COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Education and Training Monitor 2012 Accompanying the document Communication from the Commission Rethinking education: investing in skills for better socio-economic outcomes
Date: 2012-11-20
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: dropout, economic growth, educational reform, language teaching, new technology, population forecast, student mobility, teacher training, teaching curriculum, teaching quality, university, vocational training

EUROPEAN 
COMMISSION 

Strasbourg, 20.11.2012  
SWD(2012) 373 final 

COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 

Education and Training Monitor 2012 

Accompanying the document 

Communication from the Commission 

Rethinking education: investing in skills for better socio-economic outcomes 

{COM(2012) 669 final} 
{SWD(2012) 371 final} 
{SWD(2012) 372 final} 
{SWD(2012) 374 final} 
{SWD(2012) 375 final} 
{SWD(2012) 376 final} 
{SWD(2012) 377 final} 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
  
 
Table of contents 

Executive summary ........................................................................................ 3 

1.  Introduction to the New Education and Training Monitor .......................... 5 

2.  Investment  in  education  in  a  context  of  demographic  change  and 
economic crisis ......................................................................................... 7 
2.1. 
Efficiency and effectiveness of education and training ................................ 7 
2.2.  Demographic change and education spending ........................................... 9 
The crisis and education spending ......................................................... 10 
2.3. 

3.  Early leavers from education and training ............................................... 14 
The problem of early school leaving....................................................... 14 
Progress towards headline target and national targets.............................. 16 
An EU trajectory towards 2020 ............................................................. 18 
The road ahead for Member States........................................................ 19 

3.1. 
3.2. 
3.3. 
3.4. 

4.  Encouraging participation in Higher Education........................................ 21 
The issue of attaining increased levels of higher education completion........ 21 
The current status and trajectories towards 2020 .................................... 24 
The road ahead for Member States........................................................ 26 

4.1. 
4.2. 
4.3. 

5.  The case for high-quality Early Childhood Education and Care ................ 27 
The quality of ECEC provision ............................................................... 28 
Targeted support for disadvantaged groups ............................................ 29 

5.1. 
5.2. 

6.  Acquiring the skills needed for the future ............................................... 30 
Basic skills: reading, maths and science ................................................. 30 
Language skills................................................................................... 32 
ICT skills ........................................................................................... 37 
Entrepreneurial skills ........................................................................... 39 
Civic skills.......................................................................................... 40 

6.1. 
6.2. 
6.3. 
6.4. 
6.5. 

7.  Student mobility in vocational training and Higher Education ................. 42 
7.1. 
Promoting learning mobility of young people........................................... 42 
7.2.  Mobility in vocational education and training ........................................... 42 
7.3.  Mobility in higher education.................................................................. 43 

8.  Adult participation in lifelong learning .................................................... 47 
Participation of adults in learning activities ............................................. 47 
8.1. 
8.2. 
The relevance of informal learning......................................................... 49 
8.3.  What levels of competences have adults acquired? .................................. 49 

9.  Matching educational outcomes and labour market needs ...................... 51 
The employment rate of graduates ........................................................ 51 
The educational attainment of adults ..................................................... 54 
Future skills needs .............................................................................. 56 

9.1. 
9.2. 
9.3. 

Annexes........................................................................................................ 59 

Annex 1. 

Further tables and figures............................................................... 59 

Annex 2. 

List of abbreviations ...................................................................... 67 
2.1. 
Country abbreviations ......................................................................... 67 
2.2.  General abbreviations.......................................................................... 68 

2 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Executive summary 

Education  and  training  play  a  key  role  for  Europe's  strategy  for  smart,  sustainable  and  inclusive 
growth,  Europe  2020.  To  unlock  the  full  potential  of  education  as  a  driver  for  growth  and  jobs, 
Member  States  must  pursue  reforms  to  boost  both  the  performance  and  efficiency  of  their 
education systems.  

This Education and Training Monitor is a new analytical tool that provides the empirical evidence to 
underpin this reform agenda. It is a succinct yet comprehensive overview of the core indicators on 
education  and  training  systems  in  Europe,  enabling  the  reader  to  compare  and  contrast  recent 
progress as well as identify the immediate challenges for Member States1.  

It  supports  the  Commission  Communication  "Rethinking  Education",  and  is  part  of  a  package  of 
Staff  Working  Documents  that  elaborate  on  the  education  dimension  of  Europe  2020.  It  is  also 
integral  to  a  larger  initiative  bringing  existing  EU-level  cooperation  in  education  and  training  ("ET 
2020") in line with Europe 2020 objectives2.  

Key findings of the Education and Training Monitor 2012 are: 

1.  Education  is  part  of  the  solution  to  tackle  the  impact  of  the  crisis,  but  only  if 
investment  is  efficient.  The  returns  on  investment  in  education  and  training  are 
undeniable,  both  monetary  and  non-monetary,  for  the  individual  as  well  as  for  society  at 
large.  Education  spending  up  until  2009  did  not  decrease  despite  the  challenges  of  the 
economic crisis, but cutbacks have been apparent since. Further demographic changes and 
budgetary  constraints  are  likely  to  increase  the  need  to  improve  efficiency  of  education 
expenditures. 

2.  Efforts to combat early school leaving must be increased as a matter of urgency. 
The  early  school  leaving  headline  target  is  unlikely  to  be  reached  unless  Member  States 
step  up  their  efforts.  The  prospects  for  early  school  leavers  are  getting  worse,  with  their 
unemployment  at  an  alarming  rate  and  forecasted  to  increase.  The  problem  is  further 
aggravated by disparities according to gender and country of birth.  

3.  Action  to  widen  participation  in  tertiary  education  now  needs  to  be  more 
targeted. In the last five years there has been significant progress in the share of 30-34 
year olds who have successfully qualified from higher education. This trend means that it is 
possible to reach the headline target by 2020 at EU level, if present efforts are sustained. 
However,  some  Member  States  still  have  considerable  progress  to  make  to  reach  their 
national  targets.  Moreover  the  tertiary  attainment  rate  for  men  is  significantly  lower  than 
that for women – a cause for concern.  

4.  Improving early childhood education and care must continue to be a priority. The 
increasing level of participation in early childhood education and care is encouraging. But to 
provide a solid start for individuals and to  be a  potential equaliser for European societies, 
the  provision  must  be  of  sufficient  quality.  Quality  indicators,  such  as  the  child/staff  ratio 
and  total  expenditure,  show  strong  discrepancies  between  Member  States  and  only  slight 
improvements over the last few years. 

5.  Inequalities  in  achievement  of  basic  skills  must  be  tackled.  A  worrying  number  of 
15-year-olds fail to reach basic ability levels in reading, maths and science. In addition, the 
EU average masks serious gender inequalities – with the share of low-achieving boys now 
close to twice the share of low-achieving girls, and significant low performance for foreign-
born pupils even when taking socio-economic status into account. 

1  

2  

For  country  specific  summaries  see  the  Commission  Staff  Working  Document  "Rethinking  Education:  Country 
analysis". 
This initiative has been set out in the 2012 Joint Report of the Council and the Commission  "Education and Training in 
a smart, sustainable and inclusive Europe, OJ (2012/C 70/05). 

3 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
6.  Providing relevant skills: a new EU benchmark for language competences. Foreign 
language provision is still far off the EU objective of learning 'mother tongue plus two' from 
a very early age, despite progress in primary, lower secondary and vocational education. In 
addition,  first  evidence  of  young  people's  language  competences  highlights  low  levels 
indicating  that  language  teaching  must  become  more  effective.  Against  this  background, 
the Commission will propose a new EU benchmark on language competences. 

7.  Embedding  ICT  and  open  educational  resources  (OER)  in  teaching  and  learning 
can  combat  the  digital  divide.  The  percentage  of  the  adult  population  with  some 
computer skills has significantly increased over the last five years, but there remain large 
differences  between  countries  and  gaps  according  to  age  and  educational  attainment. 
Action  to  increase  ICT  skill  levels  is  needed,  and  education  and  training  systems  can 
contribute to this by embedding ICT and OER (open educational resources). 

8.  Entrepreneurship  education  should  be  prioritised.  Most  Member  States  have 
strategies  or  on-going  initiatives  addressing  the  implementation  of  entrepreneurship 
education into general education at primary and/or secondary level, yet only in a quarter of 
member states did a majority of adults believe they had the right skills and knowledge to 
start  a  business.  Consequently,  entrepreneurship  needs  to  be  introduced  early,  and 
included at all levels and in all disciplines of education and training. 

9.  A  recent  trend  is  that  the  learning  mobility  of  young  people  is  increasing  across 
Europe.  It  is  more  developed  in  tertiary  level  education  where  close  to  650000  EU 
students study outside their country of origin most in another EU country, with more than 
one  third  supported  by  Erasmus  grants.  Even  with little  available  data,  evidence  suggests 
that mobility levels in initial VET are significantly lower. 

10. Participation in adult learning is stagnating and must be urgently addressed. Adult 
lifelong  learning  is  still  far  from  a  reality.  Participation  in  learning  activities  is  stagnating, 
with  considerable  variation  between  countries.  New  developments,  such  as  open 
educational resources, could help to unlock the potential of informal learning amongst the 
adult population, allowing for self-guided and occasional learning from a variety of sources.  

11. Significant  effort  is  required  to  reach  the  employability  benchmark  by  2020.  The 
employment  rate  of  those  with  tertiary  attainment  is  more  than  ten  percentage  points 
higher than those with only secondary education, while in the current crisis the population 
with lower attainment is most at risk of unemployment. However, the employment rate of 
young  graduates  has  fallen  since  2008  and  strong  efforts  and  additional  measures  are 
needed to reach the employability target set for 2020.  

4 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Education and training Monitor 2012 

1.  Introduction to the New Education and Training Monitor 

The Education and Training Monitor contains a wealth of quantitative information and comparative 
analysis that will back up the country-specific assessment during the European Semester and the 
drafting of country-specific Recommendations. The insight it provides will also help to inform work 
under  ET  2020,  such  as  peer-learning,  the  identification  of  good  practice  or  the  debate  with  and 
among stakeholders.  

It  is  a  tool  to  foster  and  encourage  evidence-based  policy  making,  and  draws  on  the  working 
methods established through Europe 2020, in particular the Joint Assessment Framework (JAF), to 
help ensure consistent assessment of progress across Member States.  

Under  ET  2020,  four  strategic  objectives  have  been  agreed  (table  1.1)  and  a  number  of  EU 
benchmarks have been set (table 1.2), of which two – concerning early school leaving and tertiary 
educational  attainment  –  have  been  taken  up  by  Europe  2020  as  headline  targets.  These 
benchmarks  offer  insight and  help  to  gauge  Member  States'  progress.  They  have  been  addressed 
systematically throughout the Monitor.  

Table 1.1. Four ET 2020 Strategic Objectives 

1.  Making lifelong learning and mobility a reality; 

2. 

Improving the quality and efficiency of education and training; 

3. 

Promoting equity, social cohesion and active citizenship; 

4. 

Enhancing creativity and innovation, including entrepreneurship, at all levels of education and training. 

In 2012, an additional benchmark on employability was agreed and evidence is presented here for 
the  first  time.    A  further  benchmark  on  language  competences  -  that  has  been  prepared  upon 
request of the Council - is set out in a separate document3, and once adopted will be addressed in 
future editions of the Monitor.  

Table 1.2. Seven ET 2020 Benchmarks 

1.  At least 95% of children between the age of four and the age for starting compulsory primary education should 

participate in early childhood education; 

2. 

The share of 15 year-olds with insufficient abilities in reading, mathematics and science should be less than 15%; 

3. 

The share of early leavers from education and training should be less than 10%; 

4. 

The share of 30-34 year-olds with tertiary educational attainment should be at least 40%; 

5.  An average of at least 15 % of adults (age group 25-64) should participate in lifelong Learning; 

6.  At  least  20  %  of  higher  education  graduates  and  6%  of  18-34  year-olds  with  an  initial  VET  qualification  should 

have had a period of study or training abroad; 

7. 

The share of employed graduates (20-34 year-olds) having left education and training no more than three years 
before the reference year should be at least 82%. 

Note:  benchmarks  (3)  and  (4)  together  form  a  headline  target  of  the  Europe  2020  strategy.  An  eighth  benchmark,  covering 
foreign language skills and based on the European Language Competence Survey, is currently being developed, with a view of 
an adoption by the Council in the first semester 2013. 

3  

See the Commission Staff Working Document "Language Competences for Employability, Mobility and Growth". 

5 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
This  first  Education  and  Training  Monitor  provides  an  EU-wide  overview  of  where  Member  States 
stand in relation to the ET 2020 benchmarks, looking at different subgroups where the data allows 
for  such  differentiation.  To  support  the  Communication  on  Rethinking  Education,  particular 
attention is given to indicators that describe the situation and trends in terms of skills. 

Chapter  two  addresses  education  in  relation  to  the  crisis  and  to  demographic  changes.  Chapters 
three  and  four  examine  the  Europe  2020  education  headline  targets  on  early  school  leaving  and 
tertiary  educational  attainment  respectively.  Chapters  five  through  nine  deal  with  the  further  ET 
2020 benchmarks and related indicators, with a focus on various skills and competences in chapter 
six.  

Table 1.3. Summary of Education & Training Indicators 

1. Early leavers from education and training
(age 18-24)

2. Tertiary educational attainment  
(age 30-34)

3. Participation in early childhood education 
(4 years old - year before start of compulsory primary)

EU average

TOP
Performer

LOW
Performer

EU
Benchmark

2006

2011

2011

2011

15.5%

13.5%

4.2%

33.5%

2020

10%

28.9%

34.6%

49.4%

20.3%

40%

89.3%

92.3% 1 0

100.0%

73.1% 1 0

95%

82%

15%

15%

15%

15%

4. Employment rate of graduates (age 20-34) having left 
education and training no more than 3 years before reference year

79.0%

77.2%

92.2%

50.2%

5. Adult participation in lifelong learning
(age 25-64)

6. Basic skills 
Low achievers (15 year-
olds; Level 1 or lower in 
PISA study)

Reading

Mathematic s

Scienc e

7. ICT skills

8. Entrepreneurship

9. Languages

% of pupils in 4th grade using 
computers at sc hool
% of individuals aged 16-74 with high 
computer skills1
% of 18-64 old population who believe 
to have the required skills and 
knowledge to start a business

Average number of foreign languages 
learned per pupil at ISCED 2

% of students reaching B1 level or 
higher in the first foreign language at 
the end of lower secondary educ .2
Education and training

Humanities and art

9.5%

8.9%

32.3%

1.2%

23.1%

24.0%

20.3%

19.6% 0 9

22.2% 0 9

17.7% 0 9

8.1%

7.8%

6.0%

41.0% 0 9

47.1% 0 9

41.4% 0 9

EU average

Maximum
value

Minimum
value

2006

2011

2011

2011

60.7% 0 7

:

85.8%

21.9%

21.0%

27.0%

43.0%

10.0%

42.0%

43.0%

53.0%

35.0%

1.4

1.5 1 0

2.5%

1.0% 1 0

:

43.5%

82.7%

9.3%

10.5%

12.1%

9.6% 1 0 ,e

20.8%

1.5% 1 0 ,e

10a. Tertiary 
graduates by field
Graduates (ISC ED 5-6) in 
a specific field, as % of all 
fields

Soc ial science, business and law
35.2%
of which: business and administration  19.5%

Maths, science and technology

Agriculture and veterinary field

22.4%

1.7%

11.5% 1 0 ,e
35.7% 1 0 ,e
20.2% 10,e
21.9% 1 0 ,e

18.9%

60.0%
41.9%

31.8%

1.6% 1 0 ,e

4.6%

6.2% 1 0 ,e
22.4% 1 0 ,e
10.7% 10,e
13.3% 1 0 ,e

0.1% 1 0 ,e

6.1% 1 0 ,e

1.0% 1 0 ,e

Health and welfare

Services

14.3%

15.1% 1 0 ,e

24.9%

3.8%

4.2% 1 0 ,e

9.4%

10b. MST graduates

Number of maths, science and 
technology graduates per 1000 young 
people (age 20-29)

High qualification

11. Skills for future 
labour markets 
Projected change in 
employment 2010-2020 in 
%
12. Investment in education and training
Public spending on education, % of GDP

Medium qualification

Low qualific ation

13.5

14.4 0 9

24.2%

3.1% 0 9

:

:

:

5.03% e

19.7% 1 0

4.8% 1 0

-20.1% 1 0
0 9 ,

5.41%

e

39.2%

40.3%

36.0%

-9.0% 1 0

-14.9% 1 0

-44.4% 1 0

8.70%

4.10% 0 9 ,e

Source:  Eurostat  (UOE,  LFS),  OECD  (PISA),  Cedefop,  Global  Entrepreneurship  Monitor,  European  Survey  on  Language 
Competences  ESLC.  07  =2007,  08  =2008,  09  =2009,  10  =2010,  11  =2011,  e=  estimate,  b=  break,  p=  provisional.  Number  of 
countries included in EU average: PISA=25, Entrepreneurship=18, Language skills=13, ICT/Computers at school=13. 1= having 
carried out 5-6 specific computer related activities, 2= average of skills tested in reading, listening, writing. 

6 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
2.  Investment  in  education  in  a  context  of  demographic  change  and 

economic crisis 

Two  important  developments  are  changing  the  context  in  which  education  and  training  systems 
operate.  The  first  one  is  the  impact  of  the  economic,  financial  and  sovereign  debt  crisis  on  our 
labour  markets,  economies  and  societies.  The  second  one  is  the  process  of  demographic  ageing 
and in particular its impact on the labour market.  

Education and training are part of the solution to face up to both of these challenges, as they help 
to boost productivity, innovation and competitiveness. However, to reap the benefits of investing in 
education and training presupposes the ability to mobilise the necessary funding first. In times of 
tight  public  finance,  it  would  be  contra-productive  to  cut  down  investment  in  growth-enhancing 
policies, such as education. At the same time, Member States are scrutinising their education and 
training systems to make them more efficient and effective so that they contribute to an exit from 
the crisis and help by compensating the effects of demographic ageing. 

2.1.  Efficiency and effectiveness of education and training 

The  effectiveness  of  education  and  training  systems  refers  to  the  output  they  generate,  be  it  the 
number  of  graduates  or  the  level  of  skills  they  master  when  leaving  the  education  and  training 
system.  Effectiveness  can  also  be  defined  as  the  longer  term  benefits  of  education  and  training, 
both for the individual (e.g. increased earnings) and for society at large (e.g. labour productivity, 
increased tax payments, GDP growth)4.  

The efficiency of education and training systems is established when looking at their effectiveness 
(learning  outcomes  and  long  term  benefits)  and  comparing  this  to  the  monetary  input  made  to 
generate  these  outcomes.  In  other  words,  what  is  the  output  per  unit  spent?  Funding  can  come 
from different sources, such as government expenditure, private sector contributions or individual 
payments and fees. 

Figure 2.1. Public cost and benefits for a man obtaining ISCED 3/4 (2008) 

l

D
S
U
t
n
e
a
v
i
u
q
e
n

i

l

e
u
a
v
t
n
e
s
e
r
P

Source:  OECD  (2012),  Education  at  a  Glance  2012,  Chart  A9.5.  Note:  countries  are  ranked  in  ascending  order  of  the  net 
present value. Deviating source years for Portugal (2006) and Slovenia (2007). 

Figures 2.1 and 2.2 illustrate the efficiency of European education and training systems in terms of 
their  public  monetary  costs  (direct  costs  and  foregone  taxes  on  earnings)  and  public  monetary 
benefits  over  an  individual's  working  life  (income  taxes,  increased  social  insurance  payments  and 
lower  social  transfers).  The  public  returns  of  upper  secondary  or  post-secondary  non-tertiary 

4  

It  is  precisely  because  the  outcomes  of  education  and  training  are  so  uniquely  multifaceted  that  both  effectiveness 
and efficiency are very difficult to quantify. Decades of research on the benefits of education has found non-monetary 
private and public outcomes such as life-satisfaction and happiness, health and well-being, democratisation, political 
stability  and  civic  participation,  lower  crime  rates  and  social  cohesion.  For  an  overview  of  the literature,  see  EENEE 
(2006), Efficiency and Equity in European Education and Training Systems. 

7 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
 
 
 
 
 
education  are  positive  in  all  European  countries  except  Estonia  (figure  2.1).  Although  the  figure 
only illustrates the net gains for male students, both men and women yield public benefits that, on 
average,  are  about  twice  as  large  as  the  overall  public  costs  at  this  level.5  The  public  returns  of 
tertiary  education  are  much  higher  still,  partly  because  individuals  bear  some  of  the  cost  of  the 
education provided in some countries (figure 2.2). Public benefits outweigh the costs by a factor of 
three for men and a factor of two for women, on average. In  Hungary, the benefits are 14 times 
larger than the public sector’s initial investment in a man’s tertiary education. 

Figure 2.2. Public cost and benefits for a man obtaining ISCED 5/6 (2008) 

l

D
S
U
t
n
e
a
v
i
u
q
e
n

i

l

e
u
a
v
t
n
e
s
e
r
P

Source:  OECD  (2012),  Education  at  a  Glance  2012,  Chart  A9.5.  Note:  countries  are  ranked  in  ascending  order  of  the  net 
present value. Deviating source years for Portugal (2006) and Slovenia (2007). 

In  2009,  an  independent  study  on  the  efficiency  and  effectiveness  of  public  spending  on  tertiary 
education  in  the  EU6  identified  a  slightly  different  distribution  of  efficiency  across  Member  States. 
The study consistently found the UK and to a lesser extent the Netherlands to generate the highest 
levels  of  efficiency,  whereas  the  Czech  Republic,  Greece,  Portugal  and  Slovakia  were  repeatedly 
placed  at  the  bottom  of  the  league  in  this  respect.  Factors  positively  related  to  efficiency  were 
output-based funding rules, independent evaluation of institutions and autonomy in staffing policy. 
Another crucial factor was found to be a good quality secondary education system. 

Recent  work  on  the  efficiency  and  effectiveness  of  public  spending  on  education,  led  by  the 
Directorate-General  for  Economic  and  Financial  Affairs7  8,  confirms  that  the  efficiency  of  tertiary 
education  expenditure  is  strongly  linked  to  the  quality  and  equity  of  primary  and  secondary 
education. Nurturing earlier levels of education lays the foundations needed by students to advance 
to, and progress in, tertiary education. 

Indeed, evidence relating to the efficiency and effectiveness of education spending illustrates how 
progress  at  one  level  of  education  can  be  conditional  upon  the  measures  taken  at  the  preceding 
levels. This is true, for example, when it comes to broadening access to tertiary education to those 
from less favourable family backgrounds9. Limited access to tertiary education among such groups 
is  unlikely  to  be  fully  remedied  by  action  at  the  level  of  tertiary  education  alone  (access 
programmes,  financial  support)  because  the  individuals  concerned  tend  to  lack  the  pre-requisite 
skill-sets to access and succeed in tertiary education. As a result, there is a clear need to intervene 
within  the  compulsory  strand  of  education.  This  confirms  the  earlier  findings  from  the  European 
the  strong 
Expert  Network  on  Economics  of  Education  (EENEE),  which  emphasised 

5  
6  

7  

8  

9  

For the detailed estimates for women see OECD (2012), Education at a Glance 2012, Table A9.2 
European  Commission  (2009),  Study  on  the  efficiency  and  effectiveness  of  public  spending  on  tertiary  education 
(http://ec.europa.eu/economy_finance/publications/publication16267_en.pdf).  
Culminating  in  the  conclusions  from  the  Economic  and  Financial  Affairs  Council  meeting  on  ensuring  the  future 
efficiency and effectiveness of public expenditure on tertiary education (http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/ 
cms_data/docs/pressdata/en/ecofin/117192.pdf).  
European Commission (2010), Efficiency and effectiveness of public expenditure on tertiary education in the EU: Joint 
Report  by  the  Economic  Policy  Committee  and  Directorate-General 
for  Economic  and  Financial  Affairs 
(http://ec.europa.eu/economy_finance/publications/occasional_paper/2010/pdf/ocp70_en.pdf). 
Ibid. 

8 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
 
 
 
 
 
complementarities  between  efficiency  and  equality  of  opportunity,  and  advocated  early  measures 
to improve the educational outcomes of disadvantaged students10. 

The  focus  of  this  chapter  is  on  government  expenditure  and  its  various  components.  Simply 
investing more in education and training does not guarantee higher effectiveness (outcomes), while 
greater efficiency is unlikely to be achieved by simple cut-backs. What counts is quality enhancing 
reform. Another possibility to seek efficiency gains is to transfer some of the risks, incentives and 
responsibilities to the private sector, to schools and education institutions, or to individual learners. 
However, more evidence is needed before concluding on the effects of such measures11.  

2.2.  Demographic change and education spending 

Demographic  trends  have  strong  implications  for  the  financing  of  education  across  all  levels  of 
education  and  training.  The  number  of  young  people  in  the  European  Union  has  declined  steadily 
since 1990 (see figure 2.3).  

Figure 2.3. Population and population projection (in millions) by age group (EU 27) 

Source: Eurostat, population statistics (2015-2020 from the Europop 2010 forecast, convergence scenario). 

These overall trends conceal contrasting situations across the Member States. Countries in the west 
and north of Europe tend to have higher birth rates than countries in the south and east of Europe. 
Around 1990 Central and Eastern European countries experienced a decline in the birth rates, while 
starting  with  the  year  2004  they  have  stabilised  or  are  increasing  again.  In  many  central  and 
eastern  European  Member  States  the  population  0-10  years-old  has  continued  to  decrease  each 
year up to 2005, although for these countries and EU27 as a whole since 2005 figures are slightly 
increasing.  At  the  same  time,  Ireland  and  Spain  have  recorded  significant  growth  rates  between 
2004 and 2008, partly a result of strong net migration. 

Against  the  background  of  the  declining  youth  population,  the  period  2000-2010  saw  an  overall 
decrease  in  intake  to  primary  education  and  to  lower  secondary  school.  According  to  the 
Europop2010 population forecast, this decline is expected to be reversed. For EU27 the population 
in the age-group 5-14 years is expected to increase by around 4% until 2020. 

These  demographic  changes  have  strong  implications  for  the  efficiency  of  education  spending. 
When  it  comes  to  compulsory  education  (primary  and  lower  secondary  education),  which  is 

10  

11  

EENEE  (2006),  Efficiency  and  Equity  in  European  Education  and  Training  Systems.  See  also  COM(2006)  481  and 
SEC(2006) 1096. 
For  an  overview  of  how  Member  States  compare  in  terms  of  private  funding  of  education,  school  autonomy  and 
school accountability, see EACEA/Eurydice (2012), Key Data on Education in Europe 2012 
(http://eacea.ec.europa.eu/education/eurydice/key_data_en.php). 

9 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
currently  seeing  a  lower  intake  of  pupils  due  to  smaller  cohorts,  there  might  be  possibilities  for 
efficiency  gains,  e.g.  by  seeking  synergies  in  terms  of  structural  changes.  It  is  also  important  to 
bear in mind that early investment in education (see also 2.1), including early childhood education 
and care give important long term returns. Future costs of upper secondary and tertiary education 
will  increase  in  line  with  the  expected  upturn  in  enrolment  due  to  higher  participation  rates, 
counteracting the demographic decline. Other reasons why population ageing may bring additional 
pressure  to  bear  on  education  financing  are,  firstly,  the  growing  need  for  periodic  education  and 
retraining  as  working  lives  gradually  lengthen  and,  secondly,  the  increasing  importance  of 
education  and  training  in  achieving  the  productivity  growth  needed  to  ensure  strong  economic 
growth12. 

