Comparative study on quality assurance in EU school education systems : executive summary.
Date: 2015-06-19
Institutions: Directorate-General for Education, Youth, Sport and Culture
Subjects: comparative study, education policy, educational system, report, teaching quality

on  Quality 
Study 
Comparative 
Assurance  in  EU  School  Education 
Systems  –  Policies,  procedures  and 
practices 

Executive Summary 

DG EAC 
Order 12 Lot 3 DG EAC Framework Contract 

4 June 2015 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Europe Direct is a service to help you find answers  
to your questions about the European Union. 

Freephone number (*): 
00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11 

(*) 

The information given is free, as are most calls (though some operators, phone 

boxes or hotels may charge you). 

More information on the European Union is available on the Internet (http://europa.eu). 

Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2015 

ISBN: 978-92-79-47684-6 
DOI: 10.2766/784544 

© European Union, 2015 
Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged. 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table of Contents 

Table of Contents .............................................................................................. 2 
Executive summary ........................................................................................... 4 
Why this study? ............................................................................................... 4 
What is Quality Assurance, and how does it contribute to ‘Quality’? .................................... 5 
Quality Assurance activities and systems across EU school systems ..................................... 5 
Stakeholder’s involvement in QA in EU school systems ................................................... 7 
Quality Assurance approaches across EU school systems ................................................. 8 
Results and outcomes of effective QA in maintaining and improving ‘quality’ in EU school systems, 
and contributing factors...................................................................................... 8 
Current  strengths  and  weaknesses  in  how  QA  is  conducted  across  EU  school  educational  systems, 
and trends ..................................................................................................... 9 
Scenarios of potential EU level actions to support national QA efforts .................................10 

June 2015 2 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
June 2015 3 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Executive summary  

Why this study? 
Maintaining and improving the quality of school education systems is a key concern for 
many EU governments in their goals to support their country’s social cohesion, equity, 
employment, innovation and growth. Whilst most EU countries do not have a specific 
definition  of  what  ‘quality  in  school  education’  is,  the  study  found  that  it  is  broadly 
understood as achieved when (1) key competences are acquired by all pupils, and/or 
(2)  school  systems  are  equitable  and  inclusive  (ie.  low  or  declining  disparities  in 
educational outcomes), and/or (3) are driven by excellence (e.g. in teaching or school 
governance), and/or (4) bring pupils to transition successful from school to the labour 
market  or  to  further  education.  A  ‘quality’  school  education  system  is  also  which 
responds  and  adapts  to  new  challenges  (e.g.  budgetary  cuts,  increasing  diversity  in 
classrooms,  the  use  of  digital  resources,  etc.)  and  approaches  (e.g.  the  key 
competences approach, the learning outcomes approach, the importance of delivering 
social  outcomes  of  education,  etc.).  Failing  to  do  can  result  in  underperformance, 
measured  for  example  by  early  school  leaving,  difficulties  in  transition  between 
education  sectors  or  into  the  labour  market  and  poor  social  outcomes.  In  most 
countries, the quality of different areas of education1 varies within the school system, 
and  inequalities  in  learning  outcomes,  for  example  in  basic  skills  attainment  or 
qualification rates, exist.  

The  performance  of  a  school  education  system  is  impacted  by  how  the  quality  of  all 
areas which compose it is monitored, maintained and improved, and how responsive it 
is  to  emerging  needs.  This,  in  turn,  is  influenced  by  the  types  of  Quality  Assurance 
policies,  procedures  and  activities  which  exist  and  how  those  are  organised  and 
implemented in practice.  

In May 2014, the Council of EU Ministers recognised the need to develop a culture of 
quality enhancement in teaching and learning which can raise standards and improve 
learning  outcomes2.  With  due  regard  for  subsidiarity,  the  European  Commission  was 
given  a  mandate  to  work  on  quality  assurance  supporting  education  and  training, 
covering all sectors of education, including the school sector3, within the Open Method 
of  Coordination  (OMC).  Specifically,  the  Council  invited  the  European  Commission  to 
“strengthen mutual learning through European cooperation on quality assurance in all 
sectors”  and  “explore  ways  to  support  Member  States  in  developing  their  quality 
assurance arrangements so as to cater for different modes of learning and teaching or 
so  that  such  arrangements  could  also  be  applied  to  various  sectors  and  levels  of 
education and training”.  

