COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Progress towards the Lisbon objectives in education and training Indicators and benchmarks 2009 - Hoofdinhoud

COUNCIL OF Brussels, 25 November 2009

THE EUROPEAN UNION

16646/09

EDUC 184 SOC 740 STATIS 101

COVER NOTE

from: Secretary-General of the European Commission,

signed by Mr Jordi AYET PUIGARNAU, Director

date of receipt: 23 November 2009

to: Mr Javier SOLANA, Secretary-General/High Representative

Subject: COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Progress towards the

Lisbon objectives in education and training Indicators and benchmarks 2009

Delegations will find attached Commission document SEC(2009) 1616 Final.

________________________

Encl.: SEC(2009) 1616 Final

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES

Brussels, 23.11.2009 SEC(2009) 1616 final

COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT

Progress towards the Lisbon objectives in education and training

Indicators and benchmarks

2009

EN EN

Preface

“Progress towards the Lisbon objectives in education and training” is the 6th annual report examining performance and progress under the Education and Training 2010 Work Programme.

The purpose of this report is to inform and provide strategic guidance for education policy co-operation at European level. The report sets out progress towards the objectives agreed by the Council. It provides an evidence-base of indicators, benchmarks and research results which supports the Education and Training 2010 work programme launched in 2001 and its follow-up, the strategic framework for European cooperation in education and training adopted by the Council in May 2009. The Progress Reports for 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007 and 2008 were able to give detailed analysis of performance and progress as data and research material became available.

On 25 th May 2007 the Education Council adopted conclusions on a coherent framework of 16 core

indicators for monitoring progress towards the Lisbon objectives in education and training (European Council, 2007a). The 2007, 2008 and 2009 Reports have used this tool of core indicators.

Reflecting the strategic framework for European cooperation in education and training adopted by the Council in May 2009, the report is structured in four chapters in the line with the four strategic objectives of the framework, as follows:

• 1. 

  Making lifelong learning and mobility a reality; 2. Improving the quality and efficiency of education and training; 3. Promoting equity, social cohesion and active citizenship; 4. Enhancing creativity and innovation, including entrepreneurship, at all levels of education and training.

The Report analyses performance and progress of education systems in EU member states (27), candidate countries (3) and associated countries (3) and how they contribute towards meeting Europe's Lisbon objectives.

World reference levels of performance are found within some areas of education and training in Europe. At the same time, many Member States are challenged in particular fields. The report demonstrates that good performance and progress can be found in member states throughout Europe. Hence it supports the exchange of information and experiences on good policy practice allowing member states to learn from each other. The analysis highlights the scope for completing the current European framework of indicators and benchmarks further enhancing the evidence base for policy making.

Content list

Main messages Page 6

Introduction Page 7

• 1. 

  Introduction

• 2. 

  Conclusions on progress towards the European benchmarks 2010

2.1. Country performance and progress in the areas of European benchmarks

2.2. Best performing countries: learning from good practice

2.3. Performance of European educational systems in a worldwide perspective

2.4. Trends towards the 2020 benchmarks

• 3. 

  Demographical trends in Europe

3.1. Current trends in number of young people

3.2. Future intake of pupils in schools

3.3. Overall Population trends

• 4. 

  Investment in Education

4.1. Levels of investment in education and training

4.2. National priorities for investment in education

Chapter I Making lifelong learning and mobility a reality Page 25

Main messages

• 1. 

  Participation in Lifelong learning

1.1. An aggregate measure on participation in lifelong learning in Europe

• 2. 

  Student Mobility in Education

2.1. Mobility of higher education students

2.2. European student mobility programmes

Chapter II Improving the quality and efficiency of education and training Page 35

Main messages

• 1. 

  School education

1.1. Completion of upper secondary education

1.2. Teachers and professional development

• 2. 

  Vocational Education and Training

2.1. Participation in vocational education and training

2.2. Investment in VET

2.3. Third country comparisons

2.4. Individual outcomes of vocational education and training

• 3. 

  Higher Education

3.1. The Bologna process in higher education

3.2. Current international university rankings

3.3. Graduates in higher education

3.4. Higher education attainment of the population

• 4. 

  Labour Market Outcomes

4.1. Educational attainment of the adult population

4.2. Educational attainment and Employment rates

4.3. Shifts in skills demand and the aging population

Chapter III Promoting equity, social cohesion and active citizenship Page 61

Main messages

• 1. 

  Equity

1.1. Early childhood education

1.2. Early leavers from education and training

1.3. Special education needs

1.4. Adult education and training

• 2. 

  Key competencies

2.1. Reading, mathematics and science literacy

2.2. Language skills: learning and teaching

2.3. ICT skills for young and adults

2.4. Active citizenship

• 3. 

  Migrants

3.1. Special education needs and the issue of language

3.2. Key competencies

3.3. Early leavers from education and training

3.4 Adult participation in lifelong learning

• 4. 

  Gender inequalities

4.1. Differentials in schooling

4.2. Educational choices

Chapter IV Enhancing creativity and Innovation, including entrepreneurship at all levels of education and training Page 80

Main messages

• 1. 

  Creativity and innovation

1.1. Innovation and creativity of nations and regions

1.1. Measuring creativity skills and competences

• 2. 

  Graduates in Mathematics, Science and Technology

2.1. Evolution of the number of MST graduates

2.2 Growth in number of graduates by field and educational levels

2.3 MST graduates and researchers on the labour market

• 3. 

  Entrepreneurship

Annexes Page 97

Annex 1: Standing Group on Indicators and Benchmarks

Annex 2: List of abbreviations

Annex 3: Bibliography

Annex 4: Statistical annex

Annex 5: Country tables

Notes

TEN MAIN MESSAGES OF THE REPORT (2009)

• 1. 

  Since 2000, educational performance has improved considerably in most areas identified by European Education ministers as central for achieving the Lisbon goal. However, the 2010 benchmarks for education and training set by the Council are not likely to be achieved, apart from the benchmark on increasing the number of math, science and technology graduates.

• 2. 

  Young people stay still longer in education. Expected time in education for young people is increasing in all countries. In Finland the average is now more than 20 years. The present economic crisis could reinforce this trend.

• 3. 

  The share of low achievers in reading literacy among pupils in secondary education in the EU is increasing. From 2000 to 2006 the proportion of low performers in reading literacy aged 15 increased from 21.3% to 24.1%. This should be seen against a benchmark for 2010 which anticipates a significant reduction of 20%.

• 4. 

  Participation in lifelong learning is becoming a reality for the majority of people in a number of European countries (DK, SE, IS, followed by FI, UK and NL) - and progress can be observed in almost all countries (4-64 years olds).

• 5. 

  Educational attainment levels of the adult population have improved considerably since 2000 – One out of four of the adult population in the EU have high educational attainment, but this is far behind the performance of both the US and Japan (40%). Only Finland and Norway have high education attainment rates above 35%. Moreover, the number of people with low educational attainment has fallen by approximately 1.5 million per year since 2000. Nevertheless, it still accounts for 77 million adults or close to 30 %.

• 6. 

  While there has been an increase in investment per student in higher education in almost all countries since 2000, the EU member states would need to invest on average over 10 000 euro more per student per year in higher education to reach the levels of the US (almost 200 billion euro more a year). The difference is mainly due to very high levels of private investment in higher education institutions in the US.

• 7. 

  More than half a million EU students study abroad, an increase of about 50% since 2000. Three out of four of these study in another EU country.

• 8. 

  Professional development is a feature of the lives of the vast majority of teachers. Nine out of ten teachers take part in professional development and more than half demands more professional development than they received. The areas for which teachers express greatest need for development are: “Teaching special learning needs students”, “ICT teaching skills” and “Student discipline and behaviour”. This should be seen in the context of an ageing teaching profession where one third of the 6 million teachers in the EU are over 50. Women count for 70% of the teacher profession.

• 9. 

  Early teaching of foreign language is advancing in Europe. In lower secondary education, earlier teaching of English is becoming widespread. Moreover, the number of foreign languages taught per pupil in upper secondary school education has progressed since 2000 (from 1.2 to 1.6).

• 10. 

  The three Nordic countries (SE, FI, DK), Germany, and the UK are the highest innovation performers as measured by the European Innovation Scoreboard. A strong concentration of the “creative class” with high educational attainment in and around capital cities contributes to the performance. A process of convergence of innovation performance in the EU can be observed between the low performers (RO, LV, BG, TR) and the high performing countries.

  Introduction

  • 1. 

    Introduction

  • 2. 

    Conclusions on progress towards the European benchmarks 2010 2.1 Country performance and progress in the areas of European benchmarks 2.2 Best performing countries: Learning from good practice 2.3 Performance of European educational systems in a worldwide perspective 2.4 Trends towards the 2020 benchmarks

  • 3. 

    Demographical trends in Europe 3.1 Current trends in number of young people 3.2 Future intake of pupils in schools 3.3 Overall Population trends

  • 4. 

    Investment in Education 4.1 Levels of investment in education and training 4.2 National priorities for investment in education

Introduction

• 1. 

  Introduction Indicators never tell the full story. But they help to

identify differences, similarities and trends and to

Education and training have an important place in provide a starting point for further analysis in order to the Lisbon strategy for jobs and growth. As part of understand better performance and progress.

this overall strategy, the Council set out broad

common objectives for the education and training In order to guide progress on achieving the systems of the EU. This has been done through the objectives set for education and training systems of Education and Training 2010 work programme the EU, the Council adopted in May 2003 five launched in 2001 and its follow-up, the strategic benchmarks to be achieved by 2010

2 and in May

framework for European cooperation in education 2009, five benchmarks for 2020

3 .

and training (ET 2020) adopted by the Council in

May 2009 1 . Member States are supported in achieving these objectives through the open method Five EU benchmarks for 2010

of coordination, which uses indicators and benchmarks to inform evidence-based policy making § No more than 10% early school leavers; and to monitor progress. § Decrease of at least 20% in the

percentage of low-achieving pupils in The Council in May 2007 identified a framework of reading literacy;

16 core indicators for monitoring progress towards § At least 85% of young people should have the Lisbon objectives. completed upper secondary education;

§ Increase of at least 15% in the number of tertiary graduates in Mathematics,

Sixteen core indicators for monitoring Science and Technology (MST), with a

progress towards the Lisbon objectives simultaneous decrease in the gender

imbalance;

§ Participation in pre-school education § 12.5% of the adult population should § Special needs education participate in lifelong learning.

§ Early school leavers § Literacy in reading, mathematics and

science Five EU benchmarks for 2020

§ Language skills

§ ICT skills § at least 95% of children between 4 years

§ Civic skills old and the age for starting compulsory

§ Learning to learn skills primary education should participate in

§ Upper secondary completion rates of early childhood education

young people § the share of early leavers from education

§ Professional development of teachers and and training should be less than 10%

trainers § the share of low-achieving 15-years olds

§ Higher education graduates in reading, mathematics and science

§ Cross-national mobility of students in should be less than 15%.

higher education § the share of 30-34 year olds with tertiary

§ Participation of adults in lifelong learning educational attainment should be at least § Adult skills 40% § Educational attainment of the population § an average of at least 15 % of adults § Investment in education and training should participate in lifelong learning

These indicators enable the Commission and the

Member States to:

• underpin key policy messages; • analyse progress both at the EU and

national levels;

• identify good performance for peer review

and exchange; and

• compare performance with third countries.

The core indicators cover the whole learning continuum from pre-school to adult education, teachers' professional development and investment in education and training. Not all the data for these indicators are fully available yet. In almost all these areas, new surveys are being prepared or presently carried out.

Introduction

• 2. 

  Conclusions on progress towards the Although there was broad progress of performance,

five benchmarks for 2010 the benchmarks on early school leaving, completion

of upper secondary education and lifelong learning

Education and training systems in the EU are are with the current trends not likely to be reached generally improving. The EU benchmark on by 2010. Attaining these benchmarks will in many mathematics, science and technology graduates was countries demand more effective national initiatives. already reached before 2005. In the period 2000- In the period 2000-2006 performance even 2007 growth in the number of new maths, science deteriorated for reading literacy of young people.

and technology graduates was more than twice the level needed to meet the benchmark.

Chart Int.2.1: Progress towards meeting the five benchmarks for 2010 (2000-2008)

Progress towards meeting the 5 benchmarks (EU average)

224 220

210

200 MST graduates

190 180 170 160 150 140 130 120

0 0 110 1 100 progress required

s = 90

a rk 80

70

c h

m 60

e n 50 Adult lifelong learning participation

 b 40

30 Early school leavers 2 0 1

0

20 Upper secondary

10 0

-10 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

-20 -30 (above 0 = performance -40 improving, below: worsening) -50 -60 Low achievers in reading -70 -80 Year

Source: European Commission DG Education and Culture

In this chart the starting point (in 2000) is set at zero and the 2020 benchmark at 100. The results achieved each year are measured against the 2020 benchmark (= 100). The diagonal line shows the progress required, i.e. an additional 1/20 (5%) of progress towards the benchmark has to be achieved each year to reach the benchmark. If a line stays below this diagonal line, progress is not sufficient; if it is above the diagonal line progress is stronger than what is needed to achieve the benchmark. If the line declines, the problem is getting worse.

In the case of lifelong learning, it should be kept in mind that there have been many breaks in the time series, which tend to overstate the progress made, especially in 2003. Therefore the 2002-2003 line on LLL participation is dotted. For low achievers in reading (data from the PISA survey) there are results for 18 EU countries for only two data points, 2000 and 2006. It is therefore not yet possible to assess to what extend the observed differences are indicative of longer-term trends Introduction

2.1. Country performance and progress in the that most countries are above that level, and areas of European benchmarks. have a higher rate of low achievers among young

people than targeted This is however not the A more detailed analysis of the benchmark areas case of Ireland, and especially Finland which is provided in Charts Int.2.2 to 2.6 looking into the have a very high performance in the field. question on national performance and progress Poland, Denmark, Sweden and the Netherlands within each of the five benchmark areas for 2010. have performance levels near, but below, the In the case of the benchmark on low performers 2010 benchmark. Sweden and especially the in reading literacy (the rate to be reduced by at Netherlands have not progressed further least 20% by 2010, Chart Int.2.2).), one observes between 2000 and 2006.

Chart Int. 2.2 Benchmark 2010: Low Performers in reading literacy (2000-2006)

large countries medium countries

Low performers in reading literacy small countri es

10

Catchi ng up Movi ng further ahead

2010 2020 benchmark benchmark

PL FI

5 LV

)

, %

th DE

w T R DK

PT HU

l g

ro 0 LU BE

s s u

a

IE

n n AT

g re f a EL EU19 SE

RO

P ro 6 o SK BG

0 -0 -5

NO

 0 IT FR

g e CZ

ra ES

v e

(a -10 NL

Falli ng further behi nd Losi ng momentum

-15

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 Pe rformance

(be nchmark = 100)

Source: European Commission DG JRC/Crell

Chart Int. 2.3 Benchmark 2010: Upper Secondary Attainment (2000-2008)

Introduction

Looking at performance and progress on the Portugal are progressing notably, even though Upper secondary attainment benchmark (85% of both are quite far from the benchmark level. Most completion by 2010), (Chart Int.2.3) Luxembourg large countries, with the exception of Poland, and Spain are losing momentum with decrease in have low level of completion rates which has a performance while still relatively far from the significant impact on reaching the EU benchmark level. Croatia is showing the benchmark. strongest performance, while Turkey and

Chart Int. 2.3 Benchmark 2010: Upper Secondary Attainment (2000-2008)

large countries

Upper secondary attainment medium countries small countries

5 Catching up 2010 Moving further ahead

be nchm ark TR

PT MK

)

, %

th IT w ro BG

l g IS NL LV

LT

IE HR NO EU27 EL HU CY

s s n u

a

SI

RO PL DE UK EE BE FR SE

g re CZ f a

n

0 DK AT FI SK

MT

P ro 8 o

0 -0

 0 ES

g e LU

v e

ra

(a

Falling further behind Losing momentum

-5

50 100

Performance

(benchmark = 100)

Source: European Commission DG JRC/Crell

Introduction

When it comes to the benchmark of Early leavers countries and especially by Croatia, Poland, from education and training, of less than 10% of Slovenia, the Czech Republic, Slovakia and young people by 2010 (Chart Int. 2.4) one notices Lithuania, all of which already perform below the that significant progress has been made by many benchmark level.

Chart Int. 2.4 Benchmark 2010: Early leavers from education and training (2000-2008)

large countries

Early leavers from education and training medium countries

small countries

15

Catching up Moving further ahead

2010 + 2020 benchm ark

HR

) 10

, %

th

w CY

ro MK

a l

g

s s n n u DK PL

g re f a 5 BG LT

TR

P ro 8 o RO IE NL SI

0 -0 IT UK HU

SK

LU DE CZ

 0 PT IS

g e LV

EU27

ra NO EL MT EE BE FR v e (a 0 AT FI

ES SE

Falling further behind Losing momentum

-5

0 50 100 150 200 250 300

Performance

(benchmark = 100)

Source: European Commission DG JRC/Crell

Introduction

Considering the Mathematics, Science and compared with 2000). Most of the countries Technology benchmark, (Chart Int. 2.5) many which have not yet reached the benchmark level countries have already achieved or are very are catching up, with Slovakia and the Czech close to the benchmark level of 2010 (15% Republic having the highest rates of progress. increase in the number of graduates as

Chart Int.2.5 Benchmark 2010 : Mathematics, Science and Technology Graduates (2000-2007)

large countries

MST graduates medium countries small countries

14 Catching up Moving further ahead SK

2010 be nchm ark

11 CZ

) EE

, % 8 MT RO PL

th

w TR IT AT

PT

g ro 5 HR DE

NL EU27 LT MK

HU

s s u

a l

IS

g re f a

n n BG FI

2 DK SE NO ES

P ro 7 o SI

BE FR LV

UK

0 -0

-1 EL IE

g e

 0

v e

ra

(a -4

-7 CY

Falling further behind Losing momentum

-10

0 25 50 75 100 125 150

Pe rformance

(benchmark = 100)

Source: European Commission DG JRC/Crell

Introduction

Performance and progress on the Adult Lifelong Netherlands and the UK), already perform above Learning Participation benchmark (Chart Int. 2.6) the 2020 benchmark level of 15% of adult shows many countries are catching up and participation in lifelong learning. increasing their performance, even though not yet at the 2010 benchmark level (12.5% of Hungary and especially Slovakia perform clearly participation). Some, especially the Nordic below the benchmark level and show decreasing countries (Denmark, Sweden, Finland and levels of progress. Norway and Iceland, together with the

Chart Int.2.6

 Benchmark 2010: Adult Lifelong Learning participation

large countries

Lifelong learning participation medium countries small countries

15

Catching up Moving further ahead

2010 2020 benchm ark benchm ark

10 EL

) CY

, % TR

th w ro LU DE

a l g 5 MK

IE EE

s s n u PT DK g re f a

n

RO HR

IT NO

P ro 8 o MT EU27 ES NL

0 -0 0 BG PL

FR CZ AT SI IS

FI SE

 0 LT BE

g e LV UK

v e

ra

(a HU

-5

SK

Falling further behind Losing momentum

-10

0 50 100 150 200 250

Performance

(benchmark = 100)

Source: European Commission DG JRC/Crell

The presentation of performance and progress has performance levels above the EU benchmark above in the Charts Int. 2.2-2.6 clearly shows that all and moving further ahead in four of the five areas countries have strengths and weaknesses in the five and that Austria, Denmark, Finland, Slovenia and benchmark areas and that no country is "falling Sweden show a similar level of performance and behind” in all areas. It should be noticed that Poland progress in three areas.

Introduction

2.2. Best performing countries: Learning from This is why the Council asked for the three best good practice performing countries in specific policy areas to be

identified. Half the Member States are best All Member States can learn from the best performers in at least one benchmark area. There is performers in the Union. Therefore it is important to therefore a relative big spread of good practice and complete the analysis above by looking at the details expertise in the EU among member states. in the benchmark areas and in other core indicator areas (See Tables Int.2.1 - Int.2.2).

Table Int. 2.1: Best performing countries on benchmark relating to school education

Target for Best performing countries in the EU EU USA Japan 2010/2020

Participation 2007 in early

childhood

education 2020: 95% Sweden France Belgium

(4 years-start 100% 100% 99.7% 90.7% 69.2 96.4 of comp.

primary), % Change in the percentage of low achievers in % (2000-2006)

2010:

At least Finland Poland Latvia

Low-achievers 20% -31.4% -30.2% -29.6% +13.1% - +82.2%

in reading (15- Decrease

year-olds, %) 2020: no Share of low achievers, 2006 more than

15% Finland Ireland Estonia 19.4%

4.8% 12.1% 13.6% 24.1% (2003) 18.4%

Early 2010/2020: 2008

school No more

leavers than Poland Czech Slovakia

(18-24, %) 10% 5.0% Republic. 6.0% 14.9% - - 5.6% a

Upper 2008

secondary 2010:

attainment At least Slovakia Czech Poland

(20-24, %). 85% 92.3% Republic 91.3% 78.5% - - 91.6%

Source: DG Education and Culture - Data sources: Eurostat UOE and LFS; OECD/Pisa

Table Int.2.2 : Best performing countries on benchmarks relating to higher education and lifelong learning

  2010 target Best performing countries in the EU EU USA Japan for EU

Average annual increase 2000-2007

Portugal Slovakia Poland Graduates +14.9% +12.6% +12.2% +4.2% +2.0% -1.0%

in

Mathematics 2010: MST Graduates per 1000 inhabitants (aged 20-29) in 2007

Science Increase of

Technology at least 15% France Finland Ireland graduates 20.5 18.8 18.7 13.4 10.1 14.4

(per 1000 % of female graduates in 2007

young people)

Greece Romania Bulgaria 44.2 % 40.0 % 39.3 % 31.3 % 31.0% 14.4%

Higher education attainment, 2008

Higher education

attainment Cyprus Denmark Finland 31.1% (age 30-34) 47.1% 46.3% 45.7% Aged 25- Aged 25- Aged 25-

34: 29% 34: 39% 34:54%

Adult Lifelong 2010: 2008

Learning At least

participation 12.5% Sweden Denmark Finland

(25-64, %) 2020: 32.4 (07) 30.2% 23.1% 9.5% - - at least 15%

a : 2006, p: provisional

Source: DG Education and Culture - Data source: Eurostat UOE and LFS

Introduction

2.3 Performance of European educational one of the three dimensions of the UN Human systems in a worldwide perspective Development Index (HDI). The index can give a

statistical picture of a country’s relative The European Council set the objective of “making performances in school enrolment and basic literacy European education and training systems in Europe domains. It is constructed based on the adult literacy a world quality reference by 2010”. (Council, 2002c, rate (with two-thirds weighting) and on the gross paragraph 43). enrolment rate in the primary, secondary and tertiary

levels of education combined (with one-third This report therefore puts European performance weighting). into a world-wide perspective by comparing it with the USA, Canada, Japan, South Korea, Australia, The education index clearly places the EU as a New Zealand, China, Russia, India and Mexico, whole among the world's best performers. Australia, countries which are trading partners or high New Zealand, Republic of Korea and the US perform educational performers. An overall evaluation of the slightly better whereas Japan, Brazil, Russian EU performance compared to the rest of the World Federation, India and China show lower values of can be made by looking at the UN Education Index - the index (see Chart Int.2.7)

Chart Int.2.7 : EU Education performance in a Worldwide perspective - UN education index*

Australia 0.993

New Zealand 0.993

Canada 0.991

Korea (Republic of) 0.988

United States 0.968

European Union * 0.961

Japan 0.949

Russian Federation 0.933

Chile 0.918

Brazil 0.888

Mexico 0.879

China 0.849

India 0.638

Source: CRELL/Joint Research Centre (2009) Data Source: UNDP, Human Development Report (2008) (*) EU aggregate is calculated as weighted average of index values for member states and the population data at 1 of January

The Index shows that while the north-eastern EU neighbours are clearly some way behind (Israel and neighbours are mostly around an equivalent level of Croatia are exceptions). the EU average, its south eastern and southern

Chart Int.2.8: EU Education average performance level in a neighbouring countries perspective

UN Education Index* (EU27=100)

Source: CRELL/Joint Research Centre (2009); Data Source: UNDP, Human Development Report, 2008 (*)The index represents statistical values for the year 2006 – See Table Ann Int. 1

Introduction

2.4. Trends towards the 2020 benchmarks For low achievers (only low achievers in reading literacy is shown here, whereas the new benchmark

Progress towards achieving the new 2020 for 2020 also includes maths and science) which benchmarks can not yet be monitored, since the has only be measured in 2000 and 2006 by the PISA latest data refer to the time before these benchmarks surveys, performance has clearly deteriorated during have been adopted (See Chart Int.2.9). However, the period. The results of the 2009 survey, which will looking at progress in the period 2000-2008 can help be published at the end of 2010, will tell if a change to see if the current trajectory of progress would of trend has been achieved. Without a clear change point towards reaching the EU benchmarks in the of trends within the coming years the ambitious 15% future. As regards the benchmarks on Pre-primary benchmark will become a very big challenge to education and Tertiary education, progress since reach by 2020.

2000 has been above the trend line needed to reach the 2020 benchmarks. However, saturation effects As regards adult lifelong learning, performance is may come into play for both benchmarks at a later clearly improving but progress has stagnated since stage, slowing down progress after 2010. 2005 which could imply that further national efforts

are needed to reach this benchmark. 4

As regards early school leavers, in the period 2000-

2008, progress is on the trajectory to reach the 10% goal in 2020. However, progress has slowed down

2007-2008.

Chart Int.2.9 Trends towards the five benchmarks for 2020 (2000-2008)

EU benchmarks 2020, Evolution 2000-2008

100

80

progress required

60

Pre-primary education Tertiary attainment

40

Adult lifelong learning

20 Early school leavers

0

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

-20

-40

Low achievers in reading

-60

Source: DG Education and Culture

Introduction

• 3. 

  Demographical trends in Europe 5 secondary education and university are

  counteracting the demographic decline.

3.1 Current trends in the number of young

people in the population This overall trend conceals contrasting situations. In 2007, young people under 30 years represent For the 0-9 age group, although the EU-27 members about 35% of the total population in the EU27. have reported a stable situation during the 2005- However, the number of young people in the 2007 period, in countries such as Germany, Cyprus, European Union has declined steadily. Between Lithuania, Malta and Poland, the population has 1985 and 2007, the population aged 0-9 years in the decreased at rates higher than 1.5 % per year. EU27 decreased by 17.4%, the population aged 10- However, for the same age group and time period 19 by 18.8%, and the population aged 20-29 by Ireland and Spain had significant growth rates above 7.9% (Chart Int. 3.1). 2.5 % per year. In the 10-19 age group, several

countries (Bulgaria, Estonia and Romania)

These trends have a different impact on the different experienced a population decrease over three times levels of education. While compulsory education higher than the average rate for the EU-27.

(primary and lower secondary education) are directly impacted by smaller cohorts through a lower intake of pupils, increases in participation rates in upper

Chart Int. 3.1: Variation of the population in the 0-9, 10-19 and 20-29 age groups in the EU-27 (1985-2007)

0-9 10-19 20-29 age group age group age group

1985 61 981 774 70 560 146 71 747 526

1990 59 755 140 66 069 001 73 035 161

1995 56 945 603 62 870 813 71 366 222

2000 53 278 070 61 189 541 67 627 903

2005 51 094 592 58 820 580 66 001 798

2007 51 196 945 57 276 530 66 085 404

Source: Eurostat, population statistics (data extracted July 2008).

Additional notes France: The data relates solely to the Metropolitan territory and does not include the overseas départements. Cyprus: The data relates to territories under government control.

Explanatory note a) National data are contained in the annexes available at http://www.eurydice.org. The population is that of 1st January in the reference year. The population is based on data from the most recent census adjusted by the components of population change produced since the last census, or based on population registers.

3.2 Future pupil intake schools projections show an increase in the intake of primary pupils. On the other hand countries such as

Population projections of future pupil intakes in Bulgaria, Estonia, Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland primary (ISCED 1, age 5-9) and lower secondary and Slovakia experience projected declines of more education (ISCED 2, age 10-14) enable future than 25% of pupils in primary education. At lower requirements in terms of infrastructure and secondary education only in Denmark, Luxembourg

personnel to be estimated. 6 and the Netherlands the projections show growth in

future intakes while Bulgaria, the Czech republic, When it comes to changes in pupil intakes in primary Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland and Romania are and lower secondary education, two overall trends projected to experience a decline in the intake of on the EU level emerge (Chart Ann. Int.2.1 and 2.2). pupils of more than 30%.

From 2000-2010 future intakes in both primary

(8.5%) and lower secondary education (12.9%) fall. During the period 2010-2020, the projections appear From 2010 to 2020 these trends appear to reverse less dramatic. In primary education only Denmark, and intakes in both primary and lower secondary Germany, Italy, the Netherlands and Romania education are projected to increase by around 3%. experience a projected fall in the future pupil intake

while Estonia, Ireland, Spain and Cyprus experience During the period 2000-2010 only Spain, France, a more than 15% growth in the projected intake. In Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands and Portugal Lower secondary education Germany, Lithuania, and

Introduction

Malta experience a more than 10% decrease in outcomes analyse this relationship in more detail). projected pupil intakes while Bulgaria, the Czech The fast growing share of people over 65 year olds Republic, Estonia, Ireland, Spain, Latvia and underlines the need for emphasising educational Sweden have projected increase of more than 10%. opportunities also for this group. Moreover, it

suggests an increased demand for care and a need 3.3 Overall population trends for educating more people to work in the care sector. European populations are aging because of two major trends. First, total fertility rates have remained low for several decades i.e. below the rate of

replacement which is at an average of 2.1 children 4. Investment in Education

per women. Second, people live longer and healthier lives. Building on the Lisbon Council’s call for increased

and improved investment in human resources, the Projections of demographic developments of specific Council Conclusions of March 2008 reiterates the age-groups towards 2060 (Table Int.3.1) shows that need for “investing more and more effectively in the population of the EU27 will rise gradually from human capital and creativity throughout people's 495.4 million in 2008, reaching 519.9 million in 2030 lives” as crucial conditions for Europe’s success in a and gradually declining to reach 505.7 in 2060. The globalised world (Council, 2008). population is becoming older with the median age projected to rise from 40.4 years in 2008 to 47.9 This section analyses the patterns of investment in

years in 2060. education in the European countries. 7 Data on

investment in Vocational Education and Training

Table Int 3.1: EU population in millions (VET) is not included here. However, it is covered in

this report in section II.2 Vocational education and training. The overall level of educational investment

2008 2030 2060 in European countries is discussed in the first part of

Total population this section. The second part provides some insights

(1 January) 495.4 519.9 505.7 into the variety of investment patterns by levels of education.

Population aged 0-14 77.5 75.5 71.0

Share of total population 16% 14% 14% 4.1. Levels of investment in education and

Population aged 15-64 333.2 321.9 283.3 training

Share of total population 67% 62% 56%

Population aged 65+ 84.6 122.5 151.5 In 2006 public investment in education in the EU

Share of total population 17% 24% 30% accounted for 5.05 % of GDP There are large

variations between European countries in their levels

Old age dependency

ratios 25.9% 38.1% 53.5% of total public investment on education as a percentage of GDP. In 2006 Denmark had the

Source: EUROSTAT population statistics highest relative investment level in education among

While the young population is decreasing slightly the Member States (8% of GDP), followed by Cyprus from 77.5 million (16% of the total population) to 71 (7%), Sweden (6.85%) and Finland (6.14%). High million (14 % of the total population), the major level of public investment on education was recorded changes take place in the age group 15-64 year olds as well in Iceland (7.55%) and Norway (6.55%). In and the population older than 65. The working age Slovakia, Turkey and Liechtenstein public population (15-64 year olds) falls by about 50 investment in education in 2006 was close to or millions while the population older than 65 increases below 4% of GDP. As can be seen in Chart Int.4.1, by more than 60 million. In terms of share of the total in 2006 Japan (3.5%) trails the EU (5.05%) and the population, the working age population is expected US (5.5%) on public investment. However, both the fall to 56% of the total population while the share of US and Japan have much higher levels of private people older than 65 are expected to increase to investment in education than any EU member state.

30% of the total population. Between 2000 and 2006, in nearly all European Consequently, the old age dependency ratio is countries, the investment patterns followed the trend expected to increase substantially from its current in enrolments - both in absolute level (i.e. investment levels of 25.9% to 53.5% in 2060. Or put differently, in current prices) and in investment per student. in 2008 there are 4 persons of working age (15-64 Hence the decline in the investment on education as years old) for every person aged 65 years or over. In a percentage of GDP observed in most countries

2060 the ratio is expected to be 2 to 1. during the economic upturn (2005-2006) is due to increases in the GDP levels - following an economic

These overall population trends holds policy recovery - and should not be seen as a decline in the message also for education. The shrinking labour absolute levels of the investment in education. This force (i.e. the population age 15-64) suggests that pattern suggests that most governments’ have education becomes even more important in the expanded spending in line with enrolment levels.

future to ensure that people on the labour market have right levels of skills (chapter II on labour market

Introduction

Chart Int.4.1 : Public investment on education as a In 2006 almost 90% of investment on educational percentage of GDP institutions (all levels combined) at European level

6 was covered by public sources. Private sources represented around 10% of total investment on

5,5 US educational institutions. In some Nordic countries

5 like Finland and Sweden, less than 3% is covered EU27 from private sources. For another group of countries

4,5 (Czech Republic, Spain, Latvia, Austria and 4 Slovenia) private sources of funding accounted for

10 to 15% of total investment on educational

3,5

Japan institutions. In six member states (the United

3 Kingdom, Cyprus, the Netherlands, Bulgaria,

Germany and Slovakia), educational institutions are 2,5 funded from private sources in a proportion of 15 to

2 25%. This compared to 32% in the United States, EU27

33% in Japan and 41% in Korea. 1,5 GDPreal

Between 2000 and 2006 in one-third of European

1

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 countries for which comparable data are available,

 Data source: Eurostat (UOE) – Graphical display is based on October the private sources of funding for all combined levels

2009 data of education have increased as a percentage of

GDP (see table Ann. 3.3) . However, in the large

The average annual change in the public investment majority of the member states for which data are (chart Int. 4.2) on education as a proportion of GDP available this trend reversed between 2005 and between 2000 and 2006 has been positive in ten 2006.

member states; Cyprus (and Iceland among the

EFTA-EEA countries) has recorded the highest annual percentage change (over 4.5%).

Chart Int. 4.2: Public investment on education as a percentage of GDP in European countries (2006p)

Public expenditure on all levels of education as a % of GDP Average Annual percentage change

7.98 Denmark -0.6 7.55 Iceland 4.5 7.02 Cyprus 4.6 6.85 Sweden -0.9 6.55 Norway -0.5 6.14 Finland 0.7 6.00 Belgium (:) 5.72 Slovenia (:) 5.58 France -1.3

5.48 United Kingdom 3.5 5.46 Netherlands 1.6

5.44 Austria -0.9 5.41 Hungary 3.4 5.25 Poland 1.2 5.25 Portugal -0.5 5.07 Latvia -1.8

5.05 EU27 0.5 4.86 Ireland 2.1 4.84 Lithuania -3.2

4.80 Estonia -3.9 4.73 Italy 0.6 4.61 Czech Rep 2.5 4.41 Germany -0.2 4.28 Spain 0.0 4.24 Bulgaria 1.1 4.11 Croatia (:) 3.79 Slovakia -0.6 3.41 Luxembourg (:) 2.86 Turkey 1.7 2.06 Liechtenstein (:) (:) Greece (:) (:) Malta (:) (:) Romania (:) (:) MK (:)

9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6

Data source: Eurostat (UOE) – Graphical display is based on October 2009 data

(:) Not available - Additional notes: see Table Ann.3.5

As concerns the trend in relative investment on (countries in the lower-left quadrant). Countries like educational institutions over the past six years, Cyprus, Latvia, France, Sweden, Austria (lower Bulgaria, Germany and Spain, are falling behind the right quadrant) are presently above the EU average EU average in public and private investments on (Cyprus for both public and private investments) but educational institutions as a percentage of GDP are ‘losing momentum’ in terms of investment on

Introduction

educational institutions as a percentage of GDP. average, Slovakia, Czech Republic, Italy and Only four countries with lower levels of GDP Ireland are catching up (upper-left quadrant). invested on educational institutions than the EU

Chart Int.4.3: Changes in the public and private investments in education in European countries (2000-2006)

Source: CRELL; Data source: Eurostat (UOE) – Graphical display is based on October 2009 data

Legend: ■ EU member state with private investment as a % of GDP higher than the EU27 average

□ EU member state with private investment as a % of GDP lower than EU27 average

▲ European country with private investment as a % of GDP higher than EU27 average

Countries in the upper-right quadrant (Iceland, Hungary, teaching staff ratios, staffing patterns, teachers' United Kingdom, the Netherlands, Finland, Portugal, salaries, teaching materials and facilities, duration of Belgium, Denmark) all perform above the EU average studies, largely account for the cost differences level (with IS, UK and NL for both public and private between levels of education. In 2006 the European investments) and are moving further ahead (See Chart countries as a whole invested between 1700 (Bulgaria) Int. 4.3.). and 7900 (Norway) PPS Euro per primary student,

respectively between 1700 (Bulgaria) and 9500 The upward trend noted between 2000 and 2006 in (Norway) PPS Euro per secondary student. These some countries with low levels of investment in investment levels mask a broad variance between education could be seen as a sign of giving priority to levels of education. investment on education.

Between 2001 and 2006, investments on educational

4.2. National priorities for investment in education institutions per student increased by 29 percentage

At the EU level, public investment in primary level of points at primary level, respectively by 15 percentage education amounted to 1.17%. Investment in the points at the secondary level and 12 percentage points secondary level of education, accounts for the bulk of at tertiary level.

8 This pattern may indicate efforts to

investment – some 2.24% of GDP whereas tertiary improve education through substantial investment. In many Central and Eastern European Member States, a

education accounts for close to 1.13% of GDP. As

regards secondary education Cyprus and Denmark decline in cohort size combined with rapid economic show the highest investment levels as a percentage of growth offered an opportunity to increase investments GDP (3% or close), while Bulgaria, Croatia and in per pupil considerably in real terms.

particular Turkey show relatively lower levels. Slovenia is the only Member State with a higher level of investment in primary than in secondary education (see

Table Ann. 3.4).

Investments per student follows a common pattern throughout European countries: it increases substantially with the level of education. On average, investments per student at the secondary level, is 15 percent higher than investments per primary student in

Europe (see Table Ann.3.5). Differences in student

Introduction

Table Int.4.1: Public investment on tertiary Table Int. 4.2: Private and total investment on tertiary education as a percentage of GDP education as a percentage of GDP

Country Public Of Of which Country Private House Total Total which on R&D payhold private private

direct ments to pay In % of educatiments plus

public direct onal direct spendi spending institupublic

ng tions

2001 2006 2006 2006 2006 2006 2006 2006

EU-27 1.08 1.12 0.97 : EU-27 0.2 0.1 0.3 1.2

Belgium 1.34 1.32 1.14 32.5 Belgium 0.1 0.2 0.3 1.3 Bulgaria 0.82 0.73 0.66 4.0 Bulgaria 0.5 0.3 0.8 1.2 Czech Republic 0.79 1.23 1.18 18.4 Czech Republic 0.2 0.0 0.3 1.4 Denmark 2.71 2.38 05 1.60 : Denmark 0.1 0.7 0.7 2.3 Germany 1.10 1.11 0.89 37.3 Germany 0.2 0.1 0.2 1.1

Estonia 1.03 0.93 05 0.77 : Estonia 0.3 : 0.3 1.1 Ireland 1.22 1.14 0.97 : Ireland 0.2 : 0.2 1.1 Greece 1.07 1.44 05 1.42 05 15.1 05 Greece : 0.1 05 : 1.5 05 Spain 0.97 0.95 0.88 : Spain 0.2 : 0.2 1.1 France 1.21 1.19 1.10 34.6 France 0.2 0.1 0.3 1.3

Italy 0.80 0.80 0.67 51.2 Italy 0.3 0.1 0.4 0.9

Cyprus 1.14 1.65 0.74 17.3 Cyprus 0.7 0.1 0.8 1.4

Latvia 0.89 0.91 0.84 27.1 Latvia 0.5 0.3 0.9 1.4

Lithuania 1.33 1.00 0.84 26.7 Lithuania 0.4 0.1 0.5 1.3

Luxembourg : : : : Luxembourg : : : :

Hungary 1.08 1.04 0.88 21.8 Hungary 0.3 : 0.3 1.1

Malta 0.88 1.06 b 0.46 05 15.4 Malta 0 : : 1.1 05

Netherlands 1.36 1.50 1.06 41.3 Netherlands 0.4 0.1 0.5 1.4

Austria 1.37 1.48 1.11 36.0 Austria 0.2 : 0.2 1.3

Poland 1.04 1.19 05 0.95 18.2 Poland 0.4 0.1 0.5 1.3

Portugal 1.03 1.00 0.88 31.6 Portugal 0.4 : 0.4 1.3

Romania 0.78 0.90 0.76 05 : Romania 0.4 : 0.4 1.1 05

Slovenia 1.28 1.24 0.95 19.6 Slovenia 0.3 : 0.3 1.2

Slovakia 0.82 0.90 0.77 13.3 Slovakia 0.2 0.2 0.4 0.9

Finland 1.99 1.94 1.62 32.8 Finland 0.1 : 0.1 1.7

Sweden 2.00 1.84 1.36 44.4 Sweden 0.2 : 0.2 1.5

UK 0.79 1.10 0.81 43.2 UK 0.4 0.2 0.6 1.3

Croatia : 0.88 0.85 5.7 Croatia 0.3 : 0.3 1.2

MK* : : : : MK* : : : 0.4 03

Turkey 0.87 : 0.76 : Turkey : : : 0.8

Iceland 1.07 1.36 1.03 : Iceland 0.1 : 0.1 1.1

Liechtenstein : 0.19 13.4 Norway 0.0 : : 1.2

Norway 1.84 2.07 1.21 30.6 United States 2.0 : 2.0 2.9

United States 1.48 1.45 1.00 : Japan 1.0 0.0 1.1 1.5

Japan 0.55 0.61 0.48 : Source: Eurostat (UOE)

Additional notes:

Source: Eurostat (UOE data collection). Spending on the tertiary level *MK= former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia

includes R&D spending at universities. ISCED 5-6: tertiary education.

Additional notes: *MK= former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (cf. Direct public expenditure does not include transfers to private entities. If

Annex 2) public and private spending are added up, it is preferable to use direct

http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page?_pageid=0,1136184,0_4 public expenditure (instead of total expenditure) to avoid double

5572595&_dad=portal&_schema=PORTAL counting.