2.3.  The crisis and education spending 

The crisis brings a message for education and training that is no less important than the message 
that education holds for Europe since the crisis started. Budget constraints threaten to compromise 
the  input  or  investments  made  in  the  field  of  education,  and  therefore  efficiency  is  prioritised,  as 
not to sacrifice the effectiveness of our education and training systems. In other words, ensuring a 
higher  output  per  unit  invested  becomes  increasingly  important,  and  investments  are  preferably 
made where benefits are most promising13. At the same time, however, education and training are 
a key part of the solution to the challenge posed by the crisis. As seen in section 2.1, the returns to 
investment in education are extraordinary and have therefore an unparalleled potential for growth. 

The first phase of the crisis: 2009-2010 

Europe is suffering a period of economic crisis and thus it is too early to judge to what extent the 
crisis has affected spending on education; it will only become possible to determine the true impact 
given a wider time frame. Moreover, the crisis started out initially as a crisis of the financial sector, 
with  a  relatively  limited  impact  on  public  finance.  Consequently,  in  the  short  run,  the  average 
education  expenditure  did  not  show  any  sizeable  change,  as  illustrated  in  figure  2.4.  General 
government  expenditure  (GGE)  on  education  –  the  total  public  expenditure  from  all  levels  of 
government – can be seen as the commitment that a country makes to the development of skills 
and competences.  

Figure 2.4. General Government Expenditure on education and GDP real growth in EU27 

Source: Eurostat. Government finance statistics (general government expenditure by function) 

12  

13  

the 

from 

conclusions 

See 
(http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_data/docs/pressdata/en/ecofin/117192.pdf). 
This  simple  message  nevertheless  poses  a  huge  challenge  to  the  sector,  as  many  of  the  arguably  most  important 
benefits of education and training are not easily quantified – let alone translated into a monetary return to a certain 
level of investment. 

Council  meeting 

Economic 

Financial 

Affairs 

2010 

and 

the 

in 

10 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
In  fact,  between  2004  and  2010,  GGE  on  education  measured  both  as  a  share  of  GDP  and  as  a 
share  of  total  GGE  was  stable  –  reaching  5.5%  and  10.8%  respectively.  The  average  values  in 
figure 2.2 are the result of different developments across  Member States. As shown in the annex 
(tables  2.A  and  2.B),  the  level  of  GGE  on  education  varies  sizeably  between  Member  States. 
Whereas  in  Greece,  Germany,  Romania,  Bulgaria,  Slovakia  and  Italy  GGE  on  education  is  around 
4%  of  GDP  or  less  for  all  the  years  analysed,  the  spending  in  other  Member  States  (such  as 
Denmark, Sweden or Cyprus) is around double that figure (between 7 and 8%).  

In 2009, nearly all European countries were in recession (i.e. their GDP decreased) and nearly all 
maintained  or  increased  their  public  spending  in  education  except  Portugal  and  Romania.  Not 
surprisingly,  public  expenditure  on  education  as  a  share  of  GDP  increased  in  countries  which 
suffered for consecutive years of recession. This shows that either public expenditure on education 
continued to increase or that it decreased at a slower pace than the GDP. For instance, in Ireland 
and  Latvia,  such  a  share  stood  at  level  above  5%  and  6%  respectively.  In  Greece,  public 
expenditure  on  education  remained  close  to  4%  of  GDP  from  2008  onwards.  Such  a  pattern  is 
observed  in  nearly  all  the  other  countries  that  recorded  two  consecutive  years  of  recession.  This 
might  also  be  explained  by  the  time  lag  that  exists  in  the  orientation  of  public  expenditure  on 
education but also the will of policy-makers to go on investing in education systems as they are a 
key for recovery and future economic growth.  

When  considering  national  account  data,  the  EU-27  continued  to  invest  in  education  despite  the 
economic  crisis.  One  third  of  European  countries  followed  this  trend  and  did  not  register  any 
decrease  in  real  public  expenditure  in  education  from  2007  onwards.  However,  several  countries 
registered a drop in real public expenditure in education for one or several consecutive years. This 
occurred  over  three  consecutive  years  in  Italy  (2008  -  2010)  and  Hungary  (2007  –  2009)  and 
during  two  consecutive  years  (2009  and  2010)  in  Bulgaria,  Greece,  Latvia,  Romania  and  Iceland. 
However,  the  level  of  public  expenditure  remained  higher  in  2010  than  that  of  2000  in  all  these 
countries except Italy. 

Table 2.1. Total public expenditure on education as % of GDP, by level of education 

All levels of 
education 
combined 

Primary level of 
education 
(ISCED 1) 

Secondary level of 
education 
(ISCED 2-4) 

Tertiary level of 
education 
(ISCED 5-6) 

2004 
5.06 
5.95 
4.40 
4.20 
8.43 
4.62 
4.92 
4.65 
3.83 
4.25 
5.80 
4.56 
6.77 
5.08 
5.17 
3.87 
5.44 
4.79 
5.46 
5.48 
5.41 
5.10 
3.28 
5.74 
4.19 
6.42 
7.09 
5.16 

2009 
5.41 
6.57 
4.58 
4.38 
8.72 
5.06 
6.09 
6.50 
: 
5.01 
5.89 
4.70 
7.98 
5.64 
5.64 
: 
5.12 
5.46 
5.94 
6.01 
5.10 
5.79 
4.24 
5.70 
4.09 
6.81 
7.26 
5.67 

2004 
1.16 
1.41 
0.84 
0.64 
1.93 
0.66 
1.27 
1.56 
1.06 
1.10 
1.17 
1.18 
1.86 
0.83 
0.74 
2.12 
1.03 
1.01 
1.44 
1.04 
1.70 
1.61 
1.20 
2.63 
0.56 
1.37 
1.91 
1.35 

2009 
1.24 
1.50 
0.85 
0.70 
2.12 
0.69 
1.53 
2.32 
: 
1.27 
1.18 
1.18 
2.21 
1.59 
0.73 
1.36 
0.86 
1.20 
1.48 
1.05 
1.58 
1.56 
0.78 
2.49 
0.75 
1.35 
1.75 
1.76 

2004 
2.29 
2.56 
2.02 
2.17 
2.94 
2.33 
2.45 
2.00 
1.34 
1.69 
2.76 
2.16 
3.08 
2.91 
2.71 
1.75 
2.46 
1.91 
2.15 
2.61 
2.01 
2.12 
0.73 
1.34 
2.11 
2.63 
2.66 
2.47 

2009 
2.41 
2.85 
1.87 
2.07 
2.94 
2.48 
2.70 
2.58 
: 
1.88 
2.69 
2.18 
3.30 
2.29 
3.04 
1.84 
2.22 
2.69 
2.42 
2.83 
1.92 
2.60 
1.53 
1.26 
1.93 
2.89 
2.75 
2.78 

2004 
1.13 
1.29 
0.78 
0.90 
2.51 
1.17 
0.86 
1.09 
1.33 
0.97 
1.21 
0.77 
1.49 
0.68 
1.06 
: 
1.02 
0.53 
1.45 
1.43 
1.15 
0.80 
0.70 
1.30 
0.98 
2.07 
2.02 
1.00 

2009 
1.22 
1.47 
0.95 
1.02 
2.41 
1.34 
1.34 
1.54 
: 
1.14 
1.34 
0.86 
2.06 
0.79 
1.14 
: 
1.13 
1.19 
1.63 
1.57 
1.07 
1.07 
1.20 
1.38 
0.81 
2.16 
2.04 
0.81 

pre-primary level 
of education 
(ISCED 0) and 
not allocated  
2009 
0.55 
0.75 
0.91 
0.60 
1.25 
0.55 
0.51 
0.05 
: 
0.72 
0.68 
0.48 
0.41 
0.98 
0.74 
0.59 
0.91 
0.38 
0.41 
0.55 
0.52 
0.55 
0.73 
0.57 
0.60 
0.40 
0.73 
0.31 

2004 
0.49 
0.69 
0.76 
0.48 
1.04 
0.47 
0.35 
0.00 
0.11 
0.48 
0.67 
0.45 
0.34 
0.66 
0.66 
: 
0.93 
1.34 
0.42 
0.40 
0.55 
0.57 
0.66 
0.48 
0.54 
0.35 
0.50 
0.34 

EU 27 countries 
Belgium  
Bulgaria  
Czech Republic 
Denmark  
Germany  
Estonia  
Ireland  
Greece  
Spain  
France  
Italy  
Cyprus 
Latvia  
Lithuania  
Luxembourg  
Hungary  
Malta  
Netherlands  
Austria  
Poland  
Portugal  
Romania  
Slovenia  
Slovakia  
Finland  
Sweden  
United Kingdom 

11 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
Source: Eurostat. UOE data collection. Indicators on education finance.  
See http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/cache/ITY_SDDS/Annexes/educ_esms_an18.pdf for additional country notes 

The  allocation  of  resources  between  different  levels  of  education  seems  to  explain  some  of  the 
cross-country  variation.  Indeed,  the  small  growth  of  total  public  expenditure  on  education14 
between 2004 and 2009 was not shared evenly by the level of education (see table 2.1). At the EU 
level,  about  a  third  of  this  growth  was  assigned  to  secondary  education,  while  a  sixth  at  pre-
primary and not allocated level; and primary and tertiary education levels consumed each about a 
quarter. 

Most  of  the  education  spending  consists  of  current  expenditure;  mainly  salaries  and  other 
contributions to teachers (see table 2.C in the annex). In 2009, current expenditure was more than 
90% of total expenditure in public education institutions across the EU, and not below 80% in any 
of  the  Member  States.  Because  of  the  importance  of  personnel  expenditure,  the  expenditure  on 
public education institutions per pupil/student (table 2.D in the annex) is highly influenced by the 
level  of  the  wages  in  the  economy  considered,  with  richer  economies  tending  to  spend  more. 
However, a breakdown of this indicator by level of education shows a common pattern: throughout 
Europe,  the  spending  on  primary  education  per  pupil  tends  to  be  lower  than  the  spending  on 
secondary education, which on turn is lower than the spending on tertiary education. 

The second phase of the crisis: 2011-2012 

From a recent Eurydice report that analyses the recent trends in national policies and budgets for 
education it can be seen that when looking only at 2011 central budgets for education compared to 
2010, there was more than a 5% decrease in the education budget in six countries. However the 
reasons for these reductions are partially explained by the demographic evolution and only in some 
countries by anti-crisis measures15.  

One area that has been more affected is the financing of human resources. In fact, one third of the 
European countries or regions report that the economic and financial crisis has had a direct impact 
on  their  teaching  workforce.  Twelve  European  countries  mention  that  demographic  developments 
are  among  the  main  reasons  for  changes  in  the  funding  of  human  resources.  In  most  cases,  a 
decrease  in  the  number  of  students,  particularly  at  upper  secondary  level  has  led  to  the  need  to 
rationalise  the  available  resources.  However,  in  several  countries,  there  were  positive  changes  in 
budgets triggered by an increase in the number of students, especially at pre-primary and primary 
levels of education.  

Six countries or regions report that changes in the financing of human resources reflect educational 
reforms  and  new  policy  priorities,  which  are  sometimes  also  made  against  the  background  of 
austerity  and  attempts  to  reduce  state  deficits.  In  the  last  two  years  teachers'  salaries  were  not 
directly  affected  by  the  economic  downturn  in  more  than  half  of  countries  and  teachers  received 
the same adjustment as the staff working in the public sector. In a group of ten countries, as an 
intermediate  solution,  no  cuts  were  applied  in  the  statutory  teachers'  salaries  but  they  were  not 
indexed in accordance with the inflation levels. Indeed their absolute values were maintained, but 
in practice the overall purchasing power declined. 

Starting  from  the  school  year  2009/10  and  especially  after  mid-2010,  the  effect  of  the  economic 
downturn and the pressure on the public finances was much more pronounced and more countries 
were  obliged  to  apply  salary  cuts  for  teachers  and  other  public  employees.  This  was  reported  by 
Ireland, Greece, Spain (reduction mainly in 2010/11), Portugal, Slovenia (mainly in the allowances) 
and some others. In Italy a salary freeze was applied. 

14  

15  

For  a  detailed  explanation  about  the  small  differences  in  the  calculation  of  total  public  expenditure  in  the  UNESCO-
OECD-EUROSTAT (UOE) data collection and the general government expenditure data from the government finance 
statistics  (using  the  classification  of  the  functions  of  government  –  COFOG)  see  Eurostat's  Manual  on  sources  and 
methods  for  the  compilation  of  COFOG  statistics  -  Classification  of  the  Functions  of  Government  (COFOG)  -  2011 
edition http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/cache/ITY_OFFPUB/KS-RA-11-013/EN/KS-RA-11-013-EN.PDF 
This section is based on EACEA/Eurydice (forthcoming), Recent trends in the public funding of Education in Europe.  

12 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
In 2012, the majority of countries maintained their arrangements regarding the funding of support 
mechanisms  for  pupils  and  students  and/or  their  families.  From  the  countries  with  available  data 
only  Spain  (central  budget),  Cyprus  and  Portugal  reported  a  decrease  in  the  funding  of  available 
schemes for support of people in education. Eight other countries reported partial reduction in the 
funding  of  one  or  more  different  available  support  mechanisms  for  pupils  and  students.  Some  of 
these reductions in the overall budget were due to the relative reduction of the number of potential 
beneficiaries (in the case of child allowances), or restructuring of the criteria for grant allocation for 
example. In some other cases, the reduction is due to the budget reallocation or restrictions.  

13 

 
 
 
 
 
3.  Early leavers from education and training 

3.1.  The problem of early school leaving 

With  growing  demands  for  high  skills  and  qualifications,  upper  secondary  education  is  now  firmly 
entrenched  as  a  minimum  attainment  level  for  all  European  citizens  leaving  the  education  and 
training  system.  Young  people  who  leave  education  and  training  prematurely16  lack  crucial  skills 
and run the risk of facing serious, persistent problems on the labour market. 

Indeed, the problem of early school leaving (ESL) is best defined by its consequences. Across the 
EU,  54.8%  of  early  school  leavers  are  either  unemployed  or  inactive  (figure  3.1).  Of  these  not-
employed  early  school  leavers,  about  70%  would  like  to  work.  Overall  youth  unemployment, 
comparatively, is 21.3% across the EU17. 

And  the  unemployment  risk  for  early  school  leavers  is  likely  to  become  worse.  According  to  the 
latest skills forecast from Cedefop18, the number of jobs available across the EU for individuals with 
lower secondary education at most – which has already decreased 20.4% between 2000 and 2010 
– is likely to decrease a further 18.9% between 2010 and 2020. 

Figure 3.1. Early leavers from education and training by employment status (2011) 

Source: Eurostat (LFS). For Croatia, Estonia, Latvia, Iceland and Malta: DG EAC, estimation based on Eurostat data. For Croatia 
and Slovenia: Data lack reliability due to small sample size. *MK: The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. 

Individual early school leavers who do manage to enter the labour market are more likely to be in 
precarious and low-paid jobs and to draw on welfare and other social programmes throughout their 
lives.  Moreover,  they  are  less  likely  to  be  'active  citizens'  or  to  engage  in  lifelong  learning19.  For 
society at large, ESL is an obstacle to economic growth and employment20. It hampers productivity 
and  competitiveness,  and  fuels  poverty  and  social exclusion.  With  its  shrinking  workforce,  Europe 

16  

17  
18  

19  

20  

The  terms  early  leavers  from  education  and  training  and  early  school  leavers  are  used  interchangeably  throughout 
the  text.  They  are  defined  as  persons  aged  18  to  24  fulfilling  the  following  two  conditions:  (1)  the  highest  level  of 
education or training attained is ISCED 0, 1, 2 or 3c short, (2) no education or training has been received in the four 
weeks  preceding  the  survey.  The  reference  group  to  calculate  the  early  school  leaving  rate  consists  of  the  total 
population of the same age group (18 to 24). All measurements come from the EU Labour Force Survey. 
Individuals aged 15 to 24 years, 2011 value for EU 27 (Eurostat/LFS). 
See 
forecasts.aspx. 
NESSE 
leaving: 
Early 
(http://www.nesse.fr/nesse/nesse/activities/reports). 
EENEE 
(http://www.eenee.de/portal/page/portal/EENEEView). 

http://www.cedefop.europa.eu/EN/about-cedefop/projects/forecasting-skill-demand-and-supply/skills-

Achievement 

Educational 

European 

research 

Lessons 

(2010), 

(2010), 

makers 

school 

policy 

Union 

from 

Cost 

Low 

The 

the 

for 

of 

in 

14 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
has  to  make  full  use  of  its  human  resources.  Tackling  ESL  is  a  stepping  stone  towards  improving 
opportunities for young people as well as achieving smart, sustainable and inclusive growth. 
In 2011, ESL across the EU amounted on average to 13.5%. This means that 5.6 million individuals 
aged 18 to 24 left education and training early, with lower secondary education at most. As can be 
seen in table 3.1, foreign-born students are at much higher risk of dropping out of school. School 
systems often fail to adequately include foreign-born students, sometimes dramatically so (Greece, 
Italy, Spain)21. The risk of early school leaving is closely linked to the lower socioeconomic status 
of students born abroad.  

At  the  same  time,  in  all  Member  States  except  Bulgaria  education  systems  prove  less  capable  of 
leading  boys  to  upper  secondary  graduation  than  girls.  On  average,  early  school  leaving  is  more 
than 30% higher amongst boys than amongst girls, with peaks for Slovenia, Lithuania, Latvia and 
Poland22. 

Table 3.1. Early leavers from education and training by sex and country of birth (%) 

EU 27 countries 
Belgium  
Bulgaria  
Czech Republic 
Denmark  
Germany  
Estonia  
Ireland  
Greece  
Spain  
France  
Italy  
Cyprus 
Latvia  
Lithuania  
Luxembourg  
Hungary  
Malta 23 
Netherlands  
Austria  
Poland  
Portugal  
Romania  
Slovenia  
Slovakia  
Finland  
Sweden  
United Kingdom 
Croatia 
Montenegro 
Iceland 
MK* 
Serbia 
Turkey 
Liechtenstein 
Norway  

2006 

Total 
15.5 
12.6 
17.3 
5.1 
9.1 
13.7 
13.5 
12.1 
15.5 
30.5 
12.4 
20.6 
14.9 
14.8 
8.2 
14.0 
12.6 
39.9 p 
12.6 
9.8 
5.4 
39.1 
17.9 
5.6 
6.6 
9.7 
8,6 p 
11.3 
(4.7) 
: 
25.6 
22.8 
: 
48.8 
: 
17.8 b 

Total 
13.5 
12.3 
12.8 
4.9 
9.6 
11.5 
10.9 
10.6 
13.1 
26.5 
12.0 
18.2 
11.2 
11.8 
7.9 
(6.2) 
11.2 
33.5 p 
9.1 
8.3 
5.6 
23.2 
17.5 
(4.2) 
5.0 
9.8 
6.7 p 
15.0 
(4.1) 
: 
19.7 
13.5 
: 
41.9 
: 
16.6 

2011 

Females 
11.6 
9.7 
13.7 
4.4 
7.0 
10.6 
(8.6) 
8.7 
10.1 
21.9 
10.2 
15.2 
8.1 
7.7 
(5.0) 
: 
10.3 
27.6 p 
7.2 
7.8 
3.8 
18.1 
16.6 
(2.5) 
4.6 
8.4 
5.3 p 
13.8 
(3.4) 
: 
17.1 
15.2 
: 
45.7 
: 
13.1 

Foreign-born (i) 
24.9 
23.3 
: 
(10.3) 
(13.0) 
21.9 
: 
15.4 
44.9 
41.2 
21.9 
40.2 
21.7 
: 
: 
: 
: 
: 
8.7 
19.8 
: 
21.0 
: 
(17.3) 
: 
21.1 
11.1 p 
11.4 
: 
: 
: 
(27.1) 
: 
25.0 
: 
16.7 

Target 

< 10.0 
9.5 
11.0 
5.5 
< 10.0 
< 10.0 
9.5 
8.0 
9.7 
15.0 
9.5 
15.0-16.0 
10.0 
13.4 
< 9.0 
< 10.0 
10.0 
29.0 
< 8.0 
9.5 
4.5 
10.0 
11.3 
5.0 
6.0 
8.0 
< 10.0 
: 
: 
: 
: 
: 
: 
: 
: 
: 

Males 
15.3 
14.9 
12.0 
5.4 
12.1 
12.4 
(13.1) 
12.5 
16.1 
31.0 
13.9 
21.0 
15.1 
15.9 
10.6 
(7.6) 
12.1 
38.9 p 
10.8 
8.8 
7.4 
28.2 
18.5 
(5.7) 
5.4 
11.2 
7.8 p 
16.2 
(4.8) 
: 
22.2 
11.9 
: 
37.7 
: 
19.9 

Source:  Eurostat  (LFS).  Intermediate  breaks  in  time  series  for  Denmark,  Luxembourg,  the  Netherlands,  and  the  United 
Kingdom. Notes: "b" = break in time series; "p" = provisional; "()" = Data lack reliability due to small sample size; ":" = data 
either not available or not reliable due to very small sample size; *MK: The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia; see Annex 

21  

22  
23  

It is noteworthy, however, that many of these foreign-born early school leavers arrive in the host countries only after 
compulsory  schooling  age.  They  are  not  a  "product"  of  the  education  and  training  system  in  the  host  country,  and 
instead require compensatory measures. 
Data for Slovenia and data breakdown for Lithuania lack reliability due to small sample sizes. 
The Maltese series on ESL are under review by the Maltese Statistical Office and Eurostat. The review concerns the 
classification  of  certain  qualifications  at  secondary  level.  The  revision  applies  to  all  years  covered  (2006-2011)  and 
would mean a reduction of about 9 percentage points for the 2011 rate of early school leavers. 

15 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
2.1;  (i)  The  sub-group  foreign-born  refers  to  first  generation  immigrants,  and  hence  does  not  capture  second  or  third 
generation immigrants or populations who are not naturalized. 

The average ESL rate for the EU27 has decreased by 12.9% between 2006 and 2011 (table 3.1), 
out  of  which  9.4%  between  2008  and  2011  (figure  3.2).  Figure  3.2  shows  how,  on  average,  the 
ESL rate has decreased more for native-born than for foreign-born individuals and more for women 
than  for  men;  indicating  that  the  gaps  between  these  subgroups  have  increased.  Closing  the 
gender  gap  and  the  difference  between  native-born  and  foreign-born  students  is  likely  to  have  a 
strong impact on the overall EU performance on this headline target. 

Figure 3.2. 2008-2011 change in ESL rate of subgroups (EU27) 

Source: JRC-CRELL calculations based on Eurostat data. 

3.2.  Progress towards headline target and national targets 

The Europe 2020 Strategy headline target aims to bring down the rate of ESL to below 10% or less 
by 202024. The current situation varies significantly across Member States. A number of countries 
have  reached  the  benchmark,  primarily  in  Northern  and  Eastern  Europe.  Some  countries  were 
already  below  10%  at  the  beginning  of  the  monitoring  period  and  have  further  improved  their 
performance since 2000. In various southern Member States the situation is still problematic. 

Currently,  11  Member  States  are  over  the  10%  benchmark.  Malta  (33.5%),  Spain  (26.5%)  and 
Portugal (23.2%) have the highest rates of ESL, but have made a lot of progress in recent years. 
Other Member States that have reduced ESL include Cyprus (11.2%), Latvia (11.8%) and Bulgaria 
(12.8%).  Only  a  small  minority  of  countries  have  experienced  an  increasing  rate  from  2006  to 
2011. 

Figure 3.3 provides a more comprehensive picture of Member States on the basis of their current 
share of early school leavers and their average annual progress over the more recent period 2008-
2011. The dashed horizontal line in figure 3.3 represents the Europe 2020 headline target (an ESL 
rate  below  10%).  The  dashed  vertical  line  represents  the  minimum  annual  progress for  the  EU27 
as a whole that is required to go down from 14.9% in 2008 to 9.9% in 2020. As can be seen in the 
figure,  the  EU27,  on  average,  fell  short  of  the  minimum  progress  required  and  is  still  3.6 
percentage  points  away  from  the  "below  10%"  target.  Another  observation  is  that  none  of  the 

24  

The latest EU policy documents on early school leaving concern a Council Recommendation on policies to reduce early 
school leaving  (2011/C  191/01),  a  Communication  entitled "Tackling  early  school leaving:  A  key contribution  to  the 
Europe  2020  Agenda"  (COM(2011)18),  and  a  staff  working  paper  entitled  "Reducing  early  school  leaving" 
(SEC(2011)96). 

16 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
larger Member States have reached their national targets yet, as listed in the final column of table 
3.1. 

In the lower left corner countries are characterised by an ESL rate better than the EU27 headline 
target (although not necessarily better than their national targets), as well as by a recent decrease 
in  the  ESL  rate  that  goes  beyond  the  minimum  required  progress  for  the  EU27  average  to  reach 
the headline target by 2020. The Netherlands owes its position to a very developed and successful 
policy approach and a consistent reduction in ESL rates.  

Countries in the lower right corner are characterised by ESL rates in 2011 that were already below 
10%, yet a slower annual decrease during the period 2008-2011 than required for the EU27 as a 
whole  to  reach  the  target  by  2020.  In  fact,  Lithuania  and  Poland  have  seen  an  average  annual 
increase  in  the  ESL  rate  between  2008  and  2011.  Lithuania  has  already  gone  beyond  its  national 
target, whereas Poland has yet to reach its national target. 

Figure 3.3 shows that most countries have higher ESL rates than the Europe 2020 headline target, 
with  a  couple  of  countries  nevertheless  featuring  a  decrease  of  ESL  rates  beyond  the  minimum 
required progress. It has to be kept in mind, however, that some of the countries in the upper left 
corner  of  figure  3.3  do  show  a  very  high  ESL  rate.  Their  current  performance  in  reducing  ESL  is 
commendable,  but  will  not  necessarily  help  the  EU27  reach  its  overall  target  by  2020.  This 
illustrates the relevance of national targets, with some countries having to aim higher in order for 
the EU27 average of "below 10%" to be reached. 

Figure 3.3. Grouping of countries according to ESL rate and progress25 

d
e
r
i
u
q
e
r

s
s
e
r
g
o
r
p
m
u
m
n
M

i

i

1
1
0
2
e
t
a
r

L
S
E

Headline target 

Source: JRC-CRELL and DG EAC calculations based on Eurostat data. 

Average annual change in ESL rate (%) over the period 2008-2011 

Stronger  efforts  are  needed  in  countries  that  feature  both  ESL  rates  above  10%  in  2011  and  a 
slower decrease of ESL rates than minimally required for the EU27 to reach the headline target by 
2020. Romania has a high and increasing ESL rate and France and Belgium also show an average 

25  

Countries having already achieved their national target are marked in green. Countries are shown according to their 
18-24  cohort  size,  with  five  categories.  Further  notes:  the  values  for  Luxembourg  for  2009-2011  and  for  Slovenia 
2008-2011  are  labelled  as  unreliable  by  Eurostat.  Average  annual  change  rates  are  calculated  without  including 
breaks in series, i.e. for Luxembourg 2008-2009, and for Netherlands 2009-2010.  

17 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
 
 
 
 
 
 
annual increase in their ESL rates. Germany and Hungary are not making sufficient progress either, 
lagging behind the minimum progress required for the EU27 to reach the headline target by 2020. 

When  comparing  table  3.1  and  figure  3.3,  some  stagnation  can  be  observed  in  the  more  recent 
progress  across  the  EU.  While  most  countries  were  able  to  reduce  their  ESL  rates  during  the  last 
five  years,  some  Member  States  (e.g.  Germany,  France  and  Hungary)  show  no  significant 
improvement  towards  the  ESL  headline  target  in  the  last  three  years  (2008-2011).  Even  more 
recently, the UK has also seen stagnation in progress (2010-2011). Figure 3.A in the annex shows 
the  long-term  development  of  ESL  rates  in  all  countries.  Moreover,  a  separate  Staff  Working 
Document with country-specific summaries provides a closer look at the progress in each Member 
State26.  

