COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Accompanying the document Communication on school development and excellent teaching for a great start in life
Date: 2017-05-30
Institutions: Directorate-General for Education, Youth, Sport and Culture, European Commission
Subjects: access to education, cooperation in the field of education, educational administration, educational reform, educational system, pre-school education, teacher training, teaching, teaching quality, youth policy

EN 

   EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 30.5.2017  SWD(2017) 165 final   COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Accompanying the document Communication  on school development and excellent teaching for a great start in life {COM(2017) 248 final}  
 
 
Table of contents: 

1. Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 3 

2. Developing better and more inclusive schools ................................................................... 5 

2.1. Supporting all learners and their competence development ....................................................... 12 

2.2. Opening up to new forms of cooperation to enhance learning ................................................... 17 

2.3. Improving quality in early childhood education and care .......................................................... 23 

3. Supporting teachers and school leaders for excellent teaching and learning ............... 31 

3.1. Making teaching careers more attractive .................................................................................... 33 

3.2. Teaching: a profession of career-long learners working together .............................................. 35 

3.3. Supporting school leadership ..................................................................................................... 41 

4. Governance of school education systems: becoming more effective, equitable and 
efficient .................................................................................................................................... 44 

4.1. School resources: investing adequately and efficiently .............................................................. 45 

4.2. Combining autonomy and quality assurance .............................................................................. 50 

Annex — Overview of EU actions proposed as a follow-up to the Communication  and 
provisional timetable .............................................................................................................. 55 

2 

 
 
 
 
 
 
1. Introduction 

This staff working document complements the Communication on ‘School development and 
excellent teaching for a great start in life’. It provides additional evidence and information on 
the  different  statements  made  in  the  Communication  and  points  to  further  sources  of 
information. 

Following  the  structure  proposed  in  the  Communication,  the  staff  working  document 
examines key challenges for school education systems at three levels: the school, its staff and 
the education system.  These levels  of intervention reflect the growing  complexity of school 
education  systems,  which  are  increasingly  decentralised  and  involve  a  greater  number  of 
stakeholders than previously1.  

The staff working document takes a systemic view on school education policies. The need for 
inclusive  education,  and  especially  the  integration  of  children  and  young  people  with  an 
immigrant  background,  is  addressed  throughout  the  document  as  an  important  guiding 
principle  for  the  future  development  of  school  education  policies.  Likewise,  digital  and 
entrepreneurial  education  play  an  important  role  for  innovation  and  development  in  school 
education. They are therefore addressed at different places in the staff working document, not 
as stand-alone chapters. 
Education  and  Training  2020  (ET  2020) 2 ,  the  strategic  framework  for  cooperation  in 
education and training in the EU, lays down the context for exchanges and peer learning in the 
field  of  school  education.  During  the  last  few  years,  ET  2020  working  groups  bringing 
together representatives from all Member States have developed policy guidance on subjects 
such as early childhood education and care, reduction of early school leaving, governance of 
school  education  systems  and  teacher  education.  This  staff  working  document  summarises 
key results of this process to date.  

The  chapter  ‘Developing  better  and  more  inclusive  schools’  makes  reference  to  relevant 
research  findings  on  aspects  such  as  inclusion,  dealing  with  diversity  and  fostering  school 
development.  It  presents  results  of  the  ET  2020  Working  Group  on  Schools  which  in  2014 
and 2015 further developed the concept of the ‘whole school approach’ as a key approach to 
reducing  early  school  leaving.  The  chapter  also  presents  key  findings  of  the  ET  2020 
Thematic Working Group on Early Childhood Education and Care (2012-2014).  

The  chapter  ‘Supporting  teachers  and  school  leaders  for  excellent  teaching  and  learning’ 
draws on evidence from studies  and international surveys  on teachers and school leaders. It 
reflects  the  findings  of  the  ET  2020  Working  Group  on  Schools  Policy  (2014-2015)  and 
preceding  EU-level  working  groups  which  addressed  policy  issues  linked  to  teacher 
education, professional development and school leadership.  

The  chapter  ‘Governance  of  school  education  systems:  becoming  more  effective,  equitable 
and  efficient’  presents  recent  research  findings  and  data  analysis,  as  well  as  first  results  on 
quality assurance of the current ET 2020 Working Group on Schools (2016-18)3. On quality 
assurance  in  particular,  it  presents  topics  which  are  crucial  for  the  future  development  of 
school  education  systems,  but  which  have  only  recently  become  a  subject  of  discussion  at 
European or international level. 

1 OECD (2016), Governing education in a complex world, Paris, OECD Publishing. 
2 Council Conclusions of 12 May 2009 on a strategic framework for European cooperation in education and 
training (‘ET 2020’), OJ 2009/C 119/02. 
3 ET 2020, Working Group Mandates 2016-2018, 
http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/education_culture/repository/education/policy/strategic-framework/expert-groups/2016-
2018/et-2020-group-mandates_en.pdf 

3 

 
 
                                                            
This staff working document draws  on evidence from a wide range of research and studies, 
including work by the Eurydice network, the Joint Research Centre, data provided by Eurostat 
and the latest data from international surveys such as the Programme for International Student 
Assessment (PISA 2015) and the Teaching and Learning International Survey (TALIS 2013). 

4 

 
 
 
 
 
2. Developing better and more inclusive schools 

As  outlined  in  the  Communication  on  school  development  and  excellent  teaching,  schools 
have a crucial role in ensuring that all learners develop the competences they need and reach 
their  full  potential,  irrespective  of  their  background.  Over  the  last  decade,  this  task  has 
become more challenging: diversity and inequality have increased both in society and schools,  
and  there  are  growing  competence  requirements4.  The  complexity  of  learning  environments 
and learners’ needs mean that schools cannot address these challenges alone.  

The challenge of insufficient educational outcomes 

The  OECD  PISA  2015  survey5 shows  that  a  considerable  (and  increasing)  share  of  young 
people  has  severe  difficulties  in  acquiring  sufficient  basic  skills.  The  proportion  of  low 
achievers6 increased  between  2012  and  2015  from  16.6 %  to  20.6 %  in  science  and  from 
17.8 % to 19.7 % in reading; in mathematics it stagnated at around 22 % (Figure 2.1).  

At the same time, the proportion of pupils achieving very good results in Europe is relatively 
low: even the best-performing EU Member States are outperformed by some other advanced 
countries. For instance, the proportion of top performers7 in science is 24 % in Singapore and 
15 % in Japan. No EU Member State matches this performance (Figure 2.2). 

Figure 2.1. Proportion of low achievers in PISA 

Science 

2015

2012

2009

45%

40%

35%

30%

25%

20%

15%

10%

5%

0%

EE FI SI IE DK PL DE LV PT UK ES NL BE EU CZ AT SE FR IT HR LT LU HU SK MT EL BG RO CY

4 European Commission (2016), Analytical underpinning for a New Skills Agenda for Europe, SWD (2016)195. 
5 OECD (2016),  PISA  2015 results (Volume  I):  Excellence  and Equity in  Education,  Paris, OECD  Publishing; 
European Commission (2016), PISA 2015: EU performance and initial conclusions regarding education policies 
in Europe. 
6 Pupils  who  scored below  PISA  level  2,  i.e.  the  minimum  level  of proficiency  required  to  participate  fully in 
modern society. 
7 Pupils who scored at PISA level 5 or above. 

5 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
Reading 

2015

2012

2009

IE EE FI PL DK SI DE ES PT LV UK NL SE BE EU HR IT FR CZ AT LT LU EL HU SK MT CY RO BG

Mathematics 
2009
2012
2015

45%

40%

35%

30%

25%

20%

15%

10%

5%

0%

45%

40%

35%

30%

25%

20%

15%

10%

5%

0%

EE FI DK IE SI NL PL DE BE SE LV CZ AT UK ES EU IT FR PT LT LU SK HUMT HR EL RO BG CY

Source: European Commission (2016), PISA 2015: EU performance and initial conclusions regarding education 
policies in Europe 

Figure 2.2. Advanced countries with the highest proportion of top performers in science 
in PISA 2015 (%) 

25

20

15

10

5

0

Source: OECD (2016), PISA 2015 results (Volume I): Excellence and Equity in Education 

6 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Educational outcomes in relation to socio-economic status and migration background 
The OECD PISA surveys have also consistently shown that socio-economic status8 is still one 
of the main determinants for success in education and especially for acquiring basic skills. In 
many  countries,  schools  tend  to  reproduce  existing  patterns  of  socio-economic  advantage, 
rather  than  contributing  to  a  more  equitable  distribution  of  learning  opportunities  and 
outcomes. Figure 2.3 displays the proportion of low achievers in science in PISA 2015 in the 
bottom  and  upper  quarters  of  PISA’s  socio-economic  index.  The  EU  average  proportion  of 
low  achievers  in  science  within  the  bottom  quarter  of  the  2015  PISA  student  population  is 
around  34 %,  26  percentage  points  more  than  among  the  students  with  the  highest  socio-
economic status. In some EU Member States this proportion even exceeds 50 %, i.e. less than 
half  of  15-year-olds  from  lower  socio-economic  backgrounds  reach  the  minimum  level  of 
proficiency in science.  
In almost all Member States, the basic skill levels of students with an immigrant background9 
lag behind those of non-immigrant students. Their performance is usually strongly correlated 
with their socio-economic status. Figure 2.4 compares the difference in science performance 
between students with and without an immigrant background. Since many immigrant students 
come from a lower socio-economic status, the disadvantage for immigrant students is smaller 
in  almost  all  Member  States  when  adjusting  for  socio-economic  status,  although  it  remains 
significant in a number of countries.  

Figure 2.3. Low achievers in science by socio-economic status (ESCS) in PISA 2015 

Bottom quarter of ESCS

Top quarter of ESCS

Average low achievement in science

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

BG CY RO SK EL MT HU LU FR LT IT CZ HR BE AT EU SE ES NL PT DE PL IE UK DK SI LV FI EE

Source: European Commission (2016), PISA 2015: EU performance and initial conclusions regarding education 
policies in Europe 

8 In  PISA,  a  student’s  socio-economic  status  is  estimated  by  the  index  of  economic,  social  and  cultural  status 
(ESCS). The index is derived from several variables related to students’ family background: parents’ education, 
parents’  occupations,  a  number  of  home  possessions  that can  be  taken  as  proxies  for  material  wealth,  and  the 
number of books and other educational resources available at home. 
9 In  PISA,  students  have  an  immigrant  background  if  they  are  foreign-born  (first-generation)  or  if  they  are 
native-born whose parents are both foreign-born (second-generation). 

7 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
Figure  2.4.  Difference  in  science  performance  (points  score)  in  PISA  2015  between 
immigrant and non-immigrant students, before and after accounting for socio-economic 
status 

40

20

0

-20

-40

-60

-80

-100

SK BG FI DK DE SE AT SI BE NL FR EE ES CZ EL LV IT UK PT HR LT LU IE HU CY MT

Before accounting for students' socio-economic status After accounting for students' socio-economic status

Source: European Commission (2016), PISA 2015: EU performance and initial conclusions regarding education 
policies in Europe 

Early school leaving 
Despite  progress  in  the  last  few  years,  early  school  leaving10 remains  a  challenge  in  quite a 
number  of  Member  States,  showing  a  strong  regional  and  socio-economic  dimension.  The 
early school leaving rate at EU level was at 10.7 % in 2016, practically stagnant compared to 
2015  (11 %).  The  data  for  2016  also  show  that  in  some  countries  there  was  hardly  any 
improvement in recent years, and in others the early school leaving rate is still almost twice as 
high as the EU target of 10 % (Table 2.1).  

The  early  school  leaving  rate  of  foreign-born  young  people  is  especially  high;  in  some 
countries  it  is  twice  as  high  as  the  rate  for  native-born  young  people.  Regional  differences 
point  to  another  complexity  of  the  phenomenon:  both  regions  and  individual  schools  are 
confronted with very different situations when it comes to early school leaving (Figure 2.5). 
Early  school  leaving  rates  are  strongly  correlated  with  socio-economic  status,  with 
immigration,  with  the  situation  of  local  labour  markets  and  the  resources  available  in  the 
community to support young people in their educational development. 

The gender gap in early school leaving rates remains substantial in the EU, with an average 
male rate of 12.2 % and a female rate of 9.2 %. Women have lower early school leaving rates 
than men in nearly all EU Member States with the exception of BG and RO, where the rate is 
only marginally higher for women. The differences between men and women are especially 
striking in some southern Member States (ES, IT, MT, PT), but also in some northern (DK, 
FI) and Baltic countries (EE, LT, LV). 

10 The indicator is based on the EU Labour Force Survey. It is defined as the percentage of the population aged 
18-24 with at most lower secondary education and who were not in further education or training during the last 4 
weeks preceding the survey. Lower secondary education refers to ISCED (International Standard Classification 
of  Education) 2011  level  0-2 for data from  2014 onwards and  to  ISCED 1997  level 0-3C  short for  data up  to 
2013. Data are, however, comparable over time for all Member States. 

8 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
Table 2.1. Early school leaving by sex and country of birth (%) 

2013 

2016 

2020 

Total 

Total  Men  Women 

Native-born 

Foreign-born 

TARGET 

EU-28 

Belgium 

Bulgaria 

Czech Rep. 

Denmark 

Germany 

Estonia 

Ireland 

Greece 

Spain 

France 

Croatia 

Italy 

Cyprus 

Latvia 

Lithuania 

Luxembourg 

Hungary 

Malta 

Netherlands 

Austria 

Poland 

Portugal 

Romania 

Slovenia 

Slovakia 

Finland 

Sweden 

UK 

11.9 

10.7 

12.2 

11 

8.8 

10.2 

9.2 

7.4 

12.5 

13.8 

13.7 

13.9 

5.4 

8 

9.8 

9.7 

8.4 

10.1 

23.6 

9.7 

4.5 

6.6 

6.6 

6.6 

7.2b 

8.5b 

5.9b 

10.2 

10.9 

10.9 

14.3 

7.8 

7.1 

6.3 

6.2 

19 

9.4 

7.4 

4.6 

5.3 

22.7 

15.1 

8.8 

10.1 

(2.8) 

(3.5) 

7.5 

(2) 

16.8 

13.8 

16.1 

11.3 

9.1 

9.8 

6.3 

6.1 

11.9 

20.5 

9.3 

7.5 

5.6 

18.9 

17.3 

3.9 

6.4 

9.3 

7.1 

7.7 

11.4 

10 

4.8 

5.5 

13.7 

(6) 

6.8 

12.4 

12.9 

19.6 

23.1 

8 

10.1 

6.9 

5.2 

14 

7.7 

6.4 

17.4 

18.5 

18.4 

4.9 

7.4 

7.9 

7.4 

6.7 

7.6 

9 

8.2 

12.4 

11.2 

12.8 

4.3 

6.2 

(3.6) 

(4.2) 

11.8 

15.8 

5.8 

6 

3.9 

10.5 

18.7 

(3.1) 

7.2 

6.9 

6.4 

9.5 

9.8 

7.6 

13.8 

6.6 

7.2b 

8.2 

10.9 

6.5 

5.5 

16.1 

8.2 

(2.7) 

11.8 

4.6 

10.1 

4.8 

4.1 

12.4 

19.5 

7.9 

5.5 

5.2 

14.0 

18.6 

4.4 

7.4 

7.6 

5.9 

11.5 

19.7 

17.8 

: 

: 

(7.9)b 

23.1 

: 

5.2 

18.1 

32.9 

16.3 

: 

30.0 

18.2 

: 

: 

8.5 

: 

: 

8.3 

14.7 

: 

14.3 

: 

(15.6) 

: 

(15.1) 

15.2 

9.4 

10 

9.5 

11 

5.5 

10 

10 

9.5 

8 

10 

15 

9.5 

4 

16 

10 

10 

9 

10 

10 

10 

8 

9.5 

4.5 

10 

11.3 

5 

6 

8 

7 

- 

Source:  Eurostat,  Labour  Force  Survey.  Online  data  code:  edat_lfse_14  and  edat_lfse_02.  Note:  b  =  break  in 
time series; () = data lack reliability due to small sample size; : = data either not available or not reliable due to 
very small sample size. 

The long-term decline of the early school leaving rate is a positive trend. Nevertheless, it may 
be partly caused by the impact of the latest economic crisis, especially in countries with high 
youth unemployment. More difficult access to the labour market may mean that young people 
decide  to  remain  longer  in  education:  it  does  not  necessarily  mean  that  reforms  in  school 

9 

 
 
 
 
education  have  been  able  to  provide  more  young  people  with  attractive  and  promising 
learning pathways11. 

to  be  understood  and  appropriately  addressed 12 .  In  2011, 

Early  school  leaving  is  the  result  of  a  complex  interplay  of  factors,  which  need  qualitative 
the  Council 
analysis 
Recommendation on Reducing Early School Leaving recommended comprehensive strategies 
against  early  school  leaving,  including  prevention  and  intervention  measures  as  well  as 
compensation  measures  that  help  re-engage  young  people  who  have  dropped  out  of 
education13. 

Since then, most EU Member States have improved their data collection to better quantify and 
analyse  the  problem.  Student  register-based  data  can  also  be  used  to  monitor  absenteeism, 
thus  functioning  as  an  early  warning  system.  Besides  a  variety  of  measures  to  help  young 
people at risk to remain in education and training, most Member States have also put in place 
policies to increase the flexibility and permeability of educational pathways. These measures 
aim to facilitate a smooth transition between education levels or different types of education, 
helping especially young people at risk of dropping out14.  

As for the specific challenges of young people with a migration background, policies ensuring 
language support for students whose mother tongue differs from the language of instruction 
are  widespread;  sometimes  language  support  comes  with  systematic  provision  of  lessons  or 
assistance in the migrant students’ mother tongue. Also the combination of high-quality and 
well-organised  language  support  and  school  guidance  services  at  secondary  level  are  an 
effective  measure  to  prevent  and  reduce  early  school  leaving  among  young  people  with  an 
immigrant background. 

11 European Commission (2014),  Employment and Social Situation in Europe 2014, p. 114; for information on 
the  employment  status  of  early  leavers  from  education  and  training  see  http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-
explained/index.php/Early_leavers_from_education_and_training 
12 RESL.eu — Reducing Early School Leaving in Europe project, EU 7th Framework programme for Research 
and Innovation,  https://www.uantwerpen.be/en/projects/resl-eu/ 
13 Council Recommendation of 28 June 2011 on policies to reduce early school leaving, OJ 2011/C 191/01. 
14 The Eurydice network carries out systematic monitoring of policy measures to reduce underachievement and 
early  school  leaving,  which  underpins  this  section  of  the  Monitor.  For  further  reference:  European 
Commission/EACEA/Eurydice (2016), Structural Indicators for Monitoring Education and Training Systems in 
Europe. 
Training  Monitor 
to 
(http://eacea.ec.europa.eu/education/eurydice/index_en.php). See also Education and Training Monitor 2016. 