The Commission has proposed the goal of investing While public investment in tertiary-level education in 2% of GDP in higher education from public and the EU is only slightly below the level in the USA, it is private sources combined. The current level in the EU nearly twice as high as in Japan (Chart Int 4.4) is 1.2% of which public investment accounts for about However, private investment in higher education is 1.13% of GDP. In Denmark, total public investments much higher in both the USA and Japan. As a result, in higher education alone already surpasses 2% of total investment on higher education institutions in GDP (from all sources); a large share of this, however the EU (for all activities, including both education and (as in Finland and Sweden) is direct financial aid to research) was in 2006, 1.2% of GDP, far below the students. Direct public investments on higher level in the USA (2.9%) and also lower than in Japan education institutions in these countries is hence (1.5%) and Korea (2.3%, 2004), but higher than in considerably lower. On the other hand the share Brazil (0.9%), Russia (0.7%), China (0.5%) and India direct public investment is below 1% in 7 EU (0.4%).

countries, including Italy, Spain and Romania.

Introduction

Chart Int.4.4: Public investment on tertiary education Romania and Slovakia showed the biggest increases. as a percentage of GDP Public investment accounts for more than 85% of the

amount invested in tertiary education institutions in

Public spending on higher education as a % of GDP

1,6 Europe. Cyprus and Latvia are the two EU-27 USA countries with the lowest share of public funding: up to

1,4 60% of the amount invested in higher education institutions there comes from private sources.

1,2 Conversely, in Denmark, Greece, Malta and Finland EU 27 higher education institutions are almost entirely funded

1 by public resources.

0,8 The Member States are marked by great differences

Japan in the share of public investment on higher

0,6 education going to research and development. Those Member States that have high overall levels

0,4

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 of R&D spending have also high shares of R&D in

investment on higher education. The large Member

Data source: Eurostat (UOE) – Graphical display is based on September

2009 data States and the Nordic countries often show R&D shares of above 30% (Table Int 4.1).

The higher education investment gap between the EU

and the USA currently thus amounted in 2006 to about The proportion of the school-age population is only one 1.7% of GDP (about 200 billion Euro) or over 10 000 determinant of the level of investment in education. Euro per student (per full time equivalent student the Countries with similar proportions of the population in gap even amounted to nearly 13 000 Euro PPS, 21540 education may spend different shares of their GDP, in the US and 8590 in the EU). As a result of limited according to the priority they give to different levels of progress in increasing investment in EU countries the education. Investments on higher education are more gap has not closed in recent years. The impact of the strongly affected by participation rates than compulsory financial crisis still has to be seen. The crisis has education where all pupils of a cohort participate in already considerably reduced the value of endowment education. Nevertheless adequate investment levels funds of leading private US institutions. are especially important for countries that face low

levels of participation in education and where current

Total public investment on higher education as a investment levels may not be adequate to increasing percentage of GDP in 2006 increased in 11 EU the proportion of population which participates in countries while decreasing in 8. The Czech Republic, lifelong learning.

Chart Int.4.5: Public investment and participation in primary and secondary education (2006)

7.5

Denmark

Cyprus

Iceland

Sweden

No rway

Finland

Slo venia B elgium A ustria United Kingdo m Netherlands

France

P o rtugal P o land Ireland

E U2 7

Hungary Esto nia

Latvia

Italy Lithuania

Czech Rep

Germany

Spain

B ulgaria Cro atia

Slo vakia

Turkey

2.5

45 S t ude nt s in IS C E D 1- 6 a ge d 5 - 2 9 a s % o f s a m e a ge po pula t io n ( 2 0 0 6 ) 70

Source: CRELL, Joint Research Centre. Graphical display is based on June 2009 data.

Introduction

As can be seen in Chart Int. 4.5 among the European countries there is a clear link between the public investment levels (measured by the proportion of public investment on education in the GDP) and the participation patterns in education. Participation in education is much higher in the Nordic countries (which also allocate high proportion of public spending) whereas countries like Turkey, Slovakia, Romania,

Bulgaria or Croatia will have difficulties to increase their participation levels from the population if investment levels do not increase.

As a result of the current economic downturn many

European countries will be increasingly limited in the amount of resources that they have at their disposal and in the ways in which they may use them. In some member states, infrastructure budgets will be at risk whereas in others, investment in education (school infrastructure, hiring new teachers, etc.) is part of the recovery plan; this investment will assist in the shortterm re-launch of the economy and is expected to enhance the long-term economic perspectives.

Countries have to make difficult choices on investment levels in education due to the economic downturn. The higher education level is much more constrained during an economic downturn as a result of possible increases in student numbers (young people postpone their entry into the labour market) but also risking falling or

stagnating investment levels 9 - some predictions show

that public funding for higher education will be cut in

seven Member States (by around 6-10%). 10 In addition,

many universities fear that private investment will fall in the near future.

CHAPTER I

Making lifelong learning

and mobility a reality

Main messages

• 1. 

  Participation in Lifelong learning -Participation in lifelong learning at various lifetime stages 1.1 An aggregate measure on participation in lifelong learning in Europe

• 2. 

  Student Mobility in Education 2.1 Mobility of higher education students - Foreign students in higher education - Higher education students enrolled outside their country of origin - Flow of students 2.2 European student mobility programmes - Higher education students - Erasmus mobility - Post-graduate researchers - Marie Curie mobility - Vocational education and training students - Leonardo da Vinci mobility) - School students - Comenius mobility

Chapter I: Making lifelong learning and mobility a reality

MAIN MESSAGES Lifelong Learning and Mobility

Lifelong learning

• Lifelong learning from "cradle to grave" is becoming a reality for the majority of people in a

number of European countries (DK, SE, IS, followed by FI, UK and NL) - and progress can be observed in almost all. In Belgium, Germany, Spain, France, Austria, Slovenia, as well as in Norway, participation is above the European average. DK, FI, SI and UK-Scotland are also among the

European countries that have developed coherent and overarching lifelong learning strategies.

• Close to 10% of adults have participated in lifelong learning within a four weeks period. There

is, clear progress since 2000. However, this is not sufficient to achieve the benchmark of 12.5% by 2010 - or the 2020 benchmark of 15%. Increasing participation in lifelong learning for adults remains a

main challenge in many European countries.

• Almost 60% of young people (5-29 year-old) participate in education. This is comparable to the

US (2007)

• - 

  Secondary enrolment rates are above 85% in nearly all member states and well above 90% in 8

countries (FR, LT, NL, CZ, SI, FI, SE and UK)

• - 

  Higher education enrolment is over 50% in nearly all member states and above 80% in 4 countries (DK EL, FI, SI) reaching levels near or above the level of the US (82%). Some Central and Eastern European member states (HU, LT, RO and SI) saw their tertiary education enrolment rates increasing

  by over 25 percentage points since 2000.

• Time spent by young Europeans in education and training is increasing in all countries. In

Finland 20.5 years, followed by Sweden, Iceland, Belgium and Denmark with expected durations of

education between 19 and 20 years.

Learning mobility

• About one in two students world-wide, enrolled outside the country of citizenship, is studying

in the EU. 1.7 million higher education students in the EU have foreign citizenship (2007). The

number has doubled since 2000. This represents 9% of all tertiary students in the EU.

• More than half a million EU students study abroad, an increase of about 50% since 2000. Three

out of four mobile students in the EU, study in another EU country.

• About 2 million students have by mid 2009 participated in Erasmus mobility programmes since

these started in 1987. Growth in participation in Erasmus has, however, slowed down in recent years.

Chapter I: Making lifelong learning and mobility a reality

• 1. 

  Participation in Lifelong learning above 90% in 9 countries. 13 Enrolment in secondary

education is particular high in Japan (98%), Ukraine

This chapter analyses participation patterns in and Israel. Only 7 Member States had lower lifelong learning in European countries. The enrolment rates than the US (89%).

benchmark on lifelong learning concerns the adults

aged 25-64 and set the objective of 12.5% Tertiary enrolment was in 2007 over 50% in nearly participation rate by 2010. A new benchmark has all member states except Bulgaria and Cyprus and been adopted by the Council (Education) in May above 80% in 4 countries. Only Greece, Slovenia 2009: setting the objective of 15% participation of and Finland had tertiary enrolment rates higher than adults in lifelong learning, by 2020. However, the 82% of the US. Japan was at 58%, below the because lifelong learning strategies address the full rate recorded in half of the EU member states. The range of learning from "cradle to grave" - and not just increases in enrolment at tertiary level have been adult education - other European benchmarks, such spectacular since 2000. Some Central and Eastern as participation’ in preschool education, early leavers European member states (like Hungary, Lithuania, from education after compulsory schooling as well as Romania and Slovenia) saw their rates increasing higher education graduation, all support the aim of between 2000 and 2007 with more than 25 making lifelong learning a reality. percentage points compared to 2000.

Participation in lifelong learning at various Participation in lifelong learning of adults

lifetime stages

9.5% of 25-64 year olds participate in education and

Participation in pre-primary, school and higher training in the four weeks preceding the survey.

14

education (5-29 year olds) Even if there has been slow but continuous

progress, this is still some way short of the

Nearly all children between 4 years-old and the benchmark of 12.5% for 2010. Only 6 Member starting age for compulsory schooling in France, States exceeded the benchmark.

15

Sweden, Belgium and Italy are enrolled in the early

childhood education. The Netherlands, Malta, Spain There are large differences in participation between and Hungary are close behind; they all exceed the Member States; the Scandinavian countries and the new benchmark of 95% enrolment by 2020. Cyprus, UK, the best performers, achieve systematically high Lithuania, Latvia, Romania and Finland have all and increasing participation rates, reaching 20-30%. achieved significant increases in enrolments since Data put the Netherlands, Slovenia, Austria, Spain 2000 (see also Chapter III). and Ireland in the next group, with participation rates

between 10-20% whereas Estonia, Cyprus,

In the EU member states the number of years that Luxembourg, Germany, Czech Republic and France pupils and students can expect to stay in education are at 7-10% participation rate. Bulgaria, Greece and from pre-school to higher education, went up by 1.5 Romania as well as Croatia and Turkey have years since 2000; in Greece, Latvia, Lithuania, recorded little or no progress in improving their Romania, Finland the increase was 2 years (or extremely low levels of participation.

16

more), as can be seen in Table Ann. I.1. 11

There are different patterns of adult participation in EU enrolment in formal education institutions for the lifelong learning by age-group. Participation of adults age-group 5-to-29 has increased to 59% in 2007 aged 50-to-64 is considerably lower. Four member (from 56.8% in 2000). The EU average participation states: Denmark, Finland, United Kingdom, and rate is comparable to that of the US and 17 Netherlands along with Iceland and Norway - which percentage points higher than in Japan; only one are the best performers in Europe for adult third of the member states have higher participation participation in lifelong learning overall - are also the rates than the US. best performers but with considerably lower

participation rates as concerns this age-group. The net enrolment rate in primary education

remained over 90% of the "typical age-group" 12 in Denmark remain the best European performer with

nearly all European countries. Participation in one in four adults aged 50-to-64 taking part in secondary education (ISCED levels 2 and 3) lifelong learning, followed by Iceland, Finland, United continues to grow in the EU. In only 6 Member Kingdom and Norway, each of these countries with States did enrolment rates fail to increase since participation rates over 10%. In Greece, Hungary or 2000 (LT, LU, NL, SI, RO, UK). In Greece, the Turkey less than 1% of that age-group had increase was over 10 percentage points. Secondary participated in lifelong learning in the four weeks enrolment rates were above 85% in all Member preceding the survey.

States except Luxembourg and Romania and well

Chapter I: Making lifelong learning and mobility a reality

Chart I.1.1: Participation of adults in lifelong learning in European countries

Percentage of the adult population aged 25 to 64 Evolution 2003 / 2008 (% relative change) participating in education and training (2008)

32.4 Sweden* 1.8 30.2 Denmark 25.2 25.1 Iceland -15.2

23.1 Finland 3.3 19.9 United Kingdom (:)

19.3 Norway 13.0 17.0 Netherlands 3.4

13.9 Slovenia 4.1 13.2 Austria 53.6 10.4 Spain*** -1.2

9.8 Estonia 46.3 9.5 EU-27 12.3

8.5 Luxembourg 31.4 8.5 Cyprus*** 44.7 7.9 Germany 30.6 7.8 Czech Republic 51.0

0 7.3 France 2.3

0 2 0 1

0 7.1 Ireland 19.7

 2 2 6.8 a rk a rk Belgium**

-20.5

m m 6.8 Latvia -13.5 6.3 Italy** 0.6

e n c h e n c h B B 6.2 Malta** 43.7

5.3 Portugal** 24.1 4.9 Lithuania** -16.0 4.7 Poland** -6.2 3.3 Slovakia -10.8 3.1 Hungary -31.6 2.9 Greece 11.7 2.5 MK (:) 2.2 Croatia 19.4 1.8 Turkey (:) 1.5 Romania** 9.9 1.4 Bulgaria 9.1 (:) Liechtenstein (:)

35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Data source: Eurostat (LFS database), October 2009

• * 

  Evolution 2003-2007 ** Evolution 2004-2008 *** Evolution 2005-2008

This indicator refers to persons aged 25 to 64 who stated that they received education or training in the four weeks preceding the survey (numerator). The denominator consists of the total population of the same age group, excluding those who did not answer to the question 'participation to education and training'. Both the numerator and the denominator come from the EU Labour Force Survey. The information collected relates to all education or training whether or not relevant to the respondent's current or possible future job. For countries where data exists, the participation figures based on the Adult Education Survey (AES) results are in general higher than the LFS results due to differences in the reference period (one year in the AES as opposed to four weeks each quarter in the LFS) and in the coverage of lifelong learning activities in each survey.

1.1 An aggregate measure on participation in learning (within a four weeks period) is between 21 lifelong learning in Europe and 33%.

To capture the overall participation patterns in The Netherlands, Finland and the United Kingdom lifelong learning at various lifetime stages, an follow closely this leading group of countries, aggregate measure provides a picture of the very whereas in Belgium, Germany, Spain, France, different participation patterns in lifelong learning Austria, Slovenia and Norway, participation is also across Europe by taking participation in formal and high - all these countries having performance above non-formal education and training in the best the European average. performing member states as a reference (See Chart

I.1.2). The index shows that in 16 member states participation in lifelong learning is below the EU

Participation in lifelong learning - as indicated by the average (with index values between 50 and 70). index - is very high and is close to become a reality Estonia, Italy and Malta show index values between for a vast majority of people in Denmark, Sweden, 65 and 70 whereas for another group of countries and Iceland. The index participation in lifelong (Czech Republic, Ireland, Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania, learning from "cradle to grave" shows very high Luxembourg, Hungary and Portugal) the index is values for all these countries (with an index value at between 60 and 65. All three candidate countries or above 90). In these countries participation in preshow much lower values (between 33 and 47) primary is above 90%, school participation rates are whereas in Bulgaria, Romania and Greece the index at 64-67% and participation of adults in lifelong values are only slightly above 50.

Chapter I: Making lifelong learning and mobility a reality

Chart I.1.2 An aggregate measure of participation in lifelong learning in European countries

100

S wed en

De nma rk Icel and

85

N ethe rlan ds

Fin lan d Un ited Ki ng dom

No rway

Slo ven ia

Be lg ium

Fra nce Aus tri a

70 Ge rmany S pai n

Ital y EU27

Eston ia

0 7 Latvi a C zech R Ma lta

2 0 Hun ga ry Lu xemb ourg Cyp rus Lithu an ia Irel and Portug al

Pol an d Sl ova kia

55 Ro man ia

Greec e Bu lg aria

Croa tia

40

MK Tu rkey

25

25 40 55 2000 70 85 100

Source: European Commission DG JRC/Crell (2009)

Methodological details on the index: The index is a proxy measure of participation in education and lifelong learning for the population aged 4 to 64. One indicator is used for each stage of lifelong learning: the first one measures the participation in early childhood education between 4-years-old and the starting age of compulsory primary education, the second shows the participation in primary, secondary and tertiary education of population aged 5 to 29 and the last one covers the participation in lifelong learning of 25- to-64 year-olds. These three indicators - each representing a lifetime stage of lifelong learning - are subsequently normalized using the distance to the best performer method and, the simple arithmetic mean is taken to arrive at the overall index values in the range 0 to 100. Each those components are assigned equal weight in the index in accordance with the principle of considering each stage of lifelong learning participation as being of equal importance. Thresholds are used to classify the index values as: very high (at or above 90), high (between 70 and 90), medium (between 50 and 70), low (between 30 and 50) and very low (below 30), respectively.

For more methodological details, please consult: ‘Participation in lifelong learning in Europe: what can be measured and compared?’ , CRELL (2008)

Chapter I: Making lifelong learning and mobility a reality

The country specific values of the index can be 2. Mobility in Education

found below in Table I.1.1.

2.1 Mobility of higher education students Table I.1.1 An aggregate measure of participation in

lifelong learning in European countries Student mobility contributes not only to personal

development and fulfilment but also to enhancing competence in fields like languages and intercultural

2007 Lifelong learning LLL Child Youth Adults index understanding and, hence, to employability on an

EU-27 90.6 59 9.5 69.3 increasingly international labour market. Moreover, Belgium 99.7 65 7.2 72.9 student mobility helps to develop European Bulgaria 79.8 49.9 1.3 52.7 citizenship and European awareness and it Czech Republic 92.6 55.8 5.7 64.5 promotes the creation of a European Area of

Denmark 92.7 64.4 29.2 92.9 Education and Training.

Germany 94.5 61.8 7.8 70.2 Estonia 93.6 57.6 7 67

Ireland 72.1 61.6 7.6 62.5 This chapter will analyse mobility mainly on the basis

Greece 68.2 57.5 2.1 53.5 of four indicators:

Spain 98.1 54.1 10.4 70.3 § Foreign students enrolled in tertiary France 100 60.6 7.4 71.1 education (ISCED levels 5 and 6) as a

Italy 99.3 57.9 6.2 68.2 percentage of all students enrolled in the

Cyprus 84.7 50.7 8.4 62.1 country of destination

Latvia 88.2 56.5 7.1 64.8 § Percentage of students (ISCED levels 5 and

Lithuania 76.6 62.7 5.3 62.1 6) from the country of origin enrolled abroad

Luxembourg 93.9 51.2 7 63.9 (in EU, EEA and Candidate countries);

Hungary 95.1 57.5 3.6 64

Malta 98.8 52.9 6 65.4 § Inward mobility of Erasmus students

Netherlands 98.9 65.1 16.6 82.4 § Outward mobility of Erasmus students.

Austria 88.8 57.1 12.8 71.1

Poland 66.8 59.6 5.1 57.1 In addition it will look at mobility related to the

Portugal 86.7 56.8 4.4 61.6 Leonardo and the Comenius programme.

Romania 81.8 51.3 1.3 54.1

Slovenia 89.2 61.9 14.8 75.7 Foreign students in higher education

Slovakia 79.4 53.8 3.9 57.2

Finland 69.8 66.5 23.4 80.4 About 1.7 million students with foreign citizenship Sweden 100 64.3 32.4 98.6 were enrolled in tertiary education in EU-27

United Kingdom 90.7 59.1 20 80.2 countries in 2007 (the 2006/07 academic year) Croatia 54.4 52 2.4 46.4 compared to 788.000 students in 2000 17 . The

MK* 26.1 48 2.8 35.4

Turkey 26.7 47.1 1.5 33.8 average annual increase over the period 2000-2007 Iceland 91.7 67.1 27 91.7 was 11.7%. Growth in the number of foreign Norway 79 66.7 18 78 students was faster than the growth in overall

Source: CRELL, Data source: Eurostat (UOE and LFS) student numbers.

18

*MK= former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia An increasing share of tertiary students in Europe

comes from outside Europe. The number of students It is worth noting that Denmark, Finland, Slovenia from India and from China grew six-fold from 2000 to and UK-Scotland are also among the European 2007.

countries that have developed coherent and

overarching lifelong learning strategies, covering all The number of students studying in the EU from types and levels of education and training throughout other parts of the world varies greatly between life. Almost all other good performing countries have countries. In Cyprus, France, Malta and Portugal adopted a set of policies/sectoral strategies covering more than 80% of foreign students come from all key areas of lifelong learning or are at an outside the EU, while the corresponding figures in advanced stage of developing an overarching Austria, the Czech Republic, Estonia and Greece strategy. were under 40%.

There are several reasons for the high proportion of students from other parts of the world studying in EU-27. Firstly and most importantly, the indicator analysed is students with foreign citizenship and not mobile students per se; many of these students may in fact be resident in the country where they are studying. Another reason could be the wide variety of teaching languages in Europe, attracting students from all over the world. Finally, students from former colonies of European countries may study in the former colonial countries, with which they have

Chapter I: Making lifelong learning and mobility a reality

cultural and historical ties and whose language they Table I.2.2: Main countries of origin of non-national share. students in the EU

Table I.2.1: Foreign tertiary students as % of all Foreign students tertiary students (ISCED levels 5 and 6) in EU-27 (in 1000)

enrolled in the country (2000-2007) 2000 2006 2007

Total 787.9 1690.4 1709.8

Foreign tertiary Mobile Annual growth in Europe 383.8 566.3 599.6

students tertiary number of - EU 27 315.8 449.5 479.2 students foreign -other Europe 68.0 116.6 120.4

as % of all tertiary students tertiary students - of which Russia 12.5 27.7 29.6 2000 2007 2007 2000-2007 Africa 134.2 241.3 246.0 EU-27 5.0 8.9 : : Morocco 38.2 47.9 46.3 Belgium : 10.5 6.4 : Algeria 14.9 23.2 21.8 Bulgaria 3.1 3.6 : 2.0 Nigeria 3.5 19.3 22.0 Czech Rep. 2.2 6.8 5.6 23.2 Asia 183.0 376.1 405.5 Denmark 6.8 9.0 5.5 7.1 China 18.6 113.5 117.5 Germany 9.1 11.3 : 4.7 India 6.6 33.1 39.3 Estonia 1.6 3.2 1.4 14.3 Japan 10.7 12.7 12.4 Ireland 4.6 5.6 (03) : : America 63.0 110.4 121.6 Greece : 2.5 (06) : : USA 22.7 29.8 32.2

Spain 1.4 3.4 1.8 13.0 Canada 5.8 10.1 10.8

France 6.8 11.3 10.8 (05) : Brazil 6.8 11.3 12.9

Italy 1.4 2.8 : 12.6 Oceania 2.9 7.4 7.7

Cyprus 19.4 26.9 25.1 16.7 Australia 2.1 5.3 5.6

Latvia 6.6 1.1 1.1 -18.5 Unknown nat. 20.9 388.9 329.4

Lithuania 0.4 1.0 1.0 19.9

Luxembourg : 42.2 (06) : : Source: Eurostat (UOE collection)

Hungary 3.2 3.5 3.0 6.2

Malta 5.6 6.2 0.0 7.9 Higher education students enrolled outside their Netherlands 2.9 6.5 4.7 15.1 country of origin

Austria 12.4 16.7 12.4 2.8

Poland 0.4 0.6 : 11.4

Portugal 3.0 4.9 : 7.0 In 2007, world wide 3.0 million students (slightly Romania 2.8 1.3 : -0.5 more than 2% of all students) were enrolled outside

Slovenia 0.9 1.3 1.0 9.9 their country of citizenship, of whom 2.5 million

Slovakia 1.2 0.9 0.9 3.6 (84%) were studying in the OECD area. The United Finland 2.1 3.3 : 8.8 States received most foreign students (in absolute Sweden 7.4 10.3 5.4 7.6 terms) with 19.7% of the total. However, the share of UK 11.0 31.0 14.9 18.5 the United States in total foreign students reported to Croatia : 0.7 2.5 : the OECD decreased by 5 percentage points

FYR Maced. 0.7 1.5 1.5 20.3 between 2000 and 2007. The EU accounts for a

Turkey 1.7 0.8 : 1.2

Iceland 4.2 4.9 : 10.0 combined total of about 43% (2007), of which: UK Liechtenstein* : 88.3 86.5 : (11.6%), Germany (8.6%), France (8.2%), After the

Norway 4.6 7.3 2.2 8.7 EU and the US, Australia is placed third with 7.0%, Japan 1.5 3.1 2.9 11.2 followed by Canada (4.4%) and Japan (4.2%)

United States 3.6 3.4 3.4 : (OECD 2009).

Source: For EU, EEA and acceding countries: UOE data collection. For

other countries: UNESCO Institute of Statistics For most EU countries, the majority of outgoing Additional notes: DE, SI: Students in advanced research programmes students are enrolled in another EU country. The

(ISCED level 6) in these countries are excluded.

RO 2000: data exclude ISCED level 6. only exception is the UK, where the majority of

Mobile tertiary students: students with residence or prior education in a students studying abroad - which represent a relative foreign country low percentage of UK students - are studying outside

the EU. In 2007 on average about 3.5% of EU students were studying abroad, with four out of five in other EU countries. Countries diverge greatly in terms of the proportion of students enrolled abroad. In general, the larger countries have a lower proportion of students studying abroad than the

smaller countries.

One explanation for the difference of mobility levels between big and smaller countries could be that students from smaller countries may be more likely to go abroad because they have already acquired the language of one of the larger countries. However, one major factor in the high mobility levels of students from countries such as Cyprus and Luxembourg is simply the absence (at least in the

Chapter I: Making lifelong learning and mobility a reality

past) or lack of capacity of third- level institutions in 138 000 US students came to study in Europe. the students’ own country. By way of illustration: However, this figure includes short stays and sumover 80% of Luxembourg's students are enrolled in mer courses. The US students studying one year or other EU, EFTA-EEA or Candidate countries. longer in the EU amount to only about 25 000. Cyprus, Ireland and Slovakia follow with respectively

57%, 14% and 10% of students enrolled in other More than 20% of the outgoing students from the European countries. At the other end of the scale Czech Republic, Sweden and the UK study in the one finds Spain and the UK with less than 1.5% of USA. As regards other parts of the world the number their students enrolled abroad in the mentioned of incoming students in the EU exceeds by a factor European countries. of more than 10 the number of outgoing students.

Table I.2.3: Percentage of all tertiary students 2.2 European student mobility programmes (ISCED levels 5 and 6) enrolled outside their

country of origin Higher education students - Erasmus mobility

Students (ISCED levels 5 and 6) A large proportion of overall mobility is supported

studying in another EU-27, EEA or

Candidate country - as % of all students through Community programmes such as Erasmus

2000 2006 2007 (see chart I.2.2 and table I.2.4).

EU-27 2.1 2.6 2.8

Belgium 2.4 2.5 2.6 Chart I.2.1: Outward mobility of Erasmus students,

Bulgaria 3.2 8.9 8.3 2007/08 (students sent per 1000 students)

Czech Republic 1.3 2.0 2.1 Denmark 2.7 2.6 2.5 Germany 1.8 2.8 3.1 Estonia 2.5 4.1 4.5 Ireland 9.4 13.8 14.2 Greece 12.4 5.5 5.8 Spain 1.1 1.3 1.4 France 1.8 2.4 2.5 Italy 1.7 1.7 1.8 Cyprus 46.5 53.2 56.9 Latvia 1.3 2.2 2.5 Lithuania 1.8 3.0 3.3 Luxembourg 74.5 80.8 : Hungary 1.7 1.7 1.8 Malta 8.2 10.0 9.9 Netherlands 1.9 2.1 2.1 Austria 3.8 4.6 4.7 Poland 0.9 1.6 1.8

Portugal 2.3 3.7 4.0 Romania 1.5 2.2 2.2 Slovenia 2.2 2.1 2.1

Slovakia 3 10.2 10.2 Source: DG Education and Culture (Erasmus programme)

Finland 3.2 3.0 2.9

Sweden 2.7 2.7 3.0

United Kingdom 0.6 0.7 0.7 The total number of Erasmus students increased by Croatia : 6.4 6.2 2.0 % in 2007/08 (1.0 % in EU 27) compared with

MK* 6.2 11.9 10.5 the previous year. This was much lower than the Turkey 3.3 1.6 1.5 increase in former years. The increase was, Iceland 16.9 17.4 17.8 however, substantial in many new Member States

Liechtenstein : 73.6 51.0 and notably in the candidate country Turkey. This Norway 4.7 4.9 5.0 increase should be seen in the context of the Source: Eurostat (UOE) *MK= Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia increasing number of European universities taking

Additional notes: DE, SI: Students in advanced research

programmes (ISCED level 6) in these countries are excluded. part in the Erasmus programme.

In 2007/08 Erasmus mobility amounted to 162 695 Flow of students students, of which 155 078 from EU countries or

0.8% of the student population in EU countries The EU-27 is a net receiver of students, since over (Table I.2.4 and chart I.2.2). In addition 20 002 (19 700 000 more students with non-EU citizenship are 085 from the EU) students did a placement period in studying in the EU than EU citizens are studying an enterprise abroad. Furthermore 27 157 people outside the EU. In 2007, 72% of students with (25 232 from the EU) participated in teaching foreign citizenship in the EU were from countries mobility and 4 883 (of which 4 288 from the EU) outside the EU. This figure included 7% from other participated in Erasmus mobility for staff training.

European countries, 2 % from the USA and 63% from other parts of the world. The USA is a net receiver of students from EU-27. More than twice as many students go to the USA from the EU as from the USA to the EU. In 2008 according to Open Doors

Chapter I: Making lifelong learning and mobility a reality

Chart I.2.2.: Mobility of students in the Erasmus programme

1987/88 1989/90 1994/95 1999/00 2000/01 2003/04 2004/05 2005/06 2006/07 2007/08 Total

EU-27 72 341 106 418 109 933 134 190 141 391 149 933 153 396 155078 1 659 029

Turkey - - - - - - 1142 2852 4438 6274 14706

Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway - - 1066 1248 1159 1396 1504 1636 1490 1343 19494

Total (EU-27 + EEA + CC ) 3 244 19 456 73 407 107 666 111 092 135 586 144 037 154 421 159 324 162695 1 846623

Source: DG Education and Culture

Table I.2.4: Mobility of Erasmus students, 2007/08 Community Framework programmes for

Researchers and Technological Development (FP).

Students Students Per 1000 students Within FP6, nearly 6000 young researchers at

sent received 2006/07 doctoral level have undertaken mobility both trans

2007/08 2007/08 Students Students national and inter-sectoral. Moreover, 16 000 young sent received

scientists have participated in international and

EU-27 155078 155 078 8,2 8,2 interdisciplinary training events funded by Marie

Belgium 4781 4960 12,1 12,6

Bulgaria 1078 328 4,2 1,3 Curie Actions.

Czech Rep. 5335 3116 14,7 8,6

Denmark 1674 4641 7,2 20,0 Between 2007 and 2013, just under 2 billion Euros

Germany 23553 16404 10,3 7,2 will be spent via FP7 Marie Curie Initial Training Estonia 595 506 8,7 7,4 Network in order to ensure that postgraduate Ireland 1514 3834 8,0 20,1 researchers are able to move around Europe and Greece 2308 1691 3,8 2,8 the rest of the world and broaden their scientific and

Spain 23107 27204 13,0 15,3 generic skills."

France 22556 19970 10,3 9,2 Italy 17562 14341 8,6 7,1

Cyprus 148 228 6,7 10,3 Vocational education and training students -

Latvia 968 316 7,5 2,4 Leonardo da Vinci mobility

Lithuania 2392 825 12,0 4,1

Luxembourg 367 45 136,3 16,7 Enhancing international mobility within vocational

Hungary 3292 1739 7,6 4,0 training is a specific challenge, especially as regards Malta 107 359 10,9 36,6 longer stays abroad and within apprenticeships. Netherlands 4699 6491 8,1 11,1 Currently mobility levels in VET are much lower than Austria 4133 3727 15,8 14,3 in higher education. Between 2006 and 2008, 12 Poland 11879 3390 5,5 1,6 pilot projects were financed by the Commission,

Portugal 4471 4978 12,2 13,6

Romania 2953 863 3,2 0,9 which developed support mechanisms to facilitate

Slovenia 1018 772 8,8 6,7 the mobility of apprentices and young people

Slovakia 1452 626 6,7 2,9 engaged in practical training periods abroad . The

Finland 3265 5867 10,6 19,0 Leonardo da Vinci programme also supports a Sweden 2348 7463 5,7 18,0 moderate level of VET-mobility within the EU, UK 7523 15637 3,2 6,6 amounting in 2008 to over 67 000 persons (See

Turkey 6274 1799 2,6 0,7 annex Table Ann. I.8). Young people participating in

Iceland 210 274 13,3 17,3

Liechtenstein 30 36 44,6 53,5 initial vocational training accounted for about 60% of Norway 1103 2648 5,1 12,3 total mobility (about 40 000 persons) within this

Source: DG Education and Culture programme. The mobility of people on the labour

market accounted for a further 20% and the mobility

Post-graduate students - Marie Curie mobility of professionals in vocational education and training

for the remaining 20%. In 2008 hence about 0.3% of

The mobility at doctoral level (ISCED level 6) is also students participating in initial vocational training supported by Marie Curie Actions- part of the participated in programme based international

Chapter I: Making lifelong learning and mobility a reality

mobility. While there has been a growth in the years School students - Comenius mobility before (participation doubled between 2000 and

2006), in 2008 for the first time participation in In the framework of Comenius school partnerships Leonardo -mobility declined - by nearly a quarter. over 200 000 EU school students have profited from This is mainly a result of the reattribution of mobility since 2001 (See Annex Table Ann I.9). The placements (about 20 000 per year to the Erasmus annual figure has increased from 33 000 in 2001 to programme). about 40 000 in 2006. The latter figure represents

about 0.1 % of pupils in the corresponding age group. A similar number of staff has profited from Comenius enabled mobility – about 50 000 in EU 27

in 2006.

CHAPTER II

Improving

the quality and efficiency of

education and training

Main messages

1 School education

1.1. Completion of upper secondary education 1.2. Teachers – Overview - Females represent a large majority of teachers - The teaching profession is aging. 1.3. Teachers and their professional development - Types of professional development undertaken - Teachers' participation in professional development - Intensity of participation in professional development - Unsatisfied demand and development needs - What are the areas of greatest development need? - Impact of professional development

2 Vocational education and training

2.1. Participation in vocational education and training - Participation in Initial vocational education and training - Participation in continuing vocational training

2.2. Investment in VET

• - 

  Investment in initial VET
• - 

  Investment of enterprises in continuing vocational training

2.3. Third country comparisons

2.4. Individual outcomes of vocational education and training

3 Higher education

3.1. The Bologna process in higher education 3.2. Current international university rankings 3.3. Graduates in higher education - General student population trends - Higher education graduates 3.4. Higher education attainment of the population

4 Labour market outcomes

4.1. Educational attainment of the adult population - Share of the adult population with high educational attainment. - Generational differences

• - 

  Gender differences - Generational and gender differences

4.2. Relationship between Educational attainment and Employment rates - General trends

• - 

  Recent developments due to the economic crisis 4.3. Shifts in skills demand and the ageing population

Chapter II: Improving the quality and efficiency of education and training

MAIN MESSAGES Quality and Efficiency of Education and Training

School education

• Progress since 2000 on increasing upper secondary attainment levels of young people (20-24)

has been limited (increase of less than two percentage points). Nevertheless, 9 EU countries already exceed the benchmark for 2010 of a 85% completion rate. In 2008, four of these (CZ, PL, SI

,SK) perform already beyond a 90% attainment rate.

• The large majority (70%) of the 6 million teachers in the EU in primary and secondary schools

are female.

• The teaching workforce is aging, one third of teachers in the EU are today over 50.

• 15% of pupils in the EU attend schools where science teaching is hindered by a lack of

qualified teachers (2006).

• Professional development is a feature of the lives of the vast majority of teachers. Nine out of

ten teachers take part in professional development activity within an 18 months period. Furthermore,

more than half the teachers' wanted more professional development than they received.

• Participation in teachers professional development varies between countries. More than 90%

have participated in for example ES, SI, AT, LT, MT, EE whereas the rate is 70-80% in SK, DK and

IS.

• The principal causes of unfulfilled demand, according to teachers, are the conflict with their

work schedule and lack of suitable development opportunities.

• Across all countries, the areas for which teachers expressed greatest need for development

are: “Teaching special learning needs students”, “ICT teaching skills” and “Student discipline

and behaviour”.

Vocational education and training

• Member states experienced a decline in the participation, duration and investment in

continuing vocational training. (2000-2005)

• The majority of upper secondary education students in the EU participate in vocational

programmes. There are large differences in the member states ranging from more than two-thirds to

less than 30 per cent.

Higher education

• Nearly 19 million students are enrolled in higher education in the EU (2007), some 19% more

than in 2000. However, growth in the number of students has decelerated in the last years and might further slow down in the future as a result of smaller cohorts entering student age population.

• Almost one out of three adults in the EU, aged 30-34 (31%), have higher education attainment

– an increase of 9 percentage points between 2000 and 2008. 9 EU countries already perform above the 2020 EU benchmark of 40% .

• Over 190 universities from 18 EU Member States are among the 500 leading universities of the

world (2009), according to the Shanghai university ranking. The top end of the ranking, however, remains dominated by US institutions (17 US institutions are in the top 20 compared to 2 from the

EU).

 Labour market outcomes

• The educational attainment of the adult population (25-64 year olds) has improved

considerably since 2000. The share of population with lower secondary education or lower is down by 7.2 percentage points and the share with tertiary education is up by 4.8% percentage points. Yet, almost 77 million, close to 30 % of the adult population, still has low educational attainment, below

upper secondary level.

• The share of 25-64 year-olds with high educational attainment in the EU, which stands at 24%,

is far behind the 40% of both the US and Japan.

• Especially male workers with low educational attainment are confronted to a sharp increase

of unemployment rates since the start of the economic downturn.

Chapter II: Improving the quality and efficiency of education and training

• 1. 

  School education key competencies are analysed in the chapter on

  Equity (Chapter IV.1)

The development of school education is analysed in

fields that have been defined by the Council as main 1.1 Completion of upper secondary education

strategic areas of change in view of improving quality

of education: completion rates of at least upper Upper secondary attainment is a core indicator for secondary education and secondly teachers and measuring progress in the area of schools and their professional development. related to the EU benchmark of achieving by 2010

a rate of 85% of young people (aged 20-24)

Other crucial areas of improving school education having at least upper secondary attainment.

such as combating early leaving of education and

Chart II.1.1: Population aged 20-24 having completed at least upper-secondary education, 2000-2008 Evolution 2000-2008 a (% change)

Percentage of the population aged 20-24 having completed at least upper-secondary education, 2008

95.4 Croatia 5.3 92.3 Slovakia -2.6

91.6 Czech Republic 0.4 91.3 Poland 2.8 90.2 Slovenia 2.5 89.1 Lithuania 12.9 87.9 Sweden 3.2 87.7 Ireland 6.2 86.2 Finland -1.7

85.1 Cyprus 7.7 84.5 Austria -0.7

83.7 Bulgaria 11.3 83.6 Hungary 0.1 83.4 France 2.2 82.2 Estonia 4.1 82.2 Belgium 0.6 82.1 Greece 3.7 80.0 Latvia 4.6 79.7 MK (:) 78.5 EU-27 2.5 78.3 Romania 2.9 78.2 United Kingdom 2.0 76.5 Italy 10.2 76.2 Netherlands 6.0 74.1 Germany -0.8 72.8 Luxembourg -6.1 71.0 Denmark -1.4

0 1 0 70.1

Norway (:)

 2 60.0 Spain -9.1

a rk 54.3 Portugal 25.7

c h m 53.6

Iceland 16.3

e n 53.0 Malta 29.6 B 47.8 Turkey (:)

(:) Liechtenstein (:)

100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

Source: Eurostat (LFS), HR: 2002 instead of 2000,

MK= former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia

Breaks in time series in Bulgaria(2001), Denmark (2007), Germany (2005), France (2003), Latvia (2002), Lithuania (2002), Luxembourg (2003), Hungary (2003), Malta (2003), Norway (2006) affect growth rates 2000-2008. Additional notes:

CY: Pupils usually living in the country but studying abroad are not yet covered by the survey. Hence results for CY are understated.

Since the 5 December 2005 release, Eurostat has been applying a refined definition of the “upper secondary” educational attainment level in order to improve the comparability of results in the EU. For the 1998 data onwards ISCED level 3C programmes shorter than two years no longer fall under the “upper secondary” level but come under “lower secondary”. This change implies revision of the results in DK (from 2001), ES, CY and IS. However, the

definition cannot yet be implemented in EL, IE and AT, where all ISCED 3C levels are still included. .

European benchmark Chart II.1.2: Percentage of young people aged 20-24

By 2010 at least 85% of 22-year- olds in in EU 27 with at least upper secondary attainment,

the European Union should have 2000-2008

completed upper secondary education. 19 EU 27

The European benchmark poses a significant 79 challenge for the EU. The present (2008) EU 78 average for the population aged 20-24 is 78.5% and has only slightly improved (by 2 percentage points) 77

since 2000 (on a positive note, progress has slightly 76

accelerated since 2003). Females outperform males

by 5.7 percentage points and the large gender gap 75 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

has been relatively stable since 2000.

Chapter II: Improving the quality and efficiency of education and training

In addition to the European benchmark several

Member States have set national targets in this Table II.1.1: Share of female teachers, 2007

area. 20 Denmark, Greece, Latvia, Netherlands and

Belgium (French Community) have set an 85% Females as a % of all teachers

target. Lithuania and Poland have set a 90% goal for Data for 2007

2010, Ireland has set a 90% goal for 2013, the UK ISCED ISCED ISCED ISCED 1-3 1 2 3

for 2015 and Denmark a 95% goal for 2015. Poland, EU-27 (2006) 69.1 83.2 65.7 57.3 Lithuania and Ireland already surpass the EU 2010 Belgium 66.5 79.8 60.6 59.0

benchmark and have thus set more ambitious Bulgaria 81.5 93.3 80.4 75.9 national goals. Czech Republic 74.0 94.2 78.1 59.0

Denmark : 67.6 : :

Many of the central and eastern European States Germany 65.0 84.0 61.2 48.2 are already above the 2010 EU benchmark. 4 Estonia 82.9 93.6 80.4 74.7

Member States (the Czech Republic, Poland, Ireland 72.9 84.0 : 62.2

Slovenia and Slovakia) and Croatia, have already Greece 60.8 65.3 67.4 48.2

reached levels over 90% upper secondary Spain 63.0 72.0 59.0 53.7 France 65.9 82.1 63.8 53.9

attainment. (Chart II.1.1). Italy 77.9 95.3 75.8 61.2

Cyprus 69.6 82.1 68.0 56.3

Portugal and Malta, with attainment rates below 55% Latvia 85.9 97.2 85.5 79.1 and Spain with about 60%, have the lowest Lithuania 84.5 97.2 82.1 68.9 completion rates in the EU. However, both have Luxembourg 58.5 71.9 : 47.1 made substantial progress, increasing by over 10 Hungary 78.6 96.0 78.3 64.5 percentage points since 2000. Bulgaria, Cyprus, Italy Malta : : : :

and Lithuania have also progressed by more than 5 Netherlands 66.9 83.1 : 46.4

percentage points. Most other Member States, Austria 69.9 89.3 69.1 51.6

however, have made little progress since 2000. Poland 76.3 84.3 74.1 66.5 Portugal 74.0 81.8 70.4 66.6

Upper secondary attainment rates in Denmark, Romania 72.1 86.7 68.1 65.2

Finland, Luxembourg, Slovakia and Spain - and to a Slovenia 78.9 97.6 78.8 65.2

lesser degree – in Germany and Austria has even Slovakia 76.6 84.6 77.6 70.3 fallen. This can partly be explained by strong net Finland 69.0 77.0 72.9 57.5 migration to these countries, with many young adults Sweden 68.6 81.2 66.6 51.1 having been educated outside the national education United Kingdom 68.5 81.3 61.6 62.8

system. Croatia 72.9 91.1 72.1 64.8 MK 58.7 72.2 51.9 56.3 International data for upper secondary attainment of Turkey 45.9 48.0 - 41.3 Iceland 72.4 79.9 : 54.0

young people are only available for the age group Liechtenstein 62.4 77.1 51.9 35.6

25-34. In 2006 about 76% of young people in the EU Norway 66.5 73.3 73.3 48.3

had upper secondary attainment. This compares to Source: EUROSTAT (UOE) an OECD average of 78%, only 38% in Brazil, 87% MK= former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia in the US 21 , 91% in Russia and 97% in Korea *EU27 calculated with the weighed average of countries with data

(South), which has the highest rate world wide, with For country specific notes see: http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page?_pageid=0,1136184,0_45

almost all young people having participated in upper 572595&_dad=portal&_schema=PORTAL secondary education.