1  The  study  broadly  groups  those  areas  under  the  following  categories:  (1)  the 
educational  context  (school  relationship  with  parents  and  other  organisations  in  the 
community;  school  climate  and  its  various  components;  school  and  system 
governance);  (2)  inputs  into  the  educational  system  (education  standards;  facilities 
and  equipment);  the  education  process  (curriculum;  learners’  assessment  (formative 
and/or summative); (3) teaching and learning methods; requirements for teachers in 
terms  of  qualifications,  competences,  responsibilities;  same  for  school  leadership); 
education  outputs  and  outcomes  (graduation  rates,  drop-out  rates,  etc.;  learning 
outcomes  (qualifications);  equal  opportunities,  etc.).  The  study  has  looked  at  how 
each area has been ‘quality assured’.  
2 Conclusions on QA supporting education and training approved 20.05.2014, available 
at http://consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_data/docs/pressdata/en/educ/142694.pdf  
3 Ibid. 

June 2015 4 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
This study is one contribution to the Commission’s  reflections on EU  countries’ needs 
for cooperation and coordination in the field of quality assurance in the school sector, 
and  on  potential  EU  level  actions  to  support  national  efforts.  The  study  covers  QA 
policies,  procedures,  activities  and  practices  in  EU  28  school  educational  systems  at 
the  following  levels  (1)  primary;  (2)  lower-secondary;  and  (3)  upper-secondary 
(general education). It identifies different types of QA systems and approaches across 
EU school educational systems, their drivers, the activities and tools which make them 
up, and actors involved. It also identifies results and outcomes of effective QA across 
the EU school education systems, as well as key strengths and weaknesses in how QA 
is  currently  conducted  and  general  trends.  Considering  current  weaknesses  in  QA 
across  EU school educational systems and the  EU’s new mandate to support national 
efforts  in  this  area,  the  study  also  considers  potential  EU  actions  in  the  field  to  add 
value to what is happening at the national level. 

What is Quality Assurance, and how does it contribute to ‘Quality’? 
How  the  quality  of  the  different  components  of  a  school  system  is  assured  and 
improved  has  an  impact  on  the  overall  performance  of  this  system.  This,  in  turn,  is 
determined  by  the  types  of  Quality  Assurance  policies,  procedures  and  activities  in 
place to assure this. Indeed, QA broadly serves two key functions 

  a  summative  function  which  relates  to  ensuring  that  actors  of  the  school 
system are held accountable for their results and that processes are controlled 
and  compliant  with  regulation.  This  function  translates  into  QA  policies  and 
activities  which  ensure  that  quality  standards  and  objectives  which  cover  the 
different  areas  of  school  education  (e.g.  in  teaching,  learning,  pupils’ 
assessments, school climate, teacher training, etc.) are met4, and  

  a formative function which relates to the improvement of practices and results 
(e.g.  recommendations  for  improvement,  action  plans,  improvement  and 
support  measures  such  as  critical  friend,  counsellors  etc.).  This  function  is 
essential  to  ensure  that  weaknesses  identified  in  a  given  area  of  education, 
following an ‘summative’ QA activity or process (control/compliance check), are 
addressed,  and  also  that  ‘standards  for  quality’  and  objectives  are  adapted  to 
emerging needs and challenges, in a continuous cycle of improvement. 

The study found that in most EU countries the term ‘quality assurance’ is not used as 
such  in  the  school  sector5.  Stakeholders  consulted  in  this  study  tended  to  know 
specific  QA  activities  or  processes  (e.g.  external  school  evaluation  or  inspections, 
internal evaluation, teacher appraisals) without necessarily referring to them as such, 
or  understanding  them  as  part  of  a  QA  system  or  approach.  Nevertheless,  QA 
activities  exist  and  are  identifiable  in  all  EU  school  systems  even  if  they  are  not 
systematically related to Quality Assurance. Re-labelling existing activities as QA ones 
could  maximise  their  potential  use  for  accountability  and  improvement  purposes 
however, or to consider them as part of a QA system or a QA cycle. 