Background 

Education 

Eurydice 

Report 

and 

the 

10 

 
 
                                                            
Figure 2.5. Early leavers from education and training, NUTS level 2 regions (2015) 

Source: Eurostat, Labour Force Survey. Online data code: edat_lfse_16. © EuroGeographics Association for the 
administrative boundaries 

Schools characteristics and performance 

A recent OECD report financed by the European Commission gives an insight into the effects 
of  school  characteristics  on  pupil  performance 15 .  For  example,  an  important  factor  that 
correlates  with  underachievement  is  the  degree  of  socio-economic  inclusiveness  within 
schools 16 .  Where  schools  are  socio-economically  inclusive,  there  is  a  smaller  share  of 
underachieving  students  in  a  country  (Figure  2.7).  Socio-economic  diversity  in  schools, 
including  ethnical  and  linguistic  diversity,  is  beneficial  to  the  educational  performance  of 

15 OECD (2016), PISA. Low-Performing Students — Why they fall behind and how to help them succeed, Paris, 
OECD Publishing. 
16 The  index  of  socio-economic  inclusion  shows  the  extent  to  which  students’  socio-economic  status  varies 
within  schools,  measured  as  a  percentage  of  the  total  variation  in  students’  socio-economic  status  across  the 
school system. The relationship is statistically significant. 

11 

 
 
 
 
                                                            
students  as  a  whole.  Socio-economic  segregation  in  schools  is  also  linked  with  more 
behavioural problems and consequently with a higher risk of early school leaving17. 

Figure 2.6. Socio-economic inclusion and low performance in science in PISA 2015 

Source: OECD (2016), PISA 2015 Results (Volume I): Excellence and Equity in Education 

School  leaders’  and  teachers’  expectations  towards  students  are  another  important  factor. 
Underachievers are more often found in schools where teachers’ low expectations for students 
are  more  frequent  than  in  schools  where  such  low  expectations  are  less  common.  Overall 
across  all  PISA  countries,  students  in  schools  where  teachers  have  low expectations  are  1.2 
times more likely to perform poorly in mathematics, compared with students in schools where 
teachers have higher expectations for them18.  

Effective  school  organisation  and  development  is  necessary  to  promote  a  positive  and 
collaborative culture and ethos, which includes teachers, pupils, parents and also non-teaching 
staff  and  establishes  strong  bonds  with  the  community  around  the  school.  Different 
approaches  have  already  been  tested  in  countries  and  individual  schools  and  show  positive 
results19. 

2.1. Supporting all learners and their competence development 

To  support  all  young  people  in  developing  the  full  range  of  key  competences  for  personal 
fulfilment  and  development,  active  citizenship,  social  inclusion  and  employment  requires  a 
broad  set  of  measures  and  the  involvement  of  many  actors  such  as  the  whole  school 

17 European Commission/EACEA/Eurydice/CEDEFOP (2014),  Tackling Early School Leaving  from Education 
and Training in Europe: Strategies, Policies and Measures, Luxembourg: Publications Office of the EU. 
18 OECD (2016), PISA. Low-Performing Students — Why they fall behind and how to help them succeed, Paris, 
OECD Publishing. 
19 INCLUD-ED, Strategies for inclusion and social cohesion in Europe from Education, a project funded under 
the 6th Framework Programme for Research and Technological Development,  http://creaub.info/included/ 

12 

 
 
 
 
                                                            
community, but also local companies, museums and cultural institutions and civil society. The 
competences  needed  today  go  beyond  basic  skills  such  as  numeracy  and  literacy;  they  also 
include  languages,  digital  and  coding  skills,  creativity  and  critical  thinking,  communication 
and civic and social competences. 

The  European  Framework  of  Key  Competences  for  Lifelong  Learning,  adopted  in  2006, 
provides a definition of these key competences20. It sets out eight key competences: 

1. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

5. 

6. 

7. 

8. 

Communication in the mother tongue 

Communication in foreign languages 

Mathematical competence and basic competences in science and technology 

Digital competence 

Learning to learn 

Social and civic competences 

Sense of initiative and entrepreneurship  

Cultural awareness and expression. 

The eight competences are considered equally important; many of them overlap and interlock. 
Skills or competences such as critical thinking, creativity, initiative and problem solving are 
part of the European Framework of Key Competences, even though they are not described in 
greater  detail.  During  the  last  decade,  the  Framework  has  been  used  in  many  countries  to 
inform  the  development  of  curricula.  It  has  contributed  to  a  stronger  focus  on  competence 
development  in  education,  seeing  competences  as  a  combination  of  knowledge,  skills  and 
attitudes. 

Helping  young  people  to  acquire  the  necessary  competences  is  a  challenge  for  educational 
institutions.  Competence-oriented  educational  concepts  focus  on  output:  they  ask  what 
knowledge,  skills  and  attitudes  a  young  person  has  to  perform  a  concrete  task  or  act  in  a 
specific  social  or  professional  context 21.  The  competences  a  young  person  needs  are  not 
necessarily  equivalent  to  the  subjects  taught  in  most  schools  in  Europe;  some  key 
competences  such  as  learning to  learn  or  cultural  awareness  can  only  to  a  limited extent  be 
taught as a specific subject or in a classical classroom setting.  

In order to help young people to develop the necessary competences, schools must improve 
cooperation  within  and  beyond  their  walls.  This  includes  enhancing  cross-disciplinary 
teaching  and  learning,  project-  and  problem-based  learning,  team  teaching  or  involving 
external  stakeholders,  artists,  social-service  providers  or  businesses.  For  example, 
entrepreneurship and social competences may be developed through cross-disciplinary pupil-
led projects or in cooperation with social partners and local businesses, which will also help 
improve the work-related relevance of curriculum. Equally, appropriate use of the internet and 

20 Recommendation  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  on  key  competences  for  lifelong  learning 
(2006/962/EC).  The  New Skills  Agenda for  Europe  (COM(2016)381) announced  a  review of  this framework. 
More  than  10  years  after  its  adoption,  the  review  aims  to  ensure  that  it  reflects  political,  social,  economic, 
ecological and technological developments and aims to further promote competence-based teaching and learning 
across Europe. 
21 Gerhard  de  Haan  (2006),  The  BLK  21  programme  in  Germany:  a  ‘Gestaltungskompetenz’-based  model  for 
Education for Sustainable development. 

13 

 
 
 
                                                            
social media across the school subjects and outside school hours can help improve digital and 
social competences, critical thinking and problem-solving skills, as well as learning to learn22. 

Engaging and stimulating curricula and effective teaching approaches 

While setting high expectations for all learners, personalised forms of teaching and learning 
and  different  assessment  styles  support  competence  development  for  all  groups  of  learners. 
Flexible  and  heterogeneous  learner  groupings,  structured  teaching  and  cooperative  learning 
and peer support have been found to benefit all learners23. Curricula that connect with real life 
and  diversity  in  society,  e.g.  by  addressing  daily  experiences  of  pupils,  their  cultural 
backgrounds  or  professional  and  leisure  activities  of  their  families,  have  proven  to  be  more 
engaging. Project- and problem-based learning, on-the-job experiences or community-service 
learning  increase  the  motivation  of  learners,  put  subject  content  into  context  and  offer 
opportunities  for  the  development  of  social,  civic  and  entrepreneurship  competences 24 . 
Successful  examples  of  second-chance  education  provide  useful  lessons  on  implementing 
attractive  learner-centred  schemes  with  clear  learning  outcomes  and  a  motivating  learning 
environment25. 

Digital  technologies  have  the  potential  to  enrich  the  learning  experience  by  opening 
classrooms and schools and by integrating real-life experiences and projects, as well as new 
learning tools, materials and open educational resources. Digital technologies can also be used 
to  make  learners  creators  of  value,  for  instance  by  asking  them  to  share  their  achievements 
openly  online  in  the  form  of  videos,  blogs  or  wiki  articles26.  Access  to  and  use  of  digital 
technologies can also help reduce the learning gap between students from high and low socio-
economic  backgrounds,  as  they  increase  access  to  knowledge  and  information,  connect 
classroom  learning  to  real-life  situations,  and  allow  individualisation  of  learning  experience 
while increasing autonomy27.  

Education  in  science,  technologies,  engineering  and  mathematics  (STEM)  is  more  effective 
when  linked  to  economic  and  social  developments  or  to  arts  and  design,  demonstrating  its 
relevance  for  daily  life. The  EU  Horizon  2020 Research  programme  (‘Science  with  and  for 
Society’)  has  been  supporting  several  activities  for  the  uptake  of  effective  and  innovative 
STEM education practices also involving actors outside the schools such as companies, higher 
education institutes and research centres28. To further promote a shared understanding of the 
digital  and  entrepreneurship  competences,  the  Commission  has  developed  two  additional 

22 KeyCoNet, a policy network supporting the implementation of competence-oriented teaching, has documented 
how project-based learning can better equip learners with key competences and improve their cultural awareness 
and understanding. See KeyCoNet (2015),  Teacher Guide Using Project-based Learning to Develop Students’ 
Key Competences. 
23 See, for example, outputs and impact of INCLUD-ED Strategies for inclusion and social cohesion in Europe 
from  Education  a  project  funded  under  the  6th  Framework  Programme  for  Research  and  Technological 
Development, http://creaub.info/included/. 
24 European Commission/EACEA/Eurydice (2016) Entrepreneurship Education at School. See also the 
entrepreneurship competence framework: https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/en/entrecomp 
25 European Commission (2013), Preventing Early School Leaving in Europe — Lessons Learned from Second 
Chance Education, Final Report, Directorate-General for Education and Culture. 
26 European Commission (2013), Opening up Education: Innovative teaching and learning for all through new 
Technologies and Open Educational Resources. 
27 JRC  is  currently  studying  the  relationship  between  the  use  of  digital  technologies  and  learning  outcomes  of 
disadvantaged students, using data from PISA 2015. 
28 European Commission (2015), Science Education for Responsible Citizenship. 
http://ec.europa.eu/research/swafs/pdf/pub_science_education/KI-NA-26-893-EN-N.pdf 

14 

 
 
                                                            
frameworks:  the  Entrepreneurship  Competence  Framework  (EntreComp) 29 and  the  digital 
competence framework for citizens (DigComp)30.  

Adapting teaching approaches to the specific needs of individuals or groups of learners 

Studies  have  shown  that  learners’  support  should  be  based  on  a  principle  of  differentiation, 
where  teaching  approaches  are  tailored  to  the  specific  needs  of  an  individual  or  group  of 
learners  and  to  specific  circumstances.  This  is  especially  relevant  for  learners  from 
disadvantaged  backgrounds,  learners  with  a  migration  background  or  from  ethnic  minority 
groups such as Roma. Some EU Member States also face difficulties in providing pupils with 
disabilities access to inclusive, quality education31.  

Teachers need to be able to select from a wide variety of learning approaches to work with a 
diverse  group  of  students  with  diverse  needs  in  the  same  course,  classroom  or  learning 
environment.  Three  levels  of  intervention  can  be  identified:  universal  (for  all  learners), 
targeted  (for  groups  of  students  with  specific  needs),  individual  (intensive  intervention  for 
individual  learners) 32 .  For  example,  an  individual  approach  for  pupils  at  risk  of 
underachievement will be more effective if carried out by multi-disciplinary teams in schools 
or  by  bringing  external  professionals  in  schools33.  The  involvement  of  all  those  interacting 
with  the  learners,  be  it  family  members,  siblings,  volunteers,  etc.,  is  also  needed.  The 
development of an individual support plan agreed with the learner and his/her family, setting 
clear and achievable goals, can be very helpful. 

Usually teachers will identify talents and learning difficulties early on and be able to provide 
appropriate  support34.  However,  teachers  themselves  report  that  important  areas  for  pupil 
support  are  often  not  sufficiently  covered  by  Continuing  Professional  Development  (CPD).  
Such areas include: 

 

 

teaching cross-curricular skills 

teaching in multilingual and multicultural settings 

  student career guidance and counselling 

 

teaching students with special educational needs 

  new technology in the workplace 
  approaches to individualised learning35. 

29 https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/en/entrecomp 
30 https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/en/digcomp 
31 United Nations, Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (2015), Concluding observations on the 
initial report of the European Union, CRPD/C/EU/CO/1 of 2 October 2015. 
32 Downes, P.; Nairz-Wirth, E.; Rusinaitė, V. (2017), Structural Indicators for Inclusive Systems in and around 
Schools, NESET II report, Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. 
33 Edwards,  A.  and  Downes,  P.  (2013),  Alliances  for  Inclusion  —  Cross-sector  policy  synergies  and  inter-
professional collaboration in and around schools, NESET report commissioned by the European Commission. 
34 RESL.eu — Reducing Early School Leaving in Europe project, EU 7th Framework programme for Research 
and  Innovation,  Project  Paper  6:  Cross-case  Analyses  of  School-based  Prevention  and  Intervention  Measures 
(2016)  https://www.uantwerpen.be/en/projects/resl-eu/,  Cross-case  Analyses  of  School-based  Prevention  and 
Intervention Measures, Project paper 6. 
35 Eurydice (2015), The Teaching Profession in Europe. 

15 

 
 
 
                                                            
Embracing multilingual classrooms 

The  number  of  students  in  Europe  whose  mother  tongue  is  different  than  the  language  of 
instruction is growing36. Evidence shows that teaching in the young learners’ mother tongue is 
essential to  give  them  a  strong  early  start  in  education37.  In  fact,  proficiencies  developed  in 
one  language  are  transferable  to  another,  provided  there  is  sufficient  exposure  to  both 
languages  and  sufficient  motivation  to  learn.  The  non-dominant  languages  form  a  resource, 
and not a threat to the learning of the school language38. 

There are several countries where bilingual  models have been in  use for over 50 years, and 
consistent  positive  effects  have  been  reported  in  numerous  research  studies.  However,  it  is 
important to stress that benefits typically emerge after 5 to 7 years as this is the time that non-
native speakers generally need to reach academic language proficiency39. 

Recent evidence and practice indicate that the following measures can improve the attainment 
of children who do not possess the language of instruction: 

  supplementary  education  in  and  outside  school,  including  help  with  homework, 

language learning and mentoring during activities; 

 

immersion in mainstream classrooms with support from specialists and teachers who 
have  the  competences  and  experience  to  tailor  teaching  to  children  in  the  classroom 
who do not have the same level of competency in the language of instruction; 

  developing their mother tongue competences40. 

Schools in which children are more rapidly immersed in mainstream classrooms will provide 
greater  opportunities  for  cultural  awareness  and  valuing  diversity  through  teaching  and 
learning. In addition, multilingual approaches in classrooms from an early age can benefit all 
children’s ability to learn, regardless of their background. 

36 European Commission (2016), Education and Training Monitor 2016. 
37 See UNESCO (2008), Mother tongue matters: Local language as a key to effective learning, Paris. 
Council  of  Europe,  Parliamentary  Assembly,:  The  place  of  mother  tongue  in  school  education,  Doc.  10837, 
Report, 2006. 
38  Cummins,  J.  (1981),  ‘The  role  of  primary  language  development  in  promoting  educational  success  for 
language  minority  students’.  In:  California  State  Department  of  Education  (ed.),  Schooling  and  Language 
Minority Students. A Theoretical Framework, Los Angeles, California State Department of Education. 
39 Herzog-Punzenberger, B., Le Pichon-Vorstman, E., Siarova, H. (2017), Multilingual Education in the Light of 
Diversity: Lessons Learned, NESET II report, Luxembourg, Publications Office of the European Union. 
40 European  Commission  (2015),  Language  teaching  and  learning  in  multilingual  classrooms,  Luxembourg, 
Publications Office of the European Union. 

16 

 
 
                                                            
Example of an Erasmus+ project 

Welcomm  —  Communication  skills  for  integration  of  migrants  —  http://welcomm-
project.com/  

The  project  considered  the  fact  that  migrant  children  often  grow  up  in  households  only 
hearing  and  speaking  the  native  language  of  their  parents,  which  might  create  difficulties 
when  they  start  school.  A  key  focus  of  this  Erasmus+  project  was  supporting  children’s 
language  learning  and  facilitating  integration  for  immigrant  families  into  the  host  society. 
Partner organisations from the Netherlands, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Italy, Portugal and Spain tested 
and adopted a multimedia learning kit to help those children acquire the necessary vocabulary 
to  start  school  in  the  best  conditions,  through  playful  activities.  This  kit  is  available  in  all 
languages of the project partners and can be used by educators or parents; it includes cartoons, 
books  and  several  games  related  to  topics  such  as  family,  house,  food,  seasons,  etc.  The 
project also gathered many inspiring practices on how to support the integration of migrants 
of all ages into society and the labour market.  

International studies have demonstrated that continuity between different stages of education 
has  a  significant  bearing  on  learner  development.  A  recent  study  examined  the  question  of 
continuity in the  curriculum and teaching  methods as one of three sets of factors associated 
with  effective  pre-school 
institutional 
adjustment41.  These  findings  are  mirrored  in  studies  of  the  primary  to  secondary  transition 
stage,  which  highlight  the  need  for  sufficiently  flexible  curricula  to  maintain  and  develop 
learners’  interests  and  provide  meaningful  feedback  on  their  progress42.  Conversely,  poor 
transitions can occur as a result of ‘systems mismatch’ where two otherwise well-functioning 
systems suffer from a lack of synchronisation, to the detriment of the learner experience43.  

transitions,  alongside  social  and 

to  primary 

2.2. Opening up to new forms of cooperation to enhance learning 

The  organisation  of  a  school  plays  a  crucial  role  in  ensuring  that  learners  reach  their  full 
potential  irrespective  of  individual  and  family-related  factors,  socio-economic  status, 
immigration background and life experience. Schools should be safe, welcoming and caring 
learning environments, striving for learners’ engagement. 

