COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Language competences for employability, mobility and growth 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: economic growth, educational reform, job creation, labour mobility, language teaching, new educational methods, student mobility, teaching curriculum, teaching quality

EUROPEAN 
COMMISSION 

Strasbourg, 20.11.2012  
SWD(2012) 372 final 

COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 

Language competences for employability, mobility and growth 

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) 373 final} 
{SWD(2012) 374 final} 
{SWD(2012) 375 final} 
{SWD(2012) 376 final} 
{SWD(2012) 377 final} 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
  
 
Table of Contents 

Executive summary for policy makers................................................................................ 1 

1. 

Introduction ................................................................................................................. 4 

2.  Efficiency  and  effectiveness  of  Education  and  training  systems  in  teaching 

foreign languages ........................................................................................................ 6 

2.1.  Analysis ............................................................................................................. 6 

2.2.  Guidance to Member States ............................................................................ 16 

2.3.  Support at EU level ......................................................................................... 18 

3.  Better targeting of language competences to enhance employability, mobility and 

growth........................................................................................................................ 19 

3.1.  Analysis ........................................................................................................... 19 

3.2.  Guidance to Member States ............................................................................ 24 

3.3.  Support at EU level ......................................................................................... 24 

4.  Funding improved language competences ................................................................ 25 

5.  Assessing language skills: the European benchmark on language competences...... 26 

5.1.  The issue to be monitored ............................................................................... 26 

5.2.  Laying the foundation for the benchmark on language competences ............. 27 

5.3.  The  approach  to  setting  a  European  benchmark  on  foreign  language 

competences .................................................................................................... 29 

5.4.  Benchmarking the first foreign language ........................................................ 31 

5.5.  Benchmark for the second foreign language................................................... 33 

5.6.  An important supplementary indicator: the share of “low-achievers” ............ 35 

5.7.  Future action.................................................................................................... 35 

Appendix ........................................................................................................................... 38 

Annex - Facts and Figures................................................................................................. 43 

 
 
 
 
 
LANGUAGE COMPETENCES FOR EMPLOYABILITY, MOBILITY AND 
GROWTH 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY FOR POLICY MAKERS 

Language  competences  are  a  key  dimension  of  modernising  European  education 
systems, and this Staff Working Document is part of a larger policy initiative contributing to 
Europe  2020.  It  offers  analysis  and  insight  to  support  the  Commission  Communication  on 
“Re-thinking  Education:  a  blueprint  to  invest  in  the  skills  of  the  future  for  better  economic 
and social outcomes.”  

Raising  the  language  competences  of  children,  young  people  and  adults  will  foster  the 
mobility of workers and students and improve the employability of the European workforce. 
Therefore, improved language competences will contribute to achieving the objectives of the 
Europe 2020 strategy of growth and jobs. 

Language competences should be useful in real life and match, in particular, labour market 
needs. This applies for national and European labour markets, and the work of EU enterprises 
operating  on  an  international  scale.  Poor  language  skills  are  a  serious  obstacle  to  seizing 
professional  opportunities  abroad  and  in  enterprises  or  organisations  active  at  international 
level. 

This  SWD  presents  ground-breaking  evidence.  It draws  on the new  European Survey on 
Language  Competences  (ESLC),  which  assesses  pupils'  knowledge  of  the  first  and  second 
foreign languages at the end of lower secondary education. It provides, for the first time ever, 
empirical  evidence  on  the  ability  of  young  Europeans  to  communicate  across  borders,  their 
attitudes,  expectations  and  exposure  to  foreign  languages,  as  well  as  teaching  methods  and 
approaches in this field. The SWD uses, in addition, the outcome of a special Eurobarometer 
on languages and the 2012 edition of EACEA/Eurydice’s Key Data on Teaching Languages 
at School in Europe.  

The key findings are: 

1.  The  outcome  of  foreign  language  learning  in  Europe  is  poor: only four in ten pupils 
reach  the  ‘independent  user’  level  in  the  first  foreign  language,  indicating  an  ability  to 
have  a  simple  conversation.  Only  one  quarter  attains  this  level  in  the  second  foreign 
language. Too many pupils — 14% for the first language and 20% for the second — do 
not  reach  the  ‘basic  user’  level  which  means  that  they  are  not  able  to  use  very  simple 
language, even with support. At the same time, almost half of Europeans report that they 
are unable to hold a conversation in any language other than their mother tongue.  

1 

 
 
2.  There  are  considerable  differences  in  Member  States’  performance:  the  new  data 
show that the share of pupils reaching the level of ‘independent user’ in the first foreign 
language varies from 9% (England1) and 14% (France) to 82% (Malta and Sweden). 

3.  English  is  becoming  de  facto  the  first  foreign  language.  It  is  the  most  taught  foreign 
language,  both  in  Europe  and  globally,  and  it  plays  a  key  role  in  daily  life  -  but:  it  is 
proficiency in more than one foreign language that will make a decisive difference in 
the future. This calls for language policies and strategies inspired by a clear vision of the 
value of language skills for mobility and employability. 

4.  Member  States  should  make  teaching  and  learning  foreign  languages  significantly 

more effective by action along the following lines:  

•  Quantity: more hours need to be invested into the teaching and learning of languages 
(both in general and vocational education and training). Pupils should start earlier in 
life to learn foreign languages and at least two foreign languages should be taught to 
all pupils during compulsory education. 

•  Quality: teaching should be improved with the help of innovative methods, including 
Content  and  Language  Integrated  Learning  (CLIL)  where  non-language  subjects  are 
taught  through  the  medium  of  a  foreign  language,  initial  and  in-service  training  of 
language  teachers,  increased  opportunities  for  using  language  skills  and  the 
development of ICT-based language learning resources. 

•  Focus: language learning outcomes must be geared to support employability, mobility 
and  growth.  Education  systems  have  to  respond  better  to  pupils’  learning  and 
professional needs and work more closely with employers, chambers of commerce and 
other stakeholders, linking language teaching to the creation of EU-level career paths. 

•  Guidance: in line with this focus, Member States should provide adequate guidance 

to pupils and their families. 

•  Monitoring:  developments  in  learning  outcomes  should  be  monitored  to  identify 
strengths and weaknesses and, ultimately, to improve the effectiveness of the system. 

5.  The  considerable  variations  in  Member  States'  performance  mean  that  countries  have 
different starting points from which to develop the quality of foreign language teaching. 
Member  States  should  make  an  assessment  of  their  own  needs  and  identify  a  tailored 
strategy to improve quality and efficiency.  

1 The  ESLC  tested  foreign  language  competences  in  England,  not  in  the  whole  UK.  In  total,  16  education 

systems participated in the ESLC. 

2 

 
 
                                                 
6.  Member  States  already  invest  considerably  in  the  teaching  of  foreign  languages. 
However, smarter approaches based on the specific needs of the country and drawing on 
best  practice  can  increase  the  return  on  this  investment.  Further  funding  for  language 
learning  will  pay  back  in  the  long  term  through  increased  capacity  for  growth  and 
internationalisation of the economy.  

7. To step up work on language competences, the Commission proposes the first ever EU 
benchmark  on  language  competences.  The  proposal  responds  to  a  request  by  the 
Council. It is based on the results of the ESLC and has been elaborated in cooperation with 
Member States’ representatives, namely the Advisory Board for the European Indicator of 
Language Competence, the OMC group on indicators and the OMC group on languages.  

8. The Commission proposes a  benchmark  that  is  based  on  a  dual  approach,  due  to the 
current  availability  of  data  and  the  situation  of  language  teaching  in  Europe.  This  dual 
approach  combines  two  elements:  the  outcomes  of  learning  in  the  first  foreign  language, 
and the quantity of pupils learning a second foreign language:  

•  by 2020, at least 50% of 15 year-olds should attain the level of independent user of a 

first foreign language (compared to the present 42 %);  

•  by 2020, at least 75% of pupils in lower secondary education should study at least two 

foreign languages (compared to the present 61 %). 

3 

 
 
1. 

INTRODUCTION 

Language skills are a “must” for the modern economy ...   

Europe’s vision for 2020 is to become a smart, sustainable and inclusive economy. Therefore, 
improving  the  outcomes  of  education  and  training  and  investing  in  skills  in  general—and 
language skills in particular—are important prerequisites to achieve the EU goal of increasing 
growth, creating jobs, promoting employability and increasing competitiveness. The ambition 
is to achieve better functioning of EU labour markets, to provide the right skills for the right 
jobs and to improve the quality of work and working conditions.  

In this context, foreign language proficiency is one of the main determinants of learning and 
professional mobility, as well as of domestic and international employability. Poor language 
skills  thus  constitute  a  major  obstacle  to  free  movement  of  workers  and  to  the  international 
competitiveness of EU enterprises. 

The present Staff Working Document accompanies the Commission’s Communication on Re-
thinking  Education  and  provides  analytical  support  to  the  Commission’s  initiative  on 
language competences. 

Supporting the current focus of European policies on growth, this document focuses on those 
measures that can help individuals to find better jobs either in their home country or abroad, 
and businesses to secure the linguistic resources needed to improve their competitiveness. It is 
clear, however, that the benefits of improved language learning go well beyond the immediate 
economic advantages, encompassing a range of cultural, cognitive, social, civic, academic and 
security aspects. 

... and a fresh joint effort is needed to boost language competences ...  

The  guidance  offered  in  this  document  is  addressed  to  policy  makers  and  practitioners 
responsible  for  drafting  curricula,  organising  the  training  of  teachers  and  more  generally 
designing  the  path  towards  an  improved  acquisition  of  language  competences.  They  are 
equally  meant  to  stimulate  debate  and  reflection  among  teachers,  trainers,  school  managers 
and all those who are dealing with the challenging task of enabling successful communication 
between members of different language communities. 

Preparing young people with the right mix of skills has never been easy, even less so in times 
of rapid change. Anticipating which competences will be required on the labour market in ten, 
twenty or thirty years’ time is a difficult exercise, but there is little doubt that the ability to 
speak and understand foreign languages will be an asset for the years to come. Moreover, to 
encourage lifelong learning, schools should teach pupils how to acquire new language skills 
according to their changing needs and interests.  

Each  individual  might  need  to  move  from  a  passive  competence  to  an  active  one,  to 
complement  written  with  oral  skills,  to  learn  a  new  language  to  follow  his  or  her  career 
opportunities, new partner or cultural interest. Learning to learn languages has to become an 
integral part of everybody’s education. 

4 

 
 
 
... with continued commitment at the EU level 

In this context, one priority area for European cooperation in education and  training for the 
period  2012-2014  (Education  and  Training  2020  –  “ET  2020”)  is  to  “promote  learning 
mobility for all learners, within Europe and worldwide, at all levels of education and training, 
focusing on information and guidance, the quality of learning mobility, removing barriers to 
mobility and promoting teacher mobility.”2 To overcome these barriers, the joint Council and 
Commission  Report  confirmed  in  February  2012  the  need  to  “pursue  work  to  improve 
language competences.”  

In November 2011, the Ministers of Education proposed a series of measures for promoting 
the  mobility  of  students  and  workers  within  the  European  Union  through  better  language 
competences,  observing  that  “learning  and  professional  mobility  continue  to  be  severely 
hampered by a limited knowledge of foreign languages.”3 

This  concern  was  echoed  in  September  2012  by  the  European  Parliament’s  remark  that 
“insufficient  language  knowledge  continues  to  be  an  enormous  obstacle  to  mobility  for  the 
purposes of education and training.”4  

In the Compact for growth and jobs adopted in June 2012, the European Council underlined 
that, to promote economic recovery and fight unemployment, “labour mobility within the EU 
should  be  facilitated  […]  the  recognition  of  professional  qualifications  and  language  skills 
improved.”5  

National  and  EU  policymakers  have  long  been  concerned  with  the  consequences  of  poor 
language  competences.  As  far  back  as  1996,  the  White  Paper  Teaching  and  learning  – 
towards  the  learning  society  argued  that  “proficiency  in  at  least  two  foreign  languages  at 
school”  should  become  a  priority.6 In  March  2002,  the  Barcelona  European  Council  linked 
this aspiration to the need to create “a competitive economy based on knowledge,” calling for 
further  action  “to  improve  the  mastery  of  basic  skills,  in  particular  by  teaching  at  least  two 

2 2012 Joint Report of the Council and the Commission on the implementation of the Strategic Framework for 
European cooperation in education and training (ET 2020) ‘Education and Training in a smart, sustainable 
and inclusive Europe,’ http://eur-
lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:C:2012:070:0009:0018:EN:PDF.  

3 Council  Conclusions  of  28-29  November  2011  on  language  competences  to  enhance  mobility,  OJ  C  372, 

20.12.2011, pp. 27-30,  
lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:C:2011:372:0027:01:EN:HTML  

http://eur-

4 European Parliament resolution of 11 September 2012 on Education, Training and Europe 2020 (2012/2045(INI)), 

.11 September 2012, 
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=TA&language=EN&reference=P7-TA-2012-323.   
5 Council  Conclusions  of  28-29  June  2012,  chapter  ‘The  contribution  of  European  policies  to  growth  and 

employment,’ point 3(l), page 14.  
http://myintracomm.ec.europa.eu/NewsPortal/Documents/2012/29062012councilconclusions.pdf  

6  White  paper  on  education  and  training  Teaching  and  learning  -  towards  the  learning  society,  1995. 

http://ec.europa.eu/languages/documents/doc409_en.pdf.  

5 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
 
foreign languages from a very early age” and asking that a linguistic competence indicator be 
established.7  

... accompanied by evidence-based analysis and practical guidance  

The Barcelona objective is more relevant than ever. The progress of political and economic 
integration  over  the  last  decade  makes  improving  language  learning  all  the  more  urgent. 
Education  and  training  systems  need  to  reconsider  the  key  role  of  foreign  language 
competences and improve their efficiency in this respect (see Chapter 2). 