3.3.  An EU trajectory towards 2020 

Since 2000, the decrease in ESL has, on average, been slow. There has been an annual reduction 
of  less  than  0.4  percentage  points,  adding  up  to  a  total  of  4.1  percentage  points  in  the  last  11 
years. In terms of the number of individuals, the progress appears more significant, amounting to 
2.2  million  fewer  individuals  leaving  education  and  training  early  at  the  age  of  18-24  in  2011 
compared  to  2000,  which  represents  a  decline  of  more  than  27%.  As  illustrated  in  figure  3.4, 
extrapolating this trend would mean that the EU would be missing its target for 2020; a  scenario 
that is all the more likely as the effort required increases while the target group shrinks. 

Figure 3.4. Projection for the rate of early leavers from education and training (%) 

Source: JRC-CRELL calculations based on Eurostat data. 

Reaching the 10% target for the benchmark indicator by 2020 would therefore require at least as 
much effort as in the past, if not more. This is also because the size of younger cohorts will shrink 
by 2020 in most Member States and across the EU, changing the relative weight of each country as 
measured by its population share in the total EU population27. Some high performing countries will 
count  less  towards  the  EU  average,  while  some  low  performing  countries  will  count  more  – 
resulting in a less favourable situation for the EU as a whole. 

When  simply  extrapolating  the  current  trend,  an  additional  1.5  million  individuals  will  have  to 
remain  in  the  education  and  training  systems  in  order  to  reach  the  headline  target  by  2020, 

26  
27  

See the Commission Staff Working Document "Rethinking Education: Country analysis". 
Adjustments  on  the  basis  of  cohort  changes  are  based  on  EUROPOP2010  projections.  Because  EUROPOP  does  not 
provide a population projection explicitly for the 18-24 cohort, this age range is approximated by using two fifths of 
the 15-19 cohort and 20-24 cohort. 

18 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
amounting  to  an  average  of  about  170,000  individuals  per  year.  However,  when  taking  into 
account  the  latest  projections  of  demographic  changes,  an  even  bigger  effort  is  needed.  As 
compared to 2011, an additional 2 million individuals will have to be kept in education and training, 
translating into an annual average of about 220,000 individuals. As can be seen in table 3.2, this is 
an extra 20,000 fewer early school leavers per year on top of the annual change that was achieved 
between 2000 and 2011. 

Table 3.2. Change needed to reach the ESL headline target by 2020 (in millions) 

Change between 2000-2011 

Change needed to reach the target by 2020 

Based solely on current trend 

Accounting for changing cohort sizes 

Cumulated 
2000-2011 

per year 

Cumulated 
2011-2020 

per year 

Cumulated 
2011-2020 

per year 

-2.20 

-0.20 

-1.50 

-0.17 

-2.00 

-0.22 

Source: JRC-CRELL calculations based on Eurostat data and EUROPOP projections. 

3.4.  The road ahead for Member States 

Member States' national targets, as set out in their National Reform Programmes, are by and large 
very cautious (see table 3.1) and would also suggest that Europe may fall short of the 10% target 
for  2020.  On  30  May  2012,  the  European  Commission  presented  a  set  of  country-specific 
recommendations  to  Member  States  on  reforms  to  increase  stability,  growth  and  employment 
across  the  EU.  Six  countries  (Denmark,  Hungary,  Italy,  Latvia,  Malta  and  Spain)  received 
recommendations to address ESL. 

While the factors leading to ESL vary from country to country, the causes of ineffective policies can 
be boiled down to three typical issues28: 

(cid:131)  Lack of a comprehensive strategy: many countries adopt a patchwork of different measures to 
tackle various aspects of ESL, but these do not necessarily add up to a comprehensive strategy. 
Systemic change will be more feasible if Member States move from projects to policies, ideally 
connecting cross-sectoral initiatives in a more "holistic" approach.  

(cid:131)  Lack  of  evidence-based  policy-making:  with  some  notable  exceptions,  Member  States  lack 
detailed  information  on  the  background  of  early  school  leavers  and  an  analysis  of  the  causes 
and incidence of ESL as well as a systematic collection, analysis and dissemination of evidence 
about  effective  practices  for  tackling  ESL.  Particular  blind  spots  are  ESL  from  initial  vocational 
education and training (VET), and breakdowns by socioeconomic status. 

(cid:131) 

Insufficient prevention and early intervention: some Member States devote too little attention to 
prevention.  A  stronger  focus  on  preventive  and  early  intervention  measures  is  needed  both  at 
system  level  and  at  the  level  of  individual  education  and  training  institutions.  Partial, 
compensatory  measures  (such  as  second-chance  education),  albeit  important,  are  not  enough 
to address the root causes of the problem. 

Another  challenge  that  is  of  prime  importance  is  to  ensure  that  VET  is  a  realistic,  high-quality 
opportunity  for  young  learners,  offering  a  more  hands-on  solution  so  that  less  academically 
oriented  learners  have  an  attractive  alternative  to  general  education  and  training.  However,  this 
approach can only work if the status and relevance of VET is increased, and if dropout from VET is 
brought down. 

28  

See COM(2011)18 and SEC(2011)96. 

19 

 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
Following the Council Recommendation on policies to reduce early school leaving, adopted in June 
2011,  the  European  Commission  set  up  a  Thematic  Working  Group  of  Member  State  experts  to 
exchange  experience  and  good  practice  and  to  develop  policy  guidelines  for  implementing 
evidence-based and comprehensive strategies to reduce early school leaving. 

Moreover,  European  funding  –  both  European  Structural  Funds  and  European  education  and 
research  programmes  –  will  be  targeted  to  better  support  the  development  of  comprehensive 
policies against early school leaving. 

20 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
4.  Encouraging participation in Higher Education 

Higher  education,  with  its  links  to  research  and  innovation,  plays  a  crucial  role  in  individual  and 
societal  advancement,  and  in  providing  the  highly  skilled  human  capital  that  Europe  needs  to 
create  jobs,  economic  growth  and  prosperity.  The  European  Commission’s  agenda  for  the 
modernisation of Europe’s higher education systems29 lies at the heart of the Europe 2020 Strategy 
for investment in human resources and creating sustainable growth towards and beyond 2020. 

4.1.  The issue of attaining increased levels of higher education completion 

In  2011  nearly  half  of  the  EU  Member  States  have  reached  the  EU  target  of  40%  tertiary  level 
education attainment or equivalent for the age group 30 to 34 years old (see figure 4.1), whereas 
10  Member  States  have  accomplished  their  national  target.  All  EU  Member  States  except  the 
United Kingdom have set national targets for the EU headline indicator. 

Figure 4.1. Tertiary attainment level or equivalent, ages 30-34 (%), 2011 

EU 2020 target = 40% 

Source:  Eurostat  (LFS).  Note:  The  lighter  blue  parts  for  Austria  and  Germany  denotes  inclusion  of  postsecondary  attainment 
(ISCED 4 for DE and ISCED 4/4a for AT, both national data); this is the equivalent identified in the headline indicator definition. 

The  increasing  level  of  tertiary  attainment  in  the  European  Union  reflects  to  some  extent 
investment  by  European  governments  in  higher  education  with  a  view  to  meeting  demand  for  a 
higher  skilled  labour  force.  In  some  Member  States,  increased  attainment  rates  also  reflect  the 
shift to shorter degree programmes following implementation of Bologna process reforms30.  

Since  2000,  the  tertiary  attainment  level  in  the  EU  has  increased  by  more  than  12  percentage 
points  –  from  22.4%  to  34.6%  in  2011  (see  table  4.1)  –  corresponding  to  an  annual  average 
progress  of  more  than  1  percentage  point.  Disaggregating  data  by  gender  shows  an  impressive 
progress for women, who have outperformed men in overall attainment rates since 2000. In terms 
of absolute numbers, the progress has been significant, amounting to about 3.7 million graduates 
or nearly a 50% increase compared to 2000 numbers. 

29  
30  

COM(2011) 567 final. 
See  http://www.ehea.info/.  The  introduction  of  bachelor  and  master  degrees  in  European  countries  changes  the 
structures of tertiary education where the previous norm would be one long first degree. This is replaced by a two-
degree structure, where many students would still qualify at both bachelor and master level. 

21 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
Table 4.1. Tertiary attainment level or equivalent, ages 30-34 (%), 2011 

Benchmark indicator, (%) 
       Benchmark indicator - men, (%)     
       Benchmark indicator - women, (%) 
Total population of 30-34 year-olds (millions) 
Number of 30-34 years-olds with completed tertiary education (millions) 

Source: Eurostat (LFS). 

2000 
22.4 
22.2 
22.7 
37.2 
8.3 

2010 
33.5 
30.0 
37.2 
34.7 
11.6 

2011 
34.631 
30.8 
38.5 
34.732 
12.0 

The gender difference is further documented in table 4.2 which shows that women outnumber men 
significantly  in  terms  of  tertiary  attainment  in  all  but  one  Member  State33.  In  fact,  there  is  more 
than 10 percentage points difference between the attainment levels of women and men in half of 
the EU Member States. 

Table 4.2. Tertiary educational attainment, ages 30-34 by sex and migrant status (%) 

EU 27 countries 
Belgium  
Bulgaria  
Czech Republic 
Denmark  
Germany  
Estonia  
Ireland  
Greece  
Spain  
France  
Italy  
Cyprus 
Latvia  
Lithuania  
Luxembourg  
Hungary  
Malta 
Netherlands  
Austria  
Poland  
Portugal  
Romania  
Slovenia  
Slovakia  
Finland  
Sweden  
United Kingdom 
Switzerland 
Croatia 
Iceland 
Montenegro 
Norway 
Turkey 

2006 

Total 

28.9 
41.4 
25.3 
13.1 
43 
25.8 
32.5 
41.3 
26.7 
38.1 
39.7 
17.7 
46.1 
19.2 
39.4 
35.5 
19 
21.6 
35.8 
21.2 
24.7 
18.4 
12.4 
28.1 
14.4 
46.2 
39.5 
36.5 
35 
16.7 
36.4 
: 
41.9b 
11.9 

Total 

34.6 
42.6 
27.3 
23.8 
41.2 
30.7 
40.3 
49.4 
28.9 
40.6 
43.4 
20.3 
45.8 
35.7 
45.4 
48.2 
28.1 
21.1 
41.1 
23.8 
36.9 
26.1 
20.4 
37.9 
23.4 
46.0 
47.5 
45.8 
44.0 
24.5 
44.6 
20.4 
48.8 
16.3 

Males 

30.8 
37.1 
21.3 
21.6 
34.7 
29.9 
30.5 
42.8 
26.2 
36.3 
39.1 
15.9 
39.7 
24.8 
37.6 
49.1 
23.2 
20.1 
37.3 
23.1 
30.3 
21.7 
19.7 
29.4(i) 
19.6 
37.1 
40.6 
43 
19.4 
36.1(p) 
46.8 
: 
41.5 
18.3(u) 

2011 

Target 

Females 

Born abroad 

38.5 
48.1 
34 
26.1 
48 
31.6 
50.2 
55.8 
31.7 
45 
47.6 
24.7 
52 
46.9 
53.3 
47.4 
33.4 
22.1 
44.8 
24.5 
43.5 
30.5 
21 
47.3(i) 
27.4 
55 
54.6 
48.6 
41.2 
30 
53.1(p) 
: 
56.4 
14.3(u) 

30.9 
34.8 
: 
33.8 
31.5 
25.4 
: 
53.2 
9.5 
24.4 
33.7 
12.3 
35.3 
: 
: 
52.9 
32.5 
: 
30.1 
24.2 
: 
24.2 
: 
(16.9) 
: 
28.2 
45.0 
55.1 
41.5 
: 
34.0 
: 
39.0 
36.0 

40 
47 
36 
32 
40 
42 
40 
60 
32 
44 
50 
26 
46 
34 
40 
40 
30.3 
33 
40 
38 
45 
40 
26.7 
40 
40 
42 
40 
: 
: 
: 
: 
: 
: 
: 

Source: Eurostat (LFS). Notes: Inclusion of postsecondary education for Germany (ISCED 4) and Austria (ISCED 4a and 4) give 
levels of respectively 42% and 37%/38% (national data sources). 

There  are  great  differences  in  the  choice  of  study  field  between  women  and  men.  A  significantly 
higher  proportion  of  men  is  graduating  in  mathematics,  science  or  engineering  subjects,  whereas 

31  

32  

33  

Including Croatia (who will join European Union in 2013) will have a -0.1 percentage pointpoints impact on the value 
reported here.  
Since cohortCohort sizes for Cyprus and Romania are missing for 2011 therefore, they have been assumed here equal 
towith the last availableyear (2010) values (2010)..  
The Luxembourgish tertiary attainment rate reflects to a large degree the highly educated population which is living 
and  working  in  the  country.  Luxembourg  has  attracted  a  highly  educated  workforce  which  has  immigrated  from 
abroad and it therefore does not necessarily reflect the outcome of the Luxembourgish education system. 

22 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
women dominate education, humanities, art and service-oriented educational fields (see table 4.A 
in annex). 

It  is  a  key  challenge  for  Member  States  and  for  higher  education  institutions  to  attract  a  broader 
cross-section of society into higher education34 including disadvantaged and vulnerable groups, and 
deploy  the  resources  to  meet  this  challenge.  Reducing  higher  education  drop-out  rates  is  also 
crucial  in  several  Member  States.  The  success  of  these  aspirations  and  achievements  partly 
depends  on  policies  to  improve  earlier  educational  outcomes  and  to  reduce  school  drop-out  at 
lower  educational  levels  in  line  with  the  Europe  2020  target  and  the  recent  Council 
Recommendation on early school leaving (see also chapter 3). 

The  difference  in  tertiary  attainment  between  the  native-born  and  foreign-born  population  is 
3.7 percentage points at the EU level (see table 4.2). The foreign-born population has significantly 
lower  attainment  levels  in  Southern  European  countries  such  as  Greece,  Spain,  Cyprus,  Italy  and 
also in France, in the Nordic countries (but to a lesser degree in Sweden) and in the Netherlands 
and Belgium35. However, the attainment level is higher for the foreign-born population compared to 
the native-born in a number of countries such as the Czech Republic, the United Kingdom, Ireland, 
Luxembourg, Hungary and Austria; there is also a major discrepancy in Turkey. 

A number of Member States have set high national targets for tertiary attainment levels in 2020. In 
terms  of  level  these  include  Ireland  (60%),  France  (50%),  Belgium  (47%),  Cyprus  (46%)  and 
Poland  (45%).  It  should,  however,  be  noted  that  the  countries  with  the  most  ambitious  national 
targets  are  those  with  the  furthest  distance  to  travel  in  terms  of  attainment:  Slovakia  (23%  to 
40%), Portugal (26% to 40% target) and Malta (21% to 33%). 

Figure 4.2. Recent change in tertiary attainment rate of subgroups (EU27) 

Source: JRC-CRELL calculations based on Eurostat data. 

Figure 4.2 further documents that the gender difference has been increasing since 2008 at EU level 
reflecting  developments  in  most  Member  States,  although  both  men  and  women  attain  higher 
levels in 2011 than in 2008 (positive change). On the other hand, the attainment level for foreign-
born persons increased more than for the native-born indicating that migrant populations in the EU 
are catching up with the attainment level of natives. 

34  
35  

COM (2011) 567 final, section 2. 
The population of people born abroad is in a number of countries of such a small size that no statistics can reliably be 
calculated based on the Labour Force Survey, examples are Poland, Romania and Bulgaria plus the Baltic states. 

23 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
4.2.  The current status and trajectories towards 2020 

In  2011,  approximately  12  million  individuals  aged  30  to  34  had  attained  a  tertiary  education 
qualification or equivalent. Back in 2001, there were about 8 million individuals already enrolled in 
tertiary  education  by  the  age  of  20-24.  These  individuals  aged  between  20  and  24  in  2001  are 
those entering into the calculation of the benchmark in 2011. This shows that there must be some 
additional  factors  explaining  the  gap  (amounting  to  4  million),  such  as  migration,  or  a  significant 
share  of  individuals  completing  their  education  after  the  age  of  24.  With  this  in  mind,  the  latest 
data from 2011 looks encouraging because there are now more than 9.5 million individuals already 
enrolled in a first or second stage of tertiary education between the ages of 20-24, which would be 
counted  in  the  benchmark  indicator  for  2020  –  a  progress  of  nearly  1.5  million  individuals  in  9 
years. 

Figure 4.3. Grouping of countries according to tertiary attainment rate and progress36 

1
1
0
2
e
t
a
r

t
n
e
m
n
i
a
t
t
a

y
r
a
i
t
r
e
T

d
e
r
i
u
q
e
r

Headline target

s
s
e
r
g
o
r
p
m
u
m
n
M

i

i

Average annual change in tertiary attainment rate (%) over the period 2008-2011 

Source: JRC-CRELL and DG EAC calculations based on Eurostat data. 

Figure  4.3  provides  a  more  comprehensive  picture  of  the  situation  of  Member  States  in  terms  of 
where they are now (vertical axis) and the change they have experienced during the last four years 
(2008-2011).  The  dashed  horizontal  line  indicates  the  40%  target  for  2020  whereas  the  dashed 
vertical line marks the minimum annual progress required over the period 2008 to  2011  to reach 
the 2020 level. Countries marked with green are those which have in 2011 reached their national 
target. 

In  this  way  the  four  quadrants  of  the  scatterplot  illustrate  the  four  scenarios  in  which  countries 
presently find themselves; e.g. countries like BE, DK, CY, FR, FI and NL have all reached the 40% 
target but have low positive to negative changes, i.e. their situation is stagnating. This is unlike the 

36  

Countries having already achieved their national target are marked in green. Countries are shown according to their 
30-34 cohort size, with five categories. Average annual change rates are calculated without including breaks in series, 
i.e. for Luxembourg 2009-2010 and for the Netherlands 2010-2011. 

24 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
situation for  countries  as  EE,  ES,  IE,  LT,  LU,  SE  and  the  UK,  which  are  also  above  the  target  but 
are still developing fast towards even higher attainment levels. 

The  countries  in  the  lower  part  of  the  scatterplot  are  divided  into  those  with  below  target 
attainment  levels  and  stagnating  to  very  little  progress  (BG,  MT,  IT)  compared  to  those  below 
target  but  with  higher  changes  such  as  SI,  PL,  LV,  HU,  PT,  RO  and  particularly  SK  and  CZ.  The 
overall EU level is still more than 5 percentage points below target but nevertheless located in the 
group with higher annual changes. 

From a historical perspective, the 40% target set for 2020 looks within reach as, by 2020, the EU 
will only need less than half of the progress observed in the previous decade (this is indicated by 
the  solid  line  in  figure  4.4A).  Therefore,  if  the  dynamic  registered  in  the  past  is  to  continue  and 
assuming no severe adverse shocks, Europe should easily outperform the target (this is indicated 
by the dashed line in figure 4.4A). 

It can also be noted that the tertiary attainment level of women would, with present trends, reach 
more  than  50%  in  2020  (i.e. more  than  half  of  the  female  population  aged  30  to  34  years  old  in 
2020 would have acquired a tertiary level qualification – see figure 4.4B). On the other hand, the 
male population would, with current trends, only reach a level around 38%; below the target level 
of 40%. This projected widening of the gender gap in tertiary attainment levels could cause some 
concern  in  relation  to  the  tendency  for  men  and  women  in  choosing  different  study  fields  and 
thereby labour market opportunities. 

Figures 4.4A (left) and 4.4B (right). Tertiary attainment level trajectories 

Source: JRC-CRELL calculations based on Eurostat data. 

During the period 2000 to 2011, the EU experienced a cumulated growth of 3.7 million individuals 
who had completed tertiary education by the age of 30-34. Reaching the 40% target by 2020 will 
nevertheless require an increase in the total number of individuals 30-34 years old with completed 
tertiary  education  under  either  of  the  following  two  assumptions:  (i)  the  cohort  size  of  the  30-34 
years old will remain at 2011 levels or (ii) it changes according to the latest EUROPOP projection. 
This is presented in Table 4.3.  

In particular an additional 0.21 million individuals with completed tertiary education are needed per 
year  to  ensure  that  the  EU  target  is  reached  in  2020  –  meaning  a  total  of  1.9  million  over  the 
2011-2020 period. If we consider that the cohort size is shrinking, then only 0.16 million per year, 
or  a  total  of  1.5  million  individuals  with  completed  tertiary  education  is  needed  over  the  same 
period. 

25 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table 4.3. Change needed to reach the 2020 target (in millions) 

Change between 2000-2011 

Change needed to reach the target by 2020 

Based solely on current trend 

Accounting for changing cohort sizes 

Cumulated 
2000-2011 

per year 

Cumulated 
2011-2020 

per year 

Cumulated 
2011-2020 

per year 

+3.70 

+0.34 

+1.90 

+0.21 

+1.50 

+0.16 

Source: JRC-CRELL calculations based on Eurostat data and EUROPOP projections. 

4.3.  The road ahead for Member States 

The  Member  States'  national  targets,  as  set  out  in  their  National  Reform  Programmes37,  are  for 
some  very  ambitious  and  for  others  more  modest  (see  figure  4.1).  A  third  of  the  Member  States 
share the EU target of reaching a 40% tertiary attainment or equivalent level by 2020.  

In  May  2012,  during  the  second  European  Semester,  the  Commission  presented  country  specific 
recommendations  for  tertiary  level  education  for  9  Member  States  (Austria,  Bulgaria,  the  Czech 
Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Italy, Latvia, Slovenia and Slovakia). 

Four types of main recommendations were identified for these countries: 

(cid:131)  To ensure effective access to higher education for disadvantaged groups; 

(cid:131)  To adopt the necessary legislation to establish a transparent and clearly defined system for 
quality  evaluation  of  higher  education.  Ensure  the  funding  is  sustainable  and  linked  to  a 
quality assessment; 

(cid:131)  To take measures to reduce drop-out rates from higher education; and 

(cid:131)  To improve the matching of skills with labour market demands. 

These  recommendations  are  followed  up  in  the  national  reform  programmes  which  outline  the 
actions  countries  take  or  plan  to  take  for  tackling  the  type  of  issues  as  identified  above.  The 
Commission  also  follows  up  on  the  recommendations  through  different  mechanisms  from 
encouraging  and  organising  peer  reviews  of  education  systems  to  focussing  funding  on  education 
issues in for example the new 2014-2020 budget cycle for structural funds. 

These country specific recommendations also mirror the general recommendations for both the EU 
modernisation  agenda  for  higher  education  and  in  the  most  recent  Bologna  process  communiqué 
for  the  European  Higher  Education  area.  Key  priorities  are  to  attract  a  broader  cross  section  of 
society into higher education, to improve the quality and relevance of higher education, to improve 
governance and funding, to support reform through policy evidence, analysis and transparency and 
to link to the labour market through employability38. A key goal of the modernisation agenda and 
for these key areas is to increase overall skill levels and satisfy changing labour market demands. 

37  

38  

For more information on the European Semester, see: http://ec.europa.eu/europe2020/making-it-
happen/index_en.htm. 
For all national targets, see: http://ec.europa.eu/europe2020/pdf/targets_en.pdf. 
Promoting  mobility  and  cross-border  cooperation  are  also  important  parts  of  the  higher  education  modernisation 
agenda; these issues are treated in chapter 6 of the Education Monitor. 

26 

 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
5.  The case for high-quality Early Childhood Education and Care 

Early  childhood  education  and  care  (ECEC)  is  a  crucial  first  step  in  a  long  process  of  lifelong 
learning.  A  successful  early  start  decreases  socioeconomic  and  other  background  related 
disadvantages, and secures equal chances for a successful school career and a fulfilling future39. As 
such,  it  is  a  primary  element  in  preventing  early  school  leaving  (an  EU2020  headline  target)  and 
low educational performance. 

In  recognition  of  its  importance,  the  Council  decided  to  include  a  benchmark  on  ECEC  in  the 
framework  for  European  cooperation  in  education  and  training,  stating  that  participation  in  pre-
school education – of children between 4-years-old and the starting age of compulsory education – 
should be at least 95% by 202040.  

Table 5.1. Participation in ECEC, child/staff ratio and total expenditure per pupil 

Age 
range 41 

Participation in ECEC (%) 

Child/staff ratio 42 

Expenditure per pupil 43 

EU 27 countries 
Belgium  
Bulgaria  
Czech Republic 
Denmark  
Germany  
Estonia  
Ireland  
Greece  
Spain  
France  
Italy  
Cyprus 
Latvia  
Lithuania  
Luxembourg  
Hungary  
Malta * 
Netherlands  
Austria  
Poland  
Portugal  
Romania  
Slovenia  
Slovak Republic  
Finland  
Sweden  
United Kingdom 
Croatia 
Montenegro 
Iceland  
MK ** 
Serbia 
Turkey 
Liechtenstein 
Norway 

- 
4-5 
4-6 
4-5 
4-6 
4-5 
4-6 
4-5 
4-5 
4-5 
4-5 
4-5 
4-5 
4-6 
4-6 
4-5 
4-5 
4 
4 
4-5 
4-6 
4-5 
4-5 
4-6 
4-5 
4-6 
4-6 
4 
4-5 
: 
4-6 
4-6 
: 
4-5 
4-5 
4-5 

2006 
89.3 
99.9 
80.5 
92.6 
92.0 
93.0 
94.9 
: 
70.9 
98.5 
100.0 
100.0 
84.7 
87.2 
75.8 
95.0 
94.5 
95.5 
74,2 
88.1 
64.0 
86.8 
81.2 
88.6 
79.4 
68.1 
91.3 
91.1 
61.9 
: 
95.7 
24.6 
: 
23.2 
84.2 
92.4 

2010 
92.3 
99.1 
79.2 
88.7 
91.1 
96.2 
89.8 b 
85.4 
73.5 
99.4 
100.0 
97.1 
87.7 
87.4 
78.3 
94.6 
94.3 
89.0 
99.6 
92.1 
76.3 
89.3 
82.1 
92.0 
77.5 
73.1 
95.1 
96.7 
70.1 
: 
95.8 
29.6 
: 
38.7 
85.2 
97.1 

2006 
14.1 
16.0 
11.5 
12.5 
: 
14.3 
8.3 
14.1 
12.4 
14.0 
19.3 
11.6 
18.1 
13.5 
8.9 
: 
10.7 
12.7 
: 
16.8 
18.0 
15.0 
18.2 
9.4 
13.5 
12.0 
11.4 
19.8 
12.8 
: 
7.2 
10.8 
: 
26.3 
13.1 
: 

2010 
13.4 
15.9 
12.0 
13.9 
: 
12.6 
6.0 
19.8 
: 
13.0 
21.5 
11.8 
17.0 
12.1 
7.8 
12.0 
11.0 
15.2 
: 
14.7 
18.7 
15.7 
17.5 
9.4 
12.5 
11.0 
6.3 
15.9 
12.1 
: 
6.9 
7.4 
: 
23.0 
10.5 
: 

2006 
- 
15.5 
30.1 
16.1 
17.6 
17.5 
10.5 
: 
: 
18.5 
16.4 
19.4 
17.2 
25.7 
22.9 
: 
: 
22.6 
16.6 
22.6 
28.0 
15.1 
12.9 
30.7 
18.3 
14.0 
15.6 
25.5 
27.7 
: 
23.2 
: 
: 
: 
: 
10.7 

2009 
- 
16.0 
34.7 
18.4 
24.4 
21.8 
13.2 
: 
: 
24.0 
18.6 
19.4 
20.4 
42.3 
31.4 
19.9 
: 
24.5 
18.0 
26.2 
26.8 
15.3 
13.5 
30.6 
20.1 
15.6 
17.6 
22.8 
30.3 
: 
26.3 
: 
: 
: 
: 
12.3 

39  
40  

41  
42  
43  

COM(2011) 66 final. 
This benchmark can be seen as the successor of the Barcelona targets to "provide childcare by 2010 to at least 90% 
of  children  between  3  years  old  and  the  mandatory  school  age  and  at  least  33%  of  children  under  3  years  of  age" 
(Barcelona European Council, 2002). However, the Barcelona targets were intended primarily to remove disincentives 
to  labour  force  participation  of  young  parents,  particularly  women,  by  taking into  account  the  demand  for  childcare 
facilities.  
Used age range to calculate the participation rate in early childhood education and care. 
Pre-primary education only, enrolment and personnel in full-time units (FTU). 
Total private and public expenditure as a percentage of purchasing power standards (PPS) per pupil compared to GDP 
in PPS per capita. 

