COMMISSION STAFF WORKING PAPER SUMMARY OF THE IMPACT ASSESSMENT   Accompanying document to the   Proposal for a   COUNCIL RECOMMENDATION  on policies to reduce early school leaving
Date: 2011-01-31
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: EU financing, EU programme, dropout, education, education policy, impact study, report

EN 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

Brussels, 31.1.2011 
SEC(2011) 98 final 

COMMISSION STAFF WORKING PAPER 

SUMMARY OF THE IMPACT ASSESSMENT 

Accompanying document to the 

Proposal for a  

COUNCIL RECOMMENDATION 

on policies to reduce early school leaving 

SEC(2011) 97 final 
SEC(2011) 96 final 
COM(2011) 19 final 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

This impact  assessment will accompany  the proposal for  a Recommendation of  the  Council 
on policies against early leaving from education and training. 

1. 

PROBLEM DEFINITION 

In 2009 14.4% of all 18–24 year olds left education and training with only lower secondary 
education  or  less1.  Although  the  situation  has  improved  in  nearly  all  Member  States,  the 
progress achieved has been insufficient to reach the initial target of reducing ESL rates to less 
than 10% by 2010. With eight countries having reached this benchmark and some close to the 
target, a further reduction of ESL rates is realistic. But to achieve this especially in times of 
economic and financial crisis needs stronger and better coordinated efforts. 

The  need  to  reduce  ESL  was  given  still  greater  political  urgency  under  the  Europe  2020 
strategy  for  the  entire  EU,  adopted  by  the  European  Council  in  June  2010.  It  takes  its 
reduction  to  less  than  10%  by  2020  as  one  of  five  headline  targets.  The  new  strategy 
highlights  three  mutually  reinforcing  priorities:  'smart  growth'  based  on  knowledge  and 
innovation, 'sustainable growth' promoting a greener economy and 'inclusive growth' fostering 
high  employment  and  social  cohesion.  High  rates  of  ESL  are  a  bottleneck  for  smart  and 
inclusive growth2. 

ESL  creates  high  individual,  social  and  economic  costs.  The  consequences  of  ESL  affect 
people throughout their lives, and reduce their chance to participate in the social, cultural and 
economic  life  of  society.  ESL  increases  their  individual  risk  of  unemployment,  poverty  and 
social  exclusion.  High  rates  of  ESL  in  European  societies  have  long-term  effects  on  labour 
markets, on the availability of skilled employees and thus on economic growth. Such effects 
are likely to increase in many EU Member States due to the economic and financial crisis. 

ESL  is  a  complex  phenomenon  and  the  processes  that  lead  to  ESL  are  driven  by  different 
factors.  The  reasons  why  young  people  leave  education  and  training  prematurely  are  highly 
individual.  Nevertheless  it  is  possible  to  indicate  some  recurrent  characteristics  of  ESL 
processes:  

•  ESL  is  strongly  linked  to  social  disadvantage  and  low  education  backgrounds.  Children 
from  socially  disadvantaged  backgrounds  tend  to  lack  sufficient  support  from  their 
families, face discrimination within the education system and have limited access to non-
formal and informal learning opportunities outside compulsory schooling. 

1 

2 

Eurostat, LFS 2010. More information on 
http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/europe_2020_indicators/headline_indicatorshttp://ep
p.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/tgm/table.do?tab=table&init=1&plugin=1&language=en&pcode=t2020_40. 
Data are based on the Labour Force Survey. Early school leavers refers to persons aged 18 to 24 
fulfilling the following two conditions: first, the highest level of education or training attained is ISCED 
0, 1, 2 or 3c short, second, respondents declared not having received any education or training in the 
four weeks preceding the survey. 
Commission Communication "Europe 2020 - A strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth" - 
COM(2010) 2020; Conclusions of the European Council 17 June 2010. 

EN 

2 

   EN 

 
                                                 
•  Educational  problems  often  start  already  in  primary  education  with  first  experiences  of 
school failure and growing alienation from school. Education and training systems often do 
not  provide  sufficient  targeted  support  for  pupils  at  risk  to  cope  with  difficulties  and  to 
remain in education and training.  

•  Only  few  Member  States  implement  a  consistent  and  comprehensive  strategy  to  reduce 
ESL.  The  lack  of  evidence-based,  consistent  and  comprehensive  against  ESL  in  most 
Member  States  has  contributed  significantly  to  the  relatively  slow  improvement  in  ESL 
rates to date. 

Effective  policies  against  ESL  need  to  be  evidence-based,  comprehensive  and  consistent, 
which requires shifting from implementing individual measures to introducing comprehensive 
strategies  against  ESL.  They  should  address  all  levels  of  education,  be  cross-sectoral  and 
involve stakeholders from the areas such as youth policy, social and employment policies and 
the  health  sector.  In  addition  policies  against  ESL  should  focus  on  prevention,  intervention 
and compensation. 

