several  classroom  practices  can  help  to  identify  early  those  who  fall 
behind  and  to  give  them  extra  support.  Methods  such  as  formative  assessment  (discussed 
below)  and  reading  recovery  strategies  in  the  US,  a  hierarchy  of  formal  and  non-formal 
interventions in Finland, extra teaching in Flanders and programmes personalisés d’aide et de 
progrès  in  France  all  help  the  student  to  catch  up47.  It  remains  to  be  explored  how  the 
personalisation  agenda  can  avoid  systemic  inequality  and  move  towards  less  specified, 
controlled and standardised approaches in favour of greater creativity and diversity.  

Assessing learning outcomes 

(2.12) 

Black  and  William  (Assessment  Reform  Group,  UK)  synthesised  evidence  from  over  250 
studies  linking  assessment  and  learning.  The  conclusion  was  that  initiatives  designed  to 
enhance the effectiveness of the way assessment is used in the classroom to promote learning 
can  raise  pupil  achievement.  They  also  found  evidence  that  the  gain  was  likely  to  be  even 
more substantial for lower-achieving pupils48. 

According  to  them,  less  effective  assessment  approaches  are  those  that  encourage  rote  and 
superficial  learning,  over-emphasise  grading  rather  than  advising  learners,  use  competitive 
teaching  approaches  which  de-motivate  some  pupils,  and  in  which  feedback,  testing  and 
record-keeping serve more a managerial than a learning function. 

Criteria for assessment that improves learning include: it is embedded in a view of teaching 
and learning of which it is an essential part; it involves sharing learning goals with pupils; it 
aims  to  help  pupils  to  know  and  to  recognise  the  standards  they  are  aiming  for;  it  involves 
pupils  in  self-assessment;  it  provides  feedback  which  leads  to  pupils  recognising  their  next 
steps and how to take them; it is underpinned by confidence that every student can improve; it 
involves both teacher and pupils reviewing and reflecting on assessment data49. 

Further studies also argue that assessment should help students' day-to day learning process. 
'Assessment  should  be  designed  and  implemented  with  the  goal  of  achieving  maximum 
validity both in terms of learning outcomes and learning processes. It should help to advance 
learning as well as determine whether learning has occurred'50. 

47 

48 

49 

50 

teaching,  same-ability  grouping  and  personalised  instruction  see  Key  Data  on  education  in  Europe 
Eurydice (2005), p. 287 (figure E.17). Based on teachers' questionnaire and PIRLS 2001 data.  
For more detail on these see: S. Field et al, No more failures. Ten steps to equity in education, OECD 
(2007), particularly pp. 94-99. 
P. Black and D. William, 'Inside the black box: raising standards through classroom assessment', Phi 
Delta Kappan, 80/ 2. (October 1998). 
'Assessment for Learning: beyond the Black Box', Assessment Reform Group, (1999) p. 7. 
http://www.qca.org.uk/qca_4354.aspx 
A. Pollard, M. James, Teaching and Learning Research Programme, UK (submission to consultation 
‘Schools for the 21st Century’ 2007); C. Ayala, 'Formative Assessment Guideposts' , Science Scope, 
28/4 (2005), pp. 46-48. 

EN 

22 

   EN 

                                                                                                                                                         
(2.13) 

An OECD study on formative assessment in the secondary classroom suggested that areas for 
improvement  include  the  alignment  of  summative  and  formative  assessment,  evaluation 
cultures in schools and links between classroom, school and systemic assessment evaluation51. 

The  Cluster  ‘Key  Competences-Curriculum  Reform’  has  concluded  that  the  assessment  of 
transversal  competences  remains  a  major  challenge.  A  recent  European  project  on  'New 
Assessment  Tools  for  Cross-curricular  Competencies  in  the  Domain  of  Problem  Solving' 
identified  a  lack  of  conceptual  clarity  as  a  major  issue.  Despite  the  high  profile  given  to 
'problem  solving'  as  a  necessary  educational  skill,  there  is  little  precision  within  policy 
documents about what this actually means; and, while it is possible to assess problem solving 
skills  in  school  settings  and  on  a  large  scale,  it  is  impossible  to  identify  a  general,  unique 
'problem solving competence'52. 

According  to  a  recent  Eurydice  study  on  the  autonomy  of  teachers  it  is  clear  that  in  many 
Member  States  teachers  have  a  significant  degree  of  autonomy  in  internal  assessment 
procedures. The three aspects of assessment examined are: the choice of criteria for internal 
assessment,  responsibility  for  deciding  whether  pupils  repeat  a  year,  and  the  part  played  by 
teachers  in  devising  the  content  of  examinations  for  certified  qualifications.  In  the  great 
majority of countries, schools are responsible for choosing the basis on which their pupils will 
be  internally  assessed  and  in  many  countries  schools  have  full  autonomy  in  this  area.  The 
situation is very different as regards the involvement of schools and teachers in devising the 
content of written examinations for certified qualifications. No European country administers 
examinations  of  this  kind  for  the  completion  of  primary  education  (ISCED  1).  In  countries 
which hold examinations at ISCED level 2, they are only rarely devised at school level 53. 

A  Cedefop  comparative  study  (forthcoming,  2008)  involving  32  countries  observes  that  the 
specification of learning outcomes is being used in a range of countries that are modernising 
their school systems. The focus on what learners are expected to know, understand or be able 
to do at the end of a learning process stimulates reform of systems, curriculum, pedagogy and 
assessment54.  In  compulsory  schooling  there  are  two  different  ways  in  which  learning 
outcomes  are  given  prominence:  in  the  first,  a  core  of  learning  outcomes  is  defined  with 
reference to the school curriculum, to be achieved through the experience of learning (some 
outcomes are linked to specific subjects, others are learnt across the whole curriculum); in the 
second, holistic approach, the learning outcomes that the learner should achieve by the end of 
a  phase  or  whole  school  education  are  associated  with  agreed  aims  and  objectives  of  the 
education system and only then are appropriate subjects and groupings of subjects identified 
and  brought  into  play.  The  possible  shared  ownership  of  learning  outcomes  gives  an 
important role to stakeholders (including social partners, teaching and training professionals, 
research communities, learners and the wider community). The study gives an overview of the 
learning outcomes approach on general education in all the Members States55.  

51 
52 
53 

54 
55 

Formative assessment. Improving learning in secondary classrooms, OECD (2005), pp. 84-88.  
S. Power, Education. Policy synthesis of EU research results. Series N° 4, (2007), p. 28. 
For more details concerning specific countries see 'Levels of autonomy and responsibilities of teachers 
in Europe', Working document, Eurydice (forthcoming, 2008), Chapter 2. 
The shift to learning outcomes. Policies and practices in Europe, CEDEFOP (forthcoming, 2008) 
Ibid., in particular chapter 5. pp. 51-52, and chapter 6. pp. 58-64. 

EN 

23 

   EN 

                                                 
The  learning  outcomes  approach  and  its  impact  on  the  design  of  content  is  reflected  in  the 
Recommendation  establishing  the  European  Qualifications  Framework  for  lifelong  learning 
(EQF)56.  It  sets  2010  as  the  recommended  target  date  for  countries  to  relate  their  national 
qualifications  systems  to  the  EQF,  and  2012  for  countries  to  ensure  that  individual 
qualification  certificates  bear  a  reference  to  the  appropriate  EQF  level.  The  development  of 
National Qualifications Frameworks in the Member States, which gained speed significantly 
since 2005, responds directly to the EQF proposal and has contributed to the overall shift to a 
learning outcomes based approach in Europe.  

3. HIGH QUALITY LEARNING FOR EVERY STUDENT  

Better early learning opportunities 

(3.4 - 3.5) 

Member  States  committed  themselves  in  2002  to  provide  childcare  to  90%  of  children 
between the age of 3 and compulsory school age57. The Commission's proposed Employment 
Guidelines  2008-2010  note  that  securing  childcare  coverage  of  at  least  90  %  of  children 
between 3 years old and the mandatory school age and at least 33 % of children under 3 years 
of  age  by  2010  is  a  useful  benchmark.  Guideline  18  invites  Member  States  to  promote  a 
lifecycle  approach  to  work  through  better  reconciliation  of  work  and  private  life  and  the 
provision of accessible and affordable childcare facilities and care for other dependants. 

The growing awareness of the benefits of pre-school education has given more impetus to that 
commitment.  The  Council  Conclusions  on  efficiency  and  equity  in  European  education  and 
training  systems point  out  that  pre-primary education brings the highest  rates  of  return over 
the  whole  lifelong  learning  process,  especially  for  the  most  disadvantaged58.  The  Staff 
Working Document supporting the Commission's Communication on this theme demonstrates 
'the positive effects of high quality pre-primary provision on children's intellectual and social 
behavioural development'59. 