The  ‘Whole  School  Approach’  is  one  approach  to  achieve  inclusive  and  equitable  quality 
education for all and is one possible approach to prevent early school leaving44. The school is 
seen as a multidimensional and interactive system that can learn and change: an open learning 
hub which provides support to its environment and receives support from the community. All 
members of the school community (school leaders, teaching and non-teaching staff, learners, 
parents and families) play an active role in promoting excellence and equity. The entire school 
community engages in cohesive, collective and collaborative action aimed at supporting each 
learner  in  the  most  appropriate  way.  There  is  a  strong  focus  on  improving  learners’ 

41 Evangelou,  M.,  Taggart,  B.,Sylva,  K.,  Melhuish,  E.,  Sammons,  P.,  and  Siraj-Blatchford,  I.  (2008),  What 
Makes a Successful Transition from Primary to Secondary School?, Nottingham, DfES Publications. 
42 New  Zealand  Government  (2012),  Transition  from  Primary  to  Secondary  School,  Wellington,  Education 
Review Office. 
43 Downes, P. (2016), Developing a School System Governance Framework to Promote Quality for Transitions: 
Key  Issues  to  Consider  for  a  Differentiated,  Holistic  Strategy  for  Transitions,  Keynote  Presentation,  ET  2020 
Working Group on Schools, European Commission, 15-16 Sept 2016. 
44 Council Conclusions on inclusion in diversity to achieve high-quality education for all, 17 February 2017 
(http://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-5741-2017-INIT/en/pdf). 

17 

 
 
 
 
                                                            
educational  achievement  and  emotional,  social  and  psychological  well-being.  This  also 
requires  a  cross-sectoral  approach  and  close  cooperation  with  a  wide  range  of  external 
stakeholders and the community at large to deal with issues schools do not (and cannot) have 
the  relevant  expertise  for 45.  Examples  of  such  stakeholders  include  social  services,  youth 
services,  outreach  care  workers,  psychologists,  nurses,  speech  and  language  therapists, 
guidance  specialists,  local  authorities,  NGOs,  business,  unions,  volunteers.  Extracurricular 
and out-of-school educational opportunities, including wider community projects, can provide 
opportunities  for  learners  to  show  their  talents  and  increase  their  motivation  and  a  sense  of 
belonging at the school. 

Recent work by the OECD focuses on the concept of schools as ‘learning organisations’; this 
concept has many similarities to the whole school approach. A learning organisation can be 
considered  as  working  on  a  number  of  levels:  the  individual,  teams,  and  a  level  of 
organisation-wide practices, which together create a ‘learning culture’. It is linked to the ideas 
of a shared vision and an ethos of team work. The goal of fostering professional learning of 
staff is pre-eminent46.  

Both  concepts,  the  whole  school  approach  and  the  school  as  a  learning  organisation,  can 
address  two  crucial  points  for  learners’  performance:  learners’  well-being  and  learners’ 
participation in school life.  

The learner’s physical and mental well-being 

Recent  PISA  data  confirm  that  a  safe  and  healthy  school  environment  supports  learning. 
While  the  relationship  between  the  level  of  bullying  in  a  school,  the  life  satisfaction  of 
students, and the relationship between teachers and students is complex, a ‘happy’ school in 
which students feel save and are satisfied with their life produces better learning outcomes47. 
A  major  study  from  the  USA  concluded  that  school  safety,  connectedness  and  peer  support 
were predictors of learners’ social and emotional well-being at primary and lower secondary 
school48.  A  further  study  found  a  strong  association  between  the  quality  of  teacher-learner 
relationships and learner behaviour and adjustment at school.  

In addition to creating a safe and welcoming environment, schools can also play an important 
role in detecting situations of bullying, victimisation, violence or abuse happening within and 
outside school. More than 1 in 10 students in OECD countries report that their peers make fun 
of them at least a few times per month and around 4 % (roughly one per class) say they are hit 
or pushed around by other students (Figure 2.6). Bullying, cyberbullying and violence impact 
negatively on school performance49. Developing strategies to prevent and tackle bullying are 
essential  in  this  respect50.  For  example,  an  influential  meta-analysis  of  44  evaluations  of 
anti-bullying  programmes  in  schools  found  that  their  implementation  resulted  in  a  20-23 % 

45 Policy messages — Whole school approach to early school leaving, ET 2020 Working Group on Schools, 
2015. 
46 OECD (2016), What makes a school a learning organisation?, Education Working Paper, N.. 137. 
47 OECD (2017), PISA 2015 (Volume III): Students’ Well-Being. 
48 Lester,  L.  and  Cross,  D.  (2015),  The  Relationship  Between  School  Climate  and  Mental  and  Emotional 
Wellbeing Over the Transition from Primary to Secondary School, Psychology of Well-Being, 5(1):9. 
49 OECD (2017), PISA 2015 (Volume III). 
50 Downes, P. and Cefai, C (2016), How to tackle bullying and prevent school violence in Europe: strategies for 
inclusive and safe schools, NESET II report, Luxembourg, Publications Office of the European Union. 

18 

 
 
 
                                                            
decrease  in  bullying.  Programmes  using  whole  school  approaches  were  among  the  most 
effective51.   

Example of an Erasmus+ project 

SMILEY — Social Mindedness in learning community — www.smileyschool.eu  

The  SMILEY  project  has  created  an  educational  game  that  promotes  respect  for  others  and 
positive social behaviour in everyday society in a friendly and informal way. British, Italian, 
Polish,  Romanian  and  Turkish  children  can  learn  online  how  to  recognise  potential  conflict 
and stay away from bullying and violence. 

Figure  2.7.  Percentage  of  students  who  report  being  bullied  at  least  a  few  times  a  month 
(2015)

16

14

12

10

8

6

4

2

0

Other students made fun of me

I got hit or pushed around by other students

Source: OECD (2017), PISA 2015 (Volume III): Students’ Well-Being 

It is also important to promote regular physical activity and a healthy diet, which can improve 
cross-disciplinary learning, peer support and a welcoming school climate52. Physical activity 
is associated with improvements in brain function and cognition during childhood. Scientific 
literature  has  shown  that  enhanced  physical  activity  and  sport  participation  is  closely 
associated with better school results53. In addition, sport and physical activity contribute to the 
development  of  social  skills.  Schools  play  a  pivotal  role  in  supporting  the  recommended 

51 Ttofi, M.M., Farrington, D.P. (2011): Effectiveness of school-based programs to reduce bullying: a systematic 
and meta-analytic review, Journal of Experimental Criminology, Vol. 7, N. 1, 27-56. 
52 European Commission/EACEA/Eurydice (2013): Physical Education and Sport at School in Europe 
Eurydice Report. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. 
53 Expert  Group  recommendations  to  encourage  physical  education  in  schools,  including  motor  skills  in  early 
childhood, 
2014-2017, 
EU 
http://ec.europa.eu/transparency/regexpert/index.cfm?do=groupDetail.groupDetailDoc&id=19860&no=1 

produced 

Work 

under 

Sport 

Plan 

the 

for 

19 

 
 
 
 
                                                            
levels  of  physical  activity  for  young  people,  either  through  the  formal  curriculum  (physical 
education  classes),  through  extracurricular  sport  and  physical  activities  or  by  incorporating 
physical activity throughout the school day (e.g. active breaks). 

Healthy food options at canteens and in vending machines, water fountains in classes, regular 
sport classes, promotion of walking or cycling to school, combined with a strict prohibition of 
alcohol,  smoking  and  drugs,  will  ensure  a  healthy  school  environment  where  children  can 
thrive  and  perform  to  the  best  of  their  abilities.  Children  are  not  in  a  position  to  decide  on 
their  diets  or  physical  activity  and  are  more  vulnerable  to  peer  pressure  and  aggressive 
advertising and marketing. Overweight or obese children are more likely to suffer from self-
confidence  issues,  depression  and  underachievement  in  school.  Establishing  healthy  school 
environments  will  also  diminish  the  heavy  burden  of  future  chronic  disease  across  Europe, 
which has an impact on workers’ productivity and that of companies, healthcare systems and 
the economy.  

The learner’s voice and participation in school life 

Too many pupils still do not feel engaged or even welcome at school. PISA data shows that 
socio-economically  disadvantaged  students  are  less  likely  than  advantaged  students  to  feel 
that  they  belong  at  school  and  are  less  likely  to  feel  happy  and  satisfied  with  their  school. 
They  rather  feel  like  outsiders  For  example,  in  some  EU  countries  less  than  60 %  of 
socio-economically  disadvantaged  pupils  feel  that  they  belong  at  school.  Overall  in  OECD 
countries,  disadvantaged  students  were  8  percentage  points  less  likely  than  advantaged 
students to report that they feel that they belong at school. In addition, students with a migrant 
background report a lower sense of belonging at school than native students54. 

Evidence also shows that learners need to feel ownership of their learning and be given the 
possibility  to  voice  their  views.  Being  part  of  the  life  and  activity  of  the  school  increases 
motivation and a sense of belonging. There is, however, a large variation in the quality and 
extent of children’s participation in schools55. 

Participation in school projects that focus on specific issues, including by making full use of 
possibilities offered by Erasmus+ and eTwinning, can help promote student participation. A 
democratic  school  culture  includes  meaningful  participation  of  learners  in  school  decision-
making  processes  and  in  school  evaluation  and  improvement  processes.  While  all  learners 
need to be supported so that they can actively participate in school life, a proactive focus on 
engaging  marginalised  pupils  and  ensuring  their  voices  are  heard  has  been  found  to  be 
essential56. 

Key elements of a whole school approach as defined by the ET 2020 Working Group on 
School Policy (2014-2016) 

Greater flexibility or autonomy of schools 

School systems differ in the degree of autonomy granted to schools. There are different levels 
of  autonomy  in  such  areas  as  funding  and  staff  selection,  and  teaching  methods  and 

54 OECD (2017), PISA 2015 (Volume III): Students’ Well-Being, Table III.7.2. 
55 European Commission (2015), Evaluation of legislation, policy and practice of child participation in the EU, 
Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg. 
56 Downes, P., Nairz-Wirth, E., Rusinaite, V. (2016), Structural Indicators for Inclusive Systems in and around 
Schools, NESET II Report, Luxembourg, Publications Office of the European Union. 

20 

 
 
 
 
                                                            
assessment57.  In  order  for  school  autonomy  to  contribute  to  improving  learning  outcomes, 
research  evidence points to  some crucial elements:  managerial  autonomy, the assessment of 
results  and  the  use  of  assessment  to  promote  accountability  among  all  stakeholders58.  As 
outlined  in  more  detail  in  Chapter  4,  enhanced  school  autonomy,  coupled  with  supportive 
accountability  mechanisms,  enables  schools  to  identify  the  best  solutions  to  complex 
situations and to best cater for the specific needs of the school community.  

Distributed leadership 
Implementing  a  distributed  leadership  model 59 in  schools  aims  to  better  share  tasks  and 
responsibilities across the entire school community. It encourages teachers to take on leading 
roles in a particular area of expertise, assume responsibility and take initiatives as individuals 
or  groups.  Distributed  leadership  in  schools  promotes  teamwork,  multi-disciplinarity  and 
professional  collaboration  among  teaching  and  non-teaching  staff,  other  stakeholders, 
professionals and services (see also Chapter 3.2). 

Whole-school improvement processes 

A whole school approach aims to raise quality and standards across the entire school. For this 
approach  to  be  effective,  schools  need  to  engage  in  continuous,  cyclical  processes  of 
improvement. School development plans and self-evaluation processes should include targets 
that  address  the  underlying  factors  of  underachievement  and  promotion  of  educational 
success, taking into account national, regional and local standards. 

Parental involvement 

Parental involvement is a key factor for educational success: a stimulating home environment 
and parental engagement is crucial for a child’s learning and cognitive, social and emotional 
development.  For  example,  PISA  shows  a  strong  relationship  between  reading  to  a  child 
during his/her early years and better reading performance when the child is 15: in all countries 
students whose parents read books to them as they entered primary school are more likely to 
have higher reading scores at age 1560. The association between parental involvement and a 
child’s  academic  success  is  well  established  in  research,  but  developing  effective  parental 
involvement  approaches  to  improve  their  children’s  attainment  remains  challenging 61 . 
Although European countries have legislation in place that acknowledges the right of parents 
or guardians to access information about their children’s schooling and to participate in some 
forms  of  school  decision-making  processes,  there  are  differences  in  the  level  of  parental 
involvement in practice62.  

Moreover, it is important to take into account particular obstacles and needs of families from 
vulnerable or  marginalised groups in society. High  levels  of stress linked to  poverty detract 
from the health and well-being of family members and can in turn negatively affect children’s 

57 European Commission/EACEA/Eurydice (2012), Key Data on Education in Europe 2012. 
58  European  Commission/ET  2020  Working  Group  on  Schools  Policy  (2014-2015),  School  autonomy 
questionnaire report, 2014 (working document). 
59 ‘Distributed leadership’ is primarily concerned with the practice of leadership rather than specific leadership 
roles  or  responsibilities.  In  a  school  there  are  many  sources  of  influence,  formal  and  informal,  which  may  be 
sources of leadership. 
60 OECD (2012), PISA, Let’s Read them a Story! The Parent Factor in Education, Paris, OECD Publishing. 
61 See  Education  Endowment  Foundation,  Teaching 
available 
https://educationendowmentfoundation.org.uk/resources/teaching-learning-toolkit/parental-involvement/ 
62 Working Group on Schools Policy (2014-2015), Parental involvement, Report from Country focus workshop 
in France, 2015. 

and  Learning  Toolkit, 

at: 

21 

 
 
                                                            
mental  health  and  school  achievement63.  Taking  into  account  the  rates  of  poverty  and  child 
poverty  in  Europe 64 ,  schools  should  have  in  place  outreach  strategies  for  parents  from 
vulnerable  groups  in  order  to  facilitate  and  encourage  their  involvement  in  their  children’s 
education.  Local  services,  NGOs  and  professionals  (cultural  mediators,  mentors,  social 
workers,  etc.)  can  be  involved  to  help  build  positive  relationships  with  parents65.  Family 
education can provide a range of benefits for parents and children including improvements in 
reading, writing and numeracy66. 

Involvement of a wide range of local stakeholders 

To provide appropriate, relevant  and engaging education for each child, schools can benefit 
from  linking  with  local  services,  organisations  and  businesses.  This  may  include  social 
workers,  youth  and  employment  services,  outreach  care  workers,  psychologists,  nurses  and 
other therapists (speech and language), child protection services, guidance specialists, police, 
unions,  businesses,  universities,  intercultural  mediators,  migrants’  associations,  NGOs  and 
other  community  organisations  from  sport,  the  cultural  environment  and  active  citizenship 
sectors, etc. 

There  must  be  political  support  to  promote  and  organise  cooperation  and  networking  at  the 
local  level,  and  clear  and  strong  leadership  to  steer  the  process67.  It  is  important  that  roles, 
responsibilities  and  structures  are  clearly  defined  and  agreed  from  the  start.  Mechanisms 
should  be  in  place  to  ensure  a  reciprocal  flow  of  information  between  the  school,  its 
stakeholders and the local authorities, as appropriate and according to national circumstances. 

Example of an Erasmus+ project 

E-STEP  —  Supporting  teachers’  and  parents’  partnerships  through  social  networking 
technologies — http://hermes.westgate.gr/esteP/ 

E-STEP  involved  six  different  partners  from  five  different  countries  (Greece,  the  United 
Kingdom,  Austria,  Bulgaria,  Ireland)  and  set  out  to  raise  teachers’  and  school  managers’ 
awareness,  motivation,  knowledge  and  skills  in  using  ICT  networking  tools.  It  provided 
online  facilities  to  support  networking  among  schools,  teachers  and  parents  and  a  training 
framework to develop their ICT skills in using social networking tools. Its good practice guide 
includes a summary of the project findings on teachers’ needs and aspirations and a review of 
good practices in schools.  

63 For an overview of research evidence, see Downes, P.(2015), Towards a Differentiated, Holistic and Systemic 
Approach to Parental Involvement in Europe for Early School Leaving Prevention, PREVENT project, p. 13. 
64 In  2015,  118.7  million  people,  or  23.7 %  of  the  population  in  the  EU-28  were  at  risk  of  poverty  or  social 
exclusion  (AROPE).  At  a  rate  of  26.9  %  in  the  EU-28,  children  were  at  greater  risk  of  poverty  or  social 
exclusion in 2015 than the total population in 20 of the 28 EU Member States. 
65 Downes,  P.  (2015),  Towards  a  Differentiated,  Holistic  and  Systemic  Approach  to  Parental  Involvement  in 
Europe for Early School Leaving Prevention, PREVENT project. 
66 See for example, NIACE (2013), Family Learning Works — The Inquiry into Family Learning in England and 
Wales. 
67 Working  Group  on  Schools  Policy  (2014-2015),  Report  on  the  Case  study  on  Antwerp,  Belgium–Flanders, 
2014. 

22 

 
 
 
 
                                                            
2.3. Improving quality in early childhood education and care 

The  early  years  from  birth  are  the  most  formative  and  set  the  foundations  for  children’s 
lifelong  development 68 .  In  this  context,  high-quality  early  childhood  education  and  care 
(ECEC) is an essential foundation for educational success69. The European Commission and 
EU Member States have acknowledged that access to universally available, high-quality and 
inclusive  ECEC  services  is  beneficial  for  all 70.  Moreover,  ECEC  is  key  for  an  efficient 
education system. Investing as early as possible in high-quality education for all avoids higher 
levels of spending in later stages of education, where the differential costs for closing the gaps 
between high and low performers are higher71. 
Many studies72 have shown the long-term positive effect of ECEC policies in the context of 
publicly  funded  large-scale  or  universal  provision.  These  benefits  include  a  wide  range  of 
individual and social gains73. 

