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 - "An updated strategic framework for European cooperation in education and training'' - Impact Assessment {COM(2008) 865 final} {SEC(2008) 3048}
Date: 2008-12-16
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: EU employment policy, continuing education, cooperation policy, economic consequence, education policy, educational reform, impact study, professional qualifications, social impact, vocational training

EN 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 

Brussels,  
SEC(2008) 3047  

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 

"An updated strategic framework for European cooperation in education and training'' 

Impact Assessment 

{COM(2008) 865 final} 
{SEC(2008) 3048} 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

1. 

1.1. 

1.2. 

1.3. 

2. 

2.1. 

2.2. 

Procedural issues and consultation of interested parties .............................................. 4 

Introduction and mandate............................................................................................. 4 

Education and Training 2010 work programme .......................................................... 5 

Consultation of countries, European social partners and stakeholders, and experts.... 6 

Problem definition........................................................................................................ 8 

Economic and social challenges................................................................................... 8 

Need for higher skills levels and the economic and social benefits of investment in 
education and training .................................................................................................. 9 

2.2.1.  Attainment levels ......................................................................................................... 9 

2.2.2.  Future labour market needs........................................................................................ 10 

2.2.3.  Economic impacts ...................................................................................................... 10 

2.2.4.  Wider economic and social impacts........................................................................... 12 

2.3. 

The EU's role in education and training: improving the implementation of the OMC13 

3. 

3.1. 

3.2. 

3.3. 

Objectives................................................................................................................... 17 

General Objective: improve overall skills levels ....................................................... 17 

Intermediate objective: support Member States in reforming their education and 
training policies and systems ..................................................................................... 18 

Operational objectives: improving the effectiveness and impact of the OMC in 
education and training ................................................................................................ 19 

4. 

Policy options............................................................................................................. 19 

4.1. 

Legal basis and the principle of subsidiarity.............................................................. 21 

5. 

6. 

7. 

Analysis of impact ..................................................................................................... 22 

Comparing the options ............................................................................................... 27 

Monitoring and evaluation ......................................................................................... 30 

EN 

3 

   EN 

 
Modifications following the Opinion of the Impact Assessment Board 

Following  the  opinion  of  the  Impact  Assessment  Board  several  changes  have  been  made  to 
the impact assessment. 

Information on the results achieved under the current OMC and in particular performance in 
relation to the agreed benchmarks has been added to section 2.3. Annex 2 has been added for 
a more comprehensive description of the current OMC (the 'Education & Training 2010' work 
programme) and its role in supporting Member States' reforms."1 

In  section  4  the  characteristics  of  the  baseline  scenario  have  been  described  in  some  more 
detail.  

In section 5 more comprehensive analyses of how the individual options respond to the policy 
objectives has been added.  

In section 7 possible future success indicators of the OMC have been added. 

1. 

PROCEDURAL ISSUES AND CONSULTATION OF INTERESTED PARTIES 

1.1. 

Introduction and mandate 

The political context of this initiative is the follow-up to the Lisbon Strategy in the field of 
education  and  training.  The  European  Council  has  on  various  occasions  (most  recently 
December 2007 and March 2008) emphasised that education and training/lifelong learning is 
a  key  driver  of  the  Lisbon  Strategy.  This  reflects  the  integrated  guidelines  for  growth  and 
jobs, notably guidelines 23 and 24 on increasing investment in human capital through better 
education  and  skills,  guideline  8  on  facilitating  innovation  and  the  knowledge  triangle,  and 
guideline 15 on promoting a more entrepreneurial culture.  

Furthermore  education  and  training  is  identified  as  a  key  element  throughout  the  renewed 
Social Agenda for opportunities, access and solidarity. This stresses the role of education and 
training in relation to children and youth; investing in people, more and better jobs and new 
skills; mobility; longer and healthier lives; and combating poverty and social exclusion2. This 
current  proposal  is  therefore  closely  related  to  the  Union's  policies  for  employment,  social 
inclusion, enterprise, research and innovation. 

The initiative follows up the existing policy framework for the open method of coordination 
supporting  the  Lisbon  process  in  the  field  of  education  and  training  which  is  entitled  the 
"Education and Training 2010 work programme"  

The  political  mandate  for  the  proposal  for  an  updated  strategic  framework  for  European 
cooperation in education and training is an Education Council invitation to the Commission 

1 

2 

The  most  precise  and  explicit  explanation  of  the  current  state  of  play  in  education  and  training 
(including  in  relation  to  the  five  benchmarks)  can  be  found  in  the  2008  Joint  Progress  Report  of  the 
Council  and  the  Commission  on  the  implementation  of  the  'Education  &  Training  2010'  work 
programme  "Delivering  lifelong  learning  for  knowledge,  creativity  and  innovation",  O  J  C  86/1  of  5 
April 2008 
COM(2008) 412 

EN 

4 

   EN 

 
                                                 
expressed in key messages which were endorsed by the March 2008 European Council. This 
was  based  on  a  specific  request  in  the  2008  Joint  Progress  Report  of  the  Council  and  the 
Commission.3  

1.2. 

Education and Training 2010 work programme 

The  Education  and  Training  2010  work  programme  (hereafter  referred  to  as  the  OMC) 
provides  an  overall  framework  for  policy  cooperation  between  Member  States4  and  the 
Commission  in  education  and  training  (for  a  more  comprehensive  description  of  the  work 
programme please see Annex 2). The 4 main elements of the OMC in education and training 
are: 

1)  A  set  of  common  objectives  -  the  Council  defined  in  2001  thirteen  objectives5  grouped 
around  three  strategic  goals:  a)  Improving  the  quality  and  effectiveness  of  education  and 
training systems in the EU; b) Facilitating the access of all to education and training systems; 
c) Opening up education and training systems to the wider world. 

2) Monitoring and reporting on progress - since 2004 the Council and the Commission adopt 
every  two  years  a  joint  report  on  the  overall  progress  in  implementing  the  OMC. 
Furthermore the report adapts the objectives by defining new priorities for the next 2 years. 
The  Council  in  2003  adopted  5  benchmarks  of  average  European  performance.  These  are 
supported  by  a  set  of  16  core  indicators  which  have  been  developed  and  constantly 
improved. This framework provides a basis for the preparation of annual progress reports on 
benchmarks and indicators6

 as well as the joint reports. 

3)  Peer  learning  -  peer  learning  is  since  2006  organised  mainly  through  a  set  of  8  peer 
learning  clusters7  bringing  together  countries  with  a  particular  interest  in  a  given  topic 
related  to  either  national  policy  implementation  or  policy  development.  Peer  learning  is 
furthermore carried out in the area of vocational education and training (VET) as part of the 
Copenhagen process or in the context of the implementation of the adult learning action plan8.  

4) EU reference tools supporting national reforms and agenda-setting communications from 
the  Commission  –  are  a  particular  and  very  important  feature  of  the  OMC  in  education  and 

3 

4 

5 
6 
7 

8 

2008  Joint  progress  report  OJ  C  86/1  of  5.4.2008,  p.  9:  "The  Education  and  Training  2010  work 
programme provides practical support for Member States’ education and training reforms. Significant 
progress  has  been  achieved  since  the  programme  was  launched  in  2002.  Yet  education  and  training 
reforms  need  time  to  bear  fruit.  Major  challenges  persist,  new  challenges  have  emerged.  This  work, 
including  cooperation  in  the  framework  of  the  Bologna  and  Copenhagen  processes,  needs  to  be 
continued and indeed made more effective. Reflections on an updated strategic framework for European 
cooperation  in  education  and  training  should  therefore  start  now.  Given  the  crucial  role  of  education 
and  training  to  the  Strategy  for  Jobs  and  Growth,  this  must  be  closely  associated  with  the  future 
development of the Lisbon process." 
Also EFTA and applicant countries participating in the Lifelong Learning Programme participate in the 
work programme. 
For the 13 detailed objectives see Annex 1. 
Latest Progress Report - Indicators and benchmarks 2008, SEC (2008) 2293. 
The  clusters  deal  with  the  following  issues:  Modernising  Higher  Education,  Best  use  of  Resources, 
Teachers and Trainers, Access and Social Inclusion, Math, Science and Technology, Key Competences, 
ICT, Recognition of Learning Outcomes. 
COM (2007) 558 

EN 

5 

   EN 

 
                                                 
the  European  Qualifications  Framework/EQF9, 

the  Key  Competences 
training  (e.g. 
Recommendation,10  Communications  on  the  modernisation  of  higher  education11,adult 
education12 or schools13).  

The  political  steering  of  the  OMC  takes  place  through  the  Council  and,  since  2005,  the 
implementation and coordination of the OMC is in the hands of the Education and Training 
2010  Coordination  Group  (ETCG)14.  In  addition,  since  2002,  a  High  Level  Group  with 
representatives  of  all  Member  States  is  convened  at  least  twice  a  year  on  the  initiative  of 
upcoming presidencies  to  discuss  the  political priorities of these presidencies in the field of 
education  and  training,  including  key  issues  arising  concerning  the  OMC  and  its  future 
development.  

1.3. 

Consultation  of  countries,  European  social  partners  and  stakeholders,  and 
experts 

In  the  preparation  of  the  Communication  on  an  updated  framework,  the  countries 
participating  in  the  OMC  (32),  the  European  social  partners  (5)  and  European  stakeholder 
organisations in education and training (52) have been consulted in various meetings and in 
writing. The different steps and elements in this process have been as follows: 

–  DG  EAC's  Expert  Networks  on  the  Economics  of  Education  (EENEE)  and  on  the 
Social  Sciences  of  Education  (NESSE)  produced  a  joint  analytical  report  on  the  future 
challenges for European education and training systems15.  

–  The  ETCG  was  consulted  in  a  meeting  14  April  2008  on  the  working  methods  of  the 

current OMC and particularly on the biennial reporting and peer-learning clusters. 

–  The  High  Level  Group  (representing  Member  States)  was  consulted  in  meetings  on  24 
April and 16-17 June 2008 on the strategic challenges and policy priorities for the updated 
framework  and  on  the  nature  of  the  updated  OMC  and  its  working  methods.  A  further 
meeting  of  the  High  level  Group  took  placeon  1  October  2008  to  discuss  future 
benchmarks.  

–  A  Stakeholders'  Forum  (44  participating  organisations)  was  held  on  20  May  2008  for 
broad  consultations  of  the  European  Stakeholders  representing  civil  society  and  of  the 
European social partners.  

–  In addition to these oral consultations, the participating countries, European social partners 

and stakeholders were consulted separately in writing16.  

9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 

OJ C 111/1 of 6.5.2008 
OJ L 394/10 of 30.12.2006 
COM(2006) 208 
COM(2006) 614; COM(2007) 558 
COM(2008) 425 
Members of the ETCG are all participating countries (see footnote 4) and the European social partners. 
"European Education and Training Systems in the Second Decennium of the Lisbon Strategy" Idesbald 
Nicaise  (ed.)  Joint Analytical  Report for  the  European  Commission prepared by  the  European  Expert 
Network  on  Economics  of  Education  (EENEE)  and  the  Network  of  experts  in  the  Social  Sciences  of 
Education (NESSE). 

EN 

6 

   EN 

 
                                                 
–  An  Inter-Service  Steering  Group  met  three  times  and  had  representatives  from  the 
following  Directorate-Generals:  Secretariat-General,  Research,  Employment,  Social 
Affairs and Equal Opportunities, Information Society and Media, Economic and Financial 
Affairs,  Enterprise  and  Industry  and  Eurostat  (which  was  invited  and  included  in  the 
distribution of documents but did not actually participate). 

The  key  results  of  the  consultations  with  countries  (24  written  responses),  European  social 
partners (5) and European stakeholders (13) are briefly summarised below. Further reference 
to  the  results  of  the  consultation  on  working  methods  will  be  made  in  later  sections 
(especially section 2.3). 

Challenges and political priorities 

On overall key challenges, the countries, European social partners and European stakeholders 
generally  agreed  with  the  conclusions  drawn  by  the  EENEE  and  NESSE  networks  that  the 
bulk  of  key  challenges  facing  European  societies  which  have  an  impact  on  education  and 
training  systems  in  Europe  have  not  radically  changed  since  the  launch  of  the  OMC  in 
2001/02.  Demographic  change,  global  competition  and  the  development  of  the  knowledge 
society/technological  change  remain  crucial  issues.  There  is  however  also  agreement  on  the 
fact that increased attention needs to be given to issues related to migration and sustainability 
(for more details see section 2).  

On specific challenges for the next 5-10 years, most consulted parties still find the original 
three broad goals and the thirteen specific objectives agreed in 2001 to be relevant. Especially 
quality  and  access  are  still  given  high  priority.  Social  partners  and  stakeholders  prioritised 
mostly the same issues as Member Sates, but with a more practical angle often referring to the 
conditions  for  education  and  training  providers.  The  main  specific  challenges  mentioned 
during  the  consultation  are  the  following  :  quality  (including  quality  assurance  for  VET,  in 
relation  to  the  validation  of  non-formal  and  informal  learning,  and  to  early  childhood 
education),  social  inclusion  (including  democratic  citizenship  through  access,  equality  and 
diversity  in  lifelong  learning;  a  particular  emphasis  was  also  put  on  migration  and 
intercultural dialogue), creativity/innovation/use of research (including follow-up to the work 
on evidence based policy making17), skills deficiencies (addressing skills gaps, development 
of  key  competences,  reducing  the  number  of  early  school  leavers  and  raising  basic  skills 
levels),  professional  development  for  teachers  and  trainers  (including  pedagogical  resource 
development). 