Rates  of  participation  in  pre-school  education  have  increased  over  recent  years,  and  a 
significant  number  of  Member  States  are  already  well  beyond  the  Barcelona  objective; 
however, the situation across the EU is very diverse, as shown in Chart 3.1: 

56 

57 
58 
59 

Recommendation of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2008 on the establishment 
of the European Qualifications Framework for lifelong learning, OJ C 111 of 6.5.2008. 
Barcelona European Council Conclusions (Spring 2002), p. 20. 
OJ C 298/3 of 8.12.2006. 
SEC (2006) 1096, pp.16-17. 

EN 

24 

   EN 

                                                 
Chart 3.1 Enrolment in pre-primary education  
Enrolment rates at ISCED levels 0 and 1 for 4-year olds 

2000 

2006 p  Country 

82.8 

100 

100 

:  EU-27 

100 

France  

100 

Italy  

99.2 i 

100 i  Belgium  

99 

100 

94.9 

90.6 

89.5 

81.4 

100 

81 

72.8 

78.2 

79.5 

72.3 

67.7 

60.3 

99.5 

60.6 

97.1  Spain  

95.5  Malta  

94 

Luxembourg  

93.4  Denmark  

93.1  Germany  

92.8  Hungary  

91.3  United Kingdom 

86.5  Czech Rep. 

86.5  Sweden  

86.1  Estonia  

83.2  Austria  

80.6  Portugal  

79.3  Slovenia  

75.8  Romania  

74.2  Netherlands  

73.5 

Latvia  

: 

73.1  Slovakia  

55.7 

70.4  Cyprus  

67 

51 

53.9 

41.9 

68.4  Bulgaria  

59.7 

Lithuania  

56.1  Greece  

48.5 

Finland  

: 

48.2  Croatia  

51.1 i 

46.9 i 

Ireland  

33 

12.4 

: 

41.2  Poland  

15.9 

FYR Macedonia  

7 

Turkey  

90.9 

94.8 

Iceland  

: 

52.7 

Liechtenstein  

78.1 

91.8  Norway  

2000 

2006 

Data source: Eurostat (UOE data collection) 
(:) Missing or not available, (i) See information notes, (p) Provisional data 
(i)  Some  countries  have  participation  rates  of  100%  or  close  for  children  aged  4  (as  BE,  FR,  ES  and  IT  where  children 
typically start the school at the age of 3 (see also the Eurydice publications on national education systems); 
BE: Data exclude independent private institutions. Data from the German speaking community is missing; 
IE: There is no official provision of education at ISCED level 0; 

Most research in the field to date has been undertaken in the United States. It has been argued 
that high quality early childhood education and care provide one of the few effective policy 
means  of  increasing  social  and  economic  opportunities  for  disadvantaged  (minority) 

EN 

25 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
communities  and,  therefore,  for  society  as  a  whole60.  Eurydice  will  shortly  publish  a  broad 
overview of the existing evidence on this subject at European level61. 

High  quality  pre-school  education  and  care  has  also  been  found  to  foster  the  emergence  of 
skills  in  the  areas  of  language,  literacy,  maths  and  science,  as  well  as  supporting  the 
development  of  young  children’s  learning-related  socio-emotional  skills,  in  particular  self-
regulation  and  social  competence62.  Investment  in  effective  high  quality  pre-school 
programmes  for  low  income  and  ethnic  minority  children,  who  would  otherwise  be 
insufficiently prepared for school, seems to be a specially powerful tool63. 

The OECD's project ‘Starting Strong’ also analysed the social and educational returns of early 
educational intervention. It refers to the Perry pre-school study (US) that shows the long term 
benefits,  for  both  individuals  and  society,  of  investment  in  early  education.  Education 
achievement  levels  at  age  14  also  seemed  to  be  particularly  low  for  those  who  had  not 
participated in some form of pre-school education64. 

In  Europe,  the  UK  project  ‘Effective  Provision  of  Pre-School  Education’  (EPPE),  a 
longitudinal  (5-year)  study  investigating  pre-school  settings,  and  a  study  by  the  European 
Agency  for  Development  in  Special  Needs  Education  (EADSNE),  both  highlight  the 
importance of social/behavioural, as well as cognitive, outcomes of early childhood education 
and  care65.  The  forthcoming  Eurydice  study  mentioned  above  reveals  the  most  recent 
evidence  on  the  long-term  positive  effects  on  social-emotional  competence,  self-regulation 
and intrinsic motivation.  

PISA 2003 results also showed a strong correlation between pre-primary education and 
reading scores. Positive results were even more significant in the case of pupils with some 
form of disadvantage66. PIRLS 2006 showed a very strong correlation between the time spent 
in pre-primary education and achievement. Reading achievement clearly increased with the 
amount of time spent in pre-primary educational settings67.  

Other  studies  emphasise  the  importance  of  quality  in  early-years  provision.  A  European 
Childcare and Education study based on longitudinal data from Austria, Germany and Spain 
found that the quality of childcare (particularly within the family but also within institutions) 

60 

61 

62 

63 

64 
65 

66 
67 

J. J. Heckman, 'Skills formation and the economics of investing in disadvantaged children', Science 
5278 (2006), pp. 1901-1902; J. J. Heckman, Invest in the very young, Centre of Excellence for Early 
Childhood Development (2004); J. J. Heckman, 'Investing in disadvantaged young children is an 
economically efficient policy', Forum for building the economic case for investments in pre school 
(January 2006).  
Tackling social and cultural inequalities through early childhood education and care, Eurydice 
(forthcoming 2008). See also Starting Strong, I-II, OECD (2001, 2006) and Policy Brief, Lifelong 
learning and human capital, OECD (July 2007). 
M. M. McClelland, A. C. Acock, F. J. Morrison, 'The impact of kindergarten learning related skills on 
academic trajectories at the end of elementary school', Early Childhood Research Quarterly 21 (2006), 
pp. 471-490. 
Ibid.; S. Berlinski, S. Galiani, P. Gertler, The Effect of Pre-Primary Education on Primary School 
Performance (Feb, 2006); Investing in youth: an empowerment strategy, BEPA (2007). 
Starting Strong, II, OECD (2006), p.105. 
K. Sylva et al, The effective provision of pre-school education (EPPE) project 1997-2004: Final report, 
DfES (2004); Early childhood intervention, Summary Report, EADSNE (2005). 
Cited in SEC(2007)1284, p. 27. 
Progress in international reading literacy. International report, PIRLS (2006), p.162. 

EN 

26 

   EN 

                                                 
was the most important predictor for almost all indicators of children's developmental status 
at age eight – more important than the quality of the primary school setting. This was the case 
for all socio-economic groups68.  

Promoting system equity  

(3.6) 

In its Communication on Efficiency and Equity in European education and training systems69 
and  its  accompanying  Staff  Working  Paper70,  the  Commission  put  forward  evidence  that, 
viewed  in  a  wider  perspective,  equity  and  efficiency71  are  mutually  reinforcing.  In  its 
Conclusions  on  the  subject,  the  Council,  accordingly  invited  Member  States  to  consider 
whether their present arrangements for funding, governing and managing their education and 
training  systems  adequately  reflect  the  need  to  ensure  both  efficiency  and  equity,  and  to 
examine  possible  ways  of  improving  them  in  order  to  avoid  the  high  costs  of  educational 
inequity72.  

Notwithstanding  the  importance  of  the  efficiency  perspective,  the  concept  of  educational 
quality clearly cannot be reduced to the relationship between inputs (resources) and outputs 
(educational  outcomes,  often  measured  as  results in achievement tests). High quality school 
education does not necessarily always result in high scores in international achievement tests, 
for example when significant numbers of students come from disadvantaged backgrounds, for 
which the school has not been able to compensate completely.  

Quality  cannot  be  judged  by  attainment  levels  in  some  subjects  alone.  The  European 
Commission developed in 2000 a framework for assessing the quality of school education in 
Europe  based  on  16  indicators  in  five  main  quality  areas73.  This  framework  is  based  on 
indicators  on  attainment  (in  Mathematics,  Reading,  Science,  ICT,  Foreign  Languages, 
Learning to Learn and Civics), on success and transition (drop-out rates, completion of upper 
secondary  and  participation  in  tertiary  education),  on  the  monitoring  of  education  (the 
evaluation  and  steering  of  school  education,  parent  participation),  and  on  resources  and 
structures (education and training of teachers, participation in pre-primary, number of students 
per computer and educational expenditure per student). The framework therefore covers many 
of the dimensions involved in raising the quality of school education. 