Quality Assurance activities and systems across EU school systems 
The study identified ‘QA system’ as an integrated set of policies, activities, procedures, 
rules,  criteria,  tools  and  verification  instruments  and  mechanisms  that  together  are 
designed to ensure and improve the quality provided by a school institution or school 

4 If standards are too low and thus achievable by all or most schools, teachers, pupils 
etc.  without  much  effort,  QA  policies,  procedures  and  practices  will  not  lead  to  good 
outcomes,  nor  drive  improvement.  For  ‘standards  for  quality’  to  lead  to  ‘quality’ 
attainment and improvement, they must be ‘fit-for-purpose’ and regularly updated.  
5  Unlike  in  the  higher  education  or  VET  sector  where  QA  is  a  more  established 
language. 

June 2015 5 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
system6.  Depending  on  the  QA  system  in  question,  this  set  of  instruments  and 
mechanisms can be more or less organised according to a Quality Assurance cycle7, to 
realise continuous improvement.  In some countries, the QA cycle is also enshrined in 
QA  tools  such  as  quality  or  school  evaluation  frameworks  or  QA  activities  such  as 
school  evaluations.  The  study  identified  quality  assurance  activities  and  processes 
which take place during the following phases: 

 

 

 

the  standard-setting  phase.  Activities  under  this  phase  lead  quality  standards 
in  different  areas  of  a  school  system  being  set,  e.g.  learning  outcomes, 
teaching  standards,  standards  in  learning  processes  (e.g.  curricula,  learning 
methods), standards in pupils’ assessments, etc.;  

the  accountability  phase.  Activities  and  tools  under  this  phase  provide 
information  on  the  performance  of  individuals,  schools  and/or  the  school 
system  as  a  whole.  Activities  and  tools  include:  schools’  external  and  internal 
evaluation,  staff  appraisal,  pupils’  assessment,  European  and  International 
tests  and  surveys  such  as  the  OECD  Teaching  and  Learning  International 
Survey (TALIS) or TIMSS or PISA, and  

the  improvement  phase.  Activities  and  tools  during  this  phase  aim  to  support 
quality  improvement  processes  amongst  individuals,  schools  and  the  school 
system  as  a  whole.  They  include  requirements  for  school  staff’s  further 
training;  school  development  or  improvement  plans;  the  provision  of 
supportive  material,  counselling  or  methodological  support  of  qualified 
advisors; networking activities etc.  

Those  activities  and  tools  are  then  applied  to  the  different  dimensions  or  areas  of 
school  education  whose  ‘quality’  is  to  be  maintained  and/or  improved8.  The  study 
found that some areas were given more priority than others, as per the deployment of 
resources  for  their  QA.  Most  frequently,  countries  focus  most  of  their  QA  efforts  on 
assuring  the  quality  of  (1)  learning  outcomes,  (2)  teachers  (recruitment,  training, 
teaching  methods  etc.),  (3)  the  school  education  context  (school  climate,  school 
governance,  relationships  with  parents  etc.).Whether  other  areas  of  education  are 
‘quality assured’, or how thoroughly, varies by country.  

The study found that, in the majority of EU countries, QA systems are not sufficiently 
consolidated: the coherence and strategic linking of various QA activities (e.g. teacher 
or  pupils’  assessments,  school  evaluations,  curriculum  development,  definition  of 
learning  outcomes)  is  insufficient,  formative  activities  and  processes  are  generally 
limited and there are shortcomings in the QA of certain areas of education (which can 
have  an  impact  on  the  QA  of  other  related  areas).  Coherent  and  consolidated  QA 

6 Definition adapted from a definition of QA approach in Cedefop, Glossary - Quality in 
education and trainingi¸2011. 
7  Deming  described  his  Quality  cycle  as  follows:  P  (plan)  (project  phase);  D  (do) 
(execution  phase);  C  (check)  (control  phase);  A  (act)  (action,  adaptation  and 
correction phase). 
8  The  study  looks  at  how  each  area  has  been  ‘quality  assured’.  The  study  broadly 
groups  ‘areas’  under  the  following  categories:  (1)  the  educational  context  (school 
relationship  with  parents  and  other  organisations  in  the  community;  school  climate 
and  its  various  components;  school  and  system  governance);  (2)  inputs  into  the 
educational  system  (education  standards;  facilities  and  equipment);  the  education 
process  (curriculum;  learners’  assessment  (formative  and/or  summative);  (3) 
teaching  and  learning  methods;  requirements  for  teachers  in  terms  of  qualifications, 
competences,  responsibilities;  same  for  school  leadership);  education  outputs  and 
outcomes  (graduation  rates,  drop-out  rates,  etc.;  learning  outcomes  (qualifications); 
equal opportunities, etc.).  