Females represent a large majority of teachers Women account for almost 70% of teachers in the

1.2 Teachers - Overview EU and represent more than 60% in all Member The teaching profession in the EU counts some 6 States, except Luxembourg (see Table II.1.1). On million teachers, and 1 million pre-primary educators. average (EU-27) there are very clear differences

between the different levels of schooling. The higher This represents 3% for the EU total active the educational level, the smaller the female population. Some Member States have experienced dominance in the teacher profession. In primary a strong reduction of their teaching workforce since education (ISCED level 1), more than 80% of 2000: France (-13%), Slovakia (-12%), Romania and teachers are female. At lower secondary education Bulgaria (-11%) - at the same time as other countries (ISCED 2) 66%, while less than 60% in upper experienced even a strong increase: Lithuania secondary education (ISCED 3) of teachers are (+22%), Greece (+19%) and Ireland (+16%). female.

Chapter II: Improving the quality and efficiency of education and training

Table II.1.2: Age distribution of teachers, 2007 in Germany and Italy. Most of the other Member States have less than 40% of teachers of more than

50 years of age in secondary education. The share Less Less 50 years 50 years of secondary teachers under 30, on the other hand,

Teachers by than 30 than 30 and and was in 2007 less than 3% in Germany and Italy, but

age (%), by years years older older

ISCED level old old more than 20% in Luxembourg, Romania and Malta.

ISCED ISCED ISCED 1 ISCED 1 2-3 2-3

Belgium 22.9 16.2 20.4 32.4 Table II.1.3: Ratio of pupils to teachers

Bulgaria 4.5 8.3 21.1 33.2 Czech Republic 11.6 12.8 23.0 36.3 Denmark 9.7 : 39.7 : Ratio of pupils to teachers

Germany 5.2 2.9 52.8 50.4 Data for 2007 Estonia 10.9 10.7 29.6 41.9 ISCED ISCED ISCED ISCED Ireland 26.2 13.4 28.0 32.2 1-3 1 2 3

Greece 14.4 5.4 14.1 29.3 EU-27 13.6 15.5 13.1 11.7 Spain 16.7 10.0 29.5 24.5 Belgium 10,8 12,6 9,2 10,2 France 16.4 9.9 20.4 35.4 Bulgaria 12.8 16.0 12,1 11,6 Italy 1.4 1.1 46.0 55.0 Czech Republic 13,8 18.7 12,3 12.3 Cyprus 37.0 15.0 3.0 20.9 Denmark 11.9 11.2 11.9 : Latvia 11.6 12.1 26.6 36.0 Germany 16.9 18,3 15,2 14.3 Lithuania 6.9 11.5 26.8 33.3 Estonia 12.7 14,4 11.4 12.2 Luxembourg 28.4 20.8 24.4 29.3 Ireland 15.6 17.9 : 13.2 Hungary 11.7 12.7 22.4 30.6 Greece 8.6 10,1 7.7 7.3 Malta : 31.3 22.3 21.4 Spain 11.5 13.6 11.7 7,7 Netherlands 19.8 10.9 32.6 44.0 France 14.3 19.7 14.3 9.6 Austria 8.5 5.2 31.9 34.4 Italy 10,3 10,5 9.4 10.8 Poland 16.6 19.4 11.2 18.6 Cyprus 13.0 15.9 11,2 11.1 Portugal 13.8 11.5 28.2 20.8 Latvia 10.6 11,4 9.9 11,2 Romania 22.2 22.3 28.8 33.5 Lithuania 8.4 10,0 7.9 9.4 Slovenia 12.4 9.5 14.3 25.6 Luxembourg 10.0 11.2 : 9.0 Slovakia 17.1 16.3 25.5 35.9 Hungary 10,8 10,2 10,2 12,1 Finland 12.9 7.7 25.3 37.7 Malta 10.6 12.1* 8.4 17.4 Sweden 5.8 8.7 48.5 41.6 Netherlands 15,6 15,6 : 15,7 United Kingdom 27.7 19.9 25.8 29.1 Austria 11,5 13,6 10,3 11,0 Croatia : : : : Poland 11.7 11,0 12,4 12,2

MK* 8.4 14.4 26.0 30.7 Portugal 9.6 11.8 7.9 8.4 Turkey : : : : Romania 14,5 16.9 12,2 15,3 Iceland 12.4 6.3 29.6 45.5 Slovenia 12,7 15.2 9.5 13.7 Liechtenstein 13.0 11.9 29.2 29.8 Slovakia 14,9 17.9 13,9 14,1 Norway 11.3 7.7 36.6 44.4 Finland 13.8 15.0 9.9 15.9 Source: EUROSTAT (UOE), Sweden 12,4 12,3 11,5 13,6

*MK= former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia United Kingdom 15.2 19.4 16.7 11.2

Note: Data for MT refer to 2006

For country specific notes see: Croatia 13,5 17,3 12,6 11,6

http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page?_pageid=0,1136184,0_45 MK* 15.4 18.4 13.6 16.3

572595&_dad=portal&_schema=PORTAL Turkey 23,0 26.2 : 16.2

Iceland 10,3 10,4 : 10,2

The teaching profession is aging. Liechtenstein 8.2 9.6 6.9 8.6

Currently (2007) 32.4% of all secondary teachers in Norway 10.5 11.0 10.2 9.8

the EU are 50 years and older. Source: Eurostat (UOE), * *MK= former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia

Note: Data for MT refer to 2006

Chart II.1.3: Share of teachers (ISCED 1-3) 50 years

and older, 2000-2007 For country specific notes see: http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page?_pageid=0,1136184,0_45

572595&_dad=portal&_sche ma=PORTAL

Share of 50+ teachers in EU

33 27 2000-2007

32,5 Teachers teach, on average, more students in 32 primary education than in secondary. The 31,5 average student-teacher ratio in primary education is 31 16 students per teacher, while for upper secondary it 30,5 is 12. The difference of student teacher ratio

30 between educational levels varies greatly between countries. In the case of the UK there is a difference

29,5

29 of more than 8 students in the ratio of primary and upper secondary (see Table II.1.3).

28,5

28

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

There are big differences between Member States in the share of teachers over 50 (Table II.1.2) with more than 50% of secondary teachers being over 50

Chapter II: Improving the quality and efficiency of education and training

Table II.1.4 % of 15 year old students in schools ‘Teaching and Learning International Survey’

where the principal reports instruction hindered by (TALIS).

lack of qualified teachers by subject What is TALIS?

With a focus on lower secondary education in both

Data for 2006 Subjects the public and private sectors, TALIS examined

Science Mathematics Test Other

language subjects important aspects of professional development; EU* 14.9 12.8 8.5 23.7 teacher beliefs, attitudes and practices; teacher Belgium 27.8 36.6 22.5 46.0 appraisal and feedback; and school leadership in

Bulgaria 1.3 2.3 1.9 22.6

Czech Republic 16.2 10.1 6.1 34.6 the 23 participating countries. TALIS looks at these

Denmark 24.1 5.3 3.6 25.6 factors through the eyes of teachers and school

Germany 36.7 19.2 11.5 43.5 principals. This innovative approach was chosen in

Estonia 23.5 27.1 19.4 39.9 order to examine how the intended school and

Ireland 9.1 6.6 6.0 36.7 teacher policies of education systems are actually

Greece 10.1 7.3 8.6 10.6 perceived and implemented in schools and Spain 4.4 4.9 3.3 10.1 classrooms.

France : : : :

Italy 12.6 15.4 13.8 20.7 Twenty four countries took part in TALIS, including

Cyprus : : : : 19 European Countries (EU:16) : Austria, Belgium, Latvia 16.5 11.8 4.1 17.1 Bulgaria, Denmark, Estonia, Hungary, Iceland, Lithuania 14.7 14.2 6.2 27.2 Ireland, Italy, Lithuania, Malta, Netherlands, Luxembourg 33.9 44.7 52.5 39.8 Norway, Poland, Portugal, Spain, Slovak Republic, Hungary 5.1 4.2 1.7 9.4 Slovenia and Turkey. And 5 non-European

Malta : : : :

Netherlands 9.0 17.5 11.7 31.6 Countries: Australia, Brazil, Republic of Korea,

Austria 8.9 3.1 2.6 14.6 Malaysia and Mexico.

Poland 2.0 2.1 0.0 11.5 Portugal 0.0 1.3 0.0 2.7

Romania 2.2 0.6 4.1 12.1 Based on OECD's initial report and the forthcoming

Slovenia 0.3 1.0 0.8 2.9 joint EU/OECD thematic report on Teachers'

Slovakia 8.0 7.6 22.8 28.5 Professional Development

25 , key results are Finland 2.2 2.2 1.3 11.7 reported.

26

Sweden 7.4 4.7 3.6 13.1 United Kingdom 17.4 24.0 12.7 22.8

Croatia 14.5 7.9 1.9 14.4 Types of professional development undertaken

MK : : : : Teachers were asked about a wide range of

Turkey 65.6 63.4 58.7 62.9

Iceland 25.4 16.3 7.8 20.9 activities from more organised and structured to

Liechtenstein 9.1 5.4 0.0 1.7 more informal and self-directed learning.

Norway 19.7 16.7 9.2 35.3

Source: PISA 2006, CRELL calculations, The most common type of professional development

MK= former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia undertaken across countries was ‘Informal dialogue *The EU average is the weighted average of PISA EU participating to improve teaching’, with on average 93% of

countries. teachers participating in teachers' professional

Shortage of qualified teachers is a serious development reporting to have engaged in this in the problem in almost all countries. Head teachers in 18 months prior to the survey (figure 4.2). Indeed in the EU report on a lack of appropriate teaching staff all but two countries – Hungary (79%) and Mexico hindering quality instruction. 22 14% of all pupils are (89%) - it was the most frequently reported taught in schools where instruction was hindered by development activity by teachers, with more than the lack of qualified teachers. Luxembourg, Belgium 90% of teachers participating in each country. For and Estonia are among those most affected by such Hungary, the highest reported participation was in a situation whereas head teachers in Portugal and ‘Reading professional literature’ (88%) and for Poland report almost not to be affected at all (Table Mexico it was attendance at ‘Courses and II.1.4). workshops’ (94%).

1.3 Teachers and their professional development The next most frequently reported activity on average across the 23 countries, was attending

Improving the quality of initial teacher education and ‘Courses and workshops’(81%) and ‘Reading ensuring that all practising teachers take part in professional literature’ (78%), while the least continuous professional development have been common types of professional development that identified as key factors in securing the quality of teachers took part in were ‘Qualification

school education. 23 programmes’(25%) and ‘Observation visits to other schools’ (28%).

To support policies in this field the Council in May

2005 and May 2007 invited 24 the Commission to cooperate

 with the OECD on the development of the

Chapter II: Improving the quality and efficiency of education and training

Chart II.1.4: Participation rates for type of professional development activity (2007-08)

% TALIS Average EU (TALIS) Average

100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

Informal Courses and Reading Education Professional Individual Mentoring Observation Qualification dialogue to workshops professional conferences development and and peer visits to other programmes

improve literature and seminars network collaborative observation schools teaching research

Teachers' participation in professional When participation rates are compared across development countries, there are some notable differences. In

Chart II.1.5 shows the comparative country level Australia, Austria, Lithuania and Slovenia, participation rates in professional development in the participation is virtually universal with less than 5% 18 months prior to the survey. On average across of lower secondary teachers not having participated the 23 participating countries, 89% of teachers in development activities in the previous 18 months reported that they undertook some professional and in Spain all teachers reported having development over the period. This is a very high participated in some development.

27 This contrasts figure and provides a positive sign that on average, with the situation in Denmark, Iceland, the Slovak

engagement in professional development activities is Republic and Turkey, where around one quarter of a feature of the lives of the vast majority of teachers teachers reported that they had not participated in across the participating countries. However, the fact professional development during this period.

that 11% of lower secondary teachers did not take part in any development activities in the period prior to the survey provides some cause for concern.

Chart II.1.5: Percentage of teachers who undertook some professional development in the previous 18 months

(2007-08)

EU Non-EU Averages %

100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

in ia lia a o a p a tr

ia ia a n ia ia ic n d l. ) n d g e g e ry l

S v

e n tr a u s a n a

lt

o re y s a ri a y n d

g a g

a z il a rk b lic e y

h u M s

to K e x la (

F

a la rt u It a

ly

B ra e la m rk S lo u

s A M P o m Ir e

la

e ra A E L it M iu B

u lg H u n o rw

N P o Ic e n e

p u T u

D R

e lg ) A v v e ra

 A

B L IS L

IS

v a

k

A T A ( T S

lo

E U

Countries are ranked in descending order of percentage of teachers having had some professional development in the 18 months prior to the survey

Chapter II: Improving the quality and efficiency of education and training

Intensity of participation in professional that they wanted more professional development development than they actually received. The extent of unmet TALIS measures the intensity of participation in demand is sizeable in every country ranging from terms of the number of days of professional 30% in Belgium (Fl.) to 76 % in Portugal. development that teachers reported to have taken in the 18 months prior to the survey. Table Ann II.1b also shows the extent of unsatisfied

demand according to a range of teacher and school On average among all lower secondary teachers in characteristics. In almost all countries female the participating countries, teachers undertook 15.3 teachers were more likely than male teachers to days of professional development over the period – report wanting more development than they in other words an average of just over one day per received, though in most cases the differences are month. For the EU countries this average was 14.6. not large. There is a similarly consistent pattern for But there is significant variation between countries. teachers less than 40 years of age; in most countries The highest average number of days for the EU they were more likely than older teachers to report a countries, reported by lower secondary teachers was desire for more participation. in Bulgaria, Italy, Poland and Spain (all 26 to 27 days) and the lowest number was reported by There is no consistent cross-country pattern in terms teachers in Ireland (5.6 days), Slovakia (7.2 days), of teachers’ qualifications. Although in several Malta (7.3 days), Belgium (Fl.) (8.0 days) and countries (and particularly in Austria, Denmark, Slovenia (8.3 days). Within the EU, therefore, there Spain and Turkey, where significant differences are is a five-fold difference between the highest and evident), more highly qualified teachers are more lowest intensity of participation. likely to have reported unsatisfied demand, most

countries show no definite pattern. Unsatisfied demand and development needs

Teachers were also asked whether, in the 18 months What are the areas of greatest development prior to the survey, they had wanted to participate in need? more professional development than they had done. Teachers were asked to rate on a four point scale The first column of Table Ann II.1b in the Annex the degree of development need they had in various summarises teachers’ responses to this question. aspects of their work (Chart II.1.6). More than half of the teachers surveyed reported

Chart II.1.6 : Areas of greatest development need of teachers (2007-08) TALIS-Average and range of percentage of teachers reporting a high level of need

% TALIS maximum TALIS Average TALIS minimum

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0 Teaching ICT teaching Student Instructional Subject field Student Content and Student Teaching in a Classroom School special skills discipline and practices counselling performance assessment multicultural management management learning behaviour standards practices setting and needs problems administration

students

The aspect of teachers’ work that was the most two current trends in educational policy. The first one frequently rated by teachers as an area of high is the integration of special learning needs in development need, was ‘Teaching special learning mainstream schools (inclusive education) and the needs students’. Almost one third of teachers rated second the growing emphasis on equity. In contrast, their development need in this area as high. the aspect of teachers’ work that, on average, was

least frequently reported as a high development Given that the TALIS target population excludes need, was ‘school management and administration’. teachers who only teach special learning needs students, this high development need reported in

TALIS is quite significant. It is probably a refection of

Chapter II: Improving the quality and efficiency of education and training

Impact of professional development scope, comparability and reliability of VET statistics

It is striking how positively teachers view the impact and the development of a more explicit VET of these development activities and how consistent component within the coherent framework of this is across all types of development activities. indicators and benchmarks.

(See Annex Table Ann II.1c which shows the

percentage of teachers who reported a moderate or This part will concentrate on the participation high impact for the types of development they had patterns in initial VET and further look into the undertaken during the survey period). On average participation, duration and cost of continuing across participating countries, teachers reported that vocational training (CVT), based on the results of the the most effective forms of development were third Continuing Vocational Training Survey (CVTS “Individual and collaborative research”, “Informal 3). Evidence from the Adult Education Survey (AES) dialogue to improve teaching” and “Qualification will be used for the relevant questions covering the programmes”, all with close to 90% of teachers participation in the job-related activities area. reporting a moderate or large impact on their Furthermore, international comparisons as well as development as a teacher. The development some outcomes of VET will be described.

activities that were reported to be relatively less

effective were attendance at “Education conferences 2.1 Participation in vocational education and and seminars” and taking part in “Observation visits training

to other schools”, though even for these activities

almost 75% of teachers reported a moderate or high It is difficult to develop a precise measurement of

impact. participation in VET using simple statistics. To better capture the participation patterns, CRELL has

developed an aggregate measure of participation in VET using different statistics. The index is based on three indicators: students enrolled in vocational

• 2. 

  Vocational education and training programmes at the upper secondary (ISCED 3) level

  (IVTS), participants in initial vocational training in Vocational Education and Training (VET) plays an enterprises (IVTE) and participants in continuing important role in providing the skills, knowledge and vocational training in enterprises (CVTE). The index competences needed in the labour market. score is computed as the arithmetic average of the

  three normalized indicators. 28

The Bordeaux communiqué underlined that the

cooperation process launched in Copenhagen in The participation index shows that three countries 2002 has contributed to create a more positive and (United Kingdom, Czech Republic and Austria) have more dynamic image of VET, while preserving the high overall participation in VET. In Slovenia, wealth of the diversity of systems (European Luxembourg and France participation is above the Commission, 2008). It states further that it is European average and in twelve Member States the imperative to continue to work on improving the index score is above 50% (see Ann Table II.2).

Chart II.2.1 An aggregate measure of participation in vocational education and training in European countries

(2005)

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

om lic a a

g a y s d

ni ur e gd ub tri nc

ki U an nd an en ly

k ay in ia ia ia e s a in ep us ve bo va

gi um E m w

ria d

l

pa al

ta

an tv ec ru ni

ry

K m F

ra lo el rla nl Ita

ar

S M ga

an ga tu

ul ol st on ua ga

d R A lo S xe S B

er

G he Fi w

ed m

S en

or

et D

N R om B P or P E La

re yp

G C un Li th H

te ch

ni ze Lu

N U C

Source: Centre for Research on Lifelong Learning (CRELL)

Note: Data for the UK (low response rate) and Norway (use of local units and not Enterprise units as in the other countries) should be treated with care.

Chapter II: Improving the quality and efficiency of education and training

Participation in Initial vocational education and The share of students in pre vocational and training vocational programmes at lower secondary level

(ISCED 2) is low or non-existing in most Member In the school year 2007/2008 at the EU level, the States, except in Belgium and the Netherlands, proportion of students who were enrolled in where more than one in four students is enrolled in vocational programmes at the upper secondary level vocational programmes. of education (ISCED level 3) decreased by 6% to

51.5% (down from 55% in 2000/2001). Among the Vocational programmes are predominant at post Member States the proportion of students who were secondary non-tertiary level (ISCED level 4) where enrolled in vocational programmes at this level over 90% of the full-time equivalent students follow ranged from 13% in Cyprus to more than 77% in vocational programmes.

Austria (see chart II.2.2). High proportions of students

(over two thirds) following a vocational programme The demographic changes will have an impact on are registered in Austria, the Czech Republic, education and training systems in the European Croatia, Belgium, the Netherlands, Slovakia and countries (see introduction). In some European Finland. countries the population aged 15-to-19 will fall by

30% between 2005 and 2015. The number of VET The share of students enrolled in VET programmes students at upper secondary level is expected to at ISCED level 3 increased in 11 countries between decrease by more than 2 million from 11.5 million in 2000 and 2007. Italy, Malta, Spain, Hungary, Finland 2005 to 9.6 million in 2030 (CEDEFOP) if the current and Sweden witnessed a considerable increase and enrolments patterns will remain stable. in Portugal the share increased to almost one third of the students from a very low level. As a result of an One way to grasp the image and attractiveness of increase of the proportion of students following initial VET is to look at the student's participation general and academic education, in some countries patterns by programme destination. In several the enrolment in VET has decreased. Lithuania and European countries there has been a shift in Poland for example decreased its share by more than provision and participation, away from vocational 30%. France and Turkey also reduced the enrolment programmes giving access only to the labour market in VET with more than 20%. or other programmes at the same level to

programmes that also give access to studies at the

next levels.

Chart II.2.2: Participation patterns in initial VET in EU countries

Students in vocational programmes at ISCED level 3 as percentage of all ISCED 3 students

Percentage of all ISCED 3 students (2007) Evolution 2000-2007 (% relative change)

78.9 Liechtenstein (:) 77.3 Austria 8.7 75.3 Czech Republic -6.1

73.2 Slovakia -6.9 73.2 Croatia (:) 69.6 Belgium 4.2 67.6 Netherlands -1.0 66.7 Finland 20.6 64.9 Slovenia -10.2 64.9 Romania 3.8 62.3 Luxembourg -1.9 60.6 MK -6.3 59.8 Italy 143.1 57.5 Norway 0.3 57.4 Germany -9.2 57.1 Sweden 17.0 53.4 Bulgaria -4.1 51.5 EU-27 -6.5 48.5 Malta 95.6 47.7 Denmark -12.8 44.3 Poland -31.1 43.8 France -23.7 43.4 Spain 29.6 41.4 United Kingdom -38.5 36.7 Turkey -25.1 34.4 Latvia -10.9 33.8 Iceland 4.6 33.5 Ireland (:) 31.7 Greece -1.2 31.6 Portugal 351.4 31.3 Estonia -3.7 26.4 Lithuania -33.3 23.6 Hungary 129.1 13 Cyprus -8.5

90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 -100 -50 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400

Source: DG Education and Culture - Data source: Eurostat (UOE),

(:) Not available, (i) See information notes, (p) Provisional data

(i) BE: Excluding the students of German speaking community;

UK: ISCED 3 vocational programmes include ISCED 4. Pre-vocational programmes are included in vocational. Only students participating in courses equal to or longer than a semester are included at ISCED level 3 and 4. Changes in UK and France due to methodological changes and these changes will also affect the change in the figure for the EU average.

For additional notes see: http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page?_pageid=0,1136184,0_45572595&_dad=portal&_schema=PORTAL

Chapter II: Improving the quality and efficiency of education and training

Chart II.2.3: Participation in continuing vocational training and average hours spent on CVT per employee in EU

countries. 2005

Participants in continuing vocational training courses as percentage of employees in all enterprises

18

16 Luxembourg

Sweden

e

y e 14 Slovenia Czech Republic p lo France

Slovakia

e m 12 Netherlands Ireland

e r Belgium T p Malta

V

 C 10 Finland Denmark

o n Norway Germany EU / Spain/Austria

n t p e 8

 s Italy

rs Estonia Portugal UK

o u Hungary Cyprus 6

Poland

g e

 h

Lithuania Romania

ra

v e A 4 Bulgaria/Latvia

Greece

2

0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

Participants in CVT (% of employees)

Data source: Eurostat (CVTS), Additional notes: A participant in courses is a person who attended one or more CVT courses, at any time during the reference year; participants are counted only once, irrespective of the number of times they attended courses.

Participation in continuing vocational training the other end of the distribution we find Latvia, Bulgaria, Lithuania, Hungary, Romania and Greece.

Monitoring the provision of CVT is here mainly done (see Annex Table Ann II.3) with reference to participation rate (calculated as a proportion of employees receiving training in a given One additional source of information which could be period) and training hours per employee. used to analyse adult participation in job-related

education and training is the Adult Education Survey In 2005 the participation rate in CVT courses was on (See chapter III.5). A common trend among all average 33% (down from 40% in 1999) in the participating countries is that the large majority of participating EU countries. Participation varied from training is in job-related activities. There are large 14% in Greece and 15% in Bulgaria, Latvia and country differences in the participation in job-related Lithuania to 59% in the Czech Republic. Most eastern education of adults (see chart II.2.4). The Nordic Member States and Portugal and Spain showed Countries together with Germany, the Netherlands, considerable increases in participation during the United Kingdom, Slovakia and Estonia have more than reference period. 40% participation rates in education and training.

Sweden has the highest share of job-related activities In 2005 the average annual hours spent in CVT with 60% of adults participating in at least one jobcourses per employee varied between 3 in Greece and related activity. AES data also show that participants 16 in Luxembourg. The training duration has followed highlight "to do a better job and improve career the same pattern as the participation and increased in prospects" as the most important reason to participate nearly all the eastern Member States for which data in non-formal education and training. The AES survey exists. The Czech Republic, Luxembourg, France, indicates that it is employers that are the leading Slovenia and Sweden appear to be the most training providers of non formal education and training. (see intensive countries in 2005 (with participation rates chapter III.1) above 45% and 13 hours and more per employee). At

Chapter II: Improving the quality and efficiency of education and training

Chart II.2.4: Participation in job-related/non job-related education and training (%), age 25-64, 2007

80

70 )

 ( % 60 s in 50

te

n r

a 40

a tio

ip 30

ic

P a rt 20

10

0

HU GR PL IT PT ES LV LT EU BE FR BG CZ SI CY AT EE UK SK NL DE FI SE NO HR

Only job related NFE Both job related and non job related NFE Only non job related NFE

Data source: Eurostat (AES),

NFE: Non-formal education,

2.2 Investment in VET show wide variations between European countries in their levels of total public expenditure on secondary

Investment in initial VET level VET programmes as a percentage of GDP ranging from 0.3% to 1.1%. Finland had the highest

Data on educational expenditures on vocational prorelative spending at 1.1% of GDP, followed by Austria, grammes from the UOE data collection are only the Czech Republic, and the Netherlands, all of which available for 16 European countries for 2005. Data allocated 1% of their GDP to VET.

Chart II.2.5 Total public spending on secondary education – pre-/ vocational/vocational programs in % of GDP,

2005

1,2

1

0,8

0,6

0,4

0,2

0

ia lic k ia ry s tr ria

s

ru ia

a g d a

ub ar nd on la ga tv ni ur ta nd an ki en

us ga A ul yp ep

m rla ol va ed B C R en

st La ua bo

al E F

in un th m M D H Li he

P lo w

ch xe

S S et

ze Lu

N C

Source: Eurostat, UOE

Investment of enterprises in continuing vocational substantially in the period although from very low training levels. Country rankings by cost of CVT courses follow

closely those by participation and training duration. The investments in vocational training of European With the exception of Slovenia, the cost of vocational employers are between 60 Euro per employee in training per employee is much lower in the eastern Latvia and 993 in Denmark (in Purchasing Power Member States (see Table Ann II.4).

Standards). The average figure dropped by nearly

30% from 633 Euro in 1999 to 461 Euro in 2005. A similar pattern can be observed for the cost of However some countries have witnessed a sizeable vocational training as a proportion of total labour costs: change for example Slovenia, Romania, Hungary, it follows closely the participation figures. The share of Lithuania and Poland increased their investments enterprises' investment in vocational training as a

Chapter II: Improving the quality and efficiency of education and training

share of total labour costs also decreased from 1999 cohorts in which general education was more prevalent, to 2005. For the average of the EU, the share formal vocational certification was an important decreased from 2.3% in 1999 to 1.6% in 2005. In more predictor of higher initial wages for both high and low than half of the countries participating in CVTS this quality school tracks. By comparing the earnings five, share dropped and only one third of countries ten and 13 years after labour market entry, it appears experienced an increase. In 2005 the share varied that vocational training results in higher initial wages from 0.6% in Greece to 2.7% in Denmark. while apprenticeship leads to higher wages over time.

Under the current economic downturn, a typical firm Avoiding early labour market difficulties is particularly that is hit by the recession could find it harder to important for youth since they may have persistent finance training on the job. As shown by the CVTS 3 effects on employment and wages later in life. Recent results, a decrease in employers' investment in training evidence from CRELL based on EU-SILC data show would be all the more worrying as expenditures on that students who fail to attain upper secondary continuous vocational training courses by enterprises education are strongly penalized in terms of wages in had already fallen before the crisis. Evidence from past countries with a prevalence of vocational programmes downturns suggests that training is more likely to hold at the upper secondary level. Countries like the Czech up within firms having clear training plans and budgets Republic, Slovakia, and Slovenia, but also Austria, and firms operating in markets subject to rapid Germany and Luxembourg, where over 60% of the technological change. Training is also strongest in upper secondary students follow a vocational program, sectors and occupations where training was partly also show the highest wage penalties for lowerdictated by government and professional regulations of educated individuals. These can range between 26%

different kinds and/or quality assurance. 29 and 31%. In all these countries the wage penalties for

not completing upper secondary education is likely to 2.3 Third country comparisons be related to the structure of the educational system.

These findings concur somehow to the idea that

Cedefop 30 has compared some of the European vocational programs offer better integration in the

priorities in the Copenhagen process (such as rising labour market and higher salaries. the attractiveness of VET and the responsiveness to labour market needs) with examples of VET policies in Recent empirical findings also provide further support advanced economies (Australia, Canada, Japan and for the idea that apprenticeships have a positive effect the United States) and in emerging economies (China, on avoiding early career unemployment. The dual India, Russia and South Korea). systems have proven quite successful in giving young

people a good start in the labour market. OECD data According to Cedefop, in the advanced economies shows that Austria, Denmark and Germany are among there is a negative image of VET which continues to the countries with the lowest share of youth have a low status and is seen as a second-best option experiencing repeated unemployment spells; in for students and for low achievers. Consequently, the Germany and Austria, where the apprenticeship system proportion of graduates from VET is lower than the is well developed, more than half of those leaving average of 50% in the EU. In Australia students can school find a job without experiencing any switch from general education to VET and vice-versa. unemployment (OECD, 2006a). Van der Velden et al. More students than before are using VET as a bridge (2001) show that European countries with to access higher education in Australia. Canada, apprenticeship systems enjoy better youth employment Japan and Australia have experienced an increase in patterns, particularly in terms of larger employment higher education graduates that attend VET courses to share in skilled occupations and in high-wage sectors, improve their job prospects. Statistics in the emerging than those with little or no apprenticeship. Along similar economies indicate that enrolment in VET at lines, Gangl (2003) found that apprenticeships perform secondary level in the four countries ranges from 30% rather favourably both compared to school-based to 40%. To attract more students, setting up more education at the same level of training and across vocational schools and opening access to higher different qualification levels. Ryan (2001) and education through VET studies are implemented. Steedman (2005) put forward the argument that part of

this effect may come through a better matching of 2.4 Individual outcomes of vocational education training to labour market demand that results from

and training apprenticeship training.

Currently there is a lack of robust evidence on the These studies show that the impact of apprenticeships individual outcomes of VET. Some research (Cooke, on labour market success over the whole life cycle L.P, 2003) found that vocational certification predicted needs further study. higher wages for youth from different school tracks; for

Chapter II: Improving the quality and efficiency of education and training

• 3. 

  Higher education Chart II.3.1: Bologna scorecards 2009, Cumulative

  scores for degree system, quality , recognition

There are currently several quantitative EU objectives relating to higher education:

Bologna scorecard 2009

• - 

  The benchmark of an increase in the number of Degr eesy st em Qual it y Recognit ion mathematics, science and technology graduates UK SCOT

by at least 15% by 2010, while at the same time

reducing the gender imbalance (Council, 2003a). DK

• - 

  The objective of investing 2% of GDP in higher IE

education (currently 1.3%), put forward by the NL

Commission (European Commission, 2006c). SE

• - 

  The goal of 3 million Erasmus students by 2012 BE nl

(Council, 2006c). NO

-The benchmark of a tertiary attainment rate of 40% FI

of 30-34 year olds by 2020 (Council, 2009). PT

An overarching benchmark on learning mobility of RO

young people (incl. in higher education) will

furthermore be developed by the end of 2010. The AT

Barcelona objective of spending 3% of GDP on UK EWNI research and development by 2010, also has BE f r

implications for higher education, since about 22% of

R&D spending in Europe goes into university-based IS

research. Taking the policy developments and goals LV outlined above into account, the first section of this EE sub-chapter on higher education looks at the

Bologna process and progress achieved in it, EU27

followed by a section on quality at institutional level. FR

The remaining sections look at progress in HR participation in higher education by analysing growth

in the number of students and graduates. PL

LU

3.1 The Bologna Process in Higher Education CZ

Currently 46 European countries are participating in ES

the Bologna process, which started with the signing BG

of the Bologna Declaration in 1999. Bologna aims at HU establishing a European area of higher education.

On 28-29 April 2009 Ministers responsible for higher LI

education met in Leuven/Louvain-la-Neuve to TR

establish the priorities for European Higher MK

Education until 2020. The importance of lifelong LT

learning, widening access and mobility were

underlined. The goal was set that by 2020 at least GR

20% of those graduating in the European Higher DE

Education Area should have had a study or training SI

period abroad.

CY

A Bologna Process Stocktaking Report 2009 was IT

presented at the ministerial meeting in April 2009 . MT

For each Bologna country the report has a scorecard

showing performance in 10 indicators on a scale SK from dark green (best performance) to red (see 0 5 10 15

Chart II.3.1). EU Member States in general perform well as regards the implementation of the 2 cycles The chart shows performance according to scorecards. An average

(Bachelor, Master), except for Germany and score is indicated (dark green=5 score points, light green =4, yellow = 3, orange = 2, red = 1).

Slovenia.

As regards quality assurance, progress is on

Implementation of the access to the next cycle is average good. 6 countries have the highest scores very good, while many countries still lag behind possible (Belgium[nl] Denmark, Ireland, Netherlands, when it comes to the implementation of a national Austria, UK-Scotland), while Malta, Italy and qualifications framework Slovakia still lag behind. When it comes to

recognition of qualifications, EU countries score high

Chapter II: Improving the quality and efficiency of education and training

on average, although in five countries there is slow Chart II.3.2: Universities in Shanghai Top 500 list progress in the implementation of the principles of (2009) per 100 000 tertiary students

the Lisbon Recognition Convention and another 5

EU Member States have made slow progress in the recognition of prior learning.

Overall best performers in the 10 scorecard indicators are the UK-Scotland (5.0 on average), Universities in 2009 Shanghai top 500 per

Denmark (4.9), Ireland (4.8), the Netherlands (4.7) 100 000 students and Belgium (Flemish Community, 4.6). The lowest performer in the EU is Slovakia (2.9), followed by

Malta (3.3) and Italy (3.3). Aust ria

The assessment showed that in 2009 not all Bologna Sweden goals had yet been reached by all participating

countries. In the Leuven/Louvain-la-Neuve Net herlands

Communiqué of April 2009 the ministers responsible Norway

for higher education therefore declared that the objectives set out by the Bologna Declaration were Belgium still valid today and that the full and proper implementation of the objectives at European, Germany national and institutional level would require

increased momentum and commitment beyond 2010 Denmark

(Leuven Communiqué, April 2009, page 2). Unit ed K.

3.2 Current International University Finland

Rankings

Ireland

There are currently two worldwide university

rankings initiatives regularly published and subject to France much public debate: the Academic Ranking of World It aly

Universities (ARWU) from Shanghai’s Jiao Tong

University, and the World University Ranking from EU-27 the Times Higher Education (THE).

Slovenia

In the "Shanghai" ranking institutions are ranked

according to six criteria mainly related to the USA

  31

scientific production of the institutions. The "THE" Japan

ranking on the other hand applies criteria covering the international dimension of staff and students, Spain

teachers to student ratios and peer reviews. 32

Portugal

In 2009, according to the "Shanghai" ranking, the

EU-27 counted 194 institutions among the top 500 Hungary

universities included in the survey, while the United Greece

States counted 152 and Japan 31. Germany and the

United Kingdom had the highest number of top Czech Rep. institutions in Europe (40 each). Out of the Central and Eastern European Member States only Poland, Poland

Hungary, the Czech Republic and Slovenia had PR China

universities in the top 500.

Turkey

However, if only the top 200 or top 100 universities are considered, the performance of the European Russia higher education system lags behind the United

States. Out of the top 100 universities, 55 are India located in the United States and only 27 in the EU. 0,00 1,00 2,00 3,00

The USA leads especially in terms of institutions at the very top: it has 17 of the "Shanghai" top 20 universities. The EU has only two institutions in the top 20: Cambridge ranked fourth, and Oxford, ranked tenth; Japan has one: Tokyo University, that

ranked 19th). 33

Chapter II: Improving the quality and efficiency of education and training

Considering the number of national institutions engineering and business studies. The final report represented, the Netherlands, has 12 of its 13 will include recommendations on how this ranking comprehensive universities on the list of the worlds system could be implemented on a European and top 500 universities. Also Sweden (11 out of 17) and global level.

Denmark (4 out of 9) perform relatively well.

3.3 Graduates in higher education Europe has a solid base of medium to good quality universities and a higher share of its 4 000 higher The emerging knowledge-based society requires a education institutions (which include around 700 high supply of highly skilled people. High private

universities 34 ) in the top 500 than the USA with its returns to tertiary education evidenced by relatively

almost 4 350 higher education institutions. In Europe high wage levels and low unemployment rates for one out of 21 higher education institutions is tertiary graduates as a whole show that there is still represented in the list. For the US the ratio is about 1 a strong demand for tertiary graduates (especially in out of 35 higher education institutions. the field of science and engineering, but also in other

fields like languages and economics) in the This picture is confirmed if the number of universities economy. in the top 500 is related to the number of tertiary Whilst analysing available Eurostat statistics on students (See Chart II.3.2.). graduates, it should be noted that the total number of

graduates and the growth rates double count In the EU in 2008 there were 1.0 higher education graduates at various degree levels. Since both first, institutions per 100 000 students in the top 500 second and third degrees are included (the second World list of the Shanghai ranking. degrees currently account for about 20% of

graduates, new PhDs for 2%), the data on graduates The figure for the US is 0.9. This implies that on cover the total number of graduates during the year average, higher education students in the EU profit concerned, not the number of first-time graduates. from a better presence of good quality institutions With Bologna counting of graduates will be more (not withstanding any difference in average size of systematic and statistics become more comparable. institutions between the EU and US). 11 Member

States have higher ratios in this respect compared to General student population trends the US average and in the case of the Netherlands,

Austria, Finland and Sweden the mentioned ratio is Chart II.3.3: Tertiary students more than two times higher than the US (more than (2000-2007)

2.0 higher education institutions in the top 500, per

100.000 students). Tertiary students in EU27 (Million)

19,5

One question central to the use of international 19

rankings of universities is of course to which degree

the results are dependent on the indicators used and 18,5

the weight given to indicators. A recent study by the 18

CRELL research centre (JRC, Ispra) 35 examined the

robustness of the ranking in both the Shanghai and 17,5

THE rankings. The analysis concludes that these 17

two rankings are stable and reliable when it comes 16,5

to the very top and bottom of the rankings. Stanford,

Harvard, Berkeley, MIT and Cambridge universities 16 come out at the top of the list whatever indicators are 15,5 used and whatever weighting is attributed. However,

when it comes to the middle range of the list, the 15 ranking becomes extremely sensitive to criteria and 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

weightings. This is noteworthy because it provides insight into the average profile and performance of In 2007 about 32 million people in the EU (49% top US and European universities within the frame of female and 51% male) were between 20 and 24 the indicators that are used in the rankings . years old, the typical tertiary student age bracket.

The student-age population has declined slightly in

Ranking activities should consider that there is a the recent past (-1.8% between 2000 and 2007), variety of types of higher education institutions. The with large differences in trends between Member European Commission currently runs a research States. Despite the slight decline in the number of project on the typology of higher education young people in the EU the increase in the tertiary institutions. The Commission has furthermore education participation rate and in the number of launched in May 2009 a feasibility study to develop a students from outside Europe studying in the EU global multi-dimensional university ranking. By the (currently nearly 0.8 million) led to a growth of 18.5% end of 2009 the project consortium will design a (chart II.3.3) in the number of tertiary students in the ranking system for higher education institutions in EU over the period 2000-2007 or, on average, 2.5% consultation with stakeholders and from January per year (Table II.3.2). In 2007 the number of 2010 to the end of May 2011 the project will test its students increased by 0.5%, less than in previous feasibility on a representative sample, focusing on years, to 18.9 million (of whom 55% were female).