Working methods 

It is clear that countries see a general need for better links between the OMC in education and 
training and the Lisbon Strategy. At the same time, however, they also stress that education 
and  training  is  about  more  than  growth  and  jobs.  Addressing  issues  of  citizenship  and 
intercultural dialogue, for example, is also considered essential for education and training.  

The  majority  of  countries,  social  partners  and  stakeholders  acknowledge  that  the  OMC  in 
education  and  training  has  effectively  supported  the  development  of  national  education  and 

16 

17 

A  six  weeks  deadline  was  given  for  replying  which  made  it  possible  to  introduce  a  first  set  of 
conclusions from the written consultation to the meeting of the High Level Group 16- 17 June.  
SEC (2007)1098 "Towards more knowledge-based policy and practice in education and training"  

EN 

7 

   EN 

 
                                                                                                                                                         
training  policies.  Particularly  the  OMC  has  provided  a  knowledge  base  for  national  policy 
making  and  objective  setting,  achieved  greater  convergence  between  national  policies, 
provided comparable data, established benchmarks and indicators, and brought policy makers 
together to discuss policies, issues and good practice.  

On working groups, clusters and instruments, the feedback shows that the more practical that 
the focus is the more useful they seem to be to countries and others. Countries do, however, 
generally  find  it  difficult  to  quantify  the  direct  impact  on  national  policy  of  these  methods. 
They recommend certain adjustments of the working methods. 

Conclusions of section 1 

The  result  of  the  broad  consultation  of  countries,  social  partners  and  stakeholders  on  the 
results  of  the  current  OMC  was  largely  favourable.  The  overall  challenges  and  objectives 
remain valid. Adjustments to the working methods are recommended in order to increase their 
focus and effectiveness.  

2. 

PROBLEM DEFINITION 

As illustrated in the previous chapter, there is general agreement that the OMC in education 
and  training  has  effectively  supported  the  development  of  national  education  and  training 
policies  and  systems  since  2001.  Nevertheless,  these  policies  and  systems  in  Europe  do  not 
yet adequately provide citizens with the level and relevance of skills and competences that are 
needed  to  sustain  a  knowledge-based  economy  and  society  which  is  both  competitive  and 
socially  inclusive.  The  problem  needs  to  be  defined  both  in  terms  of  the  challenges  to 
education and training systems throughout Europe and of how to address these challenges at 
European level; that is the OMC itself.  

2.1. 

Economic and social challenges 

The Lisbon strategy was designed in 2000 to respond to three major challenges for European 
societies and economies: the knowledge economy, demographic change and globalisation. 
These  challenges  persist;  their  consequences  can  be  increasingly  felt.  Globalisation  has 
developed further with new forces of global competition (e.g. the so called BRIC countries – 
Brazil, Russia, India and China) becoming more and more relevant. Enlargement has led to a 
wider  and  more  diverse  Europe.  Also  the  impact  of  demographic  changes  –  the  ageing  of 
European societies – will be felt to a greater extent.  

In  addition  to  these  persisting  challenges,  there  are  also  some  additional  issues  which  have 
become  increasingly  salient  over  the  last  years,  in  particular  migration  and  sustainability. 
Migration is actually related to all three items mentioned before. It is as much an opportunity 
as  a  challenge  for  Europe.  Migration  may,  on  the  one  hand,  help  to  compensate  for  the 
problem  of  a  shrinking  labour  force  and  attract  high  skilled  labour  to  Europe.  On  the  other 
hand,  there  are  important  challenges  in  relation  to  the  integration  of  migrants  in  the  host 
societies. And there are challenges in relation to competition with other parts of the world in 
attracting high skilled labour, top researchers etc. and to avoiding brain-drain, both in Europe 
and  in  third  world  countries.  Sustainability  has  become  an  important  issue,  in  particular  in 
relation to climate change and environmental degradation. Moving to a low-carbon, energy-
efficient  economy  will  require  huge  efforts  in  innovation  and  the  development  of  new 

EN 

8 

   EN 

 
technologies. This does of course pose certain challenges to education and training systems as 
far as providing the right competences.  

All  these  developments  point  to  the  crucial  importance  of  highly  performing  education  and 
training systems to maintain and improve competitiveness and employment. The EU will only 
be able to compete on the global market on the basis of high productivity and a high capacity 
for  creativity  and  innovation.  This  implies  that  an  important  part  of  the  answer  to  those 
challenges  lies  in  raising  the  skills  levels  in  the  population,  both  young  and  old,  and  in 
ensuring that they have the right skills which are adapted to the needs of today's economy and 
society and ensures their employability.  

In  particular,  the  impact  of  the  shrinking  working  age  population  must  be  diminished  by 
reducing the number of those at a risk of not being able to enter or stay on the labour market, 
because  they  are  early  school  leavers,  lack  basic  skills  or  have  difficulties  in  accessing 
lifelong  learning  opportunities,  and  increasing  their  employability.  The  full  potential  of  the 
young  generation  must  be  used  while  more  must  be  done  to  up-date  the  skills  of  the  older 
generation.  This  is  as  much  about  ensuring  competitiveness  and  employment  as  providing 
people the chance to play an active role in society and ensuring social cohesion.  

While education and training hence have a crucial impact on promoting growth and jobs, the 
challenges cited before also indicate why many respondents to the consultation stressed that 
there are also other dimensions which cannot be neglected. Failing to ensure the provision of 
high  quality  education  and  training  outcomes  will  also  have  an  important  impact  on  social 
inclusion and citizenship. Students' experiences in primary and secondary school helps shape 
the  rest  of  their  lives  in  terms  of  their  attitudes  and  interests,  their  prospects  of  going  on  to 
tertiary education and the jobs they are going to have. The competences and learning habits 
acquired at school are essential to develop new skills for new jobs later in life. People with a 
low level of skills are not well prepared for learning new skills and competences later in life 
and are increasingly at risk of being excluded from active participation in today's knowledge 
economy and society. Ensuring high quality and equitable education and training outcomes is 
an important factor in order to ensure that young people get the best possible start in life and 
for citizens in general to have the basis for further personal development, social participation 
and fulfilling careers.  

2.2. 

Need for higher skills levels and the economic and social benefits of investment 
in education and training 

2.2.1.  Attainment levels 

In view of the general need to raise the skills levels in the population, some trends on skills 
development  over  the  last  years  indicate  a  slow  skills  upgrading  process.  The  educational 
attainment level of the working age population in the EU (15 to 64 year olds) has risen during 
the last decade. In 2006 there were 7 million more persons in the labour force having a high 
educational  attainment  level,  compared  to  2000.  Since  2000,  upper  secondary  attainment  in 
the  EU  increased  slightly,  from  76.6%  of  people  aged  18-24  to  77.8%  in  2006.  In  other 
words,  higher  education  institutions  produce  about  one  million  more  graduates  per  year 

EN 

9 

   EN 

 
compared  to  2000.  Furthermore,  the  number  of  graduates  in  maths,  science  and  technology 
has increased by 26% since 2000.18 

However, the overall picture is still mixed. Important challenges persist. Almost 108 million 
people (about 1/3 of the labour force aged 15 to 64) still have a low educational attainment 
level. Adults' training programmes are still inadequate, and do not touch the adults with the 
highest  needs.  Adults  whose  educational  attainment  level  is  less  than  upper  secondary 
completion are, in the EU, three times less likely to participate in education and training than 
those  with  high  attainment  levels.  Education  systems  still  produce  too  many  early  school 
leavers.  Every  sixth  young  person  (18  to  24  years  old)  still  leaves  school  with  only 
compulsory education attainment level or below (2006 data).  

2.2.2.  Future labour market needs 

This mixed picture is completed by an analysis that the current trends in skills upgrading will 
not be sufficient to meet the labour market needs. According to a Cedefop forecasting study19, 
Europe would loose 8.5 millions of jobs for workers with low qualification between 2006 and 
2015. At the same time, the economy would create 12.5 million additional jobs at the highest 
qualification level and 9.5 million at the medium level. Jobs that require high or intermediate 
skills would correspond to 79% of labour market needs in 2015 (compared to 74% in 2006). 
Technological change and globalisation may even accelerate the shift in skills demand.  

The Cedefop forecast of the skills supply side does not yet allow a precise comparison with 
the forecast on the demand side. But some policy conclusions can already be drawn. One is 
that – as newcomers alone will not fill future skills gaps – there will still be a strong need to 
upgrade the skills of the existing workforce. If current trends were to continue, Europe would 
face serious risks of mismatches between skills supply and demand, with shortages of high-
skilled  workers  as  well  as  insufficient  qualification  levels,  and  hence  a  high  unemployment 
level,  of  low  qualified  people.  Bottlenecks  in  the  high  segments  of  the  labour  market  may 
exert  an  upward  pressure  on  the  wages  of  these  workers.  At  the  same  time,  there  may  be  a 
"surplus"  of  unskilled  workers,  which  would  lead  to  the  deterioration  of  their  bargaining 
power  and,  as  a  consequence,  also  a  deterioration  of  their  living  and  working  conditions. 
Studies  in  the  UK20,  France21  and  Germany22  already  suggest  a  risk  of  polarisation  on  the 
labour market, due to a shift in skills demand.  

2.2.3.  Economic impacts 

The  economic  benefits  of  education  and  training  are  now  well  documented.  Employment 
opportunities and wages are higher for those who attain upper-secondary or tertiary education: 
in  2007,  the  employment  rate  of  people  with  high  educational  attainment  was  83.8%, 
compared  to  70.3%  for  those  with  medium  educational  attainment  and  48.6%  for  low 
educational  attainment23.  Income  from  employment  is  higher  for  the  better  educated  in  all 

18 
19 
20 

21 
22 

23 

Progress Report - Indicators and benchmarks 2008, SEC (2008) 2293. 
CEDEFOP (2008), Future Skill Needs in Europe. Medium-term forecast, Synthesis report. 
Goos M. and Manning A. (2007), "Lousy and lovely jobs; the rising polarization of work in Britain", 
Review of Economics and Statistics, 89 (1), 118-133 
Centre d'analyse stratégique (2007), Les métiers en 2015, report, La documentation française. 
Dustman  C.,  Ludsteck  C.,  Schönberg  U.  (2007),  "Revisiting  the  German  Wage  Structure",  IZA 
Discussion Paper, no. 2685, March 
SEC(2008) 2293, p. 143 

EN 

10 

   EN 

 
                                                 
OECD countries24. Private returns to investment in education are very important and surpass 
all other forms of investment25. 

More specifically, learner mobility has a positive impact on success in employment. A better 
educated population (including in relation to language skills) is generally more conducive to 
labour  mobility.  Studies  show  in  particular  that  graduates  who  had  studied  abroad  or  had 
worked  abroad  during  or  just  after  graduation,  are  more  successful  on  the  labour  market 
(shorter periods of unemployment, higher income, international careers).26 

More ambitious education and training policies also contribute to raising productivity. Skills 
supply  is  a  driving  factor  for  innovation,  economic  growth  and  employment27.  Empirical 
research  shows  that  one  year  of  additional  education  would  increase  the  aggregate 
productivity  of  5-6%  in  the  short-term.  The  result  of  the  impact  of  higher  education  on 
technological  progress  could  amount  to  another  3-5%  in  the  long-run28.  Also  by  analysing 
data  from  11  European  countries,  it  is  estimated  that,  if  all  dropouts  completed  upper-
secondary education, total productivity would increase by 1.4%.  

These  effects  can  also  be  identified  at  the  macroeconomic  level:  in  OECD  countries,  each 
year  of  additional  schooling  is  statistically  significantly  associated  with  a  0.3  higher  rate  of 
economic  growth29.  Higher  PISA  test  scores  are  associated  with  higher  rate  of  economic 
growth of GDP per capita30.  

In  addition  to  the  positive  effects  of  investment  in  education  and  training,  there  are  also 
margins  for  improving  education  quality  without  increasing  public  spending  in  this  sector. 
The  reallocation  of  resources,  training  of  teachers  and  use  of  effective  pedagogies  and 
organisational models are cost-effective tools that can improve the quality of education. The 
Data  Envelopment  Analysis  indicates  that  the  potential  for  increasing  learning  outcomes 
while maintaining existing level of resources is high – over 20% across countries for which 
data exists31. 