68 
69 
70 
71 

72 
73 

S. Power, Education, Policy Synthesis of EU Research Results, Series N°.4. (2007), p. 22. 
COM(2006) 481 final. 
SEC(2006) 1096. 
Educational efficiency, is defined in the Staff Working Paper SEC(2006) 1096 (p. 6) as 'a measure of 
how resources/inputs allocated to the educational system (…) are converted into outputs for individuals 
(…) as well as for the economy and society'. Equity is described in the Communication (page 2, 
footnote 2) 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'. 
OJ C 298/3 of 8.12.2006. 
European Report on the quality of school education: Sixteen quality indicators, European Commission 
(2000). 

EN 

27 

   EN 

                                                 
A  recent  study  on  the  common  characteristics  of  most  successful  school  systems  highlights 
the central role of setting high expectations for all students – and staff74. There is convergence 
among many analysts that successful education systems should deliver transparent outcomes 
of a high calibre, evenly distributed across society75. 

However,  in  some  Member  States,  the  variation  in  achievement  between  schools  can  be  as 
much  as  1½  or  even  2  times  the  OECD  average76.  On  average  across  OECD  countries, 
differences  between  schools  account  for  33%  of  the  OECD  average  variance  in  the 
performance  of  15-year-olds. Finland achieves not only the highest overall  performance but 
has one of the lowest levels of variation in student performance (14% of the OECD average). 
Other countries in which performance is not closely related to the schools in which students 
are  enrolled  include  Ireland,  Denmark,  Spain,  Poland,  Sweden,  Estonia  and  Latvia.  By 
contrast  in  Germany,  Bulgaria,  Czech  Republic,  Austria,  Hungary,  Netherlands,  Belgium, 
Italy and Slovenia the variance in student performance is between one and a half times and 
twice the OECD average77. 

74 

75 

76 

77 

for  example  Explaining  student  performance,  European  Commission, 

M. Barber, M. Moursched, How the world’s best-performing school systems come out on top, 
McKinsey & Co. (Sept. 2007), p. 27. 
See 
(2005),  p.  5. 
http://ec.europa.eu/education/  doc/reports/doc/basicskill.pdf;  H.  Niemi,  'Equity  and  good  learning 
outcomes', Paper presented at Finnish EU Presidency Conference (September 2006); S. Field et al, No 
more failures. Ten steps to equity in education, OECD (2007). 
PISA 2006: Science Competencies for Tomorrow’s World, OECD (2007) p .4 and p. 171. On unequal 
access  to  high-quality  provision  see  also:  Communication  from  the  Commission  to  the  Council  the 
European Parliament the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions: 
Promoting  young  people's  full  participation in  education, employment  and  society,  COM  (2007) 498, 
point 2 in particular. 
PISA 2006, pp. 172-173. 

EN 

28 

   EN 

                                                 
An analysis of PISA 2006 data (Chart 3.2) shows the range of attainment levels and levels of 
impact of socio-economic background on student results between countries. 

Chart 3.2: Performance in science and the impact of socio-economic background 

Above-average level of student performance in science
Above-average impact of socio-economic background

Above-average level of student performance in science
Below-average impact of socio-economic background

Czech Republic

Finland

Germany

Netherlands

OECD Mean

Hungary

Belgium

Slov enia

Lux embourg

France

Slov akia

Lithuania

Portugal

Greece

Bulgaria

Romania

Austria

United Kingdom
Ireland

Denmark

Spain

Poland

Estonia

Sw eden

Latv ia

Italy

score

600

550

500

450

400

350

300

Below-average level of student performance in science
Above-average impact of socio-economic background

30

20

n
a
e
M
D
C
E
O

Below-average level of student performance in science
Below-average impact of socio-economic background

10

Percentage of variance in performance 
explained by the PISA index of economic, 
social and cultural status (r-squared x 100)

0

Adapted from: PISA 2006, figure 4.10, p. 189. Data Source: OECD PISA 2006 database, Table 4.4a. 

(3.7) 

Guidance is an important tool for ensuring that every student can follow a learning pathway 
that responds to his or her needs. This is especially true at points of transition between stages 
of education, or between education and vocational training systems. The Council Resolution 
on  strengthening  policies,  systems  and  practices  in  the  field  of  guidance  throughout  life  in 
Europe  stressed  the  importance  of  guidance  in  schools  and  the  role  of  guidance  services  in 
encouraging  school  completion,  empowering  individuals  to  manage  their  own  learning  and 
careers  and  in  re-integrating  early  school  leavers  in  appropriate  education  and  training 
programmes78. 

In  a  lifelong  learning  framework  emphasis  upon  active  employability  in  the  labour  market 
poses  new  challenges  to  career  guidance.  It  needs  to  shift  from  being  largely  available  to 
selected groups, at particular points in life, to being much more widely available throughout 
the  lifespan.  Instead  of  helping  people  to  make  immediate  decisions  it  has  to  embrace  a 
broader  approach  that  also  encompasses  the  development  of  career  self-management  skills, 
such as the ability to make and implement effective career decisions79. Research has shown 

78 

79 

Resolution of the Council and of the representatives of the Member States meeting within the Council 
on  strengthening  policies,  systems  and  practices  in  the  field  of  guidance  throughout  life  in  Europe 
9286/04 (May 2004). 
Career guidance and public policy: bridging the gap, OECD (2004), chapter 1.  

EN 

29 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
that early career guidance within compulsory education is beneficial. Students should learn to 
understand early how their choices, including decisions about their school work, may affect 
their  lives  as  adults.  At  later  stages  in  compulsory  schooling,  career  education  programmes 
need  to  be  closely  and  actively  linked  to  the  world  of  work.  There  is  strong  case  for  more 
involvement  of  parents,  employers,  former  students  and  other  community 
active 
representatives,  along  with  teachers,  in  school  career  guidance  programmes80.  These 
principles are now being followed up by the Cluster ‘Recognition of Learning Outcomes’ and 
a  set  of  detailed  European  guidelines  for  validation  are  currently  being  developed81.  These 
principles and guidelines are linked to a ‘European Inventory on validation of non-formal and 
informal  learning’,  providing  technical  information  intended  to  support  implementation  of 
good practices in this field82.  

Alongside guidance, the validation of non-formal and informal learning is also crucial to the 
promotion  of  flexible  learning  pathways  and  equity.  The  Conclusions  on  the  Common 
European Principles for the identification and validation of non-formal and informal learning 
emphasise the right of each individual to equal access and fair treatment and the obligation of 
stakeholders to provide guidance, counselling and information about these validation systems 
and  approaches  to  individuals.  They  state  that  the  system  of  validation  must  be  fair, 
transparent  and  underpinned  by  quality  assurance  mechanisms,  it  should  respect  legitimate 
interests,  ensure  the  balanced  participation  of  relevant  stakeholders,  and  that  mechanisms 
should be in place to avoid conflict of interest83. 

(3.8) 

In relation to the early tracking of school students (differentiating pupils at an early age into 
separate  schools  of  different  types  on  the  basis  of  ability),  the  Commission  Staff  Working 
Paper on Efficiency and Equity summarised the evidence available up to 200684. It concluded 
that  when  undertaken  at  ages  10  to  12,  as  is  common  in  several  European  school  systems, 
tracking may exacerbate differences in educational attainment due to social background, and 
thereby lead to even more inequitable outcomes in terms of student and school performance. 
This  is  partly  because  it  tends  to  channel  the  most  disadvantaged  towards  less  prestigious 
forms  of  education  and  training,  while  the  more  advantaged  have  access  to  better 
opportunities.  

This is supported by a more recent study examining the relationship between accountability, 
autonomy,  choice,  equity and student performance which shows that, in countries where no 
selection takes place before age 15, the difference in performance between students with low- 
and  high  socio-economic  status  (SES)  is  of  65.0  test  score  points.  By  contrast  in  countries 

80 
81 

82 

83 

84 

Ibid., chapter 3. 
DG  EAC  and  CEDEFOP,  'Draft  European  Guidelines  on  validation  of  non-formal  and  informal 
learning'.  Discussion  paper  presented  to  the  conference  ‘Valuing  learning’  of  the  Portuguese 
Presidency, (November 2007). 
M.  S.  Otero,  J.  Hawley,  A.  M.  Nevala  (eds.),  European  inventory  on  validation  of  non-formal  and 
informal learning, ECOTEC (2007). 
Conclusions  of  the  Council  and  of  the  representatives  of  the  Governments  of  the  Member  States 
meeting within the Council on the Common European Principles for the identification and validation of 
non-formal and informal learning 9600/04 (May 2004). 
SEC (2006)1096, pp. 19-20. 