For language skills to translate into better job opportunities, it will also be important to ensure 
a more accurate targeting of the language competences of young people. Rather than aiming 
at an unrealistic ‘native speaker’ level, what they learn must enable them to perform the tasks 
they are likely to face in further education or in professional life.8 The right mix of languages 
and skills will go a long way in preparing them for a brighter future at home or abroad (see 
Chapter 3). 

To  improve  the  quality  and  increase  the  quantity  of  language  teaching,  new  efforts  will  be 
needed in terms of teacher training, development of new materials and approaches. Member 
States must realise that any investment improving the effectiveness of language teaching will 
have a substantial return,  improving  the efficiency of  the whole  labour market (see Chapter 
4). 

Efforts to improve language learning have so far been hindered by  the absence of  objective 
data  for  assessing  the  learning  outcomes  and  the  efficiency  of  education  systems  in  this 
respect.  In  response  to  the  invitation  of  the  Barcelona  European  Council,  the  European 
Commission has developed a proposal for a European benchmark on language competences 
based  on  the  findings  of  the  European  Survey  on  Language  Competences  (ESLC),  the  first 
enquiry ever conducted in the field on a European scale9 (see Chapter 5). 

2.  EFFICIENCY AND EFFECTIVENESS OF EDUCATION AND TRAINING SYSTEMS IN TEACHING 

FOREIGN LANGUAGES 

2.1.  Analysis 

Surveys show people feel learning languages is important ... 

Public  opinion  supports  the  Barcelona  objective  and  the  EU  policies,  as  confirmed  by  the 
recent  opinion  poll,  the  2012  Eurobarometer:  77%  of  respondents  believe  that  “improving 
language skills should be a policy priority” and 72% agree that “everyone in the EU should be 

7 Presidency conclusions, 15-16 March 2002,  

http://www.consilium.europa.eu/ueDocs/cms_Data/docs/pressData/en/ec/71025.pdf.  

8 See e.g. Davies, A. (2003). The native speaker: Myth and reality. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters, and  
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:C:2004:084E:0333:0333:EN:PDF  

9 The European Survey on Language Competences was conducted in 2011. Its findings were published in June 

2012. http://ec.europa.eu/languages/eslc/index.html.  

6 

 
 
 
                                                 
 
able to speak more than one language in addition to their mother tongue.”10 More than eight 
out of ten respondents consider that languages could be useful for themselves and almost all 
agree they might be useful for the future of their children. 

... but levels of competence and learning on the ground do not match this 11 

On average, the ESLC reveals a low level of competence. Only 42% of tested pupils overall 
reached the level of ‘independent user’12 in the first foreign language, and merely a quarter of 
pupils did so in the second foreign language. This means that after several years of studying at 
school,  the  majority  of  young  Europeans  are  not  able  to  have  a  simple  conversation  in  the 
foreign languages they have learned.13 

An additional source of concern is that a considerable percentage of pupils—14% for the first 
language and 20% for the second—do not even reach the ‘basic user’ level. 

Furthermore,  the  ESLC  results  confirm  significant  differences  between  Member  States.  The 
share of pupils reaching the level of ‘independent user’ in the first foreign language thus goes 
from a maximum of 82% (Malta and Sweden) to a minimum of only 9% (England) and 14% 
(France).14  

Figure  1  and  Figure  2  provide  an  overview  of  the  assessment  results,  showing  the  huge 
variance  in  performance  for  the  first  and  second  foreign  languages  tested  in  the  ESLC, 
respectively. Reflecting the lower scores in the second foreign language, the independent user 
level is set as the threshold level for the first foreign language in Figure 1, while the basic user 
level  of  A2  has  here  been  adopted  to  show  performance  in  the  second  foreign  language,  as 
shown in Figure 2. 

10 http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/eb_special_399_380_en.htm#386. 
11 See also ANNEX - FACTS AND FIGURES,' p. 43 
12 Levels  B1  and  B2  of  the  Council  of  Europe’s  Common  European  Framework  of  Reference  for  Languages 

(CEFR). 

13 In the CEFR, the broad B-level is designated as the level of 'independent user', and the broad A-level as the 
level of 'basic user'. The former includes the levels B1 and B2. B1 level denotes ‘an independent language 
user who can deal with straightforward, familiar matters.’ B2 level refers to ‘an independent language user 
who can express him/herself clearly and effectively.’ The broad A-level includes A1 ('a basic user who can 
use  very  simple  language,  with  support')  and  A2  ('A  basic  user  who  can  use  simple  language  to 
communicate on everyday topics'). 

14 European  Commission  (2012).  First  European  Survey  on 

language  competences:  Final  Report. 

http://ec.europa.eu/languages/eslc/docs/en/final-report-escl_en.pdf 

7 

 
 
 
                                                 
Figure 1 First foreign language. Percentage of pupils reaching the level of independent user (B1 
or higher) 

Figure 2 Second foreign language. Percentage of pupils reaching level A2 or higher 

Source: European Commission (2012). First European Survey on Language Competences: Final report (2012) 
http://ec.europa.eu/languages/eslc/docs/en/final-report-escl_en.pdf 

8 

 
 
 
 
The  picture  emerging  from  the  Eurobarometer  survey,  polling  the  entire  EU  population, 
confirms the findings of the ESLC.  

Almost  half  of  respondents  (46%)  declare  themselves  unable  to  hold  a  conversation  in  any 
language other than their mother tongue, and only one quarter (25%) say that they can hold a 
conversation in at least two foreign languages. 

Regarding differences between Member States, less than 40% of Eurobarometer respondents 
in  Hungary,  Italy,  Portugal,  the  United  Kingdom  and  Ireland  report  that  they  can  hold  a 
conversation in a foreign language, whereas in Luxembourg, Latvia, the Netherlands, Malta, 
Slovenia, Lithuania and Sweden, more than 90% say they can. 

Some  promising  signs  of  improvement  are  visible,  since  the  percentage  of  15-24  year  olds 
who  consider  themselves  able  to  hold  a  conversation  in  two  languages  in  addition  to  their 
mother tongue is more than double the percentage for the ‘over 55’ age group (37% against 
17%). Therefore, the generational trends are certainly encouraging. 

Yet, it is clear that a significant effort is needed to improve this. As a matter of fact, in spite of 
the important efforts made by the Member States during the last decade, progress in the field 
of language teaching and learning has been fairly slow. 

But the picture is varied across different Member States... 

Figures on the average of the EU as a whole mask differences across countries. In the learning 
of foreign languages, these differences are significant and concern various aspects of language 
learning, from starting age to duration and intensity, from attitudes to learning outcomes. 

Starting age: According to the Final report on the ESLC, “an earlier onset of foreign language 
teaching means a higher score on the language tests.”15 Whereas pupils in England, Wales and 
Northern  Ireland  start  learning  foreign  languages  as  a  compulsory  subject  at  the  age  of  11, 
their fellow pupils in Spain and in the German speaking community of Belgium begin in pre-
primary education.16 

The typical age for starting to learn the first foreign language is between 6 and 9, whereas the 
second foreign language generally becomes compulsory between 10 and 15.  

Overall, the tendency in the EU-27 is to offer foreign language learning from an earlier age 
than  previously.  In  primary  education,  the  percentage  of  pupils  learning  a  foreign  language 
thus went up from 67.5% in 2004/2005 to 78.2% in 2009/2010. 

Some  Member  States  achieve  remarkable  results  in  reducing  the  number  of  pupils  not 
learning any language  in primary education (Poland, United Kingdom, the Czech  Republic) 
and/or increasing the percentage of pupils learning two foreign languages in lower secondary 
education (Poland, Czech Republic, Italy). 

15 European  Commission  (2012).  First  European  Survey  on 

language  competences:  Final  Report. 

http://ec.europa.eu/languages/eslc/docs/en/final-report-escl_en.pdf 

16 See also ANNEX - FACTS AND FIGURES 

9 

 
 
                                                 
Most  Member  States  have  introduced  changes  into  legislation  on  the  onset  of  language 
learning;  others,  such  as  Cyprus,  Germany,  Slovakia  and  Latvia,  are  currently  introducing 
reforms.17 

Duration: The ESLC identified a link between exposure to foreign languages and proficiency. 
“Overall more lesson time for the target language per week,” says the Final Report, “means a 
higher  score  on  the  language  tests.”  The  number  of  hours  devoted  to  compulsory  language 
learning  in  general,  and  to  each  of  the  languages  taught,  also  varies  greatly  across  Member 
States. In Luxembourg, pupils receive more than 4,000 hours of language teaching, whereas 
provision amounts to approximately 1,100 hours in Italy, 900 hours in France, 800 hours in 
Spain and 650 hours in Slovenia.18  

No  significant  increase  was  registered  in  recent  years  concerning  the  amount  of  time  or 
percentage of curriculum time reserved for language teaching as a compulsory subject. Thus, 
while  foreign  language  learning  is  being  introduced  earlier  in  many  countries,  the  time 
allocated to them is generally less than 10 % or even 5 % of the total taught time.19 

Sector  of  education:  There  are  still  significant  differences  between  language  learning  in 
general education and in prevocational and vocational education.20 In the French Community 
of Belgium, almost all pupils in general upper secondary education learn one or more foreign 
languages, whereas only half of those in prevocational and vocational education do so. A gap 
of  30%  and  20%  exists  in  Greece  and  Hungary  respectively  between  the  two  educational 
paths.21 
Number  of  languages  taught:22 Based  on  the  findings  of  the  ESLC,  “more  modern  foreign 
languages learned means a higher score on the language tests.”23  

Eurostat data shows limited signs of improvement in the average number of foreign languages 
taught  in  EU  schools.  On  average,  EU  pupils  learn  0.8  foreign  languages  in  primary 
education,  1.2  in  vocational  and  prevocational  training,  1.5  in  lower  secondary  and  1.6  in 
upper secondary.24 

The percentage of pupils learning at least one foreign language in primary school is close to 
80%,  while  in  lower  secondary  school  around  61%  of  pupils  currently  learn  two  or  more 
foreign languages. 

In prevocational/vocational upper secondary education, the percentage of pupils studying two 
or more languages is now close to 40%, compared to 60% in general upper secondary.25 

17 EACEA/Eurydice (2012). Key Data on Teaching Languages at School in Europe 2012. 
18 Data refer to countries where a minimum number of hours is recommended. In Luxembourg, between 320 and 

440 hours per year are recommended from grade 1 to grade 10. 

19 EACEA/Eurydice (2012) Key Data on Teaching Languages at School in Europe 2012. 
20 See Appendix, Figure 4. 
21 See Appendix, Figure 5. 
22 See also Annex ‘Facts and figures’ 
23 European  Commission  (2012).  First  European  Survey  on 

language  competences:  Final  Report. 

http://ec.europa.eu/languages/eslc/docs/en/final-report-escl_en.pdf 

24 See Appendix, Figure 4. 
25 See Appendix, Figure 6. 

10 

 
 
                                                 
Reflecting  the  degree  national  policies  correspond  with  the  Barcelona  objective,  Figure  3 
provides an overview of the percentages of pupils learning two or more foreign languages in 
lower secondary general education (ISCED level 2) across Member States.  

Lower  secondary  education  is  the  most  appropriate  level  to  assess  whether  the  Barcelona 
objective  is  actually  implemented  across  Europe  since  this  level  in  the  vast  majority  of 
Member States constitutes the last stage in compulsory education. 

As  Figure  3  shows,  the  current  picture  is  one  of  contrasts.  Several  countries  already  ensure 
that virtually all pupils are learning two or more languages. This is most notably the case in 
Cyprus, Estonia, Greece, Italy, Luxembourg, Malta, Romania, and Finland.  

In  the  remaining  countries,  less  than  85%  of  pupils  are  learning  two  or  more  foreign 
languages. One reason for the low values of some education systems in Figure 3 is the fact 
that learning a second foreign language is currently not compulsory in a number of education 
systems,  like  in  the  French  Community  of  Belgium,  Denmark,  Germany,  Ireland,  Spain, 
Netherlands, Sweden and United Kingdom. Figure 3 reflects this in varying degrees.  

It should be stressed that the data presented in Figure 3 only represents pupil participation in 
the  learning  of  foreign  languages  included  in  the  curriculum  drawn  up  by  the  central 
education  authorities.  Languages  taught  outside  the  curriculum  as  optional  subjects  are  not 
included, and regional languages are included solely when the curriculum designates them as 
alternatives  to  foreign  languages.  Thus,  in  some  education  systems,  not  least  in  the  French 
Community of Belgium and United Kingdom, the actual participation rates of pupils learning 
two  foreign  languages  will  be  higher  than  shown  in  Figure  3.  Nonetheless,  the  figures 
highlight the large variances in the provision of language learning in Europe, as well as the 
different modes of offering languages either as compulsory or optional subjects.26  

While  the  EU-27  is  far  from  reaching  the  Barcelona  objective  as  a  whole,  there  has  been 
considerable  progress  during  the  last  5  years.  As  Table  1  shows,  the  EU-27  average  has 
increased remarkably by 14 percentage points in the five year period between 2005 and 2010. 
These figures reflect a trend concerning the onset of learning two foreign languages in schools 
across  Europe  during  the  latest  decade.  Whereas  the  percentage  of  general  upper  secondary 
pupils (ISCED level 3) in the EU learning at least two foreign languages has levelled off and 
in  some  cases  even  decreased,  the  proportion  of  lower  secondary  pupils  (ISCED  level  2) 
learning at least two foreign languages has been steadily increasing (See Appendix, Figure 6). 