24 
25 
26 

27 

28 

29 

30 

31 

See table A9.1a of OECD (2007), Education at a glance, p. 156 
See table A9.5 and A9.6 in OECD (2007), Education at glance, p. 165. 
Allen,  J.  and  van  der  Velden,  R.  (eds)  (2007),  "The  Flexible  Professional  in  the  Knowledge  Society: 
General Results of the REFLEX Project", Research Centre for the Education and the Labour Market, 
Maastricht University, The Netherlands. These results confirm the Commission's own evaluations of the 
Erasmus and Leonardo da Vinci programmes. 
Better  educated  workers  for  example  help  their  colleagues  and  contribute  to  developing  more 
productive  work  organisation  or  new  products.  See  also  Machin  S.  (2004),  ‘Skill  Biased  Technology 
Change and Educational Outcomes’, in G. Johnes and J. Johnes (eds.) International Handbook of the 
Economics  of  Education,  (2004)  and  EENEE  (European  Experts  Network  on  the  Economics  of 
Education) (2008), Analytical report (title to be confirmed)  
De  la  Fuente  A.,  (2003),  Human  Capital  in  a  Global  and  Knowledge-Based  Economy,  Part  II: 
Assessment  at  the  EU  Country  Level,  Report  for  the  European  Commission,  Directorate-General  for 
Employment  and  Social  Affairs;  Brunello  G.  and  Comi  S.  (2004),  "Education  and  Earnings  Growth: 
Evidence from 11 European Countries", Economics of Education Review, 23 (1), 75-83 
De  la  Fuente  A.,  (2003),  Human  Capital  in  a  Global  and  Knowledge-Based  Economy,  Part  II: 
Assessment  at  the  EU  Country  Level,  Report  for  the  European  Commission,  Directorate-General  for 
Employment  and  Social  Affairs,  and  EENEE  (European  Experts  Network  on  the  Economics  of 
Education) (2007), The Costs of School Failure. A Feasibility Study, Analytical Report for the European 
Commission. 
Hanusek E. and Woessmann L. (2007), "The role of education quality in economic growth", The World 
Bank, Policy Research Working Paper 4122. 
Progress Report – Indicators and Benchmarks 2008, SEC(2008) 2293, chapter 8 

EN 

11 

   EN 

 
                                                 
2.2.4.  Wider economic and social impacts 

Research  results  are  also  available  regarding  the  positive  impact  of  education  on  personal 
well-being  and  on  society  at  large.  Education  affects  health,  for  example,  by  changing 
behaviour  and  through  higher  incomes.  A  higher  level  of  education  increases  cognition  by 
avoiding unhealthy behaviour, such as smoking, and in following medical advice32 (EENEE, 
2007).  A  higher  income  allows  the  better  educated  to  consume  better  food  and  buy  better 
health care. As a consequence, an additional year of schooling significantly improves health 
status.  The  percentage  of  people  with  a  long  standing  disease  is  higher  among  early  school 
leavers than for those who have completed upper secondary education: the difference attains 8 
percentage point in countries such as Belgium and Denmark and 17 points in Lithuania33.  

Additional  years  of  schooling  also  reduce  crime34.  The  economic  benefits  of  this  positive 
effect of education in the UK are estimated as follows: if the proportion of the working age 
population  with  no  qualifications  were  reduced  by  1  percentage  point  and  those  people 
achieved  A  Level  or  equivalent  qualifications,  the  saving  in  reduced  crime  would  be  £665 
million per year. (The health and crime impacts of education and training will not, however, 
be addressed directly by the OMC as they are more positive side effects that actual priorities 
for  education  and  training).  Educational  attainment  has  also  significant  effects  on  issues 
related to citizenship such as voter participation, tolerance, support of free speech and trust in 
other people35.  

32 

33 

34 

35 

EENEE  (European  Experts  Network  on  the  Economics  of  Education)  (2007),  The  Costs  of  School 
Failure. A Feasibility Study, Analytical Report for the European Commission. 
See EENEE (European Experts Network on the Economics of Education) (2007), The Costs of School 
Failure.  A  Feasibility  Study,  Analytical  Report  for  the  European  Commission).  The  effect  is  still 
significant  after  controlling  for  other  factors:  Feinstein  (2002b),  Quantitative  Estimates  of  the  Social 
Benefits of Learning, 2: Health (Depression and obesity), Wider Benefits of Learning Research Report, 
No 6 and Groot W. and van der Brink H. M. (2007), "The Health effects of education", Review of the 
economics  of  education,  26(2),  p.  186-200.  Feinstein  (2002b)  tried  to  move  beyond  raw  associations 
and document the causal effects of education on two health conditions, obesity and depression, in the 
UK. He can then estimate the value of the benefits of one half of the different groups in the population 
gaining level 1 qualification (relative to none): the corresponding reduction in the probability of obesity 
and depression is about £6 billion per year (Feinstein, 2002b). In a recent analysis using a large survey 
for the Netherlands, Groot and van der Brink (2007) estimate the absolute value of health gain due to 
one  extra  year  of  education:  600-1380  euros  for  men  and  300-600  euros  for  women.  These  gains 
correspond  to  a  significant  percentage  of  GDP  per  capita  (1.3-5.8%).  In  other  words,  taking  into 
account the return to health, the rate of return to investment in education, as conventionally calculated 
in the economics of education, should be increased by up to 60 percent. See EENEE (European Experts 
Network  on  the  Economics  of  Education)  (2007),  The  Costs  of  School  Failure.  A  Feasibility  Study, 
Analytical Report for the European Commission). 
See EENEE (European Experts Network on the Economics of Education) (2007), The Costs of School 
Failure. A Feasibility Study, Analytical Report for the European Commission) and Feinstein (2002a), 
Quantitative  Estimates  of  the  Social  Benefits  of  Learning,  1:  Crime,  Wider  Benefits  of  Learning 
Research Report, No 5. 
EENEE  (European  Experts  Network  on  the  Economics  of  Education)  (2007),  The  Costs  of  School 
Failure.  A  Feasibility  Study, Analytical  Report  for  the  European  Commission;  OECD  (2006), 
Measuring  the  effects  of  education  on  health  and  civic  engagement,  Paris:  OECD  and  Baudelot  and 
Leclerq (eds) (2005), Les effets de l'éducation, La documentation française 

EN 

12 

   EN 

 
                                                 
2.3. 

The EU's role in education and training: improving the implementation of the 
OMC 

The economic and social challenges described above are common to all European countries. 
Some issues, such as migration and mobility for the purpose of work or study, have specific 
cross-border effects which cannot be solved by any one country alone. The awareness of the 
need for and value of European cooperation in the field of education and training has hence 
grown steadily over the last 25 years.  

Education and training was, from the start, identified as a crucial factor to achieve the overall 
objectives  of  the  Lisbon  Strategy.  During  the  past  years,  a  number  (14  in  2006  and  16  in 
2007)  of  country  specific  recommendations  have  been  issued  to  Member  States  relating  to 
their  performance  in  education  and  training,  lifelong  learning  and  skills  on  the  basis  of  the 
integrated  guidelines  23  &  24  on  increasing  investment  in  human  capital  through  better 
education and skills.  

The intergovernmental Bologna process in higher education and the EU Copenhagen process 
in the area of vocational education and training, launched in 1999 and 2002 respectively, have 
strengthened the awareness of the value of enhanced co-operation, mobility, transparency and 
portability  of qualifications  in a situation where countries have different  systems  but  shared 
goals.  Both  processes  laid  the  foundation  for  the  European  Qualifications  Framework 
(EQF).36  Furthermore,  the  Bologna  process  has  increased  considerably  the  convergence 
between  national  higher  education  systems  and  qualifications.  The  added  value  of  the 
Copenhagen process has, on the other hand, helped to raise the profile and status of vocational 
education and training and led to various EU instruments such as the EQF, principles for the 
validation of non-formal and informal learning, Europass37 and the proposed European Credit 
System for Vocational Education and Training (ECVET).38 

The  OECD's  PISA  surveys  carried  out  since  2000  and  assessing  the  results  of  students  at 
school level have been an eye-opener for most countries. The results have made it abundantly 
clear  that  certain  problems  in  schools  are  common  to  many  countries.  And  they  have  also 
shown that certain countries do measurably better than others. This has paved the way for an 
increased interest in cooperating and learning from each other even on issues, such as school 
education,39  which  were  for  many  years  considered  inappropriate  for  European  co-
operation.40 
The Education and Training 2010 work programme was set up in 2001/0241 to contribute to 
achieving the Lisbon objectives and has delivered concrete results. It led to the identification 
of  a  common  reform  agenda,  a  structured  exchange  of  good  practice  between  countries, 
regular monitoring of progress on the basis of both qualitative and quantitative reports using 
agreed  statistical  indicators  and  benchmarks,  and  the  development  of  agreed  common 
European  tools  supporting  national  reforms.  Europe  has  registered  progress  in  a  number  of 

36 
37 
38 
39 
40 

41 

OJ C 111/1 of 6.5.2008 
OJ L 340/6 of 31.12.2004 
COM(2008) 180 
COM(2008) 425 
See  Gornitzka,  Ase,  The  Open  Method  of  Coordination  as  practice  –  A  watershed  in  European 
education policy? ARENA working paper No. 16, Oslo, December 2006. 
Report  from  the  Education  Council  to  the  European  Council  "The  concrete  future  objectives  of 
education and training systems" of 12.2.2001 and OJ C 142/1 of 14.6.2002 

EN 

13 

   EN 

 
                                                 
areas  but  the  pace  of  reform  remains  a  major  challenge.42  Areas  of  good  progress  include 
putting  in  place:  explicit  lifelong  learning  strategies43,  national  qualifications  frameworks, 
which  are  linked  to  the  establishment  of  the  EQF44  and  systems  for  the  validation  of  non-
formal and informal learning. 

It  is  also  clear,  however,  that  while  the  Education  and  Training  2010  OMC  has  opened  the 
way to intense co-operation and is perceived as successful in many aspects, there is a need to 
improve  implementation  when  it  comes  to  other  aspects.  Most  notably,  despite  important 
progress being made, some of the agreed objectives will not be met by 2010 and, particularly, 
progress on four out of the five European benchmarks (please see Annex 1 for a full list of the 
benchmarks and the attached indicators) will not be sufficient to reach the targets set in 2003. 

Progress towards meeting the 5 benchmarks (EU average)

MST graduates

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

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

200
190
180
170
160
150
140
130
120
110
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
-10
-20
-30
-40
-50
-60
-70
-80

Figure 1 

As illustrated in Figure 1 education and training systems in the EU are generally improving. 
The EU benchmark on mathematics, science and technology graduates was already reached in 
2005.  However  no  progress  was  achieved  in  relation  to  the  sub-objective  to  reduce  gender 
imbalance  in  this  area.  Yet  although  there  is  broad  progress,  attaining  the  benchmarks  on 
early school leaving, completion of upper secondary education and lifelong learning by 2010 
will need more effective national initiatives. Indeed the situation is getting worse for reading 

42 

43 

44 

2008 Joint Progress Report of the Council and the Commission on the implementation of the 'Education 
and Training 2010' work programme OJ C 86/1 of 5.4.2008; 
The  Council  agreed  that  Member  States  should  have  coherent  and  comprehensive  lifelong  learning 
strategies in place by 2006 (Council resolution on lifelong learning of June 2002, 2004 Joint Report and 
2005 Spring European Council). 
COM (2006) 479. 

EN 

14 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
literacy of young people (PISA-results), the benchmark in the field of key competences. If the 
current  trend  holds  up  the  benchmark  on  reading  literacy  will  never  be  reached,  the 
benchmark on participation in lifelong learning would be reached somewhere between 2015 
and 2020, the benchmark on early school leavers would be reached around 2020 and finally 
the benchmark on upper secondary completion would be reached well after 2020. Currently 
20 Member States have set national targets in some or all of the EU benchmark areas (further 
information on the current state of play of education and training including the progress and 
targets of individual countries can be found in the 2008 Joint Progress Report of the Council 
and  the  Commission  on  the  implementation  of  the  'Education  &  Training  2010'  work 
programme "Delivering lifelong learning for knowledge, creativity and innovation"45  

Given  that  performance  is  very  different  between  countries,  there  is  a  great  potential  for 
mutual  learning  at  European  level.  It  should  be  recalled  that  Member  States'  are  fully 
responsible for their education and training systems. The EU’s role is only a supporting one. 
As  a  consequence,  any  progress  in  this  policy  area  is  fully  dependant  on  Member  States’ 
willingness to act and to pursue national reform (see also Section 4.1 on the Legal basis and 
the  principle  of  subsidiarity).  Member  States'  willingness  to  act  and  the  way  they  pursue 
national  reforms  can  however  be  influenced  to  a  certain  extent  by  the  OMC.  The  main 
mechanisms  through  which  the  OMC  can  do  this  is  through  the  identification  of  relevant 
problems  and  possible  solutions  for  them,  through  mutual  learning,  the  mobilisation  of 
relevant stakeholders and, more generally, through raising political ambition. The setup of the 
OMC  affects  Member  States'  commitment  to  the  process,  their  readiness  to  make  use  of  its 
results and, finally, the chances for implementation of any policy recommendations resulting 
from it. The results of the consultations and the experience of the past years with the OMC in 
education  and  training,  somewhat  similar  to  the  OMC  in  social  protection  and  social 
inclusion46, point to a number of weaknesses that can be summarised as follows: 

–  Strengthening the focus, political commitment and visibility 

Although, there is a general consensus on the relevance of the 13 objectives agreed in 2001, at 
the  same  time  there  are  doubts  about  their  capacity  to  have  a  major  impact  on  policy 
developments at national level. Ownership and visibility of these objectives at national level 
seems to be low. Countries see the need, on the one hand, for a more strategic approach and, 
on  the  other,  for  more  flexible  and  focused  immediate  priorities  which  can  be  adapted  to 
future challenges and newly emerging priorities.  

The  benchmarks  have  clearly  created  political  commitment  and  visibility  and  20  Member 
States have set up national targets in the EU benchmark areas. In most countries, the national 
reporting  exercise  under  the  OMC  has  however  tended  to  be  treated  as  an  administrative 
obligation  with  limited  relevance  for  the  political  level  and  focusing  on  developments  that 
were happening anyway in the respective countries. Countries now find that a more thematic 
approach to the OMC reporting might make the exercise more interesting and useful and they 
suggest  incorporating  the  search  for  and  identification  of  best  practice  and,  possibly,  some 
degree of country comparison into the reports.  