EN 

30 

   EN 

                                                 
where  tracking  takes  place  five  years  before  the  PISA  testing  age  of  15,  the  difference 
between children of high and low SES can be up to 107.7 test score points.85 

There  is,  however,  other  recent  evidence  that  the  effects  of  tracking  may  not  all  be 
detrimental. A study of the relationship between the length of time spent in a tracked system 
and  young  adults’  performance  in  standardized  cognitive  test  scores  found  evidence  of  a 
positive  performance  effect  of  tracking86.  A  second  study  based  on  cross-country  analysis, 
produced  mixed  findings.  On  the  one  hand,  it  found  that  in  countries  in  which  tracking  is 
undertaken later, the difference between the children of poorly and better educated parents in 
dropout  rates  and  college  enrolment  or  completion  is  smaller  than  in  countries  in  which 
tracking takes place early. On the other hand, it found that early school tracking reduces the 
impact of family background on the level and on the coefficient of variation of literacy87. 

(3.9) 

In many countries, pupils who are deemed not to have acquired an adequate mastery of the 
curriculum  at  the  end  of  a  school  year  may,  at  the  discretion  of  the  school,  be  required  to 
repeat the year. In Germany and Belgium, for example, repeating a year is frequent: between 
20  and  50%  of  pupils  repeat  at  some  time  during  compulsory  education;  in  other  countries 
pupils  normally  progress  automatically  from  one  year  to  the  next  throughout  compulsory 
education (see Chart 3.3). 

85 

86 

87 

G. Schütz, M. R. West and L. Wöβmann, 'School accountability, autonomy, choice, and the equity of 
student achievement from PISA 2003', OECD Working papers, EDU/WKP 9 (2007), pp. 32-33. 
K. Ariga, G. Brunello,  'Does  secondary  school  tracking  influence performance;  Evidence  from  IALS' 
Discussion paper series No. 2643, Forschungsinstitut zur Zukunft der Arbeit (2007), pp.1-16.  
G. Brunello, D. Checchi, ‘Does school tracking affect equality of opportunity? New international 
evidence’, Economic Policy (October 2007), pp. 781-861. 

EN 

31 

   EN 

                                                 
Chart 3.3: Main official recommendation for the progression to the next year during 

mainstream primary education (ISCED1) 2002/03 

Source: Eurydice (2005): Key Data on education in Europe. 
Note: For detailed country regulations on progression see publication, p. 296. 

Research shows that the decision to make a student repeat a grade is not always based upon 
explicit  and  transparent  criteria;  thus,  students  with  the  same  level  of  performance  may  be 
required to repeat in one school or with one teacher and not in another school or with another 
teacher88.  In  its  2007  report  on  primary  education,  the  French  High  Council  for  Education 
points out that repetition rates are significantly higher for pupils of lower SES than for pupils 
with  higher  SES,  and  that  teachers’  children  are  required  to  repeat  a  year  significantly  less 
frequently than others. The Council concludes that 'precocious grade repeating is ineffective 
and contrary to the principle of equal opportunities'89. 

Grade repetition is often considered by teachers as a compensatory measure: giving pupils a 
second  chance  or  more  time  to  'catch  up'.  There  is  evidence  to  contradict  this  view. 
Hutmacher finds that while some repeaters catch up, the vast majority does well in the first 
quarter of the repeated year only and then falls back. The long term achievements of students 
who have repeated tend to be lower than for weak students who did not repeat. The effect of 
being  labelled  a  ‘repeater’  can  also  have  important  negative  consequences  for  the  student’s 
future school career90. 

One  of  the  most  comprehensive  meta-analyses  on  this  topic  remains  the  work  of  Thomas 
Holmes, who in 1990 analysed 63 investigations comparing two groups of students: a control 

88 

89 
90 

G.  Bless,  P.  Bonvin,  M.  Schüpbach :  Le  redoublement  scolaire.  Ses  déterminants,  son  efficacité,  ses 
conséquences (2005), p.134. 
Haut Conseil de l’Education : L’école primaire. Bilan des résultats de l’école (2007), p.16. 
W.  Hutmacher :  'Quand  la  réalité  résiste  à  la  lutte  contre  l’échec  scolaire',  Cahiers  du  service  de  la 
recherche sociologique, 36, (1993), pp. 37-38 and pp. 145-161. 

EN 

32 

   EN 

 
                                                 
group of non-repeating weak students and a group of repeaters at different levels of primary 
school. His conclusion is unequivocal: ‘Those who continue to retain pupils at grade level do 
so  despite  cumulative  research  evidence  showing  that  the  potential  for  negative  effects 
consistently  outweighs  positive  outcomes’91.  The  OECD  states  that  year  repetition  is  often 
popular  with  teachers  but  that  there  is  little  evidence  that  it  is  beneficial  for  students. 
Repetition  is  expensive  –  ‘the  full  economic  cost  is  up  to  20  000  $US  equivalent  for  each 
student who repeats a year’92. 

(3.10) 

Chart 3.4 shows the correlations between child poverty and attainment. 

Chart 3.4: At-risk-of-poverty-rate, by highest level of education attained 2006 (%) 

45

40

35

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

Czech Republic
Belgium
EU (15 countries)
EU (25 countries)
Denmark

Germany

Estonia

Ireland

Greece

Spain

France

Italy

Cyprus

Lithuania
Latvia
Luxembourg

Hungary

Malta
Netherlands

Austria

Poland

Portugal

Slovenia

Slovakia

Finland
Sweden
United Kingdom

Pre-primary, primary and lower secondary education - levels 0-2 (ISCED 1997)
Upper secondary and post-secondary non-tertiary education - levels 3-4 (ISCED 1997)
Tertiary education - levels 5-6 (ISCED 1997)

Source: Eurostat (2007)  

Note: This indicator is defined as the share of persons with an equivalised disposable income below the risk-of-
poverty  threshold,  which  is  set  at  60  %  of  the  national  median  equivalised  disposable  income  (after  social 
transfers).  

91 

92 

C. T. Holmes, 'Grade level retention effects: A Meta-analysis of research studies' in: L. A. Shepard, M. 
L. Smith (eds.), Flunking Grades. Research and policies on retention (1990), pp. 16-33. Cited in J. J. 
Paul, Th. Troncin, 'Les apports de la recherche sur l’impact du redoublement comme moyen de traiter 
les difficultés scolaires au cours de la scolarité obligatoire' in: Haut Conseil de l’évaluation de l’école, 
N°  14  (2004).  See  also  M.  Crahay,  'Peut-on  conclure  à  propos  des  effets  du  redoublement',  Revue 
Française  de  Pédagogie,  148  (2005),  p.14 ;  and  M.  Crahay,  Peut-on  lutter  contre  l'échec  scolaire? 
(2007). 
S. Field et al, No more failure. Ten steps to equity in education, OECD (2007), Chapter 4, pp. 91-92. 

EN 

33 

   EN 

 
                                                 
The Commission's Bureau of European Policy Advisors (BEPA) recently reported that poor 
children experience a disproportionate share of deprivation, disadvantage, bad health and bad 
school outcomes. When they grow up, they are more likely to become unemployed, to get low 
paid jobs, to live in social housing, to get in trouble with the police, and are at a greater risk of 
alcohol  and  drug  abuse  as  young  adults.  Moreover,  in  most  countries,  they  are  likely  to 
transfer their poverty of opportunities to their own children. This has an economic, social and 
political cost which should be set against the public expenditure costs of early interventions 
(assuming  such  interventions  can  be  made  effective)  to  reduce  the  risks  of  future  negative 
outcomes and social exclusion93. 

A recent report by BEPA on empowering youth highlights the following main areas in which 
action  is  required  across  the  European  Union:  invest  early;  combine  social  and  economic 
goals;  co-ordinate  investment  across  policy  areas  and  layers;  and  improve  information 
gathering and dissemination to facilitate decision-making94. 

(3.11 - 3.12) 

The  Cluster  ‘Social  Inclusion’  has  emphasised  the  importance  of  mapping  and  improving 
preventive  measures  to  combat  disadvantage,  the  need  to  avoid  a  very  high  turnover  of 
teachers,  and  to  ensure  that  well-trained  and  experienced  teachers  are  attracted  to  work  in 
‘disadvantaged’ schools95. 