27 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
Source: Eurostat (UOE). Note: Intermediary break in series for Ireland and the Netherlands; ":" = data either not available or 
not reliable due to very small sample size; "b" = break in series; *Malta is currently revising the figures due to new population 
estimates. **MK: The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia; see Annex 2.1. 

In 2010, the average participation in ECEC was 92.3%, and the 95%-benchmark appears to be in 
reach.  The  value  for  the  EU  average  increased  by  3  percentage  points  between  2006  and  2010, 
however,  some  of  this  change  is  a  statistical  effect  due  to  the  on-going  harmonisation  of  the 
measurement  of  ECEC.  In  several  countries  rates  are  already  above  95%,  giving  an  indication  of 
almost  universal  attendance  of  education  from  age  4.  Difference  between  boys  and  girls  in  ECEC 
attendance is negligible. Moreover, in most countries with low participation rates, growth in recent 
years has been notable. 

Denmark, Greece, Latvia and Poland have lowered the age for compulsory education, extending it 
to  pre-primary.  As  such, the  12.3%  increase  in  Poland  might  be  partly  due  to  the  introduction  of 
new  legislation,  granting  5-year-olds  a  statutory  right  to  complete  one  preparatory  school  year44. 
In addition, Poland introduced targeted measures in rural areas45.   

The availability of alternative types of provision, such as the family day care attended by a number 
of  children  in  Finland,  could  contribute  to  a  lower  level  of  participation  in  ECEC.  Other  underlying 
reasons might include funding decisions at the local or national level, or operational constraints in 
increasing  the  supply  of  early  childhood  education  in  specific  areas  of  the  country,  or  for  specific 
groups of children46. 

5.1.  The quality of ECEC provision 

In  order  for  ECEC  to  be  a  strong  start  for  individuals  and  a  potential  equaliser  for  European 
societies, provision must be of sufficient quality. However, it is not easy to measure the quality of 
ECEC.  Amongst  the  quality  indicators  used  in  national  and  international  assessments  are 
governance  structures  necessary  for  regular  programme  monitoring  and  assessment,  system 
accountability and quality assurance47. 

Table 5.1 shows two proxies for quality in ECEC, namely the child/staff ratio and total expenditure, 
both relating to pre-primary education. When comparing the data for 2006 and 2010, we can see 
that both dimensions of ECEC quality are slowly improving in most Member States. 

Most  Member  States  show  a  child/staff  ratio  around  or  below  the  15  to  1  recommendation  from 
UNICEF48,  with  Estonia  (6.0  to  1)  and  France  (21.5  to  1)  at  opposite  extremes.  Secondly, 
expenditure per child varies considerably across the EU. Of all the Member States, Latvia, Bulgaria, 
Lithuania and Slovenia spend most per pupil in pre-primary education (in relation to their GDP per 
capita).  

Eurydice  is  preparing  a  report  on  ECEC  that  will  provide  comparable  indicators  on  the  various 
aspects  of  quality.  For  example,  it  has  gathered  data  on  minimum  qualification  requirements  for 
ECEC staff, which shows that in many education systems tertiary degrees are not required for staff 
working  with  children  under  3  years  old,  even  though  research  shows  that  higher  level  staff 
qualifications are generally associated with higher ECEC quality49. 

Continued  efforts  are  needed  to  improve  and  maintain  the  quality  of  ECEC  provision.    Minimum 
requirements might be useful in this respect. These might include structural requirements, such as 
health  and  safety  standards,  infrastructure,  child/staff  ratios,  staff  qualifications,  staff  salaries, 
curriculum  standards,  and  requirements  concerning  the  social  environment,  governance  issues, 
and child outcomes (cognitive, social, emotional and physical). 

44  
45  

46  
47  
48  
49  

(2011).  Eurypedia:  European  Encyclopedia  on  National  education  Systems 

Since September 1st 2011 this has become compulsory. 
European  Commission 
(https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/fpfis/mwikis/eurydice/index.php?title=Home).  
EACEA/EURYDICE (2009). Early Childhood Education and Care in Europe: Tackling Social and Cultural Inequalities. 
EACEA/EURYDICE (2009). 
UNICEF/Innocenti Working Paper (2008). Benchmarks for Early Childhood Services in OECD Countries. 
OECD (2012). Starting Strong III.  

28 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
5.2.  Targeted support for disadvantaged groups 

All European countries implement measures intended to prevent educational difficulties for children 
at  risk.  For  example,  in  all  education  and  training  systems  where  fees  are  required  for  ECEC, 
parental  contributions  are  adjusted  in  order  to  facilitate  access  for  disadvantaged  groups50.  The 
most successful systems are those that have more comprehensive services helping these children, 
but  also  their  families  –  proving  e.g.  job-related  training  and  parent  education51.  However,  the 
measures  (e.g.  language  training  programmes,  appointment  of  extra  staff,  additional  financing) 
usually apply only to older children (from age 4)52. 

When it comes to ethnic minorities, pre-school attendance of Roma children has been studied in a 
recent  report  published  jointly  by  the  European  Union  Agency  for  Fundamental  Rights  (FRA)  and 
the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP)53. There is a considerable gap between Roma 
and  non-Roma  children  attending  pre-school  and  kindergarten  in  nine  of  the  11  Member  States 
surveyed. However, significant differences exist between EU Member States: in Hungary and Spain, 
for  instance,  at  least  70%  of  Roma  children  surveyed  are  reported  to  attend  ECEC,  whereas  in 
Greece, less than 10 % of Roma children are reported to be in ECEC. 

The  Commission's  first  assessment  of  the  National  Roma  Integration  Strategies  emphasises  the 
importance of quality ECEC provisions for Roma, and lists 14 Member States that have addressed 
the corresponding measures required by the EU Framework54. 

50  
51  
52  
53  

54  

EACEA/Eurydice (2012). Key Data on Education, p. 97. 
OECD (2012). Starting Strong III. 
EACEA/EURYDICE (2009). 
FRA-UNDP  (2012).  The  situation  of  Roma 
http://fra.europa.eu/fraWebsite/attachments/FRA-2012-Roma-at-a-glance_EN.pdf. 
COM(2012) 226 final. 

in  11  EU  Member  States:  Survey  results  at  a  glance. 

29 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
6.  Acquiring the skills needed for the future 

Improving  the  key  competences  of  individuals  is  a  major  objective  of  all  education  and  training 
systems. These range from basic skills such as reading and mathematics to transversal skills such 
as  ICT  and  entrepreneurship.  For  the  European  economy  skills  are  a  precondition  for 
competitiveness and innovation, and in an ever-changing society, young people need to continually 
update their skills profile through lifelong learning. 

6.1.  Basic skills: reading, maths and science 

Basic skills – such as the ability to understand a written text or to carry out simple calculations – 
form the basis for learning and to acquire more specialised skills. Against the ever higher demands 
of  the  knowledge  society,  there  has  been  limited  progress  in  improving  basic  skills.  The  share  of 
fifteen-year-olds that fail to acquire basic skills amounts to about one fifth. 

Table 6.1. Percentage of low achievers in reading, maths and science, by sex 

2006 

Total 

EU 25 countries 

23.1 

Reading 

Maths 

2009 

Boys 

25.9 

21.5 

52.0 

30.8 

19.0 

24.0 

18.9 

23.1 

29.7 

24.4 

25.7 

28.9 

: 

26.6 

35.5 

32.9 

23.6 

48.4 

17.9 

35.2 

22.6 

24.7 

50.7 

31.3 

32.0 

13.0 

24.2 

23.1 

31.2 

: 

Girls 

13.3 

13.8 

29.1 

14.3 

11.5 

12.6 

7.3 

11.3 

13.2 

14.6 

14.2 

12.7 

: 

8.7 

13.0 

19.1 

11.4 

24.4 

10.7 

20.3 

7.5 

10.8 

30.4 

10.7 

12.5 

3.2 

10.5 

14.0 

12.6 

: 

2006 

Total 

24.0 

Total 

22.2 

2009 

Boys 

21.0 

17.3 

53.3 

19.2 

13.6 

19.9 

12.1 

16.4 

32.3 

24.7 

22.3 

32.8 

: 

20.7 

23.0 

22.8 

21.2 

: 

11.5 

20.0 

19.8 

30.7 

52.7 

17.7 

20.9 

6.0 

18.3 

19.8 

28.6 

: 

19.1 

47.1 

22.3 

17.1 

18.6 

12.7 

20.8 

30.3 

23.7 

22.5 

24.9 

: 

22.6 

26.2 

23.9 

22.3 

33.7 

13.4 

23.2 

20.5 

23.7 

47.0 

20.3 

21.0 

7.8 

21.1 

20.2 

33.2 

: 

16.8 

48.2 

21.7 

14.7 

17.2 

11.9 

20.6 

28.4 

21.4 

21.6 

23.5 

: 

23.2 

28.1 

22.2 

21.7 

37.4 

11.2 

21.3 

21.2 

22.6 

46.9 

20.9 

21.4 

8.1 

21.4 

17.5 

31.8 

: 

Total 

19.6 

17.7 

41.0 

23.1 

15.2 

18.5 

13.3 

17.2 

21.3 

19.6 

19.8 

21.0 

: 

17.6 

24.3 

26.0 

17.7 

36.3 

14.3 

27.5 

15.0 

17.6 

40.4 

21.2 

22.3 

8.1 

17.4 

18.4 

22.5 

: 

Girls 

23.5 

21.4 

45.9 

23.1 

19.4 

20.2 

13.5 

21.0 

32.1 

26.1 

23.4 

26.4 

: 

22.0 

24.4 

25.7 

22.9 

30.1 

15.6 

25.1 

19.9 

24.7 

47.2 

19.7 

20.7 

7.5 

20.8 

22.8 

34.6 

: 

Science 

2006 

Total 

20.3 

2009 

Boys 

18.6 

Total 

17.7 

17.0 

42.6 

15.5 

18.4 

15.4 

7.7 

15.5 

24.0 

19.6 

21.2 

25.3 

: 

17.4 

20.3 

22.1 

15.0 

: 

13.0 

16.3 

17.0 

24.5 

46.9 

13.9 

20.2 

4.1 

16.4 

16.7 

17.0 

: 

18.0 

38.8 

17.3 

16.6 

14.8 

8.3 

15.2 

25.3 

18.2 

19.3 

20.6 

: 

14.7 

17.0 

23.7 

14.1 

32.5 

13.2 

21.0 

13.1 

16.5 

41.4 

14.8 

19.3 

6.0 

19.1 

15.0 

18.5 

: 

17.9 

43.3 

17.9 

15.2 

15.0 

8.6 

16.0 

28.2 

18.3 

20.5 

22.3 

: 

16.8 

20.0 

24.0 

15.3 

38.7 

12.3 

21.6 

15.5 

18.4 

44.7 

17.8 

20.4 

7.5 

20.3 

14.6 

20.5 

: 

Girls 

16.8 

18.2 

34.0 

16.5 

17.9 

14.5 

8.1 

14.3 

22.4 

18.2 

18.0 

18.9 

: 

12.6 

14.0 

23.4 

12.9 

26.3 

14.0 

20.3 

10.8 

14.7 

38.2 

11.6 

18.2 

4.5 

17.9 

15.5 

16.3 

: 

19.4 

51.1 

24.8 

16.0 

20.0 

13.6 

12.1 

27.7 

25.7 

21.7 

26.4 

: 

21.2 

25.7 

22.9 

19.4 

: 

15.1 

21.5 

16.2 

24.9 

53.5 

16.5 

27.8 

4.8 

15.3 

19.0 

21.5 

: 

20.5 

16.8 

23.8 

9.9 

16.8 

17.0 

17.9 

16.1 

20.6 

17.9 

19.3 

16.6 

: 

: 

32.2 

14.3 

22.4 

: 

: 

24.5 

15.6 

14.9 

: 

: 

33.4 

21.2 

21.4 

: 

: 

15.0 

9.4 

8.4 

: 

: 

52.1 

13.2 

22.2 

: 

: 

: 

: 

42.1 

40.4 

9.5 

7.7 

18.2 

18.0 

: 

: 

44.1 

11.5 

18.3 

: 

: 

46.6 

12.9 

21.1 

: 

: 

30.0 

11.3 

15.8 

: 

: 

33.3 

9.2 

16.9 

: 

: 

26.5 

13.7 

14.5 

Belgium  

Bulgaria  

Czech Republic 

Denmark  

Germany  

Estonia  

Ireland  

Greece  

Spain  

France  

Italy  

Cyprus 

Latvia  

Lithuania  

Luxembourg  

Hungary  

Malta  

Netherlands  

Austria  

Poland  

Portugal  

Romania  

Slovenia  

Slovakia  

Finland  

Sweden  

United Kingdom 

Croatia  

Montenegro 

Iceland 

MK*  

Serbia 

Turkey  

Liechtenstein  

Norway  

Source: OECD (PISA 2006 & PISA 2009) and ACER (2011). Notes: ":" = data not available *MK: The former Yugoslav Republic 
of Macedonia; see Annex 2.1. 

30 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
To bring down the share of students with such a low performance, in May 2009 the Council set a 
new  benchmark  for  low  performance  in  basic  skills.  The  aim  is  to  reduce  the  proportion  of  low 
achievers in the areas of reading, maths and science to less than 15% by 202055. This benchmark 
helps to assess the progress of Member States in improving educational outcomes, and is a pointer 
for structural problems within their education systems.  

Longer-term objectives might require more ambition. According to the final report from the EU high 
level  group  of  experts  on  literacy56,  we  should  prepare  all  children  to  be  able  to  read  and  use 
information in multiple formats and from multiple sources, thereby providing a basis for developing 
21st-century  competences  in  an  information  society.  A  basic  level  of  reading,  but  also  maths  and 
science skills, is a precondition for personal fulfilment and development.  

Still, the percentage of low achievers varies widely across the Member States (table 6.1). Finland, 
Estonia  and  the  Netherlands  are  consistently  good  performers,  whereas  Romania,  Bulgaria  and 
Malta57 are far behind the EU average. While there was quick progress in science, improvement has 
been the slowest in mathematics. This means the 2009 EU average share of low achievers has to 
decrease  by  a  third  to  reach  the  2020  benchmark.  Comparatively,  the  2009  EU  average  of  low 
achievers in science has to decrease a further 15.3%. 

Taking  into  account  all  three  basic  skills,  candidate  country  Turkey  has  shown  the  strongest 
improvement  between  2006  and  2009,  followed  by  Romania,  Portugal,  Bulgaria  and  Italy.  At  the 
other  extreme,  a  number  of  countries  have  deteriorated  in  their  performance,  most  notably 
Ireland,  Slovenia  and  Sweden.  As  such,  the  performance  gap  between  EU  countries  narrowed  by 
2009, with low performing countries catching up and some well-performing countries falling back. 

A large gender gap in reading performance remains and has even widened since 2006. The share 
of  low  achieving  boys  (25.9%)  is  about  twice  the  share  of  low  achieving  girls  (13.3%).  In  Latvia 
and  Lithuania  the  share  of  low  performing  boys  is  three  times  the  share  for  girls,  while  in  the 
leading performer, Finland, the rate for girls is exceptionally low at 3.2% but four times higher for 
boys.  Across  the  EU  as  a  whole,  girls  already  meet  the  15%  benchmark  for  reading  skills;  the 
challenge is improving performance among boys to a similar rate.  

Figure 6.1. Percentage of low achievers in reading, by country of birth 

55  

56  
57  

This benchmark derives from the PISA survey, which distinguished between various levels of performance. Pupils who 
fail to reach level 2 are considered to be inadequately prepared for the challenges of the knowledge society and for 
lifelong  learning.  The  benchmark  accordingly  measures  the  share  of  pupils  with  reading,  maths  and  science 
proficiency at level one or below. 
EU High Level Group of Experts on Literacy: Final Report (http://ec.europa.eu/education/focus/literacy_en.htm). 
Although  not  included  in  the  original  PISA  2009,  Malta  was  covered  by  the  PISA  2009+  study  published  by  the 
Australian Council for Educational Research (ACER) in December 2011. It is not included in the weighted EU average. 

31 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
Source:  OECD  (PISA  2009).  Countries  ordered  by  the  performance  of  native-born  students.  "%  2nd"  and  "%  1st"  refer  to  the 
overall percentage of second-generation and first-generation migrant students respectively. 

Gender gaps for maths and science are considerably smaller than for reading. Across the EU, boys 
slightly  outperform  girls  in  maths,  and  girls  slightly  outperform  boys  in  science.  However,  both 
PISA (2003)58 and TIMSS (2007)59 data show that girls had lower self-confidence in their abilities 
in mathematics as well as more feelings of stress and anxiety in maths classes than boys. 

In  almost  all  Member  States,  the  reading  levels  of  foreign-born  students  lag  far  behind  those  for 
native-born  students,  even  when  taking  socio-economic  status  into  account60.  Second  generation 
students – being born in the host country – generally perform better than first generation students 
(see figure 6.1). Different migrant patterns and immigration policies are, of course, of influence at 
the country level. 

At  the  individual  level,  both  the  age  at  arrival  in  the  host  country  (for  first  generation  migrant 
students)  and  the  language  spoken  at  home  have  strong  effects  on  the  reading  performance  of 
students  with  a  migrant  background.  At  the  systemic  level,  more  inclusive  systems  alongside  a 
range  of  support  measures  going  beyond  linguistic  support  can  help  foreign-born  students  and 
their parents narrow the gap in achievement

61. 

6.2.  Language skills 

The  Barcelona  European  Council  of  2002  set  the  objective  for  "teaching  at  least  two  foreign 
languages from a very early age"62. More recently, the ability “to enable citizens to communicate in 
two languages in addition to their mother tongue, promote language teaching, where relevant, in 
VET and for adult learners” has been established as a priority area in the strategic framework for 
European cooperation in education and training, ET 202063. At present, it is obligatory to learn at 
least  one  foreign  language  in  compulsory  education  in  the  majority  of  Member  States  (except 
Ireland and Scotland); a second foreign language is optional in nearly all of them64. 

Figure 6.2. Percentage of pupils learning at least two foreign languages in EU, 2000-2010 

58  
59  

60  

61  
62  
63  
64  

OECD, 2004. Learning for Tomorrow's World – First Results from PISA 2003. Paris: OECD. 
Mullis, I.V.S., Martin, M.O. &Foy, P., 2008. TIMSS 2007 International Mathematics Report: Findings from IEA’s Trends 
in International Mathematics and Science Study at the Fourth and Eighth Grades. Chestnut Hill, MA: Boston College, 
TIMSS and PIRLS International Study Center. 
OECD 
(2012),  Untapped  Skills:  Realising 
(http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264172470-en). 
European Commission (forthcoming) Study on educational support for newly arrived migrant children.  
Presidency conclusions, Barcelona European Council 2002. 
OJ (2009/C 119/02). 
For  more  information  on  how  foreign  language  teaching  is  arranged,  see  EACEA/Eurydice,  Key  Data  on  Teaching 
Languages at School in Europe, 2012 Edition. Brussels: Eurydice. 

Immigrant  Students,  OECD  Publishing 

the  Potential  of 

32 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
Source: Eurostat (UOE). 

The  following  analysis  takes  stock  of  the  current  state  of  play  and  supports  the  initiative  to 
establish a new European benchmark on language competences, highlighted in the Communication 
on  Rethinking  Education  and  outlined  in  detail  in  the  Staff  Working  Document  on  boosting  and 
targeting language competences.  

At the level of primary education (ISCED 1), the teaching of languages has become more common 
since 2000. Across the EU, the average number of foreign languages learned by primary pupils has 
increased from 0.5 in 2000 to 0.8 in 201065. 

In  2010,  more  than  half of  pupils  across  the  EU enrolled  in  lower  secondary  education (ISCED  2) 
and  general  upper  secondary  education  (ISCED  3  general)  were  learning  at  least  two  foreign 
languages;  60.8%  and  59.6%  respectively.  Figure  6.2  shows  a  trend  between  2000  and  2010: 
whereas the percentage of general upper secondary pupils in the EU learning at least two foreign 
languages has stagnated and even decreased, the share of lower secondary pupils learning at least 
two foreign languages has been steadily increasing. 

Figure 6.3. Average number of languages learned per pupil in general upper secondary education 
(2010) 

Source: Eurostat (UOE). 

65  

Learning more than one language was in 2010 common practice at primary level in Luxembourg (1.8 on average), 
followed by Spain (1.1 on average) (see Table 6.A. in annex). 

33 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
At the level of lower secondary education, in 2010 pupils learned on  average at least two foreign 
languages in Luxembourg (2.5), Finland (2.2), Netherlands (2.1), Italy (2.0), and Cyprus (2.0). At 
the other end of the scale, pupils in Ireland, Hungary and the United Kingdom studied the lowest 
number of languages (1.0 in each of the 3 countries)66. 

Figure 6.3 illustrates the situation for general upper secondary education. Here, at least two foreign 
languages  are  learnt  by  pupils  in  Luxembourg  (3.0),  Finland  (2.7),  Belgium  (2.2),  Sweden  (2.2), 
Czech  Republic  (2.1),  France,  Romania,  Slovenia  and  Slovakia  (all  2.0).  The  lowest  number  of 
foreign languages at this level is learnt in the United Kingdom and Portugal (both 0.5). 

In  pre-vocational  and  vocational  upper  secondary  education,  the  overall  percentage  of  foreign 
languages  learned  per  pupil  is  considerably  lower  than  in  general  upper  secondary  education. 
Nevertheless, the share of pupils learning at least two languages has doubled over the last decade. 
Pupils  enrolled  in  vocational  education  learn  on  average  two  foreign  languages  in  Luxembourg 
(2.0), followed by Romania (1.8), Poland (1.6), Belgium/Flemish community (1.6), Slovakia (1.5), 
Bulgaria (1.4), and Italy (1.4).67 

English  is  by  far  the  most  widely  taught  foreign  language  in  the  EU  at  ISCED  level  2.  The 
proportion of pupils who learn English as a foreign language at this level increased from 74.3% in 
2000 to 93.7% in 2010. However, during the decade 2000-2010, more and more pupils have also 
been  learning  French,  German  and  Spanish.  Especially  the  teaching  of  Spanish  as  a  foreign 
language has seen a steady increase during the period.68 

Outcomes of foreign language learning 

The  Barcelona  Council  set  not  only  the  objective  to  teach  the  mother  tongue  plus  two  foreign 
languages, but also called for the establishment of a linguistic competence indicator. This decision 
arose  from  the  need  of  having  a  more  complete  picture  of  the  language  competences  in  Europe, 
and of the progress made towards the objective of teaching at least two foreign languages from a 
very early age. 

Figure 6.4. First foreign language: Percentage of tested pupils achieving each level (2011) 

66 
67  
68  

See Table 6.A. in annex. 
See Table 6.A. in annex. 
See Figure 6.A. in annex. 

34 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
Source: First European Survey on Language Competences: Final Report. Average of listening, reading and writing.   
In  order  to  collect  accurate  and  up-to-date  data  on  the  outcomes  of  foreign  language  teaching 
systems,  in  2008  the  Commission  launched  a  European  Survey  on  Language  Competences 
(ESLC)69. The ESLC, the first survey of its kind, was designed according to international education 
survey standards used by PISA, PIRLS and TIMSS. 

In  the  spring  of  2011,  fourteen  European  countries  took  part  in  the  survey:  Belgium,  Bulgaria, 
Croatia,  Estonia,  France,  Greece,  Malta,  Netherlands,  Poland,  Portugal,  Slovenia,  Spain,  Sweden 
and the UK (England). Belgium’s three linguistic communities participated separately, adding up to 
a total of 16 education and training systems. 

The survey provides comparable data on foreign language competences of almost 54,000 pupils at 
the end of lower secondary education70. In each of the 16 educational systems pupils were tested 
in  two  foreign  languages,  chosen  from  the  five  most  widely  taught  EU  official languages:  English, 
French, German, Italian and Spanish. The choice of test languages was made by the participating 
countries  or  linguistic  communities.  The  language  tests  covered  three  language  competences: 
listening, reading and writing. The results of the survey are reported according to the levels of the 
Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR). 

In  addition  to  the  assessment  of  language  competences,  contextual  information  was  collected 
through  questionnaires  filled  in  by  the  tested  pupils,  and  their  foreign  language  teachers  and 
principals.  Furthermore,  system-wide  information  was  collected  through  National  Research 
Coordinators. 

The  results  of  the  language  assessment  show  that  the  tested  pupils  are  quite  far  from  achieving 
the objective of having benefited from being taught two foreign languages. One of the key findings 
from the survey is an overall low level of competences in both first and second foreign languages 
tested:  a  level  of  independent  user  is  achieved  by  only  42%  of  tested  pupils  in  the  1st  foreign 
language (figure 6.4) and by only 25% in the 2nd foreign language (figure 6.5). Moreover, a large 
number of tested pupils did not even achieve the level of a basic user: 14% for the 1st and 20% 
for the 2nd foreign language. 

Figure 6.5. Second foreign language: Percentage of tested pupils achieving each level (2011) 

69  

70  

information  about 

Complete 
http://ec.europa.eu/languages/eslc/index.html   
Exceptions to test at ISCED 3 were accorded to: Belgium NL (second foreign language), Belgium FR (both languages), 
Belgium DE (second foreign language), Bulgaria (both languages) and England (both languages). 

reports,  can  be 

the  ESLC, 

final  and 

including 

technical 

the 

found  at:  

35 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
Source: First European Survey on Language Competences: Final Report. Average of listening, reading and writing.    
Another finding provided by the ESLC is a strong variation of ability across countries in Europe. For 
the  first  foreign  language,  the  proportion  of  pupils  reaching  the  level  of  independent  user  varies 
from  82%  in  Malta  and  Sweden  (English)  to  only  14%  in  France  (English)  and  9%  in  England 
(French).  For  the  second  foreign  language,  the  level  of  independent  user  is  reached  by  4%  in 
Sweden (Spanish) and 6% in Poland (German) compared to 48% in the Netherlands (German). In 
the Flemish and German Communities of Belgium, the only two education systems in which English 
was  tested  as  the  second  foreign  language,  scores  are  even  higher,  with  80%  and  58%  of  pupils 
reaching the level of independent user.    

The  ESLC  confirms  that  English  is  the  most  widely  adopted  first  foreign  language  learned  by 
European pupils. As figure 6.6 shows, English is also the language in which pupils reach the highest 
level. Moreover, English is perceived as the most useful and, for the majority of tested pupils, the 
easiest to learn. 

Figure 6.6. Global scores for all tested pupils by language (2011) 

Source: First European Survey on Language Competences: Final Report.   

Regarding  the  factors  directly  linked  to  formal  language  learning  in  schools,  the  ESLC  results 
demonstrate  positive  effects  on  achievement  when  the  foreign  language  is  actively  used  by  both 

36 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
teachers and pupils during language lessons; when foreign language teaching begins at an earlier 
stage  and  in  more  languages;  and  when  pupils  use  the  foreign  language  for  meaningful 
communication  in  the  classroom  and  outside.  Furthermore,  pupil  achievement  is  positively 
influenced  by  being  able  to  speak  foreign  languages  with  parents,  by  usage  at  home  to  engage 
with  traditional  and  new  media,  by  believing  it  to  be  useful  and,  finally,  by  feeling  capable  of 
successfully learning it. 

As a next step, the Council has invited the Commission to submit, by the end of 2012, a proposal 
for  a  possible  benchmark  in  the  area  of  languages  based  on  the  results  from  the  first  European 
Survey on Language Competences. 

6.3. 