45 
46 

Official Journal C 86/1 of 5.4.2008, SEC(2008) 2293, 10.7.2008 
Following  the  impact  assessment  SEC(2008)  2169  accompanying  the  Communication  "A  renewed 
commitment to social Europe: reinforcing the Open Method of Coordination in Social Protection and 
Social Inclusion" COM(2008) 418 it appears that the experiences with the OMCs are to a large extent 
similar. 

EN 

15 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Interest in concrete tools stemming from and developed through the process of co-operation 
has  been  high  (i.e.  Recommendation  on  Key  Competences,  the  EQF,  Europass)  as  has  the 
interest  in  participating  in  working  groups  and  peer  learning  activities.  These  tools  and 
activities have been perceived as meaningful and useful to the civil servants and others who 
have  participated.  However  one  of  the  weaknesses  identified  is  that  the  results  have  been 
inadequately disseminated to colleagues, policy-makers and Ministers.  

–  Strengthening the involvement of stakeholders 

The involvement of stakeholders in policy making is an important factor securing ownership 
and  promoting  effective  policy  development  and  actual  implementation  in  education  and 
training. The degree to which social partners and stakeholders are involved in European and 
national decision-making varies considerably between countries and sectors of education and 
training.  And  even  though  the  concept  of  partnership  has  been  repeatedly  stressed  by  the 
Commission and the Council, it does not yet seem to be strongly developed in all countries 
and  all  policy  areas47.  Insufficient  implementation  and  lack  of  political  ownership  are  also 
related to problems concerning the involvement of stakeholders, especially those representing 
education  and  training  providers,  but  also  other  groups  such  students,  parents,  economic 
actors and civil society in the broader sense.  

The visibility of the OMC as such is not very high among stakeholders at European level, let 
alone  the  national  level.  Individual  elements  are  visible  and  certain  stakeholders  have  been 
involved in specific policy developments or implementation exercises (e.g. EQF, Europass), 
but, as overall impact will also depend on the visibility of the full programme that does not 
suffice. 

–  Strengthening mutual learning  

Mutual learning is a key element of the OMC in education and training and its importance and 
benefits  for  national  policy  makers  is  widely  appreciated.  There  is  however  considerable 
scope for increasing its impact on policy reforms through a better dissemination of the results 
to policy-makers and by raising its visibility and use at the political level. Peer learning and 
possible  future  peer-reviews  also  need  to  be  more  targeted  towards  addressing  the  most 
serious, relevant and pressing political priorities identified at the European and national levels 
in terms of policy development and implementation, including the national follow-up and use 
of  the  reference  tools  agreed  at  the  European  level.  The  current  system  for  involving 
stakeholders in the peer learning activities is rather weak as it is up to the hosting country to 
invite  local  stakeholders  to  the  peer  learning  activities.  The  increased  involvement  of 
stakeholders in peer learning could strengthen its impact.  

–  Strengthening coordination across education and training sectors 

The lifelong learning (LLL) paradigm48 is one of the main principles underlying the current 
OMC and it has been taken on board in all Member States’ national policies to a greater or 

47 
48 

See also 2008 Joint Report, OJ C 86/1 of 5.4.2008. 
It was set out in the Commission's Communication "Making lifelong learning a reality" COM (2001) 
678 which defined lifelong learning as "all learning activity undertaken throughout life, with the aim of 
improving  knowledge,  skills  and  competences  within  a  personal,  civic,  social  and/or  employment-
related perspective". 

EN 

16 

   EN 

 
                                                 
lesser  extent.  In  addition  to  underlining  the  importance  of  "cradle  to  grave"  learning,  the 
second essential element of the LLL concept is that it brings together the different education 
and  training  sectors  while  respecting  their  existence  and  specificities  (e.g.  schools,  higher 
education,  vocational  education  and  training,  adult  learning).  However,  it  emphasises  that 
education and training policy must also deal with transversal issues which cannot be treated 
within these different sectors alone.  

The  OMC  has  nevertheless  not  always  been  able  to  assume  a  LLL  coordination  role  across 
the  different  education  and  training  sectors  falling  under  the  Education  and  Training  2010 
work programme. While this is in part natural due to the specificities of the different sectors 
and  associated  stakeholders  (e.g.  the  Copenhagen  process  for  VET),  it  entails  the  risk  of 
duplication, dispersion of effort and lack of coherence. It can also have negative effects on the 
achievement  of  central  objectives  formulated  in  the  work  programme,  notably  the 
development  of  coherent  and  comprehensive  national  lifelong  learning  strategies  which 
ensure that the different areas of education and training are better linked to each other. This is 
reflected in weaknesses in LLL coordination at the European and at the national level where, 
in  many  countries,  the  different  education  and  training  policy  areas  continue  to  develop 
independently from each other.  

Conclusions of section 2 

The  Lisbon  policy  challenges  of  the  knowledge  economy,  demographic  change  and 
globalisation  persist  but  issues  such  as  migration  and  sustainability  have  become  salient  in 
later  years.  There  are  serious  risks  of  mismatches  between  skills  supply  and  demand,  with 
shortages  of  high-skilled  workers  and  insufficient  qualification  levels  of  low-skilled  people. 
There is thus an urgent need to upgrade the skills of the workforce and of those at the risk of 
exclusion.  There  is  hard  economic  evidence  of  the  considerable  benefits  for  the  economy, 
society and the individual of investment in education and training, in terms of employability, 
social inclusion and citizenship, including the reduction of crime and improvement of health. 

Education and training is a crucial factor in the Lisbon Strategy and its OMC has delivered 
concrete results, increasing countries participation in and benefits from European cooperation 
and reducing barriers to citizens' mobility and lifelong learning. However, major challenges 
and  weaknesses  in  national  systems  still  persist.  There  is  a  need  to  improve  national 
implementation and thus the impact of the OMC on national systems by ensuring a stronger 
focus on immediate priorities, greater political commitment and visibility, better involvement 
of  stakeholders,  more  effective  mutual  learning  and  stronger  lifelong  learning  coordination 
across education and training sectors. 

3. 

OBJECTIVES 

3.1. 

General Objective: improve overall skills levels  

The overall objective of European cooperation in education and training is to raise the overall 
skills  levels  of  the  population  and  ensure  that  all  citizens,  irrespective  of  age  or  socio-
economic  background,  have  a  realistic  chance  to  acquire  the  knowledge,  skills  and 
competences needed to participate in society and ensure their employability, social inclusion 
and active citizenship. This will help to meet the challenges outlined in sections 2.1 and 2.2: 
the  further  development  of  the  knowledge  economy,  demographic  change,  globalisation, 

EN 

17 

   EN 

 
migration  and  sustainability.  In  particular,  action  is  needed  to  raise  employability  and 
citizenship  and  to  face  potential  skills  mismatches.  The  OMC  should  help  to  make  lifelong 
learning and mobility a reality, improve the quality and efficiency of education and training 
provision  and  outcomes,  promote  equity  and  citizenship,  and  enhance  innovation  and 
creativity at all levels of education and training. 

This  will  also  help  to  ensure  that  Europe  can  meet  key  goals  of  the  Lisbon  Strategy  which 
includes the priorities "Investing in people and modernising labour markets" and "Investing in 
knowledge  and  innovation".  It  includes  top  level  performance  for  some  as  well  as  a  broad 
skills  base  in  the  population.  And  it  will  contribute  to  implementing  the  renewed  Social 
Agenda,  with  its  focus  on  increasing  opportunities,  providing  access  and  solidarity  with  the 
most disadvantaged49.  

The timeframe for achieving this overall general objective will be rather long-term as reforms 
in education and training usually take many years to show measurable effects at the level of 
individuals. Progress can be monitored with a set of indicators and benchmarks, such as those 
which already exist under Education & Training 2010.  

The  impact  of  an  updated  framework  for  European  cooperation  on  the  final  results  in 
achieving  these  goals  will,  of  course,  depend  on  many  factors.  Some  of  these  can  be 
addressed more specifically and are discussed under the following objectives. 

3.2. 

Intermediate  objective:  support  Member  States  in  reforming  their  education 
and training policies and systems 

The  key  function  of  the  OMC  in  education  and  training  is  to  support  countries  in  their 
educational reforms. Member States are themselves responsible for the organisation of their 
education and training systems. But against this background, the objective of the OMC is to 
spread  best  practice  and  achieve  greater  convergence  in  achieving  the  main  EU  goals.  This 
method is designed to help Member States to develop progressively their own policies taking 
into  account  their  specific  circumstances50.  As  described  in  sections  1.3  and  2.3,  there  is  a 
wide consensus among countries that the OMC is useful in supporting national policy-making 
and that improvements are necessary and possible.  

The  timeframe  for  this  objective  is  medium-term.  The  change  to  be  achieved  is  to  provide 
better  and  more  targeted  support  to  countries;  support  which  is  as  useful  as  possible  at  any 
given point in time to the implementation of the reforms needed in each country based on the 
context and challenges it faces. Only if progress is made at the national level in all countries, 
will it be possible to obtain the overall objective of improving skills levels throughout the EU.  

49 
50 

COM(2008) 412 
fixing guidelines for the Union combined with specific timetables for achieving 
The method involves 
the  goals  which  they  set  in  the  short,  medium  and  long  terms;  
establishing,  where  appropriate, 
quantitative and qualitative indicators and benchmarks against the best in the world and tailored to the 
needs of different Member States and sectors as a means of comparing best practice; 
translating these 
European  guidelines  into  national  and  regional  policies  by  setting  specific  targets  and  adopting 
measures,  taking  into  account  national  and  regional  differences;  
periodic  monitoring,  evaluation  and 
peer review organised as mutual learning processes. 

EN 

18 

   EN 

 
                                                 
3.3. 

Operational objectives: improving the effectiveness and impact of the OMC in 
education and training 

The third level would be the most operational and consist of addressing specific elements in 
the  way  the  OMC  works.  The  suggestions  for  improvements  can  be  grouped  under  the 
following headings, based on the problems identified in section 2.3: 

•  To strengthen focus, political commitment and visibility.  

•  To strengthen the involvement of stakeholders.  

•  To strengthen mutual learning. 

•  To strengthen horizontal coordination across education and training sectors.  

The  timeframe  for  achieving  the  operational  objective  is  fairly  short-term.  Most  possible 
measures could be fully functioning within a year after the adoption of an updated strategic 
framework.  

Conclusions of section 3 

Three objectives are defined for an updated strategic framework for European cooperation in 
education  and  training:  raising  overall  skills  levels  (long-term),  support  countries  in  their 
education  and  training  reforms  (medium-term)  and,  finally,  addressing  specific  elements  to 
improve  the  effectiveness  and  impact  of  the  OMC,  notably  through  better  focus,  political 
commitment  and  visibility,  stakeholder 
learning  and  horizontal 
coordination across education and training sectors (short-term). 

involvement,  peer 

4. 

POLICY OPTIONS 

Four  policy  options  arise  from  the  challenges  and  objectives  identified  in  sections  2  and  3 
above. The four options are essentially described in terms of how the various measures under 
the  OMC  (in  particular  the  setting  of  objectives,  the  organisation  of  mutual  learning, 
monitoring and reporting, and the steering of the OMC) vary  according to the option. They 
reflect  differing  degrees  of  education  and  training  specificity,  political  commitment  to  the 
process of co-operation and investment in terms of resources.  

The four options can be briefly described as follows: 

Option  1:  No  specific  OMC  for  education  and  training  –  abandon  a  specific  OMC  in 
education and training such as the Education & Training 2010 OMC and continue work under 
the overall Lisbon Strategy (notably guidelines 8, 15, 23 and 24).  

Objectives  would  only  be  set  under  the  integrated  guidelines  for  growth  and  jobs.  Peer-
learning  would  be  integrated  into  the  existing  mutual  learning  programmes,  notably  that 
forming  part  of  the  European  Employment  Strategy.  Reporting  would  be  organised 
exclusively  via  the  reporting  on  the  implementation  of  the  Lisbon  national  reform 
programmes.  Education  and  training  actors  and  stakeholders  would  feed  into  the  Lisbon 
process via the structures set up under the macroeconomic, microeconomic and employment 
pillars  of  the  Lisbon  strategy,  i.e.  the  Economic  Policy  Committee  and  the  Employment 

EN 

19 

   EN 

 
Committee. The Education Committee would remain in place but its range of action would be 
limited (e.g. without joint progress reporting). 

As  a  sub-option  a  specific  peer-learning  programme  for  education  and  training  could  be 
developed to focus separately on education and training under the integrated guidelines. 

Option  2:  Status  quo  (dynamic  baseline  scenario)  -  the  OMC  in  education  and  training 
remains based on the objectives and working methods developed under the existing Education 
& Training 2010 OMC. It should be noted that the current OMC is not static but has a certain 
dynamic  element  build  in  as  both  policy  priorities  and  working  methods  have  undergone 
incremental changes based on the biennial joint progress reports and could also continue to do 
so in the future.  