Chapter II: Improving the quality and efficiency of education and training

Table II.3.2: Tertiary students Table II.3.3: Tertiary graduates (2000-2007) (2000-2007)

Number of tertiary students Growth Number of tertiary graduates Growth

(in 1000) per year (in 1000) per year 2000 2006 2007 2000-07 2000 2006 2007 2000-07 EU-27 15920 18783 18879 2,5 EU-27 2873 3820 3865 4.3 Belgium 356 394 394 1,5 Belgium 68.2 81.5 104.0 6.2 Bulgaria 261 244 259 -0,1 Bulgaria 46.7 45.4 49.2 0.7 Czech Republic 254 337 363 5,2 Czech Republic 38.4 69.3 77.6 10.6 Denmark 189 229 232 3,0 Denmark 39.0 47.5 50.8 3.9 Germany 2055 2290 2279 1,5 Germany 302.1 358.7 376.9 3.2 Estonia 53.6 68,3 68,8 3,6 Estonia 7.7 11.5 12.6 7.3 Ireland 161 186 190 2,5 Ireland 42.0 59.2 59.0 5.9 Greece 422 653 603 5,2 Greece : : 60.5 : Spain 1829 1789 1778 -0,4 Spain 260.2 286.0 279.4 1.0 France 2015 2201 2180 1,1 France 508.2 643.6 622.9 3.0 Italy 1770 2029 2034 2,0 Italy 202.3 279.5 256.4 3.4 Cyprus 10.4 20,6 22 11,4 Cyprus 2.8 3.9 4.4 6.8 Latvia 91 131 130 15,9 Latvia 15.3 26.4 26.8 8.3 Lithuania 122 199 200 7,3 Lithuania 25.2 43.3 43.2 8.0 Luxembourg 2.4 2.7 2.7 1,7 Luxembourg : : : Hungary 307 439 432 5,0 Hungary 59.9 69.8 67.2 1.7 Malta 6.3 8.9 9,8 6,5 Malta 2.0 2.7 2.7 4.5 Netherlands 488 580 583 2,6 Netherlands 76.9 117.4 96.0 2.7 Austria 261 253 261 0,0 Austria 25.0 34.8 36.4 5.5 Poland 1580 2146 2147 4,5 Poland 350.0 504.1 532.8 6.2 Portugal 374 367 367 -0,3 Portugal 54.3 71.8 83.3 6.3 Romania 453 835 928 10,8 Romania 67.9 174.8 206.0 17.2 Slovenia 84 115 116 4,7 Slovenia 11.5 17.1 16.7 5.5 Slovakia 136 198 218 7,0 Slovakia 22.7 40.2 46.4 10.7 Finland 270 309 309 1,9 Finland 36.1 40.6 42.3 2.3 Sweden 347 423 414 2,5 Sweden 42.4 60.8 60.2 5.1 United Kingdom 2024 2336 2363 2,2 United Kingdom 504.1 640.2 651.1 3.7 Croatia : 137 140 : Croatia : 20.7 22.2 : MK* 36.9 48,4 58,2 6.7 MK* 3.9 6.5 8.7 12.2 Turkey 1015 2343 2454 13.4 Turkey 190.1 373.4 416.3 11.9 Iceland 9.7 15,7 15,8 7.2 Iceland 1.8 3.4 3.5 10.2 Liechtenstein 0.5 0,6 0,7 4.9 Liechtenstein : 0.13 0.15 : Norway 191 215 215 1.7 Norway 29.9 33.5 35.4 2.4 Source: Eurostat (UOE), Source: Eurostat (UOE ),

*MK= Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia

Number of students = total number of full-time and part-time students. *MK= Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia

DE, SI: data exclude ISCED level 6. 2000: RO: Data exclude ISCED

level 6; MK: Data exclude ISCED level 5A second degrees and ISCED As regards the overall number of graduates growth

level 6; BE: Data exclude independent private institutions and Germanspeaking

 community; CY, LU, LI: most students study abroad and are was particularly strong (more than 10% per year) in

therefore not included. MT, UK: growth for 2000-2005 Romania, the Czech Republic and Slovakia, where

the number of students expanded strongly around

Higher education graduates 2000 .

The total number of tertiary graduates has increased The number of tertiary graduates per 1000 young in the EU 27 since 2000 by 35% or 4.3% per year people aged 20-29 has increased in the EU by about and hence nearly twice as fast as the general 37% (because of shrinking cohort size hence faster

student population. than growth in absolute numbers) in the period 2000- 2007 to reach about 59 today.

One of the reasons for this is the Bologna Process,

with a higher share of students taking second However, in 2007 growth in the number of tertiary degrees. In the field of MST for example, the number graduates decelerated. In some countries there was of second degree graduates from academic even a slight decline in the number of graduates programmes (ISCED 5A) has more than doubled compared to the year before. The number of since 2000 to reach about 154 000 in 2007, while the graduates declined in several large Member States number of first degrees in this period grew only by including Italy, France and Spain.

23%. The comparison with other countries shows a strong

2000-2007 growth in graduates in emerging economies like Russia, China and Brazil. This is a result of a strong growth in the tertiary student

population and of growing participation rates.

Chapter II: Improving the quality and efficiency of education and training

Table II.3.4: Tertiary graduates Table II.3.5: Tertiary graduates in Third countries by ISCED level, 2000-2007

Students Graduates Growth Number of tertiary graduates

(1000) (1000) per year, per 1000 population aged 20-29/25-34

% ISCED 5 and 6 ISCED 6 only 2000 2007 2000 2007 2000-07 (/population 20-29) (/population 25-34) Belarus 460 557 77.6 108.3 4.9 2000 2007 2000 2007

Moldova : 148 16.9 21.6 3.6

Russia 8020 9 370 1190.6 1991.5 7.6 EU-27 43e 59 1.1 1.3 Ukraine 2130 2 819 424.6 558.8 4.0 Belgium 51.4 78.7 0.8 1,3 Armenia : 107 11.4 16.0 5.0 Bulgaria 38.1 45.0 0.3 0,6 Azerbaijan : 135 24.8 29.1 2.3 Czech Republic 22.4 51.2 0.6 1,5 Georgia : 141 21.4 34.7 7.1 Denmark 54.0 81.8 1.0 1,6

Algeria : 902 : 120.2 : Germany 31.0 38.5 2.1 2,4 Morocco 276 369 27.3 88.1 18.2 Estonia 34.0 62.4 0.6 0,8 Tunisia 180 326 19.6 56.6 16.4 Ireland 70.4 78.9 0.9 1,4 Libya 290 375 Greece : 40.0 : 1,6 05 : : : Egypt : 2 495 Spain 39.5 43.2 0.9 1,1 05 342.3 : : Lebanon : 187 14.4 32.2 12.2 France 64.3 76.7 1.2 1,3 Palest. : 169 11.6 21.9 9.5 Italy 24.8 38.0 0.4 1,5 Israel 256 327 62.4 76.7 3.0 Cyprus 28.6 33.9 0.1 0,1 Australia 845 1 084 168.9 282.9 7.6 Latvia 46.7 77.3 0.1 0,4 Canada 1 221 1 327 Lithuania 51.8 86.5 0.9 0,7 05 225.1 : : Korea 2 838 3 209 493.0 604.9 3.0 Luxembourg 12.1 : : : India 9 404 12 853 : : : Hungary 37.5 47.0 0.5 0,7 China 7 364 25 346 1776 5872.8 18.6 Malta 36.9 45.7 0.1 0,2 Mexico 1 963 2 529 299.1 422.3 5.1 Netherlands 36.1 48.9 1.0 1,6 Brazil 2 781 5 273 348.0 820.5 13.0 Austria 24.1 34.4 1.4 2,0 USA 13202 17759 2151.0 2704.1 3.3 Poland 58.1 83.4 : 1,0

Portugal 30.5 57.4 1.6 4,2

Japan 3982 4033 1081.4 1062.4 -0.3 Romania 19.4 60.8 : 0,9

EU-27 15 920 18 530 2873.4 3864.8 4.3 Slovenia 39.0 57.6 1.0 1,4

World (Mio) 103 150 : : : Slovakia 25.4 51.2 0.6 1,5

Data source: Eurostat, UNESCO, data on graduates: China: data for Finland 56.3 63.8 2.7 2,9

2006 instead 2005 and ISCED 5A only, Ukraine, Armenia: 2001 instead Sweden 38.0 54.7 2.5 3,5

2000, Egypt 2002 instead of 2000, Canada: 1999 instead 2000, Algeria

2004 instead 2005 United Kingdom 66.4 80.0 1.3 2,2

Croatia : 36.4 : 0.8

The world tertiary student population has grown by a MK* 12.2 26.8 0.1 0.3

third since 2000 to reach about 150 million in 2007. Turkey 14.7 : 0.2 0.3 Iceland 42.7 77.1 0.0 0.2

Growth has been particularly strong in China, where Liechtenstein : 33.2 : 0.9

the number of tertiary students has tripled since Norway 48.9 61.7 1.0 1.7 2000 (in 1950 China had only 120 000) to reach 25.3 Data source: Eurostat (UOE), million in 2007. China now has more students than *MK= Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia

the EU or North America. The four BRIC countries For more country specific notes see:

(Brazil, Russia, China, India) have more tertiary http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page?_pageid=0,1136184,0_45

students than the EU, North America and Japan 572595&_dad=portal&_schema=PORTAL

combined. Today developing and emerging countries represent the majority of tertiary students

worldwide. 3.4 Higher education attainment of the population

As a result of strong growth in student numbers

China has in 2006 overtaken the EU to become the In May 2009 the Council adopted a benchmark on world's leading producer of tertiary graduates. the tertiary attainment of the population: 40% of 30- However, the EU in 2007 still had over 1 million 34 year olds should by 2020 have tertiary more tertiary graduates than the US. Russia, Japan attainment. In 2008 31% of 30-34 year olds in the and probably also India are other countries that EU had tertiary attainment, compared to only 22% in produce more than 1 million graduates per year 2000. This represents an improvement of about 1

(Table II.3.4). percentage point per year. In 2008, Cyprus, Denmark, Norway, Finland and Ireland showed the

Countries that produce a high number of graduates highest tertiary attainment, with rates of over 45%. per 1000 young people (> 80) include Denmark, Eight EU countries had already reached the 2020 Lithuania and the UK, while at the same time target of 40%. In general Nordic countries perform Germany, Italy, Cyprus and Austria produce well in tertiary attainment of young adults while relatively few each year (< 40/ 1000 young people). Southern European countries (with the exception of The number of ISCED 6 graduates per 1000 young Spain) and Central European countries with a strong people aged 25-34 is relatively high (> 2.0) in vocational tradition tend to lag behind. Progress in Germany, Portugal, Finland, Sweden, Austria and tertiary attainment rates was strongest in Ireland, the UK Luxembourg, Malta and Poland.

Chapter II: Improving the quality and efficiency of education and training

Chart II.3.4: Share of 30-34 year olds with tertiary attainment, 2000-08

Share of 30-34 year olds with tertiary attainment, 2008 (%) Evolution 2000-2008 (% relative change)

47.1 Cyprus 51.4 46.3 Denmark 44.2 46.2 Norway 23.9

46.1 Ireland 67.6 45.7 Finland 13.4

42.9 Belgium 21.9 42.0 Sweden 32.1 41.3 France 50.7 40.2 Netherlands 51.7 39.9 Lithuania -6.3

39.8 Luxembourg 87.7 39.8 Spain 36.3 39.7 United Kingdom 36.9 38.3 Iceland 17.5 34.1 Estonia 10.7 31.1 EU-27 39.5

0 2

0

 2 30.9 Slovenia 67.0

a rk 29.7 Poland 137.6 h m 27.7 Germany 7.8

27.1

e n

c Bulgaria 39.0

B 27.0 Latvia 45.2 25.6 Greece 0.8

22.4 Hungary 51.4 22.2 Austria 39.6

21.6 Portugal 91.2 21.0 Malta 183.8 19.2 Italy 65.5

18.5 Croatia 14.2 16.0 Romania 79.8 15.8 Slovakia 49.1 15.4 Czech Republic 12.4 12.4 MK (:)

12.4 Turkey (:)

(:) Liechtenstein (:)

50 40 30 20 10 0 -50 0 50 100 150 200

Source: DG Education and Culture - Data source: Eurostat

Note: Croatia: 2002 instead of 2000

*MK= Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia

Apart from a larger share of a cohort acquiring Chart II.3.5: Tertiary attainment of tertiary attainment, Ireland and Luxembourg have in 30-34 year olds, 2000-2007

this period also profited from a net migration of young adults with high educational attainment. The

EU countries with the lowest tertiary attainment rates Tertairy attainment of 30-34 year olds are the Czech Republic, Italy, Romania and 40

Slovakia. The Czech Republic has not improved its EU benchmark 38

tertiary attainment rate in the period 2000-2007.

However, in 2008 progress in the Czech Republic in 36 this field accelerated. 34

In 2006 in the EU about 29% of 25-34 year olds had 32

tertiary attainment, compared to an average of 27% 30 among OECD countries. In the USA and Australia

28

tertiary attainment of young adults was 39% in 2006, some 10 percentage points higher than in the EU. 26

The OECD countries with the highest tertiary

24

attainment of young adults are Canada (55%), Japan

(54%) and Korea (53%). Outside the OECD Russia 22

(55%) and Israel (50%) show high tertiary attainment 20

levels, but the results for Russia are believed to be 2 000 200 1 2002 200 3 200 4 20 05 200 6 20 07 20 08 overstated.

Chapter II: Improving the quality and efficiency of education and training

• 4. 

  Labour Market outcomes each country. 38 It represents the educational

characteristics of the supply side of the labour

Increasing employment rates and enabling the EU to market.

regain the conditions for full employment and to

strengthen social cohesion by 2010 are among the In 2008 at the EU level less than one third (28.5%) of most important objectives of the Lisbon strategy. the adult population had low level of educational Specific targets were set by successive European attainment, almost half (47.2%) had a medium level Councils on raising the overall employment rate to and almost a quarter (24.3 %) a high level (see 70%, raising the employment rates of women to 60% Table II.4.1 and Table Ann II.10). Compared with and raising the employment rates of older workers 2000, the share with low educational attainment had (55-64 year olds) to 50 % by 2010 . decreased by 7.1 percentage points while the share

with medium and high educational attainment had

There is broad agreement on policies for job-creation increased by 2.3% and 4.8% respectively. including active employment policies, a sound Nevertheless, in 2008 almost 77 million persons macro-economic framework, and investment in skills, aged 25-64 in Europe had low levels of formal research and infrastructure. Furthermore, the educational qualifications, approximately 12 million European Spring Council meeting in March 2008 fewer than in 2000.

recognised that flexicurity 36 , in which lifelong learning

is one the four key components, is the right Table II.4.1. Educational attainment (2000-2008) approach to modernise and foster the adaptability of (25-64 year olds) labour markets. Results of Lisbon related policies have also been positive. After re-launching the

Lisbon strategy in 2005, and refocusing it on growth Share of population (EU-27) in %

and jobs, Europe had, until 2008, produced relatively

strong economic growth and increases in net job 2000 2008 Change creation of about 9.5 million during 2006-2008. Low educational 35.6 28.5 -7.1

However, the economic and financial crisis has attainment

39

impacted significantly on labour markets since then.

According to the Commission spring forecast, Medium educational 44.9 47.2 2.3 attainment

employment is expected to contract by 2.5% in 2009

and a further 1.5% in 2010 resulting in a total loss of High educational 19.5 24.3 4.8

employment of 8.5 million in the EU. As a result, the attainment unemployment rate is projected to increase to close to 11% in the EU by 2010 and the overall Source: EUROSTAT (LFS) employment rate to fall from around 66% in 2008 to around 63.5% by 2010. Consequently, the target of

70% set within the Lisbon strategy appears out of Between 2000 and 2008 in every Member State – reach for the near future (The Commission except for Denmark (see Table Ann II.10) - there

Economic Forecast Spring 2009). was a shift in the adult population from low levels of educational attainment to medium and high levels.

This section focuses on skills and knowledge as Spain, Belgium, Bulgaria, Ireland, Cyprus and central parameters for labour market outcomes and Hungary experienced a more than 10 percentage employability. The core indicator for measuring point decrease in the share of the adult population progress in this area is the share of the adult with low educational attainment.

population with high educational attainment, which can be seen as a proxy for the high skilled workers

available to an economy. 37 Share of the adult population with high educational attainment.

The section is organised as follows: section 4.1, will

explore the educational attainment of the population The core indicator: Share of the population with with a specific focus on the 25-64 year olds group, high educational attainment

Section 4.2, will highlight the relationship between

educational attainment and employment rates with a The Council Conclusion of May 2007 adopted particular focus on the economic crisis. Finally, educational attainment of the population as one of section 4.3, will look at the responses to medium and sixteen core indicators for measuring progress on long term challenges in both shifts in skills demand education and training systems.

and demographic development (drawing on the New

Skills for New Jobs initiative). The Commission emphasised the Share of the population with high educational attainment as

4.1. Educational attainment of the adult the central indicator for monitoring progress population towards the knowledge-based economy.

The level of educational attainment of the adult Whereas the basic requirement for the post-war population (aged 25 to 64) provides a crude economy was secondary education, the one for a measure of the knowledge and skills available in knowledge-based economy is higher education.

Chapter II: Improving the quality and efficiency of education and training

The jobs currently being created as a result of The percentage of the adult population with a high innovation are not low paid-low skilled, but high level of educational attainment varies between paid-high skilled jobs. Countries endowed with a 12.8% in Romania and 36.6% in Finland. Finland, highly skilled and adaptable workforce are more Norway, Denmark and Cyprus are the four best able to create and make effective use of new performing countries (see Chart II.4.1) while Malta,

technologies and to embrace change. 40 This Poland and Portugal have experienced the strongest

suggests that it is the skill composition of human growth over the period 2000-2008. capital and more precisely the share of high skilled workers in the labour force, which plays an important role in relation to economic growth.

Chart II.4.1: High education attainment of the adult population aged 25-64 in %

  High education attainment of population aged 25-64 (%) Evolution 2000-2008 (% relative change)

36.6 Finland 13.3 35.5 Norway 12.3 34.5 Cyprus 37.6 34.5 Denmark 31.6 34.4 Ireland 56.4 34.3 Estonia 18.7 32.3 Belgium 19.0 32.2 Netherlands 34.0 32.0 United Kingdom 12.3 32.0 Sweden 7.7

31.3 Iceland 31.5 30.4 Lithuania -28.3

29.2 Spain 28.6 27.7 Luxembourg 51.2 27.3 France 26.5 25.4 Germany 6.5

25.2 Latvia 38.4 24.3 EU-27 24.9

22.8 Bulgaria 25.1 22.6 Slovenia 42.4 22.6 Greece 32.9 19.6 Poland 71.6 19.2 Hungary 36.2 18.1 Austria 28.2 14.8 Slovakia 43.3 14.5 Czech Republic 26.2 14.4 Italy 48.0 14.3 Portugal 62.5 13.2 Malta 145.1 12.8 Romania 38.0 (:) Croatia (:)

(:) MK (:) (:) Turkey (:) (:) Liechtenstein (:)

40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160

Source: DG EAC - Data source: Eurostat (LFS)

Table II.4.2. High educational attainment of While on average the share of the EU's adult 25-64 year olds (in %) population with high educational attainment is still

clearly below key competitors (see Table II.4.2.);

2008 there is wide variation between EU countries and

some are performing close to world leaders. The

EU27 24.3 1 Russian Federation is the best performer at 54%

USA 39 (though figures might be overstated), Canada

Canada 47 second best at 47%, US and Japan both have a share of around 40% of 25-64 year olds with higher

Japan 40 education while Mexico and Brazil perform at

Australia 33 substantially lower levels than EU27.

Korea 33 Generational differences

Mexico 15 The cause of the increase in the share of the

New Zealand 38 population with high educational attainment is that younger generations are better educated than older

Russian Federation 54 2 ones. As illustrated in Table II.4.3 - using a five year

Brazil 8 3 age group entering the labour market and a five year

age group leaving the labour force - the skills profiles Data source: OECD and EUROSTAT (LFS) of the older generations are very different from the

• 1. 

  Year of reference 2008

• 2. 

  Year of reference 2002 profiles of the younger generations.

• 3. 

  Year of reference 2004

Chapter II: Improving the quality and efficiency of education and training

Table II.4.3. Educational attainment (EU-27) 2008 (in educational attainment. The share of 30-34 year old

%) women with high educational attainment stands at 34.3% i.e. 14.1% higher than the corresponding

share for 50-54 year old women.

Low Medium High

25-29 year olds 19.2 50.0 30.8 Chart II.4.3. Generational differences in the share of

men and women with high educational attainment,

60-64 year olds 44.4 38.5 17.0 2008

Source: EUROSTAT (LFS)

40

The proportion of 25-29 year olds with low 35

educational attainment is almost 25 percentage 30 g e 25

points lower than the corresponding proportion of 60- Men e n ta 20

64 year olds, while the shares with medium and 15 Women higher levels are about 13 percentage point higher P

e rc

10

each. At the level of individual countries this shift is 5

most noticeable in Ireland, Italy, Greece and Cyprus 0 20- 25- 30- 35- 40- 45- 50- 55- 60-

where the proportion of 25-29 year olds with low 24 29 34 39 44 49 54 59 64 educational attainment is more than 40 percentage Age points lower than the corresponding proportion of 60-

64 year olds with this level. Source: EUROSTAT (LFS)

4.2. Educational attainment and employment Gender differences rates

Women have experienced the strongest shift towards high educational attainment between 2000 This section illustrates the overall link between and 2008 (Table II.4.4) and in 2008- for the first timeeducational attainment levels and employment rates the share of females with high educational and explores how the economic crisis has influenced attainment across the EU surpassed that of men. this relationship.

In the majority of countries the share of women with 'Observation on data' high educational attainment is greater than the corresponding share of men - still, in the Czech The age span 15-64 is used in this section to Republic, Germany, Greece, Luxembourg, Malta, the ensure correspondence with labour market Netherlands, Austria and Romania the opposite is statistics (and the overall Lisbon goals) which uses the case. this age span to measure activity, employment and

unemployment rates. However, since the majority

Table II.4.4. Educational attainment of men and do not reach their final educational attainment level

women (2000-2008) (25-64 year olds) before reaching their twenties (or even mid to late

twenties), this implies that people still in education

Men Women are included as people with low educational attainment levels when calculating the employment

2000 2008 Change 2000 2008 Change rate (the denominator). The consequence is that

High the employment rates of people with low

educational 20.6 23.8 3.2 18.5 24.7 6.2 educational attainment is lower than it would have attainment been if people still in education had been excluded

Source: EUROSTAT (LFS) from the denominator.

Generational and gender differences

Thus the last 20 years have brought about a major General trends

change in the relative share of men and women with

high educational attainment. In the younger age Research over the past decade has produced ample groups (i.e. until 45 year olds), the share of women evidence that the monetary and non-monetary with high educational attainment is clearly greater prosperity of individuals is related to their level of than the corresponding share of men. In the ageeducation and training. Education yields substantial groups older than 45 year olds, the opposite is the returns to the individual in terms of earnings and case – men have a greater share with high employability and significant gains in economic

educational attainment than women. growth and wider social benefits. However, while human capital theory does offer powerful

Chart II.4.3 illustrates that while men have become explanations of relationships between the level of better educated over the last 20 years (i.e. the share education and labour market outcomes, alternative of 30-34 year olds with high educational attainment theories qualify the role of human capital in several is 6.4 percentage points higher than the share of 50- ways. The screening theory sees education as a 54 year olds with the same educational level), "filter" mechanism that serves, at least partly, to

women have experienced a much stronger shift in reveal innate abilities rather than raising them. According to the job competition theory education

Chapter II: Improving the quality and efficiency of education and training

and training are used as weapons in the struggle for especially, quality of schooling, measured in terms of jobs. The labour market segmentation theory student performance on cognitive achievement tests emphasizes the role of social barriers in the yield substantial payoffs on the labour market for the determination of employment opportunities while individual and society alike (Barro 2001 and education plays a lesser role. Wößmann 2002).

Given that most European countries has virtually In general, there is a positive relationship between universal enrolment in primary and lower secondary educational attainment and employment rate. Yet, schooling, policies that increase the quality of employment rates for the population with low level of schooling in terms of pupils’ cognitive and noneducation are significantly different among EU cognitive skills may bring considerable benefits in countries. the long run. Evidence shows that the quantity and,

Chart II.4.4. Employment rates and educational attainment, in % (2008)

100

90

80

70

60

g e

50

e n

ta

P e

rc

40

30

20

10

0

E B G C Z D K D E E E IE L E E S FR IT C Y LV LT LU H U M T N L A T P L P T R O S I S K FI S E K U TR N O

E U

27 B

Below upper secondary education Upper secondary and post-secondary non-tertiary education Tertiary education

Source: Eurostat (LFS)

The overall tendency is clear across European For people with medium levels of educational countries - the higher the educational attainment is, attainment the employment rate varies between 61% the higher the employment rates are (see chart II.4.4 in Greece to 82% in Denmark while the employment or Table II.4.5); The overall employment rate has rates for people with high educational attainment is improved by more than 3 percentage points (from below 80% only in Italy and Hungary. However, in 62.1% in 2000 to 65.9% in 2008, see Table II.4.5). the majority of EU countries (two-third of the Member The employment rate of people with low educational States) it is well-above above 85% (chart II.4.4). attainment levels was slightly decreasing; while the

employment rates of people with medium (from Table II.4.5 Educational attainment and employment

68.3% to 70.6%) and high educational attainment rates (2000-2008)

(from 82.4% to 83.9%) are moving upwards .

In some member states the gap is higher than 50 Share of population Employment rates

percentage points (70 percentage points in Slovakia (EU-27) (EU-27)

and 60 percentage points in Lithuania and the Czech (15-64) years old (15-64) years old

Republic). As suggested above (observation on the 2000 2008 Change 2000 2008 Change data) this is also a consequence of the fact that the

use of the age group 15-64 tends to under estimate Low educational 37.8 32.1 -5.7 48.8 48.1 -0.7

the employment rate of the low educated. attainment

Still, there are clear differences between countries in Medium

how people with different educational attainments educational 45.1 46.6 1.5 68.3 70.6 2.3 attainment

perform on the labour market. This is particularly true

for people with low educational attainment. Even High

when analysing the age-group 25-64 where this educational 17.1 21.3 4.2 82.4 83.9 1.5

issue should be eliminated, the employment rate for attainment

this group varies between 32% in Slovakia to 72% in Overall N.A. N.A. N.A. 62.1 65.9 3.8 Portugal.

Chapter II: Improving the quality and efficiency of education and training

The share of the population with low educational Recent developments due to the economic crisis attainment has decreased remarkably (by 5.7%) while the share with medium and particularly high The economic downturn is bound to hit employment educational attainment has increased hard. The effect is just becoming visible because correspondingly (Table II. 4.5). These data illustrate employment growth typically lags business cycle that while structural reforms, which target fluctuations (Chart II.4.5). Labour market conditions employment rates, may have had a clear impact on started to deteriorate by end 2008 and in the first

the overall improvement in the employment rate, so quarter 2009 the number of persons in employment 41

have changes in the educational attainment of the decreased by 1.3% with respect to the same period population which have changed the educational of the previous year. By March 2009, there were four composition of the population in the period 2000- million more unemployed people than in the first 2008 resulting in an overall increase of the quarter of 2008. Everything points to a sharp employment rate (See Gros, D., 2006a for a similar increase in unemployment rates in the near future. In argument). May 2009, the European Commission forecast the

unemployment rate to reach 10.9% by 2010 in the

EU. 42

Chart II.4.5: Economic and Employment Growth EU 27 (d)

Economic and Employment Growth EU 27 (% change year-on-year)

6

5

4

3

2

1

0

-1

-2

-3

-4

-5

-6 I II III IV I II III IV I II III IV I II III IV I II III IV I II III IV I II III IV I II III IV I II III IV I II III IV I II III IV I II III IV I II III IV I II

1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 9

Employment Grow th Economic Grow th

Data source: Eurostat (European Quarterly National Accounts), extraction date 21/08/09

(d) Economic growth is the annual percentage change in Gross Domestic Product in volume. Employment growth is the annual percentage change in total employment (domestic concept). All percentage changes are with respect to the same period of the previous year. All data seasonally adjusted.

Chart II.4.6: Unemployment rates (%) by highest level of education attained and gender

15-64 years old, EU 27

Unemployment rates (%), 15-64 years old, EU 27,

by highest level of education attained and gender

16

14

12

10 Low - Female Low - Male Medium - Female

8 Medium - Male High - Female

6 High - Male

4

2

0 I II III IV I II III IV I II III IV I II III IV I

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Data source: Eurostat (LFS) extraction date 27 August 2009

Chapter II: Improving the quality and efficiency of education and training

Are the less educated workers more affected by the The trends described above are consistent with the worsening of the labour market conditions that their observation that the largest decline in employment in more educated counterparts? The most recent data late 2008 occurred in the manufacturing and (last two quarters of 2008 and first quarter 2009) is construction sectors, while services (including

inevitably short and also reflects seasonal financial) still registered slight positive growth. 44 behaviour. 43 But combined with data from previous Lower skilled workers may be facing a gloomy

years, it can however shed some light on the current working outlook also because, in the event of a reaction of the labour markets to the sudden recession, firms start by laying off those with short

contraction in economic activity. term contracts. 45 And in 2008, one fifth of low skilled

employees had a temporary job (see Table II.4.6). In In 2008, the number of employed workers with high particular, the very young (i.e. 15 to 24 years old) level of educational attainment was still increasing in unskilled workers are at risk of losing their jobs, as all EU countries (see Table Ann II.11). The increase nearly 53% of them have a temporary contract. By for the EU-27 as a whole attained 4.1%. Data for the contrast, only 12% of highly skilled employees were first quarter 2009 (see Table Ann II.12), shows that hired for a limited period of time. the employment for highly educated is still increasing

(3%) except in Finland, Cyprus, Lithuania and Spain. Table II.4.6. Temporary employees, as percentage of the total number of employees for a given

On the contrary, the number of workers with low educational attainment and age group, EU-27 (2008)

levels of education contracted in 2008 by 2.5% in the

EU-27 (following three years of much smaller Temporary employees (percentage

reductions). The contraction for low qualified workers of the total number of employees)

is most noticeable in Lithuania, Ireland and Latvia. In Age groups (years old)

five countries (Estonia, Bulgaria, Slovakia, the 15 - 24 25 - 39 40 - 64 15 - 64 Netherlands and Malta) however, more low-skilled Low

workers were being employed (see Ann II.11). Data educational 52.6 20.2 11.3 20.6

for the first quarter of 2009 indicates (see Ann II.12) attainment

that the employment perspectives for this group Medium

have contracted by 5.2%, but exhibited increases in educational 33.8 12.8 6.4 12.4

Malta, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Netherlands, Finland, attainment

Romania and Denmark. High educational 35.0 15.0 5.6 11.6

In 2008, the unemployment rates rose for low attainment

educated workers in twelve countries. Overall 39.7 14.8 7.4 14.0

Unemployment rates for medium skilled workers Data source: Eurostat (LFS)

rose in eight countries. The corresponding rate for What will be the labour market performance in the highly-skilled workers increased in only six countries following months? Previous experiences do not (Table Ann II.13). Quarterly data (Chart II.4.6) shows indicate clear, unique patterns. Evidence from that the rate of unemployment among those with France and UK shows that young people were the lower level of education is increasing faster. This most affected by the worsening of labour market graph also shows that by gender, low skilled males conditions in previous crises. 46 Studies find that in are the ones experiencing the hardest job losses. the 90s, young people who left school with few or no Their unemployment rate has escalated closing up qualifications ended up shuttling between labour the traditional gap with their female counterparts. market programmes, inactivity and unemployment,

without finding regular employment. 47 For those who Consequently, analysing EU performance overall, it accessed tertiary education, graduating in a worse appears that workers with low levels of educational economy has had a negative effect on wages for a attainment suffer most in this phase of the economic long period. 48

and financial crisis.

The rise in unemployment rates of young people,

The job crisis is particularly worrisome for young especially those with higher qualifications, implies a people. Typically 15 to 24 years old (and to a lesser loss of human capital. At individual level, not finding extend 25-30 years old) face higher unemployment a job in the few years immediately after educations rates than older workers. Unemployment rates for may entail a disadvantage for the rest of the career. 15-24 year olds are particularly high in Greece, Italy, For the State, the loss in human capital means a Spain, Romania, Hungary and Poland (Table Ann lower return to the investment in education that has II.15). Table Ann II.14 shows that, for the EU-27 as a been made in the preceding ten to sixteen years. whole, the economic crisis is taking its toll and those The worsening of the labour market conditions may with lower education level within this age group are affect the demand for education (in particular, higher assuming the highest cost. In effect, the education and VET). However, in terms of activity unemployment rate of 15-24 year olds with low rates (especially for the youth), the data available educational attainment is 5.3 percentage points does not show substantial changes in 2008 with higher in the first quarter 2009 that in the same respect to 2007 and 2006 (Table Ann II.16).

period of 2008, while the same rate increased by 3.6 percentage points for the medium educated and 2.9 for the highly educated.

Chapter II: Improving the quality and efficiency of education and training

4.3. Shifts in skills demand and the aging unemployment, unfilled vacancies and associated

population inefficiencies. 53

EU governments face common challenges of global The first results of the skill needs forecasts at the EU competition and demographic changes. Global level (undertaken before the unset of the financial competition implies delocalisation of labour intensive and economic crisis) shows that the demand for industries to low wage countries. This forces the skills and qualifications is being driven upwards in developed economies to create the framework most occupations including in the so-called conditions (including the supply of appropriately elementary jobs, by the continuing rise of the service skilled labour) for competing in knowledge intensive sector and sweeping technological and

high value added segments. Aging populations pose organisational changes.. 54 The forecast suggests

major economic, budgetary and social challenges that the total employment increase in Europe including the challenge of ensuring high employment between 2006 and 2015 of around 13.5 million new rates to shoulder the burden of providing decent jobs comprises more than 12.5 million additional jobs pensions and access to health and long term care at the highest qualification level (tertiary education) for the elderly. and almost 9.5 million jobs at the medium level

whereas the demand for jobs requiring low The first challenge drives up the demand for skills qualifications (at most lower secondary education) and qualifications in most occupations. The second will fall by 8.5 million. Jobs requiring only low level stems from a lack of young productive individuals as qualifications will have decreased from around a the working age population start to decline beginning third in 1996 to around 20% of the working age from 2010. Both challenges call for an increase in population in 2015 (CEDEFOP, 2008a). the educational attainment of the population.

Governments therefore need to concentrate on Based on the Cedefop projections, in 2015 around securing a better match of the demand and supply of 30% of all jobs will need high qualifications whereas skills and to focus on estimated long term patterns of almost half will require medium qualifications, total employment and employment rate. including vocational qualifications. It is expected that

this will increase the pressure on the upper and post

The importance of the employment rate 49 in the secondary levels of education. The challenge will be

context of projected demographic changes is to improve the quality (and also the access) at these illustrated (Chart II.4.7) (European Commission, two levels of education.

2008). 50

Chart II.4.8. Past and anticipated employment

Chart II.4.7. Projected working-age population and shares by education attainment level

total employment, EU27

Source: Cedefop (2008), EU27

Source: European Commission and Economic Policy Committee (2008)

As argued in this chapter, up-grading educational

The total number of persons employed (15-64 years attainment of the population goes hand in hand with old) is projected to increase significantly up to 2019, increases in employment rates – a necessary but after 2019 the demographic effects of an ageing ingredient for counteracting the current crisis and for population will outweigh this effect. facing up to the future challenges of demographic

change and productivity growth.

In this context, and following an invitation from the

European Council in 2008 51 , Cedefop has embarked on work to project the skill needs in Europe. 52 The

rationale for forecasting is that labour markets are imperfect and that there are long and variable lags between decisions on investment in skills and when these finally become available. Without information there are likely to be more or greater mismatches in labour supply and demand, leading to wage inflation,

Chapter III: Promoting equity, social cohesion and active citizenship

CHAPTER III

Promoting equity,

social cohesion

and active citizenship

Main messages

III.1 Equity 1.1 Early childhood education - The new benchmark for 2020 - Teachers in pre-primary school - Children with disadvantaged background 1.2 Early leavers from education and training - The EU benchmark - Highest educational level achieved before leaving education and training - Employment status of early leavers - A comparison with third countries 1.3 Special education needs - National classifications of Special education needs - Special education needs pupils in segregated settings - An international classification – the OECD-CRELL project 1.4 Adult education and training - Inequalities in participation - Characteristics of non-formal learning activities - Obstacles to participation

III.2 Key competencies 2.1 Reading, mathematics and science literacy - Low achievers in reading literacy: European benchmark 2010 - Low achievers in basic skills: European benchmark 2020 - Reading literacy in the EU countries - Mathematics literacy in the EU countries - Science literacy in the EU countries - Progress in mathematics and science literacy: results from the TIMSS survey 2.2 Language skills: learning and teaching 2.3 ICT skills for young and adults 2.4 Active citizenship - Impact of formal education on active citizenship

III.3 Migrants 3.1 Special education needs and the issue of language 3.2 Key competencies 3.3 Early leavers from education and training 3.4 Adult participation in lifelong learning

III.4 Gender inequalities 4.1 Differentials in schooling 4.2 Educational choices

Chapter III: Promoting equity, social cohesion and active citizenship

MAIN MESSAGES Equity, social cohesion and active citizenship

• Progress in combating early leaving from education and training has been slow in the EU. Some

central and eastern European countries (Poland, Czech Republic and Slovakia), Lithuania and Finland already perform well with a share of early leavers below the EU benchmark of 10%.

• There is a clear divide in the EU between those countries that pursue inclusive teaching of

pupils with special educational needs and those that pursue segregated teaching. In all Member States, pupils with learning difficulties are more often taught in regular classes than children with

disabilities.

• Participation of adults in lifelong learning is not equally available to all different groups of adults;

rates are higher among the youngest (25 to 34 years old), the most educated and the employed.

• The probability that a young migrant is an early leaver from education and training is more than

double that for a national (26.8% vs. 13.6%). Many children with migrant background suffer from educational disadvantages and unequal patterns exist in terms of access to, and achievements in,

education.

• Boys experience more difficulties than girls in adapting to the compulsory school environment,

so they are over-represented among pupils with disabilities or learning difficulties, being 61% of pupils in the first category and 65% in the second one.

• Gender-specific choices of the field of study are still pronounced. In upper secondary, boys more

often enrol in vocational education (57%) where girls mainly choose general courses (54%). In higher education, women graduates are more numerous (59% in 2007) but, despite recent progress, men still

predominate in Mathematics, Science and Technology (68%).

• The share of low achievers in reading literacy among pupils in lower secondary education in the

EU is increasing. From 2000 to 2006 the proportion of low performers in reading literacy aged 15 increased from 21.3% to 24.1%. This should be seen against a benchmark for 2010 which anticipate a

significant reduction of 20%.

• Early teaching of foreign languages is advancing in Europe. The average number of foreign

languages learned in the EU is 1.4 at lower secondary education, and still far behind the goal that young people should learn at least two foreign languages. In lower secondary education, one observes a small

increase in the proportion of pupils learning English, French or Spanish.

• Education plays a central role for active citizenship. Recent research shows that increased educational attainment has a positive effect on active citizenship. Higher education attainment has by far the biggest effect.

In this chapter we examine the evidence relating to a range of issues which have an important impact on

the overall equity of the educational system. These 1. Equity

are early childhood education, as a way to address educational disadvantage; early leaving from

education and training, which can lead to a weaker 1.1 Early childhood education

position in society and in the labour market; the

inclusion in mainstream schools of students with Increasing participation in early childhood education special educational needs; participation in adult is the first step in the direction of making lifelong learning. In addition to that, proficiency in key learning a reality, and is therefore an integral part of competencies such as reading, mathematics and lifelong learning strategies (see chapter I.1).

science is examined, together with language and

ICT skills. These are considered necessary Moreover, several studies have analysed positive competencies to be able to adapt in a changing effects of early childhood education from an world. Special attention is paid to the situation of educational and social perspective. It has been migrants in education and training, where some found that all children could benefit from it, especially inequalities can be found, and to differences those facing personal or familiar unfavourable between boys and girls from compulsory school to situations, as it has proven to be effective to counter tertiary education. potential educational disadvantages (NESSE, 2009).

Chapter III: Promoting equity, social cohesion and active citizenship

Council conclusions on the updated framework for

European cooperation in education and training European benchmark

2010-2020 (European Council, 2009) underlined the By 2020, at least 95% of children between equity dimension of early childhood education 4 years old and the age for starting mentioning that high participation and high quality compulsory primary education should provision can be effective ways to address participate in early childhood education. educational disadvantage. A new benchmark was set in order to monitor progress and contribute to evidence-based policy making.

Chart III.1.1: Participation in early childhood education (rates)

(between 4-years-old and starting of compulsory primary)

Participation in early childhood education, 2007 (%) Evolution 2000-2007 (% relative change)

100.0 France 0.0 99.7 Belgium 0.6 99.3 Italy -0.7

98.9 Netherlands -0.6 98.8 Malta -1.2 98.1 Spain -1.9 95.4 Iceland 3.9 95.1 Hungary 1.3 94.5 Germany 14.4 94.3 Norway 18.3 94.0 Sweden 12.4 93.9 Luxembourg -0.8 93.6 Estonia 7.6 92.7 Denmark -3.1 92.6 Czech Republic 2.9 90.7 EU-27 6.0 90.7 United Kingdom -9.3

89.2 Slovenia 4.7 88.8 Austria 5.0 88.2 Latvia 34.9 86.7 Portugal 9.9 84.7 Cyprus 30.9 84.5 Liechtenstein 21.9

0 2

0

 2 81.8 Romania 21.0 a rk 79.8 Bulgaria 8.7 h m 79.4 Slovakia 4.3

76.6

e n c Lithuania 26.4

B 69.8 Finland 26.4 68.2 Greece -1.6

66.8 Poland 14.6 65.2 Croatia (:)

26.7 Turkey 130.2 26.1 MK 50.0

(:) Ireland (:)

120 100 80 60 40 20 0 -20 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140

Source: DG Education and Culture - Data source: Eurostat - UOE.

Notes: MK: the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia

United Kingdom: break in series between 2002 and 2003 (earlier figures are overestimated).

Up to the last Progress report, this area was Recent trends are quite similar. The EU average of monitored referring to the core indicator participation in early learning was steadily rising "participation rate in pre-school education of 4 years during the last 7 years (+ 6% relative change, see old children". The new indicator considers a wider Chart III.1.1). age group, approaching more closely the Barcelona

target 55 and giving a more complete picture of early Even though some measurement and definitional

childhood education. issues are to be solved in view of higher data comparability, some conclusions on the new

The new benchmark for 2020 benchmark can be drawn. A number of countries are far below the benchmark, as is the case for Poland,

Compared with the value of the previous indicator, Greece and Finland where participation rate is less the new one is slightly higher, due to the fact that it than 70%. Different reasons contribute to that: includes older children who are, on average, operational and financial constraints in increasing participating more in early childhood education. A the supply of early childhood education in the whole comparison for 2007 shows that the participation country, cultural norms and pedagogical approaches rate of 4 years old was about 88% while the early can all play a relevant role.

childhood education participation rate 56 was 90.7%.