ICT skills 

Exploiting  the  potential  of  ICT  is  a  key  issue  addressed  in  the  Communication  on  Rethinking 
Education (in particular, chapter 2.2), and the enhancement of digital competence was one of the 
main pillars of the Digital Agenda for Europe71, one of the Europe 2020 flagship initiatives. In the 
Digital Agenda for Europe, lack of ICT skills is identified as one of the key obstacles to harnessing 
the potential of ICT. 
The priorities for the second cycle of ET 2020, set out in the annex to the 2012 Joint Report of the 
Council  and  the  Commission72,  also  includes  working  "[…]  together  to  promote  the  acquisition  of 
the  key  competences  identified  in  the  2006  Recommendation  on  key  competences  for  lifelong 
learning, including on the learning of digital competences […]". 

Awaiting  direct  assessments  of  ICT  skills73  we  currently  have  to  base  our  cross-country 
comparisons on self-declared ICT skills. Eurostat provides biannual data on self-declared computer 
skills74 of 16-74 year-olds in Europe through their Community survey on ICT usage in households 
and by individuals.  

Figure 6.7. Percentage of individuals with low, medium and high computer skills, 2011 

71  
72  
73  

74  

COM(2010) 245 final. 
OJ (2012/C 70/05). 
In 2013 IEA will carry out their International Computer and Information Literacy Study (ICILS), directly assessing the 
computer and information literacy of 8th grade students across countries, including 9 EU countries. 
Computer skills are defined as having ever performed at least one of the following activities: Copying or moving a file 
or folder; using copying and paste tools to duplicate or move information within a document; using basic arithmetic 
formulas in a spreadsheet; compressing (or zipping files); connecting and installing new devices; writing a computer 
programme using a specialized programming language. Low computer skills refers to having done one or two of these 
computer-related activities, medium skills refers to having done three or four of these activities, and high skills five or 
all of them.  

37 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
Source:  Eurostat,  Information  Society  Statistics.  Note:  Individuals  aged  16  to  74  years.  For  details  about  different  types  of 
computer activities, see http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/cache/ITY_PUBLIC/4-26032012-AP/EN/4-26032012-AP-EN.PDF. 

There are large differences across countries. In Romania and Bulgaria only around 4 out of 10 have 
some computer skills, and only around 1 out of 10 has high computer skills. This contrasts with the 
situation  in  Austria,  Luxembourg  and  the  Nordic  countries  where  around  4  out  of  10  have  higher 
computer  skills.  On  average  in  EU  27,  66%  have  some  computer  skills,  14%  low  skills,  25% 
medium skills and 27% high skills. This is an increase in computer skills since 2006 when 57% had 
some computer skills, 13% low skills, 23% medium skills and 21% high skills. 

There is a clear generational and educational divide in computer skills. 45% in the age group 16-24 
has  high  computer  skills  compared  with  31%  and  10%  in  the  age  groups  25-54  and  55-74 
respectively.  Computer  skills  are  positively  correlated  with  educational  attainment  in  all  the  age 
groups,  with  the  difference  in  skills  between  lowest  and  highest  education  attainment  level  most 
pronounced  in  the  25-54  age  group.  These  gaps  show  that  action  to  increase  ICT  skill  levels  is 
needed,  and  education  and  training  systems  can  contribute  to  this  by  embedding  ICT  and  OER 
(open educational resources). 

Teachers and school heads express a positive attitude about the wider learning potential of ICT and 
its essential role in teaching and learning for pupils in the 21st century and infrastructure barriers to 
the use of ICT in education have been reduced over the last 5 years. Still, data from 201175 reveal 
that although online resources and networks are now widely available in Europe and the majority of 
teachers  are  now  familiar  with  ICT  at  school,  they  still  use  it  first  and  foremost  to  prepare  their 
teaching, while digital resources of all types are still far too rarely used during lessons. Moreover, 
teacher participation in training on how to use ICT for teaching and learning is rarely compulsory. 
This  and  other  findings  suggest  that  there  should  be  a  strong  focus  on  measures,  particularly 
training,  to  support  and  develop  teachers’  ICT  competence  and  ICT  use  in  the  classroom. 
Moreover, central regulations in most European countries lay down requirements for strengthening 
teachers' ICT skills for teaching throughout their basic education and further training76.  

75  

76  

Report for the European Commission "Survey of Schools: ICT in Education. Benchmarking Access, Use and Attitudes 
to  Technology  in  Europe's  Schools",  European  Schoolnet  and  University  of  Liège  (expected  to  be  published  in  fall 
2012).  
Innovation 
Eurydice 
(http://eacea.ec.europa.eu/education/eurydice/key_data_en.php). 

(2011)  Key  Data  on  Learning  and 

in  Europe  2011 

ICT  at  School 

through 

38 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
6.4.  Entrepreneurial skills  

According  to  the  Key  Competence  Framework  put  forth  in  200677,  the  entrepreneurship  key 
competence  refers  to  an  individual’s  ability  to  turn  ideas  into  action.  It  includes  creativity, 
innovation  and  risk  taking,  as  well  as  the  ability to  plan  and  manage  projects  in  order  to  achieve 
objectives.  The  overall  goal  of  entrepreneurship  education  is  to  give  students  the  attitudes, 
knowledge and skills to act in an entrepreneurial way, for either a commercial or non-commercial 
objective. 

The  fourth  long  term  objective  of  ET  2020  is  to  enhance  creativity  and  innovation,  including 
entrepreneurship,  at  all  levels  of  education  and  training.  The  importance  of  entrepreneurship 
education  is  also  visible  in  the  Europe  2020  Strategy  where  the  need  to  embed  creativity, 
innovation and entrepreneurship into the education systems is highlighted in three flagships: Youth 
on the Move, An Agenda for New Skills and Jobs, and Innovation Union. 

Results from a 2011  survey on entrepreneurship education show that 23 EU Member States have 
current  strategies  or  on-going  initiatives  addressing  the  implementation  of  entrepreneurship 
education  into  general  education  at  primary  and/or  secondary  level78.  Specific  strategies/action 
plans  focused  exclusively  on  the  integration  of  entrepreneurship  education  are  found  in  Sweden, 
Denmark,  the  Netherlands,  the  UK  (Wales),  Estonia  and  Lithuania.  The  survey  also  looks  at 
whether  entrepreneurship  education  is  explicitly  recognised  in  central  level  educational  steering 
documents79. Such recognition is found in two thirds of the EU27 countries at primary level and at 
upper  secondary  level  all  Member  States  integrate  entrepreneurship  into  the  curriculum  in  some 
form.  

At secondary level most countries have defined learning outcomes for entrepreneurship education, 
in  many  countries  covering  all  three  dimensions:  attitudes,  knowledge  and  skills.  No  country  has 
learning outcomes linked only to entrepreneurial skills.  

There  is  currently  a  lack  of  international  data  providing  comparable  measurements  of 
entrepreneurship as a key competence. Most available data apply to a narrower understanding of 
entrepreneurship,  i.e.  linked  to  business  start-ups,  and  do  not  allow  conclusions  on  the  role  of 
entrepreneurship education for such start-ups80. 

Figure 6.8. Percentage of individuals aged 18 to 64 who believe to have the required skills and 
knowledge to start a business, 2011    

77  
78  

79  
80  

OJ (2006/962/EC). 
Eurydice  (2012),  Entrepreneurship  Education  at  School  in  Europe:  National  Strategies,  Curricula  and  Learning 
Outcomes (http://eacea.ec.europa.eu/education/eurydice/thematic_reports_en.php). 
Official documents containing curricula, guidelines obligations and/or recommendations. 
For  a  useful  overview  of  indicators  and  data  sources  for  entrepreneurship  education  in  10  Member  States  see 
http://ec.europa.eu/education/more-information/doc/2011/entrepreneurship_en.pdf. 

39 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
                                                            
Source: Global Entrepreneurship Monitor 2011 Note: Italian result is from 2010. 

The  Global  Entrepreneurship  Monitor  provides  annual  data  on  adults'  attitudes/perceptions  of 
entrepreneurship. Results show that in only 4 of the 20 EU Member States covered by the monitor 
in  2011,  did  more  than  half  of  the  adult  population  believe  to  have  the  required  skills  and 
knowledge to start a business. All the Nordic countries are found at the lower end of the spectrum, 
with  less  than  41%  expressing  perceived  capabilities  to  start  a  business.  Earlier  results  have 
suggested that early-stage entrepreneurial activity is associated, at least to some degree, with past 
training in starting a business81.  

6.5.  Civic skills  

The  Key  Competences  Framework  from  2006  includes  social  and  civic  competences82.  Civic 
competence, and particularly knowledge of social and political concepts and structures (democracy, 
justice, equality, citizenship and civil rights), equips individuals to engage in active and democratic 
participation.  Thus  civic  competences  contribute  to  the  third  strategic  objective  of  ET  2020  of 
promoting equity, social cohesion and active citizenship. 

In  2009,  22  EU  countries  and  a  total  of  38  education  systems  worldwide  participated  in  the 
International  Civic  and  Citizenship  Education  Study  (ICCS),  administrated  by  the  International 
Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement (IEA)83. 

The analysis of four different dimensions of civic competences (derived from grouping items of the 
ICCS) shows that there is little correlation between cognition/civic knowledge on the one hand and 
attitudes and values on the other. Denmark and Finland perform best as regards civic knowledge of 
pupils,  whereas  Italy  scores  highest  on  citizenship  values  and  participatory  attitudes  (see  table 
6.2). Ireland, Sweden and Spain perform best in the sub-dimension of social justice.  

Furthermore, research shows that there is a diversity in the provision of civic education in Europe 
(civics  as  a  subject  of  its  own  or  integrated  into  other  subject  areas)  and  that  participatory 
structures in the provision of education are as important as the content when it comes to acquiring 
civic competences.  

Table 6.2. Civic competences of 8th grade pupils, 2009 

81  
82  
83  

GEM Special Report on Education and Training (2010) pp.30-31. 
OJ (2006/962/EC). 
See: http://www.iea.nl/iccs_2009.html. 

40 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
                                                            
Dimensions of civic competences 

Citizenship education 

Civic 
knowledge 

EU  average 
Belgium  
Bulgaria  
Czech Republic 
Denmark  
Germany  
Estonia  
Ireland  
Greece  
Spain  
France  
Italy  
Cyprus 
Latvia  
Lithuania  
Luxembourg  
Hungary  
Malta  
Netherlands  
Austria  
Poland  
Portugal  
Romania  
Slovenia  
Slovakia  
Finland  
Sweden  
UK  
Croatia  
Iceland 
Turkey  
Liechtenstein  
Norway  

511 
514 
466 
510 
576 
: 
525 
534 
476 
505 
: 
531 
453 
482 
505 
473 
: 
490 
(494) 
503 
536 
: 
: 
516 
529 
576 
537 
519 
: 
: 
: 
531 
515 

s
e
u
a
v

l

i

p
h
s
n
e
z
i
t
i
C

583 
542 
629 
544 
532 
: 
565 
610 
633 
621 
: 
656 
651 
597 
599 
567 
: 
598 
534 
565 
600 
: 
: 
565 
555 
534 
556 
569 
: 
: 
: 
546 
629 

e
c
i
t
s
u
j

l

a
i
c
o
S

662 
647 
652 
624 
681 
: 
653 
703 
689 
709 
: 
673 
652 
619 
650 
678 
: 
662 
620 
652 
661 
: 
: 
672 
635 
667 
706 
655 
: 
: 
: 
660 
706 

s
e
d
u
t
i
t
t
a

y
r
o
t
a
p
i
c
i
t
r
a
P

495 
435 
506 
436 
491 
: 
487 
525 
541 
506 
: 
544 
517 
525 
532 
486 
: 
495 
450 
524 
498 
: 
: 
485 
478 
457 
482 
498 
: 
: 
: 
497 
501 

s
n
o
i
t
u
t
i
t
s
n

i

c
i
t
a
r
c
o
m
e
d

t
u
o
b
a

l

e
g
d
e
w
o
n
K

546 
546 
504 
540 
624 
: 
560 
578 
505 
538 
: 
568 
477 
510 
521 
515 
: 
527 
522 
536 
575 
: 
: 
548 
560 
622 
575 
554 
: 
: 
: 
568 
557 

Average minimum taught time 
devoted to citizenship 
education as a separate subject 
during a notional year 

y
r
a
m

i
r
P

y
r
a
d
n
o
c
e
s

r
e
w
o
L

4.4 

8.8 
8.3 
30.0 

17.5 
23.0 
15.0 
17.5 
28.0 

y
r
a
d
n
o
c
e
s

r
e
p
p
U

11.6 

17.5 

15.0 
35.0 
16.0 

4.0 

8.0 

27.0 
15.0 

21.1 

18.6 

6.2 

12.6 

16.0 

15.0 
16.3 
27.0 
10.0 
17.5 
24.8 

16.0 

22.3 

Source:  IEA  ICCS  2009  survey,  JRC-CRELL,  Eurydice.  Note:  ICCS  results  for  Belgium  refer  to  Flemish  Community,  for  UK  to 
England. 

41 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
7.  Student mobility in vocational training and Higher Education  

Facilitating free movement of persons is at the heart of the European Union policies and enabling 
students  to  study  or  train  in  another  country  is  encouragement  for  youth  to look for  employment 
opportunities outside their home country later in life. The European Commission strongly supports 
student mobility and has proposed significantly increased funding opportunities in this area for the 
period 2014 to 2020. 

7.1.  Promoting learning mobility of young people 

Mobility broadens personal and intellectual horizons and can also stimulate quality of education by 
inspiring  new  ways  of  teaching  and  learning.  It  is,  therefore  also  a  vital  tool  for  modernising  our 
educational institutions at all levels across the whole of Europe. The European Commission runs a 
number  of  mobility  programmes  under  the  Lifelong  Learning  Programme,  such  as  Erasmus  for 
higher  education,  Leonardo  da  Vinci  for  vocational  education  and  training,  Comenius  for  school 
education and Grundtvig for adult education. The European Commission proposal for the successor 
programme,  Erasmus  for  All,  proposes  a  sharp  budget  increase  of  more  than  70%  in  the  next 
multi-annual budgetary period 2014-2020.  

On  29  November  2011,  the  European  Council  adopted  conclusions84  which  stipulate  two 
benchmarks  and  an  indicator  on  respectively  higher  education,  initial  vocational  training  and 
general  youth  mobility.  The  benchmarks  set  concrete  targets  to  be  achieved  by  2020.  Many  EU 
Member States have followed up on the Europe-wide targets by setting their own national targets 
as well. 

Student  mobility  has  two  driving  forces:  firstly  the  desire  to  go  abroad  and  study  or  train  in 
another country and secondly, the attractiveness of national education systems.  

The  currently  available  statistics  on  learning  mobility  only  give  a  fragmented  picture  of  mobility 
flows; for the number of students enrolled abroad and graduating abroad (degree mobility) and for 
those  who  have  had  a  period  of  study  or  training  abroad  (credit  mobility).  Work  is  currently 
underway  between  the  European  Commission  (Eurostat)  and  the  Member  States  to  adapt  current 
methodology for collecting data in order to meet the benchmark requests. 

7.2.  Mobility in vocational education and training 

The benchmark for learning mobility in initial vocational training (IVET), defined as the vocational 
orientation within upper secondary education, apprenticeships included, stipulates that by 2020 'an 
EU  average  of  at  least  6  %  of  18-34  year  olds  with  an  initial  vocational  education  and  training 
qualification  should  have  had  an  initial  VET-related  study  or  training  period  (including  work 
placements)  abroad  lasting  a  minimum  of  two  weeks.'  No  national  targets  are  defined  and  the 
European average could in principle be calculated by selecting a European representative sample. 

Very  little  evidence  exists  concerning  the  actual  magnitude  of  IVET  mobility  within  the  European 
Union and its Member States. The benchmark was defined on the basis of the Flash Eurobarometer 
survey  "Youth  on  the  move"  (2011)  and  first  evidence  from  selected  countries  as  Germany  and 
Finland. Eurostat is presently undertaking efforts for measuring the benchmark via a sample survey 
with the aim of providing feedback on the benchmark by end of 2015. 

The Leonardo da Vinci programme covering IVET mobility provides some indication of the level and 
development  of  IVET  mobility  flows.  This  data  shows  in  general  low  participation  rates  in  this 
programme  with  2%  out  of  total  IVET  upper  secondary  enrolments.  The  percentages  are  slightly 
higher for some smaller EU member States (see figure 7.1). In total this gives an EU level of IVET 
mobility of only 0.7% only for the Leonardo da Vinci programme in 2010, up from 0.5% in 2005.  

84  

OJ 2011/C 372/08. 

42 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
These enrolment figures should be interpreted with care. The benchmark concerns graduates from 
IVET  and  it  is  likely  that  the  level  would  be  higher  given  that  IVET  studies  last  more  years.  The 
figures here do not include bilateral national programmes or free movers (mobility organised by the 
student  himself).  A  recent  study  on  mobility  developments  in  school  education,  vocational 
education  and  training,  adult  education  and  youth  exchanges  commissioned  by  the  European 
Commission,  shows  that  the  number  of  participants  in  schemes  financed  from  other  sources  than 
the EU action programmes amount to nearly the double the total of these. 

Figure 7.1. Percentage of students participating in Leonardo da Vinci programs out of total number 
of students in vocational training* at upper secondary level vocational orientation, 2005 and 2010 

Sources:  DG  EAC  estimates  based  on  Eurostat  and  DG  EAC  data  sources.  Leonardo  da  Vinci  programme,  European 
Commission:  http://ec.europa.eu/education/leonardo-da-vinci/statistics_en.htm.  Eurostat  (UOE  collection)  *  The  number  of 
students  participating  in  a  Leonardo  da  Vinci  project  (selection  database)  as  a  percentage  of  students  enrolled  in  initial 
vocational training programmes (ISCED 3 upper secondary vocational orientation.) ** UK: 2006 (break in series from 2005 to 
2006). 

The available evidence shows that the present European average is far from the 2020 benchmark 
target. However, these figures do not cover all IVET mobility within the European Union. Multi- or 
bilateral specific national programmes may add significantly to these figures in the future. 

7.3.  Mobility in higher education 

The  modernisation  agenda  of  Europe's  higher  education  systems85  underlines  the  importance  of 
international mobility of students in helping educational institutions connect across the globe and in 
enhancing the quality of study programmes.  

The  2020  benchmark  within  higher  education  is  along  the  lines  of  the  mobility  target  set  by  the 
Bologna  ministers  in  Louvain/Leuven  in  2009.  It  stipulates  that  by  2020  “at  least  20%  of  higher 
education  graduates  should  have  had  a  period  of  higher  education-related  study  or  training 
(including  work  placements)  abroad,  representing  a  minimum  of  15  ECTS  credits  or  lasting  a 
minimum of three months.” 

The  benchmark  is  defined  in  terms  of  graduates,  e.g.  either  students  successfully  completing  a 
degree abroad or students who graduate in their country of origin and have spent a period abroad 
for study or training purposes.  

Data  presently  available  regarding  students  going  abroad  for  study  purposes  generally  show  low 
levels  of  mobility  (see  table  7.1).  In  fact,  mobile  students  enrolled  within  the  EU,  EEA  and 
candidate  countries'  area  show  an  EU  average  of  2.4%  for  tertiary  education  for  degree  mobility 
and  1.2%  for  credit  mobility.  This  said,  there  are  important  differences  between  countries  which 

85  

SEC(2011)1063 final. 

43 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
firstly  depend  on  the  structure  of  tertiary  education  (most  students  at  that  level  in  Cyprus, 
Luxembourg  and  Lichtenstein  would  need  to  go  abroad  to  study  at  tertiary  level  because  of  the 
limited offer of study programmes in their home country). Secondly, a large number of mainly big 
EU countries have low outbound mobility levels (as ES, FR, IT, PL and the UK, - but also DK, NL, 
HU and SI). 

Table 7.1 does not refer to the benchmark measure as it concerns enrolments and not graduates. 
Graduate data are not yet available for many countries and it is not possible to indicate the level at 
which the benchmark currently lies. 

Table 7.1. Percentage of students enrolled in another EU member state, EEA or candidate country, 
2010 

Degree mobility 

Total 
tertiary 
education 

Absolute 

Bachelor 
and 
master 
level 

Doctorate 
level 

Total 
tertiary 
education 

% 

Bachelor 
and 
master 
level 

Credit mobility 

Absolute 

% 

Doctorate 
level 

Bachelor and master 
level 

2.3 
4.2 
7.2 
2.6 
1.7 
3.4 
5.9 
9.9 
5.6 
1.0 
1.7 
1.3 
54.8 
3.5 
4.5 
68.5 
1.8 
8.2 
1.2 
3.8 
1.1 
1.9 
1.9 
2.2 
11.5 
2.0 
2.5 
0.5 
10.8 
49.4 
4.3 
5.0 
4.2 
6.3 
0.8 

EU27 
BE 
BG 
CZ* 
DK 
DE 
EE 
IE 
GR* 
ES 
FR* 
IT* 
CY 
LV* 
LT 
LU 
HU 
MT* 
NL 
AT 
PL 
PT 
RO 
SI 
SK 
FI 
SE 
UK 
IS 
LI* 
NO 
CH 
HR 
MK* 
TR* 

31 325 
515 
463 
551 
255 
6,921 
210 
1,157 
2,424 
1,203 
1,491 
4,430 
662 
112 
212 
147 
500 
218 
746 
438 
1,816 
2,074 
1,469 
162 
1,678 
259 
596 
620 
144 
14 
255 
521 
317 
188 
1,164 

434 919 
9,425 
20,423 
10,125 
3,637 
77,948 
3,080 
17,963 
25,796 
17,500 
31,750 
30,128 
26,124 
3,740 
7,230 
6,412 
6,827 
1,152 
9,418 
9,679 
26,767 
10,081 
21,758 
2,100 
29,851 
5,953 
10,662 
9,391 
2,257 
205 
10,094 
8,827 
5,052 
4,284 
22,137 

371 664 
8,304 
19,026 
9,258 
3,210 
67,289 
2,681 
14,479 
22,841 
14,763 
24,184 
24,016 
20,858 
3,247 
6,468 
5,832 
6,005 
858 
7,524 
9,109 
23,507 
7,008 
18,588 
1,852 
27,725 
5,430 
9,681 
7,924 
2,004 
178 
9,627 
7,811 
4,383 
3,939 
19,994 

2.4 
2.6 
6.9 
2.5 
1.6 
3.9 
4.3 
9.1 
4.2 
1.0 
1.6 
1.6 
54.4 
3.3 
3.5 
67.1 
1.8 
9.7 
1.5 
3.3 
1.2 
2.6 
2.2 
1.8 
11.6 
2.0 
2.5 
0.4 
11.6 
51.2 
4.4 
5.3 
3.3 
6.6 
0.6 
Source:  Eurostat  (UOE  data  collection)  for  degree  mobility  data  (provisional  data).  *Citizenship  instead  of  mobile  students. 
European  Commission,  Erasmus  statistics:  http://ec.europa.eu/education/erasmus/statistics_en.htm:  for  credit  mobility 
statistics. * Degree mobility: a student enrolled in destination country, which is different from the country of origin (e.g. where 
the prior education was taken (upper secondary degree)) **Credit mobility: a student enrolled in country of origin but having 
been  abroad  (country  of  destination)  for  a  study  period  during  the  programme.  Only  EU  Erasmus  programme  covered.  Total 
Tertiary:  ISCED  level  5  and  6.  Bachelor  and  master  level:  ISCED  level  5A  and  doctorate  level:  ISCED  level  6  (ISCED  97). 
Reading note: 3.9% of students (with a upper secondary degree from Germany) are enrolled in tertiary education in another 
EU/EEA or candidate country (in relation to all students enrolled at tertiary education level in Germany. This corresponds to an 
absolute number of 77,948 students. 1.4% of students enrolled in tertiary education in Germany have had a study or training 
period  abroad  participating  in  an  EU  Erasmus  programme.  This  corresponds  to  28,854  students  for  the  academic  year 
2009/2010. 

202 667 
6,347 
1,687 
5,975 
2,416 
28,854 
939 
2,128 
3,179 
31,158 
30,213 
21,039 
216 
1,736 
3,002 
468 
4,140 
189 
7,678 
5,112 
14,021 
5,388 
3,994 
1,368 
2,151 
4,549 
2,997 
11,723 
225 
25 
1,356 
: 
235 
: 
8,758 

: 
5.6 
11.0 
2.3 
3.9 
: 
7.7 
15.7 
: 
1.9 
3.5 
11.3 
58.7 
5.0 
6.8 
67.4 
7.2 
76.0 
8.5 
2.1 
5.0 
11.8 
4.9 
4.9 
14.2 
1.4 
3.8 
1.2 
35.7 
51.9 
3.5 
4.8 
9.5 
42.8 
2.6 

1.2 
3.0 
0.7 
1.6 
1.2 
1.4 
2.1 
1.5 
0.8 
2.0 
1.9 
1.1 
1.1 
1.9 
2.1 
11.6 
1.2 
2.0 
1.2 
1.8 
0.7 
1.5 
0.4 
1.6 
1.0 
1.6 
0.7 
0.6 
1.3 
3.5 
0.6 
: 
0.2 
: 
0.4 

44 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
The  attractiveness  of  a  higher  education  system  can  be  measured  by  the  number  of  international 
students  enrolled  in  study  programmes  at  higher  education  institutions.  The  Bologna  process  and 
the  establishment  of  the  European  Higher  Education  Area  (EHEA)86  was  instrumental  in 
modernising education structures throughout Europe and actively encourages student mobility. 

As  noted,  the  Bologna  Process  has,  like  the  EU,  defined  a  benchmark  learning  mobility  for  higher 
education graduates which aims at the same goal for 2020 and uses, to a large extent, the same 
parameters. In addition, an inbound mobility indicator is also underway with the aim of measuring 
the attractiveness of the EHEA as a study place87. 