June 2015 6 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
systems  are  those  where  different  QA  activities  build  on  each  other  in  a  consistent 
manner  and  work  towards  the  same  objectives.  This  exists  in  some  school  systems 
but in a minority of cases.  

Stakeholder’s involvement in QA in EU school systems 
A  variety  of  stakeholders  at  different  levels  of  the  school  system  (central, 
regional/local  and  school  levels)  are  concerned  by  how  QA  in  the  school  sector  is 
conducted: parents, pupils, teachers, school heads, ministry officials, employers, other 
sectors  of  education  etc.  They  have  been  distinguished  according  to  the  level  of  the 
school system at which they are involved in QA design and/or implementation: 

  At  system  level,  central  or  decentralised  governments  and  other  independent 
oversight  or  advisory  bodies  have  a  mandate  to  assure  the  quality  of  certain 
aspects  of  school  quality.  In  addition,  associations  of  school  and  local  level 
actors (e.g. parents, teachers, school heads, local authorities) are also more or 
less  consulted  by  public  actors  and  have  an  influence  on  the  development  of 
policy orientations and legal texts. .  

 

In some countries, local or regional authorities and schools are involved in the 
design and implementation of some QA activities and procedures (e.g. through 
the development of performance targets and objectives, the implementation of 
external  evaluations,  staff  appraisal  etc.).  In  countries  where  school  or  local 
autonomy  is  high,  the  type,  depth  and  scope  of  QA  activities  can  vary 
depending  on  schools  and  regional  or  local  authorities,  e.g.  some  schools  can 
choose  to  produce  improvement  plans  following  a  school  evaluation  process, 
others  may  not.  Local  and  school  autonomy  in  QA  thus  creates  variability  in 
approaches  to  QA  and  in  their  effectiveness.  This is  a  problem  where  system-
level checks, to ensure consistency across a system, are weak. This being said 
the  study  found  that  some  autonomy  at  school  and  local  levels  was  a  factor 
which  contributed  to  engaging  school  actors  in  the  implementation  of  QA 
policies and activities, and thus improved their likelihood to be effective. 

  School leaders and teachers are key in turning the ‘intentions’ of system-level 
actors  into  realities  (e.g.  in  implementing  teaching  methods,  assessment 
guidance,  assuring  the  school  climate  is  appropriate  etc)  and  in  creating  a 
quality  /  self-assessment  culture  in  schools.  However  school  leaders  and 
teachers can lack capacity / incentives to engage in QA activities and use their 
results  (e.g.  use  data  available  on  school  and  pupils’  performance;  introduce 
change in teaching, learning and other school practices). In some systems they 
also  do  not  have  sufficient  autonomy  to  introduce  appropriate  changes  (in 
timetable organisation, in staffing etc.). 

  Pupils are generally consulted to monitor the quality of educational inputs, e.g. 
the quality of teaching or of school climate. This can take place in external or 
internal  school  evaluations.  In  some  countries,  pupil  representatives  are  also 
part  of  school  boards  or  councils  to  reflect  on  school  plans  or  strategic 
orientations  or  the  set-up  of  concrete  projects.  Pupils  are  involved  in  QA 
activities which assess the quality of education outcomes, e.g. standardised or 
continuous progress assessments.  

  Parents’  involvement  in  QA  activities  across  EU  school  systems  can  vary 
significantly from one school to another, depending on the school’s capacity to 
engage  with  them  and  also  on  the  school’s  population’s  socio-economic 
characteristics.  They  are  generally  consulted  in  school  planning  and  school 
evaluation activities.  

June 2015 7 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

In  some  countries,  efforts  are  made  to  involve  employer  and/or  higher 
education  representatives  to  ensure  that  education  processes  are  fit  for  the 
purpose of post-school transition to further education or employment, but this 
is not systematic across EU school systems.  