At  individual  level,  attendance  is  positively  associated  with  improved  cognitive  and 
non-cognitive  outcomes,  educational  attainment,  higher  salaries,  better  health  and  better 
employability.  Students  who  attended  pre-primary  education  for  more  than  one  year  scored 
higher  in  maths  and  literacy  in  secondary  school74.  For  students  who  had  not  attended  pre-
primary education the chances of being low performers in mathematics are twice as high as 
for  those  who  had  for  more  than  one  year,  even  after  accounting  for  other  student 
characteristics75. The analysis of the ‘Perry Preschool program’ in the US showed a 7 to 10 % 
per  year  return  on  investment  based  on  increased  school  and  career  achievement  as  well  as 
reduced costs in remedial education, health and criminal justice system expenditures76. Many 
other early childhood programmes are likely to be equally effective. In England, the Institute 
of Fiscal Studies estimated that the effects of pre-school attendance could translate on average 

68 Schoon,  I.  et  al.  (2015),  The  Impact  of  Early  Life  Skills  on  Later  Outcomes,  London,  UCL  Institute  for 
Education. 
69 CARE — Curriculum and Quality Analysis and Impact Review of European Early Childhood Education and 
Care,  a  project  funded  under  the  EU  7th  Framework  Programme  for  Research  and  Innovation,  http://ecec-
care.org/ and ISOTIS, Inclusive Education and Social Support to Tackle Inequalities in Society, a project funded 
under the EU Horizon 2020 programme. 
70 European Commission (2011), Early Childhood Education and Care: Providing all our children with the best 
start  for  the  world  of  tomorrow,  COM(2011)66;  Council  Conclusions  on  early  childhood  education  and  care: 
providing all our children with the best start for the world of tomorrow, 2011/C 175/03. 
71 Cunha,  F. et  al.  (2006), Interpreting  the Evidence on  Life  Cycle  Skill Formation,  in E.  A. Hanushek  and F. 
Welch  (eds.),  Handbook  of  the  Economics  of  Education,  Vol.  1,  North-Holland,  Amsterdam;  Wößmann,  L. 
(2008),  Efficiency  and  equity  of  European  education  and  training  policies,  International  Tax  and  Public 
Finance, Vol. 15(2), 199-230. 
72 For example, Bingley, P. et al (2012) Intergenerational transmission and day care in Denmark, and Dumas, C. 
et al. (2012), Early schooling and later outcomes: Evidence from pre-school extension in France, in J. Ermisch, 
M. Jantti and T. Smeeding (eds.), Inequality from Childhood to Adulthood: A Cross-National Perspective on the 
Transmission of Advantage, New York, Sage. 
73 While the research findings on pre-school education (children aged three and older) are fairly consistent, the 
evidence on the effects on children aged between 0 and 3 is less clear. Diverging results may relate to the age at 
which  pre-school  education  is  started  and  also  to  differences  in  the  quality  of  service.  See  Melhuis,  E.  et  al 
(2016),  A  review  of  research  on  the  effects  of  ECEC  on  child  development,  CARE  FP7  Project  Curriculum 
Quality Analysis and Impact Review of European ECEC. 
74 Sylva, K. et al. (2004), The Effective Provision of Pre-School Education Project, DfES/Institute of Education. 
75 OECD (2016), Low-performing students: why they fall behind and how to help them succeed, Paris, OECD 
Publishing. 
76 Heckman, J. J. (2006), Skill formation and the economics of investing in disadvantaged children, Science, 132, 
1900-1902. 

23 

 
 
                                                            
into  an  increase  of  up  to  7.9 %  in  the  discounted  present  value  of  gross  (pre-tax)  lifetime 
earnings77.  

Table 2.2. Participation in ECEC (% of population of the corresponding age) 

Pupils aged 4 up to the starting age of compulsory primary education participating in 
education 

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

Total (2011) 

93.2 
98.1 
86.6 
87.8 
97.9 
96.4 
89.9 
98.6 
76.0 
97.7 
100.0 
71.0 
99.1 
85.0 
92.7 
84.2 
95.6 
94.5 
100.0 
99.6 
94.3 
78.4 
93.8 
86.4 
89.8 
76.9 
74.0 
95.3 
95.8 

Total 
(2014) 
94.3 
98.1 
89.3 
86.4 
98.1 
97.4 
91.7 
96.0 
84.0 
97.1 
100.0 
72.4 
96.5 
82.6 
94.4 
88.8 
98.4 
94.7 
97.7 
97.6 
94.0 
87.1 
93.5 
86.4 
89.4 
77.4 
83.6 
95.9 
98.2 

Males 
(2014) 
94.3 
98.0 
89.5 
86.5 
96.7 
97.1 
91.7 
95.6 
: 
97.0 
100.0 
73.2 
97.1 
81.9 
94.0 
88.4 
97.9 
94.9 
99.6 
97.3 
93.5 
87.0 
94.6 
86.1 
90.0 
77.3 
83.6 
96.0 
98.3 

Females 
(2014) 
94.3 
98.2 
89.1 
86.3 
98.9 
97.6 
91.7 
96.2 
: 
97.3 
100.0 
71.5 
95.9 
83.3 
94.9 
89.1 
98.9 
94.5 
95.7 
98.0 
94.4 
87.2 
92.5 
86.7 
88.7 
77.6 
83.6 
95.7 
98.1 

Source: Eurostat. Online data code: educ_uoe_enra10 and educ_ipart. Note: b = break in time series; 
e = estimated. 

From a social inclusion perspective, ECEC participation can also be an important prevention 
measure for early school leaving. Attending high-quality ECEC results in greater educational 
attainment  and  pro-social  behaviour  for  all  children,  but  such  gains  are  even  larger  for 
children  from  disadvantaged  backgrounds.  Therefore  the  ECEC  sector  can  play  a  role  in 
reducing inherited inter-generational disadvantage. 

77 Institute for Fiscal Studies (2014), The economic effects of pre-school education and quality, London. 

24 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
The Education and Training 2020 strategy set a benchmark requiring at least 95 % of children 
from age  4 to  compulsory  school age to  participate  in  ECEC. Table 2.2 shows the progress 
made towards the benchmark from 2011 onwards. The EU as a whole is advancing towards 
the benchmark value, with a participation rate of 94.3 % in 2014, 1.1 percentage point higher 
than in 2011. 12 Member States have already reached the target and 26 have a participation 
rate above 80 %. By contrast, the participation in formal ECEC for children aged 0-3 is much 
lower and varies greatly across Member States. For this age group, the EU aims to reach the 
Barcelona  objective  of  a  participation  rate  greater  than  33 %.  In  2015,  the  EU  average  was 
still below the target, with 30 % of children aged 0-3 attending formal childcare (Figure 2.8). 
In 25 Member States the demand for childcare exceeds the supply78. 

Figure 2.8. Participation in formal childcare of children aged under 3 (2015) 

80

70

60

50

% 

40

30

20

10

0

From 1 to 29 hours

30 hours or over

Barcelona objective

Source: Eurostat, EU-SILC. Online data code: ilc_caindformal 

Looking  at  the  current  quality  of  ECEC  services,  the  2014  Report  on  Key  Data  on  Early 
Childhood  Education  and  Care  in  Europe  as  well  as  a  study  launched  by  the  European 
Parliament79 indicate  particular  challenges  with  regard  to  the  qualification  of  staff  and  the 
provision  of  educational  guidelines  for  working  with  younger  children.  There  are  no 
commonly shared standards across the EU on the qualification of staff in ECEC. Only in 10 
countries  is  a  tertiary  qualification  required  for  at  least  one  staff  member  working  with 
children80. Continuing Professional Development is an obligation for education and care staff 
in settings for younger children in only half of European countries. The situation is especially 
critical  for  assistants  in  ECEC  as  there  is  no  qualification  required in  more  than  half  of  the 
Member  States81.  In  21  education  systems  policy-makers  seek  to  influence  the  quality  of 
learning  and  child  development  by  issuing  a  detailed  curriculum  or  outlining  the  main 
principles in educational guidelines for the entire duration of ECEC. However, in 11 countries 

78 Eurydice (2014), Policy Brief Early Childhood Education and Care. 
79 European Parliament (2014), Quality in Early Childhood Education and Care. 
80 Covering also the entire ECEC phase, including children under 3 years old. These countries are DE, EE, EL, 
HR, LT, LU, PT, SI, FI and SE. 
81 Vandenbroeck, M., Urban, M., & Peeters, J. (Eds.). (2016), Pathways to Professionalism in Early Childhood 
Education and Care, Routledge. 

25 

 
 
 
 
                                                            
such guidelines are restricted to settings for children over the age of 3. For younger children, 
the emphasis tends to be on the care element of provision82. 

In 2016 the European Commission organised a conference entitled ‘Great start in life  — the 
best  possible  Education  in  the  early  years’.  The  conference  brought  together  about  300 
researchers, policy-makers, teachers and early education and care practitioners to explore the 
best possible provision for children from birth to the end of compulsory primary schooling83. 
Key messages included that the professionalisation of staff in ECEC and in primary education 
will  help  to  address  many  of  the  current  challenges  over  quality  and  provision.  To  better 
support  learning  outcomes  of  children  with  an  immigrant  background,  children’s  home 
language  and  culture  have  to  be  valued  as  important  cognitive,  linguistic  and  educational 
resources.  EU  policy  work  will  need  to  address:  (i)  how  to  improve  the  qualification, 
competences  and  working  conditions  of  ECEC  staff  and  teachers;  (ii)  manage  diversity  in 
early  education;  (iii)  ease  transitions  from  ECEC  to  primary  education;  and  (iv)  involve 
family and communities84. 

A common framework for high-quality early childhood education and care 

The quality of ECEC is key to delivering the benefits outlined above. ECEC provision which 
is not of sufficient quality might offer very few benefits to children, families and society or 
could  even  have  a  negative  impact.  Therefore  it  is  useful  to  identify  the  features  of  ECEC 
provision that are associated with good quality. 

In 2014, the European Commission developed together with experts from 25 Member States a 
Proposal  for  key  principles  of  a  Quality  Framework  for  Early  Childhood  Education  and 
Care85. The proposal identified several factors associated with ECEC quality that contribute 
to  long-lasting  positive  effects  on  children’s  cognitive  and  non-cognitive  development.  The 
five  policy  dimensions  (Figure  2.9)  where  change  is  expected  to  lead  to  improved  ECEC 
quality are:  

  access 

  workforce 

  curriculum 

  monitoring and evaluation 
  governance and funding86.  

The proposal for a quality framework recognises the importance of responding to what society 
wants  for  young  children  and  acknowledges  the  need  to  ensure  that  care,  development  and 
learning  are fully  integrated.  As a tool it has  proven useful in  bringing together all relevant 

82 European Commission (2016), Education and Training Monitor 2016. 
83 Conference website:  https://ec.europa.eu/education/great-start-in-life_en. The main EU funded projects 
relevant for inclusive education and ECEC are listed in this publication:  http://ec.europa.eu/research/social-
sciences/pdf/project_synopses/ki-01-16-979-en.pdf#view=fit&pagemode=none 
84 http://www.schooleducationgateway.eu/en/pub/latest/news/the-best-possible-education-in.htm 
85 http://ec.europa.eu/assets/eac/education/policy/strategic-framework/archive/documents/ecec-quality-
framework_en.pdf 
86 The  framework  contains  10  broad  action  statements  which  fall  within  the  five  quality  dimensions.  These 
actions  are  indispensable  and  interconnected  and  lead  to  improvements  in  quality.  They  point  to  the  most 
important policies, structures and processes that need to be in place to deliver high-quality ECEC for all children. 

26 

 
 
 
                                                            
players and providing a common language and basis for creating legislation and other policy 
actions across different countries. 

Figure 2.9. The five ECEC pillars according to the quality framework 

Access 

Many  Member  States  face  difficulties  in  ensuring  access  to  all  children,  particularly  those 
below  the  age  of  3.  In  the  current  economic  context,  and  with  rising  parental  demand  for 
ECEC provision, the first challenge is to provide enough places. The second is ensuring equal 
and fair access.  

Five  criteria  are  crucial  for  increasing  participation  of  children  from  disadvantaged  groups: 
availability,  affordability,  accessibility,  usefulness  and  comprehensibility.  Socio-cultural 
diversity  may  be  promoted  by  involving  parents  and  local  immigrant  communities  in 
democratic decision-making processes in the management of ECEC services and by recruiting 
personnel  from  minority  ethnic  groups87.  Moreover,  involving  parents  and  professionals  in 
participatory  research  projects  where  pedagogical  knowledge  is  constructed  and  shared  is  a 
key success factor of inclusive practice88.  

When there are shortages of places, it is hard to balance the aspiration of equal access with 
persuading families who are most likely to benefit to take up ECEC services. The quality of 
ECEC provision and attendance is strengthened through collaboration and outreach work, and 
children’s experiences are improved through such approaches. 

It is difficult to monitor and measure the effectiveness of existing policy to improve access. 
Except  for  universal  ECEC  provision,  the  evidence  is  not  clear  about  how  best  to  increase 
access for children from disadvantaged families. There are few benchmarks or targets which 
can be quantified using reliable, valid and accurate instruments. 

87 Bennett,  J.  and  Moss,  P.  (2011),  Working  for  inclusion:  how  early  childhood  education  and  care  and  its 
workforce can help Europe’s youngest citizens, retrieved from: http://www.childreninscotland.org.uk/wfi/. 
88 Whalley and Pen Green Centre Team (2007), Involving parents in their children’s learning, London, Sage. 

27 

 
 
 
 
                                                            
Workforce 

International  research  demonstrates 
that  staff  working  conditions  and  professional 
development  are  strongly  linked  to  children’s  cognitive  and  non-cognitive  outcomes 89 . 
Therefore it is essential that all professionals working in the sector are highly competent and 
appropriately qualified. 

Teacher quality is a complex issue. Ongoing professional development may be as important 
as  pre-service  qualifications  in  enhancing  competence.  The  content  of  training  needs  to 
address issues relating to everyday practices and activities that support the reflection process 
and help to collectively redesign practices90.   

Different  types  of  professionals  are  involved  in  ECEC  settings:  educational  staff,  care  staff 
and assistant/auxiliary staff. Improving quality requires all staff to be trained for their role and 
responsibilities,  with  access  to  regular  professional  development  and  pedagogical  support. 
This includes opportunities to diversify professional experience, work in an inter-professional 
and collaborative way and explore flexible career pathways. 

It  is  important  to  adapt  training  to  meet  the  needs  of  staff  working  with  children  from 
disadvantaged families and minority or immigrant backgrounds. Increasing the recruitment of 
staff  from  diverse  backgrounds  and,  when  required,  helping  them  to  progressively  upgrade 
their qualifications, may significantly benefit disadvantaged and immigrant children. 

As  reported  by  the  OECD,  ‘figures  from  various  countries  reveal  a  wide  pay  gap  between 
childcare  staff  and  teachers,  with  childcare  staff  in  most  countries  being  poorly  trained  and 
paid around minimum wage levels’91. Good working conditions can reduce staff turnover in 
ECEC.  

Curriculum 

A good curriculum recognises that care, education and socialisation form an integrated whole. 
It incorporates content and pedagogies that foster children’s cognitive, social, emotional and 
physical development.  
Significant  differences  exist  on  the  space  given  to  academic  learning92.  In  some  countries 
literacy and numeracy  take a dominant  position. Despite the broadening of the scope of the 
curriculum,  children’s  early  learning  experiences  tend  be  predominantly  focused  towards 
preparation  for  compulsory  schooling.  A  broader  approach  promoting  children’s  cognitive 
and  non-cognitive  development  is  more  appropriate  for  fulfilling  children’s  learning 
potential93. For a pedagogical practice to be effective, it needs the mutual involvement of the 
child and the adult. The instructive elements of ECEC practices can only be effective if they 
support  the  active  participation  of  children  in  their  learning,  not  if  they  are  acted  out  as 

89  Litjens,  I.  and  Taguma,  M.  (2010),  Literature  overview  for  the  OECD  ECEC  Network,  Paris,  OECD 
Publishing. 
90 Fukkink,  R.  G.  and  Lont,  A.  (2007),  Does  training  matter?  Meta-analysis  and  review  of  caregiver  training 
studies,  Early  Childhood  Research  Quarterly,  22  (3),  294-311;  Bleach,  J.  (2013),  Using  action  research  to 
support quality early years practice, European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 21 (3), 370-379. 
91 OECD (2006), Starting Strong II: Early Childhood Education and Care, Paris, OECD Publishing. 
92 Laevers, F. (2005), The curriculum as means to raise the quality of early childhood education. Implications for 
policy, European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 13(1), 17-29. 
93 OECD (2004), Curricula and Pedagogies in Early Childhood Education and Care. Five Curriculum Outlines, 
PARIS, OECD Publishing.. 

28 

 
 
 
 
                                                            
practices of knowledge transmission94. Typically a curriculum which enables children to learn 
through  play  will  encourage  them  to  be  fully  engaged,  highly  motivated  and  proactive  in 
communicative exchanges95. 
Certain features of ECEC curricula can be seen as good practices96. For example:  

i. 

ii. 

they  state  explicit  goals  across  broad  domains  i.e.  emotional,  personal  and  social 
development,  language  and  communication,  knowledge  and  understanding  of  the 
surrounding world, creative expression and physical development and movement;  

they strive for an appropriate balance between learning and well-being, have a strong 
focus on communication and interaction, and encourage staff to work collaboratively 
and assess their practice.  

A successful transition to school is one that is organised collaboratively so that the views of 
children,  ECEC  staff,  teachers  and  parents  are  considered  and  valued.  The  involvement  of 
parents in decision-making processes regarding the curriculum gives an explicit expression to 
the values of democracy and participation at the core of the social function of ECEC. 

Monitoring and evaluation 

Monitoring  and  evaluation  support  stakeholders  and  policy-makers  as  they  respond  to  the 
needs of children, parents and local communities. Monitoring for quality also includes a focus 
on  the  processes  and  outcomes  of  ECEC.  The  availability  of  relevant,  timely  and  accurate 
data and information can help the managers and leaders of ECEC services to make the right 
decisions  on  how  best  to  improve  the  quality  of  provision.  Monitoring  procedures  such  as 
ongoing  observation,  documentation  of  children’s  learning  and  socialising  experiences,  as 
well  as  narrative  assessment  of  children  competences  (e.g.  portfolios),  can  have  a  positive 
impact  on  children’s  outcomes.  These  practices  contribute  to  deepening  practitioners’ 
understanding of children’s learning processes in the everyday life of ECEC settings. 

Monitoring  and  evaluation  are  increasingly  practised  and  countries  are  making  efforts  to 
improve  methodologies  and  processes 97 .  Every  Member  State  has  a  system  in  place  to 
monitor  the  quality  of  ECEC  provision,  although  there  are  few  benchmarks  or  targets. 
Monitoring includes checks against the rules on accreditation and approval, the need for self-
assessment  and  the  obligation  to  participate  in  external  inspection.  Appropriate  quality 
monitoring  and  improvement  of  ECEC  systems  might  be  hindered  by  the  lack  of  statistical 
information, which tends to be patchy within and across EU Member States98. Systematic and 
reliable data collection is needed to address the issues of accessibility, workforce and funding 
that are crucial to developing high-quality and equitable ECEC systems. 