Under  this  option  however  the  current  set  of  basic  objectives  agreed  in  2001  would  remain 
stable. New challenges especially of a transversal nature such as migration or innovation and 
creativity could not be highlighted as specific priorities under the objectives agreed in 2001. 
Peer learning would continue to be organised under thematic clusters of countries interested 
in particular priorities as well as under the Copenhagen process. Reporting would continue to 
comprise  biennial  joint  progress  reports  in  their  present  format  (i.e.  overall  progress  reports 
supported  by  horizontal  thematic  assessments  and  annual  reports  on  progress  in  relation  to 
indicators  and  benchmarks).  The  operational  coordination  of  the  OMC  would  continue 
through the Education & Training 2010 co-ordination group. The Education & Training 2010 
OMC would continue to feed into the Lisbon reporting process at both national and European 
level.  

The  OMC  would  continue  to  evolve  through  incremental  changes  on  the  basis  of  gradual 
adaptations  of  the  immediate  objectives  and  the  working  methods  in  the  context  of  the 
biennial  joint  progress  reports.  The  current  OMC  (the  Education  and  Training  2010  work 
programme), however, only covers the period until 2010 and hence has an implicitly built in 
"sunset  clause".  Continuation  of  the  current  OMC  beyond  2010  would  hence  also  require  a 
specific decision by the Commission and the Council. 

Option 3: Updated strategic framework - an update would aim to rationalise, simplify and 
improve  the  effectiveness  of  the  OMC  both  in  terms  of  objective-setting  and  working 
methods.  

An  updated  set  of  strategic  objectives  would  be  set  to  replace  those  agreed  in  2002  and  to 
increase  the  links  between  the  challenges  in  education  and  training  policy  and  the  overall 
Lisbon  process  as  well  as  the  renewed  Social  Agenda.  These  long-term  strategic  objectives 
would  be  supported  by  a  limited  set  of  immediate  and  flexible  priorities  (e.g.  for  2009-11) 
with a stronger focus and a better reflection of recent developments. Peer learning would also 
be streamlined and organised in a more lightweight and flexible way in order to adapt to the 
needs  of  specific  themes  and  newly-emerging  political  priorities  and  the  possibilities  of 
performing  peer-reviews  will  be  explored.  The  biennial  progress  reports  would  include  a 
stronger thematic focus and country-specific assessments providing a basis for the analysis of 
the  education  and  training/skills  component  of  the  national  Lisbon  reform  programmes  and 
the preparation of the Lisbon country recommendations.  

Although  it  would  remain  an  informal  body,  the  strategic  role  of  the  existing  High  Level 
Group  in  defining  and  coordinating  the  OMC  (setting  priorities,  steering,  monitoring  and 

EN 

20 

   EN 

 
coordination  across  sectors)  would  be  strengthened,  feeding  into  Education  Council 
discussions and conclusions.  

Option 4: A wider and deeper OMC - the OMC in education and training is expanded to 
develop simultaneous work in all dimensions and areas of education and training, including 
bilateral dialogue with all Member States, and the working methods would be reinforced in an 
ambitious manner.  

On the assumption that all elements of education and training are equally important, the wider 
and deeper OMC would exclude no areas from ongoing cooperation at EU level (i.e. instead 
of the thematic focus of option 3). A new set of specific objectives covering all education and 
training  dimensions  and  areas  would  be  developed,  each  linked  with  European  benchmarks 
and concrete national targets. Peer learning would cover all specific priorities at the same time 
(no  thematic  priorities),  peer  review  would  be  used  where  necessary  and,  in  general,  the 
working methods would be expanded to cover all areas. Countries would be expected to take 
active  part  in  any  work  where  they  might  have  useful  experience  thus  increasing  their 
contribution to other countries' policy development.  

The  focus  on  the  specific  developments  in  each  country  would  be  expanded  considerably 
compared  to  option  3.  Structured,  bilateral  dialogue,  monitoring  and  progress  reporting 
(including joint reports) would become annual (instead of biennial), including national action 
plans and country recommendations also under the education and training OMC.  

A  legislative  proposal  would  be  prepared  to  give  the  existing  informal  High  Level  Group  a 
formal and higher political status similar to that of the Economic Policy Committee and the 
Employment Committee. 

Coordination and coherence within education and training would be considerably enhanced to 
ensure that all processes are integrated as far as possible (e.g. the Copenhagen process would 
no longer continue separately) with the aim of achieving a fully consolidated lifelong learning 
policy  framework  at  the  European  level.  Mainstreaming  and  coordination  of  education  and 
training  with  other  policies  (employment,  social  inclusion,  innovation,  enterprise,  and 
research) would be strengthened considerably compared to option 3. 

4.1. 

Legal basis and the principle of subsidiarity 

The legal basis for the cooperation and support to Member States’ policies in education and 
training and for this initiative can be found in articles 149 and 150 of the Treaty. The options 
that have been examined are not contingent upon the adoption of the Lisbon Treaty. 

All the options fully respect the principle of subsidiarity and it is entirely up to the Member 
States whether or not to pursue and implement the common objectives at the national level, 
choosing  measures  suitable  in  the  context  of  their  respective  circumstances.  None  of  the 
proposals contained in any of the policy options departs from this principle even if they are 
different  in  terms  of  the  level  of  political  commitment,  coordination  and  peer  pressure  they 
envisage.  Any  European  recommendations,  guidelines,  instruments  etc.  will  continue  to  be 
developed on a voluntary basis after full consultation of Member States and stakeholders. No 
sanctions  are  possible  or  desirable  in  the  event  a  Member  State  not  respecting  them.  No 
harmonisation is sought but a gradual convergence may continue.  

EN 

21 

   EN 

 
The OMC in education and training is, therefore, built on Member States' voluntary political 
commitment, in order to achieve better policy outcomes, to co-operate with and be supported 
by each other and the Commission, based on broad common objectives and mutual learning. 
Member States have found that the current OMC has provided added value (in particular in 
relation to supporting national reforms with the help of concrete tools developed through the 
process  of  co-operation,  i.e.  the  recommendation  on  key  competences,  the  EQF,  Europass) 
and  have  expressed  keen  interest  in  continued  cooperation  on  these  terms  on  key  issues  in 
education  and  training.  As  described  in  section  2.3,  they  see  the  need  to  strengthen  the 
effectiveness  of  the  OMC  in  certain  ways  to  achieve  better  outcomes.  As  all  the  policy 
options are defined within the OMC, countries can decide precisely how far they want to go 
and  to  what  extent  they  want  to  commit  themselves.  Given  the  major  challenges  facing 
education  and  training  systems  and  their  crucial  importance  to  the  Lisbon  Strategy  and  the 
renewed Social Agenda, all of the options are considered proportional. However, given that 
education and training policies, especially on the organisation of national school systems, are 
sensitive  in  terms  of  Member  States'  responsibilities,  option  4  is  controversial  for  certain 
countries because of the level of political commitment and co-operation Member States would 
be  invited  to  accept  across  the  board,  including  a  much  more  ambitious  set  of  European 
benchmarks. 

Conclusions of section 4 

Four policy options are defined: no specific OMC for education and training, the status quo, 
an updated strategic framework and a wider and deeper OMC. They each demand a different 
type  of  commitment  from  countries  and  workload  in  terms  of  co-operation  activities  but  all 
respect  the  principle  of  subsidiarity  and  are  proportional  to  the  major  challenges  facing 
education and training within the Lisbon Strategy and renewed Social Agenda.  

5. 

ANALYSIS OF IMPACT 

The purpose of this initiative is to set out an overall policy response, through the OMC, to the 
challenges  facing  European  education  and  training.  Given  the  voluntary  nature  of  the 
instrument (see Section 4.1 on the Legal basis and the principle of subsidiarity), impact could 
be analysed in several ways.  

Firstly, in terms of national policy making, countries have confirmed that the current OMC 
has been useful in supporting national policymaking in a number of ways, especially in terms 
of knowledge and evidence, and that its effectiveness can be improved (see sections 1.3 and 
2.3). Countries are however hesitant to confirm clear causal linkages between the OMC and 
their  general  policies  except  when  it  comes  to  very  concrete  tools  such  as  the 
Recommendation  on  Key  Competences51  and,  especially,  the  European  Qualifications 
Framework (EQF).52 The EQF is proving to be a dynamic catalyst for policy reform based on 
emerging national qualification frameworks in nearly all countries, systems for the validation 
on  non-formal  and  informal  learning  and  a  gradual  move  towards  the  introduction  of  a 
learning outcomes approach.  

51 
52 

OJ L 394/10 of 30.12.2006 
OJ C 111/1 of 6.5.2008 

EN 

22 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Secondly, a similar conclusion could be arrived at in terms of policy convergence, where one 
can  identify  specific  areas  of  convergence  such  as  the  gradual  development  of  national 
lifelong learning strategies or the momentum towards the modernisation of higher education, 
although  in  this  case  it  is  difficult  to  distinguish  between  the  effect  of  the  OMC  organised 
under the auspices of the EU and the intergovernmental Bologna Process.  

Thirdly,  the  most  difficult  assessment  is  whether  the  OMC  is  responsible  for  certain  policy 
outcomes:  for  example  does  the  OMC  contribute  to  increasing  literacy  or  reducing  early 
school leaving? Although the final aim is to improve such outcomes, it is difficult to assess 
the impact of the OMC on the performance of education and training systems in terms of the 
European average benchmarks (which is currently disappointing) or of national targets (which 
do not exist in all countries) due to the multitude of contributing factors.  

Although there is clear evidence of the economic and social impact of education and training 
(see  section  2.2),  the  economic  and  social  impact  of  the  OMC  itself  cannot  always  be 
measured in quantitative terms (and the future environmental impact of education leading to 
innovation  in  clean  technologies  is  even  more  indirect  and  difficult  to  measure).  Therefore, 
the  appraisal  of  the  proposed  initiative  is  more  of  a  qualitative  evaluation  of  the  potential 
effects  of  the  OMC  than  of  its  immediate  consequences  on  policy  outcomes,  whether 
economic, social or environmental.  

This proposal is mainly concerned with improving the effectiveness and impact of the OMC, 
both in terms of policy objectives and working methods. In this context, the pertinent question 
is:  will  this  proposal  make  the  OMC  a  more  effective  tool  for  European  cooperation  in 
education and training within the context of the Lisbon and renewed Social Agendas, and for 
the achievement of common objectives and the reform of national policies and systems? On 
this basis, the following assessments are made on the four options in relationship to the three 
objectives defined in section 3 (for a tabled overview of the likely impact of the four options 
in relation to each of the objectives described in section 3 see table 3 in Annex 2): 

Option 1: No specific OMC for education and training 

General assessment 

The Lisbon guidelines 8, 15, 23 and 24 have a strong education and training content (human 
capital development) and work to support countries education and training policies could be 
carried out under these guidelines. It would, however, have two complications. Firstly, these 
guidelines  only  address  directly  some  objectives  of  education,  primarily  those  related  to 
employment and competitiveness, while other key objectives, for example equity, citizenship 
and  creativity,  are  not  specified.  Secondly,  the  work  on  implementing  the  guidelines  is 
managed  by  the  ministries  of  employment  and  does  not  include  education  ministries  and 
stakeholders.  This  would  increase  the  problem  of  inadequate  ownership  and  political 
commitment by the education and training world and, most likely, would reduce the overall 
impact.  Adding  a  sub-option  of  a  separate  peer-learning  programme  could  compensate 
somewhat  for  stakeholders  but  it  would  still  be  insufficient  because  of  the  lack  of  political 
steering  /  commitment  and  the  diminished  status  of  the  social,  cultural  and  creative 
dimensions  of  education  and  training.  It  would  thus,  in  reality,  become  a  "do  less"  option 
which  would  not  match  the  need  for  strong  political  focus  on  education  and  training  in  the 
Lisbon and renewed Social Agendas.  

EN 

23 

   EN 

 
Assessment in relations to intermediate and operational objectives  

The objective of supporting countries in their education and training policy reforms could be 
met to some extent as countries would still be supported through the Lisbon process. The risk 
is  that  work  would  be  too  disconnected  from  the  actual  work  undertaken  in  education 
ministries  (ministries  of  employment,  finance  and  economic  affairs  are  in  the  lead  in  most 
countries)  and  also  in  educational  institutions.  It  would  not  cover  some  of  their  major 
concerns  (e.g.  citizenship  and  intercultural  dialogue)  as  it  would  only  focus  on  lifelong 
learning from an employability perspective. 

As  for  the  objective  of  improving  the  functioning  of  the  OMC  in  education  and  training  a 
specific  OMC  for  education  and  training  would  be  abandoned  under  this  option  and  action 
would  be  restricted  to  the  areas  covered  by  the  guidelines  for  jobs  and  growth.  This  would 
mean  greater  focus,  but  the  risk  is  that  important  stakeholders  would  disagree  with  that 
particular  choice.  This  would  risk  increasing  the  problem  of  ownership  and  political 
commitment  of  key  education  and  training  stakeholders  whose  contribution  is  important  to 
ensure  implementation  and  impact.  As  there  is  a  substantial  consensus  around  the  positive 
results of the OMC in education and training and the wish to improve and strengthen it, the 
abandonment of the specific OMC in education and training could also result in the loss of an 
important  'acquis'.  It  would  be  difficult  to  involve  a  number  of  stakeholders  to  whom  the 
focus on jobs and growth is too narrow. These stakeholders would insist on also dealing with 
other key dimension. It would be difficult to actually strengthening mutual learning under this 
option,  as  it  will  be  more  difficult  to  address  the  specific  needs  of  education  and  training 
actors  and  stakeholders  (although  this  could  be  partially  addressed  by  having  a  specific 
education training peer learning programme). Better horizontal coordination between different 
sectors of education and training (schools, vocational education and training, higher education 
and adult learning) would be equally difficult as this objective is too specific to be addressed 
in the overall broad-based Lisbon strategy. 