Chart III.1.2: Ratio of pupils to teachers in pre-primary school (ISCED 0)

Chapter III: Promoting equity, social cohesion and active citizenship

Data source: Eurostat - UOE

On the other hand, in several Member States to a favourable child/staff ratio (NESSE, 2009; participation is at the level of the benchmark for 2020 Eurydice, 2009). or even higher, and in three of them attending early education is a de facto reality for almost all young Professional staff involved in pre-primary education children (France, Belgium and Italy). are now required to have a higher educational level

(ISCED 5A or 5B) everywhere apart from the Czech Candidate countries have a low performance in this Republic, Romania, Slovakia, Malta and Austria. In field, the highest participation rate being found in the latest two countries, only a stream at the upper Croatia (65.2%). Looking at industrialized countries secondary level exists. outside the EU, in Japan participation to early childhood education is almost universal (96.4%) As for the ratio child/staff, the latest UNICEF report while in the US less than 70% of young children (2008) suggests a maximum level of 15 children to 1 attend early education (Table Ann. III.1). teacher. The situation in Member States is quite

varied, as shown in Chart III.1.2, with the ratio Participation rates increased notably in some ranging from 7.8 in Lithuania to 19.2 in France. Also Member States, namely Latvia (+35%), Cyprus Poland, Romania, Cyprus, Austria Belgium and (+31%) and Finland (+26%). But the increasing trend Portugal would not comply with UNICEF is not shared by all countries, as 8 of them in fact suggestions. As for candidate countries, Turkey has present a decrease in participation rate. The most a high ratio of around 26 children for each teacher, notable cases are to be found in United Kingdom (- while Croatia and the former Yugoslav Republic of 9.3%, see note) and in Denmark (-3.1%). Macedonia range between 12.4 and 11.3. In the US,

a low level in participation combines with a very Teachers in pre-primary school favourable child/staff ratio (10.3) while in Japan,

where participation is much higher, every teacher The issue of ensuring good quality provision remains follows almost 17 children (Table Ann III.2). central as many different studies underline that poor quality early childhood education can even be detrimental. Quality is hardly measurable as such but it is possible to measure some pre-conditions of it along different dimensions, ranging from the level of training of teachers, to the involvement of parents,

Chapter III: Promoting equity, social cohesion and active citizenship

Children with disadvantaged background 1.2 Early leavers from education and training

Research shows that children with disadvantaged One of the main targets of the EU policy in the field background are those who can profit the most from a of education is to lower the number of young people good quality early childhood education. In practice, who have left school without an upper secondary they are often less likely to get it and several studies education and do not participate in any kind of found that in most countries children living in lowfurther education or training. It is considered a income households or with migrant background have crucial achievement in order to enhance economic less access to good quality early learning. Also growth and social cohesion. children living in rural areas tend to have a more difficult access to early childhood education due to a The EU benchmark lack of supply at close range as is the case, for example, in Poland (Eurydice, 2009). The benchmark for 2010 to achieve a level of no

more than 10% early school leavers in the EU

Chart III.1.3: Early leavers from education and training, 2000 and 2008 (rates)

.

Percentage of 18-24 years old with less than upper Evolution 2000-2008 (% relative change) secondary education and not in education or training, 2008

Benchmark 2010 + 2020 3.7 Croatia -53.7

5.0 Poland -32.4 5.1 Slovenia -21.0

5.6 Czech Republic -2.5 6.0 Slovakia -10.0

7.4 Lithuania -55.0 9.8 Finland 9.8 10.1 Austria -0.9 11.1 Sweden 52.4 11.3 Ireland -22.9 11.4 Netherlands -25.9 11.5 Denmark -1.6 11.7 Hungary -16.0 11.8 Germany -19.4 11.8 France -11.2 12.0 Belgium -13.0 13.4 Luxembourg -20.0 13.7 Cyprus -25.7 14.0 Estonia -7.8 14.8 Bulgaria -28.0 14.8 Greece -18.7 14.9 EU-27 -15.2 15.5 Latvia -8.3 15.9 Romania -30.5 17.0 United Kingdom -6.6 17.0 Norway 32.2 19.6 MK (:) 19.7 Italy -21.4 24.4 Iceland -18.1 31.9 Spain 9.7 35.4 Portugal -18.8 39.0 Malta -28.0 46.6 Turkey -21.4

(:) Liechtenstein (:)

50 40 30 20 10 0 -80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60

Source: DG Education and Culture Data source: Eurostat (Labour Force Survey), 2008

Data for Slovenia and Croatia lack reliability due to a small sample size.

Finland and Portugal: provisional data

Cyprus: Students studying abroad are not covered by the survey; this indicator could therefore be overestimated.

Bulgaria, Poland and Slovenia: evolution refers to the period 2001-2008.

Czech Republic, Ireland, Latvia, Slovakia and Croatia: evolution refers to the period 2002-2008.

Additionnal notes about this indicator are available at: http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/structural_indicators/indicators/social_cohesion

has been maintained for 2020, considering that In 2008 the average rate of early leavers was 14.9% Member States encountered notable difficulties in for EU-27, just 2.7 percentage points lower than in

substantially reducing it since 2000 (see also the 2000 57 (chart III.1.3).

Introduction chapter).

In spite of slow progress, some countries already European benchmark perform quite well with a share of early leavers well By 2020, the share of early leavers below the benchmark, mainly in Central and Eastern from education and training should Europe, the best performers being Poland, Czech

be less than 10%. Republic and Slovakia. Another group of Northern Central Europe countries have a rate not far from the benchmark, less than 12%. However, countries like Italy (19.7%) and especially Spain, Portugal and

Chapter III: Promoting equity, social cohesion and active citizenship

Malta (with more than 30%) are still dealing with a didn't succeed yet and the indicator actually considerable share of early leavers from education increased during the period (+ 9.7%). Other countries and training. experienced an increase in the share of early

leavers, mainly the Nordic ones: Norway, Sweden These countries had significant improvements since and, to a smaller extent, Finland. Despite the 2000, with change exceeding 18%, except for Spain. worsening of this indicator, the latter still performs Its efforts to decrease the incidence of early leavers better than the benchmark.

Chart III.1.4: Early leavers from education and training by highest educational level achieved, 2008 (Percentage)

  At most primary (ISCED 0-1) Lower secondary (ISCED 2) Upper secondary short (ISCED 3C)

Data source: Eurostat (Labour Force Survey), 2008

Data for Denmark, Malta, Austria and Iceland lack reliability due to a small sample size.

Portugal: provisional data

In candidate countries with reliable data the indicator almost negligible in Nordic countries and UK, while is very high: in the former Yugoslav Republic of it is very high in Bulgaria (38%), Portugal (40%) and

Macedonia it is at about twice the benchmark level Poland (41%) 59 .

and in Turkey the rate is almost 50%.

In Turkey, this group is the most numerous one, as it

58

In spite of some weaknesses of available data , it accounts for 57% of the total number of early leavers, can be concluded that enhancing the human capital i.e. more than 1 out of 4 young people living in the in EU by supplying young people with a minimum country. level of education and training is still an issue to be tackled in several Member States.

Employment status of early leavers Highest educational level achieved before leaving education and training As mentioned in chapter 2.4, there is a positive

relationship between educational attainment and Most early leavers in the EU (almost 3 out of 4) employment, so the population with lower level of succeeded in completing lower secondary education, education has generally lower employment rates. i.e. compulsory education in the majority of

European countries (chart III.1.4). The percentage of In 2008, only 55% of early leavers of education and those who achieved a particular kind of upper training in the EU are employed (Table III.1.1). The secondary education (ISCED 3C short courses, rest are either unemployed or outside the labour including some vocational or pre-vocational training) market and therefore are those more at risk of social is less than 10%. In fact, these courses exist only in exclusion. some countries and ISCED 3C short is the highest level of education for a significant part of early In some countries, mainly in Northern and Southern leavers in few Member States, such as Greece and Europe, the labour market is more open to low the UK. In the latter, this group is the most important skilled workers, so that young people with a low as 57% of early leavers completed a short course in education level can more easily find a job. upper secondary education.

Considering the risk of social exclusion linked to low education, the fact that about 1.2 million young people, i.e. 18% of early leavers in the EU, have completed at most primary school should be regarded as particularly alarming. This percentage is

Chapter III: Promoting equity, social cohesion and active citizenship

Table III.1.1 Early leavers from education and Recently, the US administration expressed clear training by employment status, 2008 (Percentage) intention to address the dropout issue through

preventative measures and through second chance

Employed Unemployed opportunities. and Inactive

EU-27 54.6 45.4

Belgium 49.5 50.5 In Canada drop outs are defined in a slightly different

Bulgaria 31.3 68.7 way

61 but the aim to reduce the incidence of this Czech Republic 38.8 61.2 disadvantaged category is the same as in the EU Denmark 71.9 28.1 and the US. In fact, in Canada there is clear

Germany 45.5 54.5 evidence that dropouts have more difficulties in Estonia 68.7 31.3 getting a job, especially in times of recession

Ireland 45.5 54.5 (Statistics Canada, 2005).

Greece 64.9 35.1

Spain 63.0 37.0 The dropout rate has been declining in recent years,

France 48.4 51.6

Italy 51.3 48.7 and in 2004 it was 9.8%. The trend is common to all

Cyprus 70.6 29.4 provinces, but it is more pronounced in the Atlantic

Latvia 60.0 40.0 part of the country and in urban areas.

Lithuania 47.9 52.1

Luxembourg 65.4 34.6 Programs to encourage young people to stay in Hungary 35.8 64.2 school until they get a diploma are considered to be Malta 77.5 22.5 successful. Second chance programs have also Netherlands 75.6 24.4 been put in place. A high number of drop outs (about

Austria 60.4 39.6 33%) take advantage of these programs, but not all

Poland 43.7 56.3

Portugal 76.2 23.8 succeed, suggesting that more comprehensive

Romania 57.0 43.0 initiatives need to be taken.

Slovenia 63.1 36.9 Slovakia 22.0 78.0 Finland 56.1 43.9 Sweden 59.4 40.6 United Kingdom 53.0 47.0 Croatia 48.0 52.0 MK* 23.6 76.4 Turkey 39.0 61.0 Iceland 84.9 15.1 Liechtenstein : : Norway 79.1 20.9

Data source: Eurostat- LFS *MK= former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia Unreliable data for Lithuania, Slovenia and Croatia because of the small sample size. Portugal: provisional data

The percentage of employed early leavers is the highest in Malta, Portugal, the Netherlands, as well as in Iceland and Norway. On the other end of the spectrum, only a minority of early leavers are employed in Slovakia (22%), in Bulgaria and in

Hungary (respectively 31% and 36%).

A comparison with third countries

A comparable measure used in extra-EU countries is the drop out rate, even if referring to a concept slightly different from the EU early education and training leaver.

In the US, according to official data, 8.7% of young

people were "status dropouts" 60 in 2007. The rate is

decreasing at a similar pace to that experienced in the EU, as it was 14.1% in 1980 (National Center for

Education Statistics, 2009).

Substantial disparities exist across income groups, geographic areas and races (Center for Labour

Market studies, 2009). Dropouts are notably less frequent among white young persons than among black and especially Hispanic young people.

Chapter III: Promoting equity, social cohesion and active citizenship

1.3 Special education needs Conclusions on a Strategic framework for European cooperation in education and training identified,

The inclusion of students with special education among the objectives for the period 2010-2020, the needs (SEN) in mainstream schools and, more in need "to ensure that all learners – including those general, the goal of inclusive education has been …with special needs…- complete their education" part of the EU agenda in the field of equity in (Council, 2009). education for several years. Recently, Council

Chart III.1.5: Pupils with special education needs in segregated settings, 1999-2008

(Percentage of total pupils in compulsory education)

Percentage of pupils with SEN in segregated settings, Evolution 1999-2008 a (% relative change) 2008 a

0.01 Italy -98.0 0.3 Norway -40.0 0.4 Portugal 33.3 0.5 Greece 66.7 0.6 Cyprus 50.0 0.6 Spain 50.0 0.6 Malta (:) 0.8 Slovenia -57.9 0.8 Ireland -55.6 1.2 Bulgaria -42.9 1.2 Lithuania 9.1 1.2 Luxembourg 20.0 1.2 Iceland 33.3 1.3 UK (Scotland) (:) 1.4 UK (England) 27.3 1.5 Austria -6.3 1.5 Sweden 15.4 1.5 UK (Wales) (:) 1.6 Poland -20.0 1.9 France -26.9 2.1 EU 0.0 2.5 Netherlands 38.9 2.9 Hungary -27.5 3.2 Denmark 113.3 3.9 Finland 5.4 4 Latvia 25.0 4.4 Belgium (FR) 10.0 4.5 Czech Republic -8.2 4.8 Germany 4.3 4.8 Estonia 41.2 5.1 Belgium (FL) 4.1

(:) Croatia (:) (:) Liechtenstein (:) (:) MK (:) (:) Romania (:) (:) Slovakia (:)

6 5 4 3 2 1 0 -150 -100 -50 0 50 100 150

Source: DG Education and Culture Data source: European Agency for Development in Special Needs Education and Eurydice for 1999-2001; European Agency for Development in Special Needs Education for 2007-2008

Additional notes:

Evolution in small percentage figures should be considered with caution, as a little variation can result in noticeable relative change.

EU average calculated as arithmetic average of EU Member States for which data are available.

a Data refer to 2007 for: Austria, Belgium (Flemish Community), Denmark, Estonia, France, Germany, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Lithuania, Luxembourg,

Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, Switzerland and United Kingdom (Scotland and Wales).

1999: Refers to school years 1999/2000 and 2000/2001.

Denmark: data refer to pupils with the most serious needs in special classes only; break in series in 2007.

Sweden: data refer to pupils in special schools and classes only.

United Kingdom: data refer to pupils with statements of SEN only.

There are substantial differences between countries Recently, Eurostat launched a new project in order in the definition itself of what constitutes a special to answer the Council request to provide information need. on the definition of an indicator on special needs Therefore, two different approaches have been education, appropriate data to monitor progress in applied in the field of international studies on SEN. SEN and other relevant technical specifications The first one uses national definitions as the basis of (Council, 2007a). data collection. This is the approach followed by the

European Agency for Development in Special Needs National classifications of special education Education. An alternative approach was developed needs by OECD, and then followed by CRELL, in order to collect more internationally comparable data. It is The national approach followed by the European explained more fully in the paragraph "An Agency presents some difficulties, due to the fact international classification – the OECD-CRELL that figures on SEN as reported by each country are project". strongly related to administrative, financial and

procedural regulations, which can differ widely.

Chapter III: Promoting equity, social cohesion and active citizenship

Countries include different categories of learners countries with a very low rate of SEN pupils in within their definitions of SEN such as disability segregated settings. (sensory, physical, psychological), learning difficulties, behaviour problems, health problems, Changes observed do not always correspond to social or other kinds of disadvantages (see Watkins, major shifts in policy and legislation. Also changes in A. (Editor), 2009). resourcing and financing structures that act as levers A clear definition of what is meant by inclusive for placement of pupils with SEN or improvements in education and a segregated setting does not exist in the data collection methodology, could affect all countries' legislation and is not always used to reported numbers about SEN pupils and the settings produce an official decision. Therefore, when they are taught in. interpreting data some considerations should be taken into account: An international classification – the OECD- - national figures may only cover SEN pupils with an CRELL project official designation, but in some countries other pupils are also included; OECD promoted a framework aiming to enlarge the - some countries do not count pupils in fully inclusive concept of SEN and to collect internationally settings, even if they receive some form of support comparable data on all pupils receiving extra for their special needs; resources for their education. Three categories of - decisions of SEN are not in themselves students are included: those having physical comparable. The decision-making process is often disabilities, pupils with behavioural and learning an exercise that acts as a mechanism for resource difficulties; pupils with a disadvantaged socioallocation.

  economic background 63 . A recent OECD-CRELL

joint research study (OECD, 2009), supported by the Special education needs pupils in segregated Commission, has increased both quantity and quality settings of available data, also including EU countries which

were not previously covered 64 .

Nevertheless, it is possible to compare the percentage of pupils in compulsory school who are As for the share of pupils with special needs arising educated in segregated settings, as it refers to a from impairing conditions, great differences can be concept that most countries are able use in data found among OECD/EU countries The EU average

62

collection . is 3.3% of pupils, with country values ranging from 1.1% in Bulgaria to 5.0% in Finland. Considering that

The expected trend would be in the direction of a the international disability rate is 2.5% (UNICEF, decrease of that percentage, as there is a growing 2004), and since it is unlikely that the ‘organic’ bases consensus that, whenever possible, pupils with of disability differ greatly among countries, these special education needs should be included in differences presumably reflect national approaches regular, mainstream schools rather than in special to the conceptualisation of disability, in identification institutions. procedures and in policy priorities. Further work

would be needed to better understand whether some During the period 1999-2008, no notable progress countries are over-identifying children with was made towards more inclusive settings for disabilities while others may be under-identifying educating pupils with special needs in EU as a them. whole, although some changes in national legislation and policy for SEN do highlight possible moves The kind of setting in which SEN pupils are educated towards inclusion that may have an impact on the varies notably, both for pupils with disabilities and for EU indicator thereafter. Presently, the EU average of those with learning difficulties (chart III.1.6).

SEN pupils in compulsory education taught in segregated settings is 2.1%, including both special As for pupils with disabilities, inclusive education is schools and segregated classes in mainstream not the common practice in Latvia, Czech Republic, schools (see chart III.1.5). Belgium (Flemish Community) and Germany, in

which more than 85% are taught in special schools. The situation varies between individual countries. Looking at countries for which data are available, The indicator is about 4 - 5% in some Western and special classes are common outside Europe: in Baltic European countries (Belgium, Germany, Korea and Japan more than 50% of pupils with Estonia and Latvia) and in Czech Republic. It is very disabilities are in this kind of settings, and in US they low (no more than 0.6%) in most Southern European are 38%. countries and in Norway. In Italy, where a fully inclusive policy has been put in place, almost no In contrast, pupils with learning difficulties are pupils with SEN are educated in segregated settings. usually included in regular classes in most European

countries (and other OECD countries as well). During the period, the percentage of SEN pupils in Germany is a notable exception, as also pupils in segregated settings increased in most countries. this category are mainly educated in special schools Among those above the EU average, the increase (85%). was notable in Denmark, Estonia, the Netherlands and Latvia. Decreases were more evident for Differences in inclusion policies may be influenced

by characteristics of regular schools and their

Chapter III: Promoting equity, social cohesion and active citizenship

curriculum, as well as training possibilities for and special schools) may also influence national SEN attitudes of teachers. Different cultural and societal policies. norms (whether parents and educators consider it more appropriate placing students in mainstream or

Chart III.1.6: Pupils with special education needs by category of need and type of setting, 2005

(percentage distribution)

Pupils with disabilities Pupils with learning difficulties

Regular classes Special classes Special schools Regular classes Special classes Special schools

Latvia Korea

Korea Germany

Czech Republic

Belgium (Fl.) United States

Germany Hungary

Estonia Bulgaria

Hungary Latvia

Slovakia Slovakia

Japan

Netherlands Czech Republic

Bulgaria Mexico

Slovenia Estonia

Mexico Malta

Turkey Montenegro

United States

Finland United Kingdom

Lithuania Lithuania

Montenegro Luxembourg

Croatia Slovenia

Malta Croatia

United Kigdom

Serbia Finland

Spain Spain

Luxembourg Serbia

% 0 20 40 60 80 100 % 0 20 40 60 80 100

Source: DG Education and Culture Data source: OECD, CRELL

1.4 Adult education and training amplified by LLL. The less educated people have notably lower participation rates in AES (18% vs.

In this section, main results from the Adult Education 58.8%). This finding is in line with results from LFS, Survey (AES) will be analysed with special attention which show that participation rate is 5 times lower for to the equity dimensions of adult learning where the the less educated than for adults with high education

65

survey provides important insight. Data from the attainment. survey are presently available for 22 EU countries

plus Croatia and Norway 66 . The gap is particularly pronounced in countries such

as Poland – where the participation rate for low and Inequalities in participation high educated people is 4.7% and 54.4%,

respectively – Greece and Hungary (see Table Lifelong learning activities are not equally attended III.1.3). by different groups of adults. Higher participation rates are found among the youngest (25 to 34 years In countries where the LLL system is more old), the most educated people and employed developed, namely those with higher participation adults. rates as the Nordic countries and the UK, the relative

gap between poorly and highly educated adults is Age is a strong barrier to participating in LLL in all much more limited. countries (see also chapter I.1), and the wider generational gap is found where LLL overall participation rates are quite low (see Table III.1.2).

There are also considerable inequalities relating to initial education which tend to be retained or even

Chapter III: Promoting equity, social cohesion and active citizenship

employed adults is 43.4%, while for the unemployed Table III.1.2 Participation in adult learning by age, it is 24.5% and for inactive people just 17.3% (see

2007 (rates) Table III.1.3). This pattern holds in every country

included in the study, and it is clearly consistent with Country Age Total the fact that the majority of non-formal learning

25-34 35-54 55-64

EU average 45.3 37.5 21.7 36.0 activities are provided by employers and employers'

Belgium 56.3 42.3 23.5 40.5 organizations (43.4%).

Bulgaria 44.7 39.7 20.3 36.4 Czech Republic 44.1 43.0 21.7 37.7

Germany 53.3 48.7 28.2 45.4 Participation of unemployed is especially low

Estonia 52.5 42.6 27.5 42.1 compared to that of employed in some Eastern

Greece 22.7 14.0 5.1 14.5 countries, such as Slovakia and Czech Republic. Spain 39.7 30.8 17.0 30.9 The largest gap can be found in Bulgaria, with

France 48.2 35.9 16.2 35.1

Italy 30.5 23.0 11.8 22.2 participation rates for employed 7 times higher than

Cyprus 53.2 41.1 20.1 40.6 for unemployed, together with quite a poor situation

Latvia 39.0 34.3 21.8 32.7 also for inactive.

Lithuania 42.7 35.1 19.0 33.9 Hungary 15.8 9.0 2.5 9.0

Netherlands 59.7 44.9 28.8 44.6 The most comprehensive systems are capable of

Austria 47.1 45.7 25.4 41.9 providing a wide range of activities meeting not only

Poland 34.1 20.7 6.8 21.8 the need to update workers' knowledge but also

Portugal 40.3 25.5 10.9 26.5

Slovenia 52.2 42.6 22.2 40.6 providing the training for developing skills for work

Slovakia 51.0 48.3 23.8 44.0 and life as requested by unemployed and inactive

Finland 66.0 58.6 37.8 55.0 adults. This is especially the case in Norway and Sweden 81.0 76.4 60.7 73.4 Sweden, but also in Austria and the Netherlands. In

United Kingdom 58.8 50.3 37.0 49.3

Croatia 33.5 20.2 9.0 21.2 Greece, even though participation is overall low, the

Norway 65.0 55.5 41.2 54.6 unemployed are enabled to take part in education and training almost as much as employed adults.

Source: Eurostat, AES

Inactive and unemployed adults are also weak actors in LLL: at EU level, the participation rate of

Table III.1.3 Participation in adult learning by educational attainment and labour status, 2007 (rates)

Country Educational attainment Labour status

Low Medium High Employed Unemployed Inactive

EU average 18.0 36.3 58.8 43.4 24.5 17.3

Belgium 19.8 38.4 63.3 48.9 34.4 17.6

Bulgaria 15.1 39.2 52.8 50.2 7.1 6.5

Czech Republic 14.8 36.6 62.4 47.6 12.6 9.9

Germany 19.9 45.4 63.2 53.0 29.3 26.2

Estonia 19.7 35.9 60.6 49.2 17.3 14.6

Greece 4.0 15.2 31.8 17.8 13.2 5.4

Spain 17.0 35.5 51.1 35.9 25.0 16.6

France 19.1 34.1 57.1 42.3 28.6 12.4

Italy 8.2 30.2 51.4 27.7 16.9 11.4

Cyprus 16.0 39.5 64.7 48.0 31.1 15.7

Latvia 11.0 27.2 58.5 40.1 16.3 10.9

Lithuania 8.8 24.9 61.9 43.4 16.7 8.0

Hungary 2.6 8.6 19.4 12.1 5.5 3.4

Netherlands 25.4 42.0 65.5 52.7 41.1 24.7

Austria 19.1 41.9 68.1 48.3 41.4 23.8

Poland 4.7 15.8 54.4 30.1 13.9 4.5

Portugal 15.9 45.6 64.0 31.5 21.0 9.9

Slovenia 12.7 39.0 67.6 47.7 27.5 21.5

Slovakia 14.2 40.8 61.8 54.0 15.7 11.0

Finland 35.2 51.8 72.9 62.0 34.7 36.3

Sweden 55.9 72.4 89.9 79.3 58.6 51.8

United Kingdom 33.4 52.5 62.6 56.6 33.5 29.8

Croatia 3.9 21.2 54.9 32.3 5.0 6.0

Norway 37.8 51.9 72.3 60.3 45.8 29.9

Source: Eurostat, AES

Education attainment: Low= Isced 0-2; Medium= Isced 3-4; High= Isced 5-6 Chapter III: Promoting equity, social cohesion and active citizenship

Characteristics of non-formal learning activities training. But more general reasons were also ranked quite high, such as "to increase knowledge/skills on

The Adult Education Survey offers also deeper an interesting subject" and "to get knowledge/skills insight so far as non-formal education and training useful in everyday life" (51 and 30%). Only 16% of activities are concerned. This knowledge can help to participants were interested in the more formal improve understanding of what users are looking for aspects of the course (i.e. aiming at getting a in LLL programs and which the main obstacles to certificate). The purely leisure-linked reason ("to participation are. The policy question is how to make meet people or just for fun") was chosen by 15% of LLL more attractive and how to enlarge access to it. respondents (see chart III.1.7).

Non-formal courses are usually quite short: mean Some relevant differences between European EU instruction hours are 70 with courses for the countries should be highlighted, as they show employed being shorter (62 hours) than those different attitudes among participants in LLL. In attended by unemployed and inactive adults some of them (e.g. Nordic countries but also Greece, (respectively 161 and 98 hours). Variation among Spain and Portugal) more than 60% of participants in countries is notable, the duration ranging from 45 a non-formal course did it in order "to increase hours in Bulgaria to 114 in Belgium. They are mainly knowledge or skills on an interesting subject" not job-related and are often provided and sponsored by necessarily job-related. On the other hand, this kind the employer (see chapter II.2). of "pure knowledge" reason was almost completely

disregarded in Poland and Slovenia, being indicated Respondents answered to the question about the by just 8 to 13% of participants. The majority of main reasons for training giving the following picture: participants were obliged to do so in two eastern "to do a better job and to improve career prospects" countries (Slovakia and Hungary) where a model of accounts for almost two thirds of answers given by "compulsory training" is prevalent (Table Ann III.3). participants in any kind of non-formal education and

Chart III.1.7 Reasons for participating in non-formal education and training, 2007

EU average* (%)

To do job better and improve carrier prospects

To increase knowledge/skills on an interesting subject

To get knowledge/skills useful in everyday life

To be obliged to participate

To increase possibilities of getting a job or changing a job/profession

To obtain certificate

To meet new people or just for fun

To be less likely to lose job

To start own business

Other

Data source: Eurostat (AES)

• * 

  EU-19 average, excluding EL, FR and UK EL and UK data are no comparable - BG, CY, ES, CZ, PT, FI did not interview participants taking part in 'guided on the job training'

Obstacles to participation personal time and working time. The third problem mentioned by a large number of non-participants

Almost 50% of respondents declared that they didn't was the cost of courses, considered to be too want more training but that figure could, in fact, hide expensive by 28.6% of respondents. It was a sort of discouragement induced by different kinds mentioned as the main problem preventing access to of difficulties. adult learning by the majority of respondents in

Eastern Europe and Baltic countries. Other possible The main reasons preventing those wishing to obstacles, such as the lack of employer support or participate were: family responsibilities and the absence of facilities at reachable distance, didn't conflicting work schedules (see chart III.1.8). They appear to be relevant. both relate to a lack of flexibility in organizing

Chapter III: Promoting equity, social cohesion and active citizenship

Chart III.1.8 Obstacles to participation in non-formal education and training, 2007

EU average (%)

Respondent did not have time because of family responsibilities

Training conflicted with the work schedule

Training was too expensive or respondent could not afford it

There was no training offered at the reachable distance

Lack of employer’s support

Respondent did not have the prerequisites

Respondent was not confident with the idea of going back to something that is like school

Health or age

Other

Data source: Eurostat (AES)

Note: France is excluded from the calculation of the EU average of this table because of the missing information.

• 2. 

  Key competences 2.1 Reading, Mathematics and Science Literacy

The Recommendation of the European Parliament Low achievers in reading literacy: European and the Council on Key Competences for Lifelong benchmark 2010

Learning of December 2006 (Council, 2006a) stated

that each citizen will need a wide range of key European benchmark competences to be able to adapt in a changing and By 2010 the percentage of low-achieving 15- interconnected world. The Recommendation defined year-olds in reading literacy in the European a framework consisting of eight competences: (i) Union should have decreased by at least 20% communication in the mother tongue; (ii) compared with 2000.

communication in foreign languages; (iii) mathematical competence and basic competences The benchmark is based on an indicator taken from in science and technology; (iv) digital competence; the PISA 2000 survey, which makes it possible to (v) learning to learn; (vi) social and civic identify the share of pupils who have a low level of competences; (vii) sense of initiative and foundation skills. The score on the PISA scale is entrepreneurship; and (viii) cultural awareness and divided into five levels. Pupils performing at level two expression. are able to locate straightforward information, make

low-level inferences of various types, work out what

Five of these competences (literacy in reading, a well defined part of a text means and use some mathematics and science, language skills, learning outside knowledge to understand it (PISA 2006). to learn skills, ICT skills and civic skills) were Pupils who fail to reach level two can therefore be identified as core indicators in the coherent considered to be inadequately prepared for the framework of indicators and benchmarks (Council, challenges of the knowledge society and for lifelong 2007a). learning. The benchmark measures the share of This section analyses the defined key competences pupils with reading literacy proficiency level one or where data are available. For the area of lower. communication in mother tongue and competences in mathematics and science, data comes from the Chart III.2.1 below shows the development regarding OECD PISA survey. In the area of communication in the benchmark on low achievers in reading literacy. foreign languages no data are currently available. Reaching the European benchmark implies that the

However the forthcoming European survey on share of low achievers in the EU 67 have to decrease

language competences will provide data on pupils' from 21.3% in 2000 to 17% in 2010. However the foreign language skills in 2012. Until then the average number of low achievers in the same available data on the teaching of foreign languages countries increased to 24.1% in 2006, a rise of more in the Member States will be examined. Concerning than 13%. A 30% reduction would now be needed to digital competence, available data from Eurostat on reach the benchmark. Clearly effective and the use of and the attitudes to ICT will be examined innovative measures are required.

along with recent studies in the field. Recent works on social and civic competences are discussed in Compared to countries outside Europe, the EU has a the Active citizenship part of this section. relatively high share of low performers, though both

the USA 68 and especially, Japan showed a

significant increase in the share of low performers from 2000 to 2006. The share of low performers in Korea, Canada and Australia was relatively stable in the period, and all these countries are at a level far

below the EU benchmark of 17% low achievers.

Chapter III: Promoting equity, social cohesion and active citizenship

.

Chart III.2.1 Low achievers in reading, 2000-2006 (PISA reading literacy scale)

Percentage of pupils with reading literacy proficiency Evolution 2000-2006 (% relative change) level 1 and lower on the PISA reading literacy scale, 2006

Benchmark 2010 4.8 Finland -31.4

12.1 Ireland 10.0 13.6 Estonia (:)

14.3 Liechtenstein -35.3 15.1 Netherlands (:) 15.3 Sweden 21.4 16 Denmark -10.6 16.2 Poland -30.2 16.5 Slovenia (:) 19 United Kingdom (:) 19.4 Belgium 2.1 20 Germany -11.5 20.5 Iceland 41.4 20.6 Hungary -9.3 21.2 Latvia -29.6 21.5 Austria 11.4 21.5 Croatia (:) 21.7 France 42.8 22.4 Norway 28.0

22.9 Luxembourg (:)

24.1 EU-27 13.1 24.8 Czech Republic 41.7

24.9 Portugal -5.3 25.7 Spain 57.7 25.7 Lithuania (:) 26.4 Italy 39.7 27.7 Greece 13.5 27.8 Slovakia (:) 32.2 Turkey (:) 51.1 Bulgaria 26.8 53.5 Romania 29.5

(:) Cyprus (:) (:) Malta (:) (:) MK (:)

60 50 40 30 20 10 0 -40.0 -20.0 0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0

Source: DG Education and Culture Data source: OECD PISA database 2000 and 2006

Note: EU figure (2000-2006): weighted average based on number of pupils enrolled and data for 18 countries

Low achievers in basic skills: European science in the Member States was 20.2% in 2006. benchmark 2020 This implies that a decrease of almost 26% in low

In May 2009 the Council adopted a benchmark in the performers is needed to reach the 2020 benchmark.

area of low achievers in basic skills. This benchmark

will cover the low performers in reading, Reading literacy in the EU countries

mathematics and science. Although the average share of low performers for the 25 countries participating in the PISA survey in 2006

European benchmark is high, there are large differences in performance By 2020 the percentage of low-achieving 15- between the Member States. Finland had only 4.8% year-olds in reading, mathematics and science low performers, followed by Ireland (12.1%) and literacy in the European Union should be less Estonia (13.6%). Hence these three Member States

than 15%. already fulfil the benchmark set for 2020 of not more than 15% low performers. The Netherlands (15.1%)

As analysed above, the EU average figure for low and Sweden (15.3%) are very close to the European performers in reading increased between 2000 and benchmark. In Bulgaria and Romania more than 2006 in most Member States. In order to reach the 50% of the pupils were low performers. new benchmark set for 2020 the average figure has to decrease by more than 35% from the level in While performance deteriorated in many Member 2006. In 2006 the share of low performing 15 year States from 2000 to 2006, some countries have olds in the EU was 23.1% for the 25 participating EU been successful in reducing the share of low countries 69 . achievers, notably Poland (30.2% decrease), Latvia

(29.6%), and Germany (11.5%). Finland, the top For mathematics the situation is worse than for performer in 2000, managed to reduce its already reading; the average figure of low achievers in low share of low achievers even further and reported mathematics was 24.0% in 2006. The share of low the highest relative reduction in low performers. performers will have to be reduced by 37% to reach (more than 31%). Spain (57.7%), France (42.8%), the 2020 benchmark. the Czech Republic (41.7%) and Italy (39.7%) show

a large increase in the share of low achievers. Chart When it comes to science the situation is better than II.2.1 spells out the development from 2000 for for reading and mathematics but will still require individual countries. 13 countries recorded an

attention. The average share of low performers in

Chapter III: Promoting equity, social cohesion and active citizenship

increase in the share of low performers, while in 8 performers by more than 10%. On the other side, countries the share decreased. France reported a 34% higher share of low

performers in mathematics; the Czech Republic and Distribution and mean performance of pupils in Iceland also recorded an increase of more than 10% reading between 2003 and 2006.

The average score for all participating countries in

reading in PISA 2006 is 492 points. In the EU Distribution and mean performance of pupils in countries the average score fell slightly from 491 mathematics points in 2000 to 487 points in 2006. Performance The average score for all participating countries in deteriorated in a large number of Member States. mathematics in PISA 2006 was 498 points. Finland The only EU countries where average performance had the highest mean score of all the OECD improved significantly were Poland and Latvia. countries with 548 points. Netherlands (531),

Belgium (520), Estonia (515), Denmark (513), the

Finland has the highest score among the Member Czech Republic (510), Iceland (506), Austria (505), States with 547 points followed by Ireland (517), and Slovenia (504) had mean performance levels Poland (508), Sweden (507), the Netherlands (507), significantly higher than the OECD average Belgium and Estonia (501). performance level. On an EU level average

performance decreased slightly from 495 in 2003 to

The benchmark illustrates the share of low 492 score points in 2006.

performers. The distribution between the low

performers and the top performers makes it possible For most countries, average performance in to show the performance gap between the best and mathematics remained unchanged. Greece the least performing pupils. Finland is the leading (increase of 14 points), was the only EU country, to country in Europe (and in the OECD) in terms of significantly improve its performance since 2003. In mean performance, but has also the smallest France, Belgium, the Netherlands and Sweden performance gap between its pupils. 70 Estonia, performance declined.

Spain, Denmark and Slovenia have relatively small

differences between top and low performers. Estonia, Finland and Ireland have the lowest Bulgaria, Czech Republic and Belgium have the variance between high and low performing largest performance gap among the Member States. students

71 . Austria, Germany, the Czech Republic

and Belgium have relatively large differences

Comparing EU reading literacy worldwide between high and low average performers.

Finland is the top performer among the participating

OECD countries. The five countries with the smallest Comparing EU mathematics literacy worldwide share of low performers are Finland (4.8%), Korea Finland is the best performing country of those (5.8%), Hong Kong (7.1%), Canada (11%) and assessed when it comes to the share of low Ireland (12.1%). Among the 10 best performers of all performers in mathematics followed by: Korea countries that took part in the survey four were (8.9%), Hong Kong (9.5%), Azerbaijan (10.5), European countries, Estonia and Lichtenstein joining Canada (10.8%), Netherlands (11.5%), Macao

Finland and Ireland. China (10.9%), Australia (13.0%) and Japan (13.0%).

Japan scored on average 498 points, slightly above

the average of the EU, while there were problems In 2006 the average performance of the US was 18 with the US survey, meaning that no comparison can points lower than for the average EU and the US be made for this country for 2006. Between 2000 average figure was down 9 points from 2003. Japan and 2006 Korea increased its average reading performs significantly better than the EU although performance by 31 points, reaching the highest the average results dropped nine points from 534 in performance of all participating countries with 556 2003 to 523 in 2006. China (Chinese Taipei (549)

points. and Macao (525)) Korea (547), Hong Kong (547), Canada (527), New Zealand (522) and Australia

Mathematics literacy in the EU countries (520) all perform higher than the average of the EU.

The average share of low performers in mathematics Science literacy in the EU countries

in the EU is 24% in 2006. Finland has the smallest

share of low performers in the EU with only 6%. In 2006 the PISA survey included a detailed profile Netherlands (11.5%), Estonia (12.1%) and Denmark of student performance in science. Due to the (13.6%) also perform better than the benchmark for change in the science test in PISA over the years, 2020. In Romania and Bulgaria, more than half of the 2006 results are not directly comparable with the pupils are in this category. earlier years.

As a result of a change in the survey scope, the The average proportion of low performers in science results from the mathematics test can only be for the Member States is 20.2%. However, several compared in 2003 and 2006. The majority of Member States are already performing better than countries (13) reduced the share of low performing the future benchmark. Finland has the smallest students in mathematics in this period. Greece, share of low performing pupils with only 4.1%. Finland and Denmark all reduced the share of low Estonia (7.7%), Liechtenstein (12.9%), the

Chapter III: Promoting equity, social cohesion and active citizenship

Netherlands (13.0%), Slovenia (13.9%) and Hungary non-European countries: Hong Kong (8.7%), (15.0%) are the countries closest to Finland and also Canada (10.0%), Macao-China (10.3%), Korea performing better than the future benchmark. (11.2%), Chinese Taipei (11.6%), Japan (12.0%) Alarmingly, more than 40% of pupils in Bulgaria and and Australia (12.9%). The US performs below the Romania are low performers in science. OECD average with 24.4% low performers; Russia

has a score of 22.2% low performers. Distribution and mean performance of pupils in science Comparing low performers in reading, mathematics The average score for the participating EU countries and science, most countries have the smallest share in science is 496 points. Due to the changes in the of low performers in science. Denmark and the science survey, progress is not possible to measure. Netherlands are the only countries where the share The best performing EU countries when it comes to of low performers in mathematics is lower than in average figures are again Finland (563), Estonia science. Only four countries (Ireland, Denmark, (531) and the Netherlands (525). Sweden and Poland) have a higher share of low

performers in science than in reading, while there is Comparing EU science literacy worldwide an even spread of countries with more low The average OECD figure for low performers in performers in maths compared with reading. (See science is 19.2%. The best performers in the OECD chart III.2.2 and Table Ann III.4) are Finland and Estonia. The countries following are

Chart III.2.2 Low achievers in mathematics, science and reading, 2006 – Benchmark 2020

Finland

Romania 60 Estonia

Bulgaria Netherlands

Turkey 50 Liechtenstein

Italy Ireland 40

Greece Denmark 30

Portugal 20 Slovenia

Spain 10 Sweden

0 Lithuania Poland

Slovakia Belgium

Norway Germany

Luxembourg United Kingdom

Croatia Hungary

EU Austria

France Iceland Czech Republic Latvia

Reading Science Maths Benchmark 2020

Source: DG Education and Culture Data source: OECD, PISA database 2006

Chapter III: Promoting equity, social cohesion and active citizenship

Progress in mathematics and science literacy: The Barcelona European Council in 2002 set the results from the TIMSS survey target of "the mastery of basic skills, in particular by

teaching at least two foreign languages from a very The Trends in International Mathematical and early age" (Council 2002c, paragraph 44).

Science Study (TIMSS) 2007 was the fourth survey on comparative assessments in mathematics and In the Conclusions on the strategic framework for science achievement at the fourth (10-11 year olds) European cooperation in education and training, ET

and eighth (14-15 year olds) grades. The survey is 2020 72 , the Council invited the Commission, to

carried out every four years. submit by the end of 2012 a proposal for a possible benchmark in the area of languages based on the

In the 2007 edition 12 EU countries (13 educational results of the ongoing work on the first European systems) participated at grade four and 11 countries Survey on Language Competences.

(12 educational systems) at grade eight. The top performers according to average scores in At present, it is obligatory to learn at least one mathematics and science are countries from East foreign language in compulsory education in all Asia. Russia also scores better than the EU Member States (except Ireland and Scotland), and a countries for fourth graders. second foreign language is often optional. (Eurydice,

2008) 73 .

The EU countries perform at different levels on the different tests. For mathematics England is a top In 2007, more than half of the pupils in the EU were performer both at grade four and eight. Latvia, the learning at least two foreign languages in secondary Netherlands and Lithuania are other good general education: in lower secondary 50.5% and performers at grade four, while at grade eight 60.2% in upper secondary education in general Hungary is the best performing EU country. programmes. (See Chart III.2.3). The number of

students learning two foreign languages has On the science achievements, students from decreased compared to 2006 in lower secondary England and Latvia score highest among the education by 6.9 percentage points and increased by Member States for fourth graders just ahead of 5.2 percentage points in upper secondary education Hungary and Italy. For students at the eighths grade general as well as in pre-vocational and vocational England, the Czech Republic, Hungary and Slovenia education: + 5.8 percentage points for the EU are the best performers. Progress among EU average. In lower secondary education, pupils learn countries is mixed. England and Slovenia improved already more than two foreign languages in their results while Bulgaria, Romania, the Czech Luxembourg (2.5), in Malta and in Finland (2.2 in Republic and Hungary were falling behind. both countries) and two in Denmark, Estonia, Italy,

Cyprus and Romania. PISA and TIMSS can not be directly compared due to the nature of the tests and the different age In upper secondary general education, more than groups. While the surveys appear to have two foreign languages are learnt by students in similarities, such as the content areas studied, they Luxembourg (3.0), Finland (2.7), the Netherlands were designed to serve different purposes. Hence (2.6), Belgium Flemish Community (2.5), Estonia there may be differences in results or in trend (2.4) as well as Czech Republic, Slovenia and estimates among the studies. By focusing on Sweden (2.1 in each of the 3 countries). literacy, PISA draws not only from school curricula but also from learning that may occur outside of In prevocational and vocational upper secondary school. The objective of PISA is to measure what education, students learn in average two languages skills and competencies students have acquired and in Estonia and in Luxembourg and less than one in can apply to real-world contexts by age 15. TIMSS Germany (0.5), Denmark and Lithuania (0.9 in both assessments on the other hand are based on countries) (see Table Ann III.5). frameworks for the topics from curricula in mathematics and science to be assessed. For the prevocational and vocational upper

secondary education, the average number of foreign languages learned per pupil (1.1) is sensibly lower

2.2 Language Skills: Learning and Teaching than in general upper secondary education (1.6).

Chapter III: Promoting equity, social cohesion and active citizenship

Chart III.2.3: Percentage of pupils learning at least two foreign languages in EU 2000-2007.