94 Oberhumer, P. (2005), International Perspectives on Early Childhood Curricula, International Journal of Early 
Childhood, 37(1), 27-38. 
95 Monaco, C. and Pontecorvo, C. (2010), The interaction between young toddlers: constructing and organising 
participation frameworks, European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 18(3), 341-371. 
96 Pramling, I., et al. (2006), Five preschool curricula — Comparative perspective, International Journal of Early 
Childhood, 38:11; Laevers, F. (2005), The curriculum as means to raise the quality of early childhood education. 
Implications for policy, European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 13(1), 17-29. 
97 OECD (2015), Starting Strong IV: Monitoring Quality in Early Childhood Education and Care, Paris, OECD 
Publishing. 
98 Bennett,  J.  and  Moss  P.  (2011),  Working  for  inclusion:  how  early  childhood  education  and  care  and  its 
workforce can help Europe’s youngest citizens, retrieved from: http://www.childreninscotland.org.uk/wfi/ 

29 

 
 
 
 
                                                            
Governance and funding 

The economic argument for providing more equitable access to high-quality ECEC provision 
is  compelling.  When  publicly  subsidised  ECEC  provision  is  scarce,  it  is  those  children  and 
families  who  would  benefit  most  that  end  up  being  excluded99.  In  countries  where  ECEC 
subsidies have been reduced, the overall quality of ECEC provision has been lowered100. 

Direct public financing of ECEC may lead to:  

  more efficient management by the public authorities;  

  economies of scale;  

  better quality at national level;  

  more  efficient  training  of  teaching  staff  and  fairer  access  than  the  system  of  paying 

subsidies to parents101.  

Providing  additional  funds  to  support  access  for  disadvantaged  groups  can  be  an  effective 
strategy.  The  effects  of  family  background  on  children’s  educational  attainment  tend  to  be 
more  limited  in  countries  where  universally  accessible  childcare  is  provided  and  socio-
economic status differences in the population are less marked102. 

When ECEC systems are not or only partially integrated (as in the majority of EU Member 
States),  there  are  lower  standards  of  care  for  children  under  the  age  of  3,  higher  costs  to 
parents, less equal access to all families, and more poorly educated and paid staff. By contrast, 
fully  integrated  systems  tend  to  allocate  more  resources  to  younger  children  and  their 
families.  They  also  lead  to  better  quality  and  more  equitable  ECEC  provision  and  increase 
financial efficiency103. 

High-quality  provision  is  more  likely  to  occur  when  stakeholders  are  routinely  and 
systematically consulted on the design and implementation of ECEC provision. This involves 
creating participatory alliances among stakeholders, supported by a coherent policy of inter-
institutional collaboration104.  

99  European  Commission  (2013),  Barcelona  objectives:  The  development  of  childcare  facilities  for  young 
children in Europe with a view to sustainable and inclusive growth, Brussels. 
100 Akgunduz,  Y.  E.,  Jongen,  E.,  Leseman,  P.,  and  Plantenga,  J.  (2013),  Cutting  from  the  future?  Impact  of  a 
subsidy reduction on child care quality in the Netherlands, Tjalling C. Koopmans Research Institute Discussion 
Paper Series, No 13-18. 
101 European  Commission  (2013),  Barcelona  objectives:  The  development  of  childcare  facilities  for  young 
children in Europe with a view to sustainable and inclusive growth, Brussels. 
102 Bennett,  J.  (2008),  Early  childhood  services  in  the  OECD  countries.  Review  of  the  literature  and  current 
policy in the early childhood field, Florence, UNICEF Innocenti Research Centre. 
103 Kaga,  Y.,  Bennett,  J.,  and  Moss,  P.  (2010),  Caring  and  learning  together:  A  cross-national  study  on  the 
integration of early childhood care and education within education, Paris, UNESCO. 
104 Lazzari,  A.  (2012),  The  Public  Good.  Historical  and  Political  Roots  of  Municipal  Preschools  in  Emilia 
Romagna, European Journal of Education, 47(4), 556-568. 

30 

 
 
 
 
                                                            
3. Supporting teachers and school leaders for excellent teaching and learning 

When it comes to achieving quality and equity in school education, teachers matter: there is 
broad  evidence  that  their  quality  has  a  major  impact  on  student  achievement  and 
motivation105.  However,  more  than  1  in  3  school  leaders  in  Europe  say  that  staff  shortages 
hinder quality instruction at their school106. At the same time, in most countries the teaching 
profession has lost much of its status and its attractiveness as a career choice. Teaching often 
loses  out  to  other  professions  in  attracting  the  best  candidates.  The  drop-out  rate  of  both 
young  and  experienced  teachers,  often  due  to  difficult  working  conditions,  is  a  serious 
concern in some countries107  

Figure  3.1.  Share  of  school  leaders  (in  lower  secondary  education)  who  agree  that 
teacher shortages hinder quality instruction at their school (2013) 

Source: European Commission (2014), Education and Training Monitor 2014, based on data from TALIS 2013. 
Note: BE refers to the Flemish Community (BE-nl) only, UK refers to England (UK-ENG) only. 

As  a  result,  the  qualities  and  competences  of  those  in  the  teaching  professions,  including 
school leaders, are high on the policy agenda in most European countries. ‘Strong support for 
teachers,  trainers,  school  leaders  and  other  educational  staff’  is  one  of  the  six  priorities  for 
European  cooperation  in  education  and  training  up  to  2020.  This  includes  paying  particular 
attention  to  policies  on  issues  such  as  the  recruitment  and  selection  of  teachers,  the 
attractiveness of the profession as well as all phases of teacher education108. 

Effective  support  for  teachers  and  school  leaders  also  needs  to  be  embedded  in  more 
comprehensive  policies  for  better  schooling.  Policies  that  support  the  teaching  professions 
cannot be separated from systematic efforts to improve curricula, strengthen quality assurance 
and school evaluation, make schools more inclusive and optimise the use of resources. All of 
these  fields  have  an  impact  on  teachers’  working  environments  and  the  way  in  which  they 
(can) do their work.  

105  European  Commission/OECD  (2010),  Teachers’  professional  development,  Europe  in  international 
comparison. The importance of teachers and their competences for education is also echoed in public opinion: 
see Special Eurobarometer 417 on the European Area of Skills and Qualifications, 2014. 
106 According to the OECD’s 2013 Teaching and Learning International Survey (TALIS), which covered school 
leaders in lower secondary education in 19 EU Member States. 
107  European  Commission  (2012),  Study  on  policy  measures  to  improve  the  attractiveness  of  the  teaching 
profession in Europe. 
108 2015 Joint Report of the Council and the Commission on the implementation of the strategic framework for 
European  cooperation  in  education  and  training  (ET  2020)  –  New  priorities  for  European  cooperation  in 
education and training.  This  is also backed by reports from  the  series of  annual International Summits on  the 
Teaching Profession. 

31 

 
 
 
                                                            
In the same vein, any policies that aim to improve education cannot rely on changes at system 
level or top-down regulation alone. Education authorities must rely on practitioners, including 
teachers, school leaders and other school staff to implement and support change in their daily 
practice. 

Finally, teachers need to be recognised as learners. This puts the spotlight on the professionals 
in  charge  of  teacher  education.  Regardless  of  the  setting  or  profile  (e.g.  lecturers  in  higher 
education,  school-based  mentors,  trainers  in  Continuing  Professional  Development),  teacher 
educators  are  expected  to  lead  the  way  in  transforming  the  profession.  Their  competences, 
preparation and  professional  development  should  therefore be  an  integral  part  of  policies  to 
support teachers. 

The changing nature of teaching 

Teaching is an increasingly complex task. It is based on a broad set of competences and on 
the ability to apply them flexibly in a wide range of situations. Many countries recognise that 
for  this  to  be  effective,  teachers  need  to  be  both  fully  prepared  and  enjoy  a  high  degree  of 
professional autonomy in their practice (e.g. teaching methods, learner assessment)109. 

The role of teachers is changing in response to new knowledge about learning and increasing 
expectations  about  quality  and  equity  in  education.  Teaching  was  once  considered  to  be 
primarily  about  imparting  knowledge  to  pupils.  This  is  clearly  no  longer  enough.  There  is 
research  about  how  people  learn  effectively,  which  recognises  that  there  are  significant 
differences between individuals that teachers and schools need to take into account. 

Education systems aim to reconcile high quality with high equity  — and most of them hold 
schools  and  teachers  more  accountable  for  outcomes  than  in  the  past.  They  also  put  more 
focus on the lifelong development of key competences than on the acquisition of knowledge 
alone. In this context, the central task of teachers should be to facilitate and support successful 
learning of all pupils.  

Supporting professionalism 

Against this backdrop, teachers and school leaders need to develop a broader, different set of 
competences  and  carry  out  a  wider  range  of  tasks  than  before.  They  are  expected  to 
continually review, adapt and innovate their teaching and focus more on the needs individual 
learners.  They  are  asked  to  use  new  technologies  to  enhance  learning  and  to  contribute  to 
leadership and strategic development at school. 

All of this raises questions about how education systems: 

 

identify and choose the best candidates for these roles; 

  prepare the candidates; and 
  support them to become (and continue to be) effective professionals110.    

109 European Commission/EACEA/Eurydice (2008), Levels of Autonomy and Responsibilities of Teachers in 
Europe. 
110 See  European  Commission  (2012),  Supporting  the  Teaching  Professions  for  Better  Learning  Outcomes, 
SWD(2012) 374 final; MacBeath, J. (2012), Future of Teaching Profession, Cambridge, Cambridge University / 
Education International Research Institute. 

32 

 
 
 
 
                                                            
3.1. Making teaching careers more attractive 

In  Europe,  only  a  few  countries  manage  to  attract  the  best  graduates  into  the  teaching 
profession. This includes Ireland, Finland and Scotland in the United Kingdom, where interest 
in  Initial  Teacher  Education  (ITE)  is  high  and  applicants  usually  far  outnumber  the  places 
available111. In other countries, interest is so low that policies must focus on mechanisms to 
‘weed out the worst’ rather than selecting the best for teaching112. 

A  decline  in  status  and  shortage  of  qualified  staff  are  common  problems  across  the  EU.  In 
some countries, the age structure of the teaching force points to serious recruitment challenges 
in  the  near  future.  Other  countries  experience  regional  staff  shortages  or  challenges  to  fill 
vacancies for specific education levels, subject areas or teacher profiles. 

For most countries, raising the status and attractiveness of the teaching profession has a dual 
purpose:  to  draw  in  a  wider  range  of  highly  suitable  candidates  and  to  motivate  excellent 
teachers to continue in a demanding job. Despite the seriousness of the challenge, only 1 in 2 
European countries have taken any significant policy measures to increase the attractiveness 
of the teaching profession. And only five countries are considered to have broad and systemic 
strategies in this field (Estonia, Ireland, Lithuania, UK-Scotland and Norway)113.  

Systems of selection and recruitment 

Improving  how  teachers  are  selected  and  recruited  can  help  identify  those  most  suitable  for 
teaching. Targeting under-represented groups and career changers can help increase the pool 
of  candidates.  More  diverse  backgrounds  and  a  range  of  previous  experiences  both  benefit 
student  learning.  For  instance,  teachers  with  an  immigrant  or  minority  background  are  still 
largely under-represented in most European countries114.  

Some  countries  have  started  refining  the  way  in  which  candidates  are  assessed.  Academic 
merits  (school  leaving  exams)  are  still  the  most  frequent  criteria  for  entering  ITE,  but  are 
increasingly accompanied by a broader assessment of candidates’ aptitudes and attitudes115.  

Attracting under-represented groups into teaching 

While  societies  in  Europe  are  increasingly  diverse  in  terms  of  culture  and  language,  the 
teaching profession is still relatively homogeneous in most places. Besides equal access to the 
profession,  there  are  other  compelling  reasons  why  the  teaching  force  should  reflect  the 
diversity  of  our  societies.  First,  education  systems  cannot  afford  to  limit  the  pool  of 
candidates for teaching by effectively excluding a large share of the population and wasting 
potential  talent.  This  is  particularly  true  in  light  of  current  staff  shortages  and  decreasing 
interest  in  teaching  careers.  Second,  teaching  is  also  a  highly  visible  profession.  A  more 
diverse  teaching  force  will  offer  young  people  a  range  of  role  models  and  will  help  fight 
stereotypes116. 

111  European  Commission  (2013),  Study  on  policy  measures  to  improve  the  attractiveness  of  the  teaching 
profession in Europe. 
112 European Commission (2012), Report from a Peer-Learning Activity on ‘Selecting the best for teaching’, The 
Hague, Netherlands, December 2012. 
113  European  Commission  (2013),  Study  on  policy  measures  to  improve  the  attractiveness  of  the  teaching 
profession in Europe. 
114 European Commission (2016), Study on the diversity within the teaching profession. 
115 European Commission/EACEA/Eurydice (2013), Key Data on Teachers and School Leaders in Europe. 
116 European Commission (2016), Study on the diversity within the teaching profession. 

33 

 
 
 
 
                                                            
Policies  to  promote  a  more  diverse  teaching  force  are  more  effective  if  they  also  aim  to 
remove  obstacles  to  under-represented  groups,  including  people  with  an  immigrant 
background,  wanting  to  enter  teacher  education  and  the  profession  (and  stay).  Such  policy 
measures are mostly found in a few European countries with very diverse learner populations, 
including Austria, Germany and the United Kingdom. 

There is also a striking gender imbalance in teaching, and it is set to further increase. In lower 
secondary education, teaching is a job largely exercised by women: at EU level, less than a 
third  of  the  teaching  force  (32.2 %)  are  men,  while  in  some  countries  (Bulgaria,  Estonia, 
Latvia, Lithuania) as few as 1 in 5 teachers are men. The gender imbalance is greatest among 
the youngest teachers (only 28.8 % male teachers in the under 30 age group), which suggests 
a  trend  towards  an  overall  more  pronounced  gender  imbalance  in  future 117 .  In  primary 
education, the gender imbalance is even greater, with almost 85 % female teachers across the 
EU (96 % or more in Italy, Slovenia, Hungary and Lithuania)118.  

Where relevant for Member States, strengthening systems for the selection and recruitment of 
new teachers is an opportunity to also address the intake of candidates from under-represented 
groups. In times of shortage and relatively low interest, it appears opportune for countries to 
combine more thorough assessment and stricter entry requirements with simultaneous efforts 
to increase the pool of potential candidates. 

Teacher salaries 

Remuneration is a key element in making teaching an attractive profession. Teachers refer to 
the  aspect  of  pay  along  with  other  factors  such  as  working  conditions,  career  prospects, 
professional development opportunities and recognition119. 

In some Member States, teaching loses out to other professions in trying to recruit the best. 
Across the EU, teachers earn significantly less than the average for tertiary-educated workers: 
salaries  range  from  74 %  in  pre-primary  education  to  92 %  at  upper  secondary  level.  There 
are  marked  differences  between  countries:  at  primary  school  level,  for  instance,  teachers  in 
the  Czech  Republic  earn  56 %  of  the  average  for  tertiary-educated  workers,  whereas  in 
Luxembourg they earn 108 %120.   

Over the last 7 years, minimum statutory salaries have increased or stayed around the same in 
real  terms  in  most  European  countries.  The  increase  was  more  than  15 %  in  the  German-
speaking Community of Belgium, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Lithuania, Hungary 
(secondary  education),  Slovakia  and  Sweden  (upper  secondary  education).  But  in  six  EU 
Member  States,  teachers’  minimum  statutory  salaries  are  still  below  2009  levels  (Malta, 
Slovenia, Finland, the United Kingdom, Ireland and Greece)121. 

117 European Commission/EACEA/Eurydice (2015), The Teaching Profession in Europe. Practices, Perceptions, 
and Policies. 
118 Eurostat Press Release 189/2016, 4 October 2016. 
119 European Commission (2013), Study on policy measures to improve the attractiveness of the teaching 
profession in Europe. 
120 OECD (2016), Education at a Glance 2016: OECD indicators. Data for 22 EU Member States, referring to 
actual salaries of all teachers, relative to earnings for full-time full-year workers with tertiary education (ISCED 
5 to 8). 
121 European Commission/EACEA/Eurydice (2016), Teachers’ and School Heads’ Salaries and Allowances in 
Europe 2015/16. 

34 

 
 
 
 
                                                            
3.2. Teaching: a profession of career-long learners working together 

Teaching  requires  a  high  level  of  expertise  and  continuous  development.  Effective  teachers 
have a broad range of teaching methods to draw from and the ability to constantly adapt their 
teaching  to  different  situations  and  learners.  Even  the  most  experienced  teachers  need  to 
reflect on and update their methods and keep developing their competences122. An increasing 
number  of  countries  acknowledge  these  complex  professional  requirements  by  requiring  a 
teaching  qualification  at  Master's  level.  Many  countries  use  competence  frameworks  or 
standards  to  determine  the  competences  that  teachers  require  at  different  steps  or  levels  of 
their career123.   

Making Initial Teacher Education (ITE) fit for purpose 

ITE is crucial for ensuring quality in the teaching force. It is also vital for bringing about a 
shift  towards  new  ways  of  organising  teaching  and  learning  and  the  working  cultures  that 
underpin them. This first phase of teacher education is when the foundations are laid to enable 
teachers to adapt to changing contexts and circumstances. 

Making ITE fit for the purpose of preparing future teachers to deal with the changing realities 
of school should therefore be a key issue for policy-makers. It is a joint task for governments, 
ITE providers (typically universities and colleges of teacher education with a high degree of 
autonomy) and other key stakeholders such as schools, local authorities and teachers’ unions. 
In response to this, some countries have been developing collaborative modes of governance 
to strengthen ITE124. 

Teachers feel best prepared if their initial education combines pedagogical theory with subject 
knowledge and classroom practice125. Beyond these basic elements, teacher educators should 
also  encourage  and  challenge  future  teachers to  develop  the  competences  and  attitudes  they 
need for collaborative school practice and career-long professional development. In the same 
vein,  ITE  programmes  need  to  change  so  that  teachers  are  better  prepared  for  diverse, 
multicultural and multilingual classrooms and for using new technologies with confidence to 
enhance learning.   