Option 2: Status quo 

General assessment 

This  option  has  proved  to  have  been  useful  with  some  results  but  the  impact  has  been 
insufficient  due  to  inadequate  national  visibility,  political  commitment  and  implementation, 
and also insufficient stakeholder involvement. Furthermore, the original detailed objectives do 
not  currently  reflect  fully  the  current  priorities  and  work  actually  being  done  under  the 
existing  OMC.  Without  an  updating  strategic  framework,  an  increased  focus  and  greater 
flexibility,  the  existing  work  programme  would  continue  to  be  out  of  touch  with  current 
challenges and future needs, the renewed Social Agenda and Member States' recent requests 
for an improved OMC in education and training.  

Assessment in relations to intermediate and operational objectives  

The  objective  of  supporting  countries  in  their  education  and  training  policy  reforms  has 
clearly  been  met  to  a  certain  extent  under  the  current  OMC  and  with  good  results,  but  not 
enough to ensure sufficient impact, except in very specific areas. 

Improving the functioning of the OMC in education and training would be difficult under the 
current  OMC  as  the  detailed  objectives  agreed  in  2001  no  longer  reflect  fully  the  priorities 
done  at  this  point  in  time.  Continuing  with  the  existing  work  programme  would  thus  not 

EN 

24 

   EN 

 
reflect the current and increase the problems of ensuring political commitment and visibility. 
In  particular,  new  challenges  such  as  migration  or  creativity  and  innovation  could  not  be 
highlighted as specific priorities under the objectives agreed in 2001. This option would also 
not sufficiently address the weaknesses of the current OMC. The European social partners are 
currently  fully  involved,  while  European  stakeholders  in  education  and  training  do  not 
participate  in  all  activities  and  show  a  lack  of  commitment  to  the  OMC.  Mutual  learning 
already  exists,  but  the  problem  of  insufficient  flexibility,  visibility,  impact  and  political 
follow-up would not be addressed. Horizontal coordination across areas has experienced some 
success  through  promoting  the  concept  of  lifelong  learning,  but  there  are  still  parallel 
developments in the different education and training sectors (schools, VET, HE, adults) both 
at the European and national levels. 

EN 

25 

   EN 

 
Option 3: Updated strategic framework 

General assessment 

This option takes into account that, although the original challenges to education and training 
systems  remain,  new  ones  have  emerged  as  have  certain  weaknesses  of  the  current  OMC. 
Countries are supportive of the education and training OMC as an instrument for co-operation 
and reform but have pointed to a number of potential improvements to its effectiveness which 
could  be  addressed  in  a  clearly  visible  way  in  this  option.  An  updated  strategic  framework 
would  ensure  that  the  OMC  could  be  strengthened  and  working  methods  streamlined  while 
the degree of coordination and development at EU level would remain at an acceptable level 
for Member States. The OMC would become a more strategic and flexible tool supporting the 
Lisbon and Social Agendas and, thus, could become more dynamic with a greater impact at 
the higher political levels and on policy outcomes for the benefit of citizens, the economy and 
society. 

Assessment in relations to intermediate and operational objectives  

The objective of supporting countries in their education and training policy reforms could be 
strengthened  by  being  more  prioritised  and  focused  on  specific  and  relevant  needs.  More 
focus on immediate priorities could increase impact. Countries have expressed support for the 
idea of such an updated strategic framework linked more closely to the Lisbon and renewed 
Social Agendas. 

To  improve  the  functioning  of  the  OMC  in  education  and  training  a  simplified  work 
programme  in  terms  of  fewer  but  more  strategic  objectives  could  increase  attention  and 
commitment. Countries are supportive of the OMC but have requested improvements which 
this  option  would  provide.  An  updated  framework  would  strengthen  the  OMC  while  the 
coordination and development at EU level would remain at an acceptable level to countries. A 
more  systematic  involvement  of  relevant  stakeholders  in  thematic  peer  learning  and  policy 
development,  and  in  consultation  on  the  steering  of  the  OMC,  could  increase  their 
commitment  and  their  contribution  to  implementing  the  objectives.  More  flexible  and 
lightweight  methods  with  planned  outputs  could  allow  more  effective  mutual  learning  on 
newly-emerging  priorities.  Enhancing  the  role  of  the  High  Level  Group  could  improve  the 
strategic steering of peer learning on priorities and ensure better use of its results for policy-
making and Ministers. A new set of strategic objectives with a lifelong perspective, covering 
all  education  and  training  sectors  and  enhancing  the  role  of  the  High  Level  Group  could 
contribute to achieving better coordination across education and training sectors.  

Option 4: A wider and deeper OMC 

General assessment 

While  this  option  could  increase  the  potential  impact,  it  could  also  be  unrealistic  and  over-
ambitious. In particular, given the political sensitivity of the policy area, some countries might 
not be willing to accept and endorse this level of political commitment, activity and scrutiny 
of  their  performance.  Also,  it  would  demand  considerably  increased  human  resources  from 
both Member States and the Commission at a time of tight budgetary constraints. The option 
is  so  ambitious  in  terms  of  resource  implications  that  it  is  actually  likely  to  be 
counterproductive in terms of achieving the defined objectives. 

EN 

26 

   EN 

 
Assessment in relations to working methods objectives  

Support to countries would be increased substantially as work would be done in all areas of 
education and training. This option would, however, run the risk of overburdening administra-
tions  and  education  and  training  systems  because  it  requires  co-operation  on  a  very  broad 
range  of  topics  at  the  same  time  and  therefore  a  heavy  commitment  in  terms  of  human 
resources for both Member States and the Commission.  

When  it  comes  to  the  objective  of  improving  the  functioning  of  the  OMC  such  a 
comprehensive  approach  requiring  all  countries  to  get  involved  in  a  large  number  of  topics 
would be the opposite of increasing focus. It is unlikely that countries would agree to such a 
broad approach. They expressed clear interest in a more selective approach, i.e. to concentrate 
on issues that they regard as high political priorities also at the national level. There may be a 
high degree of visibility, but it is doubtful that this would actually improve implementation, as 
it will be less likely to meet national priorities. Some countries might also feel that this option 
starts  to  come  into  conflict  with  the  principle  of  proportionality.  There  would  be  a  certain 
potential for involving stakeholders better but again this would require substantial resources 
as work would be done in many areas at the same time. This option might strengthen mutual 
learning, but participation in a comprehensive set of peer learning activities across many areas 
would  be  too  resource  intensive  for  both  Member  States  and  the  Commission.  Strict 
coordination mechanisms would have to be put in place for this comprehensive option which 
could have positive impact.  

Conclusions of section 5  

The impact of the OMC on national policy making and policy convergence is challenging to 
assess  for  all  four  options.  It  is,  in  particular,  difficult  to  show  robust  evidence  of  casual 
linkage  between  the  OMC  and  national  policy  outcomes  in  terms  of  quantifiable  results. 
Based on the experience to date, the current OMC is clearly perceived by Member States and 
stakeholders  as  contributing  to  national  policy  development  but  with  areas  requiring 
improvement.  Strengthening  its  effectiveness  through  either  option  3  or  4  would,  therefore, 
most likely, increase its overall impact on the reform of national systems contributing to the 
Lisbon and renewed Social Agendas. 

6. 

COMPARING THE OPTIONS 

As  a  precise  quantification  of  the  economic,  social  and  environmental  impacts  of  the  OMC 
itself  is  difficult,  as  explained  earlier  the  four  options  are  compared  on  the  basis  of  their 
impact on the objectives to be achieved (see section 5) and on the basis of their feasibility. 
The concept of feasibility refers to: political acceptance, availability of human resources and 
the  administrative  burden,  and  the  extent  to  which  instruments  are  available.  The  estimates 
are rough as no elements are available to calculate precise impacts. Please note that a dynamic 
baseline  scenario  has  been  chosen  to  present  a  realistic  picture  of  the  current  OMC.  This 
means that also the current OMC can change incrementally through the biennial joint progress 
reports  hence  some  progress  might  be  possible  even  under  this  scenario.  The  ranking  of 
impacts and feasibility is defined as in the table below: 

Table 1 - Ranking criteria 

++ 

+ 

Impact 

positive impact 

Feasibility 

feasible 

positive 

small 
impact  
more or less feasible 

0 

neutral impact  

feasibility difficult to 
assess 

- 

negative 

small 
impact 
slightly difficult 

-- 

negative impact 

difficult 

EN 

27 

   EN 

 
 
Table 2 - Comparing the policy options with regard to the impact on the problems addressed and the rating of feasibility 

Rating of impact on the problems addressed in terms of 
objectives (based on section 5 and Table 3 in Annex 2) 

Rating of feasibility 

Objective to be 
achieved  

specific 
No 
OMC 
for 
education  and 
training 

Status quo  

(Option 2) 

DYNAMIC 

(Option 1) 

BASELINE 

Updated 
strategic 
framework  

(Option 3) 

Wider and 
deeper OMC  

(Option 4) 

specific 
No 
OMC 
for 
education  and 
training 

Status quo 

(Option 2) 

DYNAMIC 

(Option 1) 

BASELINE 

Updated 
strategic 
framework  

(Option 3) 

Wider and 
deeper OMC  

(Option 4) 

- 

- 

- - 

Improve skills 
levels in the 
population 
(including 
citizenship etc.) 

Support 
countries in 
reforming their 
education and 
training policies 

Improve the 
functioning of 
the OMC in 
education and 
training  

+ 

+ 

0 

+ 

+ 

++ 

++ 

- 

0 

++ 

+ 

- - 

+ 

+ 

0 

+ 

++ 

++ 

- 

+ 

+ 

EN 

28 

EN 

 
  
 
 
Based  on  the  describtion  and  analysis  of  impacts  and  feasibility  in  the  tables  1  and  3  the 
following conclusions can be drawn regarding the four options: 

Option 1: No specific OMC for education and training 

The Lisbon guidelines 8, 15, 23 and 24 have a strong education and training content (human 
capital)  and  work  to  support  countries  education  and  training  policies  could  be  carried  out 
under  these  guidelines.  As  illustrated  in  table  3  the  option  would,  however,  fall  short  of 
impact  expectations  due  to  a  certain  disconnection  with  stakeholders  in  education  and 
training.  Furthermore,  it  cannot  be  considered  feasible  as  it  would  not  reflect  the  political 
mandate for a high political profile for education and training not only in the Lisbon Strategy 
but  also  in  the  renewed  Social  Agenda.  Finally,  it  would  not  meet  the  expectations  of 
countries  and  stakeholders  for  a  comprehensive  lifelong  learning  definition  of  the  relevant 
dimensions  in  education  and  training  (including  equity,  citizenship  and  creativity)  or  their 
requests for a strengthened OMC in education and training. 

Option 2: Status quo 

While  this  option  has  been  useful  and  produced  positive  results,  the  impact  has  been 
insufficient  due  to  inadequate  national  visibility,  political  commitment  and  implementation 
and also insufficient stakeholder involvement. It would, of course, continue to have a certain 
impact  but  this  would  be  insufficient  given  persistent  problems  and  new  challenges. 
Furthermore,  the  original  detailed  objectives  do  not  adequately  reflect  the  work  currently 
being done under the OMC. 

Option 3: Updated strategic framework 

Countries are supportive of the OMC but have pointed to a number of areas where they would 
like  to  see  it  strengthened.  They  have  also  indicated  their  support  for  a  more  strategic 
approach.  This  option  would  meet  the  demands  for  a  more  strategic  and  dynamic  approach 
and would attract more political attention and commitment which should increase impact. An 
updated  strategic  framework  would  provide  a  stronger  and  more  effective  OMC  while  the 
coordination and development at EU level would remain at an acceptable level to countries. 

Option 4: A wider and deeper OMC 

The  potential  impact  of  this  comprehensive  option  would  be  high  were  it  not  for  the 
considerable  extra  political  and  administrative  commitment  expected  from  countries.  The 
increased  cooperation  would  provide  expanded  support  to  countries  but  the  OMC  would 
become so all-encompassing that but it could be very difficult to manage. Both the level of 
commitment  in  terms  of  extra  human  resources  and  the  sensitivity  of  such  an  approach  for 
Member States undermine the feasibility of this option.  

Conclusions of section 6  

While the different options all have their advantages, it is clear that only option 3 meets the 
demands  for  the  OMC  to  have  a  greater  impact  on  increasing  overall  skills  levels  and  on 
national reforms of education and training systems and to become a more effective instrument 
of co-operation and policy development. This option is also feasible. 

EN 

29 

   EN 

 
7. 

MONITORING AND EVALUATION 

As indicated in section 5, the results and impacts of the OMC in education and training can be 
principally monitored and evaluated in terms of the impact on both national policy-making 
and policy convergence. Policy outputs can be primarily monitored as direct outcomes of the 
national systems.  

Evaluation of the OMC would normally take place through biennial joint progress reports and 
adaptations will be made on a regular basis. However, the definitive reporting mechanism of 
the  updated  framework  would  be  determined  in  the  context  of  future  discussions  on  the 
Lisbon strategy. 