Table 7.2. Inbound mobility in the EU27, EEA and candidate countries, enrolment and graduates, 
bachelor and master level in tertiary education, 2005 and 2010 

Degree mobility*, enrolments 

Credit mobility (Erasmus)*, 
enrolments 

2005 

absolute 
978,553 
1,3401 
7,877 
16,352 
3,780 
186,608 
804 
: 
10,730 
9,383 
184,415 
42,026 
290 
1,661 
830 

% 
6.4 
7.6 
3.7 
5.9 
1.9 
9.7 
1.9 
: 
2.7 
0.6 
11.9 
2.1 
6.8 
1.5 
0.6 

2010 

absolute 
1,109,868 
23,004 
9,677 
31,818 
12,986 
181,220 
1,023 
9,696 
17,231 
30,095 
206,436 
66,077 
2,159 
1,628 
2,932 
1,349 

% 
6.7 
10.9 
3.8 
8.4 
6.4 
8.7 
2.3 
6.9 
4.3 
2.0 
12.8 
3.4 
11.2 
1.8 
2.1 
33.4 

2005 

absolute 
151,046 
5,087 
250 
2,613 
4,356 
17,879 
372 
3,870 
1,899 
26,611 
21,420 
14,591 
125 
258 
626 
15 

EU27 
Belgium 
Bulgaria** 
Czech R.*** 
Denmark 
Germany 
Estonia 
Ireland 
Greece 
Spain 
France** 
Italy** 
Cyprus 
Latvia** 
Lithuania 
Luxembourg 

% 
1,0 
2.8 
0.1 
0.9 
2.2 
0.9 
0.9 
3.1 
0.5 
1.8 
1.4 
0.7 
2.9 
0.2 
0.5 
: 

2010 

absolute 
205,528 
7,300 
627 
4,616 
6,186 
22,509 
767 
5,073 
2,983 
35,389 
26,141 
18,137 
452 
526 
1,374 
313 

% 
1,2 
3.5 
0.2 
1.2 
3.1 
1.1 
1.7 
3.7 
0.7 
2.3 
1.6 
0.9 
2.4 
0.6 
1.0 
7.5 

Degree 
mobility*, 
graduates 

2010 

absolute 
222,345 
7,826 
1,725 
6,475 
2,927 
24,490 
185 
2,961 
: 
4,371 
: 
5,133 
199 
260 
392 
264 

% 
: 
13.4 
3.3 
7.1 
6.5 
7.5 
2.5 
6.7 
: 
1.8 
: 
2.4 
7.3 
1.2 
1.2 
33.2 

4.4 
: 
4.4 
16.5 
0.8 
2.6 
1.3 
1.8 
3.2 
3.8 
6.5 
17.6 
4.8 
: 
1.4 
16.1 
0.5 
1.0 

1,554 
295 
6,965 
3,735 
3,063 
4,542 
653 
589 
508 
5,736 
7,048 
16,386 
256 
31 
2,260 
: 
: 
828 

12,834 
582 
16,676 
31,287 
9,114 
15,398 
9,835 
493 
1,519 
6,863 
18,643 
252,672 
459 
28 
12,249 
16,787 
3,595 
16,152 

15,092 
: 
27,964 
47296.85 
17,510 
9,714 
12,964 
1,507 
7,157 
10,774 
26,644 
335,914 
833 
: 
3094 
28,485 
525 
23,329 

3.2 
7.2 
3.1 
15.4 
0.4 
4.3 
1.5 
0.9 
0.9 
2.4 
4.8 
15.1 
3.2 
5.3 
5.9 
11.4 
2.7 
1.1 
(UOE  data 

3.4 
Hungary*** 
: 
Malta 
3.9 
Netherlands 
11.4 
Austria*** 
0.5 
Poland** 
3.8 
Portugal*** 
0.7 
Romania 
1.3 
Slovenia 
2.5 
Slovakia** 
3.9 
Finland 
10.4 
Sweden 
24.5 
UK 
3.7 
Iceland** 
78.4 
Liechtenstein 
2.8 
Norway 
14.0 
Switzerland 
0.4 
Croatia 
0.2 
Turkey** 
statistics: 
Source:  Eurostat 
in 
http://ec.europa.eu/education/erasmus/statistics_en.htm.  Notes:  *Degree  mobility:  a  student  enrolled/graduating 
destination country, which is different from the country of origin (e.g. where the prior education was taken (upper secondary 
degree)); *Credit mobility: a student enrolled/graduating in country of origin but having been abroad (country of destination) 
for  a  study  period  during  the  programme;  only  EU  Erasmus  programme  covered.  **  and  ***  foreigners  instead  of  mobile 
students//graduates. Bachelor and master level: ISCED 1997 level 5A programmes (at least three years duration, theoretically 
based/research  preparatory  or  giving  access  to  professions  with  high  skills  requirements.)  For  some  countries  the  ISCED  5A 
coverage could be slightly broader than bachelor and master degrees. Reading note: The percentage of degree mobile students 
enrolled  has  risen  from  15.1% in  2005  to  17,6%  in  2010  in  the United  Kingdom, whereas  Erasmus  students  made  up  1%  in 
2005 and 1.2% in 2010. 24.5% of all graduates in the United Kingdom in 2010 were mobile students. 

2,048 
: 
4,961 
4,740 
3,200 
2,907 
1,953 
139 
1,838 
1,841 
5,196 
136,314 
148 
156 
1,024 
6,320 
103 
515 

2,804 
879 
8,594 
4,992 
6,070 
7,385 
1,325 
1,271 
1,085 
6,580 
9,500 
22,650 
491 
46 
3,865 
: 
: 
3,336 

0.4 
3.7 
1.2 
1.8 
0.1 
1.3 
0.1 
1.0 
0.3 
2.0 
1.8 
1.0 
1.8 
5.9 
1.1 
: 
: 
0.1 

0.8 
9.9 
1.3 
1.7 
0.3 
2.0 
0.1 
1.5 
0.5 
2.3 
2.4 
1.2 
2.9 
6.5 
1.8 
: 
: 
0.1 

collection,  provisional  data)  and  European  Commission,  Erasmus 

86  
87  

See: http://www.ehea.info/.  
See: http://www.ehea.info/Uploads/%281%29/Bucharest%20Communique%202012%281%29.pdf.  

45 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
                                                            
Table  7.2  shows  the  current  level  of  enrolled  mobile  students  in  the  EU,  EEA  and  candidate 
countries, both for degree and credit mobility, - and compares this level to 2005. It also shows the 
percentage of mobile graduates who graduated in a given country in 2010. For graduates it can be 
noted  than  more  than  half  of  mobile  graduates  in  the  EU  are  taking  a  degree  in  the  United 
Kingdom;  a  total  of  136,314  graduates  in  2010  and  close  to  a  quarter  of  the  total  graduate 
population in the UK. 

Other  countries  as  Luxembourg,  Belgium,  Sweden  and  Austria  also  have  high  levels  of  foreign 
graduates  whereas  particularly  some  Eastern  European  countries  as  Bulgaria,  Estonia,  Latvia, 
Lithuania, Poland, Romania, Slovenia and Slovakia have low levels (but also Italy and Spain). 

In 2010, more than 1.3 million students were enrolled in tertiary education abroad, e.g. in another 
country  compared  to  where  they  had  obtained  their  upper  secondary  degree88.  This  amounted  to 
nearly  8%  of  the  student  population;  where  1.2%  where  Erasmus  students  enrolled.  This  figure 
has only increased slightly from 2005 with 0.6 percentage point. 

88  

The  concept  for  measuring  student  mobility  is  not  yet  harmonised  across  countries  and  some  countries  use 
permanent residence abroad or even citizenship as criteria. 

46 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
8.  Adult participation in lifelong learning 

8.1.  Participation of adults in learning activities 

In  the  process  of  learning  throughout  one's  life,  adult  education  and  training  covers  the  longest 
span.  Continued  learning  after  initial  education  and  training  is  required  to  maintain  and  develop 
skills,  to  adapt  to  structural  change  and  technical  developments,  for  staying  in  jobs,  career 
advancement or to get back into the labour market. Taking account of this importance, the Council 
established a benchmark for "adult participation in lifelong learning"89 and adopted a resolution on 
a  renewed  European  agenda  for  adult  learning90.  The  benchmark  objective  is  to  have,  by  2020, 
15% of European adults participating in lifelong learning activities91. 

Table 8.1. Percentage of the population aged 25-64 participating in formal or non-formal learning 

2006 

2010 

Total 

Total 

Total 

Male 

Female 

2011 

Foreign-
born92 

Low 
edu-
cated 

Unem-
ployed 

EU 27 

EU 27 adjusted (c) 
Belgium 
Bulgaria 
Czech Republic 
Denmark 
Germany 
Estonia 
Ireland 
Greece 
Spain 
France 
Italy 
Cyprus 
Latvia 
Lithuania 
Luxembourg 
Hungary 
Malta 

Netherlands 
Austria 
Poland 
Portugal 
Romania 
Slovenia 
Slovakia 
Finland 
Sweden 
United Kingdom 
Croatia 
Iceland 
MK* 
Turkey 
Norway 
Switzerland 

9.5 

8.7 
7.5 
1.3 
5.6 
29.2 
7.5 
6.5 
7.3 
1.9 
10.4 
6.4 
6.1 
7.1 
6.9 
4.9 
8.2 
3.8 
5.4 

15.6 
13.1 
4.7 
4.2 
1.3 
15 
4.1 
23.1 
18.4p 
26.7 
2.9 
27.9 
2.3 
1.8 
18.7 
22.5 

9.1 

8.9 
7.2 
1.2 
7.5 
32.5 
7.7 
10.9 
6.7 
3.0 
10.8 
5.0 
6.2 
7.7 
5.0 
4.0 
13.4 
2.8 
6.2 

(16.6) 
13.7 
5.3 
5.8 
1.3 
16.2 
2.8 
23.0 
24.5 
19.4(b) 
(2.2) 
25.2 
3.2 
2.5 
17.8 
30.6 

8.9 

8.9 
7.1 
1.2 
11.4b 
32.3 
7.8 
12.0 
6.8 
2.4 
10.8 
5.5 
5.7 
7.5 
5.0 
5.9 
13.6 
2.7 
6.6 

16.7 
13.4 
4.5 
11.6b 
1.6 
15.9 
3.9 
23.8 
25.0 
15.8p 
(2.3) 
25.9 
3.4 
2.9 
18.2 
29.9 

8.2 

9.6 

9.9 

3.9 

9.1 

6.7 
1.2 
11.2b 
25.6 
7.9 
9.2 
6.3 
2.6 
10.0 
5.2 
5.3 
7.2 
3.8 
4.6 
14.2 
2.6 
6.3 

16.5 
12.2 
4.0 
11.1b 
1.6 
13.7 
3.4 
19.9 
18.4 
14.0p 
(2.3) 
22.8 
3.4 
3.0 
17.1 
31.0 

7.4 
1.2 
11.6b 
39.0 
7.7 
14.5 
7.2 
2.3 
11.6 
5.9 
6.0 
7.8 
6.1 
7.1 
13.0 
2.9 
6.9 

16.9 
14.5 
5.0 
12.1b 
1.5 
18.2 
4.4 
27.7 
31.9 
17.5p 
(2.3) 
29.0 
3.3 
2.7 
19.2 
28.7 

8.6 
: 
10.2b 
33.3 
6.4 
(6.1) 
7.9 
1.2 
8.6 
5.1 
3.4 
5.3 
(3.0) 
: 
12.1 
(3.2) 

19.5 
11.2 
: 
13.9b 
: 
(7.2) 
: 
25.9 
25.5 
19.6p 
: 
19.1 
: 
3.1 
19.1 
23.6 

3.1 
: 
2.8b 
23.4 
3.1 
: 
2.8 
0.4 
4.6 
2.5 
1.2 
(1.3) 
: 
: 
(4.5) 
0.5 
3.3 

10.5 
4.1 
(0.8) 
8.0b 
(0.3) 
(3.3) 
: 
10.7 
16.9 
7.2p 
: 
16.1 
(0.3) 
1.4 
10.4 
9.9 

8.9 
: 
7.5b 
35.1 
5.1 
(8.5) 
6.4 
2.7 
13.2 
5.2 
5.5 
6.9 
(4.0) 
(3.5) 
(15.3) 
2.0 
: 

17.3 
18.6 
4.8 
17.1b 
(1.5) 
16.4 
1.7 
19.7 
40.4 
14.8p 
: 
30.9 
(2.3) 
5.5 
18.9 
23.0 

Job-
related of 
non-
formal (a)
83.4 

85.3 
96.3 
93.3 
93.1 
88.0 
90.5 
: 
84.1 
72.9 
89.0 
71.0 
80.9 
84.4 
89.3 
: 
81.9 
70.9 

84.7 
80.5 
87.5 
84.0 
82.6 
70.8 
92.0 
85.6 
88.0 
76.0 
78.1 
: 
: 
70.0 
: 
: 

89  
90  
91  

92  

OJ (2009/C 119/02). 
OJ (2011/C 372/01). 
In  the  Council  Conclusions  defined  as  "The  percentage  of  the  population  aged  25-64  participating  in  education  and 
training during the 4 weeks prior to the survey (Eurostat/Labour Force Survey)", where "benefit can also be drawn from 
the information on adult participation in lifelong learning gathered by the Adult Education Survey." 
The  sub-group  foreign-born  refers  to  first  generation  immigrants,  and  hence  does  not  capture  second  or  third 
generation immigrants or populations who are not naturalized. 

47 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
Source: Eurostat (LFS); p = provisional; b = break in time series; (a) = share of job-related training of all non-formal training 
activities. Deviating source: AES 2007 with 1-year reference period; (b) = break in time series in previous years; (c) = model 
calculation of EU27 average levelling out the effect of breaks in time series in relevant countries, based on the assumption that 
breaks  have  led  to  more  realistic  figures  (EC  including  JRC-CRELL);  :  =  Data  either  not  available  or  not  reliable  due  to  very 
small sample size; Migrant = based on Country of birth; low education = Pre-primary, primary and lower secondary education 
(ISCED levels 0-2); *MK: The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. 
Statistical figures show that lifelong learning is far from being a reality for most European citizens 
(Table 8.1). The average amounts to 8.9% and it seems unlikely that the 15%-benchmark will be 
reached  by  2020.  In  fact,  the  data  suggest  that  participation  has  slightly  decreased  over  the  last 
five years: in 2006, it amounted to 9.5%. However, available data have been subject to numerous 
breaks  in  time  series  and  when  these  are  levelled  out,  participation  appears  to  have  been  fairly 
stable93.  

However,  on  average,  Member  States  have  not  made  significant  progress  in  reaching  the 
benchmark. In 2011 only 5 Member States exceeded the 15% threshold, whereas in 14 countries 
participation rates reached no more than half the level required. The importance of improving adult 
learning  policies  is  also  reflected  in  some  2012  European  Country-specific  Recommendations 
addressed to Estonia, Spain, France and Poland94. 

The Nordic countries are still the best performers and achieve consistently high participation rates 
above  or  close  to  25%.  The  Netherlands,  Slovenia,  Austria,  the  United  Kingdom,  Luxembourg, 
Spain,  Estonia  and,  most  recently,  Portugal  are  in  the  next  group,  with  participation  rates  of 
between  10%  and  17%95.  Bulgaria,  Greece,  Hungary  and  Romania  still  remain  below  3%  and,  in 
some cases, even have decreasing rates. 

Participation is considerably different among sub-groups of the adult population. For example, men 
in  general  participate  less  than  women  (8.2%  as  opposed  to  9.6%),  while  also  demonstrating  a 
higher  preference  for  job-related  learning  in  all  countries  (88%  as  opposed  to  78.7%  for  women 
according  to  the  Adult  Education  Survey  –  AES  -  2007),  a  fact  that  reflects  the  higher  labour 
market activity of men. 

The foreign-born population is on average more involved in learning activities than the native-born 
population  (EU  average  9.9%  as  opposed  to  8.9%),  although  not  in  all  countries.  This  might  to 
some  extent  be  due  to  targeted  learning  activities  such  as  language  courses,  but  also  reflects 
higher  unemployment  among  foreign-born  individuals  in  some  countries,  resulting  in  more 
participation in labour market integration measures. 

In all Member States, citizens with no more than lower secondary education engage less than half 
as often in learning activities than the overall adult population (3.9% in EU27). In light of the high 
propensity  of  job-related  adult  learning,  this  is  not  surprising  when  taking  into  account  that  this 
group  is  less  active  on  the  labour  market.  Nevertheless,  the  size  of  the  gap  and  the  fact  that  it 
applies  to  all  countries  unveils  the  large  potential  for  addressing  this  and  unleashing  its  potential 
value for Member State economies. Moreover, job opportunities for this segment of the workforce 
are decreasing. 

While  it  is  common  knowledge  that  people  in  employment  generally  take  more  than  average 
advantage  of  learning  opportunities,  the  picture  for  unemployed  people  is  more  diverse.  While 
average participation is only slightly higher than for the overall 25-64 age group (9.1% as opposed 
to 8.9%), some countries stand out with their rates being considerably higher than for the overall 
population  –  namely  Spain,  Austria,  Portugal  and  Sweden  –  most  likely  showing  efforts  made  to 
maintain  and  upgrade  the  skills  of  the  jobless  and  to  facilitate  their  re-integration into  the  labour 
market.  

93  
94  

95  

See footnote (c) of table 8.1. 
http://ec.europa.eu/europe2020/making-it-happen/country-specific-recommendations/index_en.htm provides access to 
all CSRs. 
After the United Kingdom had adjusted its data collection instrument, participation appeared to be considerably lower in 
2011,  albeit  still  above  the  benchmark  level.  The  opposite  applies  for  Portugal,  where  an  adjustment  moved  the 
country's performance up to midfield. 

48 

 
 
 
 
 
 
   
 
 
 
 
                                                            
8.2.  The relevance of informal learning 

Informal learning is described as learning which is generally without tutoring, intentional, but less 
organised  and  less  structured  and  may  include  for  example  learning  activities  that  occur  in  the 
household  or  in  the  daily  life96.  Thereby,  it  constitutes  an  important,  yet  not  sufficiently 
investigated component of adult learning and cannot be overlooked. The European Commission has 
identified  its  added  value  and  proposed  a  Recommendation  for  the  promotion  and  recognition  of 
non-formal and informal learning. 

Due  to  the  inherent  unstructured  nature  of  informal  learning,  measuring  informal  learning  entails 
considerable  problems.  Nevertheless,  the  AES  provides  information  on  self-reported  informal 
learning, complementing the statistics on adult lifelong learning. 

Figure 8.1. Percentage of the population aged 25-64 participating in informal learning (2007) 

Source: Eurostat (AES). 

In  2007,  the  EU  participation  rate  in  informal  learning  among  adults  was  44.7%  (Figure  8.197), 
notably  higher  than  the  rates  for  non-formal  activities  (32.7%)  and  formal  education  (6.3%). 
Informal learning can therefore be regarded as a crucial element of adult learning, despite its high 
variation across countries, ranging from 18.8% in Romania to 84.1% in the Slovak Republic. More 
importantly,  statistics  point  towards  the  increasing  importance  of  informal  learning.  When 
comparing  similar  learning  activities  in  2003  and  2007,  figures  have  steeply  increased  (e.g.  for 
"reading books or printed material for learning purposes" from 33% to 44%).  

8.3.  What levels of competences have adults acquired? 

As pointed out in chapter 6, sufficient cognitive skills are a prerequisite for individuals to find a job, 
as well as to participate actively in society. It is a major task for societies to provide the right levels 
of  skills  to  their  citizens  through  education  and  training.  Likewise  and  from  a  macroeconomic 
perspective, for matching the demand for a skilled workforce in Europe it is the actual skills of the 
workforce  that  matters  rather  than  the  formal  educational  attainment.  However,  comprehensive 
evidence  about  the  actual  skills  of  the  adult  population  in  Europe,  how  these  relate  to  education 
and learning processes and how they match with requirements at the workplace, is still lacking98. 

96  
97  

98  

http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/statistics_explained/index.php/Lifelong_learning_statistics 
The  reference  period  for  learning  activities  in  the  Adult  Education  Survey  (AES)  is  12  months.  Participation  rates  are 
therefore considerably higher than in the LFS. Hence, only participation can only be compared between countries. 
Previous studies such as the International Adult Literacy Study (IALS) or the Adult Literacy and Lifeskills Survey (ALL) 
only covered smaller sets of skills or fewer countries. 

49 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
Existing European surveys on adult education mainly contain information on participation, forms of 
provision of training and obstacles to access, thus providing only indirect measures of adult skills. 
This  is  why  the  European  Commission  has  engaged  in  supporting  the  OECD's  Programme  for  the 
International Assessment of Adult Competencies (PIAAC)99, which directly assesses the skills of the 
adult population in participating countries. 

From an education perspective, it is of major importance to get a picture of whether and to what 
extent educational programmes contribute to developing the skills of the young population. Based 
on PIAAC field trial results, figure 8.2 shows how the distribution of skills and the extent of overlap 
by level of formal educational attainment vary within and across countries100. 

In  country  A,  skill  levels  of  higher  education  graduates  are  significantly  higher  than  those  of 
graduates  from  upper  secondary  education,  unlike  countries  B  and  C,  where  the  skill  levels  of 
graduates  from  higher  education  even  overlap  with  those  of  individuals  who  have  not  completed 
secondary  education.  Moreover,  upper  secondary  graduates  in  country  B  perform  on  almost  the 
same level as higher education graduates in country C. The figure emphasises how the actual skills 
of  the  population,  rather  than  the  formal  degrees,  distinguish  countries  from  one  another. 
Furthermore,  this  measure  will  allow  for  at  least  a  partial  explanation  of  the  variation  in  labour 
market success of graduates from similar educational programmes across participating countries. 

Figure 8.2. Levels of foundation skills by qualification levels, adults aged 16 to 65101 

Source: OECD (based on indicative PIAAC field test results). 

As the skills acquired when leaving education are important for finding a job and entering into the 
labour  market,  maintaining  adequate  skills  levels  throughout  working  life  can  be  considered 
important for the individual for staying in employment and being able to take advantage of rapidly 
changing  technological,  economic  and  societal  environments.  It  can  be  expected  that  skills  are 
more liable to deteriorate when not being utilised on the job or for other activities. PIAAC measures 
skills of the entire age range of the workforce and therefore provides an indirect measure of skills 
development over the lifespan.  

99  

PIAAC assesses literacy, numeracy and problem solving in technology rich environment skills of the population aged 16-
65 in 33 countries (among them 21 EU Member States).  

100        The name of the countries A, B, C in figure 8.2 are not disclosed since the results presented are based on the PIAAC 
field test, and not the PIAAC main data collection. Results from the latter are still being collected and processed, and 
will be made publicly available in the end of October 2013. 
Skills  include  literacy,  numeracy  and  problem  solving  in  technology-rich  environments.  Qualification  levels:  not 
completed school: ISCED 2 and less; upper secondary: ISCED 3/4 completed; University: ISCED 5/6. 

101  

50 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
9.  Matching educational outcomes and labour market needs 

9.1.  The employment rate of graduates 

In  2012  the  Council  established  a  new  benchmark  to  reflect  the  role  of  education  and  training  in 
raising  employability102.  The  indicator  underpinning  this  employment  rate  benchmark  focuses  on 
young  individuals,  20  to  34  year-olds  that  graduated  from  ISCED  levels  3-6  no  more  than  three 
years before the reference year (see figure 9.1). According to the new benchmark, by 2020, 82% 
of  the  new  graduates  should  be  in  employment.103  In  2011,  the  respective  cohort  of  individuals 
amounted to 11.3 million, of which 77.2% were employed (see table 9.1 on the next page).  

Figure 9.1. Employment rate of graduates, aged 20-34, by educational attainment* 
Employment rates of graduates aged 20-34 who have graduated no more than three years ago 

Source: Eurostat (LFS). Note*: Graduated no more than three years before the reference year. 

Figure 9.1 plots the evolution of the EU27 employment rate benchmark, and its disaggregation by 
educational  attainment,  between  2006  and  2011.  The  employment  rate  increased  until  2008  and 
decreased afterwards. Between 2008 and 2011, it declined by 4.8 percentage points, compared to 
the 1.7 percentage points observed for the overall employment rate (20-64 years old). This strong 
decrease  signals  the  fact  that  the  cohort  targeted  by  the  employment  rate  benchmark  has  been 
particularly affected by the crisis. 

The figure also unveils the importance of educational attainment for employability. Firstly, it shows 
that a higher level of educational attainment is associated with higher employment rates. Secondly, 
even  though  the  employment  rate  has  declined  for  both  educational  attainment  levels,  the 
reduction between 2008 and 2010 was stronger for the lower educated cohort. Between 2010 and 
2011, moreover, the cohort of highly educated graduates did not suffer any further decline in their 
employment rate, while for the low educated it decreased by 0.8 percentage points. 

There is a high cross-country variation in the employment rate of graduates (table 9.1. on the next 
page).  Whereas  the  Netherlands,  Malta,  Luxembourg  and  Austria  have  been  among  the  best 
performing  countries  since  2006,  Italy  and  Greece  have  always  been  at  the  lower  end.  Again 
distinguishing between higher and lower educated cohorts, it is interesting to observe that both the 
Netherlands  and  Malta  consistently  show  up  among  the  best  performers  for  both  cohorts  and 
Greece  as  one  of  the  worst.  As  for  Italy,  this  has  always  been  the  case  for  the  highly  educated 
cohort,  and,  since  2007,  also  for  the  graduates  from  ISCED  levels  3-4.  In  recent  years, 
employment  rates  of  highly  educated  graduates  in  Spain  have  continuously  dropped  to  very  low 
levels. 

102  
103  

OJ (2009/C 119/02). 
OJ  (2012/C  169/04).  For  figure  9.1  and  table  9.1,  please  note:  Individuals  currently  engaged  in  any  form  of 
education or training are excluded to ensure that the employability of that cohort may not be altered by the fact that 
the individual is currently engaged in an updating/upgrading of his/her skills. 

51 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
EU27 countries 

Belgium 

Bulgaria  

Czech Republic 

Denmark  

Germany  

Estonia  

Ireland  

Greece  

Spain  

France  

Italy  

Cyprus 

Latvia  

Lithuania  

Luxembourg  

Hungary  

Malta  

Netherlands  

Austria  

Poland  

Portugal  

Romania  

Slovenia  

Slovakia  

Finland  

Sweden  

United Kingdom 

Table 9.1. Employment rate of graduates by country and educational attainment 
Employment rates of graduates aged 20-34 who have graduated no more than three years ago104 

Employment rate benchmark in %  
(ISCED 3-6) 

2006 

79.0 

2007 

80.9 

2008 

82.0 

2009 

78.3 

2010 

77.5 

2011 

77.2 

81.1 

69.6 

82.8 

89.0 

82.1 

84.9 

88.5 

66.6 

82.3 

79.0 

66.2 

80.5 

78.5 

83.3 

91.1 

79.8 

91.2 

92.7 

90.1 

71.3 

82.9 

74.7 

80.8 

77.5 

79.7 

83.3 

86.3 

82.1 

72.3 

87.6 

90.9 

84.2 

86.5 

87.4 

67.8 

85.8 

80.0 

66.1 

82.3 

82.0 

83.7 

88.0 

80.1 

93.7 

94.4 

90.5 

74.8 

81.2 

79.3 

81.6 

81.0 

82.8 

85.4 

85.7 

83.9 

79.6 

87.9 

90.6 

86.5 

82.3 

85.7 

67.9 

81.9 

83.3 

65.2 

85.8 

83.1 

79.3 

86.9 

80.1 

95.7 

93.6 

90.6 

79.3 

82.7 

84.8 

83.4 

81.4 

82.3 

85.9 

83.6 

81.0 

73.6 

84.5 

87.9 

85.3 

67.6 

75.5 

64.7 

72.6 

77.2 

60.6 

81.2 

71.4 

72.9 

85.5 

75.6 

94.1 

92.9 

88.6 

78.4 

82.6 

77.6 

82.3 

74.4 

77.8 

81.7 

80.0 

81.3 

68.7 

81.3 

83.5 

86.1 

64.3 

71.5 

58.5 

70.4 

77.4 

57.7 

78.6 

64.6 

73.6 

89.5 

74.4 

93.8 

92.6 

88.7 

76.5 

80.7 

71.2 

80.7 

69.4 

79.7 

82.7 

81.6 

80.8 

57.5 

80.3 

83.0 

88.2 

75.1 

71.4 

50.2 

66.4 

77.6 

57.6 

73.1 

72.7 

69.4 

86.1 

73.5 

91.2 

92.2 

91.0 

75.4 

76.0 

70.4 

76.0 

70.3 

78.4 

84.4 

81.2 

ISCED 3-4  
(%) 

ISCED 5-6  
(%) 

2006 

73.9 

72.0 

58.8 

80.9 

89.3 

77.9 

2007 

75.6 

73.2 

62.5 

86.1 

89.0 

79.6 

78.6u 

81.7u 

82.0 

62.6 

77.7 

72.0 

63.6 

74.0 

73.1 

74.7 

86.5 

71.8 

87.0u 

90.7 

89.9 

60.7 

80.7 

64.8 

77.4 

71.7 

75.3 

78.4 

84.7 

81.2 

64.2 

81.7 

73.0 

62.6 

71.5 

77.9 

72.8 

87.7 

72.9 

89.9 

91.9 

89.9 

64.9 

79.7 

70.7 

78.0 

77.8 

81.4 

81.0 

82.0 

2008 

77.2 

73.6 

74.1 

87.6 

90.2 

83.2 

81.9 

79.2 

62.9 

74.5 

75.1 

60.5 

80.9 

77.6 

67.8 

80.0 

71.7 

96.3 

91.4 

89.0 

70.1 

81.9 

77.1 

79.8 

79.5 

78.9 

81.6 

79.5 

2009 

72.5 

71.9 

63.7 

81.7 

84.2 

81.0 

2010 

72.1 

71.5 

58.4 

77.4 

82.0 

83.7 

2011 

71.3 

73.5 

48.4 

76.1 

82.9 

84.5 

64.5u 

48.4u 

68.4u 

61.8 

60.1 

63.8 

68.7 

56.0 

73.8 

59.2 

56.9 

79.3 

66.4 

89.7 

91.3 

87.7 

68.7 

79.9 

69.1 

73.3 

67.9 

72.9 

74.6 

75.0 

56.9 

55.8 

60.5 

69.2 

52.3 

70.0 

54.0 

54.3 

86.6 

65.9 

87.3u 

89.7 

88.2 

67.4 

77.4 

61.3 

75.1 

60.5 

76.3 

77.3 

76.5 

52.6 

46.2 

51.4 

68.5 

50.6 

57.6 

56.9 

48.2u 

78.5 

63.5 

85.6 

89.1 

91.0 

65.7 

73.5 

58.8 

68.7u 

61.7 

73.6 

79.5 

75.6 

2006 

84.2 

2007 

86.0 

2008 

86.9 

87.5 

82.3 

87.5 

88.7 

90.9 

90.5 

91.4 

69.2 

84.0 

83.3 

69.0 

82.6 

85.0 

90.4 

95.8 

87.6 

94.2 

94.4 

90.3 

81.6 

84.3 

86.4 

84.5 

87.9 

87.4 

88.2 

87.7 

88.5 

85.0 

91.2 

92.8 

91.8 

90.8 

90.4 

69.9 

87.4 

84.8 

70.0 

85.3 

86.5 

92.5 

88.3 

86.9 

96.5 

96.6 

91.9 

84.4 

82.0 

89.0 

84.9 

86.4 

85.1 

89.9 

89.2 

90.8 

87.2 

88.5 

90.9 

92.5 

82.7 

88.7 

70.8 

85.1 

88.9 

70.5 

87.0 

87.6 

87.6 

92.9 

87.4 

95.3 

95.4 

94.7 

87.0 

83.2 

92.9 

86.7 

84.3 

87.8 

90.7 

87.3 

2009 

83.8 

87.8 

85.2 

89.0 

91.0 

92.9 

71.2u 

83.3 

67.7 

76.1 

83.4 

66.0 

83.0 

82.1 

84.6 

90.4 

84.7 

97.5 

94.2 

91.0 

85.7 

84.2 

85.7 

88.7 

83.5 

84.1 

89.9 

84.0 

2010 

82.7 

2011 

82.7 

88.2 

82.7 

87.1 

84.8 

90.2 

76.7 

80.2 

60.3 

74.5 

83.0 

64.7 

80.1 

75.5 

84.4 

91.3 

82.8 

98.0 

94.8 

90.0 

83.7 

83.2 

81.9 

84.3 

80.6 

84.9 

89.3 

85.9 

86.0 

74.0 

85.6 

83.1 

94.2 

81.5 

81.7 

52.5 

71.8 

83.5 

66.1 

76.7 

85.1 

82.2 

90.7 

83.3 

94.7 

94.4 

91.2 

82.6 

78.3 

80.7 

80.3 

79.5 

85.1 

90.5 

85.7 

Reference population of the employment rate 
benchmark in millions (ISCED 3-6) 

Reference population in millions  
(ISCED 3-4) 

Reference population in millions  
(ISCED 5-6) 

2006 

2007 

2008 

2009 

2010 

2011 

2006 

2007 

2008 

2009 

2010 

2011 

2006 

2007 

2008 

2009 

2010 

2011 

104  

In line with the Council Conclusion (2012/C 169/04), individuals currently engaged in any form of education or training are excluded to ensure that the employability of that cohort may not 
be altered by the fact that the individual is currently engaged in an updating/upgrading of his/her skills. 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
EU27 countries 

10.4 

10.5 

10.7 

10.7 

10.9 

11.3 

5.3 

5.2 

5.3 

5.2 

5.4 

5.4 

5.2 

5.3 

5.4 

5.5 

5.5 

5.8 

Source: Eurostat (LFS). Notes: m = missing data ; u = unreliable data. 