Preparing teachers for diversity in the classroom 
A  2017  study  on  the  role  of  ITE  in  preparing  teachers  for  diversity126 found  that  in  many 
countries, policies are based on a perception of diversity as a deficit or burden to be dealt with 
(not  as  an  asset  or  opportunity  to  enrich  learning  for  all).  The  study  also  found  that  ITE 
systems that are based on competences are more likely to effectively prepare student teachers 
for  diversity,  provided  competences  for  diversity  are  well  defined.  The  authors  recommend 
that  comprehensive  ITE  curricula  should  be  combined  with  targeted  approaches  to  better 
prepare student teachers for diversity. While teacher educators are key, they were found to be 
rarely prepared to teach ITE curricula for diversity. The development of a supportive culture 

122 Council Conclusions of 20 May 2014 on effective teacher education, 2014/C 183/05. 
123 ibid. 
124  Policy  suggestions  and  country  examples  can  be  found  in  Chapter  5  ‘Governance  of  Initial  Teacher 
Education’ of the report ‘Shaping Career-long Perspectives on Teaching. A Guide on Policies to Improve Initial 
Teacher Education.’. 
125 ibid. (TALIS 2013). 
126 European Commission (2017), Preparing Teachers for Diversity: the Role of Initial Teacher Education. 

35 

 
 
 
 
                                                            
is  therefore  recommended  at  all  levels  for  policies  on  ITE  for  diversity  to  be  successfully 
implemented. 

Helping teachers embrace digital technologies to enhance learning 

Using  new  technologies  both  for  teaching  and  other  school-related  tasks  ranks  among  the 
areas  where  teachers  express  most  need  for  professional  development 127.  Integrating  new 
technologies and related educational materials into ITE can make a difference to their uptake 
in  school  practice.  The  use  of  technology  should  be  embedded  in  teacher  education 
programmes  (and  not  be  part  of  a  one-off  course  or  module).  The  proposed  measure  for  a 
European digital competence framework for educators could provide useful support here128. 

Example of an Erasmus+ project: 

TACCLE  (‘Teacher  Aids  on  Creating  Content  for  Learning  Environments’)  is  series  of 
projects aimed at developing the competences of teachers with basic computer skills to help 
them  use  innovative  ICT-based  content  and  methods  in  teaching.  The  projects  have  so  far 
resulted  in  a  survey  of  teachers’  needs,  a  manual  on  how  to  create  content  for  e-learning 
environments, and five step-by-step guides on integrating ICT and e-learning in the classroom 
for  different  education  levels  and  in  different  subject  areas.  For  more  information: 
www.taccle3.eu. 

Offering early career support through systematic induction 
Research suggests that effective ITE includes a high degree of school practice129. But even the 
best  programmes  cannot  fully  prepare  teachers  for  all  aspects  of  entering  the  profession.  A 
structured  support  phase  for  newly  qualified  teachers,  referred  to  as  early  career  support  or 
induction,  is  considered  crucial  by  teachers 130 .  It  is  meant  to  help  beginning  teachers 
overcome possible ‘praxis shock’, find their way and develop resilience in a critical phase of 
their  careers.  It  aims  to  reduce  the  costly  drop-out  rate  in  the  teaching  profession,  improve 
teacher quality and support learning cultures and professionalism in schools.  

In  almost  two  thirds  of  Member  States,  there  are  regulations  that  provide  for  structured 
induction phases for newly qualified teachers. However, their organisation and duration varies 
greatly between countries. Figures on real participation in induction (Figure 3.1) suggest that 
even in countries with system-wide schemes, induction is far from universally available. 

In many countries, induction is compulsory. But even where there are no central regulations 
on  compulsory  induction,  there  may  be  a large  number  of  local  authorities  and  schools  that 
organise the induction of newly qualified teachers. 

127 OECD  (2014),  TALIS  2013  Results.  An  International  Perspective  on  Teaching  and  Learning,  Paris,  OECD 
Publishing. 
128 https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/en/digcompedu. 
129 European Commission (2014), Initial teacher education in Europe: an overview of policy issues, Author: F. 
Caena. 
130  European  Commission  (2013),  Study  on  policy  measures  to  improve  the  attractiveness  of  the  teaching 
profession in Europe. 

36 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
Figure 3.2. Proportion of teachers with no more  than five years of experience in lower 
secondary  education  (ISCED2)  who  took  part  in  formal  induction  programmes  as 
newcomers to teaching, 2013 

Source:  European  Commission/EACEA/Eurydice  (2015),  The  Teaching  Profession  in  Europe:  Practices, 
Perceptions, and Policies. Based on TALIS 2013. 

Induction  typically  lasts  at  least  several  months.  It  may  or  may  not  be  linked  to  probation 
periods or the assessment of teacher competences. In some countries, induction is limited to 
mentoring131.  

Policy handbook on induction programmes for beginning teachers 

Policy guidance developed at EU level has suggested that any induction system should meet 
beginning teachers’ needs for three basic kinds of support: personal, social and professional. 
In  the  policy  handbook  entitled  ‘Developing  coherent  and  system-wide  induction 
programmes for beginning teachers: a handbook for policymakers’, a structure is proposed 
based  on  four  interlocking  sub-systems:  mentoring,  expert  inputs,  peer  support  and  self-
reflection132. 

To ensure the success of induction programmes, a number of conditions need to be met. These 
relate to: financial support, clear roles and responsibilities, cooperation, a culture focused on 
learning, and quality management. 

Induction is a key phase in the career-long continuum of teacher education. Involving teacher 
educators with ITE backgrounds in its design and delivery can help create feedback loops to 
improve the quality and relevance of ITE programmes. 

Investing in Continuing Professional Development (CPD)  

CPD requires sustained and targeted investment. The key challenge with CPD is to ensure it 
has a lasting impact on student learning, and that this impact extends beyond the individual 
teacher so that it benefits learners throughout the entire school. 

131 European Commission/EACEA/Eurydice (2015), The Teaching Profession in Europe. Practices, Perceptions, 
and Policies. 
132 European Commission (2010), Developing coherent and system-wide induction programmes for beginning 
teachers: a handbook for policymakers, SWD (2010) 538 final 
http://ec.europa.eu/education/policy/school/doc/handbook0410_en.pdf 

37 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
Involving schools and teachers in agreeing on priority topics can help improve the relevance 
of CPD on offer133. Collaborative formats based on learning among peers have great potential 
to  complement  traditional  courses  or  workshops  away  from  school,  which  are  often  costly. 
School-based formats can also help increase the impact of CPD among staff and support the 
school as a learning organisation134.  

Digital  technologies  and  open  education  have  transformed  opportunities  for  collaborative 
learning,  networking  and  the  use  of  teaching  resources.  For  example,  teachers  are  an 
important target group for massive open online courses (MOOCs)135. Even MOOCs that are 
not  explicitly  designed  for  teachers  attract  a  high  share  of  people  who  work  in  education 
(between 10 % and 25 %). This may have an indirect impact on the level of competence and 
content knowledge of the teaching force. 

Creating a continuum of teacher education 

Investing in the quality of teachers requires efforts to link all the phases of teacher education – 
from  ITE  and  induction  through  to  career-long  CPD.  In  such  a  continuum  of  teacher 
education,  teacher  educators  in  different  settings  including  schools  and  universities  work 
together  with  school  authorities,  school  leaders,  teachers’  unions  and  other  stakeholders  to 
make  professional  development  relevant,  effective  and  coherent.  This  helps,  for  example, 
redesign professional development based on both research and feedback from school practice. 
It also helps reduce the risk of drop-outs at key moments such as the transition from higher 
education to employment in the teaching profession. 

Policies  for  quality  in  the  teaching  profession  should  connect  and  integrate  five  interrelated 
aspects, which address: 

 

teachers’ learning needs; 

  support systems; 

  career paths; 

 

 

the organisation of competence levels;  

the impact of school culture.  

The  key  challenge  for  policy-makers  is  to  ensure  an  effective  ‘continuum  of  the  teaching 
profession’,  with  continuity  and  coherence  for  each  of  these  aspects,  and  interconnections 
between them.  

Shaping career-long perspectives on teaching 

The  following  suggestions  for  policies  to  enhance  the  quality  and  effectiveness  of  teacher 
education draw on lessons from peer learning and case studies from 30 European countries136.  

133 European Commission/EACEA/Eurydice (2015), The Teaching Profession in Europe. Practices, Perceptions, 
and Policies. 
134 For  a  broad  discussion  of  the  concept  of  schools  as  learning  organisations  see  OECD  (2016),  Schools  as 
learning organisations, Paris, OECD Publishing. 
135 European Commission, JRC-IPTS (2016), MOOCs in Europe: Evidence from pilot surveys with universities 
and MOOC learners. 
136 European  Commission  (2015),  Shaping  Career-long  Perspectives  on  Teaching.  A  Guide  on  Policies  to 
Improve Initial Teacher Education. 

38 

 
 
 
 
                                                            
  Strengthen the continuum of teacher education: policies can stimulate and encourage 
professional  growth  when  they  strengthen  the  interconnection  between  the  different 
phases of teachers’ professional development: ITE, induction and CPD. 

  Achieve  continuity  through  institutional  partnerships:  this  can  be  achieved  through 
links  and  partnerships  between  pre-service  and  in-service  teacher  educators,  and 
between teacher education institutions and schools.   

  Define  coherent  competence  levels  for  shared  understanding  and  ownership:  a 
coherent  competence  framework  that  identifies  different  competence  levels  can  be 
instrumental in supporting a teacher’s development throughout their career.  

  Create a balanced offer of CPD with strong impact: to improve the offer and impact 
of professional development, activities should be both teacher-initiated and inspired by 
expectations  and  requirements  at  different 
local  and  central 
government).  Additional  policies  could  channel  resources  into  supporting  particular 
areas of current need or low achievement in school education.    

levels  (school, 

  Encourage teacher responsibility: self-directed learning for their own needs: to ensure 
high-quality  practice  is  maintained,  teachers  need  the  ability  and  sense  of  agency  to 
assess  their  own  learning  needs  and  self-direct  their  learning.  ITE  curricula  could 
include  explicit  objectives  for  teachers  to  identify  and  assess  their  own  needs  for 
professional development. 

  Recognise a wide range of professional development opportunities:  recognise formal 
as  well  as  informal  and  non-formal  learning  as  valid  and  powerful  means  of 
professional  development.  This  includes  promoting  group  learning,  experimental 
activities and the exchange of experience among teachers.    

 

Improve  teaching  practice  through  links  with  research:  to  achieve  a  creative  and 
reflective teaching workforce, policies and actions should encourage student teachers 
and teachers to use and engage in new research in their learning and teaching practice. 

  Link  teacher  development  with  school  improvement:  professional  development 
activities  and  human  resource  policies,  where  they  are  organised  at  school  level, 
should be connected to the school’s wider agenda to strengthen the impact of all three. 
In  their  dialogue  with  teachers,  HR  professionals  and  school  leaders  could  consider 
how to link school improvement goals to CPD and teacher appraisal. 

  Recognise  flexible  career  paths  and  multiple  roles:  to  support  teacher  development 
and flexibility in teachers’ careers, policy-makers should find ways of recognising the 
range  of  entry  points  and  roles  and  create  inclusive  policies  that  value  and  certify 
different skills and experiences. 

Collaboration in teaching 

Teamwork  is  seen  as  a  powerful  way  of  improving  teaching  and  learning.  While  teaching 
used to happen mostly behind closed classroom doors, school practice is changing. Teachers 
are  increasingly  required  to  be  able  (and  willing)  to  work  in  teams  to  enhance  student 
learning137. This also extends to collaboration in multi-professional teams, which includes, for 

137 For a discussion of literature on teachers' collaborative learning and professional learning communities, see 
European  Commission  (2011),  Literature  review:  Quality  in  teachers’  continuing  professional  development. 
Author: F. Caena. 

39 

 
 
 
                                                            
instance,  psychologists,  speech  therapists  and  guidance  counsellors.  External  partners  may 
include  other  schools  and  educational  institutions,  social  services,  local  organisations  and 
businesses or the police.  

International surveys also reveal positive links between a collaborative culture at school and a 
teacher’s  satisfaction  with  their  school.  However,  at  the  same  time  levels  of  actual  teacher 
collaboration around Europe remain relatively low. Data  for primary schools in  17 Member 
States shows that collaboration in planning and preparing instructional materials is relatively 
rare.  It  is  particularly  low  in  7  EU  countries  (Czech  Republic,  Ireland,  Malta,  Hungary, 
Austria, Portugal, Finland), where less than 40 % of students are in classrooms where teachers 
collaborate with colleagues for this purpose on a weekly basis138. 

eTwinning: community for schools in Europe, and the world’s largest teacher network 

More than 460 000 teachers (and 4 in 10 schools in Europe) have participated in eTwinning 
since its launch in  2005. eTwinning offers a safe online environment for joint  projects  with 
pupils  in  different  countries,  and  a  community  for  teachers  to  network  and  exchange 
resources. It is also about teachers learning together. It is a good example of using a digital 
platform  for  peer-to-peer  collaborative  professional  development.  This  includes  a  range  of 
formats,  from  short  online  learning  events  to  long  online  courses  and  face-to-face  training 
events. eTwinning is part of the EU’s Erasmus+ programme. 

Collaborative  arrangements  are  also  found  to  hold  benefits  for  teachers’  own  learning. 
Classroom observation among colleagues and professional learning communities are gaining 
ground as powerful forms of peer collaboration, but are not the norm across Europe yet. For 
example, less than 40 % of pupils have teachers who practice peer observations on a monthly 
basis.  In  6  EU  countries  (Malta,  Austria,  Italy,  Germany,  Ireland  and  the  Czech  Republic), 
this is the case for less than 20 % of pupils139. 

Collaborative  arrangements  are  also  found  to  hold  benefits  for  teachers’  own  learning. 
Classroom observation among colleagues and professional learning communities are gaining 
ground as powerful forms of peer collaboration, but are not the norm across Europe yet. For 
example, less than 40 % of pupils have teachers who practice peer observations on a monthly 
basis.  In  6  EU  countries  (Malta,  Austria,  Italy,  Germany,  Ireland  and  the  Czech  Republic), 
this is the case for less than 20 % of pupils140. 

Supporting teachers’ collaborative learning 

The  following  suggestions  for  policy  actions  on  how  to  create  collaborative  learning 
environments  for  teachers  draw  on  lessons  from  peer  learning  and  case  studies  from  30 
European countries141. 

138 European Commission (2016), Education and Training Monitor 2016 (citing data from the OECD’s TALIS 
2013), pp. 62-63. 
139 ibid. 
140 ibid. 
141 The  following  sections  are  based  on  the  findings  and  suggested  policy  actions  by  the  ET  2020  Working 
Group on Schools Policy (2014-15) on its priority theme ‘Initial Teacher Education’. The results were presented 
in November 2015 in a report ‘Shaping Career-long Perspectives on Teaching. A Guide on Policies to Improve 
Initial Teacher Education.’. 

40 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
Develop  collaborative  attitudes  in  future  teachers:  ITE  should  encourage  and  develop 
positive  attitudes  towards  professional  dialogue,  sharing,  collaborative  critical  thinking  and 
peer learning. 

Encourage and support collaboration between teacher education institutions: when designing 
a  new  organisational  or  institutional  structure,  priorities  should  be  given  to  solutions 
favouring collaboration both within the individual institution and between institutions. 

Share  good  practice  to  advance  collaborative  approaches  in  ITE:  This  should  be  a  mutual 
sharing  between  policy-makers  and  education  professionals  of  the  benefits  of  and  good 
practice in collaborative learning. Digital tools may play a role in this. 

Ensure  autonomy  and  support  for  local  collaboration:  the  best  collaborative  learning 
environments are those that are tailored to the local context and are accepted and monitored 
by local partners. School leaders should have the freedom and support to establish and sustain 
close cooperation with social partners, local community organisations and other schools. 

Support action research as a mode of collaboration: action research should be promoted as an 
effective  means  to  identify  and  develop  valid  solutions  to  specific  challenges  in  classroom 
practice. 

Provide  sufficient  and  cost-effective  investment:  initiating  and  sustaining  collaborative  work 
in  teacher  education  typically  requires  investment.  Stakeholders  should  therefore  allocate 
sufficient  time  and  resources  and  avoid  financial  arrangements  that  are  linked  to  individual 
achievements only. 

Support  networking  among  teachers:  networking  can  be  an  effective  basis  for  high-quality 
teaching practice, but needs to be based on equality. Examples include networks of innovative 
schools and ITE providers, and online platforms that offer e-learning courses and the sharing 
of resources. 

Promote  a  culture  of  collaborative  learning  among  staff:  mutual  trust  is  a  pre-condition 
required for a collaborative work culture in  schools. Policy-makers, educational leaders and 
all relevant stakeholders need to work together to promote collaborative forms of teaching and 
learning for this. 

Prepare  all  teachers  for  distributed  leadership:  effective  collaborative  learning  can  be 
facilitated  by  collaborative  —  or  distributed  —  leadership  models  at  school  involving 
teachers.  Teacher  education  should  systematically  address  leadership  in  some  way,  for 
instance through school-based or external leadership programmes. 

3.3. Supporting school leadership 

In many systems, increased school autonomy has led to more responsibility for school leaders. 
This  allows  leaders  in  principle  to  re-model  learning  and  stimulate  school  development  in 
ways  that  improve  the  learning  of  all  pupils  (and  staff).  However,  it  requires  the  education 
system  to  support  school  leadership  in  assuming  these  responsibilities  through  either 
resources or curricula, and to accompany increased autonomy with greater accountability142.  

142 Secondary  Education  Council  of  the  Netherlands  (VO-raad)/European  Federation  of  Education  Employers 
(EFEE)/European  Trade  Union  Committee  for  Education  (ETUCE)  (2015),  Professional  Autonomy, 
Accountability  and  Efficient  Leadership  –  and  the  role  of  employers’  organisations,  trade  unions  and  school 
leaders.  

41 

 
 
 
                                                            
The leadership roles that aim to improve learning and school development are often referred 
to as ‘instructional leadership’ (as opposed to e.g. administrative leadership, which is linked 
to managerial or administrative issues of the school). In most of the countries covered in the 
OECD’s  Teaching  and  Learning  International  Survey  (TALIS),  the  vast  majority  of  school 
leaders  act  as  instructional  leaders.  However,  around  one  third  is  still  rarely  involved  in 
measures such as: 

  supporting cooperation among teachers to develop new teaching practices; 

  ensuring that teachers take responsibility for the learning outcomes of their pupils and 

for improving their own teaching competences)143. 

As outlined in Chapter 2.2, sharing responsibilities among a larger group of staff (‘distributed 
leadership’)  can  create  broader  ownership  of  school  issues  and  allow  the  nominal  school 
leader to focus on improving the quality and equity of learning. It is also positively associated 
with a healthy school climate and the professional learning of staff144.  