•  Prevention  seeks  to  avoid  the  conditions  from  arising  where  processes  leading  to  early 

school leaving can start. 

•  Intervention addresses difficulties at an early stage and seek to prevent them from leading 

to school drop-out. 

•  Compensation  offers  opportunities  to  re-enter  education  and  training  for  those  who 

dropped out. 

2. 

ANALYSIS OF SUBSIDIARITY 

Education and Training Policy is an area where, as a result of the subsidiarity principle, the 
EU has supporting competence as defined by the Treaty on the Functioning of the European 
Union (Lisbon Treaty). The Treaty (Articles 165) provides that "the Union shall contribute to 
the  development  of  quality  education  by  encouraging  cooperation  between  Member  States 
and, if necessary, by supporting and supplementing their action". 

In addition Article 9 requires EU to "take into account requirements linked to the promotion 
of a high level of employment, the guarantee of adequate social protection, the fight against 
social exclusion, and a high level of education, training and protection of human health". 

An  initiative  on  ESL  addresses  the  quality  improvement  of  education  and  training  and  its 
outcomes, helps to reduce skill mismatches, and supports employability and social cohesion. 
It  focuses  on  facilitating  and  encouraging  cooperation  between  Member  States  and  aims  to 
support their initiatives. The initiative respects the subsidiarity principle by providing support 
and  facilitating  exchange  among  Member  States,  but  respecting  the  responsibility  of  the 
Member States for the content of teaching and the organisation of their education systems. 

3. 

OBJECTIVES OF THE INITIATIVE 

The general objective of the initiative is to contribute to the development of quality education 
by  encouraging  cooperation  between  Member  States  and  by  supporting  their  action.  The 
specific objective is to reduce ESL in Europe and to accelerate the speed of its reduction. A 

EN 

3 

   EN 

 
reduction of the average ESL rate in the EU to less than 10% would cut the number of early 
school  leavers  in  Europe  by  approximately  2  million.  It  would  help  to  provide  more  young 
people  with  qualifications,  increase  their  employability  and  reduce  their  risk  of  poverty  and 
social exclusion. 

The  operational  objectives  aim  to  help  Member  States  in  developing  effective  and  efficient 
policies  against  ESL.  The  initiative  shall  support  them  in  defining  the  main  elements  of  a 
national  policy  framework,  introducing  an  evidence-based  approach  to  address  ESL  and 
taking comprehensive and consistent measures against ESL in all policies targeting children 
and  young  people.  It  is  intended  to  broaden  Member  States'  cooperation  and  exchange  of 
experiences  and  good  practice.  Cooperation  should  include  also  representatives  and 
stakeholders  from  other  relevant  policy  areas  such  as  social  and  employment  policies  and 
youth policy. A holistic approach toward ESL should foster cross-sectoral cooperation on all 
levels,  take  the  combination  of  factors  leading  to  ESL  in  consideration  and  reinforce  the 
commitment  of  all  actors  to  pro-actively  reduce  ESL.  A  better  targeted  use  of  EU  funding 
shall complement efforts of Member States to reduce ESL. 

4. 

POLICY OPTIONS 

Option  A  (baseline  scenario):  Currently  the  reduction  of  ESL  forms  part  of  the  ET2020 
framework. The Open Method of Coordination facilitates cooperation and exchange of good 
practice  among  Member  States.  Existing  funding  opportunities,  mainly  European  Social 
Funds  (ESF),  the  Lifelong  Learning  Programme  (LLP)  or  the  Framework  Programmes  for 
Research and Innovation (RTD), allow for the launch of targeted action, comparative studies, 
research and development of new approaches. 

Option  B:  A  policy  framework  provides  Member  States  with  a  tool  which  helps  them  to 
develop national policies against early school leaving following a holistic approach. It stresses 
the  need  to  improve  the  evidence  base  for  developing  policies  against  early  school  leaving 
and  argues  for  a  better  monitoring,  for  comprehensive  policies  against  ESL  and  a  better 
cooperation  between  all  policy  areas  affecting  directly  or  indirectly  young  people  and 
especially  those  at  risk  of  dropping  out.  Proposed  measures  on  prevention,  intervention  and 
compensation  of  ESL  are  based  on  tested  and  evaluated  policy  measures  in  Member  States 
and can be adapted to the concrete situation within other Member States. Member States, who 
do not yet have a policy against ESL, can use it to develop a national policy framework. Other 
Member States may use the policy framework to assess and revise their existing policies. The 
framework can also serve as an agenda for future cooperation between Member States, steer 
future  policy  development  on  EU  level  and  guide  the  effective  and  efficient  use  of  EU 
funding. 