 
 
 
Between 2008 and 2010, all countries except Luxembourg reveal a decrease in their employment 
rate.  This  was  particularly  the  case  for  Latvia,  Estonia,  Ireland,  Romania,  Slovakia,  Spain  and 
Bulgaria  with  a  decrease  of  more  than  10  percentage  points.  The  overall  decrease  of  0.3 
percentage  points  observed  between  2010  and  2011  hides  important  cross-country  variations: 
whereas  the  employment  rate  of  graduates  increased  in  France,  Slovakia,  Sweden,  Germany, 
Austria  and  particularly  Latvia  and  Estonia,  it  decreased  substantially  in  Portugal,  Slovenia, 
Lithuania, Spain, Cyprus and particularly Greece and Bulgaria. 

The European Commission has explored the determinants of the employment rate benchmark, by 
estimating  the  probability  of  being  employed  while  taking  into  account  individual  characteristics, 
institutional  factors  and  other  contextual  factors.  The  probability  of  being  employed  is  higher  for 
males and older individuals and increases with time since graduation, revealing that the transition 
from education to work is particularly challenging immediately after graduation. The gender gap in 
the employment rate has decreased, but at the expense of the male probability of being employed 
rather  than  due  to  an  improvement  for  women.  Focusing  on  the  importance  of  educational 
attainment,  having  graduated  from  tertiary  education  significantly  increases  the  probability  of 
being employed when compared to those having graduated from ISCED 3 or 4. The contribution of 
educational  attainment  is  constant  and  significant,  even  after  controlling  for  labour  market 
contextualising variables.  

9.2.  The educational attainment of adults 

Educational  attainment  is  the  visible  output  of  education  systems.  The  completion  of  upper 
secondary education is considered as the minimum requirement for achieving adequate skills for a 
successful  integration  into  the  labour  market.  This  is  why  the  Europe  2020  strategy  contains  a 
headline  target  aiming  to  reduce  the  share  of  those  who  have  not  completed  upper  secondary 
education  (early  school  leavers,  see  chapter  3)  and,  until  2010,  a  benchmark  was  in  place  that 
called for increasing the completion of upper secondary education of 20-24 year olds to 85%. 

Figure 9.2. Population having completed at least upper secondary education 
by age group and groups of EU 27 Member States  (%) 

Source: Eurostat (LFS); grouping by European Commission: North: DK, FI, SE; East: BG, CZ, EE, LT, LV, HU, PL, RO, SI, SK; 
South: EL, ES, IT, CY, MT, PT; West: BE, DE, EI, FR, LU, NL, AT, UK. 

The rising demand for a higher skilled workforce in most parts of Europe over the past decades has 
led to a steadily rising educational attainment of the population. This is reflected in distribution of 
educational attainment for different age groups (figure 9.2). The share of the population that has 
attained  at  least  upper  secondary  education  is  lowest  in  the  older  age  groups  and  rises  with 
younger  cohorts.  Educational  attainment  is  highest  in  the  eastern  Member  States,  followed  by 
slightly  lower  shares  in  the  northern  and  the  western  countries.  In  the  eastern  countries  upper 
secondary  education  has  since  long  been  the  standard  attainment,  which  is  why  only  the  oldest 

54 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
group  shows  a  considerably  lower  attainment.  In  the  North  and  West,  the  peak  of  attainment  is 
only  reached  in  the  age  group  of  25-34,  which  reflects  the  relatively  long  duration  of  educational 
provision  in  these  countries.  The  Southern  countries  show  the  strongest  improvement  in 
attainment  over  time,  where  attainment  among  the  20-24  olds  is  more  than  twice  as  high  as 
among those close to retirement. 

The  older  cohorts  with  the  lowest  educational  attainment  steadily  leave  the  workforce  and  are 
replaced  by  a  younger,  higher  educated  generation.  This  dynamism  leads  to  a  higher  skilled 
workforce and potentially to certain levels of over-qualification and youth unemployment, if labour 
markets do not provide adequate jobs. 

Progress in upper secondary educational attainment of 20-24 olds has only been modest in recent 
years (table 9.2). In 2011, 19 Member States performed above the average of 79.5% while some 
large countries such as Germany, Spain and Italy showed attainment rates way below the average. 
In general, progress was larger in countries with low attainment rates, whereas in good performing 
countries  saturation  effects  could  be  observed.  Nevertheless,  attainment  rates  still  differ  widely, 
from 59.2% in Malta to 93.3% in the Slovak Republic. 

Table 9.2. Educational attainment of the population 

Population with at least upper 
secondary attainment (%) 

20-24 years 

2006 

77.9 

82.4 

80.5i 

91.8 

77.4 

71.9 

82 

85.8 

81 

61.6 

83.3 

75.5 

83.7 

81 

88.2 

69.3 

82.9 

51.1 

74.7 

85.8 

91.7 

49.6 

77.2 

89.4 

91.5 

84.7 

2010 

79 

82.5 

84.4 

91.9 

68.6 

74.4 

83.2 

86.5 

83.4 

61.2 

83.2 

76.3 

86.3 

79.9 

86.9 

73.4 

84 

53.3 

77.6b 

85.6 

91.1 

58.7 

78.2 

89.1 

93.2 

84.2 

2011 

79.5 

81.6 

85.5 

91.7 

70 

75.8 

82.6 

86.9 

83.6 

61.7 

83.8 

76.9 

87.7 

80.4 

86.9 

73.3 

83.3 

59.2 

78.2 

85.4 

90 

64.4 

79.6 

90.1 

93.3 

85.4 

Females with at least 
upper secondary 
attainment (%) 

25-34 
years 

2011 

82.8 

55-64 
years 

2011 

58.7 

83.3 

80.5 

93.8 

83.7 

86.5 

90.3 

87.6 

82.1 

70.2 

84.6 

74.8 

87.5 

89 

92.1 

84.1 

87.5 

48.7 

84.1 

86.7 

95.4 

61.7 

75.2 

96.9 

94.3 

92.9 

53.4 

73.2 

80.4 

64.7 

78.9 

87.9 

54.7 

42.7 

29.7 

53.6 

37.6 

47.7 

88.1 

88.8 

64.2 

69.2 

11.1 

52.9 

63.2 

78.3 

17 

51.4 

65.6 

79 

73 

84.9p 

85.9p 

88.7p 

88.9p 

69.1p 

78.8 

94.6 

49.3 

75.8 

46 

68.6b 

80.4 

95.7 

53.4 

82.8 

51.1 

71.1 

80.1 

95.6 

56.9 

85.3 

52.6 

71.2 

83.5 

90.7 

78.6 

69.8 

35.6 

85.3 

61.3 

59.2 

52 

44.4 

9.4 

78.9 

Unemployment rate of 25-64 years 
old by educational attainment (%) 

lower  sec 
and less 

Upper 
secondary 

tertiary 

2011 

14.8 

12.1b 

25.5 

21.6 

8.9 

13.9 

26.4 

21.7 

17 

26.4 

12.9 

9.4 

7.5 

25.8 

37.3 

6.1u 

23.1 

7.4 

5.4 

7.1 

16.9 

13.3b 

6.9 

12.7 

39.2 

11.3 

11 

10.4b 

15.8 

7.3 

36 

7.4 

5.2 

2011 

7.6 

5.7b 

9 

5.7 

6 

5.8 

11.9 

15 

17.7 

19.3 

7.4 

6 

6.8 

16 

17.7 

3.7 

9.6 

: 

3.8 

3.2 

8.7 

10.9b 

6.4 

8.2 

11.5 

6.9 

4.6 

6.1b 

11.6 

5.4 

28.7 

8 

2.2 

2011 

5 

3.4b 

4.7 

2.6 

5 

2.4 

7.9 

7.1 

12.8 

11.7 

4.9 

5.2 

5.8 

6.4 

5.6 

3.5 

3.9 

: 

2.8 

2.3 

4.5 

8b 

3.8 

4.7 

5.2 

4 

3.9 

3.7b 

8u 

4.5 

19.5 

6.8 

1.6 

EU 27 countries 

Belgium  

Bulgaria  

Czech Republic 

Denmark  

Germany  

Estonia  

Ireland  

Greece  

Spain  

France  

Italy  

Cyprus 

Latvia  

Lithuania  

Luxembourg  

Hungary  

Malta*  

Netherlands  

Austria  

Poland  

Portugal  

Romania  

Slovenia  

Slovakia  

Finland  

Sweden  

United Kingdom 

Croatia  

Iceland 

MK**  

Turkey  

Norway  

Source: Eurostat (LFS); p = provisional; b = break in series; : = data lacking; *MT: Figures under review for certain secondary 
education qualifications, see also footnote 23; **MK: The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, see Annex 2.1. 

55 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Women have caught up in educational attainment particularly in some southern Member States and 
gaps  between  Member  States  are  much  smaller  in the  younger  generation  compared  to  the  older 
generation  (cf.  table  9.2).  Nevertheless,  in  Malta  and  Portugal,  still  less  than  two  thirds  of  young 
females  have  attained  a  sufficient  educational  level,  indicating  urgent  need  for  further 
improvement. 

The assumption that upper secondary education is a prerequisite for economic and social inclusion 
is confirmed by unemployment rates (table 9.2). Unemployment rates at European Union level of 
those  who  have  not  achieved  upper  secondary  education  are  nearly  two  times  those  of  upper 
secondary graduates and three times those of tertiary graduates. This pattern appears in almost all 
EU countries. 

9.3.  Future skills needs 

Even though the acquired level of education of Europeans is still increasing, the skills acquired will 
have to suit the needs of changing labour markets. Anticipating the future labour market demand 
lies  at  the  heart  of  the  Agenda  for  New  Skills  and  Jobs105.  Since  2008,  Cedefop  has  been 
forecasting changes in skills demand and supply in Europe up to 2020106. In terms of occupations, 
the main observed trends are expected to continue throughout the decade, namely an increase in 
the  higher  level  knowledge-  and  skills-intensive  jobs  and  a  decrease  in  jobs  requiring  fewer 
transversal  skills.  The  share  of  highly-qualification  jobs  will  increase  from  29%  in  2010  to  almost 
35% in 2020. The share of jobs employing those with medium-level qualifications will remain very 
significant, at around 50%, despite strong country variations; and the share of jobs requiring only 
low qualifications will decrease from 20% to less than 15%. 

Table  9.3  presents  this  forecast  by  country.  The  countries  where  the  employment  of  highly 
qualified workers will increase the most between 2010 and 2020 are Slovakia, Cyprus and France 
and  the  countries  where  it  will  increase  the  least  are  Germany,  Estonia  and  Sweden.  Lithuania  is 
the  only  country  where  the  demand  for  the  higher  skilled  is  expected  to  decrease.  The  share  of 
medium  qualification  jobs  is  expected  to  decrease  in  nine  Member  States,  ranging  from  -1.5%  in 
Slovakia  to  -14.9%  in  Denmark.  The  countries  where  the  share  of  medium  qualification  jobs  is 
expected to increase the most are Portugal, Malta and Spain, although all of these are expected to 
have a concomitant increase in highly-qualified jobs. Finally, the only countries where the share of 
low qualification jobs is expected to increase are Latvia, Denmark, Estonia, Lithuania and Sweden. 

On the supply side, the forecast is estimated in terms of the number of economically active people 
(aged 15 and above) and the qualifications they will hold. It is therefore largely predetermined by 
demographic  development  and  by  education  and  training  policies  already  in  place.  Cedefop’s 
projections show a substantial increase of the population with a university degree or equivalent (18 
million).  While  the  supply  of  the  medium-level  qualifications  (mainly  vocational)  is  expected  to 
increase  to  a  lesser  extent  (2  million),  it  will  still  constitute  the  majority  of  the  European  labour 
force by 2020 (50%). On the other hand, the supply of low-level qualifications is projected to fall 
by around 16 million. This shift reflects the fact that young people entering the labour market will 
be  more  and  more  qualified,  while  the  lower-qualified  older  people  will  progressively  leave  the 
active workforce. As illustrated by Table 9.3, this overall trend is visible in all Member States, while 
the  supply  of  medium  qualifications  is  expected  to  rise in  some  countries  (Malta, Spain, Portugal, 
Luxembourg, Cyprus, Italy, the United Kingdom , Belgium, Greece, Ireland and France) and drop in 
others (particularly in Denmark, Poland and Romania). 

The  share  of  high  qualifications  is  projected  to  increase  more  for  women  than  for  men,  while  the 
share of medium qualified is expected to rise more for men than for women and the share of lower 
qualified  will  drop  faster  for  women  than  for  men.  In  other  words,  on  average,  women  are 
projected to be higher qualified than men by 2020.  

105  
106  

COM(2010) 682 final. 
http://www.cedefop.europa.eu/EN/about-cedefop/projects/forecasting-skill-demand-and-supply/skills-forecasts.aspx. 

56 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
                                                            
Furthermore, there is a persistent mismatch between supply and demand of ICT skills. The demand 
for ICT practitioners is growing at a rate of 3% per year in the EU while there is a gradual decrease 
in the number of ICT graduates. As a result, there are not enough workers to fill all the vacancies 
available  in  the  sector.  According  to  a  recent  estimate,  there  will  be  up  to  700  000  unfilled  ICT 
practitioners' vacancies in the European Union by the year 2015107, despite soaring unemployment 
and the economic crisis in Europe. 

Table 9.3. Skills demand and supply trends by level of qualifications 

High 
Change (%) 

Demand for skills 
Medium 
Change (%) 

Low 
Change (%) 

High 
Change (%) 

Supply of skills 
Medium 
Change (%) 

Low 
Change (%) 

0
1
0
2
-
0
0
0
2

0
2
0
2
-
0
1
0
2

0
1
0
2
-
0
0
0
2

0
2
0
2
-
0
1
0
2

0
1
0
2
-
0
0
0
2

0
2
0
2
-
0
1
0
2

0
1
0
2
-
0
0
0
2

0
2
0
2
-
0
1
0
2

0
1
0
2
-
0
0
0
2

0
2
0
2
-
0
1
0
2

0
1
0
2
-
0
0
0
2

0
2
0
2
-
0
1
0
2

EU27 
Belgium  
Bulgaria  
Czech Republic  
Denmark  
Germany  
Estonia  
Ireland  
Greece  
Spain  
France  
Italy  
Cyprus  
Latvia  
Lithuania  
Luxembourg  
Hungary  
Malta  
Netherlands  
Austria  
Poland  
Portugal  
Romania  
Slovakia  
Slovenia  
Finland  
Sweden  
United Kingdom  

-28.9 
-31.7 
-34.9 
-47.5 
4.0 
-18.1 
-24.0 
-33.8 
-26.7 
-39.3 
-20.4 
-25.5 
-26.5 
-27.6 
-40.7 
-38.8 
-49.0 
-37.9 
-30.1 
-22.9 
-32.5 
-15.6 
-22.9 
-29.4 
-41.6 
-45.5 
-25.9 
-43.6 
Source:  Cedefop  skills  forecasts  (2012).  Note: Percentage  change  in  the  number  of  posts in  the labour  market  requiring  the 
different qualification levels.  

-21.0 
-28.3 
-26.8 
-34.9 
33.3 
-14.6 
-19.2 
-33.1 
-13.4 
-17.6 
-20.2 
-16.1 
-13.1 
-12.6 
-47.2 
0.0 
-38.7 
-11.0 
-13.3 
-5.7 
-12.5 
-18.3 
-46.5 
-44.6 
-29.7 
-32.4 
-5.0 
-30.7 

-17.3 
-25.2 
-31.5 
-40.2 
7.6 
-15.5 
-31.2 
-23.2 
-16.0 
-3.9 
-18.4 
-18.4 
-10.1 
-30.6 
-61.0 
-22.2 
-30.9 
-13.0 
-16.2 
-10.7 
-19.2 
-11.7 
-0.3 
-23.4 
-36.7 
-43.0 
-6.7 
-29.6 

-20.1 
-19.4 
-24.0 
-15.1 
20.8 
-6.5 
17.5 
-30.2 
-24.4 
-32.2 
-16.9 
-18.2 
-18.3 
36.0 
4.9 
-30.7 
-13.2 
-20.2 
-11.1 
-9.4 
-3.6 
-14.9 
-17.2 
-14.8 
-15.6 
-20.1 
4.0 
-44.4 

44.3 
31.5 
19.2 
47.6 
38.7 
16.4 
37.1 
86.2 
51.1 
66.9 
45.7 
56.5 
75.3 
46.9 
5.0 
107.1 
50.2 
95.7 
52.1 
62.2 
39.4 
71.7 
359.6 
66.3 
66.6 
36.2 
39.3 
40.2 

1.8 
11.5 
-0.9 
-6.3 
-13.3 
-2.5 
-6.9 
5.2 
11.3 
30.1 
3.5 
13.2 
17.5 
-11.7 
-0.2 
18.9 
-6.5 
31.7 
-0.1 
-6.9 
-15.1 
26.4 
-17.8 
-6.7 
-3.8 
-9.9 
-2.4 
13.0 

8.0 
25.1 
3.7 
0.9 
-18.6 
7.8 
-0.9 
20.3 
12.7 
69.4 
10.4 
19.5 
38.7 
0.0 
12.0 
18.8 
0.1 
46.4 
0.9 
5.4 
-5.9 
49.8 
-26.6 
3.4 
0.4 
2.6 
7.3 
19.7 

4.8 
13.5 
3.1 
-3.0 
-14.9 
0.4 
6.1 
13.2 
15.9 
32.2 
2.2 
13.1 
13.9 
-6.4 
17.2 
16.4 
-2.2 
36.1 
-1.8 
-1.7 
-13.7 
40.3 
0.8 
-1.5 
-5.7 
4.2 
5.6 
15.7 

31.5 
28.4 
20.8 
38.6 
23.9 
10.3 
21.4 
67.7 
47.1 
50.0 
31.1 
44.0 
63.3 
27.0 
-10.7 
88.7 
37.2 
81.8 
45.7 
43.7 
54.8 
63.1 
13.8 
48.7 
56.4 
32.3 
18.9 
30.6 

9.4 
21.4 
25.3 
2.3 
-22.5 
5.9 
-11.1 
5.9 
15.2 
51.5 
3.9 
22.8 
28.0 
-9.1 
14.7 
36.9 
-8.5 
44.0 
-2.2 
4.5 
9.5 
38.8 
-1.7 
2.9 
0.2 
9.2 
0.4 
16.6 

26.5 
19.7 
8.2 
46.2 
20.7 
9.0 
12.4 
13.8 
24.6 
23.1 
29.3 
34.5 
30.8 
29.0 
3.0 
34.5 
38.6 
37.8 
34.6 
51.2 
45.5 
24.0 
71.4 
28.5 
40.5 
26.4 
28.8 
20.4 

19.7 
16.3 
10.0 
30.3 
13.0 
0.4 
5.6 
16.8 
22.0 
26.2 
32.3 
21.6 
33.3 
23.7 
-9.0 
29.9 
25.9 
22.5 
26.1 
31.1 
26.7 
18.2 
27.1 
39.2 
25.5 
11.4 
9.0 
19.4 

Overall,  there  is  a  projected  rise  in  the  level  of  skills  both  from  the  demand  and  from  the  supply 
side. This parallel rise does not, however, prevent from potential skills mismatches, such as over-
qualification  gaps108.  In  addition,  as  the  level  of  formal  skills  increases,  employers  will  need  to 
screen  applicants  also  on  the  basis  of  their  non-formal  skills  and  competences.  Hence,  a  perfect 
match in terms of level of a job seeker's educational attainment and the formal skills demanded by 
an  employer  is  likely  to  become  a  weaker  guarantee  of  employability.  A  more  precise  matching 
framework  defined  in  terms  of  the  actual  nature  rather  than  level  of  the  skills  supplied  and 
demanded could thus improve our understanding of the real sources of skills mismatches.  

107  

108  

Report for the European Commission “Anticipating the Evolution of the Supply and Demand of e-Skills in Europe (2010-
2015)” Empirica and IDC Europe, December 2009. Updated forecast presented at the European e-Skills Conference on 
13 December 2011 in Brussels 
See: http://www.cedefop.europa.eu/EN/Files/3056_en.pdf 

57 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
58 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Annexes 

Annex 1. 

 Further tables and figures 

Chapter 2 

Table 2.A. General Government Expenditure on education as % of GDP 

EU 27 countries 
Belgium  
Bulgaria  
Czech Republic 
Denmark  
Germany  
Estonia  
Ireland  
Greece  
Spain  
France  
Italy  
Cyprus 
Latvia  
Lithuania  
Luxembourg  
Hungary  
Malta  
Netherlands  
Austria  
Poland  
Portugal  
Romania  
Slovenia  
Slovakia  
Finland  
Sweden  
United Kingdom 

2004 
5.2 
5.8 
4.1 
4.6 
7.6 
4.1 
6.3 
4.6 
3.9 
4.4 
5.8 
4.6 
6.5 
6.1 
5.8 
4.9 
5.8 
5.8 
5.6 
5.3 
5.7 
6.7 
3.6 
6.5 
3.9 
6.3 
7.1 
5.9 

2005 
5.2 
5.9 
4.3 
4.6 
7.3 
4.1 
6.0 
4.6 
3.9 
4.3 
5.8 
4.7 
6.4 
5.6 
5.4 
4.7 
5.8 
5.7 
5.5 
5.2 
6.1 
6.8 
3.6 
6.6 
4.0 
6.2 
7.0 
6.2 

2006 
5.2 
5.8 
3.7 
4.7 
7.0 
4.0 
6.0 
4.7 
3.9 
4.3 
5.7 
4.6 
6.4 
6.0 
5.3 
4.4 
5.8 
5.7 
5.3 
5.2 
6.0 
6.6 
4.1 
6.4 
3.7 
6.0 
6.9 
6.1 

2007 
5.1 
5.8 
3.8 
4.5 
6.7 
3.9 
5.9 
4.9 
3.9 
4.4 
5.5 
4.6 
6.3 
5.8 
5.2 
4.2 
5.4 
5.4 
5.3 
5.2 
5.7 
6.1 
3.9 
5.9 
3.9 
5.7 
6.7 
6.2 

2008 
5.2 
6.0 
4.1 
4.5 
6.9 
4.0 
6.7 
5.4 
4.1 
4.6 
5.6 
4.4 
6.8 
6.6 
5.8 
4.4 
5.2 
5.3 
5.5 
5.4 
5.7 
6.2 
4.5 
6.1 
3.5 
5.9 
6.8 
6.4 

2009 
5.5 
6.3 
4.3 
4.8 
8.0 
4.3 
7.1 
6.1 
4.1 
5.1 
6.0 
4.6 
7.2 
6.8 
6.8 
5.0 
5.3 
5.5 
6.0 
5.8 
5.6 
5.8 
4.1 
6.5 
4.3 
6.6 
7.2 
7.0 

Source: Eurostat. Government finance statistics (general government expenditure by function). 