Nevertheless schools cannot bring about change without change in the wider society. Shavit 
and Blossfeld showed that, in the 13 countries they studied, no attempts to redress educational 
inequalities  solely  through  education  policy  had  succeeded,  and  that  the  only  two  countries 
that  had  reduced  inequalities  had  done  so  through  the  medium  of  wider  social  policies96. 
Anyon,  in  the  USA,  argues  that  while  rules  and  regulations  regarding  teaching,  curriculum, 
and  assessment  are  clearly  important,  they  cannot  be  effective  without  policies  to  eliminate 
poverty-wage  work  and  housing  segregation  (for  example)  whose  consequences  for  urban 
education are at least as profound as curriculum, pedagogy, and testing97. 

Early School Leaving  

(3.13 - 3.14) 

Early school leaving is defined as persons aged between 16 and 24 leaving education with no 
more than lower secondary education, and currently participating in no form of education and 
training.  The  Commission's  Staff  Working  Paper  on  efficiency  and  equity  in  European 
education  and  training  systems  gave  an  overview  of  literature  on  the  costs  of  inequity  and 

93 

94 
95 

96 

97 

R.  Liddle,  F.  Delais,  Europe's  social  reality.  A  consultation  paper  from  BEPA  (  2006);  See  also:  A 
thematic  study  to  identify  what  policy  responses are  successful  in preventing  child poverty,  European 
Commission, (2006); Study on access to education and training, basic skills and early school leavers, 
European  Commission,  (2005)  p.  9.  http://ec.europa.eu/education/doc/reports/doc/earlyleave.pdf; 
Cluster  on  Access  and  Social  Inclusion;,  Joint  Report  on  Social  Protection  and  Social  Inclusion, 
European Council 7274/08 (2008), ; http://register.consilium.europa.eu/pdf/en/08/st07/st07274.en08.pdf 
Investing in youth: an empowerment strategy, BEPA (April 2007). 
Discussed 
http://www.consilium.europa.eu/ueDocs/cms_Data/docs/pressData/en/educ/98734.pdf. 
Y. Shavit, H. P. Blossfeld, Persistent inequality. Changing educational attainment in thirteen countries 
(1993). 
J. Anyon, Radical possibilities: public policy, urban education, and a new social movement (2006). 

14.02.2008: 

Education 

meeting 

Council 

the 

of 

at 

EN 

34 

   EN 

                                                 
early school leaving in Europe98. The above-mentioned BEPA study on youth empowerment 
provided  further  evidence  about  the  costs  of  early  school  leaving99.  Comprehensive 
comparative data for the EU are however still lacking.  

Reducing  the  rate  of  early  school  leaving  to  no  more  than  10%  in  2010  is  one  of  the  five 
benchmarks  for  monitoring  the  progress  of  European  education  and  training  systems 
established by the European Council in 2002. In most Member States the percentage of early 
school leavers decreased between 2000 and 2006, but progress is not sufficient to reach the 
benchmark100. The latest (2007) average figure for early school leavers in the EU (14.8%) is 
still far in excess of the benchmark (see Chart 3.5). 

98 
99 
100 

SEC (2006) 1096, pp.12-13. 
Investing in youth: an empowerment strategy, BEPA (2007), pp. 31-32. 
SEC(2007)1284, pp. 29-35.  

EN 

35 

   EN 

                                                 
Chart 3.5: Early School Leavers, 2000 and 2007 
(Percentage of the population aged 18-24 with only lower secondary education  
and not in education or training, 2000 and 2007) 

2000 

2007 

Country 

17.6 

12.5 

: 

: 

11.6 

14.9 

14.2 

14.8  EU-27 

12.3  Belgium  

16.6  Bulgaria  

:  Czech Republic 

12.4  Denmark  

12.7  Germany  

14.3  Estonia  

: 

11.5 

Ireland  

18.2 

29.1 

13.3 

25.3 

18.5 

14.7  Greece  

31.0  Spain  

12.7 

France  

19.3 

Italy  

12.6  Cyprus  

: 

16.0 

Latvia  

16.7 

16.8 

13.8 

54.2 

15.5 

10.2 

: 

42.6 

22.3 

: 

: 

8.9 

7.7 

18.4 

: 

: 

58.8 

29.8 

: 

13.3 

8.7 

Lithuania  

15.1 

Luxembourg  

10.9  Hungary  

37.6  Malta  

12.0  Netherlands  

10.9  Austria  

5.0  Poland  

36.3  Portugal  

19.2  Romania  

4.3  Slovenia  

7.2  Slovakia  

7.9 

Finland  

:  Sweden  

:  United Kingdom 

3.9  Croatia  

: 

FYR Macedonia  

47.6 

Turkey  

: 

: 

Iceland  

Liechtenstein  

:  Norway  

Data Source: Eurostat (EU-Labour Force Survey 2008) 

Additional Notes: 
Provisional 2007 data for Latvia, Portugal and Finland. 
Unreliable data for Slovenia and Croatia because of the small sample size. 
Break in series for Finland (2000) and Denmark (2007). 
Cyprus: pupils studying abroad are not covered by the survey; this indicator is therefore overestimated. 

Most  research  identifies  a  combination  of  several  reasons,  ranging  from  individual 
characteristics, education and job related reasons, family and peer relations to community and 
environmental  reasons  for  early  school  leaving.  An  extensive  study  for  the  European 

EN 

36 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Commission in 2005 made clear that overall socio-economic background is one of the main 
determinants of early school leaving101. 

A  Commission  study  on  policy  measures  concerning  disadvantaged  youth  also  examined 
good practice to combat early school leaving102. General measures, such as extending the age 
of  compulsory  education,  removing  mechanisms  of  selection  or  curricular  reforms  were 
examined,  as  well  as  school-related  measures  such  as  counselling,  support  teaching  or  the 
combination of non-formal learning. The study made the distinction between preventative and 
compensatory  measures  such  as  second  chance  schools.  While  both  have  a  role  to  play, 
attention is increasingly shifting towards how to prevent early school leaving. 

Eight Member States (Belgium, Estonia, Greece, Lithuania, Malta, the Netherlands, Portugal 
and Spain) set national targets for reducing early school leaving in their 2005 Lisbon National 
Reform Programmes. The accompanying initiatives are not focused only on curricula, but also 
on extracurricular activities such as sport. The countries taking action in this field are not only 
those with a high proportion of early school leavers but also those which have been successful 
in the past in reducing or limiting the phenomenon103. 

Special Educational Needs (SEN) 

(3.18) 

The  concept  of  special  educational  needs  is  broad  and  varies  from  country  to  country.  It 
extends  beyond  those  who  may  be  included  in  'handicapped'  categories  to  cover  those  who 
have many other kinds of special need. The amount and type of additional support for these 
groups  also  varies  greatly  from  country  to  country.  Given  that  the  way  in  which  SEN  are 
defined,  and  consequently  the  types  of  provision  available  differ  by  country,  direct 
comparisons  between  countries  of  the  percentages  of  pupils  in  separate  provision  are  not 
appropriate.  However,  trends  in  the  proportion  of  pupils  educated  separately  are  a  useful 
indication of developments towards inclusion for SEN pupils (see Chart 3.6). 

101 

102 

103 

Study on access to education and training, basic skills and early school leavers: Early school leavers, 
European Commission (2005) http://ec.europa.eu/education/doc/reports/doc/earlyleave.pdf  
Thematic study on policy measures concerning disadvantaged youth, European Commission (2005) 
http://ec.europa.eu/employment_social/social_inclusion/docs/youth_study_en.pdf  
SEC(2007)1284, p. 33. 

EN 

37 

   EN 

                                                 
Chart 3.6: Percentage of pupils in compulsory education  
with special needs in segregated settings, 1999/2001 – 2004/2006 

Data source: European Agency for Development in Special Needs Education and Eurydice for 1999-2001; 
European Agency for Development in Special Needs Education for 2004-2006. 

Additional note: EU average calculated as arithmetic average of EU Member States for which data are available. 

With very few exceptions, these trends show only very moderate change and no clear pattern 
emerges  in  Europe.  The  number  of  countries showing an increase  in the proportion of SEN 
pupils  in  separate  provision  is  similar  to  those  showing  a  decrease,  with  several  countries 
showing no changes, or almost none, in these proportions over this time period104. 

Several  political  documents  have  argued  in  the  last  decade  for  the  benefits  of  inclusive 
education  for  children  with  special  educational  needs.  The  Salamanca  Statement  in  1994 
(signed by 92 governments and 25 organisations), inter alia, called upon all governments to 
'adopt as a matter of law or policy the principle of inclusive education, enrolling all children 
in regular schools, unless there are compelling reasons for doing otherwise'105.  