26 EACEA/Eurydice (2012). Key Data on Teaching Languages at School in Europe 2012, p. 29-30. 

11 

 
 
 
                                                 
Figure  3  Percentage  of  pupils  learning  two  or  more  foreign  languages  in  lower  secondary 
education (ISCED 2)27 

Source: Eurostat, UOE 

Table 1 Percentage of pupils learning two or more foreign languages in EU-27 in 2005, 2007, 
201028 

2005     47% 

2007    54% 

2010    61% 

27 Rounded  values,  on  the  basis  of  Figure  C7a,  page  67,  in  EACEA/Eurydice  (2012)  Key  data  on  teaching 
languages  at  school  in  Europe  2012.  See  Appendix,  Table  6Error!  Reference  source  not  found.,  for 
original values. Explanatory note: Data from BE de and DE not available. Value from Estonia is from 2007. 
The  percentage  of  students  learning  0,  1,  2  (or  more)  foreign  languages  is  calculated  with  respect  to  all 
students in all years of lower general secondary education. The number of students learning 0, 1, 2 (or more) 
foreign  languages  is  divided  by  the  corresponding  number  of  students  enrolled  at  the  ISCED  level 
concerned. 

28 Rounded  values  on  the  basis  of  EACEA/Eurydice  (2012).  Key  Data  on  Teaching  Languages  at  School  in 

Europe 2012. See Appendix, Table 6, for original values. 

12 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
Examples of good practice: 

- 

-  

Italy  and  Malta  introduced  reforms  in  the  last  few  years  to  make  the  learning  of  a 
second  foreign  language  compulsory.  In  the  Netherlands  the  obligation  to  study  a 
second foreign language has instead been abolished. 

In other countries, such as the Flemish Community of Belgium, Greece and Poland, the 
onset of  compulsory learning of a second foreign language has been brought forward. 
Slovenia and Slovakia are currently implementing similar measures. In France the study 
of  a  second  foreign  language  has  been  made  compulsory  in  general  upper  secondary 
education. 

Provision  of  learning  opportunities:  With  the  exception  of  England,  Northern  Ireland  and 
Wales,  where  the  duration  of  compulsory  foreign  language  learning  was  shortened,  all 
Member  States  adopted  measures  in  the  last  few  years  to  increase  the  provision—and 
uptake—of  foreign  language  learning  opportunities.  These  can  be  divided  into  two  main 
categories: 

a.  Advancing the onset of language teaching and/or increasing the number of hours devoted 

to the teaching of foreign languages 

b.  Combining  the  teaching  of  languages  with  the  teaching  of  other  subjects  (the  so-called 

Content and Language Integrated Learning, or CLIL) 

Classrooms  are  becoming  multilingual  environments:  a  challenge,  but  also  an 
opportunity ...29 

According  to  the  2009  PISA  study,  on  average  9.3%  of  15  year  old  students  belonged  to 
immigrant families30 in the participating EU-27 countries in 2009. This average figure masks 
very  different  situations,  with  proportions  ranging  from  less  than  1%  (Bulgaria,  Poland, 
Romania  and  Slovakia)  to  40%  (Luxembourg).  On  the  EU  level,  approximately  half  of 
immigrant students speak a language different from the language of instruction when they are 
at home.31 

However,  those  defined  as  immigrant  students  only  account  for  some  of  those  speaking  a 
language,  other  than  the  language  of  instruction,  at  home.  Altogether  7.1%  of  15  year  old 
students  in  the  EU-27  countries  in  2009  spoke  another  language  than  the  language  of 
instruction  at  home,  a  1  %  increase  since  2006.  In  the  French  and  German  speaking 
Communities  of  Belgium,  Bulgaria,  Germany,  Spain,  Luxembourg  and  Austria,  more  than 
10%  mainly  speak  another  language  at  home  than  the  language  of  instruction.  In 
Luxembourg,  Spain  and  the  French  and  German  speaking  Communities  of  Belgium,  the 
relative large figures reflect regional variations in the language of instruction. 

29 This  section  is  based  on  EACEA/Eurydice  (2012).  Key  Data  on  Teaching  Languages  at  School  in  Europe 

2012. 

30 According to the OECD definition, children are classified as ‘immigrants’ if both their parents or guardians 

were born abroad. 

31 44%  of  immigrant  students  stated  that  they  spoke  the  language  of  instruction  at  home,  the  same  percentage 

stated that they spoke another language at home, and 12% did not provide information on this issue. 

13 

 
 
 
                                                 
The  presence  of  pupils  speaking  different  languages  in  the  classroom  can  be  enriching  and 
stimulate  language  awareness,  but  can  also  be  a  source  of  difficulties  for  the  children 
belonging to the minority group, for the rest of the class and for the teachers. 

Two models have been established in Member States to deal with this challenge: on the one 
hand, there are education systems where the newcomers are integrated with the mainstream, 
but  provided  with  extra  language  support;  on  the  other,  certain  Member  States  prefer  to 
establish special groups or classes where language support is provided. 

Provision  of  non-language  subjects  through  the  medium  of  a  foreign  language  (CLIL)  is 
common,  Denmark  and  Greece  being  the  only  Member  States  where  it  is  not  available.  Its 
systematic  usage,  however,  is  not  widespread  and  remains  at  the  stage  of  pilot  projects  in 
various countries. 

CLIL has been introduced in Italy for all pupils in the last year of upper secondary education 
in 2010. 

In  Austria  the  first  foreign  language  is  used  to  teach  one  curricular  subject  one  lesson  per 
week to pupils aged six to eight years. 

As  a  rule,  no  special  admission  criteria  are  foreseen  at  national  level  for  pupils  attending 
CLIL classes. In some Member States, such as the Czech Republic, Hungary, the Netherlands, 
Slovakia and Finland, schools are allowed to adopt their own criteria. 

Examples of good practice32 

In  Austria,  the  ‘Interkulturelle  Pädagogik  im  Kindergarten’  project  was  launched  to  support 
children  and  kindergarten  teams  in  a  multicultural/multilingual  group  setting  and  to  integrate 
parents  into  this  work.  More  than  60  specially  trained  Intercultural  Advisors  who  themselves 
have a migrant background provide advice to staff of 350 kindergartens. 

In  the  Czech  Republic,  the  ‘Odmalička  –  Von  klein  auf’  project  focuses  on  one  of  the 
neighbouring  countries’  language,  favouring  contacts  and  mutual  discovery  from  a  very  early 
age.  

...and increasing exposure to foreign languages helps to improve learning outcomes... 

In  view  of  the  aim  to  improve  the  learning  outcome  and  the  effectiveness  of  language 
teaching,  it  is  important  to  take  into  account  the  fact  that  language  acquisition  is  heavily 
influenced  by  exposure  outside  the  classroom.  The  large  differences  shown  by  the  ESLC 
indicate the rich potential for peer-learning among European countries in language policy and 
learning.  

Other measures can be equally important such as promoting  the distribution of  audio-visual 
and  cultural  works  in  the  original  language  version  (e.g.  with  the  addition  of  subtitles). 
According  to  a  recent  study,  “subtitling  helps  to  improve  the  mastery  of  foreign  languages 
[and] can raise awareness and provide motivation for language learning, in both formal and 

32 http://ec.europa.eu/languages/pdf/ellp-handbook.pdf.  

14 

 
 
                                                 
informal  contexts,  and  consequently  contributes  to  creating  an  environment  that  encourages 
multilingualism.”33  

...while innovative methods can increase motivation and foster positive attitudes  

To equip young Europeans with a varied repertoire of foreign language competences, and 
meet the needs of employers for qualified staff able to perform a range of work-related tasks 
in a number of foreign languages, it is important to provide high-quality and diversified 
language teaching at all levels across all sectors of education. 

Although in the ESLC an impressive 90% of foreign language teachers report that they are 
fully qualified to teach foreign languages, a serious rethink of the traditional way of teaching 
foreign languages at school, based on more innovative methods and approaches, is needed. 
The results of the study also suggest that in-service training can positively impact pupils´ 
language learning.34 

Pupils who find learning languages useful for other areas of life – either socially or for work - 
score  higher  on  language  tests,  proving  the  powerful  effect  of  motivation  on  the  success  of 
any language learning activity.  

It is therefore essential to focus action not only on the skills, but also on the attitudes towards 
languages  and  language  learning.  Attempts  to  improve  the  quality  and  quantity  of  language 
learning  opportunities  should  also  actively  consider  pupils’  motivation  in  order  to  actually 
help improve learning outcomes.35 

In  this  respect,  it  is  a  promising  sign  that  curricula  in  a  dozen  countries  or  regions  within 
countries now put emphasis on oral skills (i.e. listening and speaking skills) in the first years 
of  foreign  language  learning,  later  to  be  followed  by  an  equal  standing  of  the  four 
communication skills at the end of compulsory education.36  

Another key issue in relation to teaching methods is that the pupils tested in the ESLC think 
that they and their teachers often do not use the foreign language in the classroom. Especially 
in languages other than English this is a problem since pupils rarely come into contact with 
the language outside school either.37  

Non-formal and informal education can be significant influences... 

Acquisition of any language—be it the mother tongue, a second or a foreign language—is of 
course influenced by a number of factors that have little to do with the intrinsic efficiency of 
the education system. The immediate environment of the family, the geographic location, the 

33 See http://eacea.ec.europa.eu/llp/studies/documents/study_on_the_use_of_subtitling/rapport_final-en.pdf  
34 European  Commission  (2012).  First  European  Survey  on 

language  competences:  Final  Report. 

http://ec.europa.eu/languages/eslc/index.html 

35 For further discussion of the impact of motivational factors with regard to language learning, see Della Chiesa, 
B. (2012). Learning languages in a globalising world, pp. 37-51, in Della Chiesa, B., J. Scott and C. Hinton 
(eds.  2012).  Languages  in  a  Global  World:  Learning  for  better  cultural  understanding.  OECD. 
http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264123557-en    

36 EACEA/Eurydice (2012). Key Data on Teaching Languages at School in Europe 2012. 
37 European  Commission  (2012).  First  European  Survey  on 

language  competences:  Final  Report. 

http://ec.europa.eu/languages/eslc/index.html 

15 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
socio-economic conditions, exposure to languages in the everyday life and many other factors 
determine  the  attitudes  of  the  learners  towards  the  language  in  question,  their  motivation  to 
learn it and their likelihood of success. 

Non-formal  and  informal  education  plays  a  key  role  for  language  learning.  This  does  not 
mean,  however,  that  there  is  little  that  education  policies  can  do  to  help  people  learn 
languages. It is just a reminder of the importance of ensuring an accurate match between what 
happens inside the school and what goes on outside.  

Curricular and extracurricular activities involving the use of the foreign language (twinning, 
films, trips in the countries where the language is spoken, meeting speakers of the language 
studied  in  non-educational  contexts)  can  prove  extremely  useful.  On  average,  less  than  one 
third of students tested in the ESLC had recently participated in such activities. In Slovenia, 
42%  of  pupils  took  part  in  collaboration  projects  in  the  last  three  years.  In  the  French  and 
German speaking Communities of Belgium, Estonia, Spain, France, one third or more of the 
students had taken part in field trips over the same period.38 

...and use of tools such as the European Language Portfolio can be useful for both teacher 
and learner 

Another  tool  that  can  play  a  significant  role  in  motivating  teachers  and  also  learners  by 
developing their ability to assess their own competences and their autonomy is the Council of 
Europe’s European Language Portfolio. According to the ESLC Final report, “Between 17% 
and 73% of the teachers report having had some training in the use of a language portfolio.”39 
Hence, language teachers should be trained to use the European Language Portfolio40 and the 
Common  European  Framework  of  Reference  for  Languages41,  which  provides  guidance  not 
only for assessment, but also for developing new materials and designing curricula. 

2.2.  Guidance to Member States 

An early start for learning languages, increased offer and provision in both general education 
and  VET,  teaching  of  at  least  two  foreign  languages  to  all  pupils  as  a  part  of  compulsory 
education,  increased  exposure  at  school  and  through  the  media,  reinforced  motivation  of 
pupils and special attention towards monitoring results can make the difference. 

Increases  in  efficiency  via  the  quality  and  quantity  of  learning  are  needed,  alongside 
ongoing monitoring of effectiveness... 

Based  on  the  analysis  in  section  2.1,  and  taking  into  account  the  situation  of  each  Member 
State, national education systems should increase their efficiency in giving young Europeans 
the language competences they need, focusing on: 

38 European  Commission  (2012).  First  European  Survey  on 

language  competences:  Final  Report. 

http://ec.europa.eu/languages/eslc/index.html 

39 European  Commission  (2012).  First  European  Survey  on 

language  competences:  Final  Report. 

http://ec.europa.eu/languages/eslc/index.html 

40 http://www.coe.int/t/dg4/education/elp/ 
41 http://www.coe.int/t/dg4/Linguistic/CADRE_EN.asp  

16 

 
 
                                                 
1. 

2. 

3. 

Quantity,  through  early  start,  increased  provision  in  both  general  education  and 
VET,  teaching  of  at  least  two  foreign  languages  to  all  pupils,  increased  exposure  at 
school and through the media 

Quality, through innovative methods and approaches, initial and in-service training 
of  language  teachers,  increased  opportunities  of  using  language  skills,  CLIL, 
development of ICT-based language learning resources  

Monitoring of learning outcomes to identify strengths and weaknesses. 

It will be important to establish a link between language competences acquired at school and 
career  opportunities  at  home  or  abroad.  Partnerships  with  stakeholders  and  guidance  to 
schools, teachers, families and pupils are other measures which will contribute to a positive 
outcome. 

... and several areas must be targeted to achieve increased levels of language competences  

An early start: This is by far the most widely adopted answer to the need to accommodate a 
second foreign language in an already crammed timetable and to improve the level of learning 
outcomes.  

The  European  Commission  recently  published  a  Policy  Handbook 42  based  on  the 
contributions  of  national  experts  and  containing  guidance  on  the  benefits  of  early  language 
learning, as well as on the essential conditions for ensuring its success. 