To  monitor  the  impacts  of  an  updated  strategic  framework  on  national  policy-making,  one 
instrument is already available: biennial national reports as input to the OMC's biennial joint 
progress reports. This would, as far as possible, be strengthened and adapted to the needs of 
an  updated  framework.  No  new  instruments  are  needed.  On  a  regular  basis,  the  High  Level 
Group  representing  Member  States  would  assume  a  more  comprehensive  and  strategic  role, 
providing  feedback  and  monitoring,  ensuring  coherence  and  coordination  of  the  OMC  and 
advising the Education Council.  

The monitoring and evaluation of policy convergence and outcomes would take place via the 
biennial  joint  progress  reports  and,  especially  for  policy  outcomes,  via  the  annual  progress 
reports on indicators and benchmarks. The effectiveness of the biennial joint progress reports 
would benefit from a new emphasis on thematic priorities and by including assessments of the 
situation in individual countries.  

Dialogue  and  consultations  with  the  European  social  partners  and  education  and  training 
stakeholders  will  be  expanded  and  structured  through  annual  Stakeholders’  Forums.  This 
would constitute a change from the current OMC where they have been involved more on an 
individual  basis,  in  smaller  groups  or  on  a  case  by  case  basis.  This  would  provide  an 
additional basis for feedback to monitor the actual results and impact of the OMC.  

Possible success indicators on the OMC could be:  

•  Successful consensus building on key policy initiatives and on coordination across sectors 

•  The extent to which we can identify policy developments in Member States related to the 

areas in which peer learning has taken place  

•  Increased interest by national stakeholders to respond to awareness raising calls (awareness 

of the policy priorities) 

•  Regular  and  fruitful  dialogue  with  European  stakeholders  through  annual  Stakeholders' 
Forum’s and through the successful set-up of a Lifelong learning Platform (a platform of 
European civil society stakeholders in the field of lifelong learning which would provide a 
more  stable  basis  for  contributions  to  policy  development,  the  identification  of  best 
practices and function as a multiplier vis-à-vis stakeholders and civil society in general at 
national level). 

EN 

30 

   EN 

 
Conclusions of section 7  

The  mechanisms  to  monitor  and  evaluate  the  impact  on  national  policy-making,  policy 
convergence and policy outcomes of the OMC in education and training already exist in the 
form of biennial joint progress reports and annual reports on indicators and benchmarks. Their 
effectiveness  would  be  strengthened  by  an  emphasis  on  thematic  priorities,  the  inclusion  of 
country assessments and improved feedback from Member States and stakeholders.  

EN 

31 

   EN 

 
LIST OF REFERENCES 

Allen, J. and van der Velden, R. (eds) (2007), "The Flexible Professional in the Knowledge 
Society: General Results of the REFLEX Project", Research Centre for the Education and the 
Labour Market, Maastricht University, The Netherlands.  

CEDEFOP (2008), Future Skill Needs in Europe. Medium-term forecast, Synthesis report.  

Centre d'analyse stratégique (2007), Les métiers en 2015, report, La documentation française  

Dustman  C.,  Ludsteck  C.,  Schönberg  U.  (2007),  "Revisiting  the  German  Wage  Structure", 
IZA Discussion Paper, no. 2685, March 

De la Fuente A., (2003), Human Capital in a Global and Knowledge-Based Economy, Part II: 
Assessment  at  the  EU  Country  Level,  Report  for  the  European  Commission,  Directorate-
General for Employment and Social Affairs 

De la Fuente A., Ciccone A. (2002), Human Capital and Growth in a Global and Knowledge-
Based Economy, Report for the European Commission, Directorate-General for Employment 
and Social Affairs 

the 
European  Commission  (2006),  SEC(2006)  1096,  Accompanying  document 
Communication  "Efficiency  and  equity  in  European  education  and  training  systems" 
COM(2006) 481  

to 

European  Commission  (2008),  Progress  Report  -  Indicators  and  benchmarks  2008, 
SEC(2008) 2293 

EENEE  (European  Experts  Network  on  the  Economics  of  Education)  (2007),  The  Costs  of 
School Failure. A Feasibility Study, Analytical Report for the European Commission 

Goos M. and Manning A. (2007), "Lousy and lovely jobs; the rising polarization of work in 
Britain", Review of Economics and Statistics, 89 (1), 118-133. 

Gornitzka,  Ase,  The  Open  Method  of  Coordination  as  practice  –  A  watershed  in  European 
education policy? ARENA working paper No. 16, Oslo, December 2006. 

Hanusek E. and Woessmann L. (2007), "The role of education quality in economic growth", 
The World Bank, Policy Research Working Paper 4122 

Leitch Review of Skills (2006), Prosperity for all in the global economy - world class skills, 
Final report  

Machin  S.  (2004),  ‘Skill  Biased  Technology  Change  and  Educational  Outcomes’,  in  G. 
Johnes and J. Johnes (eds.) International Handbook of the Economics of Education, (2004) 

Nicaise, Idesbald (ed.) "European Education and Training Systems in the Second Decennium 
of the Lisbon Strategy" Joint Analytical Report for the European Commission prepared by the 
European Expert Network on Economics of Education (EENEE) and the Network of experts 
in the Social Sciences of Education (NESSE). 

OECD (2007); Education at glance, Paris: OECD 

EN 

32 

   EN 

 
 
ANNEX 1: OVERVIEW OF THE OBJECTIVES AND THE BENCHMARKS AND CORE INDICATORS 
IN THE CURRENT OMC "EDUCATION AND TRAINING 2010" 

Overview of the objectives of the current OMC "Education and Training 2010" 

"Future objectives of education and training systems" (2001):  

1. Improving the quality and effectiveness of education and training systems 
1.1 Improving education and training for teachers 
1.2 Developing skills for the knowledge society 
1.3 Ensuring access to ICT for everyone 
1.4 Increasing recruitment to scientific and technical studies 
1.5 Making best use of resources 

2. Facilitating the access of all to education and training systems 
2.1 Creating an open learning environment 
2.2 Making learning attractive 
2.3 Supporting active citizenship, equal opportunities and social cohesion 

3. Opening up education and training systems to the wider world 
3.1 Strengthening the links with work and research and society at large 
3.2 Developing the spirit of enterprise 
3.3. Improving foreign language learning 
3.4 Increasing mobility and exchange 
3.5 Strengthening European co-operation 

Overview  of  benchmarks  and  core  indicators  currently  in  use  in  "Education  and 
Training 2010" 

Benchmarks set in 2003 

The reference levels of European average performance (benchmarks), to be achieved by 2010, 
are: 

•  Not more than 10% early school leavers;  

•  To cut the percentage of low-achieving pupils in literacy by at least 20%;  

•  At least 85% of young people to complete upper secondary education;  

•  Increase  the  number  of  university  graduates  in  mathematics,  science  and  technology 

(MST) by at least 15%, and to decrease the gender imbalance in these subjects;  

•  12.5% of the adult population should participate in lifelong learning.  

Core indicators 

1. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

Participation in pre-school education  

Special needs education 

Early school leavers 

Literacy in reading, mathematics and science 

EN 

33 

   EN 

 
5. 

6. 

7. 

8. 

9. 

10. 

11. 

12. 

13. 

14. 

15. 

16. 

Language skills 

ICT skills 

Civic skills 

Learning to learn skills  

Upper secondary completion rates of young people 

Professional development of teachers and trainers  

Higher education graduates 

Cross-national mobility of students in higher education 

Participation of adults in lifelong learning 

Adult skills 

Educational attainment of the population  

Investment in education and training 

EN 

34 

   EN 

 
ANNEX 2: DESCRIPTION OF THE EDUCATION AND TRAINING 2010 WORK PROGRAMME 

The Education and Training 2010 work programme in its current form provides a framework 
for policy cooperation between Member States and the Commission in education and training. 
The main elements of the open method of co-ordination (OMC) in education and training are 
(1)  a  set  of  common  objectives,  (2)  a  process  of  reporting  and  monitoring  on  progress,  (3) 
peer  learning,  and  (4)  agenda-setting  Communications  from  the  Commission  and  (5)  the 
development of EU reference tools supporting national reforms (e.g. the recommendations on 
key  competences,  on  quality  assurance  in  vocational  education  and  training  or  higher 
education  or  the  European  Qualifications  Framework.  These  actions  are  complemented  by 
pilot actions and the testing of new approaches through the Lifelong Learning Programme. 

Common objectives 

One of the crucial milestones for EU cooperation in education and training was the definition 
by  the  Council  in  2002  of  thirteen  objectives  (please  see  annex  1  of  this  report  for  an 
overview  of  the  13  objectives)  grouped  around  three  strategic  goals  1. Quality  and 
effectiveness  2. Access  for  all  3.  Opening  up  to  the  wider  world.  These  objectives  guided 
work in the initial phase of the work programme and in particular the setting up of specific 
thematic working groups (2002-2005). 

Another milestone was the adoption in May 2003 of five European benchmarks (please see 
annex  1  of  this  report  for  a  list  of  the  16  core  indicators  attached  to  the  benchmarks)  to  be 
achieved by 2010: (1) No more than 10% early school leavers; (2) Decrease of at least 20% in 
the percentage of low-achieving pupils in reading literacy; (3) At least 85% of young people 
should have completed upper secondary education; (4) Increase of at least 15% in the number 
of  tertiary  graduates  in  Mathematics,  Science  and  Technology  (MST),  with  a  simultaneous 
decrease  in  the  gender  imbalance;  (5)  12.5%  of  the  adult  population  should  participate  in 
lifelong learning. 

The 13 objectives have however never been the only policy framework guiding education and 
training policy cooperation at the European level. Other detailed objectives were set in the  

•  2000 Action Plan for Mobility / 2001 Recommendation of the European Parliament and 
of the Council on mobility for students, persons undergoing training, volunteers, teachers 
and trainers;  

•  the lifelong learning communication and resolution of 2001 and 2002;  

•  the  Copenhagen  process  for  European  cooperation  in  vocational  education  and  training 

established in 2002; 

•  the intergovernmental Bologna process and, since 2003, with a growing recognition of the 
importance  of  higher  education  for  the  Lisbon  agenda,  important  agenda-setting 
Communications  from  the  Commission  and  subsequent  Council  resolutions  in  higher 
education.  

•  The 2006 Commission Communication and Council resolution on "Efficiency and equity 

in European education and training systems" 

•  The 2006/07 Communication and action plan for adult learning. 

EN 

35 

   EN 

 
In  addition,  as  the  EU's  overall  strategy  for  education  and  training  takes  place  within  the 
broader Lisbon process, the EU's priorities for education and training are also defined in the 
Lisbon  integrated  guidelines  for  jobs  and  growth  which  include  important  references  to 
innovation (GL 8), entrepreneurship education (GL 15), investment in human capital (GL 23) 
and  adapting  education  and  training  systems  in  response  to  new  competence  requirements 
(GL 24).  

Hence,  since  the  adoption  of  the  first  joint  progress  report  in  2004,  the  biennial  reporting 
process  fulfils  an  important  function  of  bringing  together,  under  a  single  umbrella,  these 
different strands of policy development. In reality, however, there is a natural tension between 
the  different  education  and  training  sectors  (schools,  VET,  HE,  adult  learning)  operating 
independently and the need to address cross-cutting issues. 

Finally,  all  three  joint  reports  adopted  since  2004  have  also  had  the  important  function  of 
defining new priorities for the next 2 years ahead and thus to adapt the political objectives in 
view of newly emerging issues. This has step-by-step modified the role of the 13 objectives as 
guiding principles of the OMC.  

The policy paradigm which has been central for the OMC in education and training during the 
last years is lifelong learning. The lifelong learning paradigm has had the merit of attracting 
our attention both to the very early (pre-primary) and later phases of learning in the life-cycle 
(continuing  training,  adult  learning).  Its  main  distinctive  feature,  however,  is  its  holistic 
approach. While allowing for a focus on different education and training sectors (e.g. schools, 
higher  education,  VET,  adults),  it  emphasises  that  education  and  training  policy  must  deal 
with  transversal  issues  which  cannot  be  treated in  these  different  sectors  alone;  it  raises  the 
issues of the relation between formal, non-formal and informal learning53 and the interactions 
between different sectors. Examples of such transversal issues are:  

–  Which type of key competences are needed to prepare people for learning at later times of 

their life?  

–  How to improve transition between the different education and training sectors and flexible 

career pathways (e.g. through the promotion of a learning outcomes approach)? 

–  How  does  the  performance  of  a  particular  sector,  e.g.  schools,  affect  citizens'  access  to 

other levels, e.g. higher education or adult learning/continuing training?  

–  How to assess and set policy priorities for education and training policies as a whole? 

The lifelong learning paradigm has been enhanced by the 2006 Commission Communication 
and  Council  resolution  on  efficiency  and  equity  in  education  and  training.  As  it 
demonstrated,  the  dual  challenge  of  efficiency  and  equity  can  actually  be  used  to  address 
individual  E&T  sectors  separately  while  it  can  also  be  used  to  look  at  E&T  systems  as  a 
whole.  

53 

This is often referred to as the dimension of "lifewide" learning 

EN 

36 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Monitoring and reporting  

Indicators  and  benchmarks  play  an  essential  role  in  Education  and  Training  2010.  They  are 
key elements of evidence-based policy making and the monitoring of progress essential to the 
Lisbon process. Thus a comprehensive set of indicators and benchmarks has been developed 
as  a  basis  for  the  biennial  Joint  reports  of  the  Council  and  the  Commission  on  the 
implementation  of  Education  and  Training  2010  and  the  preparation  of  the  Commission's 
annual progress reports on indicators and benchmarks.  