The  study  found  that  a  high  degree  of  stakeholder  involvement  in  the  design  and 
implementation  of  QA  at  all  relevant  levels  (system,  local  and  school  levels)  is,  in 
itself,  a  quality  assurance  measure.  Indeed  decisions  are  more  likely  to  be 
implemented  effectively  when  they  reflect  a  wide  array  of  interest.  On  the  contrary, 
when stakeholders are poorly consulted, the purpose of QA policies or activities can be 
unclear and/or actors’ engagement in QA activities and processes can suffer.  

Importantly,  the  extent  to  which  ‘intentions’  of  QA  policies  and  activities,  set  by 
system-level  actors,  are  turned  into  realities,  depends  on  the  practice(s)  of  (mainly) 
school  actors  and  intermediaries  (e.g.  local  authorities,  inspectors  etc.).  Therefore,  it 
is key that they are engaged in QA processes and activities, through prior consultation 
and support measures, such as training.  

Quality Assurance approaches across EU school systems 
QA approaches are broadly characterised by the degree to which they are summative 
or  formative  in  function,  i.e.  whether  they  primarily  aimed  at  accountability  and 
control,  or  at  improvement  and  development.  Approaches  are  also  differentiated  by 
the  broad  ‘orientation’  of  QA,  i.e.  whether  the  onus  of  QA  is  placed  on  bodies  which 
are  external  to  schools  or  onto  schools  themselves.  Most  QA  systems  encompass  QA 
policies  and  activities  which  combine  summative  and  formative  aspects,  as  well  as  a 
more or less external or internal orientation.  

A school system’s traditions, values and characteristics influence the QA approach. For 
example,  the  role  that  schools  and  school  actors  are  expected  to  play  in  delivering 
quality  education  plays  a  part  in  shaping  which  quality  assurance  approaches  are 
taken.  Approaches  are  also  influenced  by  (1)  the  level  of  autonomy  given  to  schools 
and local supervisory bodies, (2) the importance given to non-education factors (e.g. 
family background, geography) on the performance of a school or geographical area, 
and  (3)  whether  QA  is  ‘market-driven’  (strong  accountability  towards  parents  where 
school choice is high), to the State or to schools themselves.  

Results  and  outcomes  of  effective  QA  in  maintaining  and  improving  ‘quality’  in  EU  school 
systems, and contributing factors 
The  study  found  that  the  evidence  base  on  the  effects  of  existing  QA  policies, 
processes and activities on school education outcomes is limited. QA systems in most 
EU  school  systems  lack  processes  to  assess  changes  in  practices  and  behaviours 
following existing QA policies and activities. This prevents systems’ ability to critically 
reflect  and  determine  levers  to  activate  to  improve  the  quality  of  relevant  areas  of 
school education.  

The review of the existing academic literature on QA topics and the ten case studies of 
good  QA  practice,  conducted  within  the  present  study,  provide  some  evidence  of 
positive  effects  which  can  be  linked  to  QA  activities.  The  study  has  thus  found  that 
effective  QA  activities  contribute  to  positive  changes  in  (1)  teaching  and  learning, 
school and (2) system management and performance measurement, and (3) changes 
in attitudes and behaviours regarding QA itself and to (4) improvements in a system’s 
QA and evaluation culture.  

A  number  of  factors  were  identified  which  are  associated  with  instigating  the 
mechanisms  leading  to  effective  QA.  A  combination  of  the  overall  context  and  ‘QA 
measure’-  specific  factors  were  found  to  have  improved  the  evaluation  culture; 

June 2015 8 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
strengthened the QA cycle; enhanced the legitimacy and know-how of school heads to 
promote  change  among  school-level  actors;  and  improved  dialogue  between  public 
authorities and school actors.  

Factors  which  the  study  found  to  have  contributed  to  effective  QA  include:  the 
availability of adequate resources, the existence of a coherent QA framework at policy 
level,  the  alignment  between  QA  policies  and  between  these  and  other  educational 
policies, and the need to take into account the level of autonomy of schools and local 
authorities,  as  well  as  their  capacity  to  act  upon  this  autonomy.  The  active 
involvement of all the relevant actors in QA, one of the most often mentioned success 
factors,  also  benefits  from  the  clarity  in  the  communication  of  the  goals,  procedures 
and  expected  outcomes  of  QA  measures,  built  on  a  fluent  dialogue  between  school-
level and system-level actors.  In addition, the QA measure should be fit-for-purpose, 
that  is,  relevant  for  the  goals  it  tries  to  achieve  in  the  context  where  it  is  being 
implemented.  Successful  implementation  also  depends  on  the  skills  of  school  leaders 
who  tend  to  have  an  important  role  in  QA  and,  at  the  same  time,  act  as  facilitators 
who  support  the  active  participation  of  other  school-level  actors  in  the  definition  and 
development of QA measures. The availability of quality, ease-of-use performance and 
context  data  at  school-level,  and  the  training  and  capacity-building  of  school-level 
actors  to  use  this  data,  are  also  of  utmost  importance  for  the  implementation  of 
effective QA. 