An  early  onset  of  foreign  language  acquisition  takes  advantage  of  a  highly  dynamic 
developmental stage and can thus provide multiple direct and indirect benefits.  

− 

− 

On the one hand, it can be used to increase the number of hours of language learning 
before  the  end  of  compulsory  education,  leading  to  a  better  proficiency  in  the  foreign 
language studied and/or to the introduction of additional foreign languages. 

On  the  other,  it  has  positive  effects  in  term  of  cognitive  skills,  comprehension, 

expression, communication and problem-solving. 

At  the  same  time,  care  must  be  taken  to  guarantee  that  the  proper  conditions  are  met,  in 
particular  as  concerns  staff  training,  developing  adequate  materials  and  ensuring  continuity 
between the various stages of education. 

Teaching  practice:  Quality  must  be  ensured  through  innovative  methods  and  approaches, 
initial and in-service training of both language teachers and other teachers involved in CLIL, 
increased  opportunities  of  using  language  skills,  development  and  use  of  ICT-based  and 
interactive language learning resources, in particular open educational resources.  

Training of teachers: Initial and in service training of staff plays a central role, particularly 
when  adopting  new  approaches  and  methods,  advancing  the  onset  of  language  education  or 

42  European  Commission  (2011).  Language  learning  at  pre-primary  school  level:  making  it  efficient  and 
sustainable: A Policy Handbook. SEC (2011) 928 final, http://ec.europa.eu/languages/pdf/ellpwp_en.pdf.  

17 

 
 
                                                 
involving teachers of other subjects in language education. Linguistic and pedagogical skills 
are equally important for a successful learning outcome. 

Number  of  hours: It is difficult to provide general guidance  as to the number of hours that 
should be devoted to language learning in compulsory education. A rough indication can be 
obtained  from  the  estimates  of  the  Association  of  Language  Teachers  in  Europe  (ALTE). 
While stressing that it is impossible to give any accurate indication on the number of guided 
learning hours needed to reach each level of the CEFR, Cambridge ESOL suggests the rough 
estimate given in Table 2. 

Table 2 Hours of study and proficiency levels43 

CEFR Level (our definition) 
A2 (‘elementary’) 
B1 (‘pre-intermediate’) 
B2 (‘intermediate’) 
C1 (‘upper intermediate’) 
C2 (‘advanced’) 

Hours of guided learning 
180-200 
350-400 
500-600 
700-800 
1000-1200 

Content  and  Language  Integrated  Learning  (CLIL):  CLIL  can  be  extremely  useful  for 
intensifying  language  exposure  and  improving  motivation,  linking  language  acquisition  to 
themes  that  have  a  concrete  relevance  for  the  learners.44 As  is  the  case  for  early  language 
learning, introduction of this methodology should be adequately prepared through training of 
the  teachers  involved  and  development  of  adequate  materials.  CLIL  teachers  need  to  be 
proficient in the language used in the classroom.  

2.3.  Support at EU level  

Foreign  language  competence  is  one  of  six  key  objectives  in  the  new  “Erasmus  for  All” 
programme... 

The  European  Union’s  future  programme  for  education  and  training  “Erasmus  for  all” 
includes language learning and linguistic diversity as one of its six objectives, acknowledging 
in  particular  the  central  role  of  foreign  language  learning  in  promoting  the  mobility  of 
students and people in vocational education and training and their future employability. 

The  first  pillar  of  the  programme  will  be  devoted  to  mobility.  Within  this  activity,  the 
European Commission will provide systematic linguistic preparation mechanisms. Linguistic 
preparation will become a key aspect of learning mobility in all sectors, thus improving the 
outcome of exchanges and the efficiency of EU funding. Different levels of competence will 
be  established  for  teachers,  staff,  youth  workers  and  higher  education  students.  Language 
courses  will  be  offered  to  those  who  cannot  demonstrate  a  sufficient  competence  to  make 
their mobility a worthwhile experience.  

43 Cambridge ESOL (English for Speakers of Other Languages)  
http://www.cambridgeesol.org/about/standards/can-do.html 

44 See e.g. Marsh, D. (2002). CLIL/EMILE - The European dimension. Actions, Trends and Foresight Potential. 

http://ec.europa.eu/languages/documents/doc491_en.pdf.  

18 

 
 
 
                                                 
 
The  second  pillar  of  “Erasmus  for  all”  will  support  cooperation  and  partnerships  between 
organisations  having  innovation  as  the  main  goal.  As  transnational  projects  encourage 
openness and excellence, and facilitate the exchange of good practice between institutions, the 
Commission  will  support  strategic  partnership  projects  in  the  field  of  languages  promoting 
new/innovative  methodologies  for  teaching  foreign  languages,  particularly  with  the  aim  to 
link  the  language  skills  to  the  needs  of  employability  and  linguistic  diversity.  Languages 
interact  with  numerous  policy  objectives  in  education,  from  early  childhood  education  and 
care to ICT, where language learning should play a central role. 

The  third  pillar  of  “Erasmus  for  all”  will  support  policy  reform.  Hence,  the  European 
Commission will also provide assistance to Member States willing to proceed to an in-depth 
analysis  of  their  offer  of  language  learning  opportunities,  by  organising  peer  learning 
activities and exchanges of good practices. 

...and  peer  learning,  progress  monitoring  and  on-going  cooperation  will  continue  to 
provide valuable support for Member States 

For  promoting  exchange  of  good  practice  between  Member  States  in  the  field  of  language 
teaching, the OMC working group “Languages in education and training” will contribute to 
the  country-specific  analysis  and  peer  learning/review  in  the  framework  of  the  European 
semester exercise. 

Monitoring  of  progress  at  EU  level  will  be  ensured  through  the  creation  of  a  European 
benchmark of language competence, as requested by the Council (See chapter 5 below).  

Cooperation with the Council of Europe will be strengthened, in an effort to fully exploit the 
European value added of the tools developed by its language policy unit and of the network 
and expertise available, in particular in providing country-specific analysis. 

3. 

BETTER  TARGETING  OF  LANGUAGE  COMPETENCES  TO  ENHANCE  EMPLOYABILITY, 

MOBILITY AND GROWTH  

3.1. 

Analysis 

There  is  a  mismatch  between  the  supply  of  and  the  labour  market  demand  for  language 
competences... 

Poor foreign language competences are a serious handicap for young Europeans entering the 
labour market today, as well as for companies who want to sell their products and services in 
the global marketplace.  

The  European  Commission  recently  published  a  report  by  the  OMC  working  group, 
‘Languages  for  Jobs,’  providing  a  compendium  of  good  practices  and  guidelines  for 
modernising  education  systems  and  reducing  the  mismatch  between  supply  and  demand  of 
language competences.45 

45 European Commission (2011). Languages for Jobs - Providing multilingual communication skills for the 

labour market. http://ec.europa.eu/languages/pdf/languages-for-jobs-report_en.pdf.  

19 

 
 
                                                 
The  group  insists  on  the  importance  of  raising  the  general  level  of  language  competences, 
broadening the range of languages taught, re-orienting teaching contents towards professional 
purposes, and improving the training of staff. 

... and limited language abilities seriously limit free movement across the EU, which affects 
economic competitiveness 

The problem of limited language ability becomes even bigger when the issue of mobility is 
considered.  In  particular,  a  professional  who  wants  to  exercise  a  regulated  profession  in 
another Member State needs to have knowledge of the languages necessary for practising the 
profession  in  the  host  Member  State. 46  According  to  a  recent  study,  “Just  over  half  of 
Europeans  expect  that  a  lack  of  language  skills  will  be  a  difficulty  they  encounter  when 
working abroad.”47 

Research  on  the  main  obstacles  to  mobility  in  Europe  confirms  that  poor  language  and 
intercultural skills are seriously limiting the free movement of workers in the EU.48 A study 
conducted  for  the  European  Commission  in  2008  found  workers’  mobility  across  Member 
States  to  be  around  one  per  cent  each  year  between  2000  and  2005,  just  one  third  of  the 
comparable rates across the US. According to the study, a large part of this difference could 
be explained by the diversity of languages, cultures and institutions across Europe: 

 “Language and cultural barriers are extremely important when explaining the limited level of 
geographic  mobility  in  Europe.  […]  The  effect  of  language  is  direct  as  well  as  indirect. 
Directly,  it  reduces  the  language  barrier,  which  is  negatively  associated  with  cross-border 
mobility  propensities.  Indirectly,  it  appears  to  reduce  the  cultural  barriers  preventing 
migration.”49 

In  2006,  the  Council  remarked  that  “foreign  language  skills,  as  well  as  helping  to  foster 
mutual  understanding  between  peoples,  are  a  prerequisite  for  a  mobile  workforce  and 
contribute  to  the  competitiveness  of  the  European  Union  economy.”50 Mobility  in  turn  is 
essential  to  foster  further  language  learning  and  improved  intercultural  skills  –  thus 
developing some extremely appreciated skills in today’s labour market. 

46 Article 53 of Directive 2005/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 September 2005 on the 

recognition of professional qualifications, OJ L 255 of 30.9.2005 

47Special Eurobarometer 337 (2010). Geographical and labour market mobility.  

http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_337_en.pdf 

48 See for instance Broyer, S., Caffet, J.C., and Martin, V.D. (2011). Low labour mobility is more than ever an 

obstacle to euro-zone cohesion, in Flash Economic Research, no. 24, 11 January 2011. 
http://cib.natixis.com/flushdoc.aspx?id=56192. 

49 Bonin, H. et al. (2008). Geographic Mobility in the European Union: Optimising its Social and Economic 

Benefits, IZA Research Report no. 19, p. 9. 
http://www.iza.org/en/webcontent/publications/reports/report_pdfs/iza_report_19.pdf.  
On the differences between EU and US, see also European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and 
Working Conditions (2006). Mobility in Europe: Analysis of the 2005 Eurobarometer survey on 
geographical and labour market mobility. 
http://www.eurofound.europa.eu/pubdocs/2006/59/en/1/ef0659en.pdf 

50 Council conclusions of 19 May 2006 on the European Indicator of Language Competence, OJ C 172, 

25.7.2006, pp. 1-3, http://eur-
lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:C:2006:172:0001:0003:EN:PDF  

20 

 
 
                                                 
Another study on cross-border commuting equally identified languages as the main issue to be 
addressed:  “language  barriers  and  lack  of  information—the  latter  partially  related  to  the 
first—bear most problems for cross-border worker’s mobility.”51 

However Europeans are aware of the value and relevance of foreign languages... 

The  importance  of  language  competences  for  employability  and  mobility  is  widely 
acknowledged  by  people  across  the  EU.  53%  of  respondents  in  a  recent  Eurobarometer52 
mentioned the possibility of using the language at work (including travelling abroad) as one 
of the main benefits of language skills and 45% said that learning a new language could help 
them to get a better job in their own country; 61% saw the opportunity of working abroad as 
the key advantage of learning a new language. 

At  the  same  time,  respondents  perceive  a  gap  between  their  language  skills  and  those 
requested by the labour market – and have little confidence in their ability to overcome it. 
The Eurobarometer thus found that “problems in learning a new language” are a disincentive 
for  19%  of  Europeans,  in  particular  “those  who  finished  education  aged  less  than  20.” 
Language issues are seen as the “most likely difficulty encountered if working abroad” and “a 
key obstacle to overcome when moving to work in another country.” 

The  Eurofound  study  ‘New  Mobility  Trends  in  Europe’  comes  to  the  same  conclusion: 
“Cultural  differences  and  language  barriers  are  from  an  individual  perspective  the  most 
important factors explaining the limited mobility within the EU.”53 

...although general perceptions vary for each language 

For a vast majority of pupils, English is the first and sometimes the only foreign language 
studied. Within the EU-27, learning English is mandatory for pupils to learn in 11 countries or 
regions within countries. In 2009/10, 73% of pupils in primary education, 93.7% in lower 
secondary education, 92.7% pupils in upper secondary education and 74.9% in prevocational 
and vocational upper secondary education studied English as a foreign language. 

French is studied by one third of EU pupils in lower secondary, one quarter in general upper 
secondary and one fifth in prevocational and vocational education. 

German  shows  a  different  trend,  with  less  than  17%  of  EU  pupils  learning  it  in  lower 
secondary, 20.7% in prevocational and vocational education and almost 24% in general upper 
secondary. 

Spanish  is  studied  by  11.4%  of  EU  pupils  in  lower  secondary,  19.1%  in  general  upper 
secondary and only 3.6% in prevocational and vocational education.54 

51 MKW Wirtschaftsforschung and Empirica (2009). Scientific Report on the Mobility of Cross-Border Workers 

within the EU-27/EEA/EFTA Countries: Final report. 
http://ec.europa.eu/social/BlobServlet?docId=3459&langId=en. See Appendix, Table 5. 

52 Special Eurobarometer 386 (2012). Europeans and their Languages.  
http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_386_en.pdf  

53 European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions, New mobility trends in Europe  

- A preliminary analysis for further research, 2011, p. 13. 
 (http://www.eurofound.europa.eu/docs/areas/populationandsociety/labourmobility2011.pdf).  