In  September  2007  a  European  Hearing  attended  by  young  people  with  special  educational 
needs from 29 countries, from secondary, vocational and higher education, in the framework 
of  the  Portuguese  Presidency  of  the  Council,  resulted  in  a  declaration  stating  'it  is  very 
important to give everyone the freedom to choose where they want to be educated; inclusive 
education  is  best  if  the  conditions  are  right  for  us;  we  see  a  lot  of  benefits  in  inclusive 
education: we acquire more social skills; we live wider experiences; we learn about how to 
manage in the real world; we need to have and interact with friends with and without special 
needs; inclusive education with individualised, specialised support is the best preparation for 
higher education; specialised centres would be of help to support us and to inform universities 
properly  about  the  help  we  require;  inclusive  education  is  mutually  beneficial  to  us  and  to 
everyone'106. 

The United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities was adopted on 13 
December  2006  and  declares  that  'persons  with  disabilities  can  access  an  inclusive,  quality 

104 

105 
106 

Ibid.: Between 1999 and 2006, no overall progress was made towards greater inclusion of pupils with 
special needs; the proportion of such pupils educated in special settings decreased in 11, but increased 
in 12 out of 25 countries. 
Salamanca statement and framework for action on special needs education ( 1994), p. ix. 
Lisbon Declaration: Young People's Views on Inclusive Education, (2007), p.1. 

EN 

38 

   EN 

 
                                                 
and  free  primary  education  and  secondary  education  on  an  equal  basis  with  others  in  the 
communities in which they live.'  

In  2007  a  Declaration  of  the  European  Parliament  called  for  a  charter  on  'dys'  children 
(defined  as  children  with  disability  such  as  dysphasia,  dyspraxia,  dyslexia,  dyscalculia  or 
attention  deficit  disorder,  etc.).  The  purpose  of  such  charter  would  be  to:  promote  best 
practice  in  making  information  accessible  for  people  with  disabilities,  promote  the  use  of 
effective  pedagogies  and  early  intervention  strategies;  and  promote  the  integration  of  such 
children into the world of work107. 

A literature review by the European Agency for Development in Special Needs Education has 
sought  to  map  good  classroom  practices  on  inclusive  education  in  primary  and  secondary 
settings  by  collecting  existing  practices  and  analysing  their  impact.  The  practices  it 
investigated  were:  cooperative  teaching,  peer  tutoring  and  cooperative  learning,  curriculum- 
based measurement, collaborative problem solving and mixed designs108.  

To  date,  quantitative  information  about  the  benefits  of  inclusive  education  for  all  is  scarce. 
Further analysis is needed. In a recent publication on SEN students the OECD pointed out that 
so far the work on SEN students has been determined by the availability of data109. However, 
for future comparative work it is crucial to collect systematically economic data and data on 
outcomes for SEN students. The publication also calls for the need to include SEN students in 
the future rounds of PISA. OECD has recently started a new study that aims to examine issues 
of transition of SEN students into further and higher education and the labour market. Within 
the context of transitions OECD is also planning to focus in the future on the question of how 
enabling or disabling schools are in securing the continuity of the education of SEN students.  

School development 

(3.19 - 3.21) 

Effective school improvement is high on most countries’ educational agenda110.  

A  recent  European  research  project  conducted  an  extensive  analysis  of  some  30  school 
improvement  projects  in  eight  countries  (The  Netherlands,  Finland,  United  Kingdom, 
Belgium-French Community, Greece, Italy, Spain, and Portugal)111. The research showed that 
the  accent  is  often  on  teacher  quality,  which  is  certainly  an  important  factor;  but  individual 
teachers cannot in isolation produce high levels of performance for all students of a school nor 
promote lasting changes within their schools. It is essential to consider the school as a whole, 
i.e.  as  an  organisation.  The  organisation  may  add  or  subtract  value  to  that  of  its  individual 
members.  The  study  claims  that  outside  pressure  is  needed  for  schools  to  change.  It 
distinguished  four  main  types:  market  mechanism,  external  evaluation  and  accountability, 

107 

108 
109 

110  

111 

Written  declaration  of  the  European  Parliament  on  "dys"  crimination  and  social  exclusion  affecting 
children with "dys" abilities, (0064/2007). 
C.J.W Meier, Inclusive education and effective classroom practices, EADSNE (2001), pp. 31-32.  
Students  with  disabilities,  learning  difficulties  and  disadvantages.  Policies,  statistics  and  indicators, 
OECD (2007), pp. 215-224. 
Also  at  the  level  of  the  European  Schools,  reform  of  their  governance  arrangements  is  currently 
underway and access to the European Baccalaureat is being widened to other school types. 
See project within the fourth EU framework programme for research: 'Capacity for change and 
adaptation of schools in the case of effective school improvement' (July 2001). 
http://www.pjb.co.uk/npl/bp27.htm  

EN 

39 

   EN 

                                                 
external  agents,  such  as  inspectors,  and  participation  of  society  in  education  and  societal 
changes.  Schools  –  and  indeed  school  education  systems  -  are  often  not  organised 
appropriately to respond to a fast-changing environment. The study identified three material 
and  non-material  kinds  of  support  that  might  contribute  to  school  improvement:  granting  a 
certain  level  of  autonomy  to  schools,  financial  resources  and  working  conditions  and  local 
support from parents, district officials, school administrators and school boards. 

Increasingly,  the  evidence  points  to  the  potential  of  'learning  communities'  to  generate  the 
capacity for school improvement. Such communities offer opportunities for teachers to work 
together without being dependent upon external initiatives or interventions112. However, much 
depends upon a school’s internal capacity to become a learning community in the first place. 
It is clear that not all schools have this capacity, suggesting that those schools which would 
benefit most from teachers working together may be those least able to make this happen. 

Recent studies therefore emphasise that school improvement programmes have to be related 
to capacity building; thus there should be more emphasis on sophisticated training, coaching 
and  development  programmes  for  practitioners  and  the  use  of  external  support  agencies113. 
They emphasise that schools and school systems facing organisational challenges emphasise 
in  one  way  or  another  that  real  change  in  schools  requires  the  development  of  strong 
professional  communities114.  Two  ways  of  building  capacity  are 
internal 
collaboration or school-to-school collaboration115. 

through 

Several  European  research  projects  on  school  effectiveness  suggest  that  a  combination  of 
external  mechanisms  and  institutional  autonomy  is  most  effective  in  bringing  about 
improvements in local contexts116. The importance of local and national contexts is such that 
there  is  unlikely  to  be  a  single  recipe  for  change.  Moreover,  even  with  the  appropriate 
framework  of  external  mechanisms,  improvement  takes  time117.  These  conclusions  are 
confirmed by the results of the ESI (Effective School Improvement) survey118.  

Much  research  emphasises  the  important  role  of  parents  and  the  wider  social  community  in 
school improvement119. 

112 

113 

114 

115 

116 
117 
118 
119 

See report of the Cluster ‘Teachers and Trainers’: 'Schools as learning communities for their teachers.' 
http://ec.europa.eu/education/policies/2010/doc/reportpeer2_en.pdf 
A. Harris, C. Chapman, Effective leadership in schools facing challenging circumstances (2002); L. 
Stool, D. Fink, Changing our schools: linking school effectiveness and school improvement (1996). 
See the policy conclusions of the Cluster ‘Teachers and Trainers’ http://ec.europa.eu/education/policies/ 
2010/doc/reportpeer5_en.pdf; see also K. S. Louis –S. Kruse (eds.): Professionalism and community : 
Perspectives  on  reforming  urban  schools  (1995);  L  Stoll,  K.  Seashore  Louis,  Professional  learning 
communities  (2007),  and  R.  Bolam  et  al  (eds.),  Creating  and  sustaining  professional  learning 
communities,  Research  Report  (2005);  J.  Cibulka,  S.  Coursey,  M.  Nakayama,  J.  Price,  S.  Stewart, 
Schools as learning organisations: A review of the literature, NCSL, UK, (2003). 
See A. Bolivar, 'Capacity-building as a means to empower schools', Paper presented at the EU 
presidency conference on 'Schools facing up to new challenges' (November 2007) P. M. Senge, The 
fifth discipline. The art and practice of the learning organisation (1990); R. Glatter, 'Schools and school 
systems facing complexity: organisational challenges', Paper presented at the EU presidency conference 
in Lisbon on 'Schools facing up to new challenges in the 21st century' (November 2007). 
S. Power, Education. Policy Synthesis of EU research results. Series N° 4 (2007), p. 24. 
Ibid. 
Survey conducted across three countries: UK, Spain, Netherlands. 
J. S. Coleman, 'Social capital in the creation of human capital', American Journal of Sociology 
Supplement 94 (1988); R. D. Putman, 'Education, diversity, social cohesion and 'social capital' – note 

EN 

40 

   EN 

                                                 
The project 'Legal Framework for New Governance and Modern Policy Education throughout 
Europe' sought to identify the impact of new accountability mechanism on schools through a 
comparative  study  of  26  national  systems  based  on  expert  accounts,  analysis  of  legal 
frameworks  and  questionnaire  survey.  It  found  that  systemic  and  cyclical  self  evaluation 
appears  to  be  an  effective  tool  for  providing  schools  with  the  means  of  identifying  areas  of 
improvement and directions for change120. 