While  school  leadership  is  shared  to  some  extent  in  almost  all  EU  countries,  it  is  extended 
most  often  to  formal  leadership  teams  only.  Only  a  few  countries  systematically  promote 
more  innovative  approaches  to  distributed  leadership,  for  instance  by  combining  formal 
approaches with ad hoc approaches, or informal groups and roles145. 

In  practice,  leading  a  school  is  often  a  demanding  mix  of  tasks  linked  to  both 
management/administration  and  instruction.  In  many  countries,  schools  struggle  to  fill 
leadership vacancies with high-calibre candidates. This is often linked to unattractive working 
conditions, a perceived lack of recognition or autonomy, limited opportunities for professional 
development or the lack of induction146. Considering the impact of leadership on learning and 
school  development,  the  recruitment,  preparation  and  professional  development  of  school 
leaders are of central concern for policy-makers147.  

Most countries offer specific programmes for the preparation of school leaders, but length and 
content  vary  greatly  between  countries.  For  example,  only  a  few  countries  have  dedicated 
leadership academies148. The importance of professional development opportunities for school 
leaders  is  underlined  by  evidence  from  the  TALIS  survey:  school  leaders  who  took  part  in 
preparation  programmes  or  CPD  on  instructional  leadership,  i.e.  measures  to  improve 
teaching and learning, were also more likely to put these into practice149. 

A toolkit on school leadership for equity and learning 

The  European  Policy  Network  on  School  Leadership  is  a  collaborative  network  bringing 
together policy-makers, researchers, practitioners and stakeholders to promote and advise on 
policies of school leadership for equity and learning. The network has developed a toolkit to 
support  the  work  of  policy-makers,  leadership  academies,  school  authorities,  schools  and 
others. It is available online at http://toolkit.schoolleadership.eu/. 

143 OECD (2016), School Leadership for Learning. Insights from TALIS 2013, Paris, OECD Publishing; see also 
Cedefop (2011) Exploring leadership in vocational education and training. 
144 ibid. 
145 European Commission/EACEA/Eurydice (2013), Key Data on Teachers and School Leaders. 
146 European Commission (2012), Supporting the Teaching Professions for Better Learning Outcomes, 
SWD(2012) 374 final; OECD (2008), Improving School Leadership, Volume 1: Policy and Practice. 
147 Council conclusions on effective leadership in education, 1 February 2014, 2014/C 30/02. 
148 ibid. 
149 OECD (2016), School Leadership for Learning. Insights from TALIS 2013, p. 86. 

42 

 
 
 
                                                            
School leaders operate at the interface between educational policies and their implementation 
in schools. As a result, they have a demanding role that requires, among other competences, 
vision, a capacity for strategic thinking and efficient resource management, and the ability to 
improve learning environments and learning cultures.  

Peer  learning  among  Member  States  suggests  that  these  expectations  require  the  following 
personal attributes: courage, optimism and resilience, tolerance, emotional intelligence, self-
awareness, energy, ambition and commitment, and an appetite for learning150. 

150 Education  and  Training  2020,  Thematic  Working  Group  ‘Teacher  Professional  Development’,  Report  of  a 
Peer Learning Activity, Limassol, Cyprus, 17-21 October 2010. 

43 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
4. Governance of school education systems: becoming more effective, equitable and 
efficient 

Over recent decades school education systems across Europe have been changing profoundly. 
There  has  been  a  major  trend  towards  decentralisation  and  increased  school  autonomy.  The 
changing policy context has put increasing emphasis on efficiency and on holding schools and 
teachers  more  accountable  for  education  outcomes  than  in  the  past151.  It  is  a  challenge  for 
countries to adapt their policies and maintain the effectiveness and equity of schooling in light 
of these changes.  

Today the use of resources and quality assurance mechanisms are among the key pillars for 
governing  school  education  systems.  An  analysis  of  the  main  trends  in  school  governance 
shows that while there is a willingness to motivate and support innovation, there are several 
obstacles. In particular, there is a big time lag ranging from 8 to 14 years between the rapid 
development of new reforms in education systems and the appearance of their effects 152.  

Effectiveness, equity and efficiency: an ‘impossible trinity’? 

The  concepts  of  effectiveness,  equity  and  efficiency  in  education  are  rather  broad.  In  this 
document, ‘educational effectiveness’ refers to the ability to provide high-quality educational 
outcomes,  by  making  the  most  of  the  available  human  and  physical  resources.  Studies  of 
educational effectiveness usually analyse whether specific resources have positive effects on 
different  outcomes,  and  if  so,  how  large  these  effects  are153.  ‘Efficiency’  adds  a  financial 
dimension  to  the  analysis  of  effectiveness  and  refers  to  the  ability  to  provide  the  desired 
educational  outcomes  at  the  lowest  possible  cost.  ‘Equity’  means  that  the  variation  in 
educational  outcomes 
(e.g. 
socio-economically advantaged and disadvantaged students, natives and immigrants). 

small  among  different 

social  groups 

relatively 

is 

The immediate policy question is to what extent a school education system can be effective, 
equitable and efficient at the same time. Figure 4.1 illustrates four stylised policy models that 
may  result  when  a  system  successfully  reaches  at  least  two  of  these  three  objectives.  Each 
model is identified with a different letter in the figure. A system can be: 

A: effective and equitable but not efficient: it provides high-quality outcomes for all students, 
but at an excessive financial cost. 

B:  equitable  and  efficient  but  not  effective:  the  outcomes  are  similar  for  all  students  at  the 
lowest possible financial cost, but they are not of a high quality. 

C: effective and efficient, but not equitable: it provides high-quality outcomes on average at 
the lowest possible cost, but not for all students. 

D: effective, equitable and efficient: it provides high-quality outcomes for all students at the 
lowest possible cost. 

Getting  an  education  system  as  close  as  possible  to  policy  model  D  would  be  the  most 
desirable  option.  In  practice,  most  countries  already  struggle  to  pursue  two  out  of  the  three 
possible goals. Policy-makers often perceive trade-offs between those objectives and the need 
to make a choice depending on the importance they attribute to each objective. Then ensuring 

151 European  Commission  (2015),  Comparative  study  on  quality  assurance  in  EU  school  education  systems: 
Policies, procedures and practices. Final report, Directorate-General for Education and Culture. 
152 OECD (2016), Governing Education in a Complex World, Paris, OECD Publishing. 
153 Lockheed,  M.E.  and  E.  Hanushek  (1994),  Concepts  of  Educational  Efficiency  and  Effectiveness,  Human 
Resources Development and Operations Policy Working Paper, No 24. 

44 

 
 
 
                                                            
effectiveness,  equity  and  efficiency  at  the  same  time  may  look  like  an  ‘impossible  trinity’. 
However,  research  shows  that  the  relation  between  effectiveness,  equity  and  efficiency 
depends  on  the  set  of  educational  policies  that  are  pursued.  Consequently,  these  three 
objectives can complement each other154. 

Figure 4.1. Effectiveness, equity and efficiency 

A 

Equity 

Effectiveness 

D 

B 

C 

Efficiency 

A  possible  way  to  make  this  impossible  trinity  become  a  reality  is  as  follows.  The  OECD 
PISA surveys have consistently found that education systems can combine effective outcomes 
and  high  levels  of  equity155.  Efficiency  would  then  complete  the  picture  by  answering  the 
following policy question: can the system provide at least the same levels of effectiveness and 
equity at a lower cost? If the answer is yes, then there is room for increasing efficiency. If the 
answer is no, then cost-saving policies would worsen educational outcomes. In other words, 
increasing  efficiency  can  be  seen  as  a  desirable  policy  goal  only  if  it  does  not  reduce  the 
effectiveness and/or equity of an education system.  

Providing  guidance  on how  school education  systems  can  become  more  effective, equitable 
and efficient is one of the main objectives of the ongoing  Review of policies to improve the 
effectiveness  of  resource  use  in  schools156 carried  out  by  the  OECD  in  cooperation  with  the 
European Commission. It consists of country reports, with 12 EU Member States involved so 
far,  as  well  as  three  thematic  reports,  namely  on  (i)  funding  of  school  education  (to  be 
published  in  2017);  (ii)  school  offer  and  organisation  of  the  school  network;  and  (iii) 
management  of  human  resources  in  the  school  system  (both  (ii)  and  (iii)  to  be  published in 
2018). 

4.1. School resources: investing adequately and efficiently 

Education serves many different purposes and helps achieve a broad range of personal, social 
and economic objectives:  

154 Woessmann, L. (2008), Efficiency and equity of European education and training policies, International Tax 
and Public Finance, Vol. 15(2), 199-230. 
155 OECD (2016), PISA 2015 Results (Volume I): Excellence and Equity in Education, Paris, OECD Publishing. 
156 http://www.oecd.org/education/schoolresourcesreview.htm 

45 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
 

 

 

 

 

to prepare for active citizenship; 

to underpin active social inclusion; 

to prevent unemployment; 

to fuel innovation;  

to counter the impact of demographic ageing. 

While education is above all an engine for personal improvement, its benefits go well beyond 
the individual157.  

While there is considerable variation within and between Member States’ national education 
systems and outcomes, all of them face similar challenges. Particularly in times of tight public 
budgets,  all  countries  are  seeking  new  ideas  and  better  solutions  to  improve  education 
outcomes  for  more  people.  EU-level  cooperation  can  support  the  reform  efforts  of  Member 
States and educational institutions, by offering a platform for evidence-based analysis, policy 
discussion and mutual learning, to help identify the key ingredients of successful policies. 

The economic benefits of effective and equitable education systems 

Education contributes to economic development in three main ways: 

 

 

 

It improves productivity by equipping people with competences158 that enable them to 
accomplish  tasks  more  effectively  and  work  with  more  sophisticated  technology. 
Higher  productivity  in  turn  improves  competitiveness  in  the  global  economy,  where 
low-wage  regions  fight  for  market  shares  and  Europe  can  only  compete  through 
productivity growth.  

It improves employability.  

It  strengthens  innovation  capacity  by  providing  the  knowledge  and  competences  to 
generate and adopt new ideas that spur technological progress. 

The economic returns to individual investments in education have been extensively analysed. 
Investing  financial  resources  and  time  (including  foregone  earnings)  in  education yields  net 
financial benefits in the form of higher lifetime earnings which amount to more than the initial 
investment cost. 

Recent estimates based on the 2012 OECD programme for international assessment of adult 
competencies  (PIAAC)  survey  confirm  that  higher  cognitive  skills  lead  to  higher  wages: 
across the 17 EU countries involved, improving individual numerical competence by one of 
the  six  PIAAC  proficiency  levels  leads  to  a  17 %  higher  average  wage  (with  the  benefit 
ranging from 24 % in Ireland to 14 % in Cyprus)159.  

Timing  is  a  key  factor  determining  the  impact  of  education  investment,  since  learning  is  a 
cumulative  process,  and  early  childhood  is  a  window  of  opportunity  for  quick  and  efficient 
learning.  Although  it  is  difficult  to  quantify  the  returns  to  investment  in  early  childhood 

157 For  a  broader  discussion  on  the  socio-economic  outcomes  of  education,  see  European  Commission  (2012), 
Rethinking Education: Investing in skills for better socio-economic outcomes, COM(2012) 669 final. 
158 Competences or skills are used here interchangeably to indicate the combination of knowledge, cognitive and 
non-cognitive abilities and other personal characteristics that make it possible to perform professional tasks. For 
simplicity, it is assumed that education jointly improves all those elements, resulting in better skills. 
159 Hanushek, E.A., G. Schwerdt, S. Wiederhold and L. Woessmann (2013), Returns to Skills around the World: 
Evidence from PIAAC, NBER Working Paper, No 19762. 

46 

 
 
 
                                                            
education,  evidence  shows  that  investing  in  it  improves  academic  attainment,  job 
opportunities  and  earnings,  especially  for  children  with  disadvantaged  backgrounds 160 . 
Investing in education at a very early stage tends to be both more effective and more efficient 
in achieving results161. 

When  comparing  the  costs  and  benefits  of  investing  in  a  person’s  education,  one  must  not 
forget  that  while  individual  costs  and  benefits  are  relatively  easy  to  identify,  investment  in 
education  also  brings  about  additional  collective  benefits.  These  are  far  from  negligible  but 
are  more  difficult  to  measure:  for  example,  higher  individual  earnings  result  in  higher  tax 
revenues  for  the  public  budget,  but  the  precise  amount  depends  on  the  person’s  specific 
situation and the country’s tax code. Yet there is clear evidence suggesting that investment in 
education represents a substantial net benefit in all countries and time periods. 

An  analysis  of  24  OECD  countries  over  a  40-year  period  (1960-2000)  shows  that  countries 
displaying higher average scores in the PISA survey also recorded a higher annual rate of real 
growth  of GDP per capita.  More specifically, moving  upwards from one country to another 
along  the  PISA  scale,  for  every  25-point  improvement  in  education  scores  per  capita, 
economic growth is higher by nearly half a percentage point of GDP. The scope for  — and 
the potential benefits of — bringing down the share of low achievers are considerable in many 
Member States (see Chapter 2).  

Improving efficiency in school education 

EU  Member  States  allocate  a  significant  amount  of  resources  to  school  education.  Making 
good use of these resources is key for the efficiency of a country’s whole public expenditure. 
In the EU as a whole, expenditure on pre-primary to secondary levels amounts to more than 
3 % of GDP and even reaches 5 % in Denmark and Sweden. However, some Member States’ 
spending levels are well below the EU average (Figure 4.2). This suggests they have not been 
investing sufficiently to achieve good long-term results. 

PISA surveys show that below a minimum level of financing effective educational outcomes 
cannot  be  achieved.  However,  at  a  comparable  level  of  spending,  some  countries  achieve 
better  results  than  others.  According  to  the  OECD,  ‘Among  the  countries  and  economies 
whose cumulative expenditure per student is under USD 50 000 [… ], higher expenditure on 
education is significantly associated with higher PISA science scores. But this is not the case 
among countries and economies whose cumulative expenditure is  greater than USD 50 000, 
which include most OECD countries [… ]. It seems that for this latter group of countries and 
economies,  factors  other  than  the  level  of  investment  in  education  are  better  predictors  of 
student performance’162.  

160 Education can also play a very important role in the integration of first and second-generation migrants, as 
discussed in S. Flisi; E.C. Meroni, M.E. Vera Toscano; Educational outcomes and immigrant background, JRC 
Scientific and Technical Reports, 2016. 
161 Heckman, J.J. (2008), Schools, Skills, and Synapses, IZA Discussion Paper, No 3515. 
162 OECD (2016),  PISA 2015  results (Volume  II):  Policies and Practices  for Successful Schools, Paris, OECD 
Publishing, p. 185. 

47 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
Figure  4.2. Public expenditure  on  pre-primary to  secondary education as  a  %  of  GDP 
(average 2011-15) 

5

4

3

2

1

0

Source: Eurostat, General government finance statistics. Online data code: gov_10a_exp 

Indeed, a comparison of how much countries spend on the education path of pupils aged 15 
with  the  results  achieved  by  those  pupils  in  PISA  shows  striking  differences  among  EU 
Member  States  (Figure  4.3).  With  a  few  exceptions,  most  central  and  eastern  European 
Member States combine low expenditure with medium PISA scores. By contrast, countries at 
the top  of the spending range show good but  not  excellent scores.  Between those extremes, 
some  mid-spending  countries  have  widely  dispersed  results,  with  some  of  them  recording 
excellent  results.  Looking  at  Figure  4.3  from  the  left-hand  to  the  right-hand  side,  it  appears 
that  for  any  given  level  of  spending,  some  Member  States  can  get  much  better  results  than 
others163. 

Improving  efficiency  is  highly  relevant  in  Europe’s  current  economic  situation.  This  is  also 
relevant for the strategic framework on European cooperation in education and training (ET 
2020) and its tools for mutual learning, which can be used to address the question of efficient 
investment. 

163 Expenditure  is  converted  in  euro  at  2010  prices.  To  account  for  expenditure  effectively  benefiting  a  pupil 
aged  15  at  the  time  of  PISA  2012,  the  annual  expenditure  per  pupil  along  his/her  school  career  has  been 
cumulated according to the modal educational level per age per country. 

48 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
Figure 4.3. Expenditure in educational institutions per pupil and PISA (2015) results 

140.000

130.000

120.000

110.000

100.000

90.000

80.000

70.000

60.000

50.000

40.000

30.000

20.000

4
1
0
2
-
3
0
0
2

l
i
p
u
p
r
e
p

e
r
u
t
i
d
n
e
p
x
e

e
v
i
t
a
l
u
m
u
C

)
0
1
0
2
s
o
r
u
e

t
n
a
t
s
n
o
c
(

DK 

SE 

AT 

NL 
IE 

SI 
DE 

UK 

BE 

IT 

FR 

ES 

PT 

LV 

CZ 

PL 

CY 

EL 

MT 

HU 

SK 

HR 

LT 

10.000

RO 

BG 

0

430

450

510
PISA 2015 mean scores (average reading, maths, science) 

470

490

FI 

EE 

530

Note:  public  and  private  expenditure  per  pupil  at  2010  prices  cumulated  until  age  15  is  compared  with  mean 
PISA scores of 15-year old students. Only countries with complete data series are shown. 

Source: Commission calculation on Eurostat and OECD data. 

Policy lessons 

Evidence shows that investment in education can lead to very different outcomes. Therefore 
the quality of investment in education is just as important as its volume. Three main lessons 
seem particularly relevant for policy development: 

1)  The costs of investing in education are largely offset by the individual and collective 
benefits  generated  by  education,  particularly  but  not  only  in  the  longer-term. 
Education can be one of the most profitable areas for Europe to invest in. 

2)  Investments in  education do not  result automatically in  higher economic growth  and 
other economic benefits. Making the economic case for education means striving for 
higher  efficiency  in  spending  and  for  a  strong  policy  focus  on  the  key  factors  that 
determine effective outcomes, such as good quality teachers or school accountability 
and autonomy. 

3)  Knowledge  about  what  works  best  in  education  —  and  what  is  efficient  —  is  still 
limited. This is partly due to the lack of data, and to the long-time lags that are typical 
of  education.  An  improved  evidence  base  and  mutual  learning  can  support  policy-
making and help design policies that make the provision of education more efficient 
without jeopardising the goals of effectiveness and equity. 