21 

 
 
 
                                                 
 
 
Numerous  other  languages  are  offered  in  schools  across  Europe.  However,  besides  the  four 
languages mentioned above, and Russian, which is especially studied in Latvia, Lithuania and 
Bulgaria, the percentage of pupils learning other languages was below 5 % in most countries 
in 2009/10. In a significant number of countries, the percentage was less than 1 %.55 

Concerning  the  perceptions  of  various  languages,  the  ESLC  results  confirm  that  pupils  see 
English as the most useful foreign language to learn. Performance in this language tends to be 
higher than in other foreign languages. The independent user level is achieved in English by 
about 50% of tested pupils in any skill, compared to only 21% in German and French and 8% 
in Spanish.56  

Two thirds of Eurobarometer respondents also indicated English as the most useful language 
for their own personal development and 79% said that it was the language that their children 
should learn for their future. The perceived usefulness of German, French and Spanish is 50 
percentage points lower.57 

Finally,  the  Eurobarometer  found  that  just  a  small  percentage  of  Europeans  consider 
themselves  able  to  speak  French  (12%),  German  (11%)  or  Spanish  (7%)  as  a  foreign 
language, and 33% to 50% of them assess their competences as ‘basic.’58 

Several countries (Latvia, Lithuania and Greece) have introduced pilot projects for increasing 
the number of languages over those already required or for advancing the starting age. 

But to increase the competitive edge, the labour market needs to work in a wide range of 
languages ... 

The  Business  Platform  for  Multilingualism,  established  by  the  European  Commission  to 
debate and improve the contribution of language knowledge to economic growth, published in 
2011  a  report  formulating  suggestions  and  proposals, 59  emphasising  in  particular  the 
usefulness  of  partnerships  cutting  across  traditional  boundaries  between  education  and 
employment to involve all relevant stakeholders. 

The special status of English should not lead to disregard the importance of other languages. 
The Report of the Business Forum for Multilingualism points out that “it is other languages 
that will make the difference between mainstream and excellence and provide a competitive 
edge.”  

54 EACEA/Eurydice (2012). Key Data on Teaching Languages at School in Europe 2012. See Appendix, Figure 

7. 

55 EACEA/Eurydice (2012). Key Data on Teaching Languages at School in Europe 2012, p. 73 
56 European Commission (2012). First European Survey on language competences: Final Report.. In Italian, the 
independent user level is achieved by 35% of pupils but as Italian was tested only in Malta this result is not 
very representative at the European level. See Appendix, Figure 8 and Figure 9 

57 See Appendix, Figure 10. 
58 Special Eurobarometer 386 (2012) Europeans and their Languages.  
http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_386_en.pdf 
for  Multilingualism 

59  Business  Platform 

-  Report 

for 

http://ec.europa.eu/languages/pdf/business_en.pdf.  

22 

the  period  September  2009-June  2011, 

 
 
                                                                                                                                                         
 
This conclusion is supported by the reports of the OMC thematic working group ‘Languages 
for Jobs.’ Their recently published report ‘Languages for Jobs’60 documents the rising demand 
for  language  and  communication  skills  and  the  need  to  reduce  the  gap  between  offer  and 
demand of language skills. “Since these skills can be acquired or enhanced through spending 
a study exchange or work placement abroad,” says the report, “mobility of both learners and 
teachers needs to be further increased and supported.”  

The  OMC  group  also  puts  special  emphasis  on  partnerships  between  educational  institutes 
and businesses, as well as to vocational education and training – an area where the approach 
to language teaching must be reconsidered to increase motivation and relevance. The report 
also recommends widening the choice of languages taught in general education and in VET. 

For  people  entering  today’s  enlarging  labour  market,  where  mobility  and  international 
business  require  an  ability  to  use  several  languages—and  to  pick  up  more  languages  and 
competences throughout one’s professional career—diversified language competences will be 
essential.  The  reports  developed  by  the  CELAN  platform61 on  the  sector-specific  language 
needs (ICT, manufacturing, retail, distribution and other services) provide a good example of 
analysis that could inform education authorities concerning the language needs of the labour 
market. 

The education authorities of several Member States define which languages should be taught 
at school in addition to English. 

...learning  languages  can  increase  employability,  but  people  from  all  socio-economic 
backgrounds must have equal opportunity to learn languages 

Improving employability of young people through their language skills is also an equity issue. 
In  certain  sectors,  like  tourism,  language  skills  are  a  pre-requisite  to  find  a  job.  European 
policies should avoid the creation of a ‘linguistic divide’ between young people from richer 
families, who can afford private tuition and opportunities to study abroad, and their less well-
to-do peers, which would increase discrimination against the latter in the labour market. 

The  formal  education  system  has  a  central  role to  play  in  empowering  all  children  with  the 
language  skills  they  need,  providing  equal  access  to  mobility  and  avoiding  that  a 
disadvantaged  background  translates  into  further  discrimination.  Given  the  correlation 
between  geographical  and  job  mobility,  there  is  a  risk  of  growing  inequality,  since  people 
who do not have the initial resources or skills (including languages) will be less mobile. 

Some of the measures that could contribute to improved proficiency—such as increasing the 
use  of  ICT-based  teaching—do  not  require  huge  additional  funding.  Other  measures, 
however, such as reducing class sizes, improving teacher training and promoting exchanges, 
do imply a cost, as well as a trade-off with other priorities and subjects in school policies and 
curricula (See also Chapter 4). 

60 European  Commission  (2011).  Languages  for  Jobs :  providing  multilingual  communication  skills  for  the 

labour market. http://ec.europa.eu/languages/pdf/languages-for-jobs-report_en.pdf   

61   http://www.celan-platform.eu/ 

23 

 
 
                                                 
Increasing  and  re-orienting  investments  in  this  field  can  certainly  prove  worthwhile,  given 
that private tutoring, remedial tuition and certification of competences in languages represent 
today a considerable cost for families. Improved provision would also introduce an element of 
equity,  ensuring  that  all  young  people  are  equally  able  to  seize  interesting  employment  and 
mobility opportunities. 

Host Member States and employers could be more active in providing training in the language 
of  the  host  Member  State  to  incoming  workers.  The  economic  sectors  benefiting  from 
improved  supply  might  be  asked  to  support  the  effort  by  providing  additional  funding  and 
advice  on  the  competences  needed.  The  European  Commission’s  programmes,  and  in 
particular Erasmus for All, will support mobility and exchanges at all levels. 

Insufficient  language  skills  can  seriously  affect  not  only  the  professional  perspectives  of 
people  interested  in  finding  jobs  abroad,  but  also  their  well-being,  as  happens  with  workers 
who do not fully understand the safety rules in the construction business, or in other sectors, 
as witnessed by several complaints in the health care sector.  

3.2. 

Guidance to Member States 

Language  learning  outcomes  must  be  carefully  targeted  on  the  basis  of  an  accurate 
analysis of the future learning and professional needs of pupils 

Member States should in particular consider the following: 

1.  Proficiency  in  more  than  one  foreign  language  will  make  a  decisive  difference  in  the 
future.  The  choice  of  languages  and  emphasis  on  competences  should  be  inspired  by  a 
clear vision of their value for mobility and for work in enterprises and organisations active 
at the international level, with a focus on practical, communicative skills. 

2. 

Education  systems  need  to  develop  this  targeted  approach  through  closer  contact 
with  employers,  chambers  of  commerce  and  other  stakeholders,  linking  language 
teaching to the creation of EU-level career paths. 

3. 

In  the  light  of  this  cooperation,  Member  States  should  provide  a  broader  offer  of 

languages and adequate guidance to pupils and their families. 

3.3. 

Support at EU level  

In the next few years, EU support will be primarily organised around the following:  

− 

− 

− 

Innovative  tools  and  methods  for  language  learning  will  be  developed  in  the 
framework  of  the  strategic  partnerships  of  Erasmus  for  All,  making  full  use  of  the 
existing platforms to bring together representatives of the civil society and the world of 
business. 

The  OMC  working  group  ‘Languages  in  education  and  training’  (see  section  2.3) 

will identify and analyse good practices for up-scaling language skills for jobs. 

Multilingualism  policy  conferences  give  a  broader  perspective 

the  EU 
multilingualism  policy  as  well  as  a  strong  orientation  to  international  commercial  and 
cultural exchanges. 

to 

24 

 
 
Practical support will also be provided through European tools:  

–  The EU Skills Panorama will help forecast skills needs, including language skill need, in 

countries and sectors; 

–  Europass and the European Skills Passport will support self-assessment and recording of 
language skills, using the well-established Common European Reference Framework for 
Languages. This helps individuals on the one hand to plan their further language learning, 
on the other hand to seek validation of their skills, which in turn lead to their better use in 
working environments. 

4.  LANGUAGES: SMART INVESTMENT PAYS 

Member States already put significant investment into language teaching. This investment is 
mainly focused on the initial and in-service training of teachers, but can also cover assessment 
and  certification  activities,  school  trips  abroad,  the  purchase  of  technological  tools  and 
development of up-to date materials. Smarter use of this funding can significantly increase the 
return on investment in language teaching. 

In many cases, the reforms suggested in this document do not involve significant additional 
spending,  but  rather  aim  at  making  current  spending  more  cost-effective,  through  careful 
targeting and monitoring of the learning outcomes. Measures such as the adoption of CLIL or 
early  language  learning  rely  primarily  on  staff  already  working  for  the  national  education 
systems, and thus additional costs would be limited to training these teachers in the relevant 
languages and in the use of these new methodologies.  

Both  early  language  learning  and  content/language  integrated  learning  also  require  the 
development  of  new,  tailored  materials.  The  development  of  these  could  be  sponsored  by 
educational  authorities,  at  reasonable  cost,  until  the  market  has  reached  the  critical  mass 
needed  to  make  it  sustainable.  In  the  case  of  language  lessons,  on  the  contrary,  teaching 
subsidies  and  real-life  materials  (newspapers,  TV  programmes,  audio  and  video  podcasts, 
VOIP  connections)62 are  becoming  cheaper  or  free  as  well  as  being  more  easily  available. 
Greater use of open educational resources and ICT-based learning can also increase efficiency 
of learning and provide low or no-cost resources. 

More than any other competence, language learning does not lend itself to a 'one size fits all' 
solution.  National  and  local  peculiarities  will  require  specific  solutions  taking  into  account 
historical  connections,  current  expectations  and  visions  for  the  future.  The  situation  of  each 
Member  State  is  clearly  different  dependant  on  many  factors,  ranging  from  the  current 
achievement  in  language  teaching,  the  international  status  and  perception  of  the  main 
language of instruction, the geographic proximity of the foreign language(s) studied and the 
availability  of  film/TV/Internet  content  in  the  original  language.  Every  Member  State  will 
therefore have to find its own solution, bearing in mind the priority objective of furthering EU 
integration and stimulating sustainable growth and economic development.  

62 Voice Over Internet Protocol 

25 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
Increasing  the  investment  in  foreign  language  teaching  is  necessary  if  Member  States  are 
serious about their intention to provide all pupils, and not just the affluent élite, with an ability 
to speak two or more foreign languages. There is little doubt that such investment will bring 
concrete returns to society in general, to the EU economy and to each individual pupil. Well 
targeted  language  skills  responding  to  the  requests  of  the  labour  market  mean  reduced 
unemployment,  increased  mobility  of  students  and  workers,  better  integration,  accrued 
employability and increased capacity for internationalisation of markets. 

5. 

ASSESSING  LANGUAGE  SKILLS:  THE  EUROPEAN  BENCHMARK  ON  LANGUAGE 

COMPETENCES  

5.1. 

The issue to be monitored  

There was a significant lack of data on actual language skills in the EU... 

A policy aimed at preparing young Europeans for entry in the labour market and at providing 
EU  enterprises  with  qualified  staff,  as  described  in  chapters  2  and  3,  must  be  based  on 
evidence  of  the  effectiveness  of  education  systems  in  improving  language  teaching  and 
learning. 

This  is  the  reason  why,  as  already  mentioned,  in  2002  Heads  of  State  and  Government  in 
Barcelona  set  the  objective  of  making  European  Union  education  and  training  systems  a 
world  quality  reference  by  2010  and  not  only  called  “for  further  action  …  to  improve  the 
mastery of basic skills, in particular by teaching at least two foreign languages from a very 
early  age…”  but  also  required  the  “establishment  of  a  linguistic  competence  indicator.”63 
This decision arose from the lack of data on the actual language skills of people in the EU and 
the need for reliable systems to measure progress towards the Barcelona objective. 

Current data shows that language skills are unevenly spread across countries. Yet, learning a 
foreign  language  is  already  part  of  curricula  in  all  Member  States,  involving  real  efforts  by 
authorities, teachers and learners. This clearly indicates that not only do more languages have 
to be learnt, but they must also be taught more effectively (see chapter 2). 

....which is crucial for identifying good practice and enabling peer learning 

Progress towards this objective can only be measured using reliable data on the outcomes of 
foreign  language  teaching  and  learning  based  upon  objective  tests  of  language  ability. 
Analysis of such data will facilitate a more productive comparison of language policies, and 
language  teaching  methods  between  Member  States,  with  a  view  to  identifying  and  sharing 
good practice within the Open Method of Coordination in the field of education and training. 

Until  recently  such  data  was  not  available,  and  to  fill  the  gap  it  was  decided  to  launch  the 
European Survey on Language Competences. The data collected within the Survey constitute 
a valid assessment of functional foreign language proficiency towards the end of compulsory 
education.  The  ESLC  thus  provides  a  sound  basis  for  establishing  European  benchmarks 
(reference  levels)  which  will  serve  as  a  tool  for  European  governments  in  developing  their 

63 http://ec.europa.eu/languages/documents/doc4794_en.pdf 

26 

 
 
 
                                                 
language learning policies and improving national standards in accordance with the Barcelona 
objective. 

5.2. 

Laying the foundation for the benchmark on language competences 

Strengthening  the  evidence  base  led  to  the  development  of  the  European  Survey  on 
Language Competences... 

The  first  European  Survey  on  Language  Competences  (ESLC)  was  launched  in  2008, 
conducted  in  2011,  and  the  results  were  published  in  June  2012.  The  ESLC  provided 
participating countries with data on foreign language skills and filled the gap in the existing 
information  on  foreign  language  skills,  supplementing  the  input  data  compiled  by  Eurydice 
and Eurostat and public opinion polls like the Eurobarometer. 