(3.22) 

The  complementary  nature  of  external  and  internal  evaluation  raises  important  questions 
about who the players are, who sets the standards for the procedures and what happens to the 
findings  (see  Chart  3.7).  The  general  tendency  is  to  introduce  external  evaluation  involving 
judgements about performance and means, and internal evaluation for developing strategies to 
improve the current situation, while either approach may identify precisely those aspects that 
require improvement. 

Chart 3.7: Relations between the internal and external evaluation of schools as entities, 
compulsory general education, 2002/03 

Source: Eurydice (2005): Key Data on Education in Europe. 
Note: for details on evaluation approaches in different countries see publication. 

A  recent  Eurydice  study  on  school  autonomy  attempted  to  make  correlations  between 
autonomy and accountability (see Chart 3.8). It notes that from the middle of the 1990s the 
concept  of  accountability  became  increasingly  important  and  assumed  different  forms  in 
different  countries.  These  new  models  of  accountability  usually  represent  an  adjustment  of 

for discussion', OECD Education Ministers meeting Dublin 'Raising the quality of learning for all' 
(March 18-19, 2004). 
S. Power, Education, Policy Synthesis of EU research results. Series N° 4 (2007), p. 23. 

120 

EN 

41 

   EN 

                                                                                                                                                         
evaluation instruments that were either already in place (school inspectorates, for example) or 
were  developed  to  meet  broader  objectives,  such  as  standardized  assessment  of  pupil 
attainment.  

Chart 3.8: Publication of findings from the external evaluation of schools,  
compulsory general education 2006/07 

Source: Eurydice (2007): School autonomy in Europe. Policies and measures. 

The study concludes that, 'supervision by inspectorates or organising bodies (including local 
authorities)  or  the  monitoring  of  results  (in  particular  the  results  of  pupils  in  standardised 
tests)  do  not  equate  to  a  particular  degree  of  autonomy.  Countries  with  a  high  level  of 
autonomy  (Belgium,  Czech  Republic,  Denmark,  Sweden,  etc.)  draw  on  all  these  different 
types of control. This diversity is explained by the fact that traditional methods of supervision 
(inspection  of  teachers  for  example)  have  been  adapted  to  accommodate  the  new 
responsibilities delegated to schools'121.  

It is rare for countries to have developed, as in the United Kingdom (England), accountability 
measures in tandem with school autonomy policies and in relation to the degree of freedom 
granted. However, all countries where there is a high level of autonomy have developed forms 
of accountability which vary considerably in their level of control. Conversely, the countries 
which do not have a structured model of school evaluation are those where school autonomy 
reforms  have  been  developed  fairly  recently,  only  partially  or  are  weak  (Bulgaria,  Greece, 
France, Italy, etc.). However, this approach to accountability has begun to emerge in a few of 

121 

School autonomy in Europe. Policies and measures, Eurydice (2008), p. 46.  

EN 

42 

   EN 

                                                 
these countries. Italy, for example, has recently decided to develop evaluation instruments to 
measure the value added by each school in terms of pupil attainment'122. 

Recent  studies  on  the  relationship  between  school  accountability,  autonomy,  choice,  equity, 
and student achievements, suggest that school autonomy may be more beneficial in systems 
where external exams introduce accountability and external exams change the behaviour not 
only  of  students,  but  also  of  teachers  and  school123.  The  analysis  of  the  2006  PISA  results 
seems  to  corroborate  this  result.  Further  research  is  needed  to  determine  the  precise 
mechanisms at work.  

4. TEACHERS AND SCHOOL STAFF 

Teacher Competences and Qualifications 

(4.1 – 4.2) 

Within  the  Education  and  Training  2010  work  programme,  a  group  of  national  experts  on 
teacher  and  trainer  education  prepared  ‘Common  European  Principles  for  Teacher 
Competences  and  Qualifications’,  a  statement  of  basic  principles  on  the  competences  and 
qualifications  required  by  teachers  and  trainers.  This  was  validated  by  a  Stakeholder 
conference in July 2005124.  

Following  on  from  this  work,  the  European  Commission  in  August  2007  published  a 
Communication ‘Improving the Quality of Teacher Education’125. This identified the quality 
of  teaching  and  Teacher  Education  as  key  factors  in  securing  the  quality  of  education  and 
improving the educational attainment of young people.  

The  Commission’s  proposals  were  based  upon  research  showing,  inter  alia,  that:  teacher 
quality is the most important within-school factor affecting student performance126; there are 
positive relationships between in-service training and student achievement127; the amount of 
in-service  training  available  to  practising  teachers  in  the  EU  is  very  limited,  generally 
amounting to less than 20 hours per year; only half of Member States offer new teachers any 
systematic  kind  of  support  in  their  first  years  of  teaching;  and  that  explicit  frameworks  to 

122 
123 

124 

125 
126 

127 

Ibid.  
L. Wöβmann, 'The complementarity of central exams and school autonomy: economic theory and 
international evidence', in: J. de Groof, C. Glenn, E. Gori, D. Vidoni (eds.), ‘Quality control, 
accountability and liability in education’ (2005); idem, 'Contribution of Education and Training to 
innovation and growth', Paper presented at the Symposium on the future perspectives of Education and 
Training for growth, jobs and social cohesion (June 2007); G. Schütz, M. R. West, L. Wöβmann, 
'School accountability, autonomy, choice, and the equity of student achievement from PISA 2003', 
OECD Working papers, EDU/WKP 9 (2007). 
Common 
for 
Principles 
http://ec.europa.eu/education/policies/2010/doc/principles_en.pdf 
COM(2007)392 final. 
S.  G.  Rivkin,  E.  A.  Hanushek,  J.  F.  Kain,  'Teachers,  schools  and  academic  achievement',  National 
Bureau of Economic Research (2000); E. A. Hanushek, J. F. Kain, S. G. Rivkin , 'Teachers, schools, 
and academic achievement', Econometrica, 73/ 2 (March, 2005), pp. 417–458  
J.  D.  Angrist,  V.  Lavy,  'Does  teacher  training  affect  pupil  learning?  Evidence  from  matched 
comparisons in Jerusalem public schools?', Journal of Labor Economics, 19/ 2 (Apr., 2001), pp. 343-
369. 

Qualifications 

Competences 

European 

Teacher 

and 

EN 

43 

   EN 

                                                 
assist teachers who experience difficulties in performing their duties adequately exist in only 
one third of countries128.  

The  Communication  made  proposals  to:  ensure  that  provision  for  teachers'  education  and 
professional development is coordinated, coherent, and adequately resourced; ensure that all 
teachers  possess  the  knowledge,  attitudes  and  pedagogic  skills  that  they  require  to  be 
effective; support the professionalisation of teaching; promote a culture of reflective practice 
and  research  within  the  teaching  profession;  and  promote  the  status  and  recognition  of  the 
profession. The Communication was the basis for the subsequent Council Conclusions on the 
same topic129. 

Within  the  Education  and  Training  2010  programme,  work  on  Teacher  Education  is  being 
carried forward by the Cluster ‘Teachers and Trainers’, who publish detailed reports of their 
peer-learning activities, and conclusions about policies for improving Teacher Education130.  

The  Commission  Staff  Working  Document  ‘Towards  more  knowledge-based  policy  and 
practice in education and training’ emphasised teachers’ roles in the creation and application 
of  knowledge131.  It  advocated  that  teachers  should  receive  adequate  training  in  research 
methods,  and  incentives  to  undertake  research  and  action  research  throughout  their  careers, 
seeing this as part of professional good practice.  

The Commission in 2006 commissioned a study on the mobility of teachers and trainers in the 
European  Union132.  The  study  identifies,  for  each  country,  the  number  of  teaching  posts 
(FTE) in 2004133 and the age and gender profile of the teaching profession is analysed134. The 
study also identifies the trends in teacher numbers based upon a number of factors. It predicts 
the likely effects of different policy scenarios on those numbers135. Data on the age profile of 
the teaching profession in each country are provided by Eurostat. On average in EU Member 
States, 30% of teachers are in the over-50 age group. This equates to some 1,972,271 teachers 
who can be expected to need to be replaced over the next 10 to 15 years. 