49 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
4.2. Combining autonomy and quality assurance 

Quality  assurance  involves  the  systematic  review  of  educational  provision  to  maintain  and 
improve  its  quality,  equity  and  efficiency.  While  quality  assurance  mechanisms  (tools, 
processes  and  actors)  vary  across  countries,  their  common  objective  is  to  improve  teaching 
and learning — with the ultimate goal being to support the best outcomes for learners. School 
systems and schools are all focused on this objective. 

Quality  assurance  systems  encompass  mechanisms  that  are  both  external  and  internal  to 
schools.  External  mechanisms  may  include  national  or  regional  school  evaluations  and/or 
large-scale  student  assessments.  Internal  mechanisms  may  include  school  self-evaluation, 
staff  appraisal  and  classroom-based  student  assessments.  These  mechanisms  have  different 
but complementary purposes. Ideally, they are part of a coherent, integrated system, with the 
different mechanisms supporting and reinforcing each other. This kind of productive synergy 
can ensure a clear focus on school development.   

Policy context 

School education systems are complex and vary greatly across Europe. The same is true of the 
quality  assurance  mechanisms  that  are  embedded  in  and  steer  these  school  education 
systems164. Many countries include external and internal evaluations, which can complement 
and  reinforce  each  other.  Systems  that  support  the  synergy  of  external  and  internal  quality 
assurance have more built-in resilience to cope with the complex process of change.  

While  each  quality  assurance  system  is  different,  countries  share  several  common  policy 
challenges and opportunities. These include: 

  setting goals and measuring progress for education systems and student learning; 
  designing  quality assurance for education systems that  are increasingly decentralised 

and multi-levelled; 

  supporting  and  encouraging  dialogue  and  a  culture  of  trust  among  education 

stakeholders; 

  ensuring  transparency  of  quality  assurance  data  while  also  avoiding  the  pressure 

resulting from ‘high-stakes’ approaches; 
  prioritising human and financial resources. 

Many  countries  are  engaged  in  continuing  or  recently  implemented  reforms.  Such  reforms 
include:  

  a general introduction of quality assurance processes;  

 

 

 

the introduction of new measures;  

the adoption of national frameworks;  

the formal incorporation of PISA results in quality assurance systems. 

164 European  Commission  (2015),  Comparative  study  on  quality  assurance  in  EU  school  education  systems: 
Policies, procedures and practices. Final report, Directorate-General for Education and Culture. 

50 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
Autonomy, accountability and improvement 

Evidence from various OECD PISA surveys shows that school autonomy leads to better basic 
skill  achievement  when  coupled  with  accountability.  Granting  schools  more  autonomy  over 
the  curriculum  may  give  them  more  opportunities  to  adapt  to  their  students’  needs  and 
knowledge. However, the benefits of school autonomy may depend on how prepared schools 
are  to  use  their  responsibility  effectively  and  how  accountable  they  are  for  their  students’ 
outcomes to parents, local communities and education authorities165. 

Both  accountability  and  improvement  in  teaching  methods  are  important  for  ensuring  the 
quality  of  processes  as  well  as  of  outcomes.  Systems  that  include  a  focus  on  accountability 
typically have some incentives to encourage teachers to pay attention to central performance 
standards  and  focus  on  the  need  to  help  all  students  succeed.  At  the  same  time,  a  focus  on 
improvement ensures that data are used to identify needs and adjust school strategies. 

Several  countries  in  Europe  include  ‘high-stakes’  approaches  within  their  overall  quality 
assurance framework. These may include: 

  denying accreditation to schools that do not meet quality assurance standards; 

 

 

financial penalties for schools; 

impacts on teachers’ careers or salaries.  

Many  countries  publish  the  results  of  student  assessments  and  school  evaluations,  which 
teachers may perceive as adding to the stakes. Relying on a limited number of high-visibility 
evaluations and assessments,  and government- or  media-generated ‘league tables’, may also 
increase stakes. 

There are concerns that high-stakes approaches may inhibit development and innovation and 
demotivate  staff.  Countries  have  therefore  taken  a  variety  of  approaches  to  moderate  the 
impact of high stakes and to place greater emphasis on improvement. For example, a number 
of countries highlight the importance of moving away from quality assurance as a ‘control’ to 
more  open  and  ‘trust-based’  approaches.  Publishing  a  range  of  data  on  school  and  teacher 
performance may also help to lower stakes associated with a single, high-visibility assessment 
or school evaluation. 

The balance of accountability and improvement is also relevant to internal quality assurance.  
At the school level, there is some evidence that strong teacher-to-teacher trust166, a collective 
focus  on  improving  instruction  and  learning,  and  teacher  experience  are  associated  with 
higher  levels  of  student  attainment 167.  In  turn,  teachers  in  more  successful  schools  have 
stronger levels of trust, which indicates strong levels of internal control and accountability168. 
Internal  quality  assurance  mechanisms  are  most  effective  when  they  support  the  teachers’ 
collective work and are focused on improving teaching169. 

165 OECD  (2016),  PISA  2015  Results.  Policies  and  practices  for  successful  schools,  Volume  II,  Paris,  OECD 
Publishing;  Hanushek,  E.A.,  Link,  S.  and  Woessmann,  L.  (2013),  Does  school  autonomy  make  sense 
everywhere? Panel estimates from PISA, Journal of Development Economics, Vol. 104, pp. 212-232. 
166 This entails being open to discussing his/her own work with other teachers in the school. 
167 Elmore, R. (2001), Holding schools accountable: Is it working?, Phi Delta Kappan, Vol. 83, No 1, pp. 67 – 
70, 72. 
168 O’Day, J. (2002), Complexity, Accountability, and School Improvement, Harvard Educational Review, Vol. 
72, No 3, pp. 293-329. 
169 Seashore-Louis,  K.,  Leithwood,  K.,  Wahlstrom,  K.L.,  &  Anderson,  S.E.  (2010),  Investigating  the  Links  to 
Improved  Student  Learning:  Final  report  of  Research  Findings  to  the  Wallace  Foundation,  University  of 
Minnesota. 

51 

 
 
                                                            
Another  area  where  it  is  important  to  balance  accountability  and  improvement  is  teacher 
appraisal,  which  may  be  conducted  externally  (inspectors  or  local  administrators)  and/or 
internally  (school  management  or  peers).  Results  may  be  used  for  high-stakes  decisions 
related  to  performance  awards  and/or  career  advancement,  or  on  professional  development 
needs to support improvement. Here, it is important to clearly distinguish between these two 
types of appraisal, whether external or internal, as teachers are unlikely to be as open about 
areas where they feel they need to improve when this may have career consequences170.   

No  single  internal  or  external  quality  assurance  mechanism  can  provide  all  the  information 
needed for school accountability and development. Taken together, the different mechanisms 
can  provide  important  and  complementary  insights  on  school,  teacher  and  student 
performance and support evidence-based decision-making.   

The  following  section  is  based  on  the  interim  results  of  the  ET  2020  Working  Group  on 
Schools (2016-18). 

Coherence of internal and external mechanisms 

External  mechanisms  provide  important  data  for  policy-level  decisions  and  resource 
allocation,  while  internal  evaluations  provide  more  detailed  and  timely  data  important  for 
school-level  development  and  for  supporting  teaching  and  learning.  External  and  internal 
institutions  and  actors  may  work  together  to  define  strategies  and  alternatives  for  school 
improvement. 

Policy-makers  and  practitioners  will  need  to  gather  data  appropriate  for  their  level  of 
decision-making  (e.g.  aggregate  or  macro-level  data  for  policy-level  decisions,  and  more 
detailed,  micro-level  data  for  school-level  decisions).  Systems  may  also  achieve  greater 
synergies across the different mechanisms when their data help to complement and reinforce 
their  respective  areas  of  concern  (e.g.  in  links  between  inspection  and  school  self-
evaluations). 

Professional learning communities 

There is a consistent call for professional learning and attention to the development of human 
resources  as  part  of  quality  assurance  processes.  Professional  learning  communities  provide 
an opportunity for colleagues to define, interpret and reflect on quality assurance data, and to 
adjust strategies and/or practices to better meet identified needs. These communities are most 
effective (i) when focused on student learning (rather than teaching); (ii) when members have 
established  a  shared  understanding  of  data;  and  (iii)  when  members  hold  themselves 
accountable  for  improvements.  It  is  equally  important  to  reflect  on  the  roles,  attitudes  and 
perspectives  of  the  people  evaluating  schools,  the  way  they  are  selected  and  evaluated 
themselves, and the way they interact with schools. 

Trust and shared accountability 

Increasingly,  education  systems  distribute  governance  responsibilities  across  national,  local 
and school levels. There is a more equal sharing of accountability for learner outcomes and 
engagement in and support of school development. Shifts to multi-level governance may also 
require shifts in system cultures and individual mind-sets. This may be strengthened through 
the mutual  commitment of internal and external actors  to  evaluation as a  means to  improve 
processes  and  outcomes.  Trust  in  the  quality  of  the  evaluation  instruments  and  the  fairness 
and integrity of the system support are also vital. 

170  OECD  (2013),  Teachers  for  the  21st  Century:  Using  Evaluation  to  Improve  Teaching,  Paris,  OECD 
Publishing. 

52 

 
 
                                                            
Research  suggests  that  a  number  of  advantages  for  governance  systems  which  support  the 
development  of  trust  among  key  actors  and  this  trust  can  reduce  transaction  costs  and  the 
likelihood  of  unexpected  interactions  or  opportunistic  behaviour 171 .  Trust  increases  the 
likelihood  that  actors  will  invest  their  resources  in  cooperation  and  in  developing  and 
maintaining relationships. Trust among key actors can also support the search for innovative 
solutions and exchange of ideas.   

Supporting innovation in schools 

Risk is inherent to the process of innovation. Systems supporting the synergy of external and 
internal  quality  assurance  will  have  more  in-built  resilience  for  the  complex  process  of 
change. This includes: 

• shared attention to quality and outcomes; 
• openness to new ideas;  
• open channels of communication among internal and external actors; 
• capacity to respond quickly to identified needs. 

Monitoring and evaluation are an integral part of the innovation process. Attention to data can 
allow  innovators  to  take  a  more  careful  approach.  Educational  innovators  may  track  the 
impact  of  new  approaches  on  teaching  and  learning  and  make  quick  adjustments  when 
necessary. This includes being alert to unintended consequences.   

It is important to assess the impact of innovations, to make necessary adjustments, and to start 
the process again. This approach ensures that while innovations entail risk, students will not 
be left to falter. Moreover, monitoring is ongoing rather than being left to an annual, or even 
triannual school self-evaluation. Schools and teachers implementing innovative methods also 
need  to  gather  detailed  data  on  a  regular  basis  to  monitor  the  impact  of  new  methods  and 
make adjustments172.   

Communication among stakeholders 

Education  actors  and  stakeholders  typically  come  from  different  professional  backgrounds 
and  contexts.  They  frequently  use  different  vocabularies  to  discuss  quality  assurance.  But 
quality  assurance  is  effective  when  a  shared  language  is  common  to  all  stakeholders.  For 
example,  stakeholders  may  also  require  explanations  regarding  what  the  quality  assurance 
data can and cannot tell them about system and school performance, including the limits of 
existing  measurement  technologies.  Dialogues  between  schools  and  parents  and  pupils  are 
also an important part of the overall quality assurance process. 

School networks to support development 

Networked  professional  learning  communities,  which  bring  together  practitioners  within  a 
school  or  link  or  cluster  institutions,  can  incentivise  pedagogical  and  school  development. 
They  enable  educational  innovations  and  school  developments  to  evolve  more  quickly  as 
more stakeholders are involved in testing and improving approaches. Research suggests that 
educational  innovation  networks  are  important  both  for  developing  innovation  as  well  as 
transferring  knowledge  and  practice  across  a  wide  range  of  stakeholders 173.  Collaborative 

171 Cerna,  L.  (2014),  Trust:  What  it  is  and  why  it  Matters  for  Governance  and  Education,  OECD  Education 
Working Papers, No 108. 
172 Looney, J. (2009), Assessment and Innovation in Education, OECD Education Working Papers, No 24. 
173 Hargreaves, D.H. (2003), Education epidemic: Transforming secondary schools through innovation networks, 
Demos. 

53 

 
 
                                                            
networks  may  create  a  pool  of  ideas  and  resources,  and  support  dynamic  exchange  among 
participants.  

Networks require careful management. Involving multiple stakeholders in interactions creates 
the  potential  for  more  conflicts  of  interest.  Participants  in  networks  which  have  strong 
cultures  of  trust  are  more  likely  to  invest  time  and  knowledge.  There  are  several  key 
conditions for effective networks, including: 

• consistency of values and focus; 
• evidence-based knowledge creation, ‘subject to robust quality assurance procedures’; 
• rewards related to learning (e.g. support for professional development); 
• dispersed leadership and empowerment; 
• adequate resources174.  

Generating, interpreting and using data 

School  self-evaluation  is  a  relatively  new  quality  assurance  mechanism  in  many  countries. 
School  and  local  stakeholders  may  need  to  develop  a  more  in-depth  knowledge  of  quality 
assurance processes and determine how to ensure that school self-evaluation is used genuinely 
for  internal  accountability  and  school  development,  and  not  as  just  another  report  to  be 
produced.  

This  includes  investing  in  capacity  building  on  how  to  (i)  generate  data  (including  how  to 
identify  the  most  appropriate  indicators  to  track  school  progress);  (ii)  develop  a  shared 
understanding on how to interpret data (including from external quality assurance); and (iii) 
then adapt strategies in areas identified for improvement. This technical knowledge will help 
to ensure higher quality reviews and strengthen the integrity of the overall quality assurance 
systems. 

Developing a balanced view of school development 

Multiple  types  of  data  gathered  over  time  develop  a  well-rounded  picture  of  system  and 
school development. Qualitative data can give added meaning to quantitative data and support 
broader stakeholder understanding. 

Multiple measures of school and student performance help to ease the high stakes associated 
with high-visibility school evaluation and student assessments. They provide a more accurate 
picture of performance. 

174 Hopkins,  D.  (2003),  Networks  of  Innovation,  in  Towards  New  Models  for  Managing  Schools  and Systems, 
Paris, OECD Publishing. 

54 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
Annex — Overview of EU actions proposed as a follow-up to the Communication  
and provisional timetable 

Proposed action 

Developing better and more inclusive schools 

  Increase  cooperation  between  schools  by  making  school  partnerships 
and  pupil  mobility  under  Erasmus+  more  accessible  and  to  enrich 
in 
digital  and 
eTwinning. 

learning  by  promoting  participation 

intercultural 

  Develop  a  self-assessment  tool  on  digital  capacity  so  that  schools  in 
the  EU  can,  on  a  voluntary  basis,  self-evaluate  where  they  stand  in 
relation  to  common  criteria  and  are  supported  in  developing  and 
improving  their  effective  use  of  technologies  for  digital  age  learning. 
Using  the  tool,  schools  can  chose  to  report  on  their  progress  in  the 
availability,  use,  competences  and  attitudes  to  Information  and 
Communication  Technologies,  building  a  database  across  all 
participating Member States.  

Provisional 
timetable 

4th quarter 2017 

4th quarter 2017 

  Support  improvements  in  school  level  education  in  science, 
technologies,  engineering  and  maths (STEM) by promoting best 
practice  in  developing  links  and  cooperation  of  higher  education, 
research,  businesses  with  schools  at  EU  level  and  effectively 
addressing gender gaps and stereotypes in STEM, using Erasmus+.  

4th quarter 2017 

  Promote 

and 

experimentation  on  developing 
multilingual pedagogies and teaching in diverse classrooms as part of 
the 2018 Erasmus+ work programme. 

support  policy 

  Follow-up  the  observations  of  the  United  Nations'  Committee  on  the 
Rights  of  Persons  with  Disabilities  by  supporting  cooperation  between 
the European Agency for Special Needs and Inclusive Education and 
Member  States,  at  their  request,  in  implementing  the  education 
provisions  of  the  UN  Convention  on  the  Rights  of  People  with 
Disabilities. 

4th quarter 2017 

4th quarter 2017 

  Further  support  Member  States  in  providing  sufficient  high  quality 
early  childhood  education  and  care  and  step  up  efforts  to  help them 
learn from each other and identify what works best. 

2nd quarter 2018 

Supporting teachers and school leaders for excellent teaching and learning 

  Offer policy  guidance  on  the  careers  and  professional  development 
of  teachers  and  school  leaders  by  reinforcing  peer  learning  under 
Education  and  Training  2020  through  a  series  of  expert  seminars  and 
linking it to the European sectoral social dialogue in education. 

2nd quarter 2018 

55 

 
 
 
  Simplify  access  and  promote  opportunities  for  future  teachers  to 
gain  practical  teaching  experience  abroad  with  the  support  of 
Erasmus+.  

2ndnd quarter 2018 

  Develop  online  communities  and  resources  for  school  professionals, 
including  new  eTwinning  opportunities  for  student  teachers,  online 
networks  for  early  career  teachers  and  their  mentors,  online  courses 
(including  MOOCs),  exchange  of  best  practice  among  providers  of 
Initial  Teacher  Education  and  a  Digital  Competence  Framework  to 
support teachers' self-assessment and development.  

1st quarter 2018 

  Further  develop  synergies  with  the  OECD  to  produce  joint 
comparative  data  on  school  staff,  including  through  more  efficient, 
joint data collection by Eurydice and the OECD on teachers and school 
leaders. 

3rd quarter 2018 

Governance of school education systems: becoming more effective, equitable and efficient 

  Building  on  existing  cooperation,  including  on  skills  strategies  and 
school  resources,  set  up  a  demand  driven 
technical  support 
arrangement  in  cooperation  with  the  OECD  to  help  Member  States 
who voluntarily seek assistance, to design and implement major school 
education  reforms.  The  Commission  services,  including  the  Structural 
Reform  Support  Service,  and  EU  funding  instruments  (such  as  the 
European  Structural  and  Investment  Funds  and  Erasmus+)  could 
provide support. 

4th quarter 2017 

  Propose  a  joint  report  on  the  effectiveness  and  efficiency  of 
expenditure  in  school  education,  involving  appropriate  Council 
committees and Commission services. This will build on ongoing work 
with the OECD and may lead to the development of policy guidance on 
investment  in  school  education  in  partnership  with  interested  EU 
Member States and stakeholders. 

2nd quarter 2018 

  Together  with  EU  Member  States  and  stakeholders,  develop  targeted 
policy  guidance  on  quality  assurance  through  peer  counselling  and 
peer learning. 

 2nd quarter 2018 

56