The Survey, completed to international education survey standards similar to PISA,64 PIRLS65 
and  TIMSS, 66  provided  comparable  data  of  foreign  language  competences  across  skills, 
languages and countries of more than 52,000 pupils at the end of lower secondary education 
(ISCED 2).67 

Fourteen  countries  took  part  in  the  survey:  Belgium,  Bulgaria,  Croatia,  Estonia,  France, 
Greece,  Malta,  Netherlands,  Poland,  Portugal,  Slovenia,  Spain,  Sweden  and  UK-England. 
Belgium’s three linguistic communities participated separately to give a total of 16 education 
systems. 

Pupils were tested in their first or second foreign language to be chosen from the five most 
widely  taught  EU  official  languages:  English,  French,  German,  Italian  and  Spanish.  The 
language tests covered three language skills: listening, reading and writing. The results of the 
survey are reported in terms of the levels of the Common European Framework of Reference 
for Languages (CEFR). Each pupil’s achievement was assessed according to four levels from 
basic  (A1)  to  advanced  independent  user  (B2).  In  addition,  the  “pre-A1”  level  denotes 
achievement below A1. 

Along  with  the  language  skills  assessment,  contextual  information  was  collected  through 
questionnaires  filled  in  by  all  tested  pupils,  and  more  than  5,000  foreign  language  teachers 
and 2,300 school principals. Furthermore, information on the education systems was collected 
through National Research Coordinators. 

...and the results of the first survey were published in 2012 

Chapters 2 and 3 of the present document have referred to the main findings of the ESLC:  

- an overall low level of competences in both first and second foreign languages tested 

- a wide range of ability across countries in Europe 

64 http://www.oecd.org/pisa/ 
65 http://timssandpirls.bc.edu/pirls2011/index.html 
66 http://timssandpirls.bc.edu/timss2011/index.html 
67 The exceptions to test at ISCED 3 were for duly justified reasons accorded to: Belgium NL (second language), 
Belgium FR (both languages), Belgium DE (second language), Bulgaria (both languages) and England (both 
languages). 

27 

 
 
                                                 
- that English is the language most widely learnt as the first foreign language and the language 

perceived by pupils to be most useful and easy to learn  

-  that  better  language  competences  are  positively  correlated  with  the  use  of  the  foreign 
language  by  teachers  and  pupils  in  meaningful  communication;  an  early  start  in  foreign 
language learning; learning more foreign languages; the use of the foreign language through 
media outside of school; and the perceived usefulness of language learning.   

Furthermore,  secondary  analysis  of  the  datasets  undertaken  by  CRELL 68  confirms  that 
language  competences  are  positively  associated  with  the  parents’  socio-economic  status. 
Finally, girls in general achieve better results than boys.69 

The  survey  results  thus  confirm  the  mismatch  between  the  language  competences  of  young 
Europeans  at  the  end  of  compulsory  education  and  those  required  for  a  dynamic,  unified 
labour market. Some Member States are already close to the EU objective of “mother tongue 
plus  two,”  but  the  majority  remains  far  from  this  target.  The  need  to  improve  language 
competences significantly is obvious.  

The  Advisory  Board  for  the  European  Indicator  of  Language  Competence  was  set  up  to 
work more closely with member state experts... 

In  2006,  on  the  basis  of  the  Commission’s  Communication  “The  European  Indicator  of 
Language  Competence,”  the  Council  concluded  on  a  number  of  key  issues  concerning  the 
European  Indicator  of  Language  Competence  and  asked  for  the  establishment  of  an  expert 
group with the mandate to advise the Commission on “policy issues, technical matters and all 
forms  of  the  technical  support  and  to  monitor  progress  regarding  the  practical  use  of  the 
Indicator.”70 

The  Advisory  Board  for  the  European  Indicator  of  Language  Competence  was  set  up  in 
October 2006. Composed of experts from all Member States, the candidates’ countries and a 
representative  of  the  Council  of  Europe,  the  Board  has  thus  been  closely  involved  in  the 
preparation  and  monitoring  of  the  ESLC  from  the  very  beginning,  providing  expertise  and 
strong  support  for  the  Commission.  The  Board  has,  for  example,  contributed  with  input  for 
the Communication “Framework for the European survey on language competences”71 (April 
2007) where the Commission reported back to the Council on the progress of work.  

The Board also gave advice to the Commission when the terms of references for the call for 
tender  were  prepared.  The  call  concerned  the  selection  of  contractors  in  charge  of 

68 The Centre for Research on Lifelong Learning (CRELL) was established in 2005 in order to provide expertise 
in  the  field  of  indicator-based  evaluation  and  monitoring  of  education  and  training  systems.  See: 
http://crell.jrc.ec.europa.eu/ 

69 Costa, P. & Araujo, L. (2012). Analysis of SurveyLang Data by Gender and Socio-Economic Status. June 15th, 

2012 

70 Commission decision of setting up the European Indicator of Language Competence Advisory Board; 19 

October 2006. 

71 http://ec.europa.eu/languages/documents/doc662_en.pdf 

28 

 
 
                                                 
implementing  the  Survey.  In  2008,  the  contract  was  awarded  to  the  Consortium 
SurveyLang.72 An intensive four years work on the survey began. 

...enabling their involvement in the development of the European survey 

The  Board  provided  its  expertise  at  all  stages  and  for  all  aspects  of  the  development  of  the 
Survey:  language  tests,  contextual  questionnaires,  testing  tool,  testing  design,  sampling 
procedures,  translation  procedures,  linking  to  the  CEFR,  field  operations,  specification  of 
responsibilities  of  the  National  Research  Coordinators  and  scheme  for  the  data  analysis.  It 
also  offered  detailed  and  very  valuable  comments  to  the  final  and  technical  report  from  the 
Survey.  Finally,  the  Members  of  the  Advisory  Board,  as  well  as  of  the  Council  of  Europe, 
CRELL  and  Eurydice,  have  contributed  to  the  Commission's  proposal  for  a  European 
benchmark on foreign language competences.73  In the discussions on this issue at the plenary 
meetings,  the  representatives  from  non-participating  countries  were  also  very  active  (e.g. 
Denmark,  Germany).  This  shows  that  the  interest  in  a  benchmark  extends  well  beyond  the 
surveyed countries.  

5.3. 

The approach to setting a European benchmark on foreign language competences  

The benchmark will be a crucial tool in both encouraging and monitoring progress... 

Education  and  training  lie  at  the  heart  of  the  EU’s  Europe  2020  strategy.  As  a  means  of 
monitoring  progress  and  identifying  challenges  “European  benchmarks”  form  a  series  of 
reference  levels  of  European  average  performance  which  support  the  strategic  objectives 
outlined in the Council Conclusions of May 2009.74 The Council clearly set out the role that 
benchmarks should play: 

“They  should  not  be  considered  as  concrete  targets  for  individual  countries  to  reach  by 
2020. Rather, Member States are invited to consider, on the basis of national priorities and 
whilst  taking  account  of  changing  economic  circumstances,  how  and  to  what  extent  they 
can contribute to the collective achievement of the European benchmarks through national 
actions. Such  benchmarks  are reference levels of EU average performance; they  are less 
directive  than  the  headline  targets  within  the  overall  Europe  2020  strategy  which  are 
translated into national targets.”  

The Council specified that these benchmarks should be based solely on comparable data and 
take account of the  differing  situations in individual Member States. Moreover, the Council 
gave a mandate to the Commission to develop a benchmark on languages by stating: 

72 The Consortium “SurveyLang” was composed of the following partners: University of Cambridge ESOL 
Examinations (which was the coordinator), Centre International d’Etudes Pédagogiques (CIEP), Goethe-
Institut, Instituto Cervantes, National Institute for Educational Measurement (CITO), Gallup, Universidad de 
Salamanca and Università per Stranieri di Perugia. 

73 In addition to the plenary meetings, a special meeting of the subgroup on a language benchmark was held. The 
representatives  of  the  following  countries  took  part  in  the  meeting:  Belgium  FL,  Estonia,  France,  Greece, 
Ireland,  Italy,  Luxembourg,  Malta,  Poland,  Slovenia,  Sweden  and  UK  (representatives  of  England  and 
Scotland). 

74 Council Conclusions on a strategic framework for European cooperation in education and training (May 

2009): http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_data/docs/pressdata/en/educ/107622.pdf 

29 

 
 
                                                 
“In  view  of  the  importance  of  learning  two  foreign  languages  from  an  early  age,  as 
highlighted in the March 2002 Barcelona European Council conclusions, the Commission 
is  invited  to  submit  to  the  Council  –  by  the  end  of  2012  -  a  proposal  for  a  possible 
benchmark in this area, based on the on-going work on language competences.”75 

In  accordance  with  the  Council  request,  the  Commission—in  close  collaboration  with  the 
Advisory  Board  and  researchers  from  CRELL—elaborated  a  proposal  for  a  European 
benchmark  on  foreign  language  competences.  It  is  this  proposal  that  is  presented  in  this 
document. Once the benchmark is adopted, it will become part of the ET 2020 framework of 
indicators  and  benchmarks  within  the  Open  Method  of  Coordination  in  Education  and 
Training. 

...still providing flexibility on which foreign languages should be the priority in national or 
regional contexts 

For  this  proposal,  the  European  Commission  adopts  the  following  definition  of  a  foreign 
language as established by Eurydice:  

“A  language  described  as  ‘foreign’  in  the  curriculum  laid  down  by  the  central  (or  top-
level) education authorities which is based on an education-related definition, unrelated to 
the political status of a language. Thus certain languages regarded as regional or minority 
languages  from  a  political  perspective  may  be  included  in  the  curriculum  as  foreign 
languages.  In  the  same  way,  certain  classical  languages  may  be  considered  as  foreign 
languages in certain curricula. Foreign languages may be described as modern languages 
(as opposed to classical languages) in some curricula.”76 

Considering this conceptual complexity, it should be stressed that the implementation of the 
language  benchmark  in  Member  States  calls  for  decisions  on  the  definition  of  ‘first’  and 
‘second’ foreign language to be taken at the education systems level. 

The benchmark is a tool to assess the efficiency of education systems... 

First of all, incentivising efficiency is the very raison d’être for the benchmark: the primary 
objective  is  to  set  up  a  tool  that  helps  to  make  national  education  systems  in  Europe  more 
efficient  in  teaching  and  learning  foreign  languages.  In  this  respect,  the  Advisory  Board 
experts  reached  the  conclusion  that  the  benchmark  should  be  based  on  simple  values,  as 
expressed by the average attainment of CEFR levels in participating countries, rather than on 
weighted  values.  By  choosing  this  approach,  the  Commission’s  proposal  for  a  European 
benchmark  on  language  competences  should  be  understood  as  a  tool  to  assess  European 
education systems and their ability to enhance linguistic competences. 

75 Council Conclusions on a strategic framework for European cooperation in education and training (May 

2009): http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_data/docs/pressdata/en/educ/107622.pdf 

76 EACEA/Eurydice (2012). Key Data on Teaching Languages at School in Europe 2012, p.138. Original 

emphasis. 

30 

 
 
                                                 
Acknowledging  the  Council  Conclusions 77 of  May  2009  on  the  role  of  benchmarks,  the 
benchmark  on  foreign  language  competences  defines  a  strong  collective  ambition  at  the 
European  level.  The  benchmark  should  thus  not  be  confused  with  national  targets.  In  this 
respect,  ESLC  provided  evidence  that  the  range  of  language  competences  across  Europe  is 
indeed wide. The European benchmark could therefore be accompanied by recommendations 
to  Member  States  on  how  they  might  set  their  national  targets  and  contribute  to  the 
benchmark.  Such recommendations  should also mention the possibilities  for  Member  States 
to  draw  up  targets  in  each  of  the  three  skills  tested  in  2011,  namely  listening,  reading  and 
writing. 

...will be established for both first and second foreign languages... 

Second,  the  proposal  for  a  European  benchmark  must  take  into  account  the  ESLC evidence 
that  achievement  in  the  second  foreign  language  tested  is  lower  than  in  the  first  foreign 
language.  In  effect,  there  will  be  a  separate  benchmark  for  the  first  and  second  foreign 
language  learnt.  By  having  two  separate  targets  the  proposal  presented  in  this  document 
recognises the evidence on the current state of play in foreign language learning in Europe.  

...but most importantly will be clear and simple to understand 

regarding  communicability, 

the  European  benchmark  on 

Third, 
language 
competences,  as  all  other  benchmarks  in  the  ET  2020  strategy,  has  to  be  simple  and  clear. 
Only  such  a  benchmark  will  give  a  strong  message  and  thereby  serve  the  benchmark’s 
primary  objective  of  promoting  efficiency.  For  the  first  foreign  language  in  particular,  a 
global benchmark, taking into account the combined level of competences in the three tested 
skills is a reasonable proxy which will make the political message easy to convey to policy-
makers, professionals and the wider public. 

foreign 

5.4. 

Benchmarking the first foreign language 

The experts of the Advisory Board concluded that the level of independent user (the broad B-
level)78 is the most appropriate proficiency level to incorporate in the benchmark. This choice 
considers the ESLC evidence as well as the ambition that young people should have a sound 
basis  of  foreign  language  competences,  preparing  them  for  further  studies  and  the  labour 
market. 

Importantly, in a majority of European countries, official guidelines for language teaching 
have already established minimum levels of attainment which correspond with the CEFR. In 
this respect, a European benchmark referring to the proficiency level of B1 for the first 
foreign language appear well in line with the existing ambitions on national level. Out of the 
19 countries or regions within countries which have adopted the CEFR, 11 have thus set the 

77 Council Conclusions on a strategic framework for European cooperation in education and training (“ET 

2020”); May 2009. http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_data/docs/pressdata/en/educ/107622.pdf 

78 The  broad  B-level  includes  the  levels  B1  and  B2  level  of  the  CEFR.  B1  level  denotes  ‘an  independent 
language  user  who  can  deal  with  straightforward,  familiar  matters.’  B2  level  refers  to  ‘an  independent 
language user who can express him/herself clearly and effectively.’  