70,0

60,0

50,0

40,0

30,0

20,0

10,0

0,0

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

ISCED 2 GEN ISCED 3 GEN ISCED 3 PVVOC

Source: Eurostat

Foreign language teaching is arranged in the following ways (EURYDICE, 2008):

Pupils in lower secondary education in all Member States have the possibility of learning a minimum of two foreign languages. In primary and lower and upper secondary pupils must learn at least two foreign languages for at least a year of full-time compulsory education (FI, SE, EE, LV, LT, DK, NL, BE NL, LU, FR, PT, IS, HU, SK, BG, RO, EL, CY, LI).

The first foreign language is compulsory and pupils can learn the second for a year at least during full time compulsory education: NO, BE FR, BE DE, ES, SI Pupils can (DE, MT) and must (CZ, AT, PL) learn a minimum of two foreign languages from the beginning of upper secondary education. Two foreign languages are not available to all pupils but may be offered within the flexible curriculum. (UK, IE)

Chart III.2.4: Average number of foreign languages learned per pupil at ISCED level 2 General, 2000-2007

Average number of foreign languages learned per pupil at Evolution 2000**-2007 (% relative change) ISCED level 2 General, 2007

2.7 Netherlands * 35 2.5 Luxembourg 0

2.2 Malta 0 2.2 Finland -4 2.1 Iceland * 0 2 Italy 82 2 Denmark 18 2 Romania 5 2 Cyprus 0 2 Estonia 0 1.9 Portugal * (:) 1.9 Greece * -14 1.8 Lithuania 6 1.7 MK 42 1.7 Latvia 13 1.7 Sweden 0 1.6 Norway * -6 1.5 EU-27 15 1.5 France 0 1.4 Slovenia 40 1.4 Spain -7 1.3 Bulgaria 18 1.3 Germany 8 1.3 Croatia * (:) 1.2 Slovakia 9 1.2 Belgium 0 1.1 Austria 0 1.1 Czech Republic 0 1 Hungary 43 1 Ireland 0 1 United Kingdom * (:) 1 Poland -23 (:) Liechtenstein (:) (:) Turkey (:)

3 2.5 2 1.5 1 0.5 0 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80 100

Source: DG Education and Culture - Data source: Eurostat

• * 

  2006 data

** 2001 data for Greece and the Netherlands

Chapter III: Promoting equity, social cohesion and active citizenship

Chart III.2.5: Average number of foreign languages learned per pupil in EU 2000-2007

1,8

1,6

1,4

1,2

1

0,8

0,6

0,4

0,2

0

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

ISCED level 2 general ISCED level 3 general ISCED level 3 prevocational and vocational

Source: Eurostat UOE

For notes see: http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page?_pageid=0,1136184,0_45572595&_dad=portal&_schema=PORTAL

Chapter III: Promoting equity, social cohesion and active citizenship

The EU average number of foreign languages place in Italy (+ 82%), in Hungary (+43%), in the learned per pupil in upper secondary general Former Republic of Macedonia (+42%) and in education has remained unchanged since 2006 Slovenia (+40%), while a decreased occurred in (1.6). Poland (-23%), in Greece (-14%) and in Spain (-7%). Since 2000 the biggest increase of the number of On the EU level the average increased by 15 %. languages taught in lower secondary education took (See chart III.2.4).

Chart III.2.6: Proportion of pupils learning English, French, German and Spanish

at ISCED level 2 in the EU (2000-2007)

100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

English French German Spanish

Source: Eurostat

The proportion of pupils learning English in lower The IEA SITES study (Law et al., 2008) investigates secondary education increased from 74.3% in 2000 to what extent and how ICT is used in education and to 86.8% in 2007. The highest relative increase is for how it supports and enhances teaching practice. the teaching of Spanish but from a low base. Only Nine Member States participated in the study along 7.7% of pupils were learning Spanish in 2007, the with 13 other educational systems around the world. increase is more than 50% from 2000. The number What it shows is that there have been great of pupils learning French and German has also improvements in access to computers and internet increased, at 27% and 10% respectively. (See Table since 1998 and participating EU countries have Ann III.6) spent more on ICT during the last five years than the

other participating educational systems. The study 2.3 ICT skills for young and adults found that the impact of ICT on students’

performance, as perceived by teachers, was highly Use of ICT in education and training is a priority in all dependent on teaching approaches. Students did European countries, but progress has been patchy. better in acquiring skills when teachers provided Europe's digital sector has made strong progress more student-centred guidance and feedback and

since 2005. 74 However there are considerable when they engaged more frequently in advising

differences in “e-maturity”, both within and between students on group work and inquiry projects. It was countries and between schools in the same country also found that higher levels of reported ICT use did (ICT report, 2006). Digital competence is defined in not necessary go hand in hand with higher levels of the European Parliament and Council perceived learning gains from ICT use.

Recommendation as a sound understanding and knowledge of the nature, role and opportunities of However, the “Benchmarking Access and Use of ICT ICT in an everyday context: in personal and social in European Schools 2006” report testifies to an

life as well as at work. 75 increase in motivation and attention by students

when ICT is used in classroom. Other studies, as Evidence of the impact of ICT use on learning and reviewed by the European Schoolnet in the 2006 learners are building up, providing a basis for a “ICT impact report” indicate further positive effects number of preliminary conclusions. The PISA survey on attitudes and communication and more reflective shows that, on average, pupils with access to a skills on the learning process and its outcomes. computer at school perform better than pupils Furthermore, a series of studies report that ICT does without. promote independent learning and teamwork with a

variety of positive consequences on teaching and

Chapter III: Promoting equity, social cohesion and active citizenship

learning activities (greater responsibility, better skills is foreseen in 2011 and it will improve the organisation of learning etc.). knowledge base in the field.

The Study on Technology’s impact in Primary 2.4 Active citizenship

Schools (STEPS) focused on providing evidence on

the impact of ICT in primary schools in three main Exploratory research has in recent years taken place areas: teachers, learners and schools. All Member on indicator development for active citizenship and States plus Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway civic skills by CRELL at the JRC.

participated in the study.

The working definition of active citizenship which has

There is a broad consensus among the 30.000 been used within this research is ‘Participation in teachers and head teachers about the positive civil society, community and/or political life, impact of ICT. 75% of primary teachers use characterised by mutual respect and non-violence computers in class. They mention that pupils are and in accordance with human rights and more motivated and attentive; significant learning democracy’ (Hoskins, 2006b).

benefits and positive impact for collaborative work.

Only 1% is against the use of ICT. The study Chart III.2.7 Measuring Active Citizenship underline that there has been a move away from working model dedicated computer labs to use in class and the use in classroom has increased from 28% in 2001 to

68% in 2006. However, there are huge differences across countries.

At present only limited data are available on ICT competences amongst adults at European level.

Thus, the current way of measuring adults' ICT skills refer more to actual use than to competences. In terms of monitoring tools, EUROSTAT’s Information

Society Statistics (ISS) use two main surveys on

“ICT usage in enterprises” and “ICT usage in households and by individuals”. When individuals are asked to judge their own computer skills one third of the average in the EU respond that their

skills are sufficient if they were to look for a job or Source: CRELL/JRC (2006)

change jobs within a year. The most confident users

are found in the Nordic countries and in Two composite indicators have been developed – Luxembourg. In these counties about half of the one on active citizenship (actions) of adults and one population rate their computer skills to be sufficient. on civic skills of pupils. The civic skills composite At the same time one in four responds that their indicator was based on the 1999 IEA Cived survey skills are not sufficient if changing job. In Lithuania, and will be updated in 2010 when the results of the Bulgaria, Latvia and Portugal at least 40% report on 2009 Civic study (ICCS) study are becoming insufficient computer skills. (see Table Ann III.7) available.

In terms of trends, the percentage of people using Research in this field has been limited due to the the internet and computers has increased in the last lack of breadth and timeliness of data; nevertheless three years in the EU. However, the usage gap some interesting findings can be derived from between low and highly educated individuals has not existing data. The IEA has carried out in 2009 a new narrowed in the EU. In 2008, 85% of people with study, which will support the measuring of civic high education used the internet on average once a competences in the future.

week. The similar figure for individuals with low or no

education was 35%. The development in EU Impact of formal education on active citizenship countries is relatively stable and only a few countries The CRELL research centre has measured the have narrowed the gap the last years. For frequency impact of years of formal education on active of computer use, low educated individuals are citizenship (Hoskins, D’Hombres and Campbell, catching up in a majority of EU countries. Gender 2008). The results uniformly suggest that there is a differences are being reduced in almost all Member significant democratic return associated with formal States, but the gap in terms of age is growing. education. The analysis showed that education is

positively and significantly correlated with active

The current measures of ICT skills and use do not citizenship behaviour. Tertiary education has by far explain how ICT are used for complex problem the biggest effect. However, it is difficult to say for solving, creativity and innovation. Even if further sure that this correlation is causal: many variables improvements to ICT measurement should be have been controlled for, but there could be other encouraged Eurostat will include data collection on factors involved. The study by Elchardus and Spruyt eSkills on a bilateral basis in their Household survey (2007) in Belgium (Fl) highlighted that it may not from 2010 and a special module with a focus on eactually be the learning experience of tertiary

education but the access to it that creates the

Chapter III: Promoting equity, social cohesion and active citizenship

Table III.2.1 Development of Voting, Membership in political parties and Protest and Social change in 13

European countries. 2002, 2004 and 2006.

Voting Membership of Protest and social political parties change

2002 2004 2006 2002 2004 2006 2002 2004 2006

Belgium 87.6 93.5 95.6 7.5 7.1 7.2 55.4 37.1 49.8

Germany 85.1 80.9 79.7 3.5 3.1 3.9 52.8 51.5 48.8

Denmark 94.2 92.1 93.6 5.8 6.4 7.0 50.3 56.1 60.7

Spain 80.2 83.3 81.0 3.1 4.2 2.5 32.4 51.4 37.1

Finland 82.2 79.4 84.1 7.4 7.3 7.7 57.5 58.9 62.1

France 75.6 77.2 78.6 2.4 1.8 2.2 53.0 52.2 52.2

Hungary 80.9 77.5 76.9 1.6 0.8 1.5 10.4 10.2 9.9

Poland 66.3 64.6 65.9 1.7 1.0 1.0 15.5 9.1 12.0

Portugal 73.4 72.1 77.0 4.0 3.2 3.5 14.3 12.2 12.1

Sweden 87.8 89.6 89.9 8.5 6.7 6.4 62.9 69.6 66.9

UK 72.9 69.9 72.9 3.0 2.6 2.9 53.7 46.4 53.0

Norway 85.3 86.3 86.8 9.2 8.8 9.3 61.7 62.1 63.9

Source: ESS

positive identity of active citizen and that the lack of This situation needs to be carefully analysed and access to higher education can introduce "negative cannot be interpreted in a simple way, as several attitudes, identity and behaviour". factors are interrelated and need to be considered:

type of special need actually recognized, type of population, possible links with low socio-cultural

• 3. 

  Migrants and/or economic status of households. However, the

fact that pupils with an immigrant background are

There is evidence that many children with migrant sometimes over-represented in special schools background suffer from educational disadvantages seems to highlight that there is confusion in and unequal patterns exist in terms of access to and distinguishing between language difficulties and achievements in education. Several factors may learning problems.

underlie this gap, among them a poor socioeconomic

 background, insufficient knowledge of the The issue of a different mother tongue for migrants is instruction language, children's and families' clearly a central one, as difficulties in the language of attitudes towards education, limited access to instruction could severely hamper children's success childcare facilities, lack of support from the at school and hinder parental involvement, educational environment (Green Paper, 2008, preventing an efficient communication between UNICEF, 2008). school and families (Eurydice, 2008).

3.1 Special education needs and the issue of The PISA 2006 international survey provides some language information about 15-year-old pupils who at home

speak a language other than the language of

Recent research claims there is an overinstruction (which is not one of the country's official representation of migrant children in schools for or indigenous language). They are 4% as an pupils with special needs (see NESSE, 2008 and average of EU participating countries (chart III.3.1) Soriano, V. et al., in press). This is especially the and it can be assumed that they are mainly case in provision addressed to pupils with learning immigrant pupils.

and behavioural problems.

Chapter III: Promoting equity, social cohesion and active citizenship

Chart III.3.1: Migrants and languages Proportion of 15-year-old immigrant pupils (whose parents were born abroad) and the proportion of pupils of the same age who say that at home they mainly speak a language other than the language of instruction, which is not one of the

country's official or indigenous languages, 2005/06

Immigrant pupils whose parents Pupils who at home speak a language other than the language of were born abroad instruction, which is not one of the country's official or indigenous languages

Source: Eurydice Data source: OECD, PISA database 2006

Note: Immigrant pupils include first and second generation migrants

Considering countries where the presence of migrant The differences in performance vary between pupils is noticeable (at least 10%) the rate of pupils countries and in some countries it exceeds 70 speaking another language is higher in some points. These differences are significant, bearing in Member States such as Luxembourg, Austria and mind that 40 points can be considered equivalent to Germany (ranging between 9% and 24%). In other one year of instruction. Second generation migrant EU countries the issue of language is less relevant pupils perform better than first generation migrant as it can be assumed that most migrant pupils speak pupils in most countries where data exist. The the same one as that which is used in school. This is OECD underlines that definitive conclusions cannot the case in France and the Netherlands, probably be drawn directly from the PISA results; longitudinal due to the characteristics of their main migration studies would be required to study outcomes across inflows. generations.

All Member States have put in place specific 3.3 Early leavers from education and training provisions to support the learning of the host country's language, such as language classes for Young migrants are generally more at risk of migrant pupils, early language testing and pre-school dropping out from the education and training system language courses, special training for teachers to without having attained an upper secondary support pupils with insufficient linguistic competence. qualification.

3.2 Key competencies When looking at the rate of early leaving (see also

section III.1.2) the gap between migrants and natives

Migrant pupils' performance in school may suffer is significant. In the EU as a whole, the probability from linguistic and cultural differences, leading to that a young migrant is an early leaver from significant gaps between their educational education and training is almost double that for achievements vis-à-vis their peers. The PIRLS natives (26.8% vs. 13.6%).

survey on literacy (2006) shows that migrant pupils

generally score less well than natives for Considering countries with a sufficient sample size, competencies acquired by the fourth grade of the highest ratios of early leavers among migrants primary school. are to be found in Southern Europe (Spain, Greece

and Italy) where more than 40% of migrants are in

In almost all countries, pupils with one parent born in this disadvantaged condition (chart III.3.2). These the country perform better than children whose are mostly countries in which the overall rate is far parents are both migrants. above the EU average. In relative terms, migrants

are at least 3 times more often early leavers in

PISA reports that immigrant pupils have similar or Greece, Austria and Slovenia. Also in Germany the higher levels of positive learning dispositions migrants' ratio of early leavers is 2.6 times higher compared to their native peers. However results than the one for natives.

confirm a poorer performance for 15-years old pupils

with a migrant background in reading, mathematics This may indicate either a situation in which

and science compared to native pupils 76 . discrimination against migrants is a serious issue or

Chapter III: Promoting equity, social cohesion and active citizenship

that immigration flows consist mainly of low-qualified education and training than young natives. This is

young workers 77 . not frequent in Europe, but is the case in 3 countries:

United Kingdom, Ireland and Portugal. The opposite holds for countries where migrants with low educational attainment are attending more

Chart III.3.2: Early leavers from education and training by migrant status, 2008 (rates)

  Natives Migrants

Data source: Eurostat (LFS)

Additional notes:

• - 

  Migrants include non-nationals and born abroad.

• - 

  Data for Czech Republic, Luxembourg, Finland and the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia lack reliability due to small sample size

3.4 Adult participation in lifelong learning Ireland and UK, where the migrant participation rate exceeds that of nationals by at least 3 percentage

Adult learning is important both for economic points, but it is also higher in Nordic countries, development and to enhance social cohesion. It Portugal and Belgium (chart III.3.3). could be particularly meaningful for migrants, helping Excluding Member States where migrants are too their adaptation to the local labour market and few to draw general conclusions, in 9 EU countries providing a sense of social engagement. they have poorer opportunities to access adult In the EU as a whole, participation in lifelong learning. The system is particularly unfavourable to learning is slightly higher for migrant adults than for them in Italy, Greece and Latvia, where migrants' natives. This is the case especially in Netherlands, participation rates are about half those of natives.

Chart III.3.3: Adult participation in lifelong learning by migrant status, 2008 (rates)

  Natives Migrants

Data source: Eurostat (LFS)

Additional note:

• - 

  Migrants include non-nationals and born abroad.

• - 

  Data for Estonia, Hungary and Slovenia lack reliability due to small sample size

• 4. 

  Gender inequalities Since the mid-1990s the gender gap has changed

direction becoming, at the broad level, unfavourable to men. It is fully acknowledged that women's

For many years the main gender issue in education qualifications are now higher (EC Report on equality was that men received better education than women. between women and men - 2008) and that women

Chapter III: Promoting equity, social cohesion and active citizenship

have overtaken men as far as the number of tertiary girls, they present emotional and behavioural level graduates is concerned, especially for the problems, or specific learning difficulties which youngest generations (see section II.4). require ad hoc support from teachers.

At present, the issue about gender equality in Results from the OECD-CRELL research on pupils education relates mainly to equal cultivation of with special educational needs (see section III.1.3) different capacities and elimination of gender show that, in EU countries covered by the study, stereotypes. The definition of the 2010 EU boys make up 61% of pupils with disabilities and benchmark on the increase of women graduating in 65% of pupils with learning difficulties. They are Mathematics, Science and Technology addressed clearly over-represented, especially in the second this kind of concerns. category, as in the whole population boys are just

about 51%. In this section, some example of gender inequalities in education will be discussed, with particular Early leavers from education and training reference to difficulties faced by boys and girls in the Difficulties persist in upper secondary education. school system and to gender-driven educational Boys and girls are almost equally represented choices. among students, but the former are much more likely

to be early leavers from education and training: in 2008 the rate for males was 16.9%, for females

4.1 Differentials in schooling 12.9% (chart III.4.1).

Pupils with special education needs The gap is not a new phenomenon and it does not During the period of compulsory education, boys can seem to be disappearing. While the overall early experience more difficulties than girls in adapting to leaving rate is slowly decreasing, the difference in the school environment. They are over-represented percentage points between male and female early among pupils with disabilities and, more often than leavers is 4.0, almost the same as in 2000.

Chart III.4.1 Early leavers from education and training by gender, 2008 (rates)

Data source: Eurostat (LFS) Estonia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Slovenia and Croatia: data lack reliability due to small sample size.

  Females Males

This males' disadvantage is common to almost all and 17.6%). In all Member States females

EU countries, apart from Bulgaria where the gap perform better on average than males. Greece

has always been quite narrow, and in 2008 and Finland show the highest difference between

women are slightly more likely than men to be girls and boys while the smallest gender gaps

early leavers. On the contrary, rates are notably were in the Netherlands and the United Kingdom.

higher for males in most southern European

countries, especially in Spain and Portugal, in The overall gender difference in mathematics

which a high overall rate is associated with a was less than a third as large as for reading, and

wide gender gap. contrary to the reading literacy, in all the Member

States boys outperformed girls or there was no

Gender differences in basic skills: evidence from significant difference. The largest average gender

PISA difference is found in Austria.

Average boys and girls performance in basic

skills differ depending on the subject matter. In Girls and boys showed no significant differences

the reading assessment girls outperform boys: in in average science performance in the majority of

2006 almost twice as many 15 year old boys as countries. Boys and girls also have similar

girls had low reading skills (respectively 30.4% attitudes to science in some countries.

Chapter III: Promoting equity, social cohesion and active citizenship

Whether and to what extent those differences are Table III.4.1 Female graduates by field, 2000- driven by innate attitudes or influenced by 2007, ISCED 5-6, (Percentage) learned behaviour is widely debated (Eurydice, forthcoming). However, the performance gaps ISCED field % female Countries with the

between boys and girls imply a need to highest shares of graduates female graduates

specifically address the low skills in reading (of (2007) boys) and in mathematics (of girls) in order to 2000 2007 Highest 2

improve overall performance. Life sciences 61.2 63.4 Bulgaria 76.1

Latvia 75.4

4.2 Educational choices Physical science 38.9 45.1 Cyprus 67.9

Poland 66.4

General and vocational education Mathematics, 49.4 50.9 Estonia 85.9 statistics

In upper secondary education, students split Cyprus 74.4 almost equally between general and vocational or Computing 23.9 18.6

Bulgaria 52.6 Greece 46.4

pre-vocational programmes. But the gender Engineering

imbalance is particularly pronounced, with a clear 15.6 18.4

Greece 34.5 Romania 32.1

prevalence of young women in general courses, Manufacturing 40.7 47.3 Denmark 86.5

of men in vocational streams (Eurydice, 2009). Processing Lithuania 76.2 Architecture,

32.1 36.2 Greece 53.9 building Italy 50.1

The gender gap can be found in almost all Data source: Eurostat (UOE)

European countries, and is particularly marked

(more than 20 percentage points) in countries

such as Estonia, Malta, Italy, Poland and Table III.4.2 Females as a proportion of all MST Bulgaria. The over-participation of young men in graduates (ISCED 5 and 6)

vocational streams is quite limited or even

reversed only in a few countries, namely Females as a proportion of all MST graduates

Belgium, Netherlands, UK and Ireland (see Table 2000 2006 2007

Ann III.8). There is no apparent pattern in these EU-27 30.7 31.6 31.9 differences, neither geographical nor linked to the Belgium 25.0 26.5 27.2 degree the vocational strand is developed in the Bulgaria 45.6 41.2 39.3 country. Czech Republic 27.0 26.5 29.3

Denmark 28.5 34.1 36.0 Germany 21.6 28.6 29.8

Gender imbalance among graduates in MST Estonia 35.7 42.9 38.7

Considering tertiary education, the student Ireland 37.9 29.1 31.3

population as a whole shows an imbalance in Greece : 40.9 44.2 favour of women. In 2007, they represented 55% Spain 31.5 30.0 29.9

of all students in the EU, outnumbering men by France 30.8 27.9 28.1

about 2 million. This imbalance is even more Italy 36.6 36.1 37.0 Cyprus 31.0 35.9 31.5

pronounced among graduates as in 2000 57% of Latvia 31.4 32.4 32.7

graduates in the EU-27 were female and their Lithuania 35.9 31.6 32.5 share increased further to 59% in 2007. Luxembourg : : 32.0

Hungary 22.6 27.9 26.8 Malta 26.3 25.9 37.8

On the contrary, males predominate in MST. Netherlands 17.6 18.4 18.9

Despite policy efforts to encourage women to Austria 19.9 24.5 23.8 choose these fields, at the EU level, the female Poland 35.9 39.2 39.2 share of MST graduates increased just slightly, Portugal 41.9 39.7 34.8

from 30.7% in 2000 to 31.9% in 2007. Greece Romania 35.1 38.6 40.0

and Romania have the highest share of female Slovenia 22.8 25.7 25.0

MST graduates (40% or more) while the biggest Slovakia 30.1 34.8 35.4 Finland 27.3 28.5 28.9

increases since 2000 have been in Germany, Sweden 32.1 34.4 33.1

Malta, Slovakia and Denmark (> 5 percentage United Kingdom 32.1 30.8 31.1 points, Table III.4.2). Croatia : 35.3 34.9

MK * 41.6 46.0 39.8

Since there was little change in the share of Turkey 31.1 29.8 31.1 female MST students over the period 2000-2007, Iceland 37.9 : 34.2

no significant improvements in the gender Liechtenstein : 19.6 30.4 balance in MST graduates (who will be drawn Norway 26.8 28.4 28.6 from these students) are likely in the next few United States 31.8 31.3 31.0

years. In fact, the share of female MST students Japan 12.9 14.6 14.4

has hardly changed since 2000 (The EU average Data source: Eurostat (UOE)

was 29.6% in 2000; and 30.2% in 2007). *MK= Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia

Greece: result for 2005 instead of 2006 Chapter III: Promoting equity, social cohesion and active citizenship

The share of women amongst MST students is lower than amongst MST graduates, implying a lower drop-out rate for women.

Gender imbalance is especially pronounced in engineering (18% female graduates) and computing (19%) and, to a lesser extent, in architecture and building (36%), whereas in mathematics and statistics there is gender balance since 2000. On the other hand, in the field of life sciences women predominate (63%).

The high share of women in fields of tertiary education other than MST shows that there is clear potential to increase the female share in MST too.

CHAPTER IV

Enhancing creativity and innovation,

including entrepreneurship

at all levels of education and training

Main messages

• 1. 

  Creativity and innovation 1.1 Innovation and creativity of nations and regions 1.2 Measuring creativity skills and competences

• 2. 

  Graduates in Mathematics, Science and Technology 2.1 Evolution of the number of MST students 2.2 Evolution of the number of MST graduates 2.3 Growth in numbers of graduates by field and educational levels 2.4 The growth in numbers of MST graduates by type of programme 2.5 MST Graduates and researchers on the labour market

• 3. 

  Entrepreneurship

Chapter IV: Enhancing creativity and innovation, including entrepreneurship at all levels of education and training

MAIN MESSAGES Enhancing creativity , Innovation and Entrepreneurship

Creativity and Innovation

• As measured by the European Innovation Scoreboard (2009) three Nordic countries (SE, FI, DK),

together with Germany, and the UK, make the highest innovation performance in the EU, with an often strong concentration of the “creative class” in and around capital cities with very high levels of educational attainment. A process of EU convergence of innovation performance can be observed with low growth rates of performance among mentioned high performers and high growth rates among low performers (RO, LV and BG).

Mathematics, Science and Technology graduates and researchers

• With a growth of over 33% the number of graduates in Mathematics, Science and Technology

has already in 2000-2007 grown by more than twice the rate set as target for 2010 by the EU benchmark. The targeted growth of 15% implies an increase of some 100 000 graduates by 2010. However, an increase of some 230 000 MST graduates has already been achieved reaching 917 000 new graduates in 2007.

• There is a strong difference in growth in the number of Mathematics, Science and Technology

graduates between fields of graduation. The number of computing graduates has increased by about 80% since 2000, while the number of graduates from life sciences and physics increased only slightly or even decreased.

• Some 45 000 or about 5% of Mathematics, Science and Technology graduates in the EU are PhD

graduates (2007) compared with 22 400 in the USA (5.3%) and only 6 500 in Japan (2.9%).

§ The EU has significantly fewer researchers per 1000 employees on the labour market (some 6 in 2006) than the US (about 9) and especially Japan (more than 10). The total number of researchers on the labour market in the EU (1.3 million) is slightly lower than in the USA and in China (both 1.4 million) but nearly twice as high as in Japan.

Entrepreneurship

• Entrepreneurship is a recognised objective of the education systems and embedded explicitly

in national framework curricula in only six EU countries (CY, ES, FI, IE, PL, UK)

Chapter IV: Enhancing creativity and innovation, including entrepreneurship at all levels of education and training

• 1. 

  Creativity and innovation - Innovation leaders with innovation

performance well above the EU average and all

"Creativity is a crucial component of our capacity to other countries: Denmark, Finland, Germany, innovate. And innovation is a key factor not just to Sweden, Switzerland and the UK;

become more competitive but also to improve our

quality of life and the sustainability of our - Innovation followers with innovation

development" 78 . Considering this fundamental performance below those of the innovation

function and in the frame of the European Year of leaders but above that of the EU average: Creativity and Innovation, there are several ongoing Austria, Belgium, France, Ireland, Luxembourg activities undertaken by the European Commission and the Netherlands;

that relate to the measurement of creativity and innovation at national, regional and individual

levels 79 . -

Moderate innovators with innovation performance below the EU27 where the first 4 countries show a better performance than the last 6 countries: Cyprus, Czech Republic,

1.1 Innovation and creativity of nations and

regions Estonia, Greece, Iceland, Italy, Norway, Portugal, Slovenia and Spain;

Concerning innovation, the European Innovation

Scoreboard 80 (EIS) provides a comparative - Catching up countries with performance well

benchmarking of national innovation performance below the EU average

81 : Bulgaria, Croatia,

across the European Union and Croatia, Turkey, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, Iceland, Norway and Switzerland. On the basis of Romania, Slovakia and Turkey.

the 29 EIS indicators (see Ann IV.1), countries can be classified into four clusters:

Chart IV.1.1: Convergence in innovation performance

0.750

0.700

CH

0.650 SE

FI

0 0 8 )

0.600

 2 DE DK

0.550 UK

 ( S

II

LU A T IE

c e 0.500 NL B E

a n FR IS CY

rm 0.450 SI EE

e rf

o 0.400 CZ

NO ES n p ti o 0.350

GR P T IT

HU M T SK

n o

v a 0.300

HR P L

In LT

RO

0.250 LV

B G

0.200 TR

0.150

-1.0% 0.0% 1.0% 2.0% 3.0% 4.0% 5.0% 6.0% 7.0% 8.0%

Average annual growth in innovation performance

Source: European Commission Additional note: see Table Ann. IV.2

All countries with the exception of Denmark have years. Most of the countries below the EU average improved their innovation performance in the last five are improving their performance at higher rates than

Chapter IV: Enhancing creativity and innovation, including entrepreneurship at all levels of education and training

the EU average growth in the last five years, except example, it is likely that cultural activities 83 play a

in the case of Spain, Italy, Norway, Croatia and role in enhancing creativity and innovation and Lithuania. Those performing above the EU average, creative industries and the "creative class" are

generally progress slower than the EU average and catalysts for change and innovation 84 . The creative only in this latter group Austria, Iceland and class 85 is defined as share of the population doing

Switzerland show higher rates than the EU in the last creative work. It is based on the ISCO definition of five years. occupations. (See Table Ann IV.5).

Indicators on innovation are pointers of the capacity

of countries to transform their creative capacities into The core creative class is concentrated in and close innovative results. However, the relationship to the capital regions, in Benelux and Nordic

between creativity and innovation is complex. Many countries, Ireland and the United Kingdom. In these areas - often large cities - the share of foreign-born

factors are involved for creativity and innovation to

appear covering institutional, economical, human graduates and broadband access is also higher.

and social resources dimensions 82 . Evidence at European regional level thus confirms that creative occupations are associated with areas

There is a need of an “enabling environment” where there are high levels of skills and a conducive to creativity for innovation to appear. For heterogeneous and tolerant environment.

Chart IV.1.2: Core Creative Class employment – national level

12,00

10,00

8,00

6,00

4,00

2,00

0,00

FI SE NL DK UK LU BE EE IE DE SI CY GR FR LT EU27 LV ES AT HU PL CZ SK BG RO MT PT IT

Source: European Commission

1.2 Measuring creativity skills and competences index) are proxies for creative people, but it is clear that precise measures of an individual’s creativity do

Education and training are core tools to help people not exist. In order to better understand the to develop their talent and creativity. Analysis at the relationship between the environment that fosters national level using the EIS data has shown that creativity, people’s creativity and innovation, it is creative education is associated with higher levels of necessary to have information on the actual levels of innovation: “(…) policies aimed at improving levels of people’s creativity. educational attainment and policies aimed at improving creative thinking in education will, after a There is a need of individual level measures that will number of years, have a positive effect on a permit clearer understanding of the role of creativity

 86

society’s innovative performance” . in innovation and economic growth. In particular, it would be necessary to assess if students after

The previous indicators on innovation and creativity compulsory levels are leaving schools with the at national and regional levels could be regarded as adequate levels of creative capacities, creativity cut indicators of the environment where creativity across the eight key competences adopted by the flourishes. Some of them (such as creative class Council as one aspect to prepare students for

Chapter IV: Enhancing creativity and innovation, including entrepreneurship at all levels of education and training

lifelong learning. It is, thus, important to look into Growth in the number of students has been slower possible ways of assessing creativity in students. than growth in the number of graduates since an The conference: “Can creativity be measured ?” increasing share of students takes several degrees organised by the Commission aimed at starting the (Bologna effect). In the EU, MST students accounted process of identifying possible ways of achieving this in 2007 for nearly a quarter of the total student

goal 87 . The measurement of creativity would require population, some 4.6 million students (2007)

several different techniques capturing aspects of compared to 2.8 million in the US and 750 000 in diverse nature, involving contextual information, Japan (Source Eurostat (UOE)). attitudinal aspects, personality traits as well as

cognitive aspects. Table IV.2.1: Number of MST students (ISCED level

5A, 5B and 6), 2000-2007

• 2. 

  Graduates in Mathematics, Science and Number of tertiary MST Ø Growth Technology students (in 1000) per year

  2000 2006 2007 2000-07

  EU-27 4000e 4514 4638 2.1

  European benchmark Belgium 74.6 68.8 62.9 -2.4 Bulgaria 64.5 63.2 64.3 -0.1

  The total number of graduates in Czech Republic 74.5 77.4 83.2 1.6 Mathematics, Science and Technology Denmark 38.3 41.5 43.6 1.9 in the European Union should increase Germany 587.2 708.2 701.2 2.6

  by at least 15% by 2010. 88 Estonia 11.4 15.3 15.8 4.8

  Ireland 45.3 41.0 40.6 -1.6 Greece : 93.6 184.5 :

Science and technology are vital to the knowledge Spain 525.1 522.5 499.8 -0.7

based and increasingly digital economy. The France : 522.5 549.4 : Italy 433.2 475.8 477.6 1.4

education of an adequate supply of science Cyprus 1.8 3.9 4.2 12.5 specialists is also important in the light of the goal Latvia 15.1 20.0 20.2 4.2

set by the Barcelona European Council of increasing Lithuania 33.4 48.0 48.1 5.4 overall investment on research and development Luxembourg 0.4 0.6 : 6.3 (R&D) to 3% of GDP by 2010 (European Council, Hungary 65.7 77.6 79.2 2.7

2002b). Malta 0.7 1.4 1.8 13.6

Netherlands 80.8 85.3 85.2 0.8

The EU has today still slightly fewer researchers on Austria 73.9 61.2 64.4 -1.9

the labour market than the US and is lagging behind Poland 285.2 477.3 473.1 7.5

both the US and Japan when it comes to the number Portugal 102.2 107.4 108.5 0.9 Romania 124.2 191.3 217.0 8.3

of researchers as a proportion of the total labour Slovenia 19.7 24.2 25.8 4.0

force (see Chart IV.2.1). Slovakia 38.1 50.3 53.6 5.0

Finland 97.9 115.4 113.3 2.1

Chart IV.2.1: Researchers per thousand total Sweden 106.0 109.8 105.4 -0.1 employment, 2000 and 2006 United Kingdom 477.4 510.5 515.2 1.1

Croatia : 32.4 32.9 : Researchers per thousand employment MK * 12.0 12.4 14.1 2.4 12 Turkey 301 488.2 506.3 7.7

2000 Iceland 1.7 2.4 2.5 5.5

10 2006 Liechtenstein : 0.16 0.2 :

8 Norway 26.9 33.5 34.1 3.4

Data source: Eurostat (UOE) 6 Annual growth per year represents geometric mean.

*MK= Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia

4

Additional notes:

2 Number of students means the total number of full-time and part-time

students. Austria: Break in time series in 2003; before 2003 Austria

0 reported students studying more than one field in each of the fields in

EU USA Japan which they were enrolled, leading to double-counting; since 2003

Data source: Eurostat, OECD students have been allocated to only one field

2.1 Evolution of the number of MST students 2.2 Evolution of the number of MST graduates

The number of tertiary MST students has increased With a growth of over 33% in the number of MST by about 16% since 2000, or on average by 2.1% graduates in the period 2000-2007, the EU has per year. Growth has been particularly strong in already progressed with more than twice the rate of Malta, Cyprus and Romania. the EU benchmark for 2010 in the field.

After strong growth in the beginning of the period,

For some countries, however, the number of MST however, the increase decelerated somewhat after students stagnated or even declined. The latter was 2005.

the case in Austria (partly a result of the introduction

of tuition fees in 2001/02), Ireland, Belgium, Spain, Taking 2000 as the base (when there were 686 000 Bulgaria and Sweden (Table IV.2.1). graduates), the target growth of 15% implies an

Chapter IV: Enhancing creativity and innovation, including entrepreneurship at all levels of education and training

absolute increase of some 100 000 graduates by The significant growth in numbers of MST graduates 2010. that has been achieved since 2000 in the EU might However, an increase of some 230 000 MST not continue in the coming years. graduates has been achieved with a total of 917 000 graduates in 2007 (chart IV.2.2). Chart IV.2.3: Total number of graduates in

Mathematics, Science and Technology –

In the period 2000-2007 Portugal, Slovakia and international comparison of trends 2000-2007

Poland reported the highest annual growth rates

(>12%), followed by Italy, the Czech Republic and Number of MST graduates 2000000

Romania (>10%). China

Despite the general positive trend, Ireland, Sweden

and Lithuania showed a considerable decrease in 1500000

numbers in 2007 by 5% or more.

Chart IV.2.2: Number of graduates in Mathematics, 1000000 Science and Technology (ISCED 5 and 6), 2000-2007

EU27

Number of MST graduates in 950000

500000

900000 USA

850000 Japan

0

800000 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Benchmark (+15%)

750000 Data source: Eurostat and Statistical Bureau of China

700000

650000 Long-term demographic trends, especially the strong

600000 decline in birth rates in the new Central and Eastern

European countries after 1989, might also pose the 550000 risk of stagnation or decline in the number of MST

students and graduates after 2010, despite the 500000 increase in higher education participation rates.

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

In 2007, growth in the number of MST graduates had Data source: Eurostat (UOE) already slowed to 3.1%, while growth in student

numbers amounted to 2.7%. A further deceleration in While the EU progressed faster than both the US coming years is likely. and Japan (in Japan the number of graduates has decreased since 2000), growth is particularly strong in emerging economies like China, where it has more than quadrupled since 2000 to reach nearly 2

million in 2006 89 (Chart IV.2.3).

The availability of a large pool of MST graduates in low-wage countries will have a growing impact on high-technology industries worldwide and increasingly affects the comparative advantage (relative abundance of highly skilled workers) of developed countries.

The average number of graduates in Mathematics,

Science and Technology in the EU was 10.2 per

1000 inhabitants aged 20-29 in 2000 and 13.4 in

2007. Related to a one-year age cohort, this implies that about 13% of young people take a degree in

MST although some double counting is taking place

(about 15%).

France, Ireland, Finland, Portugal and Lithuania have a relatively high number of MST graduates, with over 18 per 1000, whereas Hungary, Malta,

Cyprus and Greece have below 8 per 1000.

Chapter IV: Enhancing creativity and innovation, including entrepreneurship at all levels of education and training

Chart IV.2.4: Graduates in Mathematics, Science and Technology

Number of graduates Evolution 2000-2007 (% relative change)

26,640 Portugal 164 10,865 Slovakia 129.9

89,259 Poland 123.3 90,300 Italy 112.5 18,341 Czech Republic 96 2,666 Estonia 79.8 421 Malta 69.3 549 Cyprus 63.4 40,393 Romania 58.6 89,776 Turkey 57.3 11,601 Austria 54.6 18,452 Belgium 42.8 4,144 Croatia 41.9 17,489 Netherlands 40.2

111,806 Germany 39.7

8,948

<< 916,732 Lithuania

36.3 EU-27 33.6 456 Iceland 29.9

9,314 Hungary 29.4 1,486 MK 26.1

12,444 Finland 23.2 3,147 Latvia 21.2

10,146 Denmark 20 140,575 United Kingdom 17.6

9,252 Bulgaria 14.6 14,822 Sweden 14.3 73,129 Spain 12.4

5,288 Norway 9.8

2,836 Slovenia 8.3

166,233 France 7.4

13,957 Ireland -3.6

13,047 Greece (:) Benchmark 2010

100 Luxembourg (:)

(:) Liechtenstein (:)

200,000 150,000 100,000 50,000 0 -20 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180

Source: DG EAC, calculations based on Eurostat (UOE) data, LU: data represent results for the year 2000

Additional notes : See also Table Ann IV.6

Evolution 2000-2007: for Croatia, Italy, Latvia, Malta, Poland, Romania, United Kingdom result extrapolated from growth rate for years with valid data

2.3 Growth in number of graduates by field and attributed to a shift to informatics. There is also a educational levels trend to new interdisciplinary studies that are

difficult to classify but which impact on the growth of

Table IV.2.2: Number of graduates by field(EU 27) certain fields.

ISCED fields Graduates Growth 2.4 The growth in number of MST graduates by

(1000) (in %) type of programme

2000 2007 2000-07

Life sciences (42) 91.6 96.1 4.9 The graduates from academic programmes requiring Physical science (44) 86.9 83.1 -4.4 an ISCED level 5A second degree grew strongly Mathematics, statistics (46) 37.5 47.8 27.5 between 2000 and 2007, partly a result of the Computing (48) 83.9 149.5 78.2 Bologna process, while the number of new PhDs

Engineering (52) 264.4 313.6 18.6 increased only moderately (see Table IV.2.3) Manufacturing (54) 32.0 47.6 48.9 Architecture, building (58) 88.8 120.7 35.9 Table IV.2.3: Growth in the number of MST

Data source: Eurostat; in the case of physical science and computing, graduates by type of programme

no data are available for Romania. Includes estimates for Greece for

2000 and Ireland for 2007.