In May 2003, the Education Council adopted five European average performance benchmarks 
in  the  areas  of  early  school  leaving,  reading  literacy,  secondary  attainment,  mathematics, 
science and technology graduates and adults' participation in lifelong learning. In May 2007, 
it concluded on a coherent framework of 16 core indicators for monitoring progress towards 
the Lisbon objectives54.  

Since  2004,  Member  States  reports  every  two  years  on  the  implementation  of  the  work 
programme at national level, on the basis of which the Council and the Commission adopt a 
Joint Report on the overall progress in implementing Education and Training 2010, including 
the identification of policy priorities for the immediate future. National reports are analysed in 
detail  in  a  Staff  Working  Document  supporting  the  Commission's  Draft  Joint  Report  which 
provides a horizontal thematic analysis by education and training sector55.  

In  addition,  the  Commission  produces  every  year  a  Staff  Working  Document  on  progress 
made in relation to the indicators and benchmarks56. 

Finally, education and training also has a prominent place in many countries' Lisbon national 
reform  programmes  for  growth  and  jobs  and  the  related  reports.  These  are  assessed  in  the 
Commission's  Lisbon  Annual  Progress  Reports  and  followed-up,  where  appropriate,  by 
country-specific  recommendations  of  the  Council57  on  education,  training,  lifelong  learning 
and skills. It follows therefore that national reporting in the area of education and training and 
under the Lisbon process should be closely linked. 

Peer learning activities, clusters, working groups and networks 

Peer  learning  as  defined  in  the  Lisbon  strategy  in  2000  is  a  central  element  of  the  OMC  in 
education and training and, as confirmed by the discussions in the Education Council, is seen 
as  a  crucial  tool  with  considerable  potential  to  support  education  and  training  reforms.  In 
order to improve and streamline the OMC, the question is how to organise peer learning in the 
most efficient and effective way so that it has a real impact – the 2008 Joint Report stressed 
the importance of "ensuring that the results of peer-learning activities reach policy makers and 
ministers".  And  how  to  ensure  that  it  is  flexible  and  lightweight  enough  to  respond  to 
evolving high-level priorities within a limited timescale.  

The  existing  peer  learning  activities  (PLAs)  under  Education  and  Training  2010  are  mainly 
organised,  planned  and  prepared  through  8  thematic  clusters  (groups  of  countries  with  a 

54 
55 
56 
57 

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:C:2007:311:0013:0015:EN:PDF 
For the 2008 Joint Progress Report see Official Journal C 86/1 of 5.4. 2008 
Latest Progress Report – Indicators and benchmarks 2008, SEC (2008) 2293 
Recommendations based on articles 99 and 128 of the Treaty 

EN 

37 

   EN 

 
                                                 
particular  interest  in  a  given  topic).  The  clusters,  which  effectively  started  peer  learning  in 
2006, were designed as a lighter structure (each Member State only participating in a limited 
number  of  clusters)  than  the  previous  working  groups  established  in  2001  which  addressed 
the 13 common objectives.  

The cluster themes and priorities in 2005/0658 were agreed with Member States. While several 
of  the  clusters  aimed  to  support  the  national  implementation  of  agreed  European  principles 
(e.g. the key competences recommendation), others aim to build a reflection on new thematic 
priorities (e.g. higher education, access and social inclusion, learning outcomes). On average 
each cluster has organised 4 meetings per annum, including peer learning activities hosted by 
Member States. 

The  clusters  are  not,  however,  the  only  European  education  and  training  groups  organising 
peer-learning  activities.  For  example,  peer-learning  has  also  been  carried  out  under  the 
Copenhagen process as a result of meetings of the Directors General for Vocational Education 
and  Training  and  the  recently  created  adult  learning  working  group  will  also  initiate  peer 
learning. In the area of quality assurance (for higher education and VET) and guidance, EU 
reference  tools  are  also  followed  up  by  European  networks  managed  by  Member  States 
(ENQA-HE, ENQA-VET, the European Lifelong Guidance Policy Network).  

Steering of the process 

The  political  steering  of  the  OMC  takes  place  through  the  Council  and,  since  2005,  the 
implementation and coordination of the OMC is in the hands of the Education and Training 
2010  Coordination  Group  (ETCG)59.  In  addition,  since  2002,  a  High  Level  Group  with 
representatives  of  all  Member  States  is  convened  at  least  twice  a  year  on  the  initiative  of 
upcoming presidencies  to  discuss  the  political priorities of these presidencies in the field of 
education  and  training,  including  key  issues  arising  concerning  the  OMC  and  its  future 
development.  

58 

59 

The  clusters  deal  with  the  following  issues:  Modernising  Higher  Education,  Best  use  of  Resources, 
Teachers and Trainers, Access and Social Inclusion, Math, Science and Technology, Key Competences, 
ICT, Recognition of Learning Outcomes. 
Members of the ETCG are all participating countries and the European social partners. 

EN 

38 

   EN 

 
                                                 
ANNEX 3: TABLE 3 - OVERVIEW OF THE FOUR OPTIONS CONSIDERED IN TERMS OF IMPACT 

Option 2 
Status quo (baseline scenario) 

Option 3  
Updated strategic framework 

Option 4  
Wider and deeper OMC 

section 

It  is  difficult  to  prove  that  the 
current  OMC  has  contributed 
directly  but,  in  any  event,  there 
has  been 
insufficient  national 
progress  towards  this  objective 
(see  lack  of  results  compared  to 
benchmarks, 
2.3). 
Improvements  could  be  made 
within  the  current  method,  but 
these  might  not  be  sufficient  to 
contribute to significant progress.  
Has  already  provided  support  to 
countries  and  with  good  results, 
but not enough to ensure sufficient 
impact,  except  in  certain  specific 
areas.  

set  more 
If  objectives  were 
strategically,  with 
limited 
a 
number  of  pertinent  high-level 
objectives  and  national  targets, 
and  the  working  methods  were 
made  more  effective,  the  overall 
impact  of 
this 
the  OMC  on 
objective could be enhanced.  

to 

Objective could, in theory be met, 
in  particular  as  all  areas  are 
potentially 
the 
important 
success  of  education  and  training 
systems. But this would depend on 
overcoming difficulties in terms of 
Member  States'  commitment  to 
this option and its practical imple-
mentation.  

priorities 

Support  could  be  more  prioritised 
and 
focused  on  specific  and 
relevant  needs.  More  focus  on 
immediate 
could 
increase  impact.  Countries  have 
expressed  support  for  the  idea  of 
strategic 
updated 
such 
framework  linked  more  closely  to 
the  Lisbon  and  renewed  Social 
Agendas. 

an 

and 

Support  to  countries  would  be 
increased  substantially  as  work 
would  be  done  in  all  areas  of 
education 
training.  This 
option  would,  however,  run  the 
risk  of  overburdening  administra-
tions  and  education  and  training 
systems  because  it  requires  co-
operation on a very broad range of 
topics  at 
time  and 
the  same 
therefore  a  heavy  commitment  in 
terms of human resources.  

Option 1  
No specific OMC for education 
and training 
The  objective  would  not  be  fully 
met  as  action  would  be  limited  to 
certain objectives of education and 
training covered by the guidelines 
for jobs and growth. Questionable 
whether the whole population and 
all  forms  and  levels  of  education 
and training could be addressed. 

through 

Countries  would  continue  to  be 
supported 
the  Lisbon 
process.  The  risk  is  that  work 
would  be  too  disconnected  from 
the  actual  work  undertaken  in 
education ministries (ministries of 
employment,  finance  and  econo-
mic affairs are in the lead in most 
countries)  and  also  in  educational 
institutions.  It  would  not  cover 
some of their major concerns as it 
would  only  focus  on 
lifelong 
learning  from  an  employability 
perspective.  

Objective to be 
achieved  

Improve skill levels in 
the population 

Support countries in 
reforming their 
education and training 
policies 

Improve the 
functioning of the 
OMC in education 
and training  

• 

EN 

39 

EN 

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
Objective to be 
achieved  

•  To strengthen focus, 

political 
commitment and 
visibility  

•  To strengthening the 
involvement of 
stakeholders.  

Option 1  
No specific OMC for education 
and training 

As  a  specific  OMC  for  education 
and training would be abandoned, 
action  would  be  restricted  to  the 
areas covered by the guidelines for 
jobs and growth. This would mean 
greater  focus,  but  the  risk  is  that 
stakeholders  would 
important 
disagree  with 
that  particular 
choice. This would risk increasing 
the  problem  of  ownership  and 
political  commitment  of  key 
stake-
education  and 
holders  whose  contribution 
is 
important  to  ensure  implemen-
tation  and  impact.  As  there  is  a 
substantial  consensus  around  the 
positive  results  of  the  OMC  in 
education  and  training  and  the 
wish to improve and strengthen it, 
the  abandonment  of  the  specific 
OMC  in  education  and  training 
could  also  result  in  the  loss  of  an 
important 'acquis'. 

training 

not 

training 
Many  education  and 
stakeholders  would 
be 
attracted,  as  they  will  find  the 
focus  on  jobs  and  growth  too 
narrow  and  would  insist  on  also 
dealing  with 
the  other  key 
dimension  

Option 2 
Status quo (baseline scenario) 

Option 3  
Updated strategic framework 

Option 4  
Wider and deeper OMC 

As  the  detailed  objectives  agreed 
in  2002  no  longer  reflect  the 
actual  work  being  done  at  this 
point  in  time,  continuing  with  the 
existing  work  programme  would 
not  reflect  the  current  OMC  and 
increase  the  problems  of  ensuring 
political 
and 
visibility.  This  option  would  not 
sufficiently 
the 
weaknesses of the current OMC. 

commitment 

address 

Countries 

A  simplified  work  programme  in 
terms  of  fewer  but  more  strategic 
objectives could increase attention 
and commitment. Visibility would 
be strengthened by setting a small 
number  of  high  level  political 
are 
objectives. 
supportive  of  the  OMC  but  have 
requested 
improvements  which 
this  option  would  provide.  An 
would 
framework 
updated 
strengthen  the  OMC  while  the 
coordination  and  development  at 
EU  level  would  remain  at  an 
acceptable level to countries.  

be 

for 

opposite 

Such  a  comprehensive  approach 
of 
the 
would 
increasing focus. It is unlikely that 
countries  would  agree  to  such  an 
approach for reasons related to the 
resources 
its 
needed 
implementation  and  because  they 
already  prefer  a  more  selective 
approach,  i.e.  to  concentrate  on 
issues  that  they  regard  as  high 
the 
political  priorities  also  at 
national  level.  There  may  be  a 
high  degree  of  visibility,  but  it  is 
doubtful  that  this  would  actually 
improve implementation, as it will 
be  less  likely  to  meet  national 
priorities.  Some  countries  might 
also  feel  that  this  option  starts  to 
come 
the 
into  conflict  with 
principle of proportionality. 

The  European  social  partners  are 
fully  involved,  while  European 
stakeholders 
in  education  and 
training  do  not  participate  in  all 
activities  and  show  a  lack  of 
commitment to the OMC.  

and 

learning 

A more systematic involvement of 
relevant  stakeholders  in  thematic 
peer 
policy 
development,  and  in  consultation 
on the steering of the OMC, could 
increase  their  commitment  and 
their contribution to implementing 
the objectives.  

Potentially positive impact. 

EN 

40 

EN 

 
  
 
 
 
Objective to be 
achieved  

•  Strengthening 

mutual learning  

Option 1  
No specific OMC for education 
and training 
Hard to achieve under this option, 
as  it  will  be  more  difficult  to 
the  specific  needs  of 
address 
education  and  training  actors  and 
stakeholders  (although  this  could 
be partially addressed by having a 
specific  education  training  peer 
learning programme). 

•  Strengthening 

coordination across 
education and 
training sectors.  

Would be difficult to meet as this 
objective  is  too  specific  to  be 
addressed  in  the  overall  broad-
based Lisbon strategy. 

Option 2 
Status quo (baseline scenario) 

Option 3  
Updated strategic framework 

Option 4  
Wider and deeper OMC 

problem 

Peer  learning  already  exists,  but 
the 
insufficient 
flexibility,  visibility,  impact  and 
political  follow-up  would  not  be 
addressed. 

of 

there 

Some  success  through  promoting 
the  concept  of  lifelong  learning, 
still  parallel 
but 
the  different 
developments 
education  and 
training  sectors 
(schools, VET, HE, adults) both at 
the European and national levels.  

are 
in 

flexible  and 

newly-emerging 

More 
lightweight 
methods  with  planned  outputs 
could  allow  more  effective  work 
on 
priorities. 
Enhancing  the  role  of  the  High 
Level  Group  could  improve  the 
strategic  steering  of  peer  learning 
on priorities and ensure better use 
of  its  results  for  policy-making 
and Ministers. 
A  new  set  of  strategic  objectives 
perspective, 
with 
covering all education and training 
sectors  and  enhancing  the  role  of 
the  High  Level  Group  could 
this 
contribute 
objective. 

achieving 

lifelong 

to 

a 

positive, 

Potentially 
but 
participation  in  a  comprehensive 
learning  activities 
set  of  peer 
across  many  areas  would  be  too 
both 
intensive 
resource 
Member 
the 
States 
Commission.  

for 
and 

Potentially positive impact. 

EN 

41 

EN 

 
  
 
 
EN 

42 

   EN