31 

 
 
 
                                                 
 
level of B1 (or B2 in the case of Luxembourg) as the minimum level of attainment for the first 
foreign language at the end of compulsory general education, while 8 refer to level A2.79 

Figure  1  (see  Chapter  2)  highlighted  the  huge  differences  in  attainment  between  education 
systems. Against this background, Table 3 shows the ESLC average results of achievement in 
the first foreign language tested as well as the average of the three best performing countries. 
The  percentages  refer  to  how  many  pupils  reached  the  independent  user  level  (B1  level  or 
higher): 

Table 3 ESLC average, and best performing countries in first foreign language tested 
Percentage of pupils achieving the level of independent user (level B1 or higher)80 

ESLC average 2011 
(average of 16 education 
systems) 

Average for three best 
performers 2011 
(Malta, Sweden, Netherlands) 

Proposed benchmark level 
for 2020 

42% 

77% 

50% 

The  Commission's  proposal  for  a  benchmark  sets  the  ambition  that  at  least  50  %  of  pupils 
overall in Europe should be independent users in the first foreign language. This considers the 
evidence on the current performance of lower secondary pupils and the time horizon to 2020. 
Thus, Table 4 shows that about one third of education systems participating in the survey are 
already performing above the proposed benchmark: Malta, Sweden, Netherlands, Estonia and 
Slovenia. Moreover, one third is not far behind and could reasonably be expected to reach the 
benchmark before 2020: Greece, Croatia, German Community of Belgium and Bulgaria. The 
remaining ones whose performances are far from a satisfactory level should be encouraged to 
set  ambitious  national  targets:  England,  France,  Poland,  Spain,  Flemish  Community  of 
Belgium and Portugal. 

Table 4 Achievement in first foreign language tested by country  
Percentage of pupils achieving the level of independent user (level B1 or higher)81 

Country/education system 

Language 

% at level B1 or higher 

Malta 

Sweden 

Netherlands 

Estonia 

Slovenia 

Greece 

Croatia 

ESLC average 

German Community of Belgium 

English 

English 

English 

English 

English 

English 

English 

- 

French 

82 

82 

66 

61 

54 

48 

47 

42 

40 

79 EACEA/Eurydice (2012). Key Data on Teaching Languages at School in Europe 2012, pp. 130-131. 

80 European  Commission  (2012).  First  European  Survey  on 

language  competences:  Final  Report. 

http://ec.europa.eu/languages/eslc/index.html 

81 European  Commission  (2012).  First  European  Survey  on 

http://ec.europa.eu/languages/eslc/index.html 

language  competences:  Final  Report. 

32 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Bulgaria 

Portugal 

French Community of Belgium 

Spain 

Poland 

Flemish Community of Belgium 
France 

England 

English 

English 

English 

English 

English 

French 
English 

French 

35 

31 

29 

27 

25 

22 
14 

9 

In  the  formulation  of  the  benchmark,  attention  should  be  given  to  the  term  referring  to  the 
group  of  pupils  or  young  people.  Terms  (e.g.  ISCED  level,  lower  secondary  education, 
compulsory education, or age  levels) are bound to involve a degree of ambiguity, given the 
diversity  of  European  education  systems.  Such  ambiguity  may  turn  out  to  be  an  obstacle  in 
the operationalisation of the benchmark. 

With regard to the first foreign language, the Commission proposal refers to the group of ’15 
year-olds’ because it is the most consistent, clear and strong option. In addition, age levels are 
also used in definition of other benchmarks within the coherent framework of indicators and 
benchmarks ET 202082. Finally, even if the typical age of pupils tested in the ESLC was 14 or 
15  (except  Bulgaria  (16  for  both  languages),  and  Belgium  NL  and  DE  (13  in  first  target 
language), a benchmark using the term of ’15 year-olds’ will leave a room for testing pupils 
slightly younger. 

Therefore, the proposed benchmark for the first foreign language is formulated as follows: 

By  2020,  at  least  50%  of  15  year-olds  should  attain  the  level  of  independent  user  of  a 
first foreign language.83 

5.5. 

Benchmark for the second foreign language  

The  Barcelona  objective  that  all  children  should  be  taught  at  least  two  foreign  languages 
provides  the  political  background  for  the  Commission  also  proposing  a  benchmark  for  the 
second foreign language. This document has presented evidence (see Chapters 2 and 3), with 
respect to the current teaching and learning of the second foreign language across Europe as 
well as the need to improve the current situation so that all young people learn at least two 
foreign languages because of the decisive difference it makes for mobility and growth.  

In  this  respect,  the  Commission's  proposal  for  a  benchmark  targeting  the  second  foreign 
language should be seen  as complementary to  the proposed  benchmark on  skills  in  the  first 
foreign  language.  Together,  they  are  meant  to  encourage  European  education  systems  to 
prepare pupils better for our globalised world.  

As presented in the previous section, the benchmark on the first foreign language focuses on 
the  outcomes  of  language  learning  in  terms  of  proficiency  levels.  The  benchmark  for  the 

82 E.g. “The share of 15-year olds with insufficient abilities in reading, mathematics and science should be less 

that 15%.” 

83 The proficiency level of independent user covers level B1 or higher of the CEFR.  

33 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
second foreign language targets the input in terms of the quantity of pupils learning at least 
two foreign languages, in accordance with the Barcelona objective.  

The  EILC  Advisory  Board  and  the  Thematic  Working  Group  "Languages  in  Education  and 
Training"  have  shown  great  commitment  to  include  the  second  foreign  language  in  the 
benchmark.  In  particular,  they  have  expressed  interest  in  explicitly  targeting  the  level  of 
proficiency  also  for  the  second  foreign  language.  However,  the  input-focused  approach 
adopted in this proposal seems more realistic for the time being, considering that a benchmark 
promoting the quality in the teaching and learning of the second foreign language would be 
more complex than for the first foreign language.  

The main reason is that collecting homogeneous and comparable data is made difficult by the 
broad differences among education systems, in particular because in the majority of countries 
only  a  limited  proportion  of  the  pupil  population  is  actually  learning  a  second  foreign 
language.84 

In addition, due to specific country situations, for several education systems participating in 
the ESLC, their second most widely taught language is not one of the five languages assessed 
within the Survey.85  

Therefore, the proposed benchmark for the second foreign language is focused on the goal of 
progressively  extending  the  teaching  of  a  second  foreign  language  teaching  to  the  great 
majority of pupils during lower secondary education.  

The  setting  of  the  benchmark’s  reference  level  must  consider  two  significant  trends  which 
were highlighted in Chapter 2 of the present document:  

• 

• 

The variation between Member States regarding the emphasis on learning two foreign 
languages during lower secondary education; 
The increasing emphasis on an earlier start in learning a second foreign language across 
Europe as a whole  

First, the current EU-27 data conceal large variations across Europe (see Figure 3, Chapter 2), 
underlining  the  large  scope  for  enhancing  the  learning  of  two  foreign  languages  in  the 
majority of Member States.   

Supporting  this  argument  is  the  fact  that  in  the  period  2005-2010,  the  percentage  of  pupils 
learning two languages in lower secondary education (ISCED level 2) decreased in half of the 
countries,  while  in  the  other  half  the  percentages  increased.  With  a  few  exceptions,  the 
decreases are quite small, while the increases in several countries are significant.86 

Second, the present paper (see Table 1) shows that the EU-27 average regarding the share of 
pupils in lower secondary education learning two foreign languages increased remarkably by 
14 percentage points from 47 % to 61 %, in the five year period between 2005-2010. 75 % 

84 See Figure 3, and Appendix, Figure 5 and Table 6 
85 This  was  the  case  in  Bulgaria,  Estonia,  the  French-  and  German-speaking  Communities  of  Belgium,  and 

Spain. 

86 See Appendix, Table 6 

34 

 
 
 
                                                 
provides a realistic prospective percentage for 2020, keeping some of the current momentum 
in the field. 

Against  this  background,  the  Commission  proposal  for  a  benchmark  regarding  the  second 
foreign language is expressed in the following way:  

By 2020, at least 75% of pupils in lower secondary education87 should study at least two 
foreign languages (compared to the present 61 %)  

Whereas the benchmark for the first foreign language relies on the ESLC for the production of 
relevant  data,  the  assessment  of  the  benchmark  on  the  second  foreign  language  will  be 
conducted using Eurostat data. The practice for collecting the relevant data sets is already in 
place for nearly all EU-27 education systems.88 

5.6. 

An important supplementary indicator: the share of “low-achievers” 

Policy and practice should give particular incentives for countries to reduce the proportion of 
lower-achieving  pupils.  Corresponding  to  similar  indicators  in  the  field  of  education  and 
training  which  refer  to  'insufficient  abilities'  (in  reading,  mathematics  and  science),  the 
Commission proposes to establish a supplementary indicator assessing the proportion of low 
achievers who do not reach the level of basic user:  

The  percentage  of  15  year-olds  who  do  not  achieve  the  level  of  basic  user  in  the  first 
foreign language89 

5.7. 

Future action 

The quality of data must be improved to better assess progress… 

In order to monitor progress towards the “mother tongue + two” Barcelona objective, it will 
be  necessary  to  continue  improving  the  collection  of  data  in  order  to  assess  where  Europe 
stands regarding the language competences of young people. 

To ensure the validity of such data, the European Survey on Language Competences must be 
repeated  on  a  regular  basis,  like  other  international  education  surveys.  It  must  also  be 
extended to cover speaking skills, other languages and more countries in future rounds. 

When endorsing the framework for the European Language Indicator, the Council stressed in 
its conclusions that:90 

87 Lower secondary education equals ISCED level 2. Mode of calculation: The percentage of students learning 0, 
1,  2  (or  more)  foreign  languages  is  calculated  with  respect  to  all  students  in  all  years  of  lower  secondary 
education.  The  number  of  students  learning  0,  1,  2  (or  more)  foreign  languages  is  divided  by  the 
corresponding number of students enrolled at ISCED level 2. 

88 See  Figure  C7a:  Percentage  of  students  learning  0,  1,  2  or  more  language(s)  in  lower  secondary  education 
(ISCED 2), in Eurydice (2012). Key Data on Teaching Languages at School in Europe 2012, pp.67-68.  

89 In the CEFR, the lower threshold for the proficiency level of basic user is level A1 

35 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
-  because  respect  for  linguistic  diversity  is  a  core  value  of  the  European  Union,  the 
Indicator  should  be  based  upon  data  concerning  the  knowledge  of  all  the  official 
languages  of  the  European  Union  taught  as  foreign  languages  in  the  Union;  but  for 
practical reasons it would be advisable, in the first round of data-gathering, for tests to be 
made  available  in  those  official  languages  of  the  European  Union  that  are  most  widely 
taught in the Member States, to the extent that they provide a sufficiently large sample of 
testees; 

- 

the Indicator should assess competence in the four productive and receptive skills; but for 
practical reasons it would be advisable, in the first round of data-gathering, for tests to be 
made  available  in  the  three  language  skills  which  may  be  assessed  most  readily  (i.e. 
listening comprehension, reading comprehension and writing); 

- 

the  tests  should  be  “administered  to  a  representative  sample  of  the  target  population  in 
each Member State;” 

...and more member states must participate in the ESLC to provide this data 

The  Members  of  the  Advisory  Board  fully  agreed  on  the  requirements  to  be  fulfilled  in 
securing the validity and the relevance of the benchmark. Based on their countries’ experience 
in participating in other international surveys, they supported the view of the Council and the 
Commission that the next round of the Survey would need to include the development of tests 
for more taught foreign languages in the EU and instruments assessing speaking competences. 
Another major challenge will be to convince more, hopefully all, Member States to participate 
despite the economic crisis.  

Once  adopted,  the  new  benchmark  can  improve  outcomes  through  increasing  levels  of 
evidence-based policy-making... 

The  European  benchmark  on  language  competences  will  provide  a  strong  incentive  for 
national governments to seek to improve learning outcomes and achievements of pupils. 

Experiences  with  European  benchmarks  in  fields  like  early  school  leaving  or  number  of 
graduates  in  Math,  Science  and  Technology  have  shown  positive  effects.  A  European 
benchmark  on  languages  is  therefore  likely  to  be  a  significant  step  forward  towards  the 
Barcelona objective of “mother tongue + two foreign languages.” 

...alongside  the  Open  Method  of  Coordination  to  enable  exchange  of  good  practice  and 
provide a forum for reflection 

According to the Education and Training 2020 strategy, the Open Method of Coordination is 
the  appropriate  working  method  for  the  exchange  of  best  policy  practice  among  Member 
States in the area of Education and Training.  

The  OMC  requires  exchanges  and  identification  of  good  practices  on  the  European  level 
based  on  valid  comparable  data.  A  benchmark  on  languages,  as  part  of  the  coherent 
framework  of  indicators  and  benchmarks  will  support  the  realisation  of  the  Education  and 

90 Council Conclusions on the European indicator of  language competence (July 2006). 

http://ec.europa.eu/languages/documents/doc662_en.pdf.  

36 

 
 
                                                                                                                                                         
Training 2020 strategy. The exchanges and mutual learning will provide EU added value to 
the efforts of national policy makers.  

In this context, the Commission will lead the on-going reflection on how to improve policies 
for  better  language  learning  through  the  work  of  the  Advisory  Board  for  the  language 
indicator and the OMC working group “Languages in education and training”  established by 
the Council.  