(4.4) 

A recent study by McKinsey & Co. on the common characteristics of most successful school 
systems  highlights  the  central  role  of  teachers,  asserting  that  ‘the  quality  of  an  education 
system cannot exceed the quality of its teachers’ and that ‘the only way to improve outcomes 
is  to  improve  instruction’136.  The  OECD's  thematic  review  on  the  teaching  profession 
emphasised the importance of the quality of teaching, the need to align teacher development 
and  performance  better  with  school  needs,  and  the  need  to  transform  teaching  into  a 

128 
129 
130 

131 
132 

133 
134 
135 
136 

Key data on Education in Europe, Eurydice (2005), pp. 185-232. 
OJ C 300/07 of 15.11.2007. 
Teacher and Trainer Education: Policy conclusions and recommendations from peer learning activities 
2005 – 2007; http://ec.europa.eu/education/policies/2010/objectives_en.html 
SEC(2007)1098, p. 55. 
Mobility  of  teachers  and  trainers.  A  report  submitted  by  GHK  to  the  European  Commission  (2006) 
http://ec.europa.eu/education/doc/reports/doc/mobility.pdf. 
Ibid., Table 3.2, p. 21. 
Ibid., Section 3.4, from p. 25 onwards and annexes. 
Ibid., Section 8, from p. 156 onwards. 
M.  Barber,  M.  Moursched,  How  the  world’s  best-performing  school  systems  come  out  on  top, 
McKinsey & Co. (Sept. 2007). 

EN 

44 

   EN 

                                                 
knowledge-rich  profession.  It  also  underlined  that  it  is  crucial  that  schools  have  genuine 
responsibility for teacher personal management in which leadership plays a crucial role137. 

Chart  4.1  shows  that  teacher  quality  has  a  significant  effect  on  student  performance,  more 
than any other variable. On average, the performance of two students of average performance 
(50th  percentile)  diverged  by  more  than  50  percentile  points  over  a  three  year  period 
depending on the teacher they were assigned.  

Chart 4.1: The effect of teacher quality 

Student 
performance 

100th percentile 

Student with high-performing* teacher 

90th percentile 

50th percentile 

53 percentile points 

Student with low-performing** teacher 

37th percentile 

0th percentile 

Age 8 

Age 11 

*Among the top 20% of teachers. **Among the bottom 20% of teachers 

Source: Sanders and Rivers (2007), Cumulative and Residual Effects on Future Student Academic Achievement, 
cited in M. Barber, M. Moursched, How the world’s best-performing school systems come out on top, McKinsey 
& Co. (Sept. 2007), p. 11. 

As far  as  the  quality of  teachers and teaching are concerned, the study notes that in the top 
performing systems: there are multiple pathways into the teaching profession; low performing 
teachers are removed from the classroom; there are effective mechanisms for allocating places 
on teacher training programmes to well-motivated high achievers with good communication 
skills; starting remuneration is in line with other graduates’ starting salaries; the status of the 
profession  is  carefully  managed.  Effective  and  successful  systems  promote  good  interaction 
between  teachers  and  students  by:  coaching  classroom  practice,  developing  strong  school 
leaders and enabling teachers to learn from each other138.  

137 
138 

Teachers matter: attracting, developing and retaining effective teachers, OECD (2005). 
M.  Barber,  M.  Moursched,  How  the  world’s  best-performing  school  systems  come  out  on  top, 
McKinsey & Co. (Sept. 2007), p. 38. 

EN 

45 

   EN 

 
                                                 
School Leadership  

(4.5 - 4.6) 

Several studies on school improvement point to the fact that effective leadership is central in 
implementing  and  sustaining  school  improvement139.  Those  studies  that  see  a  close 
relationship between effective school leadership and student outcomes advocate the need for 
developing shared vision, distributing leadership and building the school culture necessary to 
current restructuring efforts in schools140. 

The  recent  OECD  study  Improving  School  Leadership:  Policy  and  Practice  identifies  four 
core  functions  for  leadership:  supporting,  evaluating  and  developing  teacher  quality;  goal 
setting,  assessment  and  accountability;  strategic  resource  management;  leadership  beyond 
school borders141. 

Leadership  in  this  context  is  primarily  about  managing  the  conditions  under  which  people 
learn  new  practices;  creating  organisations  that  are  supportive,  coherent  environments  for 
successful  practice;  and  developing  leadership  skills  of  others.  Elmore  explains  how 
leadership might be defined more clearly as a collective good; it should be treated as a human 
investment enterprise, which has three important characteristics: it focuses on the practice of 
improving the quality of instruction and the performance of students; it treats leadership as a 
distributed function rather than a role based activity, and it requires more or less continuous 
investment in knowledge and skills142.  

Senge views leadership and leaders at the centre of the learning organisation where they are 
designers, stewards and teachers143. 

For  Hopkins,  ‘system  leaders'  are  those  head-teachers  who  are  willing  to  shoulder  system 
leadership  roles:  who  care  about  and  work  for  the  success  of  other  schools  as  well  as  their 
own144. 

The OECD concludes that 'evidence shows that principals have a measurable, mostly indirect 
influence on learning outcomes'145. This implies that the impact of school leaders on student 

139 

140 
141 
142 

143 
144 

145 

D. Vidoni, L. Grassetti, C. Bezzina, D. Gattelli (eds.), The role of school leadership on student 
achievement: evidence from TIMSS 2003, unpublished (2007), pp. 33-39. It gives an overview of the 
literature on the subject since the 1960s. 
K. Leithwood, D. Jantzi, R. Steinbech, Changing leadership for changing times (1999) 
Improving school leadership, OECD (2008), pp. 32-48. 
R. F. Elmore, 'Leadership as the practice of improvement' Paper presented at the International 
Conference of OECD, 'International perspectives on school leadership for systemic improvement' (July 
2006). 
P. Senge, The fifth discipline. The art and practice of the learning organisation (1990), p. 340. 
D. Hopkins, 'Short primer on system leadership', Paper presented at the International Conference of 
OECD, ‘International perspectives on school leadership for systemic improvement’ (July 2006), p.8.; 
Ibid., p. 13. see D. Hopkins (ed.), Innovative approaches to contemporary school leadership , 
OECD,(forthcoming), and the system leadership series led by Professor Hopkins on 
http://www.ssatinet.net/events/futureevents/systemleadershipseries.aspx 
Improving school leadership, OECD (2008), p. 8. and P. Hallinger, R. Heck, 'Exploring the principal’s 
contribution to school effectiveness: 1980- 1995', School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 9 
(1998), pp. 157-191. 

EN 

46 

   EN 

                                                 
learning  is  generally  mediated  by  other  people,  events  and  organisational  factors  such  as 
teachers, classroom practices and school climate.  

According  to  Spillane  et  al.  distributed  leadership  incorporates  the  activities  of  multiple 
groups  of  individuals  in  a  school  guiding  and  mobilising  staff  in  the  instructional  change 
process through inter-dependency rather than dependency146. 

Silins  and  Mulford  conclude  that  student  outcomes  are  more  likely  to  improve  where 
leadership  sources  are  distributed  throughout  the  school  community  and  where  teachers  are 
empowered in areas of importance to them. They argue that teachers cannot create and sustain 
the conditions for the productive development of children if those conditions do not exist for 
teachers.  If  schools  are  to  become  better  at  providing  learning  for  students,  they  must  also 
become  better  at  providing  opportunities  for  teachers  to  innovate,  develop  and  learn 
together147. 

Timperley  and  Spillane  have  investigated  links  between  distributed  leadership  and  school 
success148.  They  suggest  that  while  traditional  approaches  to  leadership  recommend  that 
organisational and instructional coherence can be established by creating a strong vision for a 
school  that  pervades  the  organisational  culture,  distributed  leadership  focuses  on  the  things 
people do to enact those visions and create coherence. 

146 

147 

148 

J. Spillane, R. Halverson, J. Diamond, 'Towards a theory of school leadership practice: implications of 
distributed perspective', Journal of Curriculum Studies 36/1 (2004), pp. 3-34. 
H. Silins, B. Mulford, 'Leadership and schools results', in: K. Leithwood, P. Hallinger (eds.) , Second 
international handbook of educational leadership and administration ( 2002), pp. 561-612.  
J. Spillane, Distributed leadership (2006); H. S. Timperly, 'Distributed leadership: developing theory 
from practice', Journal of Curriculum Studies 37/4,( 2005), pp. 395-420; H. Timperley, A. Wilson, H. 
Barrar, I. Fung, Teacher professional learning and development: best evidence synthesis iteration 
(2007). 

EN 

47 

   EN