Current  strengths  and  weaknesses  in  how  QA  is  conducted  across  EU  school  educational 
systems, and trends 
The study identified the following commonly-shared weaknesses: 

 

 

 

 

In  several  countries,  system-level  actors  face  difficulties  in  formulating  or 
ensuring effective implementation of QA policies or activities 

In  other  countries,  the  performance  of  certain  areas  of  school  education  is 
insufficiently  monitored,  or  information  is  weak  or  not  used  for  further 
improvements 

In other countries, the effectiveness of QA in maintaining and improving quality 
is  insufficiently  monitored,  or  information  is  weak  or  not  used  for  further 
improvements.  

In  other  countries,  school  leaders  and  teachers  lack  capacity  /  incentives  to 
properly implement QA activities and use their results, or have faced difficulties 
in implementing certain QA activities. 

The  study  found  that  the  strengths  and  weaknesses  of  Member  States’  QA  systems 
are broadly related to: 

 

 

their level of consolidation (or lack thereof), ie. the extent to which dimensions 
of  school  education  to  be  ‘quality  assured’  are  defined,  indicators  to  measure 
the  attainment  of  quality  standards,  as  well  as  targets,  exist;  and  also  the 
extent  to  which  the  different  activities  and  processes,  which  compose  a  given 
QA system, are organised according to a QA cycle; 

the level efforts (or lack thereof) for QA to include a formative function, beyond 
a ‘strictly’ accountability function. QA activities that are guided by a formative 
principle are geared towards introducing improvement in practices of the school 
system which thus enable the system to continuously improve.  

As  mentioned  under  the  previous  section  (Results  and  outcomes  of  effective  QA  in 
maintaining and improving ‘quality’ in EU school systems, and contributing factors) the 
efficiency  of  a  QA  system  is  affected  by  any  difficulties  utilising  the  results  of  QA 
activities, linked to insufficiencies at the core of QA activities themselves (e.g. are they 

June 2015 9 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
measuring ‘what matters’ and well), and which challenge the quality and comparability 
of results, and ultimately, their usability. A lack of capacity amongst actors to conduct 
QA activities and utilise their results to maintain their standards or for improvement.   

The  study  identified  a  number  of  positive  trends  across  QA  systems  in  EU  school 
systems: 

  using learning outcomes, and broadening their scope so they include the social 

outcomes of education, for the purpose of QA 

  Following a needs-based approach to  QA, whereby  QA resources are  deployed 

to schools, actors and areas which perform the least well 

  Efforts to consolidate QA systems and bring strategic coherence  

 

Improve the quality of teaching, a key input to a school system, and looking at 
all contributing factors (recruitment, training, support measures etc.) 

  Contextualising  the  performance  of  schools,  considering  socio-economic 

factors, and thus adapting responses. 

Scenarios of potential EU level actions to support national QA efforts 
Based  on  the  findings,  the  study  identified  where  EU  level  action  could  add  value  to 
national and school efforts, as well as existing international actions (OECD, SICI, etc.). 
Given the boundaries of the EU’s legal competence in the field of education, actions at 
EU  level  can  either  take  the  form  of  cooperation  activities  under  the  OMC  or  of  EU 
funding9. Key EU Added Value include its ability to: 

  mobilise  the  capacity  and  expertise  of  relevant  stakeholders  –  policy-makers, 

academic experts and practitioners – in all interested Member States.  

  Provide financial support to this area.  