The use of the benchmark on languages in all those contexts will ensure that exchanges within 
the  OMC  are  evidence-based,  signalling  the  EU’s  determination  to  tackle  the  education 
challenges  highlighted  within  Europe  2020.  Helping  young  Europeans  to  acquire  the  skills 
needed to succeed in the EU labour market is more essential than ever for their employability 
and  mobility.  Good  knowledge  of  foreign  languages  is  one  of  the  basic  skills  in  today’s 
Europe. Therefore, language learning policy needs to tackle the major challenge of improving 
the efficiency of education systems in delivering language competences.  

Once  adopted,  the  new  benchmark  will  be  taken  up  in  the  new  Education  and  Training 
Monitor. 

37 

 
 
APPENDIX 

Figure 4 Number of languages studied per pupil at ISCED 1, 2 and 3, EU average (1998-2010) 

Source: Eurostat (UOE) 

Figure 5 Average number of foreign languages studied per pupil at ISCED 2 and 3 (2009/10) 

Source:  EACEA/Eurydice  (2012).  Key  Data  on  Teaching  Languages  at  School  in  Europe  2012,  p.65.     
Note: Value for Turkey, ISCED level 2, corrected compared to original figure in Eurydice report.   

38 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 6 Percentage of pupils learning at least two foreign languages in EU, 2000-2010 

  Source: Eurostat (UOE) 

Table 5 Obstacles to cross-border mobility in EU-27/EEA/EFTA countries 

Source: Scientific Report on the Mobility of Cross-Border Workers within the EU-27/EEA/EFTA 
Countries, January 2009, page 43. http://ec.europa.eu/social/BlobServlet?docId=3459&langId=en    
Explanatory note: Table based on online survey involving 440 cross-border labour market experts in the 
EURES network, government departments, universities, and trade unions. The experts assessed the 
significance of obstacles on mobility, using numbers from 1 (minor obstacle) to 5 (major obstacle). The 
table shows mean values of the experts' responses. 

39

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 7 Percentage of pupils learning English, French and German at ISCED 3/upper secondary 

education (general) (2005-2010)  

Source: Eurostat (UOE) 

Figure 8 Global scores for pupils by language tested in the ESLC 

Source: European Commission (2012). First European Survey on language competences: Final Report. 
http://ec.europa.eu/languages/eslc/docs/en/final-report-escl_en.pdf 

40

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 9 Perceived usefulness of foreign languages (ESLC 2012) 

Source:  European  Commission  (2012).  First  European  Survey  on  language  competences:  Final  Report. 
http://ec.europa.eu/languages/eslc/docs/en/final-report-escl_en.pdf 
Explanatory note: The scale is based on pupils' responses in the ESLC with regard to their perception of 
the usefulness of languages.  Three topics were covered: How useful pupils find the language for different 
purposes;  how  much  they  like  the  language  as  a  school  subject;  and  how  useful  the  pupils  report  the 
language as a subject is in general. Pupils' answers were ordered on a scale from 0 to 3, depending on the 
degree pupils reported they found the language useful and liked it as a subject. The graph shows the mean 
of this index for each of the education systems participating in the ESLC. 

Figure 10 Perceived usefulness of foreign languages (Eurobarometer 2012) 

Source: Eurobarometer 386, Europeans and their languages, June 2012, p. 69-75. 
http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_386_en.pdf 
Explanatory  note:  Eurobarometer  respondents  were  asked  to  name  the  two  languages,  apart  from  their 
mother tongue, that they believed to be most useful for their personal development, and to name the two 
languages they believed to be most useful for children to learn for their future. 

41

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table 6 Percentage of students learning zero, one, or two or more languages in lower secondary 
education (ISCED 2), 2004/05, 2006/07, 2009/2010 

European Union 
Belgium (fr) 
Belgium (de) 
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 

NO foreign language 
2007 
1.2 
0.2 
: 
6.0 
0.2 
3.3 
0.0 
: 
2.0 
12.7 
: 
1.7 
0.2 
0.2 
0.0 
2.1 
1.5 
0.0 
5.6 
0.0 
0.0 
: 
1.9 
: 
0.0 
0.0 
1.2 
0.6 
0.0 
0.4 

2010 
1.8 
0.7 
: 
7.1 
0.2 
2.4 
0.0 
: 
: 
11.9 
0.1 
0.9 
0.2 
0.0 
0.1 
0.9 
2.5 
0.0 
4.6 
0.0 
0.0 
0.3 
1.8 
24.0 
1.3 
0.0 
1.4 
0.7
0.0 
3.0 

2005 
1.2 
0.2 
0.0 
4.3 
1.9 
2.7 
0.0 
: 
0.1 
12.3 
0.2 
0.9 
0.3 
0.0 
0.0 
1.7 
1.4 
0.0 
: 
0.0 
0.0 
0.3 
: 
0.7 
1.4 
1.8 
1.0 
0.6 
0.0 
0.4 

ONE foreign language 
2007 
44.8 
99.6 
: 
46.0 
72.0 
83.8 
0.7 
: 
3.4 
76.6 
: 
58.3 
49.0 
2.8 
: 
24.4 
20.1 
0.0 
88.6 
0.0 
20.8 
: 
89.5 
: 
3.7 
64.6 
82.4 
1.7
27.0 
99.6 

2005 
52.0 
99.2 
: 
47.5 
74.7 
91.5 
0.6 
: 
16.5 
75.6 
5.5 
58.6 
50.5 
56.1 
: 
37.6 
21.2 
0.0 
: 
4.9 
20.8 
90.4 
: 
10.5 
3.7 
73.3 
86.4 
2.0
27.9 
99.6 

2010 
37.4 
99.3 
: 
46.7 
78.6 
66.1 
16.5 
: 
: 
78.0 
2.7 
59.7 
48.0 
0.5 
7.8 
25.4 
17.9 
0.0 
89.9 
4.2 
24.1 
90.8 
32.9 
11.6 
4.1 
57.0 
60.1 
1.2
25.6 
97.0 

TWO OR MORE foreign languages 
2010 
2007 
2005 
60.8 
54.0 
46.7 
0.0 
0.2 
0.7 
: 
: 
: 
46.2 
48.0 
48.1 
21.2 
27.8 
23.4 
31.5 
12.9 
5.8 
83.5 
99.3 
99.4 
: 
: 
: 
: 
94.6 
83.4 
10.1 
10.7 
12.0 
97.2 
: 
94.3 
39.4 
40.0 
40.5 
51.8 
50.8 
49.2 
99.5 
97.0 
43.9 
92.1 
: 
: 
73.7 
73.5 
60.7 
79.6 
78.4 
77.5 
100.0 
100.0 
100.0 
5.5 
5.8 
: 
95.8 
100.0 
95.1 
75.9 
79.2 
79.2 
8.9 
: 
9.3 
65.3 
8.5 
: 
64.4 
: 
88.8 
94.7 
96.3 
95.0 
43.0 
35.4 
24.9 
38.5 
16.4 
12.6 
98.2
97.7 
97.4
74.4 
73.0 
72.1 
0.0 
0.0 
0.0 

Source: EACEA/Eurydice (2012). Key Data on Teaching Languages at School in Europe 2012, p. 67 

42

 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX - FACTS AND FIGURES 

1.  LANGUAGE TEACHING, LANGUAGE LEARNING IN EUROPE 

− 

In primary education, the percentage of pupils learning a foreign language went up 
from 67.5% in 2004/2005 to 78.2% in 2009/2010 

−  The average number of languages studied by EU pupils in primary school went up 

from 0.6 in 2002 to 0.8 in 2010 

− 

In lower secondary education, the same average increased from 1.4 in 2002 to 1.5 in 
2010 

−  Upper  secondary  pupils  attending  general  education  studied  on  average  1.6 

languages in 2010, the same level as in 2004 

− 

In vocational and prevocational training, the average improved from 1.0 to 1.2 over 
the same period. 

2.  STARTING AGE 

−  Due to the reform of 2008/09, Poland reduced the percentage of pupils not learning 

any foreign language in primary school from 45.5% in 2006/07 to 2.3% in 2009/10. 

− 

− 

In the United Kingdom, the same percentage went down from 59.9% in 2004/05 to 
25.5% in 2009/10. 

In  the  Czech  Republic,  only  29%  of  primary  school  pupils  did  not  learn  a  foreign 
language in 2009/10, compared to 53.5% in 2004/05. 

3.  NUMBER OF LANGUAGES TAUGHT  

− 

− 

In lower secondary education, the percentage of pupils learning two or more foreign 
languages went up from 46.7% in 2004/05 to 60.8% in 2009/10.  

In  upper  secondary  prevocational/vocational  upper  secondary  education,  the 
percentage  of  pupils  studying  two  or  more  languages  increased  from  32.9%  in 
2004/05 to 39.4% in 2010 

−  A  slight  decrease  (from  62.2%  in  2004/05  to  59.4%  in  2010)  was  registered  in 

general upper secondary. 

− 

− 

− 

In Poland the number of pupils learning two foreign languages in lower secondary 
education figure rose from 8.5% in 2006/07 to 65.3% 

In the Czech Republic the percentage increased from 5.8% in 2004/05 to 31.5% in 
2009/10 

In  Italy,  43.9%  of  pupils  studied  two  foreign  languages  in  2004/05;  they  became 
99.5% five years later. 

43

 
 
4.  LEVEL OF COMPETENCES 

−  Almost  half  of  those  surveyed  (46%)  declare  themselves  unable  to  hold  a 

conversation in any language other than their mother tongue.  

−  Only  one  quarter  of  respondents  (25%)  say that  they  can  hold  a  conversation  in  at 

least two foreign languages.  

− 

Just one in ten individuals stated they are able to hold a conversation in at least three 
foreign languages. 

−  For the first of the two languages tested in each country, only 42% of tested pupils 
reach the level of ‘independent users’ (levels B1 and B2 of the Council of Europe’s 
Common European Framework of Reference for Languages, CEFR – see Appendix, 
Table 8) 

−  For the second language tested, only 25% reach the same level 

−  A  source  of  concern  is  that  a  consistent  percentage  of  pupils—14%  for  the  first 
language and 20% for the second—do not even reach the basic user level (level A1 
of the CEFR). 

− 

In Malta and  in Sweden, more  than  four fifths (82%) of pupils tested in the ESLC 
reach the level of ‘independent user’ in the first foreign language (English) 

−  At the other end of the spectrum, only 14% of pupils tested in France (for English) 

and only 9% of pupils tested in England (for French) reach the same level 

− 

− 

− 

− 

In  countries  such  as  Luxembourg,  Latvia,  the  Netherlands,  Malta,  Slovenia, 
Lithuania and Sweden, more than 90% of Eurobarometer respondents feel confident 
in their ability to hold a conversation in at least one foreign language 

In  Hungary,  Italy,  Portugal,  the  United  Kingdom  and  Ireland  the  corresponding 
percentage does not go beyond 40% 

In a group of eight Member States (Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Slovenia, Malta, 
Denmark, Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia), more than half the population can speak at 
least two foreign languages 

In  another  group  of  eight  Member  States  (Hungary,  Portugal,  United  Kingdom, 
Greece, Ireland, Spain, Bulgaria and France) less than one fifth of the population can 
do the same. 

5.  SPECIFIC LANGUAGE ISSUES 

−  French is studied by 32.7% of EU pupils in lower secondary, 23.2% in general upper 

secondary and 20.6% in prevocational and vocational education 

−  German is more popular at ISCED 3 level than at ISCED2: only 16.9% of EU pupils 
learn  it  in  lower  secondary,  compared  to  23.9%  in  general  upper  secondary  and 
20.7% in prevocational and vocational education 

44

 
 
−  Spanish  is  studied  by  11.4%  of  EU  pupils  in  lower  secondary,  19.1%  in  general 

upper secondary and 3.6% in prevocational and vocational education. 

−  Only  20%  of  students  tested  in  French  and  German  in  the  ESLC  reached  the 

‘independent user’ level (B1 and B2) 

−  12%  of  Europeans  polled  in  the  2012  Eurobarometer  consider  themselves  able  to 
speak French (14% in 2005). Of these, one in two assess their competence as ‘basic’ 

−  German  is  mentioned  among  the  foreign  languages  spoken  by  11%  of  individuals 
interviewed (14% in 2005). Of these, 40% describe their competences as ‘basic’ 

−  Spanish  is  the  only  foreign  language  registering  a  slight  increase,  being  mentioned 
by 7% of participants (6% in 2005). Almost one third (32%) however say they only 
have a ‘basic’ command of it. 

−  Several  countries  have  introduced  pilot  projects  for  increasing  the  number  of 

languages over those already required or for advancing the starting age. 

o 

In Latvia pupils aged 6 to 11 will learn English, French and German. 

o  Lithuania is launching the teaching of German in 26 pre-primary institutions.  

o 

In  Greece,  800  primary  schools  are  introducing  the  teaching  of  English  for 
children between 6 and 8 years. The programme should be generalised in 2013. 

o  A  choice  of  language  alternatives  to  English  classes  (generally  French  and 
German) is being offered to pupils in Denmark from age 12, in the Netherlands 
already at primary level, in Portugal at age 10 and in Finland, starting with 7 year 
olds. 

6.  THE NEEDS OF THE LABOUR MARKET 

− 

− 

In Denmark, all schools must offer classes of German and may in addition propose 
French, to pupils from the age of 13 

In Sweden, curricula in all schools must include a second foreign language (French, 
Spanish or German) 

−  Upper  secondary  schools  in  Cyprus  must  offer  French,  German,  Italian,  Spanish, 

Turkish and Russian 

−  Lower  secondary  schools  in  Malta  must  offer  Italian,  French,  German,  Spanish, 

Arabic and Russian 

−  Lithuanian pupils in primary education have a choice between French and German,  

−  Schools in England and Wales have a good deal autonomy and can offer any major 

European or world language 

45