Table xx: Growth in the Graduates (in Growth

Growth since 2000 has been very strong in comnumber of MST graduates 1000) (in %) by type of programme

puting (nearly 80%), while engineering, manu ISCED field 2000 2007 2000-2007

facturing, mathematics and architecture showed Academic programmes, all

medium level growth rates. Growth was slow in life first degrees (5A) 460.4 564.5 22.6

sciences. In physical science there has been even Academic programmes, second degree (5A) 60.0 153.5 155.8

a slight decline in the number of graduates since Occupation-oriented

2000 (Table IV.2.2; see also Tables Ann.IV.7 and programmes, first qualification 131.3 146.2 11.3

Ann IV.11). (5B) Occupation-oriented

programmes, second 2.1 0.5 -73.9

However, it has to be taken into account that qualification (5B)

computing has also some of the elements taught in Second stage leading to an advanced research 35.7 45.3 29.1

physical science and in mathematics. The lower qualification (6) growth or decline in these fields can partly be

Chapter IV: Enhancing creativity and innovation, including entrepreneurship at all levels of education and training

Source: Eurostat (UOE), Note: PHD/Doctorate in 2007 represented

over 96% of all ISCED 6 degrees counts 10.8 researchers per 1000 against 6.3 2.5 MST Graduates and researchers on the researchers per 1000 in the EU (Source: Eurostat , labour market OECD)

In 2007 about 45 000 or 5% of MST graduates in the Table IV.2.5: Number of Researchers

EU were PhD graduates (ISCED level 6), compared with 22 400 in the US (5.3%) and only 6 500 in

Japan (2.9%). In the EU, this represents an increase Number of researchers Average Researchers per (in 1000 full time annual 1000 of total

of almost 30% compared to 2000 (Table IV.2.3). equivalents) growth employment

These are graduates with research training; some of since

them could be expected to find positions as 2000 2000 2006 2007 2007 2000 2006

researchers on the labour market. EU-27 1106.8 1331.2 1355.7 2.9 5.4 6.3

BE 30.5 34.9 35.9 2.4 : 7.8 (05)

The increase in MST graduates and the relatively BG 9.5 10.3 11.2 2.4 3.4 3.3 high number of PhD level graduates has, however, CZ 13.9 26.3 27.9 10.5 2.9 5.3 not been reflected in sufficient employment of DK : 28.8 29.6 2.4 : 10.2 researchers in many Member States. Partly as a DE 257.9 279.5 284.3 1.4 : 7.4 (05) result of a lack of science jobs, a high share of EE 2.7 3.5 3.7 4.8 4.7 5.6

graduates opt for non-science and non-engineering IE 8.5 12.2 : 6.1 : 5.9 (05) career. Some of these graduates furthermore EL : 19.9 20.8 3.1 : 4.5 (05)

choose to take up positions outside the EU ES 76.7 115.8 122.6 6.9 : 5.9 FR 172.1 211.1 211.1 3.0 7.4 8.2 (05)

(European Commission, 2005b, p.12). IT 66.1 88.4 : 5.0 3.2 3.7

CY 0.3 0.7 0.8 14.8 1.0 2.0

It is important to create conditions conducive to a LV 3.8 4.0 4.2 1.5 4.1 3.8

thriving research environment in Europe and to avoid LT 7.8 8.0 8.5 1.3 5.5 5.1 a loss of European MST graduates to other sectors LU 1.6 2.1 2.2 4.1 : 11.5(05) of the economy and other parts of the world. HU 14.4 17.5 17.4 2.7 3.8 4.2 Nevertheless an upward trend in the EU as regards MT : 0.5 0.5 3.7 : 3.4 the number of researchers can be observed. The NL 42.1 47.3 44.1 0.7 : 5.0 (05)

number of researchers (full time equivalents) in the AT : 29.2 31.4 5.4 : :

EU increased in the period 2000-2007 by 22.5% or PL 55.2 59.6 : 1.3 3.8 4.2 PT 16.7 24.6 28.0 7.6 3.3 4.1 (05)

250 000 (Table IV.2.4). RO 20.5 20.5 18.8 -1.2 1.9 2.5

SI 4.3 5.9 6.3 5.4 4.8 5.9

Chart IV.2.4: Trend in the number of researchers SK 10.0 11.8 12.4 3.1 4.7 5.1

FI : 40.4 39.0 -1.7 : 17.0

Num be r of re s earche rs 2000-2007 (in 1000) SE : 55.7 : 3.9 : 12.7(05) 1600 UK : 176.2 175.5 1.1 : :

USA HR : 5.7 6.1 -6.5 : 3.6 1400 MK* : : : : : :

TR 23.1 42.7 49.7 1.6 1.1 2.0 1200 IS : 2.4 2.2 3.8 : 13.5(05)

EU 27 China LI : : : : : : 1000 NO : 24.5 24.5 3.4 : 9.5 (05)

Source: DG EAC, based on Eurostat and OECD data, (05)/ *= 2005 data

800 *MK= Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia

Japan

600 The number of researchers represents full time equivalents, total number of researchers for the EU for 2007 (headcount): 2.016 million

400 3. Entrepreneurship

200

Entrepreneurship is an important area that refers to 0 an individual's ability to turn ideas into action. It is

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 related to creativity, innovation and risk taking, as well as the ability to plan and manage projects in

Source: Eurostat (UOE) order to achieve objectives. Entrepreneurship is one

Despite the high number of new MST PhDs of the eight key competences for lifelong learning produced by the EU, the EU (1.36 million included in the recommendation of the European researchers (2007) - full time equivalent - see Chart parliament and the Council

90 . The European

IV.2.5). has still slightly fewer researchers on the Commission is committed to promoting labour market than the US (1.43 million), in absolute entrepreneurship through education at all levels. terms but as a proportion of the total labour force. In However there is a lack of internationally comparable 2007, China has overtaken the EU in absolute terms data in the field.

too with 1.42 million researchers. Japan, although

with a smaller total number of researchers (0.71 The Eurobarometer report from 2007 on million, 2006) has a much higher proportion of entrepreneurial mindsets shows that in the US more

researchers in employment per 1000 employed and people prefer to be self employed than in the EU (61% compared to 45%).

Chapter IV: Enhancing creativity and innovation, including entrepreneurship at all levels of education and training

The initiative “Small Business Act” (SBA) 91 for The OECD-Eurostat Entrepreneurship Indicators

Europe aims to create favourable conditions for the Programme (EIP) aims to build a knowledge base growth and sustainable competitiveness of European measuring the rates at which new firms are created small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). or close down, studying factors which allow Community and national policies should take better enterprises to grow and assessing the impact of account of the role of SMEs in economic growth and small businesses on jobs, turnover and trade. It has job creation. provided a framework for indicators on

entrepreneurship (see Chart IV.3.1). In the 7th Framework Programme for Research and

Technological Development, the Commission Chart IV.3.1: Framework for indicators on proposes a series of measures stimulating the entrepreneurship

cooperation between academic and private sectors.

The Marie Curie Industry-Academia Partnerships

and Pathways action aims to boost skills exchange Determinants

Entrepreneurial

performance Impact

between the commercial and non-commercial

partners, including in particular SMEs. The main Regulatory R&D and Entrepreneurial framework technology capabilities Firm-based indicators Job creation

objective of the Marie Curie Initial Training Networks

is to train young people who embark on a research Culture Access to career and to improve their research skills, including finance

Market conditions Employment-based indicators Economic growth

those relating to technology transfer and Other indicators of entrepreneurship. entrepreneurial performance Poverty reduction

The Commission promotes a business culture 95

through networking of enterprises and exchanges of Source: M. Schmiemann (2009)

experience. Member States are encouraged to take

measures in the fields of education, training and Initial findings cover 15 European countries, the US,

taxation to support entrepreneurs. Canada and New Zealand. The results show that in 2005 the number of new businesses as a proportion

The Commission underlines that people in Europe of all companies – the “birth rate” - was highest in need to see that self employment is a potentially Romania, Estonia, Lithuania and the Slovak

attractive career option. Republic. Strong growth and economic restructuring related to European Union adhesion is likely to have

It is further stressed that "the education system, and been the key factor

96 .

in particular the school curricula, do not focus

enough on entrepreneurship and do not provide the Chart IV.3.2 shows the density of enterprise "birth basic skills which entrepreneurs need. Children can rate", defined as the number of new enterprises learn to appreciate entrepreneurship from the divided by the total number of enterprises (in 10 000)

beginning of their education". 92 in 2005 in the participating EU countries. This shows the amount of new enterprises created in relation to

Member States where entrepreneurship is well the total number of companies in a country. established in the curricula are still a small minority. Southern European countries show a high proportion Entrepreneurship is a recognised objective of the of new starts, together with the Czech Republic.

education systems and embedded explicitly in

national framework curricula in Spain, Finland, Chart IV.3.2: Density of enterprise "birth rate" Ireland, Cyprus, Poland and the UK but 100

implementing means (teacher training, teaching 90

materials) still needs to improve. 93 80

70

The primary purpose of entrepreneurship education 60 at university is to develop entrepreneurial capacities 50 and mindsets. The teaching of entrepreneurship has 40 yet to be sufficiently integrated into university 30 curricula - indeed it is necessary to make 20

entrepreneurship education accessible to all 10 0

students as innovative business ideas may arise CH EE MT LU UK LV FR BG AT SK CY FI NL HU SI DK SE IT ES CZ PT from technical, scientific or creative studies. The

Commission (Directorate General Enterprise and Source: Eurostat and OECD

industry) published in 2008 a survey on the offer of entrepreneurship programmes in Higher Education.

The survey shows that more than half of the student population in Europe does not have access to entrepreneurship education. For instance only 1/4 of specialized institutions (excluding business schools) and 1/3 of multidisciplinary institutions without a

business school offer this type of programmes. 94

Annexes

Annex 1: Standing Group on Indicators and Benchmarks

Annex 2: List of abbreviations

Annex 3: Bibliography

Annex 4: Statistical annex

Annex 5: Country tables

Notes

ANNEX 1 Standing Group on Indicators And Benchmarks

ANNEX 1

STANDING GROUP ON INDICATORS AND BENCHMARKS

Austria Mr Mark NÉMET Federal Ministry for Education, Arts and Culture

Belgium

(Flemish community) Ms Micheline SCHEYS Flemish Ministry of Education and Training

Belgium

(French community) Ms Nathalie JAUNIAUX Communauté française de Belgique

Bulgaria Ms Irina VASEVA-DUSHEVA Ministry of Education and Science

Cyprus Ms Athena MICHAELIDOU Cyprus Pedagogical Institute

Czech Republic Mr Vladimir HULIK Institute for Information on Education

Denmark Mr Simon HEIDEMANN Ministry of Education

Estonia Ms Tiina ANNUS Ministry of Education and Research

Finland Ms Kirsi KANGASPUNTA Ministry of Education

France Mr Claude SAUVAGEOT Ministry of National Education

Germany Ms Daniela NOLD Statistisches Bundesamt

Germany Mr Jens FISCHER-KOTTENSTEDE Hessisches Kultusministerium

Greece Mr Dimitrios EFSTRATIOU Ministry of National Education

Greece Mr Nikos PAPADAKIS Ministry of Education and Religious Affairs

Hungary Ms Judit KÁDÁR-FÜLÖP Ministry of Education and Culture

Iceland Mr Gunnar Jóhannes ÁRNASON Office of Evaluation and Analysis

Ireland Ms Deirdre DUFFY Department of Education and Science

Italy Ms Annamaria FICHERA Ministry of Education

Italy Ms Gianna BARBIERI Ministry of Education

Lithuania Mr Ričardas ALIŠAUSKAS Ministry of Education and Science

Luxembourg Ms Marion UNSEN Ministry of Education and Training

Malta Mr Raymond CAMILLERI Directorate for Quality and Standards in Education

Netherlands Ms Pauline THOOLEN Ministry of Education, Culture and Science

Norway Mr Ole-Jacob SKODVIN Ministry of Education and Research

Poland Ms Anna NOWOZYNSKA Ministry of National Education

Portugal Mr João TROCADO DA MATA Ministry of Education

Portugal Mr Nuno RODRIGUES Ministry of Education

Romania Mr Romulus POP Ministry of Education, Research and Youth

Slovakia Mr Peter PLAVCAN Ministry of Education

Slovenia Ms Zvonka PANGERC PAHERNIK Slovenian Institute for Adult Education

Spain Mr Enrique ROCA Institute of Evaluation

Spain Ms Isabel ALABAU Institute of Evaluation

Spain Mr Jesús IBAÑEZ MILLA Ministry of Education and Science

Sweden Mr Mats BJÖRNSSON Ministry of Education, Research and Culture United Kingdom Mr Steve LEMAN Department for Children, Schools and Families

United Kingdom

(Scotland) Mr Peter WHITEHOUSE Scottish Executive

Organisations Ms Katja NESTLER Cedefop

Mr Jens JOHANSEN European Training Foundation

ANNEX 2 List of abbreviations

ANNEX 2

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

Country abbreviations

EU European Union PT Portugal BE Belgium RO Romania BG Bulgaria SI Slovenia CZ Czech Republic SK Slovakia DK Denmark FI Finland DE Germany SE Sweden EE Estonia UK United Kingdom EL Greece ES Spain CC Candidate Countries FR France HR Croatia IE Ireland MK* The former Yugoslav Republic of IT Italy Macedonia CY Cyprus TR Turkey LV Latvia LT Lithuania EEA European Economic Area LU Luxembourg IS Iceland HU Hungary LI Liechtenstein MT Malta NO Norway NL Netherlands AT Austria Others PL Poland JP Japan US/USA United States of America

• * 

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

ANNEX 2 List of abbreviations

General abbreviations

ACCI the active citizenship Composite indicator

AES Adult Education Survey

ALL Adult Literacy and Life-skills Survey

ARWU The Academic ranking of World Universities

CLA Classification of Learning Activities

CEDEFOP European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training

Centre européen pour le développement de la formation professionnelle CEPES Centre Européen pour l'enseignement supérieur/

European Centre for Higher Education (UN organisation based in Bucharest) CEPS Centre for European Policy Studies

CHE Centre for Higher Education Development

CILT UK National Centre for Languages

CIS Community Innovation Survey

CIVED Citizenship Education Survey (IEA study of 1999)

CPS Current Population Survey

CRELL Centre for Research on Lifelong Learning (depending on JRC, European Commission)

CVET Continuing vocational education and training

CVT Continuing Vocational Training

CVTS Continuing Vocational Training Survey

DEA Data Envelopment Analysis

DTI Danish Technological Institute

ECTS the European Credit Transfer System

ECVET European Credit for Vocational Education and Training

EEA European Economic Area (EU 27+Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein)

EIT European Institute of Technology

EMU European Monetary Union

ENQA European Network of Agencies

EPL Employment Protection Legislation

ESI Essential Science Indicator

ETF European Training Foundation

ESCS Economic, social and cultural status

ESPAIR Education par le sport de plein air contre le décrochage scolaire

ESS European Social Survey

EQF European Qualifications Framework

EUA European University Association

EUR PPS Euro in purchasing power parities (taking into account different price levels)

EURYDICE Education Information Network in the European Community

EU-SILC EU-Statistics on Income and Living Conditions

FTE Full-time equivalent

GCSE General Certificate of Secondary Education

GDP Gross Domestic Product

GERESE European Group of Research on Equity of Educational Systems

GED General Education Diploma

GNP Gross National Product

HEI Higher Education Institution

IALS International Adult Literacy Survey

ICCS International Civic and Citizenship education survey

ICT Information and Communication Technology

IEA International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement

ILO International Labour Organisation (UN-Organisation based in Geneva)

IREG International Ranking Expert Group

ISCED International Standard Classification of Education

ISCO International Standard Classification of Occupations

JRC Joint Research Centre (European Commission)

LFS Labour Force Survey

MEDSTAT Regional co-operation programme between the European Union and 10 Mediterranean Countries (Algeria, Egypt, Israel, Jordan, Lebanon, Morocco, Palestinian Authority, Syria, Tunisia and Turkey)

MST Maths, science and technology

NACE Classification of Economic Activities in the European Community

NEET Not in employment, education or training

NER Net Enrolment Rate

NFER National Foundation for Educational Research

ANNEX 2 List of abbreviations

NGOs Non-government organisations

OMC Open Method of Co-ordination

OECD Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development

OJC Official Journal of the European Communities

PIAAC Programme for the International Assessment of Adult Competencies (OECD study)

PIRLS Progress in International Reading Literacy Survey

PISA Programme for International Student Assessment

PLA Peer Learning Activity

PPS Purchasing Power Standards

R&D Research and development

SCI Science Citation Index

SEN Special Educational Needs

S&E Science and engineering

SENDDD Statistics on students with disabilities, learning difficulties and disadvantages

SES Socioeconomic status

SSCI Social Science Citation Index

TALIS Teaching and Learning International Survey (OECD study)

TAFE Technical and Further Education College

THE Times Higher Education

TIMSS Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study

UIS UNESCO Institute for Statistics (based in Montreal)

UN United Nations

UNESCO United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (based in Paris)

UOE UIS/OECD/Eurostat (common data collection)

VET Vocational education and training

WUR World University Ranking

ANNEX 3 Bibliography

ANNEX 3

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Agilis, S.A., Osler. A., Street, C., Lall, M., and Vincent, K. (2001), Not a problem? Girls and School Exclusion, National Children’s Bureau for the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, London.

Alexander, K.L., Entwisle, D. R., and Horsey, C.S. (1997), “From first grade forward: Early foundations of high school drop-out”, Sociology of Education, No. 70, pp. 87-107.

Allulli, G., Di Francesco G., Pecorini C. and Tramontano I., Achieving the Lisbon Goal: The Contribution of Vocational Education and Training Systems Country Report : Italy, CEDEFOP. http://www.refernet.org.uk/documents/Country_Report_Italy.pdf

Alvaro, F. (2007), ESPAIR Education par le sport de plein air contre le décrochage scolaire, Study supported by the Lifelong Learning Programme of the European Commission, Associazione Centri Sportivi Italiani, Italy.

Ammerman, P., Achieving the Lisbon Goal: The Contribution of Vocational Education and Training Systems Country Report: Malta, CEDEFOP. http://www.refernet.org.uk/documents/Country_Report_Malta.pdf

Arcand, J.L. and d’Hombres, B. (2007), Explaining the Negative Coefficient Associated with Human Capital in Augmented Solow Growth Regressions. JRC/CRELL Scientific and Technical Reports 22733 EN, Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, Luxembourg.

Arneson, R. J. (1989), "Equality and equal opportunity for welfare", Philosophical studies, No. 56, pp. 77-93.

Associazione Centri Sportivi Italiani, ESPAIR: Education par le sport de plein air contre le décrochage scolaire, project financed by the Socrates Programme Action 6.1.2, Italy.

Atkinson, M., Lamont, E., Gulliver, C., White, R. and Kinder, K. (2005a), School Funding: a Review of Existing Models in European and OECD Countries, LGA Research Report 3/05, Slough: NFER.

Audas, R. and Willms, J. D. (2001), Engagement and Dropping our of School. A life course perspective, Applied Research Branch Strategic Policy Human Resources Development Canada.

Badescu, M. (2007), Measuring investment efficiency in public education. Some cross-country comparative results, JRC/CRELL Research Paper 5, EUR 22719 EN, Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, Luxembourg.

Badescu, M. (2006), Measuring the outputs and outcomes of vocational training - towards a coherent framework for indicators, JRC/CRELL Research Paper 2, EUR 22305 EN, Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, Luxembourg.

Badescu, M. (2006), Measuring investment efficiency in education, JRC/CRELL Research Paper 1. EUR 22304 EN, Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, Luxembourg.

Badescu, M. (2008), Improving the scope of indicators for monitoring developments in vocational education and training in Europe, JRC Scientifical and Technical Reports 23512 EN.

Barber, M. and Mourshed, M. (2007), How the world’s best-performing school systems come out on top, McKinsey & Company.

Bassanini, A. et al. (2005), Workplace training in Europe, IZA Discussion paper, No. 1640.

Bauer, P. and Riphahn, R. T. (2005), Timing of school tracking as a determinant of intergenerational transmission of education, University of Basel.

Bezzina, C. and Vidoni, D. (2006), Nurturing Learning Communities, a Guide to School-Based Professional Development, JRC/CRELL Research Paper 3, EUR 22328 EN + handbook, Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, Luxembourg.

ANNEX 3 Bibliography

Blomert, L. (2007), PROREAD: Explaining Low Literacy Levels by Profiling Poor Readers and their Support, Study supported by the Lifelong Learning Programme of the European Commission, Universiteit Maastricht, Faculty of Psychology, Netherlands.

Blondin, C. (2007), Pour le Multilinguisme Exploiter à l'école la diversité des contextes européens, Study supported by the Lifelong Learning Programme of the European Commission, Université de Liège, Belgium.

Bologna follow up Group (2009) Bologna process Stocktaking Report Leuven/Louvain-la-Neuve

Bonnet. G. et al. (2006), Final Report of the Learning to Learn Expert Group to the European Commission, Directorate General Education And Culture A.6, European Commission, Paris/Brussels/Ispra.

Brunello, G. and Checchi, D. (2007), "School tracking and equality of opportunity", in Economic Policy, October 2007, pp. 781-861, Great-Britain.

Buk-Berge, E. (2006), "Missed opportunities: the IEA’s study of civic education and civic education in Postcommunist countries", in Comparative Education, Volume 42, No. 4, pp. 533-548.

Cardone, A. (2007), Ulisse - Analysis and exchanges of good practices to retain students in the Education System, Study supported by the Lifelong Learning Programme of the European Commission, University of Third Sector Pisa, Italy.

Castel, R. (2007), La discrimination négative, Citoyens ou indigènes ?, Editions du Seuil et La République des Idées.

CEDEFOP (European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training) (2008a), Future skill needs in Europe: medium-term forecast.

Centre International d'études pédagogiques (2008), Dossier: "Enseigner les langues: Un défi pour l'Europe", Revue internationale d'éducation, Sèvres, No. 47, Avril 2008.

Center for Labour Market studies (2009), Left behind in America: the nation's dropout crisis, Northeastern university in Boston and the alternative schools network in Chicago.

CILT, (2006) Effects on the European Economy of Shortages of Foreign Language Skills in Enterprise.

Collins, C., Kenway, J., and McLeod, J. (2000), Factors Influencing the Educational Performance of Males and Females in School and their Initial Destinations after Leaving School, Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations, Australian Government.

Commission du débat national sur l'avenir de l'école (2004), Les Français et leur Ecole. Le miroir du débat, Dunod, Paris.

Cooke, L.P. (2003), "A comparison of initial and early life course earnings of the German secondary education and training system" in Economics of Education Review, Volume 22, Issue 1, pp. 79-88.

Crane, J. (1991), "The Epidemic Theory of Ghettos and Neighborhood Effects on Dropping Out and Teenage Childbearing" in The American Journal of Sociology, Volume 96, No. 5, pp. 1226-1259.

CRELL (2009), The transition to computer-based assessment-new approaches to skill assessment and implications for Large-Scale Testing.

CRELL/OECD (2009), Students with Disabilities, Learning Difficulties and Disadvantages in the Baltic States, South Eastern Europe and Malta: Educational Policies and Indicators.

CRELL (2008a), Schooling and earning differentials in European countries: evidences from EU SILC (forthcoming).

CRELL (2008), Higher education rankings: robustness issues and critical assessment.

CRELL (2008), Does Formal Education have an impact on Active Citizenship Behaviour?

Cunha, F. and Heckman, J. J. (2005), The Evolution of Cognitive and Noncognitive Skills over the Life Cycle of the

Child, presentation at the AEA Conference on 5 th January 2007.

ANNEX 3 Bibliography

Damyanovic, U. and Fragoulis, H. (2004), Achieving the Lisbon Goal: The Contribution of Vocational Education and Training Systems Country Report: Bulgaria, CEDEFOP. http://www.refernet.org.uk/documents/Country_Report_Bulgaria.pdf

De Broucker, P. (2005), Without a Paddle: What to do. About Canada’s Young Drop-outs, Canadian Policy Research Networks Inc, Ottawa.

De la Fuente, A. (2006), Education and economic growth: a quick review of the evidence and some policy guidelines, Prime Minister's Office, Economic Council of Finland.

De la Fuente, A. and Ciccone, A. (2002), Human Capital in a global and knowledge-based economy. Final report for Directorate General Employment, European Commission. http://europa.eu.int/comm/employment_social/publications/2003/ke4602775_en.pdf

Demunter, C. (2006), How skilled are Europeans in using computers and the Internet? Statistics in Focus, No. 17/2006, EUROSTAT.

Demunter, C. (2006), E-skills measurement, Paper submitted for the 10 th meeting of the Working Party on

Indicators for the Information Society (WPIIS), OECD, Paris, 3 and 4 May 2006.

Demeuse, M. (2003), Validation et diffusion d’un système européen cohérent d’indicateurs d’équité en éducation (Phase II), Université de Liège, Liège, Belgium.

Desjardins, R. (2008), "Researching the links between education and well-being", in European Journal of Education, Volume 43, Issue 1, pp. 23-35, March 2008.

Duru-Bellat M. (2004), Social inequality at school and educational policies, International Institute for Educational Planning, UNESCO.

Dutch Ministry of Education, Culture and Science (2005), Onderwijsprofiel van Nederland. Analyse en samenvatting van Education at a Glance 2005. http://www.minocw.nl/documenten/brief2k-2005-doc-39856b.pdf

Dwyer, P. (1996), Opting out: Early school leavers and the degeneration of youth policy., National Clearinghouse for Youth Studies, Tasmania.

Ecker, A. (2005), Strukturen und Standards der Ausbildung von Geschichtslehrerlnnen in Europa: eine vergleichende Studie (Structures and standards of initial training for history teachers in Europe), Universität Wien.

Editorial Projects in Education (EPE) Research Center (2007), From cradle to career, Connecting American education from birth throughout adulthood, Supplement to Education Week's Quality Counts 2007.

Eivers, E., Ryan, E. and Brinkley, A. (2000), Characteristics of early school leavers: results of the research strand of the 8-15 year old early school leavers initiative, Educational Research Centre, St. Patrick’s College, Dublin.

Ellenbogen, S. and Chamberland, C. (1997), "The peer relations of dropouts: a comparative study of at-risk and not at-risk youth" in Journal of Adolescence, Volume 20, Issue 4, pp. 355-367.

Empirica (2006), Benchmarking Access and Use of ICT in European Schools 2006: Final Report from Head Teacher and Classroom Teacher Surveys in 27 European Countries, European Commission. http://europa.eu.int/information_society/eeurope/i2010/benchmarking/index_en.htm

Euractiv (2008), France seeks more ambitious EU globalisation strategy, Paper published on Euractiv.com on the

17 th April 2008.

European Agency for Development in Special Needs Education (2007), Lisbon Declaration - Young People's Views on Inclusive Education, Portuguese Ministry of Education.

European Agency for Development in Special Needs Education (2006), Special Needs Education - Country Data 2006.

European Agency for Development in Special Needs Education (2009), Classification / categorisation systems in Agency member countries, (unpublished discussion document).

European Commission

ANNEX 3 Bibliography

European Commission (2008), Report on equality between women and men, DG for Employment, Social Affairs and Equal Opportunities, Com (2008)10.

European Commission, Joint Research Centre, (2009), The transition to Computer-Based Assessment, Luxembourg, EUR 23679 EN-2009.

European Commission (Forthcoming), Key figures 2008, Directorate-General for Research.

European Commission and CRELL (2009), Measuring creativity OPOCE, Luxembourg. http://ec.europa.eu/education/lifelong-learning-policy/doc1427_en.htm

European Commission (2008a), Improving competences for the 21st Century: An agenda for European Cooperation on schools, COM (2008) 425 i.

European Commission (2008b), The effectiveness and efficiency of public spending, Economic Papers 301.

European Commission (2008c), A rewarding challenge: how the multiplicity of languages could strengthen Europe, proposals from the Group of Intellectuals for Intercultural Dialogue. http://ec.europa.eu/education/policies/lang/languages_en.html

European Commission (2008d), GREEN PAPER: Migration & mobility: challenges and opportunities for EU education systems {SEC(2008) 2173}

European Commission (2008e) Report on equality between women and men.

European Commission (2007a), Improving the Quality of Teacher Education, Communication from the Commission, COM (2007) 392 final i.

European Commission (2007b), The European Research Area: New perspectives, Commission Staff Working Document annexed to the Green Paper, SEC (2007) 412/2.

European Commission (2007c), the 2008 up-date of the broad guidelines for the economic policies of the Member States and the Community and on the implementation of Member States' employment policies, Recommendation for a Council recommendation, Commission’s 2007 Annual Report, COM(2007) 803 final.

European Commission (2007d), Report on the implementation of the Action Plan "Promoting language learning and linguistic diversity", Commission Working Document, COM (2007) 554 final i.

European Commission (2007e), Framework for the European survey on language competences, Communication from the Commission to the Council, COM (2007) 184 final i.

European Commission (2007f), Delivering lifelong learning for knowledge, creativity and innovation, Draft 2008 joint progress report of the Council and the Commission on the implementation of the “Education & Training 2010 work programme”, COM (2007) 703 final i.

European Commission (2007g), Employment in Europe.

European Commission (2007h), Action Plan on Adult learning - It is always a good time to learn, Communication from the Commission, COM (2007) 558 final i.

European Commission (2007i), The Annual Progress Report, Directorate-General of Education and Culture.

European Commission (2007j), Commission Staff Working Document on youth employment in the EU, SEC (2007) 1093 final.

European Commission (2007k), Progress towards the Lisbon Objectives in Education and Training – Indicators and Benchmarks – 2007, Commission Staff Working Document, SEC (2007) 1284.

European Commission (2007l), Europe's demographic future: fact and figures on challenges and opportunities, Directorate-General for Employment, Social Affairs and Equal Opportunities.

European Commission (2007), A coherent framework of indicators and benchmarks for monitoring progress towards the Lisbon objectives in education and training, Communication from the Commission to the Council, COM (2007) 61 final i. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2007:0061:FIN:EN:PDF

ANNEX 3 Bibliography

European Commission (2007), Europe in the global research landscape, Directorate-General for Research, Office for official publications of the European Communities, Luxembourg.

European Commission (2006a), Efficiency and equity in European education and training systems, Communication from the Commission to the Council and to the European Parliament, COM (2006) 481 i.

European Commission (2006b), Modernising education and training: A vital contribution to prosperity and social cohesion in Europe, 2006 Joint Interim Report of the Council and the Commission on progress under the Education & Training 2010 work programme, 2006/C 79/01.

European Commission (2006c), Delivering on the Modernisation Agenda for Universities: Education, Research and Innovation, COM (2006) 30 final i of 25/01/06 and COM (2006) 208 final i of 10/05/06.

European Commission (2006d), The European Institute of Technology: further steps towards its creation, Communication from the Commission, COM (2006) 276 final i.

European Commission (2006e), The Helsinki Communiqué on Enhanced European Cooperation in Vocational Education and Training, Communiqué of the European Ministers of Vocational Education and Training, the European Social partners and the European Commission, Helsinki.

European Commission (2006f), Employment in Europe.

European Commission (2006g), Adult learning: It is never too late to learn, Communication from the Commission to the Council, COM (2006) 614 final i.

European Commission (2006h), Classification for Learning Activities – Manuals, Eurostat, Luxembourg.

European Commission (2006), PREMA : Promoting equality in maths achievement, General activities of observation, analysis and innovation, 2005 (Actions 6.1.2 and 6.2 of the Socrates Programme), Interim Report, Socrates Programme, Directorate-General Education and Culture.

European Commission, (2006), European Universities' research on the promotion of Enterprise Education (E.U.R.O.P.E.), Directorate General Education and Culture.

European Commission (2006), Progress Towards the common objectives in Education and Training Indicators and Benchmarks, Commission Staff Working Paper.

European Commission (2006), Working together for growth and jobs" Integrated guidelines for growth and jobs, Communication to the Spring European Council, COM (2005) 141 final i of 12.4.2005.

European Commission (2005a), Mobilising the Brainpower of Europe: enabling universities to make their full contribution to the Lisbon Strategy, Communication from the Commission, COM (2005) 152 final i. http://europa.eu.int/comm/education/policies/2010/doc/comuniv2005_en.pdf

European Commission (2005b), Key Figures 2005, Directorate General Research.

European Commission (2005c), The European Indicator of Language Competence, Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council, COM (2005) 356 final i. http://europa.eu.int/comm/education/policies/lang/doc/com356_en.pdf

European Commission (2005), A New Framework Strategy for Multilingualism, Communication from the Commission to the Council, and to the European Parliament, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions, COM(2005) 596 final i. http://europa.eu.int/comm/education/policies/lang/doc/com596_en.pdf

European Commission (2005), Erasmus Networks now cover nine tenths of Europe’s universities, Press release

20 th Oct 2005 IP/ 05/ 1313.

European Commission (2005), Progress Towards the Common Objectives in Education and Training Indicators and Benchmarks, Commission Staff Working Paper.

European Commission (2005), Achieving of Lisbon goals. The contribution of VET, Directorate General Education and Culture.

ANNEX 3 Bibliography

European Commission (2005), Key Figures 2005 Towards a European Research Area Science, Technology and Innovation strengthening the foundations of the European research area. Support for the coherent development of policies, DG Research, 2005 EUR 21264 EN. ftp://ftp.cordis.lu/pub/indicators/docs/2004_1857_en_web.pdf

European Commission (2005), Eurobarometer 63.4 Europeans and language. http://europa.eu.int/comm/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_237.en.pdf

European Commission (2005), Regions: Statistical yearbook 2005, Data 1999-2003, Eurostat.

European Commission (2005), A Mobility Strategy for the European Research Area and Researchers in the ERA: one profession, multiple careers, European Commission staff working document, Implementation Report 2004, SEC (2005) 474. http://europa.eu.int/comm/research/fp6/mariecurie-actions/pdf/sec_en.pdf

European Commission (2004a), A Mobility Strategy for the European Research Area, Second Implementation

Report, SEC (2004)412 of 1 st April 2004.

European Commission (2004), Education & Training 2010: the success of the Lisbon strategy hinges on urgent reforms, Joint Interim Report of the Council and the Commission, 6905/04 EDUC 43, COM (2003) 685 i F. http://europa.eu.int/comm/education/policies/2010/doc/jir_council_final.pdf

European Commission, (2004), New Indicators on Education and Training, Commission Staff Working Paper, SEC (2004) 1524. http://europa.eu.int/comm/education/policies/2010/doc/indicators_en.pdf

European Commission (2004), Progress towards the Common Objectives in Education and Training. Indicators and Benchmarks, Commission Staff Working Paper, SEC (2004) 73. http://europa.eu.int/comm/education/policies/2010/doc/progress_towards_common_objectives_en.pdf

European Commission (2004), Facing the Challenge: The Lisbon Strategy for Growth and Employment, Report from the High-Level Group chaired by Wim Kok, Brussels. http://europa.eu.int/comm/education/policies/2010/doc/kok_en.pdf

European Commission (2004), Public Finances in the EMU.

European Commission (2004), Achieving the Lisbon goal: the contribution of VET. http://europa.eu.int/comm/education/policies/2010/studies/maastricht_en.pdf

European Commission (2004), Special Eurobarometer 216 “Vocational Training”.

European Commission (2004), Implementation of the education and training 2010 work programme, Working group "languages", Progress report 2004, EXP LG/13/2004, Directorate General Education and Culture. http://europa.eu.int/comm/education/policies/2010/doc/lang2004.pdf

European Commission (2004), Implementation of the education and training 2010 work programme, Working group "Mobility and European co-operation", Progress Report, Nov 2004, Directorate General Education and Culture. http://europa.eu.int/comm/education/policies/2010/doc/mob2004.pdf

European Commission, (2003/2004), Student and teacher mobility 2003/2004 –Overview of the National Agencies’ final reports 2003/2004.

European Commission (2003a), The role of the universities in the Europe of knowledge, Communication from the Commission, COM (2003) 58 final i. http://europa.eu/eur-lex/en/com/cnc/2003/com2003_0058en01.pdf

European Commission (2003b), Third European Report on Science and Technology Indicators 2003, Directorate General Research.

European Commission (2003c), Key Figures 2003-2004. Towards a European Research Area: Science, Technology and Innovation, Directorate General Research. http://europa.eu.int/comm/research/era/pdf/indicators/benchmarking2003_en.pdf

European Commission (2003), A single framework for the transparency of qualifications and competences (Europass), Proposal for a decision of the European Parliament and of the Council, COM (2003) 796 i F.

ANNEX 3 Bibliography

http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/en/com/pdf/2003/com2003_0796en01.pdf

European Commission (2003), Promoting Language Learning and Linguistic Diversity: an Action Plan 2004 – 2006, Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions, COM (2003) 449 i F. http://www.europa.eu.int/comm/education/doc/official/keydoc/actlang/act_lang_en.pdf

European Commission (2003), Implementation of the education and training 2010 work programme, Working group "Improving the education of teachers and trainers", Progress Report, Nov 2003, Directorate General Education and Culture. http://europa.eu.int/comm/education/policies/2010/doc/working-group-report_en.pdf

European Commission (2003), Implementation of the education and training 2010 work programme, Working group "Improving foreign language learning", Progress Report, Nov 2003, Directorate General Education and Culture. http://europa.eu.int/comm/education/policies/2010/doc/language-learning_en.pdf

European Commission (2003), Implementation of the education and training 2010 work programme, Working group "ICT in education and training", Progress Report, Nov 2003, Directorate General Education and Culture. http://europa.eu.int/comm/education/policies/2010/doc/it-technologies_en.pdf

European Commission (2003), Third European Report on Science and Technology indicators.

European Commission, (2003), EUROPEAN ECONOMY: The EU Economy 2003 Review, No. 6/2003, Directorate General Economic and Financial Affairs, Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, Luxembourg. http://europa.eu.int/comm/economy_finance/publications/european_economy/2003/ee603en.pdf

European Commission (2003), Young People's Social Origin, Educational Attainment and Labour Market Outcomes in Europe, Eurostat.

European Commission (2002/2003), Student and teacher mobility 2002/2003 – Overview of the National Agencies’ final reports.

European Commission (2002a), eEurope 2005: An information society for all, Communication from the Commission, COM (2002) 263 final i.

European Commission (2002b), Detailed Work Programme on the follow-up of the objectives of education and

training systems in Europe, adopted by the Education Council and the Commission on 14 th February 2002, OJ C

• 142. 

  http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/pri/en/oj/dat/2002/c_142/c_14220020614en00010022.pdf

European Commission (2002), European benchmarks in education and training: follow-up to the Lisbon European Council, Communication from the Commission to the Council, COM (2002) 629 i F. http://europa.eu.int/comm/education/policies/2010/doc/bench_ed_trai_en.pdf

European Commission (2001a), Making a European Area of Lifelong Learning a Reality, COM (2001) 678 final i, Brussels.

European Commission (2001), A Mobility Strategy for the European Research Area, Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament: COM (2001) 331 final i. http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/en/com/cnc/2001/com2001_0331en01.pdf

European Commission (2001), The e-Learning Action Plan: designing tomorrow's education, Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament: COM (2001) 172 i F. http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/en/com/cnc/2001/com2001_0172en01.pdf

European Council/Council

European Council (2008a), Presidency Conclusions, 13-14 March 2008.

Council (2008b), Delivering lifelong learning for knowledge, creativity and innovation, Joint progress report of the Council and the Commission on the implementation of the ‘Education and Training 2010’ work programme.

Council (2007a), A coherent framework of indicators and benchmarks for monitoring progress towards the Lisbon

objectives in education and training, Council conclusions of 25 th May 2007, 2007/C 1083/07.

ANNEX 3 Bibliography

http://register.consilium.europa.eu/pdf/en/07/st10/st10083.en07.pdf

Council (2007b), Improving the Quality of Teacher Education Council Conclusions of the 15 th November 2007,

Official Journal C 300, 12.12.2007, pp. 6–9.

Council Conclusions on a coherent framework of indicators and benchmarks for monitoring progress towards the Lisbon objectives in education and training (2007), 2802nd EDUCATION, YOUTH and CULTURE Council meeting. http://www.consilium.europa.eu/ueDocs/cms_Data/docs/pressData/en/educ/94290.pdf

Council (2009), An updated framework for European cooperation in education and training 2010-2020, 9845/09. http://www.arqa-vet.at/fileadmin/download_files/ET2020_engl..pdf

Council (2006a), Key competences for lifelong learning, Recommendation of the European Parliament and of the

Council of 18 th December 2006, 2006/962/EC.

Council (2006b), Efficiency and equity in European education and training systems Conclusions of the Council and the Representatives of the Governments of the Member States, meeting within the Council, 2006/C 298/03.

Council (2006c) Decision No.1720/2006/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 th November 2006

establishing an action programme in the field of lifelong learning.

Council (2006d), Further European cooperation in quality assurance in higher education Recommendation of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 February 2006, OJ L 64, pp.60-62.

Council (2005a), Transnational mobility within the Community for education and training purposes - European Quality Charter for Mobility, Recommendation of the European Parliament and of the Council, 2005/0179 (COD) i. http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/lex/LexUriServ/site/en/com/2005/com2005_0450en01.pdf

European Council (2005b), Presidency Conclusions, Brussels.

Council (2005c), New indicator in education and training, Council Conclusions of 24 th May 2005, 2005/C 141/04.

http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/lex/LexUriServ/site/en/oj/2005/c_141/c_14120050610en00070008.pdf

Council (2005d), Guidelines for the employment policies of the Member States, Decision No. 2005/600/EC of 12 th

July 2005, OJ L 205/21.

Council (2003a), Reference Levels of European Average Performance in Education and Training (Benchmarks),

Council conclusions of 5/6 th May 2003, 2003/C 134/02.

http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/pri/en/oj/dat/2003/c_134/c_13420030607en00030004.pdf

Council (2003b), Decision No 2318/2003/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 December 2003 adopting A multi-annual programme (2004 to 2006) for the effective integration of information and communication

technologies (ICT) in education and training systems in Europe (eLearning Programme), OJ L 345 of 31 st

December 2003.

Council (2003c), Decision No 2317/2003/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 December 2003 establishing a programme for the enhancement of quality in higher education and the promotion of intercultural

understanding through cooperation with third countries (Erasmus Mundus) (2004 to 2008) OJ L 345 of 31 st

December 2003

Council (2003), Realising the European Higher Education Area, Communiqué from the Conference of Ministers

responsible for higher education, Berlin, 19 th September 2003.

http://www.bmbf.de/pub/communique_bologna-berlin_2003.pdf

European Council (2003), Presidency Conclusions, Brussels, 20/21 st March 2003.

http://ue.eu.int/ueDocs/cms_Data/docs/pressData/en/ec/75136.pdf

Council (2002a), Council Resolution on lifelong learning of 27 th June 2002, Official Journal C163/01 of 9.7.2002.

Council (2002b), Detailed work programme on the follow-up of the objectives of Education and training systems in Europe, OJ 2002/C 142/01.

European Council (2002c), Presidency Conclusions, Barcelona, 15/16 th March 2002.

http://ue.eu.int/ueDocs/cms_Data/docs/pressData/en/ec/71025.pdf

ANNEX 3 Bibliography

Council (2001a), European cooperation in quality evaluation in school education, Recommendation of the

European Council and of the Parliament of 12 th February 2001, 2001/166/EC.

European Council (2001b), Presidency Conclusions, Stockholm, 23/24 th March 2001.

Council (2001), The concrete future objectives of education and training systems, Report from the Education Council to the European Council, 5680/01 EDUC 23. http://europa.eu.int/comm/education/policies/2010/doc/rep_fut_obj_en.pdf

Council (2001), European co-operation in quality evaluation in school education, Recommendation of the

European Parliament and of the Council of 12 th February 2001, 2001/166/EC.

European Council (2001), Presidency Conclusions, Laeken, 14/15 th December 2001.

http://ue.eu.int/ueDocs/cms_Data/docs/pressData/en/ec/68827.pdf

Council (2001), Concrete future objectives of education and training systems, Education Council report to the European Council, 2001/C 204/03.

Council (2001), Council Resolution, OJ 2001/C367/01. http://ue.eu.int/ueDocs/cms_Data/docs/pressdata/en/intm/ACF1FC6.html

European Council (2000a), Presidency Conclusions, Lisbon, 23/24 th March 2000.

http://ue.eu.int/ueDocs/cms_Data/docs/pressData/en/ec/00100-r1.en0.htm

Council (1995), Improving and Diversifying language learning and teaching within the education systems of the

European Union, Council Resolution, Official number 6123/95 of 31 st March 1995.

http://ue.eu.int/ueDocs/cms_Data/docs/pressdata/en/educ/009a0002.htm

Council (2008), Background paper on promoting creativity and innovation in education & training-Presentation and discussion.