It should be noted that option B is not a self-contained option; it needs an instrument for its 
implementation.  Options  B.1  and  B.2  describe  different  approaches  to  promote  and 
implement  the  policy  framework  using  different  legal  instruments.  While  the  content  of  the 
policy  framework  remains  unchanged,  the  use  of  different  instruments  to  implement  it  will 
lead to different results and impacts. 

Option B1 (Commission Communication or Recommendation): The Commission adopts a 
Communication or Recommendation which describes the policy framework for effective and 
efficient policies against ESL. It can be used by Member States for policy development and 
provides an overview of research results and European experiences. 

EN 

4 

   EN 

 
Option  B2  (Council  Recommendation):  The  Council  adopts  a  Recommendation  which 
describes  the  policy  framework.  This  Recommendation  provides  a  basis  for  further 
cooperation  among  Member  States.  The  Recommendation  also  supports  a  broadened  and 
cross-sectoral process under the OMC. 

Option C (Funding programme): In order to launch targeted initiatives EU funding could be 
made  available  for  specific  measures  against  ESL  at  EU  level,  especially  for  comparative 
research  and  for  pilot  projects  which  involve  several  Member  States  and  provide  European 
added  value.  This  option  has  been  discarded  as  it  risks  overlapping  with  existing  funding 
schemes such as European Social Fund and the Lifelong Learning Programme. It would not 
respond  well  to  the  specific  and  operational  objectives  of  this  initiative:  additional  funding 
does  not  necessarily  lead  to  the  development  of  better  targeted,  evidence-based,  consistent, 
and  comprehensive  strategies  to  reduce  ESL.  It  rather  risks  continuing  project  based 
approaches to tackle ESL. Therefore it is considered that an additional funding scheme cannot 
be justified. 

5. 

ASSESSMENT OF IMPACTS 

To  reduce  ESL  rates  will  have  significant  economic  and  social  impacts.  They  can  be 
summarised as follows: 

•  Increase  of  skill  levels  and  employability  of  young  people,  improved  well-being,  health 

status, and living conditions of young people.  

•  Reduced risk of poverty and social exclusion and limited dependency on social assistance; 

better social cohesion in European societies. 

•  Decrease of skill mismatches, provision of better qualified employees and thus support of 

economic growth.  

There  are  only  limited  environmental  impacts  and  no  impacts  on  administrative  burdens,  or 
on third countries. There is no other impact on human rights. 

The social and economic impacts are in line with the general objectives of the initiative. The 
different policy options are likely to contribute differently to their achievement depending on 
the expected speed and success in reducing ESL in Europe. For option A and B1, the impact 
assessment revealed that the reduction of ESL rates would accrue too slowly and be too small 
to  counteract  the  difficult  economic,  fiscal  and  social  circumstances  in  Member  States 
resulting from the economic crisis. 

The  analysis  of  the  baseline  scenario  (option  A)  showed  that  the  current  OMC  can  support 
policy  development  based  on  the  exchange  of  experiences  and  good  practice,  but  it  lacks 
strong  additional  input  such  as  a  policy  framework  or  guidelines  for  policies  against  ESL. 
Experiences showed that without such a framework or common agenda not all Member States 
were able to take full advantage of the lessons learnt within peer learning. New and successful 
approaches  highlighted  in  the  OMC  in  the  past  could  not  easily  be  integrated  into  existing 
national  policies.  A  Commission  Communication  or  Recommendation  as  foreseen  in  option 
B1 would provide such an additional input, nevertheless a Commission document might not 
receive  sufficient  policy  attention  in  the  Member  States.  It  reflects  the  commitment  and 
opinion solely of the Commission and does not offer Member States the opportunity to take 

EN 

5 

   EN 

 
ownership  of 
the  proposed  policy  framework.  A  Commission  Communication  or 
Recommendation  might  therefore  not  sufficiently  promote  evidence-based,  comprehensive 
and consistent policies and not strengthen the effectiveness and efficiency of measures against 
ESL. 

Looking  at  cross-sectoral  cooperation,  it  was  noted  that  the  current  implementation 
arrangements for the ET2020 strategic framework currently remain limited to education and 
training.  Also  a  Commission  Communication  or  Recommendation  would  also  not  directly 
influence on the scope of the existing OMC nor extend cross-sectoral cooperation at European 
level, because it commits the Commission, but not the Member States. Limiting the exchange 
of experience and good practice to education and training policies risks to narrow subsequent 
policy developments. 

The  continuation  of  the  current  OMC  and  its  working  methods  does  not  correspond  to  the 
increased  attention  on  the  ESL  benchmark  within  the  Europe  2020  strategy.  There  is  a  risk 
that both option A and option B1 will not enhance sufficiently the effectiveness and efficiency 
of measures against ESL. 

The impact assessment came to the conclusion that a Council Recommendation as proposed 
in  option  B2  would  enhance  the  development  of  evidence-based,  comprehensive  and 
consistent policies against ESL in Member States. It should lead to a faster reduction of ESL 
rates and a faster achievement of the desired economic and social impacts. 