Table 2.B. General Government Expenditure on education as % of total GGE 

EU 27 countries 
Belgium  
Bulgaria  
Czech Republic 
Denmark  
Germany  
Estonia  
Ireland  
Greece  
Spain  
France  
Italy  
Cyprus 
Latvia  
Lithuania  
Luxembourg  
Hungary  
Malta  
Netherlands  
Austria  
Poland  
Portugal  
Romania  

2004 
11.1 
11.7 
10.6 
10.7 
14.0 
8.7 
18.6 
13.9 
8.5 
11.3 
10.9 
9.6 
15.3 
17.0 
17.3 
11.5 
11.8 
12.8 
12.0 
9.8 
13.4 
15.1 
10.8 

2005 
11.2 
11.4 
11.5 
10.7 
13.9 
8.7 
17.8 
13.7 
8.8 
11.1 
10.8 
9.7 
14.8 
15.7 
16.2 
11.4 
11.7 
12.7 
12.2 
10.5 
14.0 
15.0 
10.7 

2006 
11.1 
12.0 
10.9 
11.3 
13.7 
8.9 
17.8 
13.6 
8.6 
11.2 
10.8 
9.4 
15.0 
15.7 
15.9 
11.4 
11.1 
12.8 
11.7 
10.7 
13.6 
14.9 
11.6 

2007 
11.1 
12.0 
9.5 
10.9 
13.3 
9.0 
17.3 
13.3 
8.1 
11.2 
10.5 
9.6 
15.3 
16.3 
14.9 
11.7 
10.7 
12.7 
11.8 
10.6 
13.4 
13.8 
10.3 

2008 
11.0 
11.9 
10.8 
10.9 
13.4 
9.0 
16.9 
12.7 
8.0 
11.1 
10.5 
9.0 
16.1 
16.8 
15.5 
11.8 
10.7 
12.1 
11.8 
10.9 
13.3 
13.9 
11.4 

2009 
10.8 
11.8 
10.7 
10.8 
13.7 
9.0 
15.7 
12.5 
7.6 
10.9 
10.6 
8.9 
15.7 
15.3 
15.6 
11.7 
10.4 
12.7 
11.6 
10.9 
12.6 
11.6 
9.9 

2010 
5.5 
6.3 
3.8 
4.8 
8.1 
4.3 
6.8 
6.0 
3.8 
4.9 
6.0 
4.5 
7.5 
6.2 
6.1 
5.1 
5.6 
5.8 
5.9 
5.7 
5.7 
6.5 
3.4 
6.6 
4.5 
6.5 
7.0 
7.0 

2010 
10.8 
11.8 
10.0 
10.9 
14.0 
9.0 
16.8 
9.0 
7.5 
10.7 
10.6 
8.9 
16.1 
13.9 
14.9 
12.1 
11.3 
13.5 
11.5 
10.8 
12.5 
12.6 
8.3 

59 

 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
  
 
Slovenia  
Slovakia  
Finland  
Sweden  
United Kingdom 

14.1 
10.5 
12.5 
13.1 
13.7 

14.7 
10.4 
12.2 
13.0 
14.0 

14.3 
10.2 
12.2 
13.1 
13.9 

14.0 
11.3 
12.1 
13.1 
14.0 

13.8 
10.0 
11.9 
13.2 
13.5 

13.3 
10.4 
11.7 
13.2 
13.5 

13.3 
11.2 
11.8 
13.3 
13.8 

Source: Eurostat. Government finance statistics (general government expenditure by function). 

Table 2.C. Breakdown of total expenditure in public educational institutions 

Current expenditure as 
% of total expenditure 

Capital expenditure as 
% of total expenditure 

Personnel expenditure 
as % of current 
expenditure 

Other current 
expenditure as % of 
current expenditure 

2009 
77.1 
87.4 
64.5 
58.4 
82.0 
77.2 
: 
81.3 
: 
80.7 
80.3 
77.7 
85.9 
79.0 
82.2 
: 
71.6 
78.6 
78.3 
74.7 
67.1 
87.0 
74.8 
76.1 
59.9 
63.6 
67.3 
78.0 
Source: Eurostat (UOE). Indicators on education finance. Note: all levels of education combined. 

EU 27 countries 
Belgium  
Bulgaria  
Czech Republic 
Denmark  
Germany  
Estonia  
Ireland  
Greece  
Spain  
France  
Italy  
Cyprus 
Latvia  
Lithuania  
Luxembourg  
Hungary  
Malta  
 Netherlands  
Austria  
Poland  
Portugal  
Romania  
Slovenia  
Slovakia  
Finland  
Sweden  
United Kingdom 

2004 
77.5 
88.3 
72.0 
60.1 
78.9 
81.1 
: 
81.2 
78.0 
82.1 
82.6 
77.7 
89.3 
76.0 
78.9 
86.2 
76.3 
84.6 
80.5 
75.2 
65.5 
90.0 
71.1 
76.7 
60.2 
65.6 
69.2 
69.4 

2004 
8.4 
2.9 
6.6 
9.6 
6.1 
7.2 
9.5 
6.8 
20.7 
9.8 
10.2 
7.9 
10.6 
8.4 
5.8 
19.9 
6.4 
5.6 
12.7 
4.8 
6.9 
3.9 
5.9 
9.5 
5.4 
9.0 
5.3 
7.9 

2009 
8.8 
3.7 
9.0 
11.2 
5.9 
8.2 
: 
8.5 
: 
11.5 
10.0 
5.2 
11.9 
12.7 
3.9 
: 
8.4 
5.6 
12.1 
4.2 
7.7 
6.2 
13.8 
9.9 
5.7 
6.3 
6.0 
9.6 

2009 
91.2 
96.3 
91.0 
88.8 
94.1 
91.8 
: 
91.5 
: 
88.5 
90.0 
94.8 
88.1 
87.3 
96.1 
: 
91.6 
94.4 
87.9 
95.8 
92.3 
93.8 
86.2 
90.1 
94.3 
93.7 
94.0 
90.4 

2004 
91.6 
97.1 
93.4 
90.4 
93.9 
92.8 
90.5 
93.2 
79.3 
90.2 
89.8 
92.1 
89.4 
91.6 
94.2 
80.1 
93.6 
94.4 
87.3 
95.2 
93.1 
96.1 
94.1 
90.5 
94.6 
91.0 
94.7 
92.1 

2004 
22.5 
11.7 
28.0 
39.9 
21.1 
18.9 
: 
18.8 
22.0 
17.9 
17.4 
22.3 
10.7 
24.0 
21.1 
13.8 
23.7 
15.4 
19.5 
24.8 
34.5 
10.0 
28.9 
23.3 
39.8 
34.4 
30.8 
30.6 

2009 
22.9 
12.6 
35.5 
41.6 
18.0 
22.8 
: 
18.7 
: 
19.3 
19.7 
22.3 
14.1 
21.0 
17.8 
: 
28.4 
21.4 
21.7 
25.3 
32.9 
13.0 
25.2 
23.9 
40.1 
36.4 
32.7 
22.0 

Table 2.D. Expenditure on public and private educational institutions per pupil/student compared 
to GDP per capita. %  

EU 27 countries 
Belgium  
Bulgaria  
Czech Republic 
Denmark  
Germany  
Estonia  
Ireland  
Greece  
Spain  
France  
Italy  
Cyprus 
Latvia  
Lithuania  
Luxembourg  
Hungary  
Malta  
Netherlands  

2004 
24.7 
23.8 
24.2 
21.7 
28.1 
24.7 
: 
18.5 
20.4 
24.0 
25.8 
25.5 
30.8 
24.4 
21.5 
: 
26.7 
24.3 
25.1 

2005 
25.3 
23.8 
23.7 
21.3 
29.1 
25.4 
20.4 
18.5 
22.0 
24.8 
25.4 
24.9 
32.4 
24.7 
20.5 
: 
26.7 
33.6 
24.9 

2006 
25.2 
25.0 
23.6 
23.3 
28.6 
23.7 
20.4 
: 
: 
24.9 
25.4 
26 
33.3 
25.3 
20.9 
: 
26.8 
34.2 
24.2 

2007 
24.9 
25.2 
22.9 
21.5 
28.4 
23.4 
20.8 
: 
: 
25.8 
25.8 
23.9 
33.2 
26.5 
21.4 
: 
: 
33.8 
23.8 

2008 
25.6 
27.1 
26.5 
21.5 
28.6 
24.2 
24.7 
: 
: 
27.0 
26.2 
25.8 
35.4 
30.5 
23.2 
: 
: 
31.8 
24.1 

2009 
27.4 
27.7 
27.8 
23.9 
31.6 
26.9 
28.0 
: 
: 
28.7 
27.5 
25.8 
37.3 
30.6 
27.4 
: 
: 
35.5 
27.0 

60 

 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
  
 
Austria  
Poland  
Portugal  
Romania  
Slovenia  
Slovakia  
Finland  
Sweden  
United Kingdom 

28.2 
24.8 
25.3 
: 
29.5 
21.0 
24.8 
26.0 
23.2 

28.7 
26.6 
26.9 
18.3 
30.5 
19.9 
24.1 
25.7 
26.1 

29.0 
24.8 
26.8 
: 
30.4 
19.6 
23.7 
25.4 
28.0 

28.1 
23.8 
26.2 
: 
27.3 
18.6 
22.7 
25.3 
27.1 

28.4 
26.7 
25.3 
: 
28.4 
19.6 
23.7 
26.3 
26.3 

30.6 
27.6 
28.2 
21.6 
31.9 
23.4 
26.3 
28.4 
28.2 

Source: Eurostat (UOE). Indicators on education finance. Note: compared to GDP per capita, all levels of education combined, 
based on full-time equivalents. 

61 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Chapter 3 

Figure 3.A. Long-term development of ESL rates in all ET 2020 countries 

Source: Eurostat (LFS). 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Chapter 4 

EU27 countries 
Belgium 
Bulgaria  
Czech Republic 
Denmark  
Germany  
Estonia  
Ireland  
Greece  
Spain  
France  
Italy  
Cyprus 
Latvia  
Lithuania  
Luxembourg  
Hungary  
Malta  
Netherlands  
Austria  
Poland  
Portugal  
Romania  
Slovenia  
Slovakia  
Finland  
Sweden  
United Kingdom 
Iceland  
Liechtenstein  
Norway  
Switzerland  

Table 4.A. Students by field of education 

Women enrolled in fields of education, tertiary level (ISCED 5-6), as % of total, 2010 

Students enrolled by field of education, tertiary level (ISCED 5-6), as % of total, 2010 

n
o
i
t
a
c
u
d
E

76,7 
71,7 
71,5 
78,6 
72,4 
70,9 
91,6 
76,2 
63,0 
77,3 
80,8 
91,6 
76,5 
83,0 
76,0 
69,6 
79,8 
81,8 
73,2 
75,5 
77,4 
82,8 
93,3 
81,4 
75,1 
79,5 
77,2 
75,5 
81,6 
: 
76,1 
71,6 

s
e
i
t
i
n
a
m
u
H

t
r
a

d
n
a

65,4 
55,5 
68,7 
66,8 
62,9 
66,1 
74,3 
59,8 
70,4 
59,2 
67,7 
72,5 
67,5 
77,0 
72,6 
60,9 
64,2 
59,5 
54,2 
65,7 
70,0 
55,8 
64,5 
69,0 
65,3 
70,5 
60,9 
61,2 
65,1 
: 
60,6 
60,1 

l

a
i
c
o
S

,
e
c
n
e
i
c
s

s
s
e
n
i
s
u
b

w
a

l

d
n
a

58,3 
53,8 
63,5 
62,4 
52,3 
50,7 
66,2 
53,5 
53,7 
57,8 
60,0 
58,1 
39,5 
68,1 
67,4 
52,1 
64,4 
57,8 
47,8 
55,8 
63,5 
58,0 
63,0 
67,5 
66,3 
59,7 
61,4 
54,7 
59,6 
32,6 
57,9 
47,7 

,
e
c
n
e
i
c
S

d
n
a

s
h
t
a
m

g
n
i
t
u
p
m
o
c

37,6 
29,4 
46,8 
35,2 
34,4 
35,8 
38,1 
38,4 
37,6 
33,2 
35,7 
51,9 
36,3 
32,2 
34,6 
32,8 
32,4 
47,1 
19,9 
35,6 
37,9 
46,2 
52,8 
39,2 
39,2 
38,9 
41,8 
36,5 
38,3 
: 
36,1 
31,9 

,
g
n
i
r
e
e
n
g
n
E

i

.
t
c
a
f
u
n
a
m

d
n
a

n
o
i
t
c
u
r
t
s
n
o
c

25,0 
22,8 
32,0 
25,0 
35,1 
18,3 
23,8 
15,6 
26,0 
27,6 
25,3 
30,1 
24,4 
21,4 
20,6 
17,8 
18,1 
26,2 
16,9 
23,3 
29,7 
25,5 
30,4 
25,4 
29,1 
19,0 
29,1 
19,2 
33,6 
50,0 
27,0 
15,9 

e
r
u
t
l
u
c
i
r
g
A

d
n
a

y
r
a
n
i
r
e
t
e
v

49,4 
53,1 
47,5 
56,7 
59,2 
48,1 
53,1 
42,9 
45,2 
46,1 
44,1 
47,0 
56,4 
50,8 
54,2 
: 
44,9 
36,0 
51,2 
59,5 
52,9 
55,1 
36,5 
56,2 
48,1 
51,4 
62,8 
62,9 
63,4 
: 
60,2 
49,6 

d
n
a

h
t
l
a
e
H

e
r
a
f
l
e
w

74,0 
73,2 
66,8 
77,7 
80,6 
76,5 
88,1 
76,3 
67,1 
73,4 
70,7 
66,1 
59,9 
85,1 
82,4 
70,9 
73,2 
63,1 
73,6 
64,3 
73,7 
77,4 
68,1 
77,0 
77,6 
82,9 
79,7 
76,7 
86,6 
39,0 
82,0 
73,2 

s
e
c
i
v
r
e
S

49,4 
50,8 
46,4 
42,9 
25,1 
47,2 
51,4 
45,8 
51,2 
50,2 
44,0 
47,2 
63,7 
56,9 
44,0 
: 
59,6 
57,4 
48,4 
51,1 
50,6 
43,9 
42,4 
52,2 
43,5 
68,3 
58,3 
57,0 
68,7 
: 
45,0 
50,8 

n
o
i
t
a
c
u
d
E

8,1 
12,2 
5,7 
12,5 
10,4 
7,2 
6,8 
6,4 
5,9 
10,9 
2,4 
5,1 
8,2 
8,2 
10,5 
16,8 
6,6 
10,0 
13,3 
11,9 
13,6 
5,4 
1,6 
7,4 
12,5 
5,0 
13,2 
9,5 
15,6 
: 
14,5 
9,2 

s
e
i
t
i
n
a
m
u
H

t
r
a

d
n
a

12,5 
10,8 
7,9 
9,0 
14,1 
13,7 
13,6 
17,0 
12,8 
10,7 
14,2 
15,7 
10,1 
8,5 
7,3 
12,1 
9,6 
18,1 
8,5 
13,4 
9,2 
8,9 
7,8 
8,3 
6,9 
14,3 
13,6 
17,0 
14,6 
: 
10,8 
12,1 

l

a
i
c
o
S

,
e
c
n
e
i
c
s

s
s
e
n
i
s
u
b

w
a

l

d
n
a

34,7 
31,7 
44,0 
33,7 
31,9 
26,3 
36,4 
27,5 
33,2 
31,6 
37,3 
36,5 
51,7 
49,9 
46,5 
47,3 
40,4 
33,2 
38,9 
37,2 
39,7 
31,8 
55,0 
37,5 
30,7 
22,8 
27,2 
29,0 
36,9 
70,1 
32,0 
36,7 

,
e
c
n
e
i
c
S

d
n
a

s
h
t
a
m

g
n
i
t
u
p
m
o
c

10,2 
6,2 
5,2 
11,1 
8,6 
14,2 
10,4 
14,6 
13,8 
9,2 
12,3 
8,3 
8,5 
5,5 
5,1 
11,2 
7,1 
16,4 
6,3 
11,0 
8,1 
7,3 
4,9 
6,7 
8,4 
10,2 
8,6 
14,0 
8,1 
: 
8,3 
9,7 

,
g
n
i
r
e
e
n
g
n
E

i

.
t
c
a
f
u
n
a
m

d
n
a

n
o
i
t
c
u
r
t
s
n
o
c

e
r
u
t
l
u
c
i
r
g
A

d
n
a

y
r
a
n
i
r
e
t
e
v

14,7 
11,5 
19,2 
14,3 
10,0 
16,5 
13,4 
13,0 
18,4 
17,4 
13,2 
16,9 
9,8 
12,6 
17,1 
8,1 
14,0 
9,4 
8,2 
14,7 
13,2 
22,1 
17,9 
18,9 
15,0 
24,9 
16,7 
8,9 
9,3 
24,7 
8,1 
13,2 

1,8 
2,8 
2,4 
3,7 
1,5 
1,4 
2,2 
1,5 
5,0 
1,7 
1,2 
2,2 
0,3 
1,1 
1,9 
: 
2,4 
0,2 
1,1 
1,3 
1,9 
1,8 
2,1 
3,2 
2,1 
2,2 
1,0 
1,0 
0,6 
: 
0,7 
1,1 

d
n
a

h
t
l
a
e
H

e
r
a
f
l
e
w

13,9 
23,1 
7,1 
10,5 
21,1 
17,9 
9,1 
16,0 
8,1 
12,6 
16,0 
12,5 
7,1 
8,2 
8,8 
4,5 
9,3 
11,6 
17,3 
7,9 
7,7 
16,3 
7,5 
8,7 
18,2 
15,6 
17,2 
18,7 
13,2 
5,2 
20,3 
13,2 

s
e
c
i
v
r
e
S

4,1 
1,7 
8,5 
5,2 
2,3 
2,8 
8,0 
4,0 
2,7 
5,8 
3,4 
3,0 
4,3 
6,1 
2,9 
: 
10,5 
1,2 
6,5 
2,4 
6,7 
6,4 
3,3 
9,3 
6,2 
5,1 
2,5 
1,8 
1,7 
: 
5,2 
4,8 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Croatia  
MK* 
Turkey  

6,8 
11,7 
6,5 
Source: Eurostat (UOE). Notes: DE, IT: data exclude ISCED level 6 (doctoral students). *MK: the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (see annex 2.1). 

42,2 
38,6 
53,8 

29,3 
33,6 
31,0 

75,1 
72,6 
62,3 

45,4 
35,8 
48,0 

28,7 
33,7 
22,4 

50,6 
35,6 
43,0 

71,0 
56,0 
44,8 

69,6 
65,5 
53,3 

93,2 
73,5 
54,5 

9,5 
12,2 
7,8 

4,7 
6,3 
8,3 

15,3 
12,5 
10,9 

4,2 
2,9 
3,6 

8,4 
9,5 
5,9 

8,8 
6,3 
3,2 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Chapter 6 

Table 6.A. Average number of foreign languages learned per pupil in ISCED 1, 2 and 3 (2000, 2005, 
2010) 

ISCED 1 

ISCED 2 

2000 

2005 

2010 

2000 

2005 

2010 

2000 

ISCED 3  
General 
2005 

2010 

ISCED 3  
Pre-voc. and voc. 
2005 

2000 

2010 

EU 27 countries 

0.5 

0.7 

0.8 

1.3 

1.4 

1.5 

Belgium 

0.4 

Belgium (fr & de)  

0.4 

Belgium(nl) 

Bulgaria 

Czech Republic 

Denmark 

Germany 

Estonia 

Ireland 

Greece 

Spain 

France 

Italy 

Cyprus 

Latvia 

Lithuania 

Luxembourg 

Hungary 

Malta 

Netherlands 

Austria 

Poland 

Portugal 

Romania 

Slovenia 

Slovakia 

Finland 

Sweden 

United Kingdom 

Croatia 

Montenegro 

Iceland 

MK* 

Serbia 

Turkey 

Liechtenstein 

0.3 

0.2 

0.4 

: 

0.2 

1.1 

0.0 

: 

0.8 

0.5 

0.6 

0.5 

0.5 

0.3 

1.8 

: 

1.0 

: 

0.9 

0.7 

: 

0.6 

: 

0.4 

0.8 

0.9 

: 

: 

: 

0.5 

0.0 

: 

: 

: 

0.4 

0.6 

0.3 

0.7 

0.5 

0.7 

0.5 

1.1 

0.0 

0.9 

1.0 

: 

1.0 

0.6 

0.6 

0.6 

1.8 

0.5 

1.0 

0.3 

1.0 

0.7 

0.3 

0.6 

0.1 

0.5 

0.9 

0.9 

0.5 

0.9 

: 

0.6 

0.2 

: 

: 

: 

0.4 

0.5 

0.3 

0.9 

0.7 

0.7 

0.7 

: 

0.1 

: 

1.1 

: 

1.0 

0.6 

0.8 

0.7 

1.8 

0.6 

1.0 

0.3 

1.0 

1.0 

0.9 

0.6 

0.5 

0.7 

0.8 

0.6 

1.0 

1.2 

: 

0.8 

1.0 

: 

0.6 

: 

1.0 

0.7 

1.5 

1.1 

1.1 

1.7 

1.2 

2.0 

1.0 

: 

1.5 

1.5 

1.1 

2.0 

1.5 

1.7 

2.5 

0.7 

2.1 

: 

1.1 

1.3 

: 

1.9 

1.0 

1.1 

2.3 

1.7 

: 

: 

: 

2.1 

1.2 

: 

: 

: 

1.2 

0.9 

1.4 

1.2 

1.0 

2.0 

1.2 

2.0 

1.0 

1.9 

1.4 

1.5 

1.4 

1.9 

1.6 

1.8 

2.5 

1.0 

2.2 

2.0 

1.1 

1.1 

1.9 

1.9 

1.2 

1.1 

2.2 

1.7 

1.0 

1.2 

: 

2.1 

1.5 

: 

: 

: 

1.2 

1.0 

1.4 

1.2 

1.3 

1.8 

1.3 

: 

1.0 

: 

1.4 

1.5 

2.0 

2.0 

1.7 

1.8 

2.5 

1.0 

1.8 

2.1 

1.1 

1.3 

1.4 

1.9 

1.4 

1.4 

2.2 

1.8 

1.0 

1.5 

: 

2.0 

1.8 

: 

: 

: 

Norway 

1.0 

1.0 

1.0 

1.7 

1.5 

1.7 

0.9 

1.5 

1 

2.1 

1.2 

1.3 

1.3 

0.7 

2.1 

0.9 

: 

1.1 

1.6 

1.2 

: 

: 

1.8 

2.2 

1.2 

0.8 

: 

1.3 

1.4 

: 

1.3 

1.5 

1.4 

: 

1.7 

: 

: 

: 

1.3 

1.3 

: 

: 

: 

: 

1.6 

1.6 

0.9 

1.1 

1.2 

2.2 

1.8 

2.5 

1.8 

2.0 

1.8 

1.4 

2.3 

0.9 

1.1 

1.2 

: 

1.1 

1.7 

1.8 

1.6 

3.0 

1.4 

1.0 

2.6 

1.9 

2.0 

0.7 

2.0 

2.0 

2.0 

2.8 

2.2 

0.7 

2.0 

: 

2.2 

1.9 

2.5 

1.7 

2.1 

1.6 

1.4 

: 

0.9 

0.5 

1.8 

0.7 

1.1 

0.4 

0.4 

1.8 

0.9 

: 

: 

0.9 

1.2 

2.0 

1.3 

1.9 

1.9 

1.5 

3.0 

1.4 

1.3 

1.8 

1.8 

1.7 

0.5 

2.0 

2.0 

2.0 

2.7 

2.2 

0.5 

1.9 

: 

1 

1 

1.1 

1 

: 

1.6 

1.7 

1.2 

0.1 

: 

1.2 

1.1 

: 

1 

1.3 

1.3 

1.1 

1.1 

: 

: 

: 

1.3 

0.8 

1.7 

1.1 

1.2 

0.9 

0.5 

1.8 

1.0 

0.8 

1.0 

: 

1.4 

1.2 

: 

0.9 

1.9 

0.7 

0.0 

: 

1.3 

1.5 

0.9 

1.2 

1.3 

1.3 

: 

1.3 

0.7 

1.6 

1.4 

1.3 

0.9 

0.4 

: 

1.0 

: 

: 

1.2 

1.4 

1.1 

1.2 

1.1 

2.0 

0.8 

1.0 

: 

1.2 

1.6 

0.7 

1.8 

1.3 

1.5 

: 

1.1 

1.1 

: 

: 

1.2 

1.3 

: 

: 

1.9 

1.8 

0.7 

0.8 

0.6 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

0.9 

: 

1.0 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

0.9 

: 

0.5 

Source: Eurostat (UOE). *MK: The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (see annex 2.1). 

65 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
Figure 6.A. Proportion of pupils in the EU learning English, French, German and Spanish as foreign 
language at ISCED 2 (2000-2010) 

2000 

2001 

2002 

2003 

2004 

2005 

2006 

2007 

2008 

2009 

2010 

English 

74.3 

72.7 

75.4 

75 

83.3 

90.2 

91.7 

92.2 

92.9 

93.2 

93.7 

French 

21.3 

21.3 

26 

24.6 

21.4 

29.3 

German 

11.3 

11.7 

13.7 

13.6 

12.5 

17.4 

Spanish 

5.1 

5 

5.8 

6.4 

6.3 

7.8 

31 

17 

8.9 

33.3 

32.9 

32.6 

32.7 

16.6 

16.2 

15.7 

16.9 

9.7 

10.3 

10.7 

11.4 

Source: Eurostat (UOE). 

66 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Annex 2.  List of abbreviations 

2.1.  Country abbreviations 

EU 
BE 
BG 
CZ 
DK 
DE 
EE 
EL 
ES 
FR 
IE 
IT 
CY 
LV 
LT 
LU 
HU 
MT 
NL 
AT 
PL 
PT 

European Union 
Belgium 
Bulgaria 
Czech Republic 
Denmark 
Germany 
Estonia 
Greece 
Spain 
France 
Ireland 
Italy 
Cyprus 
Latvia 
Lithuania 
Luxembourg 
Hungary 
Malta 
Netherlands 
Austria 
Poland  
Portugal 

RO 
SI 
SK 
FI 
SE 
UK 

AC 
HR 

CC 
IS 
MK* 

TR 

EEA 
LI 
NO 

Romania 
Slovenia 
Slovakia 
Finland 
Sweden 
United Kingdom 

Acceding Countries 
Croatia 

Candidate Countries 
Iceland 
The former Yugoslav Republic 
of Macedonia 
Turkey 

European Economic Area 
Liechtenstein 
Norway 

Other 
CH 

Switzerland 

*  ISO code 3166. Provisional code which does not prejudge in any way the definitive nomenclature for this country, 
which  will  be  agreed  following  the  conclusion  of  negotiations  currently  taking  place  on  this  subject  at  the  United 
Nations (http://www.iso.org/iso/country_codes/iso_3166_code_lists.htm) 

67 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
2.2.  General abbreviations 

AES 
AGS 
ALL 
CEDEFOP 
CRELL 
CSR 
DG EAC  
EACEA 
ECEC 
ECTS    
EEA 
EENEE   
ESL 

ESLC 
EURYDICE 
ISS 
GDP 
GGE 
IALS 
ICCS 
ICT 
IEA 
ISCED   
IVET 
JAF 
JRC 
LFS 
NESET   
NESSE   
NRP 
OECD 
OER 
OJ 
PIAAC 
PIRLS   
PISA 
PPS 
SCP 
TIMSS   
UNESCO 
UNICEF  
UOE 
VET 

Adult Education Survey 
Annual Growth Survey 
Adult Literacy and Life-skills Survey 
European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training 
Centre for Research on Lifelong Learning (co-ordinated by JRC) 
Country-Specific Recommendation 
Directorate-General for Education and Culture, European Commission  
Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency, European Commission 
Early Childhood Education and Care 
the European Credit Transfer System  
European Economic Area (EU 27+Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein) 
European Expert Network on Economics of Education 
Early  school  leavers  or  early  leavers  from  education  and  training  (used 
interchangeably) 
European Survey on Language Competences 
Education Information Network in the European Community 
Information society statistics (Eurostat) 
Gross Domestic Product 
General Government Expenditure 
International Adult Literacy Survey 
International Civic and Citizenship education survey 
Information and Communication Technology 
International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement 
International Standard Classification of Education 
Initial vocational education and training 
Joint Assessment Framework 
Joint Research Centre (European Commission) 
European Union Labour Force Survey (Eurostat) 
Network of Experts on Social Aspects of Education and Training 
Network of Experts in Social Sciences of Education and training 
National Reform Programme 
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development 
Open Educational Resources 
Official Journal of the European Union 
Programme for the International Assessment of Adult Competencies (OECD study) 
Progress in International Reading Literacy Survey 
Programme for International Student Assessment 
Purchasing Power Standards  
Stability and Convergence Programme  
Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study 
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (based in Paris) 
United Nations Children's Fund 
UNESCO Institute for Statistics/OECD/Eurostat (common data collection) 
Vocational education and training 

68