European Parliament (2002), Statistics on Student Mobility within the European Union, Directorate General Research, Working Paper, Education and Culture series – EDUC 112 EN. Final report to the European Parliament prepared by Kassel University, October 2002.

European Training Foundation (2000) Vocational education and training against social exclusion, Torino.

Eurostat (2009), Significant country differences in adult learning, Statistics in Focus 44/2009. http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/cache/ITY_OFFPUB/KS-SF-09-044/EN/KS-SF-09-044-EN.PDF

EURYDICE (Forthcoming), Gender Differences in Educational Outcomes: Study of the measures taken and the current situation in Europe.

EURYDICE (Forthcoming), Responsibilities and teacher autonomy, Working document for the conference 'Promoting creativity and innovation – School's response to the challenges of future societies, 9-10 April 2008, Brdo pri Kranji, Slovenia.

EURYDICE (2009), Higher education in Europe 2009: Developments in the Bologna Process.

EURYDICE (2009), Early childhood education and care in Europe: tackling social and cultural inequalities.

EURYDICE (2009), Integrating immigrant children into schools in Europe.

EURYDICE (2009), Key data on education in Europe.

EURYDICE (2008), Key Data on Teaching Languages at School in Europe.

EURYDICE (2008), Higher Education Governance in Europe. Policies, structures, funding and academic staff.

EURYDICE (2007a), School autonomy in Europe. Policies and Measures, Comparative Study.

EURYDICE (2007), Decision-making advisory, operational and regulatory bodies in higher education / Volume 5, European glossary on education, National terms.

EURYDICE (2007), Focus on the structure of higher education in Europe. National trends in the Bologna Process – 2006/07 Edition, Comparative study.

ANNEX 3 Bibliography

EURYDICE (2007), Focus on the structure of higher education in Europe. National trends in the Bologna Process – 2006/07 Edition, Country descriptions.

EURYDICE (2007), Key data on higher education in Europe – 2007 Edition, Indicators and Figures.

EURYDICE (2007), Structures of education, vocational training and adult education systems in Europe – 2007 Edition, Country descriptions.

EURYDICE (2007), Non-vocational adult education in Europe. Executive summary of national information in Eurybase, Comparative study.

EURYDICE (2007), Specific educational measures to promote all forms of giftedness at school in Europe, Comparative study.

EURYDICE (2006/2007), Focus on the structure of higher education in Europe. National trends in the Bologna Process - 2006/07 Edition.

EURYDICE (2006), Content and language integrated learning (CLIL) at school in Europe – 2006.

EURYDICE (2006), National summary sheets on education systems in Europe and ongoing reforms - 2006 Edition.

EURYDICE (2006), Organisation of school time in Europe. Primary and general secondary education - 2006/07 school year.

EURYDICE (2006), Pointers to active citizenship in education policies.

EURYDICE (2006), Quality Assurance in Teacher Education in Europe – 2006.

EURYDICE (2006), Science teaching in Schools in Europe. Policies and research, Comparative study.

EURYDICE (2006), TESE - Thesaurus for Education Systems in Europe - 2006 Edition.

EURYDICE (2005a), Key data on Education in Europe 2005.

EURYDICE (2005b), Key data on teaching languages at schools in Europe.

EURYDICE (2004), Key Data on Information and Communication Technology in Schools in Europe – 2004 Edition.

EURYDICE (2002/2004), The teaching profession in Europe. Profile, trends and concerns.

• Report I: Initial training and transition to working life. General lower secondary education. Key topics in

education in Europe, volume 3 (Brussels, 2002).

• Report II: Supply and demand. General lower secondary education. Key topics in education in Europe,

volume 3 (Brussels, 2002).

• Report III: Working conditions and pay. General lower secondary education. Key topics in education in

Europe, volume 3 (Brussels, 2003).

• Report IV: Keeping teaching attractive for the 21st century. Key topics in education in Europe, volume 3

(Brussels, 2004).

EURYDICE (2003a), Working conditions and pay.

EURYDICE (2002a), Initial training and transition to working life.

Eurostat (2009) "Significant country differences in adult learning, Statistics in Focus 44/2009

Fergusson, B. et al. (2005), Early School Leavers: Understanding the Lived Reality of Student Disengagement from Secondary School, final report, Toronto.

Forsyth, A. and Furlong, A. (2005), Socioeconomic disadvantage and access to higher education, The Policy Press, University of Glasgow.

Frandji, D. (2007), EUROPEP - Comparaison des politiques d'éducation prioritaire en Europe. Evaluation, conditions de réussite, Study supported by the Lifelong Learning Programme of the European Commission, National Institute of Educational Research, Lyon, France.

ANNEX 3 Bibliography

Garbe, C. (2007), ADORE - Teaching Struggling Adolescent Readers. A comparative study of good practices in European Countries, Study supported by the Lifelong Learning Programme of the European Commission, University Lüneburg, Germany.

Gatt. S. et al. (2005), The School to Work Transition of Young People in Malta, Employment and Training Cooperation, Malta.

Genda, Yuji (2005), "The NEET3 problem in Japan", Social Science Japan, September 2005

GERESE (European Group of Research on Equity of the Education Systems) (2005), Equity of the European Educational Systems, Study co-financed by the EU Socrates programme, Liège.

Gregg, P and Wadsworth, J (1998), ''Unemployment and Non-employment: Unpacking Economic Inactivity'', Economic Report, 12(6).London, Employment Policy Institute.

GRID (Growing Interest in the development of teaching Science), Pôle Universitaire Européen de Lorraine, France.

Gros, D. (2006a), ''Employment and Competitiveness – The Key Role of Education'', CEPS Policy Brief No. 93/ February 2006.

Guerrieri, P. and Padoan, P. C. (eds.) (2007), ''Modelling ICT as a general purpose technology, Evaluation models and tools for assessment of innovation and sustainable development at EU level'', Collegium, no.35, Spring 2007, Special Edition, College of Europe.

Gundlach, E., Wößmann, L., Gmelin, J. (2001), "The Decline of Schooling Productivity in OECD Countries" in Economic Journal, Volume 111, Issue 471, pp. C135-147

Haahr, J.H., Kibak Nielsen, T., Eggert Hansen, M., and Teglgaard Jakobsen, S. (2005), Explaining Student Performance Evidence from the international PISA, TIMSS and PIRLS surveys. Danish Technological Institute, Århus. http://www.danishtechnology.dk/_root/media/19176%5FFinal%20report%20web%20version.pdf

Hall, J. and Matthews, E. (2008), "The measurement of progress and the role of education", in European Journal of Education, Volume 43, Issue 1, pp. 11-22, March 2008.

Haller, M. (2005-2007), ACT "Active Citizenship Training", Study supported by the Lifelong Learning Programme of the European Commission, Pedagogic Seminary of the Georg August University of Göttingen, Germany.

Hanushek, E. A. (2005), Economic outcomes and school quality, International Academy of Education (IAE) and the International Institute for Educational Planning (IIEP), Brussels and Paris. http://www.unesco.org/iiep/PDF/Hanushek_web.pdf

Hanushek, E. A. (2004), Economic Analysis of School Quality, Paper prepared for the Education for All Global Monitoring Report.

Hanushek, E. A. (2003), "The failure of input-based schooling policies", in The Economic Journal, No. 133 (February), pp. F64-F98, Royal Economic Society.

Hanushek, E. A. (2002), "Evidence, politics and the class size debate", in Mishel. L & R. Rothstein (ed) The class size debate, Economic Policy Institute, Washington.

Hanushek, E. A. and Kimko, D. D. (2000), "Schooling, Labor-Force Quality, and the Growth of Nations", in The American Economic Review, Volume 90, No. 5, pp.1184-1208.

Hassid J. (2007), E.U.R.O.P.E. - European Universities' Research On the Promotion of Enterprise Education, Study supported by the Lifelong Learning Programme of the European Commission, University of Piraeus, Greece.

Hassid J. (2007), E.U.R.O.P.E. E.A.C. - European Universities' Research On the Promotion of Enterprise Education - Extended Awareness Campaign, Study supported by the Lifelong Learning Programme of the European Commission, University of Piraeus, Greece.

D'Hombres, B.,Rocco, L., Suhrcke, M. and McKee, M. (2007), Does social capital determine health? Evidence from transition countries, JRC/CRELL Scientific and Technical Reports, 22732 EN.

ANNEX 3 Bibliography

Hoskins, B., Villalba, E., Van Nijlen, D. and Barber, C. (2008), Measuring civic competence in Europe, A composite indicator based on IEA Civic Education Study 1999 for 14 years old in School, JRC/CRELL Scientific and Technical Reports, EUR 23210 EN 2008.

Hoskins, B. (2006a), Framework for the development of indicators on active citizenship, JRC/CRELL report.

Hoskins, B., Jesinghaus, J., Mascherini, M., Munda, G., Nardo, M., Saisana, M., Van Nijlen, D., Vidoni D. and Villalba, E. (2006b), Measuring Active Citizenship in Europe, CRELL Research Paper 4, EUR 22530 EN.

Huisman, P. W., and Noorlander, N. W. (2007), Preventing drop-out and discrimination in the Netherlands, Paper presented at the ELA Conference, Potsdam.

The ICT Impact Report (2006), A review of studies of ICT impact on schools in Europe, European School net. http://ec.europa.eu/education/doc/reports/doc/ictimpact.pdf

International Centre for Higher Education Research, INCHER-Kassel (2006), The professional value of Erasmus mobility, Final report.

Institut National de Recherche Pédagogiques (INRP) (2007), "EuroPEP", Pour une comparaison des politiques d'Education prioritaires en Europe, Rapport scientifique intermédiaire.

Janosz, M., Leblanc, M., Boulerice, B. and Tremblay, R.E. (1997), "Disentangling the weight of school drop-out predictors: a test on two longitudinal samples", Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 26, pp. 733-762.

Joseph H. (2006), EUROPE – European Universities’ Research on the Promotion of Enterprise Education.

Kaiser, F., Vossensteyn, H., and Koelman, J. (2001), Public funding of higher education. A comparative study of funding mechanisms in ten countries, CHEPS-Higher education monitor, Center for Higher Education Policy Studies, Enschede.

Kelo, M., Teichler, U. and Wächter, B. (2006), EURODATA, Student mobility in European higher Education, ACA- publication, Lemmens Verlags- & Mediengesellschaft, Bonn.

Kelly, D.D., TeMCU : Teacher Training for the Multicultural Classroom at University, Universidad de Granada, Spain.

Ken, Y-N. (2006), "NEETs aren't so neat", on www.whatjapanthinks.com , 5th February 2006. http://whatjapanthinks.com/2006/02/05/neets-arent-so-neat/

Kikis-Papadakis, K. (2007), PREMA " Promoting Quality in Maths Achievement", Study supported by the Lifelong Learning Programme of the European Commission, Foundation for Research and Technology, Greece.

Kleiner, B., Carver, P., Hagedom, M. and Chapman, C. (2005), Participation in Adult Education for Work-Related Reasons: 2002-03, Statistical Analytical report, Washington.

Kok, W. (2004), Facing the Challenge: The Lisbon strategy for growth and employment, High Level Group, Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, Luxembourg.

Kollias, A. and Kikis, K. (2005), Pedagogic Innovations with the use of ICTS, From wider visions and policy reforms to school culture, Future Learning 3, Publicacions I Edicions de la Universitat de Barcelona.

Kritikos, E. and Ching, C. (2005), Study on Access to Education and Training, Basic Skills and Early School Leavers, Lot 3: Early School Leavers. Draft Final Report for European Commission Directorate-General Education and Culture, London.

Krueger, A. B. (2002), "Understanding the magnitude and effect of class size on student achievement", in Mishel. L and R. Rothstein (eds), The class size debate, Economic Policy Institute, Washington.

Kutnick, P. (2007), RELATIONAL Approaches in Early Education, Study supported by the Lifelong Learning Programme of the European Commission, University of Brighton, United Kingdom.

Kyriazopoulou, M. (Editor) (In Press) Inclusive Education and Classroom Practice - Indicators for Inclusive Education in Europe, European Agency for Development in Special Needs Education.

ANNEX 3 Bibliography

Lambrakis Research Foundation, VALUE SCOUT "Value Schools and Citizenship Observatory for Culture and Sport", Greece.

Lanzendorf, U., Teichler, U. and Murdoch, J. (2005), Study on Student mobility in Secondary and Tertiary-level Education and in Vocational Training (NATMOB), Centre for Research on Higher Education and Work, Kassel and European Institute of Education and Social Policy, Paris.

Law, N., Pelgrum, W. and Plomp, T. (eds) (2008), Pedagogy and ICT use in school around the world: Findings from the IEA SITES 2006 study, p. 189, Hong Kong.

Layard, R and Psacharopoulos, G. (1974), "The screening hypothesis and the returns to education", Journal of Political Economy, Volume 82, Issue No.5, pp.985-998, University of Chicago Press.

Levy, F. and Murnane, R. J. (2005a), The New Division of Labor: How Computerized Work and Globalization Shape Human Skill Demand, Princeton University Press.

London Economics (2005), The returns to various types of Investment in Education and Training, Final report to European Commission Directorate-General Education and Culture, London.

Lopez Romito (2007), F.-S., RE D'INVESTIGORA ARIS, Study supported by the Lifelong Learning Programme of the European Commission, Fondo Formacion Centro SLL, Spain.

Lynch K., and Baker, J. (2005), "Equality in education, An equality of condition perspective", in Theory and Research in Education, vol. 3, pp.131-164

Marks, G. N. and Fleming N. (1999), Early school leaving in Australia, ACER LSAY research report no. 11, Melbourne.

Miller. P. and Volker, P. (1987), "The youth labour market in Australia", The Economic Record, Volume 63, Issue 182, pp.203-219.

Miroiu, A. (project manager) (2006), OBSER ERASMUS, project financed by the Socrates programme, National School of Political Studies and Public Administration, Romania.

Morgan, M. (2000), School and part-time work in Dublin: Survey, analysis and recommendations, Dublin Employment Pact Policy Paper No. 4, pp. 1- 40.

Morrisson, C. and Murtin, F. (2007) Education inequalities and the Kuznets curves: a global perspective since 1870, Working paper No. 2007 – 12, Paris School of Economics, Paris-Jourdan Sciences Economics Laboratoire d'Economie Appliquée – INRA.

Mueller et al. (2002), Indicators on school-to-work transition in Europe. Evaluation and analyses of the LFS 2000 ad-hoc module data on school-to-work transitions, Mannheim Centre for European Social Research, Germany.

National Center for Education Statistics (2007), Digest of Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences (IES), US Department of Education.

National Youth Council of Ireland, Submission to the NESF Project Team on Early School Leaving, Report nr 24. National economic and social Forum. http://www.youth.ie/download/esl.pdf

NESSE (2009), Early childhood education and care. http://www.nesse.fr/nesse/activities/reports/ecec-report-pdf

NESSE (2008), Education and Migration.

Network of Education Policy Centers, School Dropouts: Different Faces in Different Countries, Monitoring Initiative of the Network of Education Policy Centers, OSI Education Conference, Budapest, July 2005.

Nikolaou, V and Stavropoulos, P. (2006), Analytical report on lifelong learning, OECD. www.oecd.org/edu/eag2006

Nonnon, E. and Goigoux, R. (Coordinators) (2007), ''Travail de l'enseignant, travail de l'élève dans l'apprentissage initial de la lecture'', Repères, No. 36/2007, Institut national de recherche pédagogique, France.

Norwegian Ministry of Education and Research (2007), Education – From Kindergarten to Adult Education.

ANNEX 3 Bibliography

OECD (2009), Creating Effective Teaching and Learning Environment: First Results from TALIS.

OECD (2009), Students with Disabilities, Learning Difficulties and Disadvantages in the Baltic States, South Eastern Europe and Malta: Educational Policies and Indicators.

OECD (2008a), Improving School Leadership.

OECD (2007a), Education at a Glance.

OECD (2007b), PISA 2006, Science Competencies For Tomorrow World.

OECD (2007c), Students with Disabilities, Learning Difficulties and Disadvantages. Policies, Statistics and Indicators..

OECD (2006a), Starting Well or Losing their Way? The position of Youth in the Labour Market in OECD countries’, OECD Social, Employment and Migration Working Papers. http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/0/30/37805131.pdf

OECD (2006), Are Students Ready for a Technology-Rich World? What PISA Studies Tell us?, Paris.

OECD (2005a), Teachers Matter.

OECD (2005b), Students with Disabilities, Difficulties and Disadvantages : Statistics and Indicators, Paris.

OECD (2005), Promoting Adult Learning, Paris.

OECD, Education at a Glance, issues 1998-2006.

OECD (2004a), Equity in Education – Students with Disabilities, Difficulties, and Disadvantages: Statistics and Indicators, Paris.

OECD (2004), The OECD summary indicator of the stringency for Employment Protection Legislation.

OECD (2004), Completing the Foundation for Lifelong Learning - An OECD Survey of Upper Secondary Schools, Paris.

OECD (2004), Learning for Tomorrow’s World: New OECD PISA results, Paris.

OECD (2004), Teachers Matter: Attracting, Developing and Retaining Effective Teachers, Paris.

OECD (2003a), Education Policy Analysis, Paris.

OECD (2003), Society at a glance, OECD Social Indicators, Paris.

OECD (2001), Knowledge and Skills for Life – First Results from PISA 2000, Paris.

OECD (2001), Starting Strong: Early Childhood Education and Care, Paris.

OECD (2000), Special Needs Education – Statistics and Indicators, Paris.

OECD (1999), Inclusive Education at Work, Paris.

Oosterbeek H. and Webbink (2007), D. "Wage effects of an extra year of basic vocational education" in Economics of Education Review, Volume 26, Issue 4, pp. 408–419.

Otero, M.S. and McCoshan, A. (2005), Study on Access to Education and Training, Final Report for the European Commission, London. http://europa.eu.int/comm/education/doc/reports/doc/earlyleave.pdf

Plumper T., and Schneider, C. (2007), ''Too much to die, too little to live: unemployment, higher education policies and university budgets in Germany'', Journal of European Public Policy 14(4), 631-653.

Punie, Y., Zinnabauer, D., and Cabrera, M. (2006), A Review of Impact of ICT on Learning. Working Paper prepared for Directorate-General Education and Culture, Institute for Prospective Technological Studies, Joint Research Centre.

ANNEX 3 Bibliography

Rawls, J. (1971), A Theory of Justice, Oxford University press.

Raymond, C. (2007), GRID Growing Interest in the development of teaching Science, Study supported by the Lifelong Learning Programme of the European Commission, Pôle Universitaire Européen de Lorraine, France.

Relational Approaches in Early Education, project funded by the EU, University of Brighton, United Kingdom.

Roemer J. E. (1996), Theories of Distributive Justice, Harvard University Press, Cambridge.

Ross, A. (2007), EPASI in Europe - Charting Educational Policies to Address Social Inequalities in Europe, Study supported by the Lifelong Learning Programme of the European Commission, Institute for Policy Studies in Education (IPSE), London, United Kingdom.

Rumberger, R. W. and Lamb, S. P. (1998), "The Early Employment and Further Education Experiences of High School Drop-outs: A Comparative Study of the United States and Australia", in Economics of Education Review, 2003, vol. 22, issue 4, pp. 353-366.

Rumberger, R. W. (1995), "Dropping out of middle school: a multi-level analysis of students and schools", in American Journal of Educational Research, Issue 32, pp. 583-625.

Saisana M., D'Hombres B. (2008), Higher Education Rankings: Robustness Issues and Critical Assessment, JRC Scientific and Technical Reports 23487 EN.

Sammons, P., Sylva, K., Melhuish, E., Siraj-Blatchford, I., Taggart, B., and Elliot, K. (2002), Measuring the Impact of Pre-Schooling on Children’s Cognitive Progress over the Pre-School Period, Technical Paper 8a, Institute of Education / Department for Education and Skills, London.

Scheerens, J. (2007), INFCIV - The development of active citizenship on the basis of informal learning at school, Study supported by the Lifelong Learning Programme of the European Commission, University Twente, Netherlands.

Schütz, G., Ursprung, H.W., Wößmann, L. (2005), Education Policy and Equality of Opportunity, CESifo Working Paper 1518, Munich.

Schwarzenberger, A. (ed.) (2008), Public/private funding of higher education: a social balance, Hochscul Informations System GmbH, Germany.

Sen, A. (1982), "Quelle égalité ?", in Ethique et Economie et autres essais, Paris, 1993, pp.189-213, trad. Fr of "Equality of what ?'', in Choice, Welfare and Measurment, Cambridge, The Mit Press, pp. 353-369.

Singh, A. (2007), Human Capital Risk in Life Cycle Economics, Washington University in St. Louis.

Soriano, V., Grunberger, A. and Kyriazopoulou, M., (2009), Multicultural Diversity and Special Needs Education. Odense: European Agency for Development in Special Needs Education. http://www.european-agency.org/agency-projects/indicators-for-inclusive-education/indicatorsdocuments/Indicators-EN.pdf

Statistics Canada (2005), Provincial drop-out rates – Trends and consequences. http://www.statcan.gc.ca/bsolc/olc-cel/olc-cel?lang=eng&catno=81-004-X20050048984

Statistical Bureau of China (2006), Statistical Yearbook of China 2006, Beijing.

Statistical First Release (SFR) (2007), Participation in Education, Training and Employment by 16-18 Year Olds in England, Department for Children, Schools and Families (DCSF), United Kingdom.

Steiner, M. and Steiner, P.M. (2006), Dropout und Ubergangsprobleme. Ausmaß und soziale Merkmale jugendlicher Problemgruppen, Research report, Institute for Advanced Studies.

TALE "Telling About Learning Experience", Project financed by the Socrates Programme, Universität Erlangen Nürnberg, Dr. Jürgen Grossmann, Germany.

TEAM-in-Europe: Teacher Education Addressing Multiculturalism in Europe, Project financed by the Socrates Programme, London Metropolitan University, Prof. Alistair Ross, United Kingdom.

Tinklin, T., Croxford, L., Ducklin, A., and Frame, B. (2003), "Inclusion: a gender perspective" in Policy Futures in Education, Volume 1, Issue 4, pp.640-652.

ANNEX 3 Bibliography

Toossi, M. (2005), "Employment Outlook 2004-14, Labor force projections to 2014: retiring boomers", in Monthly Labor Review, November 2005, pp. 25-44.

Traag, T. and Van der Velden, R.K.W. (2006), Early school-leaving in lower secondary education. The role of student,-family and school factors.

UNESCO (1997), International Standard Classification of Education – ISCED. http://www.unesco.org/education/nfsunesco/doc/isced_1997.htm

UNICEF-Innocenti report card (2008), The child care transition. http://www.unicef.ca/portal/Secure/Community/502/WCM/HELP/take_action/Advocacy/rc8.pdf

UNICEF (2007), Child poverty in perspective: An overview of child well-being in rich countries, Innocenti Report Card 7, UNICEF Innocenti Research Centre, Florence, Italy.

UNICEF (2005), Children and Disability in Transition in CEE/CIS and the Baltic States. http://www.unicef.org/ceecis/Disability-eng.pdf

UNICEF - Innocenti Insight (2004) Children and Disability in Transition in CEE/CIS and the Baltic States.

United States General Accounting Office (GAO) (2002), School dropouts. Education Could Play a Stronger Role in Identifying and Disseminating Promising Prevention Strategies.

Vallet, L.-A. (2005), What can we do to improve the education of children from disadvantaged backgrounds ?, Quantitative Sociology Laboratory, Centre for Research in Economics and Statistics, Mixed Research Unit 2773 of CRNS & INSEE.

Van Deth, J., Montero, J., and Westholm, A. (2007), Citizenship and Involvement in European Democracies: A Comparative Analysis, Routledge, London.

Van Raan, A.J.F. (2005), Challenges in Ranking of Universities, Invited paper for the First International Conference on World Class Universities, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, June 16-18, 2005.

Vidoni, D., C. Bezzina, D. Gabelli and L. Grassetti, The role of school leadership on student achievement: Evidence from TIMSS 2003, JRC Scientific and Technical Reports, EUR 23072 EN.

Villalba, E., On Creativity: Towards an understanding of creativity ant its measurements. JRC Scientific and Technical Reports 23561 EN.

Walzer, M. (1983), Spheres of Justice, Basic Books, New York.

Watkins, A. (ed) (2009), Special Needs Education - Country Data 2008. Odense: European Agency for Development in Special Needs Education.

Watkins, A. (ed.) (2007), Assessment in Inclusive Settings: Key Issues for Policy and Practice, European Documentation Centre.

Watkins, K. and als. (2006), Summary, Human development report 2006, Beyond scarcity : Power, poverty and the global water crisis, United Nations Development Programme, New York, USA.

Wilson, R. A. (2007), Trends in employment creation in Europe, Warwick Institute for Employment Research.

Wolter S.C., Schweri, J. and S. Müehlemann (2006), "Why Some Firms Train Apprentices and Many Others Do Not" in German Economic Review, Volume 7, Issue 8, pp. 249-264.

Wößmann, L. (2005), "Educational Production in Europe", in Economic Policy, Volume 20, Issue No. 43, pp. 445- 504.

Wößmann, L. and West, M. (2005), "Class-size effects in school systems around the world: Evidence from between-grade variation in TIMSS", in European Economic Review, Volume 50, Issue No. 3, pp. 695-736.

World Health Organisation (2001), International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health.

Wright A. and als. (2005), Millennium Development Goals, Progress and Prospects in Europe and Central Asia, The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/The World Bank.

YOUTRAIN "New Challenges of Youth Training in the Knowledge Society", University of Barcelona, Dr. Jesús Gómez Alonso, Spain.

Notes

NOTES

1 Council conclusions of 12 May 2009 on a strategic framework for European cooperation in education and training (‘ET 2020’)

See http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:C:2009:119:0002:0010:EN:PDF

2 See Council Conclusions on "Reference Levels of European Average Performance in Education and Training (Benchmarks)"

http://ec.europa.eu/education/policies/2010/doc/after-council-meeting_en.pdf

3 Council Conclusions of 2009 op cit.

4 The trend is difficult to construct due to low levels of comparability of data between 2003 and 2005.

5 The section below is partly based on the recently published Key Data on Education in Europe 2009. More detailed information

is available in this publication.

6 Projections of upper secondary (ISECD 3) and of future university populations (ISCED 5) are not included. Demographic

developments are of less immediate importance at these levels, since the intake of students are also impacted by changes in

participation patterns.

7 Data presented and analysed only covers the educational institutions as they are defined in the joint Unesco-OECD-Eurostat

(UOE) data collection. Although some information about other types of public investment on training (e.g. for the unemployed)

do exist, it will not be discussed here.

8 Calculated based on current prices.

9 See evidence for Germany for example: Plumper T., and Schneider, C. (2007), Too much to die, too little to live:

unemployment, higher education policies and university budgets in Germany, Journal of European Public Policy 14(4), 631- 653)

10 http://www.universityworldnews.com/article.php?story=20090220085540843

11 Caution is required when school life expectancy is used for inter-country comparison; neither the length of the school-year nor

the quality of education is necessarily the same in each country.

12 The Net Enrolment Rate (NER) is the number of pupils of the theoretical school-age group for a given level of education,

expressed as a percentage of the total population in that age-group. The Gross Enrolment Ratio (GER) is the number of pupils enrolled in a given level of education, regardless of age, expressed as a percentage of the population in the theoretical age group for the same level of education. For the tertiary level, the population used is the five-year age group following on from the secondary school leaving age. When the NER is compared with the GER the difference between the two ratios

highlights the incidence of under-aged and over-aged enrolment.

13 In some countries the differences in coverage between the two data sources (UOE and LFS) can be sizeable for the

completion of upper secondary education. Starting with 2006, Eurostat implements a refined definition of the educational

attainment level ‘upper secondary’ in order to increase the comparability of results in the EU.

14 This indicator refers to persons aged 25 to 64 who stated that they received education or training in the four weeks preceding

the survey (numerator). The denominator consists of the total population of the same age group, excluding those who did not answer to the question 'participation to education and training'. Both the numerator and the denominator come from the EU Labour Force Survey. The information collected relates to all education or training whether or not relevant to the respondent's

current or possible future job.

15 For countries where data exists, the participation figures based on the Adult Education Survey results are in general higher

than the LFS results due to differences in the reference period (one year in the AES as opposed to four weeks each quarter in

the LFS) and in the coverage of lifelong learning activities in each survey.

16 Data for 2003 or 2004 are break in series for many countries as a result of changes in definitions. Also, from 2006 onwards,

the calculations are made based on annual averages instead of one unique reference quarter. In most of the countries the

annual and quarterly results are not significantly different.

17 This includes over 300.000 students with" unknown citizenship".

18 Growth is however overstated by a growth in the attribution 'unknown nationality' in the UK. Without this category growth

amounted on to average 8.8% per year.

19 Indicator: Percentage of those aged 22 who have successfully completed at least upper secondary education (ISCED level 3).

For statistical reasons (the sample size in the Labour Force Survey for a one-year cohort is too small to produce reliable results) the following proxy indicator is used in the analysis: Percentage of those aged 20-24 who have successfully

completed at least upper secondary education (ISCED level 3).

20 Belgium-FR: 85%, Denmark: 85%, Greece: 85%, Estonia: 83%, Ireland: 90% (by 2013), Latvia: 85%, Malta: 65%, Hungary:

86%, Lithuania: 90%, Netherlands: 85%, Poland: 90% (2008), Portugal : 65%, Romania: 75%, Slovenia: 85% (for 25-64 year

olds), UK-England: 85% (of 19 year olds), UK: 90% (by 2015)

21 US upper secondary attainment rates are probably overstated.

163

Notes

23 Common European Principles for Teacher Competences and Qualifications:

http://ec.europa.eu/education/policies/2010/doc/principles_en.pdf . - 2006 Joint Interim Report of the Council and the Commission on progress under the Education and Training 2010 work

programme (2006/C 79/01), p. 8. - Conclusions of the Council and the Representatives of the Governments of the Member States, meeting within the Council,

on efficiency and equity in European education and training systems (2006/C 298/03), p. 2.

24 This demand for indicators on teachers' professional development was part of a wider framework of 16 core indicators for

monitoring progress towards the Lisbon objectives identified by the Council.

25 EU/OECD Teachers Professional Development Brussels/Paris (2009)

26 The initial report was released on 16 June 2009 in Brussels at a press conference hosted by the European Commission. The

report is available on: http://www.oecd.org/document/54/0,3343,en_2649_39263231_42980662_1_1_1_1,00&&en USS_01DBC.html. The thematic report on teachers' professional development – a joint report by the European Commission and the OECD will be released later in 2009.

27 In Spain some 18% is missing on this variable, which is much higher than in other countries (< 10%, on average 7%). It

seems that in Spain non-participation is coded as missing rather than zero days.

28 No imputations are made; countries with missing data are excluded from the calculations.

29 Technical briefing for the Informal Meeting of Ministers for Education Prague, 22-23 March 2009 based on evidences

collected by the Centre for Research on Lifelong Learning-CRELL and the European Expert Network on the Economics of

Education (EENEE)

30 Cedefop briefing note March 2009

31 See the annex for a more detailed presentation of the weights and indicators.

32 The six THE indicators for ranking of universities

• - 

  International staff - international students - citation per faculty - teachers to student ratio - recruiter review - academic review

33 The ARWU ranking by broad subject field (see Annex table 2.2) reveals that in 2008, in medicine and natural sciences the EU

takes similar shares of the top 100 or so institutions, but its share is lower in engineering and social science.

34 Defined here as full members of the European University Association (EUA), i.e. institutions that awarded at least one

doctorate in the three years prior to becoming a member of the EUA.

35 Michaela Saisana and Beatrice d'Hombres two researchers at CRELL ('Higher education Rankings: Robustness and Critical

Assessment', Saisana/d'Hombres 2008)

36 Flexicurity promotes a combination of flexible labour markets and a high level of employment and income security and it is

thus seen to be the answer to the EU's dilemma of how to maintain and improve competitiveness whilst preserving the European social model. Flexicurity can be defined, more precisely, as a policy strategy to enhance, at the same time and in a deliberate way, the flexibility of labour markets, work organisations and labour relations on the one hand, and security –

employment security and income security – on the other.

37 For an analysis of school to work transition patterns please see European Commission, 2007k.

38 It should be underlined that educational attainment is solely an attainment measure. It does not consider possible differences

in the quality of the skills and knowledge across countries with similar attainment levels.

39 The 3 levels of educational attainment are based on ISCED levels, as follows: 'Low' includes ISCED levels 0 to 2 and 3C

short, 'Medium' includes ISCED levels 3A and B, 3C long and 4 and 'High' includes ISCED levels 5 and 6.

40 See also European Economy 2006 –chapter 4 for a full exposition of these arguments.

41 Total number of persons in employment, in resident production units irrespective of the place of residence of the employed

person (ESA 95 concept, domestic scope). Estimates in employment from national accounts may differ from results of the labour force survey (see the following Eurostat note for more information:

http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/national_accounts/documents/employment/LFS-ESA.PDF )

42 European Commission, “Economic Forecast Spring 2009”, European Economy, 3. May 2009.

43 Calculations are based on LFS. It concerns only the resident population against usual employment growth figures based on

the domestic employment concept.

44 European Central Bank, Monthly Bulletin, June 2009.

45 According to the ECB “it is inherent to the nature of temporary emplpoyment to be more exposed to economic fluctuations”

(ECD monthly bulletin, June 2009). Holmlund and Storrie (2002) find that the Swedish recession had triggered an initial

decline in temporary employed followed by a sharp rise from the through to the end of the recession

46 See evidence in UK and France for example: Fondeur Y. and Minni C. "L'emploi des jeunes au coeur des dynamiques du

marché du travail", Economie et statistiques, 2004, n°378-379; Freeman R and Wise D, eds., The Youth Labor Market

Problem: Its Nature, Causes, and Consequences, 1982, University of Chicago.

164

Notes

47 Gregg, P and Wadsworth, J (1998) “Unemployment and Non-employment: Unpacking Economic Inactivity”, Economic Report,

12:6. London: Employment Policy Institute.

48 See the analysis of a longitudinal survey in the UK: Lisa Kahn, “The Long-Term Labor Market Consequences of Graduating

from College in a Bad Economy”, 2006. See also: Louis Chauvel, Les destins des générations, Presses Universitaires de France, 1998

49 According to the projections, which are based on current policies, the overall employment rate of the EU-25 would rise from

63% in 2004 to 67% in 2010 and to 70% in 2020. However, the current economic crisis may postpone the attainment of these projections.

50 The description of the graphical display is from the same publication

51 Spring European Council conclusions (2008) included the following invitation: In view of increasing skills shortages in a

number of sectors, it invites the Commission to present a comprehensive assessment of the future skills requirements in Europe up to 2020, taking account of the impacts of technological change and ageing populations, and to propose steps to anticipate future needs

52 Cedefop is the European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training http://www.cedefop.europa.eu/default.asp

53 'New Skills for New Jobs' Anticipating and matching labour market and skills needs', SEC(2008) 3058/2, Commission Staff

document accompanying the Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, The European Economic and Social Committee of the Regions, Brussels,

54 See also Levy, F. and R. J. Murnane, 2005a", which presents a theoretical framework for understanding changes to skill

demands.

55 The European Council in Barcelona set the target: to provide childcare by 2010 to at least 90% of children between 3 years

old and the mandatory school age.

56 It is the ratio between the number of children between 4 years old and the age for starting compulsory primary school,

including pupils attending pre-primary school (ISCED 0) and primary school (ISCED 1) if not compulsory, and the total number of children in the corresponding ages. The age range varies depending on national education systems.

57 In 2009 Eurostat refined the calculation method for this indicator. Therefore, values could differ from those published in the

2008 Progress Report.

58 E.g., in some countries sample size for the Labour Force Survey is so small and early leavers from education and training are

so few that conclusions on levels and trends should be considered with caution.

59 It should be considered that the actual size of this disadvantaged group can be small, where the share of early leavers in the

whole population is quite low, as in Poland.

60 They are defined as 16 - 24 years old who are not enrolled in school and have not earned a high school credential (diploma or

equivalency credential).

61 They are defined as 20-24 years old that are neither attending school nor have a high school diploma

62 The agreed operational definition of a segregated setting is the following: Segregation refers to education where the pupil with

special needs follows education in separate special classes or special schools for the largest part (80% or more) of the school day.

63 The OECD conceptual framework is described in detail in the report "Progress towards the Lisbon objectives in education and

training – Indicators and benchmarks 2008".

64 These countries are: Malta, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Slovenia, Romania, Bulgaria, Croatia and Macedonia.

65 AES is a new survey, carried out in co-operation between European countries and Eurostat, aiming at complementing data on

LLL coming from the Labour Force Survey, currently used for the EU benchmark (see par. I.1) with more information on characteristics of formal, non-formal and informal adult learning. It should be repeated every 5 years. First results were published by Eurostat (Statistics in Focus, 44/2009).

66 Levels of adult participation in LLL and related indicators as calculated from AES data differ from those deriving from the LFS

due to methodological reasons, mainly the different reference period (one year in AES, 4 weeks in LFS).

67 This is based on the 18 Member States where the figures in 2000 and 2006 are comparable, viz. Belgium, Bulgaria, the

Czech Republic, Denmark, Germany, Ireland, Greece, Spain, France, Italy, Latvia, Hungary, Austria, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Finland, Sweden.

68 No data for the US in 2006, but an increase in low performers from 17.9 in 2000 to 19.4 in 2003.

69 Malta and Cyprus did not participate in PISA 2006.

70 The gap between the 10th and the 90th percentile is 208 points among the Finnish pupils. Estonia, Spain, Denmark and

Slovenia have less than 230 points difference. Bulgaria (303 points), Czech Republic (286 points) and Belgium (283 points).

71 OECD underlines that because figures are derived from samples it is not possible to rank the performance of a country

among the participating countries. A range of ranks within the 95% likelihood have been constructed.

72 Council Conclusions on the strategic framework for European cooperation in education and training (12 May 2009);

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

165

Notes

73 The full report "Key data on Teaching Languages at School in Europe", 2008 edition could be found at:

http://eacea.ec.europa.eu/education/eurydice/key_data_en.php

74 Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social

Committee and the Committee of the Regions - Europe’s Digital Competitiveness Report : main achievements of the i2010 strategy 2005-2009 {SEC(2009) 1060} {SEC(2009) 1103} {SEC(2009) 1104}

75 This includes main computer applications such as word processing, spreadsheets, databases, information storage and

management and an understanding of the opportunities and potential risks of the internet and communication via electronic media for work, leisure, information sharing and collaborative networking, learning and research. Individuals should understand how ICT can support creativity and innovation and be aware of issues concerning the validity and reliability of the

information available and the legal and ethical principles involved in interactive use of ICT.

76 Several Member States do not have sufficiently large sample on immigrant pupils to provide results. 13 Member States are

reported in the PISA study

77 Also country of origin and family background can be factors affecting migrants' risk of being early leavers.

78 President Barroso's message addressed to participants of the International Conference "Can creativity be measured?" –

Brussels, 28-29 May 2009. In European Commission and CRELL (2009) " Measuring creativity" OPOCE, Luxembourg

79 See Villalba, E. (2008): On creativity: Towards and understanding of creativity and its measurements. JRC Scientific and

Technical Reports. EUR23561. OPOCE, Luxembourg. At: http://crell.jrc.ec.europa.eu/Publications/CRELL%20Research%20Papers/EVillalba_creativity_EUR_web.pdf and http://crell.jrc.ec.europa.eu/CreativityConference/CRELL_PROGRAMME.pdf

80 See http://www.proinno-europe.eu/admin/uploaded_documents/EIS2008_Final_report-pv.pdf

81 This performance is increasing towards the EU average over time with the exception of Croatia and Lithuania

82 Hollanders, H. and Van Cruisen, A. (2009): Design, Creativity and Innovation: A Scoreboard Approach. In European

Commission and CRELL (2009) Measuring creativity OPOCE, Luxembourg

83 A recent study for the European Commission establishes a rationale for including indicators related to culture-based creativity

into existing socio-economic indicator schemes such as the European Innovation Scoreboard with a view to highlight the socio-economic impacts that culture can have. In this way, it has been proposed a series of cultural based indicators

concerning the potential establishment of a European Creativity Index (see annex IV.3).

84 Kimpeler, S. and Georgieff, P. (2009): The Roles of Creative Industries in Regional Innovation and Knowledge Transfer – The

Case of Austria. In European Commission and CRELL (2009) Measuring creativity OPOCE, Luxembourg

85 Florida, R. (2002):The rise of the creative class… and how it’s transforming work, leisure, community and everyday life. Basic

Books, New York. See also Annex IV.4

86 Hollanders, H. and Van Cruysen, A. (2009): Design, Creativity and Innovation: A Scoreboard Approach. . In European

Commission and CRELL (2009) Measuring creativity OPOCE, Luxembourg

87 European Commission and CRELL (2009):" Measuring creativity" OPOCE, Luxembourg. See

http://crell.jrc.ec.europa.eu/CreativityConference/CRELL_PROGRAMME.pdf

88 Indicator: Total number of tertiary (ISCED level 5A, 5B and 6) graduates in mathematics, science and technology. MST

includes life sciences, physical sciences, mathematics and statistics, computing, engineering and engineering trades,

manufacturing and processing, architecture and building.

89 Chinese figures also include ISCED 4 and hence are somewhat overstated

90 Recommendation of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18th December 2006 on key competences for lifelong

learning.

91 European Commission "Think small first" - A "Small Business Act" for Europe. COM(2008) 394 i

92 idem

93 Assessment of compliance with the entrepreneurship education objective in the context of the 2006 Spring Council

conclusions. Brussels, November 27, 2007. See: http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/entrepreneurship/support_measures/training_education/doc/edu2006.pdf

94 See the following link: http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/policies/sme/promoting-entrepreneurship/education-training

href="http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/policies/sme/promoting-entrepreneurship/education-training-entrepreneurship/higher-education/index_en.htm">entrepreneurship/higher-education/index_en.htm

95 Schmiemann, M. (2009). Linking creativity and entrepreneurship: A description of the joint OECD/ Eurostat Entrepreneurship

Indicators Programme. In European Commission and CRELL (2009) Measuring creativity OPOCE, Luxembourg

96 According to the Programme’s report, Measuring Entrepreneurship: A Digest of Indicators, OECD. See:

http://www.oecd.org/document/31/0,3343,en_2649_34233_41663647_1_1_1_1,00.html

166

Met de EU Monitor volgt u alle Europese dossiers die voor u van belang zijn en bent u op de hoogte van alles wat er speelt in die dossiers. Helaas kunnen wij geen nieuwe gebruikers aansluiten, deze dienst zal over enige tijd de werkzaamheden staken.

De EU Monitor is ook beschikbaar in het Engels.