The Recommendation would contain a policy framework for reducing ESL based on existing 
experiences  in  Member  States  and  on  comparative  research.  It  would  assemble  concrete 
measures against ESL in a strategic framework and address shortcomings in current policies 
against ESL. By setting out this policy framework with the formal backing of the Council, the 
Recommendation would support Member States in their policy development and should help 
to  speed  up  the  implementation  of  evidence-based  and  well  targeted  measures  against  ESL. 
The  process  of  discussing,  adopting  and  implementing  the  Recommendation  within  the 
Council would offer Member States an instrument to review their policy approaches and take 
position concerning the future policy needs in this area. 

A broadened and cross-sectoral process of cooperation under the OMC could be launched on 
the back of a Council Recommendation addressed to Member States as a whole, not just to in 
respect  of  education.  This  would  foster  policy  development  at  EU  level  and  would  give 
feedback  to  Member  States  to  help  make  policy  design  against  ESL  more  effective.  The 
Recommendation would set out a clear agenda and define a new focus for future cooperation. 

Option  B2  offers  the  strongest  commitment  of  Member  States  in  the  development  of  the 
policy framework. Discussions within the Education Committee and the Council will provide 
relevant input in creating a policy framework which is applicable for Member States and has 
the potential to be used in education politics. The resulting Council Recommendation should 
therefore be underpinned by a  greater engagement, understanding and political commitment 
than any of the other scenarios, which commit only the Commission. 

6. 

COMPARISON OF OPTIONS 

Option B2, a Council Recommendation, answers best to the objectives of the initiative.  

EN 

6 

   EN 

 
•  It supports Member States in developing consistent and coherent policies against ESL.  

•  It provides additional thematic input, gives new impetus to the OMC and involves Member 

States strongly in the development of the policy framework.  

•  It can also be assumed that it secures the highest level of commitment of Member States, 
has the potential to influence policy development widely in Member States and helps most 
to reduce ESL rates in Europe. 

Compared  to  the  other  options  it  represents  the  strongest  legal  instrument  possible.  This 
seems is justified with regard to the importance of the target and the urgency to reduce ESL. 

Option A, the baseline scenario, provides little additional input and it cannot be expected that 
it will lead to an accelerated reduction in ESL. The most distinctive difference between option 
B and C is the greater level of Member State involvement in option C which should make it 
more likely that they will apply it. 

With regard to a cost-effectiveness analysis, it should be noted that applying evidence-based, 
comprehensive and consistent policies does not necessarily create more costs. It depends on 
the concrete policy approach within a Member State and the current means of data collection 
and  analysis.  Improving  the  availability  of  relevant  data  and  information  on  early  school 
leaving  is  not  necessarily  creating  huge  additional  costs.  In  addition  it  allows  for  better 
targeted  policies  and  measures.  To  the  extent  that  option  B2  implies  greater  political 
commitment, it should lead to more policy action within Member States. Applying evidence-
based, comprehensive and consistent policies is likely to achieve better results and reduce the 
costs of ESL faster and more efficiently. This might outweigh additional costs. Therefore and 
especially in times of budget cuts, option B2 might be the preferred option in order to invest 
the limited resources in the most efficient way.  

7. 

MONITORING AND EVALUATION 

The reduction of ESL will be a central subject of the reporting process in Europe 2020. The 
European  targets  in  Europe  2020  are  backed  up  by  national  targets;  policies  to  reach  these 
targets are subject to National Reform Programmes (NRP). The reports from Member States 
on  the  implementation  of  their  NRPs  should  provide  detailed  information  on  the  progress 
towards reducing ESL and describe key measures foreseen by the Member States. Together 
with reporting in the framework of the strategic framework for cooperation in education and 
training (ET 2020) and the annual ET 2020 Progress Reports by the Commission, as well as 
other sources such as Eurostat, sufficient data and information should be available to monitor 
developments in Member States and on European level. 

With regard to the proposed Recommendation, the legal text will foresee an implementation 
report  by  the  Commission;  the  timing  of  the  report  shall  be  in  line  with  the  reporting  on 
Europe  2020.  This  report  will  analyse  the  developments  in  Member  States,  but  will  in 
addition  analyse  the  effectiveness  and  efficiency  of  the  policy  framework  and  will  lead  to 
revision of that framework if needed. 

In  terms  of  ongoing  monitoring,  identification  and  exchange  of  good  practice  on  ESL 
reduction,  it  is  intended  that  the  adoption  of  the  Recommendation  will  be  followed  by 

EN 

7 

   EN 

 
establishment  of  a  new  Member  State  expert  group,  coordinated  by  the  Commission, 
involving specialists in education, social, health and employment policies. 

EN 

8 

   EN