The relevance  of EU level actions will vary according to countries’ starting points and 
needs, but also to their interest and priorities. Learning from good practice available in 
other  countries  is  likely  to  be  mostly  relevant  to  countries  where  the  QA  and  school 
evaluation culture is weak, or where opportunities to learn about existing effective QA 
are  few.  Building  evidence  at  EU  level  of  the  (1)  performance  of  areas  of  school 
education  traditionally  insufficiently  considered  in  existing  QA  systems,  or  of  (2)  the 
level effectiveness of different QA policies, procedures or activities, in maintaining and 
improving  quality,  would  also  be  mostly  relevant  to  countries  where  needs  exist  and 
are not covered at national level. This being said, there is value of learning from the 
experience  in  other  QA  systems  even  for  countries  with  more  consolidated  QA 
systems, provided associated costs do not outweigh the benefits. In any case, support 
QA  efforts  in  the  school  sector  at  EU  level  will incentivise  Member  States  to  consider 
the issue further.  

The suggested seven EU action scenarios are: 

  Scenario 1 - Identification of common EU guiding principles to QA in the school 

sector 

  Scenario 2 - EU level exchanges on existing QA practices 

  Scenario 3 - Support to research on QA in the school sector 

9 EU funding to support  QA in the school sector could be integrated in the Erasmus+ 
programme,  the  European  Social  Fund,  the  Horizon  Research  and  Innovation 
programme or provided through new programmes. 

June 2015 10 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
  Scenario  4  -  Support  to  the  measurement  of  the  social  outcomes  of  school 

education 

  Scenario 5 - Capacity building of school-level actors in QA 

  Scenario 6 - Support to school’s self-assessment 

  Scenario 7 - Peer review programme on QA practices10. 

The first three scenarios would involve system-level stakeholders whilst the last three 
target  school-level  stakeholders.  Scenarios  6  and  7  can  be  considered  as  sub-
scenarios  of  scenario  5.  Indeed  scenario  6  is  about  capacity  building  for  one  type  of 
QA  activity,  i.e.  self-assessment.  Scenario  7  on  the  other  hand  concerns  one  type  of 
capacity-building  activity,  i.e.  peer  reviews.  The  study  suggests  that  EU  level  actions 
involving system-level actors or measures are more likely to lead to wide impact than 
those  involving  school  level  actors.  Effects  of  an  EU  level  action  are  also  likely  to  be 
wider  and  more  sustainable  when  system-level  actors  are  involved  (rather  than  at 
school  level  actors)  and  can  therefore  directly  feedback  knowledge  and  competences 
acquired at system level in system-level policies or guidance. In some school systems, 
supporting  school  level  actors  may  be  the  priority  however  and  few  resources  may 
exist to do  so at national/local level. Finally, to maximise learning, exchanges should 
preferably  occur  amongst  clusters  of  countries  with  similar  approaches  to  QA  and/or 
school system characteristics (level of autonomy, competition etc.). Targeting support 
to countries or stakeholder groups ‘most-in-need’ of support on QA will also be key to 
add value to what already exists.  

10  Scenarios  6  and  7  can  be  considered  as  sub-scenarios  of  scenario  5.  Indeed 
scenario 6 is about capacity building for one type of QA activity, i.e. self-assessment. 
Scenario 7 on the other hand concerns one type of capacity-building activity, i.e. peer 
reviews.  

June 2015 11 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
HOW TO OBTAIN EU PUBLICATIONS 

Free publications: 

•  one copy: 

via EU Bookshop (http://bookshop.europa.eu); 

•  more than one copy or posters/maps: 

from the European Union’s representations 
(http://ec.europa.eu/represent_en.htm);  
from the delegations in non-EU countries 
(http://eeas.europa.eu/delegations/index_en.htm);  
by contacting the Europe Direct service 
(http://europa.eu/europedirect/index_en.htm) or 
calling 00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11 (freephone number from anywhere in the EU) (*). 

(*)  The information given is free, as are most calls (though some operators, phone boxes or hotels may charge 
you). 

Priced publications: 

•  via EU Bookshop (http://bookshop.europa.eu). 

Priced subscriptions: 

•  via one of the sales agents of the Publications Office of the European Union 

(http://publications.europa.eu/others/agents/index_en.htm). 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
N
C
-
0
4
-
1
5
-
2
8
0
-

E
N
N

-

N
u
m
é
r
o

d
e

l

c
a
t
a
o
g
u
e

DOI: 10.2766/784544 

ISBN: 978-92-79-47684-6